Out of the Cloister: Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs, 1100-1250 [1 ed.] 9789004313842, 9789004311985

Citation preview



Out of the Cloister

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_001

i

ii

Commentaria Sacred Texts and Their Commentaries: Jewish, Christian and Islamic

Founding Editors Grover A. Zinn Michael A. Signer (ob.) Editors Frans van Liere Lesley Smith E. Ann Matter Thomas E. Burman Robert A. Harris Walid Saleh

VOLUME 6

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/comm





Out of the Cloister Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs, 1100–1250 By

Suzanne LaVere

LEIDEN | BOSTON

iii

iv



Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: LaVere, Suzanne, author. Title: Out of the cloister : scholastic exegesis of the Song of Songs, 1100-1250 / by Suzanne LaVere. Description: Boston : Brill, 2016. | Series: Commentaria, sacred texts and their commentaries: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic, ISSN 1874-8236 ; VOLUME 6 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015048710 (print) | LCCN 2016002502 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004311985 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004313842 (E-book) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Song of Solomon--Commentaries--History and criticism. Classification: LCC BS1485.53 .L38 2016 (print) | LCC BS1485.53 (ebook) | DDC 223.907--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015048710

Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brill-open. Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1874-8236 isbn 978-90-04-31198-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-31384-2 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Contents

v

Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction A New Species of High Medieval Song of Songs Commentary 1 1 “Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!” Anselm of Laon’s Continuous Commentary and the Active Life 8 2 Innovation and Compilation at Laon: The Glossed Song of Songs and Its Influence 51 3 “Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching.” Peter the Chanter’s Practical Approach to the Song of Songs 72 4 Glossing the Gloss: Stephen Langton’s “Super-Commentary” on the Song of Songs 97 5 Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill: Reading the Song of Songs as a Mendicant Text 119 Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs of Exegesis in the Late 13th–Early 14th Centuries: The Commentaries of Peter Olivi and Nicholas of Lyra 159 Bibliography 175 Index 185

vi

Contents

Contents v Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 “Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!” Anselm of Laon’s Continuous Commentary and the Active Life 8 Chapter 2 Innovation and Compilation at Laon: The Glossed Song of Songs and Its Influence 51 Chapter 3 “Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching.” Peter the Chanter’s Practical Approach to the Song of Songs 72 Chapter 4 Glossing the Gloss: Stephen Langton’s “Super-Commentary” on the Song of Songs 97 Chapter 5 Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill: Reading the Song of Songs as a Mendicant Text 119 Epilogue: Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis in the Late 13th-Early 14th Centuries 159 Bibliography 175 Index 185

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments

vii

Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge the influence of the many wonderful teachers I have been lucky enough to learn from over the years, including Philip Daileader, Ed Muir, Richard Kieckhefer, and especially Robert E. Lerner. I have valued his indefatigable support, admired his profound knowledge, and shared his love of classic movies and baseball. Although I only met him a few times, I am also indebted to John W. Baldwin, whose incisive mind and elegant writing provided me with a model for scholarship, and whose kindness and generosity encouraged me as I struggled through manuscript transcriptions. Additionally, though I never met her, this book is deeply influenced by Beryl Smalley. Her groundbreaking work on the medieval Bible provided a strong framework for others to build on, and I only hope that I have been able to add to the remarkable body of knowledge she established. I completed significant work on this project under the auspices of an A.W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in Medieval Studies at Notre Dame’s Medieval Institute. I was grateful to have all the Institute’s indispensable resources at my fingertips and for the friendliness of the students, staff, and faculty, particularly Remie Constable. I am particularly indebted to Deeana Klepper and Timothy Bellamah, who traveled to Notre Dame to participate in my Mellon colloquium and who provided insightful comments on an early draft of this manuscript. I carried out additional research with the help of the excellent staff at the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library on the beautiful campus of St. John’s University with funding from an Indiana University Exploration Traveling Fellowship. I also had the privilege of receiving funding from the Embassy of France in the United States, the Newberry Library, and the École des Chartes, which allowed me to spend time in Paris examining several of the manuscripts used in this book. I owe much to the staffs at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, and the Bibliothèque Mazarine, who helped me with my research and tolerated my often spotty French. My thanks also goes to the kind and helpful staff at the Bodleian Library. A summer grant from my home institution, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, allowed me to complete additional research in Paris, and the librarians at IPFW always tracked down any resources I needed. This work has benefited greatly from the helpful comments of outside readers and members of the Commentaria editorial board. I am especially grateful to Grover Zinn, Lesley Smith, and Frans van Liere for their assistance in the publication process. I also thank Marcella Mulder for her helpful responses to

viii

Acknowledgments

my many questions and J. Naomi Linzer for her work on the index. Closer to home, I am thankful for my supportive colleagues at IPFW, not just alongside me in the history department but in several other departments across campus. I have shared many conversations with them that have helped me to think about my research in new and exciting ways. Above all, I thank my family, especially my husband Craig. Spending years absorbing the profound love expressed in the text of the Song of Songs has made me ever more grateful that I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine.

Introduction Introduction

1

Introduction

A New Species of High Medieval Song of Songs Commentary In the mid-twentieth century, Père M.-D. Chenu, Herbert Grundmann, and others wrote of a newly expressed desire of some, in the wake of the Gregorian reform movement of the late eleventh century, to follow a way of life that imitated that of the apostles. Brenda Bolton has characterized this as “a recognizable shift of religious emphasis – the infusion of a new zeal and vigor.”1 Among those in the secular clergy, in monasteries, and in the laity, there was a growing aspiration to embrace a new kind of spirituality. In the early twelfth century, the institutional Church had yet to determine how to deal with this new wish of many to live the apostolic life, which had begun to manifest itself as heresy in various places in Europe. One milieu in which those representing the Church would take on these new ideas was in the cathedral schools of growing urban areas, where masters were tasked with interpreting the Bible and passing on knowledge of Scripture to their students. As Frans van Liere remarks, in these schools, biblical exegesis “was transformed from a monastic method of spiritual reading into a discipline whose main aim was to strengthen church doctrine, legislation, and preaching.”2 It was precisely during this period in which the Church was trying to adapt to new ideas that an original interpretation of the Song of Songs, a biblical book that had until then been mostly limited to the purview of monastics, developed. This new interpretation argued that not only was an active life of teaching and preaching important, it was superior to a monastic life spent in contemplation and isolation from the world. In order to combat heresy and other problems among the laity, those who represented the hierarchy of the Church must embrace a form of the apostolic life centered on preaching and instruction. This new interpretation of the Song of Songs was so radically different compared to the interpretations that preceded it that I believe the group of texts examined in this book form an entirely new species of commentary. From roughly 1100 to 1250, this species dominated Song of Songs commentary produced in 1 Brenda Bolton, The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983), 17. 2 Frans van Liere, “Biblical Exegesis Through the Twelfth Century.” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity, eds. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly (New York, 2011), 167. On the development of schools and eventually the University of Paris, Ian P. Wei, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University c. 1100–1330 (Cambridge, 2012) is a useful recent study.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_002

2

Introduction

the schools, first at Laon and then at Paris. The innovative content of these commentaries influenced those trained in the schools who would go on to teach and preach among the laity. Within the context of what Bolton, Giles Constable, and others have termed a medieval “reformation,” we can see in this specifically scholastic exegesis of the Song of Songs a new movement to make the interpretation of this biblical book relevant to the burgeoning spirituality that characterized the High Middle Ages.3 This new species of commentary that emerged in the early twelfth century did not arise ex nihilo; it drew extensively on the ecclesiological interpretation of the Song of Songs first articulated by Origen in the third century and popularized by Bede in his eighth-century commentary. Bede, in centering his text around the idea that the bride and bridegroom of the Song of Songs were allegorical representations of the Church and Christ respectively, wrote of the importance of preaching to protect and enrich the Church. He never argues, however, that an active life dedicated to preaching is superior to the monastic life; and therein lies the key difference between the ecclesiological interpretation of the Song of Songs and this new, apostolic interpretation of the text put forward in the twelfth century. The scholastic mode of interpretation found in this new species of commentary places preaching above all else, with Christ urging the Church to preach and the Church in turn telling the readers of these commentaries that they must preach or risk exposing the Church to heretics and other perils. In this new twelfth-century interpretation, action is not the means through which one ascends to the perfection of contemplation; action is the ideal mode of living; it is the way of life that imitates Christ and the apostles and is most useful to the Church. While this theme is not the only one of importance, it is the dominant strand of thought that characterizes all the commentaries explored in this book. This apostolic reading of the text forms the core of what I characterize as scholastic exegesis of the Song of Songs, which is distinct from the interpretations of the text popularized by monks. Indeed, this new, scholastic way of interpreting the Song of Songs emerged during a period in which an entirely different way of reading this biblical text was dominant. Monastic figures like Rupert of Deutz, Honorius Augustodunensis, and Bernard of Clairvaux wrote Song of Songs commentaries and sermons dedicated either to an affective reading of the text in which the relationship between the individual soul and Christ is explored or a Mariological reading in which the bride as Mary is glorified. It may seem obvious that biblical commentaries written in the practical context of the schools 3 See Bolton’s volume, along with Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1996).

Introduction

3

would avoid these interpretations and would renew the ecclesiological view of the Song of Songs. Certainly biblical books were interpreted differently in the schools than they would have been in the cloister. It is nevertheless striking that in the same twelfth century in which Bernard and other monastic figures dominate the interpretation of the Song of Songs with their popular texts, an entirely different exegetical tradition begins to build from within the schools of Laon and Paris. There is a tendency still among modern scholars to privilege these monastic readings of the Song of Songs because of the existence of so many influential commentaries, and thus to think of the Song of Songs as a “monastic” text. Song of Songs commentaries written by school figures have been the subject of scholarly research far less frequently than those authored by their monastic counterparts. Most of the commentaries explored in this book are unedited and have not been extensively treated in other scholarly works, and biblical commentary in general has been overlooked as a laboratory of sorts in which we can see the reforming ideas that were being created in the twelfth century. The Song of Songs presents a particularly interesting case precisely because it is often considered in the monastic context. This new scholastic mode of interpretation of the Song of Songs not only reflects the desire for change within the Church that had been building since before the Gregorian Reform, but also innovates in taking a biblical book that was a favorite subject of monks and reigniting Bede’s ecclesiological interpretation of the text for use in the context of the reforming twelfth- and thirteenth-century Church. This speaks to the medieval ability to contextualize biblical texts and interpret them in different ways; the Song of Songs was being used simultaneously by both monks and secular masters to speak to the sometimes conflicting ideas they held most dear. This book argues that there was a specific strand of interpretation of the Song of Songs within scholastic circles, and that this interpretation reflected the growing importance of Church reform in the High Middle Ages. It traces the growth of this species of Song of Songs commentary from its origins at Laon in the early twelfth century to its culmination in the Dominican studium of St. Jacques in Paris during the 1230s. For the masters who championed preaching and the active life, the Song of Songs was a biblical text that matched perfectly with the idea of a reforming Church. Using an allegorical interpretation, these commentators mined the Song of Songs for verses that emphasized the themes most important to them. As mentioned above, at the core of this species of commentary lay a strong emphasis on preaching and the active life. In every one of the eight chapters of the Song of Songs, these commentators found verses that they used to support their contention that Christ was demanding

4

Introduction

preaching from his beloved Church. Using the forceful, active language of the biblical text, verses like Song of Songs 2:10, “arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come” are turned into rallying cries issuing directly from Christ, wherein the audience is urged to arise from the peace and solitude of contemplation to the more challenging, more useful, and ultimately superior active life of preaching.4 Within this dominant strand of thought, these masters used the Song of Songs text to argue not only for the necessity of preaching, but also for the need for morally suitable preachers who have properly cleansed themselves of sin who and preach for the glory of God rather than for fame or financial gain. These authors also use the text to warn future preachers of the limits of their intellect and the perils that can befall those who lack good intentions. Each of these commentaries also addresses the dangers posed to the Church by heretics, and argues that preachers must defend the Church against their incursions. The commentaries also argue for the necessity of the conversion of the Jews. All of this, the authors argue, will be accomplished through a vigorous program of preaching. The Song of Songs, in this species of commentary, is the narrative of the Church’s triumph over evil through adherence to an active, apostolic life centered on preaching, a way of life which has been prescribed by Christ Himself. This book begins with an exploration of Anselm of Laon’s (d. 1117) continuous Song of Songs commentary, which exists in both full and abridged versions found in several different manuscripts. This continuous commentary forms the foundation of the influential Glossa Ordinaria on the Song of Songs and passes on to later scholars the idea that this biblical book can and should be 4 The commentaries examined in this book use many of the same verses from the Song of Songs to make their argument in support of the active life. On the overall theme of preaching, several verses from books 2 and 5 are employed by all the authors to emphasize the relationship between the bride and bridegroom (the Church and Christ) and Christ’s desire for the Church to preach. The commentators also use verses from book 7, which features a description of the bride’s beauty, to discuss this same idea. Ultimately, the verses that seem to attract the most commentary on this theme of preaching and the active life involve Christ directly addressing the Church or the Church addressing her friends. In discussing heretics, the authors most frequently employ Song of Songs 2:15, “catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vineyards” to talk about the destructive nature of heretics, but they also use verses 1:6–7, 3:8, 4:3, 4:8, 5:2, 5:5, 5:13, and 7:8 to approach this issue. In discussing the idea of the conversion of the Jews, multiple authors employ verses 1:5, 4:12, and 6:11. The theme of the importance of preaching and the active life permeates these commentaries to such an extent that over 40 different verses from the Song of Songs are used to help emphasize this active, apostolic reading of the text.

Introduction

5

read as a call to preaching and the active life. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Anselm’s commentary and the Glossed Song of Songs share much of the same content, but Anselm’s continuous commentary places more emphasis on the importance of preaching and argues that heretics must be persecuted and their pernicious doctrines must be prevented from poisoning the minds of the impressionable laity. In addition, Anselm argues that Jews, while enemies of Christ, can and must be converted. Anselm uses the Song of Songs text to provide a narrative structure for the Jews’ conversion, displaying a notably more positive view toward Jews than some of his contemporaries. Anselm, as the head of the project to compose the Gloss and as the author of his own Song of Songs commentary, originates this species of Song of Songs exegesis and exercises a considerable influence on later scholastic theologians. Chapter 2 of this book is dedicated to an examination of the Song of Songs commentary from the Glossa Ordinaria (the Gloss), the indispensable biblical guide for theology students initiated by Anselm of Laon and completed early in the twelfth century. In this chapter I argue that the Gloss, which many scholars have dismissed as a patchwork of quotations taken from the Church Fathers and other sources, might have more original content than previously thought. In the Glossed Song of Songs, at least, my research reveals over 200 “new” glosses, interpretations that had not appeared in any previous sources. More importantly, over thirty of these new glosses advocated the importance of dedication to an active life of preaching over a life of isolated contemplation. Instead of being derivative, the Glossed Song of Songs offers a groundbreaking new perspective on the biblical text, and reveals an early attempt by members of the Church hierarchy to play a role in the growing emphasis on the apostolic life emerging during the early twelfth century. With Chapter 3, the scene shifts from Laon to Paris, which had become the center for theology, and indeed for northern European intellectual life by the late twelfth century. This chapter examines a Song of Songs commentary by Peter the Chanter (d. 1197), known as the first Parisian master to comment on all books of the Bible, and deemed the originator of a “biblical-moral” school concerned above all else with the practical application of spirituality, especially in the growing urban areas of Europe.5 The Chanter was known for his desire to make his commentaries as clear and concise as possible, and he always looked to the Bible as his first source of interpretation. The content of 5 The phrase “biblical-moral school” was coined by Martin Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, v. 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911) 467 ff., and was popularized by John W. Baldwin in Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle, v. 1 (Princeton, 1970).

6

Introduction

his commentary, while very similar to that of the Gloss, was in many cases more explicit as to why preaching was a necessary and honorable occupation. Chapter 4 serves as a fitting companion to the chapter on Peter the Chanter. This chapter discusses the Song of Songs commentary written by Stephen Langton (d. 1228), who may have been the Chanter’s student and who certainly falls within the Chanter’s circle of influence. Langton’s commentary shows the influence of the Chanter, but the format of his content is very different. Langton’s commentary is in fact a “gloss on the Gloss,” showing the extent to which the Gloss had become an indispensable text in the schools. Langton’s commentaries were notoriously prolix, and his work on the Song of Songs was no exception; he treats the issues of preaching and the active life in particular very extensively, building on the ideas of the Gloss and the Chanter. By showing the evolution of Song of Songs commentary at Paris, this chapter emphasizes that Anselm’s particular interpretation of the text remains influential at the end of the twelfth century. The themes of preaching and the active life that drive this species of exegesis influenced two popes trained in theology at Paris, Innocent III (d. 1216) and Honorius III (d. 1227). The writings and actions of these popes clearly show, as is discussed at the beginning of Chapter 5, the extent to which they were influenced by their training at Paris and by commentaries such as those composed by the Chanter and Langton. The legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and the establishment of the new mendicant orders illustrate how ideas discussed in biblical commentary made an impact in the Church and the world at large. Secular masters like Anselm, the Chanter, and Langton exercised a profound influence on the Dominicans and Franciscans who came to dominate theology at Paris beginning in the 1230s. This influence is perhaps most clearly illustrated in the postill on the Song of Songs composed by Hugh of St. Cher (d. 1263) and a team of Dominicans working at the Parisian studium of St. Jacques, which serves as the main subject of Chapter 5. The postills attributed to Hugh would come to supplant or at least complement the Gloss as the main biblical reference used in the University of Paris, but the Glossator’s notions about preaching and the active life would remain intact in Hugh’s work. Moreover, Hugh and his team employed more emphatic language than any of the earlier commentaries in the group that I examine. Not only does Hugh argue that preaching is superior to contemplation, but he roundly condemns monks and clerics who neglect action in favor of contemplation. Hugh and his team also put a particularly mendicant stamp on their postill, arguing that poverty and humility must go hand in hand with preaching in order to achieve the best and most useful life. With Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs, we can see the zenith of Anselm’s pastoral interpretation of the biblical text; as a

Introduction

7

member of the Order of Preachers, Hugh is part of a group whose primary mission was to carry out the type of work that is called for in this particular species of Song of Songs commentary. The epilogue briefly explores the Song of Songs commentaries of the Franciscans Peter Olivi (d. 1298) and Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), whose works demonstrate that the particular species of Song of Songs interpretation that originated with Anselm of Laon seems to have faded in importance by the midthirteenth century. Despite the fact that Olivi and Nicholas were mendicants, they showed little interest in their Song of Songs commentaries in exploring the importance of preaching, the conversion of the Jews, and the suppression of heretics, ideas that had dominated the commentaries of their scholastic predecessors. While the commentaries of both men do contain a few scattered references to preaching, by and large, they have moved on to other concerns. This epilogue, in addition to examining Olivi and Nicholas’s commentaries, also speculates as to why preaching no longer dominated scholastic Song of Songs commentary. Despite the shift in the content of scholastic Song of Songs commentary that seems to have occurred after 1250, it is my contention that between 1100 and the 1250, a new and highly influential style of Song of Songs interpretation dominated scholastic writings on this particular biblical book. The Song of Songs, which many modern scholars have seen as a monastic favorite ripe for a contemplative interpretation, was taken up by several scholastic masters, who saw the book as a vehicle through which they could communicate their notion that preaching was a necessity in the High Middle Ages, a period of growth and change for the Church. It is my hope that this work sheds new light on medieval scholastic exegesis and the impact it had not only on the schools and the clergy, but on the way the clergy was attempting to influence the laity. By using this particular biblical book as their medium, medieval secular masters and mendicants took the Song of Songs out of the cloister and argued that the text could influence how those in clerical positions should interact with those in the wider world. Using the Song of Songs as an instruction manual for the religious life, these men played an important part in movements that changed the very structure and meaning of medieval Christianity.

8

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!” Anselm of Laon’s Continuous Commentary and the Active Life The school of Anselm that was located in the cathedral city of Laon dominated the study of theology in the early twelfth century, flourishing in the years before Paris became the unchallenged intellectual center of northern Europe. Master Anselm (c. 1050–1117), along with his brother Ralph (d. c. 1136) formed the core of a school that explored a wide variety of theological issues, producing numerous sentence collections, biblical commentaries, and the beginnings of the Glossa Ordinaria (hereafter the Gloss), a work that, as will be explored in the next chapter, profoundly influenced theologians throughout the medieval period. And yet the details of Anselm’s life remain rather hazy; as Beryl Smalley remarked, “the Master was one of those scholars who sink their own personality in teamwork,”1 leaving modern historians with some impressions of Anselm recorded by his contemporaries, but little concrete information about his teaching or the works he composed. Anselm was a powerful figure in Laon, serving as archdeacon, chancellor, and dean of the cathedral in addition to his role as a secular master at the cathedral school. Peter the Chanter surmised in one of his own biblical commentaries that Anselm was not able to gloss the entire Bible because “the canons whose dean he was, and many others, used often to hinder him in his work,” involving him in all the concerns of the cathedral chapter.2 Nevertheless, in addition to his work on the Gloss, Anselm was able to compose separate continuous commentaries on the Psalms, Pauline Epistles, and the Song of Songs.3 Centered on the importance of preaching and conversion, Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary was used extensively in the compilation of the Glossed Songs of Songs, as will be examined in this chapter and the next. The glosses found in the Glossed Song of Songs that originated in 1 Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1983), 50. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 68. Anselm may have also written a commentary on the book of Revelation, and another on the Gospel of John. On the Psalms, Martin Morard’s unpublished 2008 dissertation completed at the Université Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, La Harpe des Clercs: Réception Médiévales du Psautier Latin Entre Usages Populaires et Commentaires Scolaires provides insight. See also Cédric Giraud, ‘Per verba magistri’. Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle (Turnhout, 2010). Giraud’s book concentrates on Anselm’s sentences collection rather than on his continuous commentaries.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_003

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

9

the Anselm commentary were used extensively by later authors, so Anselm’s continuous commentary, through the filter of the Gloss, went on to exercise an extraordinary amount of influence on the works of Parisian theologians well into the thirteenth century. Anselm’s contemporaries generally held him in high esteem, and noted that his school at Laon drew crowds of students eager to pursue theological studies under the guidance of the renowned master.4 The Benedictine monk Guibert of Nogent, writing around 1115, is particularly effusive in his praise of Anselm, saying that his “knowledge of the liberal arts made him a beacon for all of France and, indeed, the whole Latin world.”5 Guibert does not otherwise mention Anselm’s activities as a secular master, and he never refers to the school at Laon. Instead, Guibert provides us with an interesting glimpse into the role Anselm played in episcopal elections and as a church leader and politician of sorts during the revolt of the Laon commune in 1112 and its aftermath. Guibert linked Laon’s problems with the “perversity” of its bishops, beginning with Adalbéron in the late tenth century and stretching to Gaudry, chancellor of Henry I of England, who apparently was awarded the bishopric by the king when he captured the duke of Normandy in battle.6 Anselm, as dean and chancellor of the cathedral at Laon, was inevitably involved in the politics surrounding the bishopric.7 Guibert noted that Anselm was the only cleric to publicly oppose the election of Gaudry as bishop of Laon; Anselm objected to the pope that Gaudry’s character was not appropriate for a bishop.8 Three years into his tenure, Gaudry, according to Guibert, “gave his contemporaries an unmistakable sign of his true character” by fleeing to Rome and allowing a monastery warden named Gérard de Quierzy to be murdered after Gaudry had argued with Gérard.9 When Gaudry returned, Laon descended into chaos, and a commune was established by the citizens in revolt against public authority. Anselm tried to warn the bishop that leaders of the Laon commune uprising were plotting his murder, but to no avail. Later, he arranged for the burial of Gaudry, and both these actions earned Anselm Guibert’s admiration, given that Anselm had opposed Gaudry’s election.10 Michael Clanchy remarked that Anselm “contributed to pacifying the city and restoring its 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

M.T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford, 1997), 72. Paul J. Archambault, trans., A Monk’s Confession: The Memoirs of Guibert of Nogent (University Park, PA, 1996), 130. Ibid., 129, n. 21. Clanchy, 73. Benton, 154–55. Ibid., 135. Ibid., 182.

10

Chapter 1

reputation as a magnet for students,” after the uprising, and by 1115 Laon was once again crowded with cathedral school students.11 Anselm was certainly not without his detractors, which included two of the most prominent theologians of the early twelfth century, Rupert of Deutz and Peter Abelard. Rupert, although he granted that Anselm was an eminent church leader, referred to him as “Lucifer,” mostly because he vociferously objected to secular masters commenting on Scripture, a task Rupert felt only monks like himself should pursue.12 While Rupert branded Anselm a dangerous innovator for writing biblical commentaries, Peter Abelard disparaged him as an unimaginative and decidedly second-rate theologian, and wondered about the need for new biblical commentaries when the glosses of the Fathers provided all the information necessary to interpret Scripture.13 In his Historia calamitatum, Abelard recalled being drawn to Laon to study with Anselm because of his great renown, but he was disappointed to find that Anselm “owed his reputation more to long practice than to intelligence or memory,” and could be compared to “a tree in full leaf which could be seen from afar, but on closer and more careful inspection proved to be barren.”14 Abelard found Anselm’s traditional lectio divina style of teaching useless compared to his own preferred dialectical method, and he wrote that he stopped attending Anselm’s lectures, raising the ire of Anselm and his students. Michael Clanchy has argued that Abelard’s intentions in coming to Laon may not have been purely academic, and that he may have been an agent for the French crown, looking to strengthen its influence in Laon after the uprising and subsequent death of the king’s newly appointed bishop.15 While there is no evidence of this apart from Abelard’s own claims in his Historia calamitatum, if this was indeed the case, Anselm might have been wary of Abelard even 11 12 13

14 15

Clanchy, 72. John Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, 1983), 194. Peter Abelard, Historia calamitatum, in Betty Radice, trans., The Letters of Abelard and Heloise (London, 2004), 63. Nevertheless, Abelard began to write his own commentary on Ezekiel when challenged by the students at Laon, and according to his account, the students flocked to his lectures on Ezekiel and clamored for copies of the text, making Anselm “wildly jealous.” Before the challenge of the Laon students, Abelard remarked that he had not studied Scripture at all, instead focusing on philosophy. In addition to his work on Ezekiel, which does not survive, Abelard also wrote commentaries on the Hexaemeron and Romans. Ibid., 62. Clanchy, 73.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

11

before he began to question Anselm’s teaching. In any event, Abelard, as a proponent of dialectic and disputation, saw little value in the more conservative, and yet still innovative, work that Anselm was doing at Laon. As Marcia Colish has remarked, Abelard’s opinion of Anselm and the school of Laon has remained influential for centuries, and the idea that Anselm was a “theological has-been” has only begun to disappear over the past several decades.16 Jean Leclercq’s article on the Song of Songs commentary attributed to Anselm, published in 1949, helped to stir interest in this continuous commentary (rather than a glossed text with marginal and interlinear glosses) as a separate entity from the Glossed Song of Songs. Leclercq’s most important contribution was to note that the commentary existed in three distinct versions, which he refers to as versions A, B, and E; (A), the Glosule super Canticum canticorum Salomonis secundum magistrum Anselmum, a lengthy work contained only in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 568, fols. 1r-64v; (B) an abridgement, found in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14801, fols. 1r-33r, provenance St. Victor (attributed to Anselm based on the explicit, which reads “finitur exce[r]ptum Anselmi magistri viri religiosi”); and (E) the Enarrationes in Cantica canticorum, a shorter, more literary work, possibly compiled by Anselm’s brother Ralph, which is derived from an abridged version of (B) and the Glossed Song of Songs and is published in the Patrologia Latina (162: 1187A-1228B).17 Mary Dove’s exhaustive editorial work on the Glossed Song of Songs proved that Anselm’s continuous commentary and the Glossed Song of Songs were inextricably linked; she noted that versions (A) and (B) taken together served as sources for over a hundred glosses in the Glossed Song of Songs.18 Other recent work on Anselm and Laon has focused on the production of theological sentences; Marcia Colish’s aforementioned article was a response to the 1976 article of Valerie Flint, which questioned

16 17

18

Marcia L. Colish, “Another Look at the School of Laon,” in Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 53 (1986), 7–22, at 15. Jean Leclercq, “Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques attribué à Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médievale 16 (1949), 29–39. Rossana E. Guglielmetti has placed several other manuscripts in the category of abridgements (B), and her work will be discussed below. I will not address the Enarrationes in this study, since it is written in a different style than the other commentaries and because its attribution to Anselm is unlikely. Mary Dove, ed. Glossa Ordinaria in Canticum Canticorum, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, CLXX (Turnhout, 1997), 426–429. Hereafter cited as Dove, Glossa.

12

Chapter 1

whether historians could properly speak of a “school of Laon” at all.19 More recently, Rossana E. Guglielmetti, who has produced a compendium listing manuscripts of Song of Songs commentaries through the twelfth century, has shown interest in Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary and its complicated history.20 Due to the complex nature of the manuscript tradition, I will discuss in some detail the various classifications of the Song of Songs commentaries attributed to Anselm; this is necessary for a proper understanding of Anselm’s continuous commentary and its relationship to the Glossed Song of Songs. As Guglielmetti makes clear in her study of early and high medieval Song of Songs manuscripts, works that can be identified in some way with the teaching of Anselm weave a tangled web. As noted above, Leclercq found only one manuscript, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 568, containing what seems to be a full Anselmian Song of Songs commentary. Guglielmetti argues that the title given to this version (A) of Anselm’s commentary on the opening folio, Glosule super Canticum canticorum Salomonis secundum magistrum Anselmum, precludes the notion that Anselm himself produced it, and the occasional lack of clarity in the document may arise from it being compiled from notes taken at Anselm’s lectures.21 In any case, she dates this manuscript, which contains continuous text written in a single column with the biblical text underlined, to the twelfth century and acknowledges that it contains the most extended version of materials drawn from Anselm’s teaching on the Song of Songs.22 What Leclercq calls version (B); in other words, those works that are abridge­ments of version (A), presents a much more complex set of classification problems. Guglielmetti explains that some of these problems began with Georges Lacombe and Beryl Smalley’s misattributions of various manuscripts to Stephen Langton. In their 1930 work, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal 19 20 21

22

Valerie I.J. Flint, “The ‘School of Laon’: A Reconsideration,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médievale 43 (1976), 89–110. Rossana E. Guglielmetti, La Tradizione Manoscritta dei Commenti Latini al Cantico dei Cantici, Origini-XII Secolo (Florence, 2006). Guglielmetti, L. (Guglielmetti’s introduction is numbered with capital Roman numerals.) The idea of lecture notes being preserved as reportationes will be further discussed in Chapter 3, see also Smalley, Study of the Bible, 201–202. Guglielmetti, L. It is interesting to note that the remainder of BnF, MS lat. 568 (the Anselm material only fills fols. 1–64) contains various sermons from Maurice of Sully, Achard of St. Victor, Hugh of St. Victor, Eudes of Châteauroux and Peter Comestor. A number of these sermons touch on themes such as the active and contemplative lives and preaching, including several on the theme “Ego sum pastor bonus” (Jo. 10:11).

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

13

Stephen Langton,” Lacombe and Smalley attributed two groups of manuscripts containing Song of Songs commentaries to Langton: 1) A group consisting of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 87; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 37; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14801; and Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1466; and 2) a group consisting of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 528; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3652; and Firenze, BML, MS Pl. X dext. 5.23 Guglielmetti, by following the work of Leclercq and Helmut Riedlinger, and grouping together manuscripts by their incipits and explicits, dismissed Lacombe and Smalley’s attributions and began to sort these manuscripts and others with similar incipits and explicits into groups.24 Guglielmetti noted that there seemed to be two distinct groupings of (B) commentaries according to their incipits and explicits; and that within those two groups, only the explicit matched in some cases. Thus, Guglielmetti found four different groupings of texts, with what she terms specific “classis,” or types, within the versions of the text she sorted. She also noted that four of the manuscripts contained only partial Song of Songs commentaries, but they all shared incipits with her “version 1.” She grouped them into a category called “version 1, fragmenta.” In this chapter I will draw material from eight manuscripts containing versions of (B), Anselm’s abridged commentary, in addition to using BnF, MS lat. 568, which contains version (A).25 Table 1 reflects Guglielmetti’s classifications of manuscripts fitting Leclercq’s categories of (A), the unabridged commentary, and (B), abridged versions thereof. Manuscripts in bold on Table 1 are analyzed in this chapter. I will use at least one manuscript from each of Guglielmetti’s categories, save two.26 I have examined Wien, ONB MS 1466, which Guglielmetti places in her group (B), version 1, classis 2. While the incipit, portions of the 23

24 25

26

Georges Lacombe and Beryl Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton,” Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 5 (1930), 5–151. These attributions to Langton will also be discussed in Chapter 4. Guglielmetti, L-LIV; See also Helmut Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den latei­ nischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters (Münster, 1958), 121–124. As I explain below, I initially conducted my research under the impression that Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3652, which I now believe can be attributed to Anselm, were actually manuscripts containing Stephen Langton’s Song of Songs commentary. The manuscripts cited in the chapter below are Paris, BnF, MS lat. 568; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338; Tortosa, Archivo Capitular, MS 219; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3652; Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares Cabildo, MS 5–13; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290; Wien, ONB, MS 1272; Wien, ONB, MS 12762; and Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390. I have chosen at least one manuscript from each of Guglielmetti’s categories, save for those described on this page and the next as problematic for attribution to Anselm.

14

Chapter 1

Table 1

Manuscripts of Anselm of Laon’s Continuous Commentary on the Song of Songs, as classified by Rossana E. Guglielmetti27 28

(A)unabridged

(B) version 1, (B) version 1, (B) version (B) version 2, (B) (B) classis 1 classis 2 1, fragmenta classis 1 version 2, version 2, classis 2 uncertain classis

Paris, BnF, MS lat. 568

Paris, BnF, MS Wien, ONB, lat. 338 MS 1466

Paris, BnF, Graz, Paris, MS lat. 3652 Universitäts- BnF, MS bibliothek, lat. 2327 MS 290

Paris, BnF, MS Roma, lat. 14801 Corsiniana, MS 1122 Roma, Tortosa, Archivo Vallicelliana, Capitular, MS MS B. 59 219 Firenze, Hamburg, BML, MS Pl. X Staats- und Universitäts- dext. 5 bibliothek, MS Petr. 53

Paris, BnF, MS lat. 565 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3713

Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 39028

Paris, BnF, MS Wien, lat. 393 ONB, MS 1272 Wien, ONB, MS 12762

Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares Cabildo, MS 5–13

prologue, and explicit match with other manuscripts with commentaries Guglielmetti attributes to Anselm, the bulk of the text does not. Therefore, I am unsure if this commentary can be safely attributed to Anselm, and thus I have eliminated it from this study.29 Guglielmetti also has another group of 27 28

29

See Guglielmetti, L-LXI for a list of the manuscripts she attributes to the school of Anselm. Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390 lacks an incipit, so Guglielmetti was not able to completely categorize it; after transcribing this manuscript, I noted overall more similarities to Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290 than to (B) version 2, classis 2 manuscripts, so I would likely place it in the category of (B) version 2, classis 1. I was unable to examine the three Italian manuscripts that make up the rest of this group in Guglielmetti’s classifications, but since she classified the manuscripts mostly based on

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

15

three manuscripts that she includes under the heading of Excerptum Anselmi magistri viri religiosi as “various recensions” of (B), version 1; they are the Oxford manuscripts formerly attributed to Stephen Langton by Lacombe and Smalley, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 87; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 37, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 528. After examining these three manuscripts, I determined that they would not be included in this study because of their doubtful attribution to Anselm of Laon. For example, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 528 shares its incipit with Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3652, and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14801 but the bulk of the remaining text is lifted directly from the version of Haimo of Auxerre’s Song of Songs commentary contained in the Patrologia Latina, rather than sharing content with the aforementioned manuscripts. Similar issues with the other two Oxford manuscripts have led me to call into question their attribution to either Stephen Langton or Anselm of Laon, and thus I have excluded them from this chapter.30 Indeed Guglielmetti mentions in her brief descriptions of these three manuscripts that after initially coinciding with the text of manuscripts with firmer attributions to Anselm, they begin to depart from the text, indicating that she also questions to whom these commentaries may be attributed.31 Examining two of the manuscripts in detail, in the BnF catalog, MS lat. 338 (Song of Songs commentary, fols. 61r-77v) is attributed to Stephen Langton with references to the work of Georges Lacombe and Palemon Glorieux, and nothing is said of the school of Laon. The manuscript dates from the thirteenth century, and the provenance is unknown. BnF, MS lat. 338 features text laid out in double columns, with the biblical text written in the columns, but underlined and roughly twice the size of the commentary text. The other manuscript used in this chapter, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 3652 (Songs of Songs commentary, fols. 11r-17v), is a fragment of the same Song of Songs commentary through Chapter 4, verse 3. The BnF catalog dates it to the twelfth century, and while no provenance is given, Guglielmetti proposes a provenance of southwestern France in her catalog of Song of Songs manuscripts, although she does not provide

30

31

incipits and explicits, it is difficult to tell whether they include commentaries that can be attributed to the school of Laon. Haimo of Auxerre’s Commentarius in Cantica canticorum can be found in volume 117 of the Patrologia Latina; further study is necessary on these Oxford manuscripts as well as on the version of Haimo’s commentary in the Patrologia Latina in order to determine attributions with any degree of certainty. Guglielmetti, La Tradizione Manoscritta, 154–158.

16

Chapter 1

grounds for this conclusion.32 The catalog, referring to the works of Georges Lacombe and Helmut Riedlinger, notes that Lacombe attributed BnF, MS lat. 3652 to Langton, while Riedlinger later assigned it to the school of Laon.33 Despite the divergent attributions of the commentaries in these two manuscripts, I am relatively confident that both BnF, MS lat. 338 and BnF, MS lat. 3652 can be attributed to Anselm, or at least to his school at Laon. Cédric Giraud generously provided a rough transcription of BnF, MS lat. 14801, version (B) of Anselm’s commentary, which he dates to no later than the beginning of the 1130s.34 With a few exceptions, the texts of BnF, MS lat. 338 and 3652 match the text of BnF, MS lat. 14801. In addition, BnF, MS lat. 3652 contains many features that likely date it to before 1200. The layout of BnF, MS lat. 3652 seems somewhat atypical for a glossed book of the Bible in that the text runs continuously across the page in a single column and the biblical text is not underlined (although each new biblical phrase is introduced by a capital). The script is generally what Albert Derolez calls Pregothic, a script that he dates to earlier than roughly 1200; for example, the o has taken on more of an oval shape, while the lower bow of the g remains open, perhaps indicating a manuscript from the first half of the twelfth century.35 On the other hand, BnF, MS lat. 3652 contains no ampersands, but always uses the tironian sign for “et.” Derolez remarks that “in the second half of the [twelfth] century, both forms were still often used interchangeably … but the tironian et came to the fore in the last decades of the century,”36 which may indicate a later date for the manuscript. BnF, MS lat. 3652 uses both the straight and curved s, with the straight s often occurring at the end of words, which was common in twelfth-century manuscripts. The manuscript also contains both the upright and curved d, but the sloping ascenders on the curved d are not very pronounced. Derolez mentions that the upright or straight d “was abandoned in full-grown Northern Textualis,” which

32 33

34

35 36

Ibid., 181. These varying attributions are also present in Friedrich Stegmüller’s Repertorium Biblicum, which lists both BnF lat. 338 and BnF lat. 3652 under the headings for both Anselm of Laon and Stephen Langton. See Friedrich Stegmüller, with N. Reinhardt, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, v. 3 (Madrid, 1950–1980). Cédric Giraud, “Lectiones Magistri Anselmi. Les Commentaires d’Anselme de Laon sur le Cantique des Cantiques,” In The Multiple Meaning of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and Medieval Culture, ed. Ineke van ‘t Spijker (Leiden, 2008), 181. Albert Derolez, The Paleography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth Century to the Early Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 2003), 58, 61. Ibid., 66.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

17

did not emerge until the beginning of the thirteenth century.37 All of these paleographical tests indicate that the manuscript can likely be dated to a transitional period between Pregothic and Gothic scripts. Taken together, all of these factors make the authorship of Stephen Langton unlikely, although it would not entirely exclude it. Above all, the fact that BnF, MS lat. 338 and BnF, MS lat. 3652, as well as the manuscripts in Guglielmetti’s (B), version 2, serve as major sources for the Glossed Song of Songs, as will be discussed in this chapter and the next, provides solid evidence for an attribution to Anselm of Laon rather than Stephen Langton. Delving now into the content of what I will consider to be Anselm’s exegetical work on the Song of Songs, it is evident that he devoted large parts of it to issues such as the importance of preaching and the moral suitability of preachers; the limits of the human intellect; the dangers of heresy; and the pressing need for the conversion of the Jews, something Anselm believes can only be brought about by the power of preaching. Large portions of the abridgements of Anselm’s commentary appear in the Gloss text, as we will see in the following chapter, but the nature of the Gloss project limited the extent to which the glossator could discuss any particular topic. It is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty whether the Glossed Song of Songs or Anselm’s commentary was written first, but as noted above, the fact that large portions of the continuous commentary appear in the Gloss lends credence to the notion that the continuous commentary was the earlier work. Indeed, Margaret T. Gibson writes that “there is every reason to date Anselm’s creative work to his earlier years at Laon [c. 1080–1100],38 and Mary Dove avers that “there seems to be no reason why he should not have proceeded to compile the Glossed Song of Songs … making use of the source materials he had gathered for his lectures, and of the lectures themselves,” although it is unknown whether Anselm himself was the anonymous Glossator who produced the Glossed Song of Songs text.39 On the other hand, it is possible that Anselm felt the need to expand upon the issue of the active life found in the Gloss, and chose to write a full-scale commentary on the Song of Songs that would be a more appropriate forum for an extended treatment of the issues mentioned above, though this notion seems rather unlikely. Regardless of the order of composition, Anselm explored the 37

38 39

Ibid., 60. In addition, the text in BnF, MS lat. 3652 immediately after the Song of Songs text breaks off appears to be from the twelfth century. It is written in a different hand, but shares characteristics with the Song of Songs hand, including the use of the upright d and the g with the open lower bow. Froehlich and Gibson, Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, x. Dove, Glossa, 37–38.

18

Chapter 1

issues listed above in much greater depth in his commentary, and emphasized that preaching was both the key to the creation of a universal Church and the means by which Christ and the Church would be joined in eternal union. The remainder of this chapter will explore Anselm’s writing on these themes found in both the unabridged, or full commentary (A), and various manuscripts containing the two versions of the abridged commentaries (B). The abridged commentaries are not simply shortened versions of the full commentary (A), but include additional interpretations not found in version (A). Thus, we may greater insight into all of Anselm’s work on the Song of Songs by examining manuscripts containing all versions of his continuous commentary. Anselm remarks several times in his commentary that there is a dire need for preaching, both because Christians have grown lax in their faith, and because so many Jews remain unconverted. From the very opening verse of the text in all versions of his commentary, Anselm has Christ referring to the Church as the “collectio amicarum,” a gathering of friends, using this term interchangeably with the term “sponsa,” or bride, which is the preferred term for the Church in the Glossed Song of Songs.40 The use of the word “collectio” helps to emphasize that the Church is not a monumental entity, but is comprised of many individuals at varying stages of faith. Anselm stresses that until the earthly Church and its members have achieved union amongst themselves, union with Christ in the heavenly kingdom is impossible. It may seem odd to a modern reader that a commentary addressed to an exclusively male audience would use a feminine noun like “amice” to refer to a gathering of friends. Since Anselm uses “collectio amicarum” interchangeably with “sponsa,” and both terms refer to the Church (and by extension, its members, male and female), Anselm sees no reason to change the gender of the noun to the masculine, and his readers would understand that they were included under the rubric of the “amicarum.” Commenting again on Song of Songs 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, because your breasts are better than wine,” Anselm shows no con-

40

This term first occurs in Anselm’s comment on 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,” and is used, in various forms, over fifty times throughout the commentary. Variations on the “collectio amicarum” include “collectio fidelium” and “collectio iudeorum.” The genders of the nouns are interchangeable and Anselm ascribes little meaning to them. As is usual in medieval scholastic interpretation of the Song of Songs, the bride is Ecclesia, the Church. “Iudei” carries a negative connotation until the Synagogue converts at the end of Chapter 6, when Anselm begins to refer to the Jews as “collectio conversa de Iudeis.”

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

19

cern with breasts being attributed to Christ.41 He writes, “your breasts, that is, your teachings, which are breasts, that is nourishing the faithful, just as breasts nourish children.”42 Anselm offers no other remarks about these breasts other than to repeat that they are beautiful and better than wine. In the Glossed Song of Songs, on the other hand, the glossator affirms that the breasts belong to the bridegroom, but then adds the following line, taken from Bede: “He speaks of the ‘breasts’ of the bridegroom, a female term, so that from the very beginning of this song he may reveal himself to be speaking figuratively.”43 Perhaps since the Gloss functioned as a textbook, the glossator felt that it was necessary to clarify a possible ambiguity, something that is unnecessary in the more specialized commentary by Anselm.44 Anselm’s entire commentary is marked by exhortative language; Anselm frequently uses the vocative mood, with Christ using direct address, saying “O gathering of my friends,” “O, you Jews …,” “O, my bride,” and “O, you faithful,” which lends a sense of immediacy to the lines following the addresses.45 Anselm’s repeated use of the verb “debere” (“to have to”) and the imperative tense also contributes to the feeling of urgency that pervades the text. Often, when Christ directly addresses the Church or the Jews, the following line con-

41

42 43

44

45

Anselm shares this idea of attributing breasts to Christ with Anselm of Canterbury, who refers to both Jesus and Paul as mothers who nurture the faithful at their breast, and with Bernard of Clairvaux, who, in commenting on the same verse in his sermons on the Song of Songs, writes of the breasts belonging to Christ: “When she said, then, ‘Your breasts are better than wine,’ she meant: ‘The richness of the grace that flows from your breasts contributes far more to my spiritual progress than the biting reprimands of superiors.’” See Caroline Walker Bynum, “Jesus as Mother and Abbot as Mother: Some Themes in TwelfthCentury Cistercian Writing,” in her Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Los Angeles, 1982), 113–117. “… ubera tua id est precepta que sunt ubera id est fideles nutrientia ut ubera nutriunt pueros …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 61rb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 12r. “Ubera sponsi nominat, quod muliebre est, ut ipso carminis initio figurate se loqui manifestet.” Dove, Glossa. All translations from the Glossed Song of Songs are Dove’s. References from Dove’s edition are cited as I, 1, 11, 37–38, which indicates Chapter I, Verse 1, Gloss 11, Lines 37–38. In other words, this may be a simplification of a potentially confusing interpretation; the glossator does show a tendency to clarify and simplify the biblical text for his readers; see Chapter 2, 65–66. “O collectio amicarum,” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 62ra; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 12r.; “O vos Iudei,” BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 67rb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 17r.; “O sponsa,”, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 61va; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 11v; “O vos fideles,” BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 60v. Many other variations on this occur repeatedly in all versions of Anselm’s commentary.

20

Chapter 1

tains some sort of directive.46 In addition, forms of the verb “festinare” (“to hurry”) appear eleven times in Anselm’s text. For example, in Anselm’s gloss in (B), version 1 on Song of Songs 4:9, “you have wounded my heart, my sister, my bride,” Christ says “O my bride, I will come to you so that you may receive me, and rightly you must receive me, and you must hasten to me.”47 Christ tells the bride to hurry to his side several times throughout the text, communicating Anselm’s feeling that the marriage of Christ and the Church must soon take place. According to Anselm, those who preach must be morally pure before they can take up their duties, but he also shows concern about spending time in contemplation when the Church is in peril. His glosses on Song of Songs 2:10, “arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come,” in both (A) and (B), version 1 of his commentary, speak to this first issue. In the unabridged commentary (A), Anselm writes “Arise, that is raise yourself up in virtues. O my beloved, that is, arise in yourself, hurry to attract others by preaching and bringing about other virtues.”48 Similarly, (B), version 1, states “O my bride, my beloved, preach to others, but first arise in yourself; that is, raise yourself up in virtues and hurry to preach to others.”49 As we will see in the next chapter, the Gloss does not focus on the need to cleanse oneself before preaching in commenting on this passage, but rather on the need to break off contemplation in order to preach and become worthy of Christ. (B), version 2 of Anselm’s continuous commentary may be the source for this sentiment found in the Gloss. On this same phrase in Song of Songs 2:10, this version of Anselm’s commentary reads “Arise, that is hurry, work to interrupt your contemplation, and you must hurry to [do] this because the time is short, and I will be without friends unless you hurry.”50 In explicating this verse, Anselm addresses two of his cen46

47 48 49

50

Many of the passages analyzed in the remainder of this chapter dealing with preaching contain forms of the verb “debere,” illustrating the importance that Anselm attributed to this task. “O sponsa veniam ad te ut recipiam te. Et merito te debeo recipere et tu ad me festinare.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 68vb. “Surge id est sursum erige te in virtutibus. O amica mea id est surgendo in te propera aliis predicando virtutes faciendo alios attrahere.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 24r. “… O sponsa amica predica aliis sed prius surge in te id est prius sursum te erige in virtutes et propera aliis predicare …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 65rb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 15r, Tortosa, Archivo Capitular, MS 219, f. 109v. “Surge, id est propera labora interrumpere contemplationem tuam et ad hoc propera quia tempus est breve et ero sine amicabus nisi properaveris.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 6v; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290, f. 215ra, Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 5v.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

21

tral concerns; the moral purity of preachers and the need to “arise” to preach. Interpreting the Song of Songs in an ecclesiological manner, where the bride and bridegroom in the text are seen as the Church and Christ, respectively, allows Anselm to place these ideas about preaching in the mouth of Christ. In this passage, it is Christ who asks the Church (and its members) to be morally upright before preaching, and it is Christ who implores the Church to break off contemplation and preach, saying that he will be friendless unless the Church makes haste to undertake this task. Anselm employs this same technique several times in his Song of Songs exegesis, which allows him to impart a powerful message to those who heard his lectures and read his commentaries. In glossing 5:5, “I arose in order to open to my beloved,” the Glossed Song of Songs and the abridged (B), version 1 of Anselm’s commentary are much more closely related. Indeed, the two works share a large portion of text and discuss the issue of purging oneself of sin: 5152 Gloss I arose from sleep to work because it is necessary that he who determines to preach the truth should first arise in order to do those things he preaches, lest, preaching to others, he may himself be condemned.51

51

52

Anselm of Laon, (B), version 1 I arose, the voice of the bride [speaking] to her friends. Preach, O gathering of my friends! And so that you may preach better to others, arise, that is, first purge yourself as I did. For first I arose, that is purged myself, so that I might be more worthy to open the hearts of others to my beloved [Christ]. I arose from sleep to work because it is necessary that he who determines to preach the truth should first arise in order to do those things he preaches, lest, preaching to others, he may himself be condemned52

“Surrexi a dormitione ad laborem quia necesse est ut qui veritatem predicare disponit prius ad agenda ea que predicat assurgat, ne aliis predicans ipse reprobus efficiatur.” Dove, Glossa, V, 5, 58, 4–8. “Vox sponse ad amices. Predica O collectio amicarum! Et ut melius aliis predices surge, id est prius purga te, sicut ego feci. Nam ego prius surrexi id est purgavi me ut dignius aperirem corda aliorum dilecto meo. Surrexi a dormitione ad laborem quia necesse est ut qui veritatem predicare disponit prius ad agenda ea que predicat assurgat, ne aliis predicans ipse reprobus efficiatur.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71rb.

22

Chapter 1

As can be seen above, both the Gloss and Anselm stress the need for preachers to purify themselves in preparation for their crucial task. The words are placed in the mouth of the Church, here interpreted as the bride speaking to her friends. Anselm, however, has the Church speak more bluntly, openly saying that even she herself, the pure and beloved bride of Christ, had to purge herself before preaching. The language in Anselm’s unabridged version (A) is quite similar: I arose. The bride, wishing to show her friends her manner of preaching, said ‘I advise you to preach to others, but in order that you may preach unimpeded and without blame, first you must arise in yourselves, that is you must root out vices in order to scale the peak of virtues, just as I first arose in myself, that is, I rooted out my sins before preaching to others.53 If we take the Church as Anselm does in both versions of his commentary to be the historical Church, in this passage the Church speaks of purging itself of all that may make it unworthy, which will in turn allow it to grow through the conversion of others. This sends a powerful message to the students forming Anselm’s core audience: moral rectitude is a requirement for preachers, and the Church asks you to cleanse yourself so that you may add more members to her ranks and follow her own example. Song of Songs 6:7, “there are sixty queens and eighty concubines and young girls without number,” offers Anselm an opportunity to discuss those preachers who lack this necessary purity and who therefore are choosing not to follow the Church’s moral commandments. Commenting on this verse, Anselm writes in the abridged (B), version 1 that “Concubines signify those who do not preach about Christ sincerely, but for temporal gain or popular renown.”54 53

54

“Surrexi. Sponsa volens amicabus suis ostendere modum predicandi dicit ego quid vos ad predicandum aliis amoneo sed ut liberius et sine reprehensione predicetis prius surgite in vobis id est vitia extirpando ad culmen virtutum enitamini quemadmodum ego prius in me surrexi id est vitia mea priusquam aliis predicare extirpavi.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 41v. There is similar language about “opening hearts” in (B), version 2 of the commentary, but once again, this version focuses on the idea of giving up contemplation in order to preach: “Ideo surrexi id est a contemplationis mee quiete vacat ut aperire dilecto meo id est reserarem ei occulta corda et quia ipse tetigit ventrem et ut bonum exemplum daret eis quibus predicaret.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zister­zienserstifts, MS 390, f. 19r; Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 10v; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290, f. 220vb. “Concubine significant eos qui non sincere Christem predicant sed propter lucra temporalia vel propter laudes populares.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 73vb.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

23

The Gloss makes a somewhat similar statement, noting that there are “concubines who proclaim Christ along with the love of temporal things.”55 In Anselm’s commentary in particular, concubines are interpreted as preachers who are interested not in spreading the word of God, but in reaping the temporal rewards that may be available. Here, Anselm seems to warn his students to avoid the possible moral pitfalls of the early apostolic movement discussed in the last chapter. He indicates that while preaching is a powerful tool that can strengthen the Church, it is an activity open to abuse, and those who seek to preach must be pure of conscience in order to communicate the messages of Scripture to the laity. Despite these warnings, Anselm communicates to his students that they must not be afraid of the onerous task facing them, even though their success is by no means assured. In commenting in (B), version 1 on Song of Songs 5:4, “my beloved put his hand through the aperture, and my insides trembled at his touch,” Anselm, as he did in his interpretation of 1:1, assumes that his students, as members of the “collectio amicarum” identify with the bride in this verse. Anselm’s commentary matches the Gloss interpretation of this phrase, with one important exception that seems to contradict the biblical text. Both texts ignore any erotic implication in the text, and instead Anselm writes “those who undertake the office of preaching recognize that they are hardly suitable [for the task of preaching], and therefore they are not afraid.”56 The Gloss avers that these preachers do indeed fear the task at hand, hence the trembling insides. Anselm reminds his students that the humility required of preachers will allow them to realize that they can never be truly worthy to preach the word of God. They must undertake the task, however, because they have been trained to preach and are more suitable for the role of preacher than anyone else. Thus, Anselm urges them to steady themselves and preach without fear. There are several references to fear and trembling in the Gloss interpretation of Song of Songs 5:4, including the Church admitting “I am very afraid of worldly affairs,” and the bride’s insides trembling due to their infirmity and lack of courage.57 Anselm, however, does not dwell in any commentary on the trepidation that may come with the task of preaching to the laity, and makes no reference to the Church fearing the duty that she must perform. Instead, he seems to view the entire passage as an opportunity to strengthen the resolve of 55 56 57

“… concubine, que amore temporalium Christum annuntiant.” Dove, Glossa, VI, 7, 39, 7. “illorum qui predicationis officium suscipiunt quia se minus idoneos recognoscunt et ideo non timent.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71rb. “… pertimesco quidem seculi conversationem … venter intremiscit” Dove, Glossa, V, 4, 49, 6–7; Dove, Glossa, V, 4, 50, 12.

24

Chapter 1

the future preachers at his school. Anselm writes, for example, in the abridged (B), version 1 that the beloved’s hand thrust through the aperture, here interpreted as the ears of the hearers, helps to establish firmly the Church’s preaching.58 With the aid of Christ, the Church is able to preach without fear. In the continuous commentary, Anselm addresses the usefulness of preachers and elaborates on the tasks they perform for the Church. In commenting on 5:6 in the abridged commentary (B), version 1, “I opened the bolt of the door to my beloved,” Anselm writes in the voice of the bride, “I truly opened the hearts of many to my beloved, for I opened, that is, my preaching drew to my beloved those people who were a bolt, that is, who had bolted hearts.”59 Here, the Church’s preaching had the power to open the hearts of those who were closed off from Christ’s teachings. These people, who are described as a bolt, blocked Christ from entering their lives, and thus impeded the Church’s mission of conversion. Anselm uses the voice of the Church to relate the power of preaching to his students, instilling in them the message that preachers can make Christ known to those who have become lukewarm in their faith. In the full commentary (A) and the abridged (B), version 2, Anselm describes the bolt blocking the hearts of these people as both “sins” and “enemies,” which cut off people from salvation. Preachers are warned to be careful in undertaking their work to open these hearts, and in (A) in particular, the Church tells potential preachers to be sure they preach for the right reasons, “not for profit or the people’s applause, but to the honor of my beloved.”60 This echoes the sentiments Anselm expressed in glossing Song of Songs 6:7, warning preachers to avoid preaching for “temporal gain or popular renown.”61 58

59

60

61

“… per foramen auditorum meorum id est per aures eorum … dilectus meus per predicationem meam misit id est firmiter stabilivit manum suam …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71ra. “Vere ego aperui dilecto meo corda multorum nam ego aperui id est predicatione mea attraxi dilecto meo illos qui erant pessulum id est qui habebant pessulata corda.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71rb. “Nam etiam pessulata et valde obserata corda ipsorum qui modo sunt hostium per me id est per quos item iam venerunt ad fidem. Aperui, non pro lucro vel pro favore hominum sed ad honorem dilecti mei.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 41v., Anselm repeats this dictum that one must not preach for the wrong reasons in the version (A) gloss on Song of Songs 7:2, saying, “pauper predicationibus qua predicatione minores potabit et hoc non faciet per favorem hominum vel pro terreno lucro …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 55r.; “Et per illa bona opera que dabam aliis in exemplum aperui pessulum hostii mei id est removi hostium id est peccata michi subditorum hostium dicitu peccatum quod obstat Deo in homine.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 19r; Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 10v. See above, 22.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

25

Not only is preaching powerful, but it is necessary for the health and growth of the Church. In the long commentary (A) at Song of Songs 7:1, “The joins of your thighs are like jewels that are made by the hand of a skillful workman,” a chorus of the daughters of Jerusalem proclaims the beauty of the bride. Anselm ensures, however, that the chapter is not simply fulsome praise by having the chorus exhort the bride to preach. They declare, “You, bride, must preach incessantly, because you have saving doctrine, and therefore it is inexcusable if you do not constantly preach.”62 The daughters of Jerusalem declare that the bride is beautiful, but that she must not let her beauty be for naught. The Church contains all doctrine necessary for salvation, but it is of little use unless preachers of the Church constantly pass on this message to the people. Anselm’s language is quite forceful here, arguing as he does that not preaching is inexcusable. Indeed, the phrase “you much preach incessantly” permeates Anselm’s glosses on chapter seven in the unabridged commentary (A), and in most cases, Anselm places these words in the mouth of Christ.63 This makes it clear that Anselm believes this task is of paramount importance for the Church. In other parts of the unabridged version (A) of Anselm’s commentary, he asserts that preaching is a powerful tool, and again emphasizes that it is Christ who is calling out for preaching. In glossing Song of Songs 2:10, “Arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come,” the bridegroom asks the bride to arise and preach, telling her “your preaching makes others come to me.”64 Anselm also expresses this belief in the power of preaching toward the end of his commentary while glossing Song of Songs 8:13, “You who live in the gardens, friends are listening. Make me hear your voice.” He writes: Make me hear, that is, make me to work well so that I shall hear your preaching, and you shall do this diligently and with great care, because [there are] friends, that is to say malicious souls who were formerly friends, which means they are laying a trap for you. Or alternatively, [understand] from this that you can make me hear your voice because the unfaithful have been made friends by listening and continuing to heed your preaching willingly and attentively.65 62 63 64 65

“Tu sponsa incessanter predicare debes quia salutiferam doctrinam habes et ideo inexcusabiliter est quin assidue predices.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 54r. See Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, fols. 54v-59v. In these folios, the phrase “predicare debes incessanter” or a slight variation thereof appears eight times. “tua predicatione alios fac ad me venire.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 24r. “Fac me audire. Id est fac me bene operari ut ego audiam predicationem tuam et hoc attente et cum magna sollicitudine facias quia amici id est maligni spiritus olim amici id est insidiantur tibi. Vel aliter unde potes me facere audire vocem tuam quia infideles facti

26

Chapter 1

According to Anselm, the speaker in this verse is again Christ, who is asking the Church to preach. Interestingly, Christ seems to be setting two goals for the Church in Anselm’s interpretation of the verse; the Church must preach carefully and assiduously in order to avoid the snares of those “former friends” (heretics), and she must preach so that those lacking faith can continue to be drawn to her. For Anselm, preaching is the primary spiritual weapon for both repelling enemies and winning true and willing friends for the Church, and he emphasizes this point by having Christ issue these repeated calls to preach. Preachers are so successful in achieving these goals because they can bridge the wide gulf between God and man, as Anselm vividly explains in commenting in the abridged commentary (B), version 1 on Song of Songs 7:2, “your navel is a turned bowl never lacking in [liquid for the] cups.” He writes, “your navel, that is, your preachers who are a navel; that is, joining the inferior to the superior, that is the worldly to the heavenly, just as the navel is the junction of the upper and lower members.”66 In the Gloss, on the other hand, the navel is interpreted as “the frailty of our morality,” and “those among the soft or weak ones who bear children and yet proclaim the faith well, cleaving to the world in an allowable way.”67 Thus, while the Gloss interprets the navel as weak but harmless people, Anselm seizes on the imagery of the navel as the center of the body, extending the metaphor to preachers acting as the intermediaries who are able to join humankind to God. Although Anselm emphasizes the connection that those who preach might have with God, he is careful to warn his students about the limits of earthly knowledge. In glossing Song of Songs 3:1, “on my bed, by night I have sought him whom my soul loves,” in the abridged (B), version 1, Anselm decries philosophy, arguing that it is useless for trying to gain knowledge of God: “I did not find him, as if I sought him by night, that is through philosophical ideas, through which he cannot be found. These ideas are called ‘by night’ because they are obscure. God is only found through good works and good intentions, not through the ideas of philosophers.”68 The exposition of this verse in the long version (A) of Anselm’s commentary contains a more specific reference,

66

67 68

amici auscultant et auscultabunt predicationem tuam libenter et attente.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 64r. “umbilicus tuus id est predicatores tui qui sunt umbilicus id est coniugentes inferiora superioribus id est mundanos celestibus sicut umbilicus est iunctura superiorum et inferiorum membrorum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 74vb. “… infirmitas mortalitatis nostre … illi qui inter molles gignunt etsi mundo licute herent tamen bene annuntiant.” Dove, Glossa, VII, 2, 17, 2; Dove, Glossa, VII, 2, 20, 34–35. “non inveni eum quasi quesivi eum per noctes id est per philosoficas sententias quibus non potest inveniri que sententie dicuntur noctes quia sunt obscure. Deus enim solis bonis

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

27

stating “by night, that is through ignorance or through the shadowy opinions of philosophers, namely [those] of Plato and others, just as Dionysius the Areopagite did.”69 Version (A) also contains two other glosses on the phrase “on my bed, by night,” referring to “existing in carnal pleasure and worldly delight” and “remaining in sin,” so the verse is given wholly negative connotations.70 In both versions of his commentary on this verse, Anselm makes plain his belief that philosophy, the method of choice for those in the vanguard of twelfth-century intellectual life, cannot reveal anything about the true nature of God. Anselm stresses more simple virtues, such as charity, imparting the implicit message to his students that pure and simple thoughts and actions should not be overlooked, especially when one is steeped in an intellectual environment such as the cathedral school at Laon. Anselm’s suspicion of philosophy was shared by later moralists in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries such as Peter Lombard, Peter Comestor, Jacques de Vitry, and Peter of Poitiers, who, as Stephen C. Ferruolo has noted, all expressed ambivalence toward the works of pagan philosophers and their influence. One might admire pagan philosophers for seeking knowledge, but they sought it for the wrong reasons, as Peter of Poitiers (d. c. 1215) remarked in a sermon; “Intent upon exploring the secrets of nature and esteeming their own words, the pagan philosophers thought happiness lay in the knowledge of causes,” rather than in simple faith,

69

70

operibus et bonis cogitationibus invenitur non per philosophorum sententias.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 66ra; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 16r. “Per noctes, id est per ignorantiam vel per umbratiles sententies philosophorum platonis scilicet et aliorum ut dionisus ariopagita fecit.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 27v. I am unsure as to why there is a specific reference to Pseudo-Dionysius (the sixth-century Christian theologian and philosopher) in this gloss, but as David Knowles remarks, Pseudo-Dionysius’ thought was “deeply impregnated with Platonic and Plotinian elements,” and Anselm may have seen him as an example of an influential philosopher. As Marcia Colish has noted, “While the Pseudo-Areopagite could thus adduce Neoplatonic support both for Christian mysticism and for the religious practices of ordinary believers, in some areas his philosophy could be seen as deforming as well as informing Christian theology.” In his explication of Song of Songs 3:1, Anselm seems to communicate the idea that philosophy is not only not useful for seeking God, but is potentially dangerous. See David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 2nd ed. (London, 1988), 51 and Marcia L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400–1400 (New Haven, 1997), 121. “In lectulo meo, id est in carnalis delectatione et in secularibus voluptatibus existens … vel per noctes, id est morans in peccatis.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 27v.

28

Chapter 1

virtue, and good works pleasing to God.71 Peter of Poitiers, along with other Parisian scholars, echoes sentiments expressed by Anselm in the early part of the twelfth century about the dangers inherent in the schools. As a forerunner of these Parisian moralists, Anselm’s attitude toward philosophy makes perfect sense; one being educated in the schools, he argues, should not focus on the lofty, but somehow still limited knowledge gained from philosophy, but on learning how to preach the word of God in order to enrich the Church here on earth. Anselm emphasizes the notion that there is much work to be done in the world, but the pursuit of philosophical knowledge will neither help with this earthly work nor allow one to gain any knowledge of God.72 Anselm adds to this idea about the limits of philosophy and earthly knowledge later when glossing Song of Songs 5:6, “… he had turned aside and gone by … I sought him and did not find him, I called him and he did not reply to me.” His gloss in the abridged (B), version 1 is in the voice of the Church, saying he had gone by, that is, he had exceeded my understanding. For I sought him, that is, I sought him with my intellect, but nevertheless, I was unable to comprehend the loftiness of his divinity. And since I was unable to understand, I called him, that is, I sent up many prayers so that he might grant me understanding … he did not grant to me that I might be able to understand him fully.73 In this passage there seems to be almost a hint of desperation in the voice of the Church. She tries to understand God, and when that cannot be accomplished, she prays for guidance and the ability to commune with Him. The prayers go unanswered, emphasizing Anselm’s point that the intellect cannot fully know God on earth. Any prayers to understand God in this way will go unheeded because they seek to know the ineffable. Here, Anselm again espouses the virtues of faith and good works, which can be embraced by all Christians. 71 72

73

Stephen C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100–1215 (Stanford, CA, 1985), 254. For a good overview of philosophy and its impact on scholastic theology, see Ulrich G. Leinsle, Introduction to Scholastic Theology, trans. Michael J. Miller (Washington, DC, 2010). “ille transierat id est excesserat intellectum meum. Nam ego quesivi id est investigavi illum intellectui meo sed tamen altitudinem divinitatis eius intellectu non potui comprehendere. Et cum ego non possem intelligere vocavi eum id est misisti eum multis precibus ut se daret mihi intelligere … non dedit mihi ut ego possem eum ad plenum intelligere.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71va.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

29

The most effective preachers, Anselm argues, are those who ensure that their message about these simple virtues can actually be understood by those who hear it. The full version (A) of Anselm’s commentary contains an additional gloss on Song of Songs 5:6 that discusses another interpretation of the word “transierat.” Anselm argues using the voice of the Church that if God’s divinity exceeds the understanding of educated preachers, surely unlettered laypeople will also have difficulty. The Church says, “‘Gone by’ from my listeners or even from myself, that is, his divinity exceeds the capacity of our exploring nature, according to which the Psalmist says ‘Man shall come to a deep heart and God shall be exalted’ (Ps. 63:7–8). Therefore [the Church] says this to her friends in order to insinuate a method of preaching, namely that their preaching should not exceed the capacity of their listeners.”74 Through the voice of the Church, Anselm seems to be giving practical advice to future preachers, urging them to preach a simple message that an uneducated audience could easily grasp. This same type of advice arises again in Anselm’s interpretation of Song of Songs 5:14 in the long version (A) of his commentary. Glossing the verse “his hands are turned and as of gold, full of hyacinths,” Anselm writes about the importance of varying one’s method or mode of preaching, stating “and full of hyacinths, that is variation of preaching. For just as that stone hyacinth is variegated in color in the manner of clouds, in the same way preachers themselves are variegated in their method [of preaching], that is according to the capacity of [their] listeners.”75 This phrase appears again in (A) when Anselm glosses Song of Songs 8:2, “… and I shall give you a cup of wine preserved with spices.” He writes, “a cup of wine, that is because of your instruction, you make worldly men surrender to oblivion, and certainly your instruction is preserved with spices, that is tempered according to the capacity of [your] listeners.”76 Interestingly, this idea of modulating preaching to fit the audience appears in 74

75

76

“Transierat ab auditoribus meis vel etiam a me id est capacitatem nostri ingenii eius divinitatem speculantis excesserat iuxta illud quod dicit psalmista accedet homo ad cor altum et exaltabitur deus. Hoc ideo dicit ut amicabus insinuet modum predicandi ita scilicet ne predicatio earum excedat capacitatem auditorum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 42r. “[E]t plene iacinctus id est variatione predicationis. Nam quemadmodum iacinctus ille lapis variatur in colore ad modum aeris eodum modo predicatores ipsi variantur in pre­di­ catione ad modum id est iuxta capacitatem auditoris.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 46r. “ex vino tuo, id est ex doctrina tua faciente homines oblivioni tradere terrena que scilicet doctrina tua est condita id est iuxta capacitatem auditorum temperata.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, fols. 60r-v.

30

Chapter 1

the abridged commentary (B), version 2, in Anselm’s gloss on Song of Songs 7:2, “your navel is a turned bowl never lacking in [liquid for the] cups.” While (B), version 1 uses this phrase to talk about those people who attach themselves to the world in an allowable way (as fathers and mothers do), in at least one manuscript of (B), version 2, Anselm interprets the verse with language that tries to ensure that the needs of these people will be met, saying to potential preachers, “lacking in [liquid for the] cups, that is by offering various meanings according to the capacity of [your] listeners.”77 Anselm hopes to communicate to future preachers hearing his lectures and reading his commentary that while the very act of preaching is important and meritorious, carefully tailoring sermons to reach specific audiences and ensure the understanding of the people will meet with greater success. Anselm’s views of preaching and its power are encapsulated in the unabridged (A) commentary’s gloss on Song of Songs 7:9, “Your throat [is] like the best wine, worthy for my beloved to drink and for his lips and teeth to savor.” Anselm writes: Your throat, that is your great preachers who will be like wine, that is thus intoxicating others so that you may make them surrender to earthly oblivion. And you will not be like just any wine, but like the best wine, because you will not preach against the Church. Hearing the voice of the bridegroom [say] that there had been such a wine, the bride reminds his [the bridegroom’s] preachers that so excellent a wine should be given over to others. And listeners, so that so excellent a wine is savored with pleasure, this is why it is rightly said that you must give this wine over to others because this wine is worthy for my beloved to drink. To others, that is, so that others may thence be filled and saturated. O you listeners, this so excellent wine is for you to savor, and I say [this] to you, who will soon thereafter be lips, that is uncovering the secrets of God, and will soon thereafter be teeth, that is consuming vice in yourself and in others.78 77 78

“indigentes poculis id est variis sententiis secundum capacitatem auditorum prelatis.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 27v. “Guttur tuum, id est maiores predicatores tui erunt sicut vinum, id est ita inebriantes alios ut ipsi terrena oblivioni tradere faciant et non erunt sicut quodlibet vinum sed sicut optimum quia adversus ecclesiam non predicabunt. Vox sponse audiens sponsa quod tale fuerat vinum ammonet predicatores suos ut tale vinum aliis propinent et auditores ut tale vinum libenter ruminent, et hoc est quod dicit bene debetis istud vinum propi­ nare aliis quia istud vinum est dilecto meo dignum ad potandum. Alios, id est ut alii inde repleantur et saturentur et o vos auditores, istud tale vinum est vobis ruminandum et vobis dico duturis inde labiis, id est Dei secreta aperientibus, et futuris inde dentibus, id

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

31

In his explication of this verse, Anselm seems to be talking directly to his audience of future preachers, telling them that they will be “the best wine,” which is worthy for Christ to drink. Their preaching will incorporate them into the body of Christ, and they will act as His throat, lips, and teeth on earth, tearing away at sin and proclaiming the word of God. Anselm also warns his listeners that the excellent wine of preaching must be given over to others to drink, so they must follow advice given at other points in the commentary and preach so that people understand and dedicate themselves to the beloved. Thus, in Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary, to preach, and moreover, to preach pure and simple doctrine that uneducated audiences may grasp, is held up as the highest good. Fittingly, the penultimate verse of the Song of Songs, 8:13, reads “you who live in the gardens, friends are listening. Make me hear your voice.” This last line, written in the imperative, seems almost ideally crafted for Anselm. He seizes upon it, glossing the line in the abridged (B), version 1 as Christ saying “O bride of the Jews and Gentiles, make me hear your voice, that is your doctrine and preaching.”79 The combined Church and Synagogue is now instructed by Christ to continue the work of conversion and make her voice known. Anselm even follows this with Christ urging members of the Church hierarchy to preach, “I say to you, priests and archdeacons, who are prelates in the Church, make me hear your voice.”80 Anselm boldly exhorts his colleagues to follow his example and the example of Christ by preaching. With this ending, Anselm is able to relate to his students and to prelates and archdeacons that Christ himself desires preaching and knows its power.

79 80

est in vobis et in aliis vitia consumentibus.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, fols. 58v-59r. Note that preachers are like “the best wine” in part because they “will not preach against the Church,” unlike heretics, many of whom preach, but preach in order to condemn the Church and its actions. It is notable that Anselm refers to preaching and preachers as “the best wine” here, because in his gloss on Song of Songs 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, because your breasts are better than wine,” wine is glossed as “mundana sapientia,” “pseudo prophetis, id est falsis predicatoribus,” “seculari et phylosophyica scientia,” “carnali delectatione et observantia,” and “austeritate legis,” all of which Anselm repeatedly describes negatively and dismisses throughout his commentary. The difference is that only preaching and preachers are “the best wine, worthy for my beloved to drink.” “O sponsa de Iudeis et de gentibus, fac me audire vocem tuam id est doctrinam et predicationem tuam.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 77va. “Vobis dico pontifices et archidiaconi qui estis in ea ecclesia prelati facite me audire vocem vestram.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 77va-b.

32

Chapter 1

The idea of the value of preachers and the important things they are able to accomplish is linked in Anselm’s commentary to their ability to preach to and about those who are not considered Christians. He devotes large portions of both versions of his commentary to heretics, who willfully reject the Church and its doctrines, and Jews, who are ignorant of the teachings of Christ. While Anselm sees heretics as threats to the Church who should be eradicated and who are usually beyond the help of preaching, he argues quite forcefully that Jews can and will be converted by preaching, first by Christians preaching to Jews, and then by Jews preaching to their unconverted former brethren. Anselm expresses negative opinions about both groups, but ultimately the narrative of his Song of Songs commentary leads to the conversion of the Jews and the final triumph of a universal Church. He feels that Jews must be brought into the fold and can be taught to reject the carnal law and embrace the spirit; heretics, on the other hand, willfully reject the Church and thus are condemned. Heretics, as depraved Christians, actively pervert the teachings of Christ and cannot profess ignorance of the Church’s basic teachings. In essence, then, Anselm tells his audience not to preach to heretics (with a few exceptions, which will be discussed below), but only to preach against them to others. Therefore, while Anselm speaks positively of a converted Synagogue which becomes the “sponsa de Iudeis,” his depictions of heretics are entirely negative. Anselm finds ample opportunity in the Song of Songs text to comment on the evils of heretics, and some of the most striking images in his commentary arise from his abhorrence of those who flout the Church’s laws and customs. Anselm shows a tendency in his commentary to associate heretics with various animals mentioned in the text of the Song of Songs.81 Commenting on 1:6, “… lest I begin to wander after the flocks of your companions,” all versions of Anselm’s commentary, as well as the Glossed Song of Songs, interpret these companions as heretics, who, according to the Gloss, cause “hidden tribulation” and can be described as “the wanton crowds following the broad road.”82 The same sentiments are found in Anselm’s commentary, where he ends his interpretation of this verse in both the full commentary (A) and the abridged (B), version 1 by stating that the “flocks” of heretics and their followers are

81

82

This fits in with Beverly Mayne Kienzle’s idea that animals, including foxes, wolves, dogs, and serpents are repeatedly interpreted as heretics in various medieval texts, see Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145–1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard (Bury St. Edmunds, 2001), 215. “… de occulta tribulatione que ab hereticis fit … id est lascivas multitudines latam viam insistentes.” Dove, Glossa, I, 6, 101, 30–31; Dove, Glossa, I, 6, 109, 43–44.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

33

“living in a bestial manner,” presumably by roaming in groups and blindly following heretical leaders.83 Both Anselm’s commentary and the Gloss also seize upon Song of Songs 2:15, “catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vineyards,” one of the most well-known phrases in the text. As L.J. Sackville remarks, many since the time of the early Church had interpreted these foxes as heretics, but the Gloss, and I would argue, Anselm’s continuous commentary, made this interpretation “more contemporary and direct.”84 Anselm and the Gloss, then, follow many others in describing these foxes as heretics85, but Anselm in particular is effusive in his use of adjectives in the abridged (B), version 1; his abhorrence of heretics and all they stand for seems almost to burst forth from the page: “foxes, that is, crafty and deceitful heretics … [these] foxes are called ‘little,’ that is, heretics are called ‘little,’ that is, alleging false humility. Rightly I say these foxes must be caught, because they destroy and gnaw away at the vineyards, that is, they destroy gatherings of the faithful.”86 Anselm remains rather traditional here in his interpretation, but he does offer us a reason why heretics must be captured like foxes – they destroy gatherings of the faithful, or the orthodox Church, with their pernicious lies, eating away at the very structure of the Church. Above all, they are false, pretending to be humble and all the while using their cunning tactics to draw foolish Christians who know no better into the web of their heresies. The explication of Song of Songs 2:15 in both the unabridged commentary (A) and the abridged (B), version 2, is quite similar in describing heretics as cunning and destructive deceivers, but both works do hold out the possibility of heretics being brought back into the Church. In the abridged commentary, “catch for us” is interpreted as “expel or convert for us” these foxes that destroy

83 84

85 86

“… Post discipulos bestialiter viventes …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 10r; “… bes­ tia­liter viventes …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 62vb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 12v. L.J. Sackville, Heresy and Heretics in the Thirteenth Century: The Textual Representations (York, 2011), 156. Sackville argues that the continual use of the “foxes as heretics” imagery into the rest of the twelfth century and beyond is due to its popularization by Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermons on the Song of Songs, but I would argue that the Gloss also helped to further spread this interpretation because it was so widely used in the schools. See Herbert Grundmann, “Oportet et Haereses Esse,” in Herbert Grundmann: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, v. 1, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Stuttgart, 1976), 339. “vulpes id est callidos et dolosos hereticos … Vulpes dico parvulas id est hereticos dico parvulos id est falsam humilitatem pretendentes. Vulpes dico bene capiendas quia demoliuntur et corrodunt vineas id est destruunt collectiones fidelium.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 65vb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 15v.

34

Chapter 1

the vineyard.87 The full commentary (A), as may be expected, offers a more expanded gloss regarding this idea. Anselm writes, “Catch the foxes, that is bring heretics back to me, drawing them away from their error not through secular power or monetary reward, which is prohibited [in the text] above, but through good works, examples of virtues, and your preaching.”88 Though version (A) of the commentary goes on to describe heretics as destroying the vineyard with their “depraved opinions” and hold to the “twisting path” of error, Anselm begins his gloss on Song of Songs 2:15 with Christ asking the Church to bring heretics back from their sinful ways.89 In glossing certain passages of the Song of Songs text, Anselm’s continuous commentary seems to focus more on the issue of heresy than the Gloss. For example, the Gloss text and Anselm’s abridged commentary (B), version 1 differ completely in their interpretation of Song of Songs 4:3, “your cheeks are like a piece of pomegranate, apart from that which lies inside”: 90 91 Gloss Apart from that which lies inside. There may be great things externally apparent, yet greater things, which only divine eyes see, remain hidden.90

Anselm of Laon, (B), version 1 Apart from that which lies inside. That is, apart from the deceit and heresy of sects, for that often lies inside. For heretics cover themselves in the hides of sheep when inside they are wolves [cf. Mt. 7:15]91

The Gloss interprets “that which lies inside” in a wholly positive manner, whereas Anselm sees this verse as an opportunity to speak to the falseness of heretics. With his interpretation, a paraphrase of Matthew 7:15, Anselm reminds his audience that sometimes “that which lies inside” is not greater things pleasing to God, but false and heretical opinions, which are indeed the worst possible things. He warns his readers to be on their guard and avoid 87

88

89 90 91

“id est capiendo expellite vel convertite nobis,” Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 8r; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290, f. 215vb; “id est capiendo expellite vel convertate nobis,” Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 6r. “Capite vulpes, id est reducite hereticos ad me retrahendo eos ab errore suo non vi seculari vel precio quod superius prohibitum est sed bonorum operum atque virtutum exemplis et predicationibus vestris.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 25v. “… pravis sententiis … non rectam viam sed tortuosam viam tenent …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 26r. “Absque eo quod intrinsecus latet. Licet sint magna que exterius apparent, maiora tamen in occulto retinent que divini oculi soli vident.” Dove, Glossa, IV, 3, 39, 25–26. “Absque eo quod intrinsecus latet, id est absque simulatione et heresi heresis enim latere solet intrinsecus. Nam heretici ovium pelle se cooperiunt cum intrinsecus sunt lupi.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 67vb.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

35

being fooled by heretics, who pretend to be meek sheep following the tenets of the Church when they are in fact ravenous wolves seeking to “devour” honest Christians. Anselm’s commentary also differs from the Gloss interpretation at Song of Songs 4:8, “come from Lebanon, my bride … from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards.” Both Anselm and the Gloss refer to the leopards as heretics, but in both the unabridged commentary (A) and the abridged (B), version 1, Anselm offers a new opinion about heretics that differs from the previously discussed animal images: 92 93 94 Gloss

Anselm of Laon, unabridged (A); (B), version 1 From the mountains of leopards … (A): From the mountains of leopleopards, heretics whom he [the devil] ards … For just as those animals deceives with separate tricks … living in the mountains are foulleopards on account of cruelty or smelling and of various colors, diversity of malign arts.92 therefore heretics are foul-smelling, that is vicious and diverse in their opinions and in their depraved sects.93 (B) version 1: From the mountains of leopards … and for leopards, [read] heretics, whom the devil deceives with separate tricks … heretics are called leopards because they are diverse in their opinions, and they are therefore called this because the leopard is an animal of diverse colors.94

92

93

94

“… de montibus pardorum … per pardos hereticos quorum distinctis dolis decipit … pardi propter crudelitatem vel variationem atrium malignarum.” Dove, Glossa, IV, 8, 72, 27; Dove, Glossa, IV, 8, 74, 36–37. “… de montibus pardorum … Nam quemadmodum illa animalia in montibus habitantia sunt fetidi et variis coloris ita quo heretici sunt fetentes id est vitiosi et variis in sentenciis et in sectis pravis.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 35v. “… de montibus pardorum … per pardos hereticos quorum distinctis dolis decipit diabolis … Heretici dicuntur pardi quia sunt in sententiis varii et hoc ideo quia pardus varii coloris est animal.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 68vb.

36

Chapter 1

Instead of linking heretics to leopards because the animals are hunters or predators, which would be similar to the other two animal images I have discussed, Anselm compares the divergent opinions of heretics to the leopards’ many colors or spots. Thus, he is able to offer another opinion on heretics: they are not a cohesive group. All heretics reject the Church’s teachings, but there are different heretical groups with a multitude of opinions among them. As L.J. Sackville remarks, this idea of the plurality of heresy became common in the twelfth century.95 Heretics are dangerous, Church leaders like Anselm argued, but the many and diverse sects that the Church considered heretical were by no means united, and thus heretics will be unable to band together and will be defeated by a unified Church. In addition to these images of animals as heretics, Anselm scatters other negative comments about heretics throughout his Song of Songs commentary. Glossing 5:2 in the abridged (B), version 1, “… my head is full of dew and my locks with drops of the night,” a verse in which Anselm writes of the Church bemoaning the enemies that beset her, he refers to these drops as “the opinions of heretics.”96 In commenting on 7:8 in the abridged (B), version 1, “I said: I shall climb the palm tree and seize its fruits, and your breasts will be like the grapes of the vine,” Anselm compares heretics to orthodox preachers, writing “Note that I say the grapes of the vine and not the grapes picked without vines. Grapes picked without vines are heretical. There are fruits abounding in preaching, but they are not grapes of the vine. True preachers, however, are grapes of the vine.”97 In this enigmatic gloss, Anselm seems to be saying that true preachers are grapes of the vine (the Church) because they grow to maturity, learning from the Church until they are “ripe” for preaching and can distribute the sweet wine of Christ’s teachings to a wide audience. Heretical preachers are not true grapes of the vine because they have decided to be cut off from the Church, and therefore cannot grow and flourish. Anselm also touches on the many ways in which representatives of the Church see heretics as deliberately taking on a false appearance. Over the course of the twelfth century, this became a typical attribute to ascribe to heretics; as Sackville mentions, “several of the twelfth-century church councils 95 96 97

Sackville, Heresy and Heretics, 185. “… sunt pleni guttis noctium, id est sententiis hereticorum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 70vb. “Notandum est quod dicit botros vinee et non botros extra vineas acceptos. Botri extra vineas accepti sunt heretici. Nam et illi sunt botri id est predicatione habundantes sed non sunt botri vinee. Veri autem predicatores sunt botri vinee.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 75va.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

37

contain references to false appearance in their treatment of heretics,” including the 1119 council of Toulouse and the 1157 council of Reims.98 Heretics “operated under the appearance of religion,” adopting qualities they did not truly have in order to spread their depraved doctrine.99 The sheep/wolf imagery discussed above is one way in which Anselm describes the falseness of heretics in his Song of Songs commentary, but other examples abound. In the unabridged commentary (A), Anselm quickly indicts heretics in his gloss on 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, because your breasts are better than wine.” In glossing “wine,” he writes “Wine. That is, pseudo-prophets, that is false preachers, making the less perfect in the Church deviate from the heavenly kingdom.”100 Heretics preach, but they do so without a license and without the correct doctrine. Their false preaching, Anselm states, fools those “less perfect” members who constitute the laity, and some are taken in by these slippery heretics.101 These “less perfect” members of the Church may also be fooled, Anselm states, by heretics practicing what he calls a false mortification of the flesh. In both the full commentary (A) and the abridged commentary (B), version 2, Anselm writes about this notion when glossing Song of Songs 5:5, “… my hands dripped myrrh, my fingers [were] full of the finest myrrh,” remarking “full of myrrh, that is mortification of the flesh, not feigned as heretics do, but the finest.”102 In another verse within the Song of Songs discussing myrrh, Anselm makes a similar remark in the abridged commentary (B), version 2.103 Song of Songs 5:13 speaks of the bridegroom’s lips as “lilies dripping finest myrrh,” and here Anselm writes “Lips, I say, dripping myrrh, that is pouring myrrh [out] to others, that is mortifying themselves, and not for the eye [for others to see], as heretics do, but the finest, that is not feigned.”104 Publicly 98 99 100 101

102

103

104

Sackville, Heresy and Heretics, 164. Ibid. “Vino. Pseudo prophetis, id est falsis predicatoribus facientibus minus perfectos in ecclesia deviare a celesti patria.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 4r. The idea that simple folk would be won over by heretics taking on false appearance and preaching false doctrine also became commonplace in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; see Sackville, Heresy and Heretics, 169. “Mirra, id est mortificatio carnis dico non ficta ut heretici faciunt sed probatissimam …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 41v; Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 19r. Myrrh was commonly used as an embalming fluid, and Gregory the Great and others wrote in their Song of Songs commentaries that myrrh should be associated with the mortification of the flesh. “Labia dico distillantia mirra id est aliis fundentes mirram id est se mortificant et non ad oculum ut heretici sed prima id est non fictam.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 21v.

38

Chapter 1

practicing mortification of the flesh would give heretics the appearance of piety; Anselm argues here that the “finest” mortification of the flesh is that done with a pure heart, not that done falsely. Another quality of heretics Anselm mentions in the abridged commentary (B), version 2 is that they are mobile. Those who are good examples of preachers, namely Paul and Christ, are also described as going “from place to place” in order to win converts.105 The Church herself speaks in two of Anselm’s glosses in chapter 5 as going from place to place to preach and dispute against heretics.106 Anselm, however, also declares that heretics are “confirmed in their heresy by always moving from place to place” in his gloss on Song of Songs 1:7.107 As Caterina Bruschi remarks, “the evangelical precept to ‘go and preach’ implies that both movement and preaching are requirements of true followers of Christ,” and that “the link with the imitation of Christ and the apostles and the connection with preaching were in fact shared by both heretical and nonheretical groups.”108 Wandering preachers, as will be discussed below, skirted the margins of heresy during Anselm’s lifetime, and by the middle of the twelfth century, those accused of heresy were often spoken of as moving from place to place.109 While Anselm expresses approval of those within the Church undertaking the labor of preaching and moving from place to place in order to dispute and preach, he, like other representatives of the institutional Church, objects to heretics, who lack “the strong support of a profound knowledge and correct interpretation of the Scriptures,” doing the same thing.110 In the eyes of the Church, these heretics are not wanderers seeking to pass on the word of God, but vagrants. 105

106

107 108 109

110

“Paulum suscitabant subditi sui peccantes ita quod oportuit eum ire de loco ad locum ut de Romans ad Chorinteos de Corintheis ad alios corrigendos,” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 30v; “Ferculum id est illos qui feruntur vel qui ferunt ipsum Christum de loco ad locum et per quos ipse iudicat alios quosdam ligando id est de fortibus et candidis non desequentibus molliciem carnis.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 12r. “contra hereticos disputabam ibam de loco ad locum predicando;” “resumendo laborem predicationis contra hereticos et iterum de loco ad locum ibo” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 18r-v. “id est per heresim sua confirmando sepe de loco ad locum moventur.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 3v. Caterina Bruschi, The Wandering Heretics of Languedoc (Cambridge, 2009), 103–104. See R.I. Moore, The War on Heresy (Cambridge, MA, 2012), 171, which gives an example from the 1157 council of Reims, where “Manichees” are described as “wretched weavers who move from place to place.” Bruschi, Wandering Heretics, 114.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

39

Because of all the false appearances heretics take on, and because the people are so vulnerable to their tricks, preachers must be careful in their dealings with them. Despite stating several times throughout his commentary that it is necessary for those qualified to preach and that preaching must be shared with the people, Anselm expresses some wariness about orthodox preaching being co-opted by heretics. In the unabridged commentary (A), Anselm glosses Song of Songs 3:8, “All holding swords and most experienced in making war,” by writing: Holding swords, because he who preaches is filled with [good] works, and thus he “holds” his preaching. Or then holding his preaching to himself, while not scattering it among swine; following this precept: Do not scatter your pearls among swine [cf. Mt. 7:6], that is because heretics may be able to hold [swords] and preaching, whereas they will not be able to do this if you continue to preach with discretion.111 Anselm urges those who preach to be careful not to cast their pearls before swine, that is to preach to those who they fear are unrepentant heretics. Anselm argues that preachers can serve as the major line of defense against heretics precisely because they are able to tell the difference between heretical and orthodox ideas and between unrepentant heretics and those who can be won back to the Church. In the full commentary (A) when glossing Song of Songs 7:4, “your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,” Anselm writes that the nose is “those discerning good opinions from the opinions of heretics and hypocrites.”112 He writes a similar gloss in the abridged commentary (B), version 2 on Song of Songs 1:7, “If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women, go forth and depart in the footprints of the flocks and feed your goats beside the tents of the shepherds.” Anselm turns this verse into a prayer from Christ that prelates will be able to discern between true and false preachers.113 Preachers are entrusted 111

112 113

“Tenentes gladios, quia que predicant operibus adimplent, et ita suam predicationem tenent. Vel tunc tenent ipsi predicationis suas cum nolite eas spargere inter porcos; servantes illud preceptum, nolite margaritas spargere inter porcos, id est quia possent heretici et etiam predicationem tenere, et non esse facendi atque ad predicandum discreti subdit.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 30r. “Nasus tuus … discernentes bonas sententias a sententias hereticorum et ipocritarum …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 56r. “Si ignoras te o pulchra inter mulieres egredere et abi post vestigia gregum tuorum et pasce hedos tuos iuxta tabernacula pastorum. Dixit orationem quam faciunt prelati subditorum causa ut possint dinoscere veros a falsis predicatoribus.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 3r.

40

Chapter 1

in Anselm’s commentary with the duty of protecting the Church from heretics, because only they are able to correctly gauge the threat to the Church. Overall, Anselm’s references to heretics in his commentary leave the reader with the impression that they are a destructive force that must be either won back into the Church or completely eradicated. This is not an original sentiment by any means; indeed, Christian writers had naturally been characterizing heretics in this manner for centuries. We must consider the notion, however, that Anselm’s virulent rhetoric may have been a response to a real heretical threat in early twelfth-century France, and therefore his writings about heretics in the Song of Songs commentary reveal a sense of urgency about the damage heretics might inflict on the Church. Malcolm Lambert has remarked that during this very period, “half a century’s silence in the history of Western heresy was broken.”114 Heretical movements like Arianism had flourished in the early medieval period, and several sporadic outbreaks of heresy occurred in the mid-eleventh century and met with a violent response from authorities, who burned heretics in Orléans, Monteforte, and elsewhere.115 Once these movements were repressed, heresy seemed to disappear, only to emerge again with a new, more aggressive character. Lambert, R.I. Moore, and others have posited that the Gregorian reform movement and its ultimate failure in the eyes of some clergy and laypeople to fulfill its promise of a free Church that stressed a return to the apostolic life led to this outbreak of heresy.116 Some of those who wandered throughout the European countryside preaching the value of poverty obtained licenses from the Church legitimizing their activity. In northern France during Anselm’s lifetime, the wandering preachers Robert of Arbrissel and Norbert of Xanten espoused some unconventional ideas, but remained in the orthodox fold; Robert founded the abbey at Fontevrault and Norbert established the Premonstratensian Order.117 Herbert Grundmann is careful to point out, however, that this desire to lead the 114 115 116 117

Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 2002), 43. Ibid., 32. Ibid., Medieval Heresy, 45–46; R.I. Moore, The Origins of European Dissent (Oxford, 1985), 63. Lambert, 49–50. Lambert remarks that some questions did arise among the Church hierarchy about the legitimacy of these wandering preachers, especially because they sometimes denounced the sins of the clergy. Norbert of Xanten, for example, was questioned in 1119 about his wandering preaching tours despite having received the permission of the Church, indicating the Church’s wariness toward the apostolic life early in the twelfth century.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

41

apostolic life was at the root of both orthodox and heretical movements in the early twelfth century, and “their common motivations have to be kept in mind in order to understand the course and destiny of the movement for religious poverty.”118 Since he was likely writing his Song of Songs commentary against this backdrop, it is interesting to note the possible impact that the apostolic movement may have had on Anselm. While Anselm repeatedly calls for the theological students he addresses to go out and preach, he never specifically endorses a life of poverty or a career as a wandering preacher. Anselm does share some traits with the orthodox wandering preachers in espousing simple values and good works and in that he urges his audience to purge themselves of sin and vice before preaching to others. Above all, the overwhelming emphasis on preaching in Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary places his sympathies in line with those of the orthodox wandering preachers who launched the apostolic movement. For Anselm, however, the fear of heretical preachers spreading lies about the Church and perverting the apostolic life always lurks in his exposition of the Song of Songs text. One particular incident in 1114 helps to elucidate Anselm’s attitudes toward heresy. We turn back to Guibert of Nogent, who again acts as an eyewitness to events in Laon and the surrounding area. Guibert writes about “a certain peasant by the name of Clement, who with his brother Evrard lived at Bucy, a village in the vicinity of Soissons.”119 In describing the heresy of the brothers, Guibert adopts the same attitude as Anselm, speaking of it as something that “crawls clandestinely like a serpent and reveals itself only through its perpetual slitherings.”120 Guibert writes that the heretics “reject the baptism of children before the age of reason … abhor the mystery that we perform upon our altars … condemn marriage and the production of offspring … [and] hold their meetings in underground vaults or hidden cellars.”121 Guibert notes that the heretical activities practiced by Clement and Evrard are similar to the list of the practices of the Manicheans produced by Augustine in his Liber de heresibus ad Quodvultdeum, making it difficult to know whether these peasants actually participated in such activities or whether Guibert just ascribed the heresies to them, using Augustine as his guide.122

118 119 120 121 122

Herbert Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages, trans. Steven Rowan (Notre Dame, 1995), 9. Archambault, A Monk’s Confession, 195–96. Ibid., 196. Ibid. Ibid., 196–97.

42

Chapter 1

Guibert also accuses the heretics of “claiming to be leading the apostolic life” and says that they “have read the ‘Acts’ of the Apostles and little else.”123 It is interesting that Guibert here links claims to the apostolic life with heresy, throwing into sharp relief the confusion that plagued the orthodox clergy when they were confronted with the new apostolic movement. The bishop of Soissons, unsure of what to do with the heretics, asked Guibert to question them and then subjected to them to the ordeal of cold water. Clement failed the ordeal, and Guibert notes that the crowd gathered around the proceedings “went rapturous with joy” when seeing this “proof” of Clement’s guilt and hearing Evrard’s confession.124 Guibert writes approvingly of the crowd when they, “fearing the weakness of the clergy” and seeing the bishop’s indecision, seize and burn the heretics themselves, saying “Thus the people of God, fearing the spread of this cancer, took the matter of justice into their own zealous hands.”125 If we trust the tone of Guibert’s account, the majority of peasants, at least those in and around Soissons, held true to the orthodox faith and rejected heresy, going so far as to form a violent lynch mob in an attempt to eradicate the heterodox threat.126 It is perhaps impossible to know whether or not this specific case in Bucy had any impact on Anselm’s writings or led him to condemn heresy so enthusiastically. One can easily imagine that the incident with Clement and Evrard was not an isolated one, and that there were other outbreaks of heresy in Northern France during Anselm’s lifetime. Indeed, in Anselm’s last years of life and then increasingly throughout the first half of the twelfth century, heretical movements became more widespread and cohesive throughout western Europe. Tanchelm of Antwerp, who died c. 1115, had been a priest but had a spiritual awakening while on a diplomatic mission to Rome for the Count of Flanders. He began preaching against the corruption of the clergy throughout the Low Countries and showed contempt for priestly offices by claiming the sacramental value of his bathwater and marrying himself to a statue of the Virgin in order to collect wedding gifts from the crowd gathered to see him.127 Other popular heretical leaders in Talchelm’s generation included Henry the Monk and Peter of Bruis. Peter was a priest who lived as a wandering preacher 123 124 125 126

127

Ibid., 197. Ibid., 198. Ibid. It is certainly also possible that Guibert was attributing feelings to these peasants that they did not have, and they were simply acting against those in a weaker position than themselves. Moore, Origins of European Dissent, 63–64.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

43

beginning in 1112 or 1113 in the Dauphiné, and argued that prayers for the dead were useless, infant baptism was invalid, and that the Eucharist was a unique sacrifice offered only once to the disciples.128 The Cluniac monk Peter the Venerable wrote a polemical treatise condemning Peter of Bruis (Contra Petrobrusianos), illustrating that a representative of the official Church considered this heresy particularly dangerous. Henry the Monk, who was perhaps a renegade Cluniac, preached in Le Mans in 1116, entering the city “preceded by two disciples carrying a cross on an iron-tipped staff, bearded, barefoot, and with poor clothing.”129 The bishop gave Henry permission to preach, but he was later expelled from the city for what Heinrich Fichtenau calls “views [that] placed him at the fringes of the Church” rather than out-and-out heresy.130 Nevertheless, like Peter of Bruis and Tanchelm of Antwerp, Henry argued that corrupt clergy had no power to perform sacraments and opposed infant baptism. While the more developed and dangerous heresies of the Cathars and Waldenses did not arise until the 1150s and the 1170s, respectively, it is possible to see a growing heretical threat led by charismatic preachers in the early twelfth century that deeply disturbed orthodox churchmen like Anselm and may have led him to fervently condemn heresy, but still hold out hope for prevailing upon heretics and bringing them back into the Church. Unlike heretics, Anselm communicates throughout his Song of Songs commentary that Jews need to be converted rather than persecuted. This idea that a number of Jews will be converted was present in the works of Augustine and Bede, and the idea was taken up by many theologians in the generations following Anselm, including Hugh of St. Victor, Peter the Chanter, Stephen Langton, and Alexander of Hales.131 While this optimistic view about the Jews’ future by no means indicates that Anselm viewed them without suspicion he does make clear his belief that, ultimately, most Jews will be swayed by preaching to convert, and will in turn convert others to the Christian faith. In the Song of Songs narrative, these attempts at conversion get off to a rocky start. In glossing 1:5 in the abridged commentary (B), version 1, “my mother’s sons have fought against me,” Anselm explains that this is the voice of the Church, speaking about the sons (Jews) of her mother (the Synagogue), and

128 129 130 131

Heinrich Fichtenau, Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages, 1000–1200. Trans. Denise A. Kaiser (University Park, PA, 1998), 57. Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 52. Fichtenau, Heretics and Scholars, 61. See Sarah Lipton, Images of Intolerance: The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible moralisée (Berkeley, 1999), 114–116.

44

Chapter 1

says “they have fought against me, that is they refused to accept my preaching.”132 As discussed above (p. 36), just as she felt weighed down by “the drops of the night” that Anselm interpreted as the opinions of heretics, so does the Church despair over the Jews’ refusal to be converted in Anselm’s gloss in (B), version 1 on Song of Songs 5:2, saying “my head, that is my divinity, is full of dew, that is the cold infidelity of the Jews, who say that Christ is only a man, and not God.”133 Anselm repeats a common medieval accusation linking back to the Gospels in commenting in (B), version 1 on 3:11, “go out, daughters of Sion, and see Solomon the king wearing the diadem with which his mother crowned him.” Anselm interprets “go out” as an exhortation to the Jews to “go out from literal understanding to spiritual understanding,” because due to their adherence to the literal and carnal, “Christ was crucified by the Jews.”134 Despite all of the negative glosses, however, Anselm maintains a certain optimism throughout his commentary. Writing on Song of Songs 4:12 in (B), version 1, “A garden shut up is my sister, my bride, a garden shut up, a spring sealed,” Anselm has Christ say to his bride that “the gathering of Jews are a future garden,” which is arid and uncultivated now, but will soon be fruitful.135 The garden will become fruitful when it is watered by the spring, that is, when the Jews undergo the ritual of baptism that will initiate them into the Church.136 132

133

134

135

136

“… pugnaverunt, id est noluerunt recipere predicationem meam …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 62va; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 12v. The Gloss interpretation of this verse is similar in that the Church describes the Synagogue fighting against her, but Anselm’s commentary specifically says that the Jews, and not simply an allegorical Synagogue, were fighting against the preaching of the Church. “caput meum id est divinitas mea est plena rore id est frigida iudeorum infidelitate. Dicit enim Christum tantum esse hominem et non Deum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 70vb. “egredimini de literali intellectu ad spiritualem intellectum … nam a Iudeis crucifixus est Christus.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 67rb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 17r. On the idea of the Jews as Christ-killers in the medieval Church, see Jeremy Cohen, “The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, From Augustine to the Friars” Traditio, 39 (1983), 1–27. Cohen writes that Anselm in the Enarrationes on Matthew and in the Gloss argued that the Jews killed Christ intentionally and could not claim ignorance of His true nature, but in Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary, the “sponsa de Iudeis” does claim ignorance, saying at Song 6:11 “nescivi,” and then turns to the embrace of Christ. See the following page for more on this verse. “Nam illi qui sunt in collectione tua de Iudeis sunt futuri ortus id est de inculta et inarata terra sunt futuri ortus id est culta et fructuosa terra …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 69rb. “Et non quilibet ortus sunt futuri illi de gentibus sed talis qui non erit aridus sed talis in quo erit fons signatus id est sanctus id est fons baptismatis erit in illo orto rigans illum ortum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 69rb.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

45

In (B), version 1, Anselm specifically describes how the Jews can be saved in his comment on the aptly chosen Song of Songs 5:8, “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, tell him I am languishing with love.” He actually depicts the Church’s adjuration, with her saying “O you daughters of Jerusalem, I tell you, that is, I bind you to this principle, if you find my beloved, that is Christ, through penitence. Indeed, through penitence he is found. And when you find him I adjure you to announce and proclaim this to others” (emphasis mine).137 The biblical text, “if you find my beloved” has become “when you find him.” By this point in the narrative, Anselm communicates that the ultimate plan is coming into fruition and the Synagogue is ready to be converted. By 6:11 in both the Gloss and Anselm’s commentary the Synagogue has listened to the Church give a lengthy description of Christ’s beauty and virtues. The turning point in the biblical text comes here. The text reads “I did not know. My soul perturbed me on account of Aminadab’s four-wheeled chariot.” Here, Anselm writes of a newly converted Synagogue, which has now become the “sponsa de Iudeis,” admitting the error of her ways and speaking to those Jews still unconverted. His commentary on this verse in the unabridged commentary (A) reads “O you future friends, do not still stay behind in your infidelity; you do this because of your ignorance, because you have remained in your sin and in error for so long.”138 Similarly, the abridged (B), version 1 states that this verse features “The voice of the Jewish bride thus speaking to the unconverted Synagogue: O my unconverted parents, convert without delay and thus follow my example … you, my parents, should no longer wish to remain in the literal understanding, but to cross over to the spiritual just as I did.”139 Here, the converted Synagogue actually preaches to her “parents,” and tells them of the “four-wheeled chariot” (the Gospels) and “Aminadab” (Christ)

137

138

139

“O vos filie ierusalem, adiuro vos, dico id est ad hanc regulam vos astringo si inveneritis dilectum meum id est Christum per penitentiam. Per penitentiam enim invenitur. Et cum eum inveneritis adiuro vos ut eum aliis anuncietis et predicetis …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 71vb. “O vos amice future nolite tamen in infidelitate vestra morari quam per ignorantiam hoc facitis quod vos tamdiu in peccato et in errore nostro manetis …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 53r. “Vox ipsius sponse de Iudeis sic dicentis ad sinagogam non conversam. O vos parentes mei non conversi convertimini sine mora et hoc ad exemplum mei … Vos mei parentes nolite morari in litterali intellectum sed transire ad spiritualem sicut ego feci.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 74rb.

46

Chapter 1

that converted her, and follows the exhortation of the Church in 5:8, to “announce and proclaim” Christ to others.140 The converted Synagogue continues to preach to her unconverted Jewish brethren in Anselm’s exposition of Song of Songs 7:10 in the unabridged commentary (A), but by this point in the narrative, she speaks to the Gentiles as well. In glossing the verse, “I am my beloved’s, and his turning [is] toward me,” Anselm writes “The bride, compelled to preach, turns herself toward her future friends among the Jews and the Gentiles saying: O you future friends, you have remained in unfaithfulness for a long time, but you shall be converted to the Lord your God, and he will immediately turn himself to you so that you may see and believe.”141 If you turn to Christ, the recently converted bride states, he will turn to you. The task of preaching to both unconverted Jews and Gentiles, which Anselm clearly holds to be one of the most important duties of the Church, is entrusted to those who have recently turned to Christ. This does not mean, however, that the Church is relieved of the task of preaching. In the abridged commentary (B), version 2 gloss on Song of Songs 7:8, “ I said: I shall climb the palm tree and seize its fruits,” Anselm ensures that Christ gives advice to the Church, made up of those who were once Gentiles. Anselm writes: the bridegroom reminds the Church of the Gentiles that she must work for the conversion of the Jews, who are going to be just as I have now shown [see below; Christ has just praised the Jewish bride]. Now he adds another reason so that he is able to sufficiently remind the Gentiles that they must work to convert the Jews, namely that for them and others, he deigned to ascend the cross and to suffer the punishment of sinners.142

140

141

142

On the converted Synagogue and its use in medieval commentary see Jeremy Cohen, “Synagoga Conversa: Honorius Augustodunensis, the Song of Songs, and Christianity’s Eschatological Jew,” in Speculum 79 (2004), 309–340. “Sponsa coacta ut predicet vertit se ad amicas futuras de Iudeis et sui de gentibus sic dicens: o vos amice future nolite in infidelitate diucius permanere, sed convertimini ad dominum Deum vestrum, et ipse statim convertet se ad vos et unde hoc possitis videre et credere.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 568, f. 59r. “Ammonuit sponsus ecclesiam de gentibus ut laboret de conversione Iudeorum qui futuri sunt sicut iam ostendit. Nunc aliam causam subponit que satis potest ammonere gentiles ut laboret de Iudeis convertendis scilicet quod pro illis et aliis dignatus est ascendere crucem et penam reorum pati.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 28v.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

47

With the gloss on this phrase, Anselm communicates two ideas. First of all, in this gloss, Christ reminds those in the Church that they must continue to preach to unconverted Jews; this is not now solely the task of Jews who have already converted. Secondly, Christ reminds those in the Church that he died for all – for those who were formerly Gentiles, but also for the Jews, both converted and unconverted. Christ deigned to “suffer the punishment of sinners” though he was without sin himself. Therefore, all must be included in the program of preaching, and all must be brought to Christ. In Anselm’s commentary in Chapter 7, the converted Synagogue is richly rewarded for her newfound Christian faith with Christ’s lavish praise of his new bride. In the Gloss, this chapter is interpreted as praise of the combined Church and Synagogue, but here Anselm specifically directs the praise toward the Synagogue alone.143 Jeremy Cohen has argued that Honorius Augusto­ dunensis, in his Expositio in Cantica canticorum, was the first to attribute these verses in Chapter 7 as praise for the Synagogue alone, and not praise for the combined Church and Synagogue. Cohen writes that “the figure of Synagoga conversa, one should note, has made earlier appearances in Latin commentaries on the Song of Songs, as well as in other exegetical contexts … Where his predecessors beheld Christ serenading Ecclesia in these verses, Honorius understood the body and beauty under discussion as those of Synagoga.”144 As Cohen notes, however, “sometime after 1132, perhaps as late as the mid1150s, Honorius wrote his longer and more innovative Expositio in Cantica canticorum.”145 Therefore, Anselm’s continuous commentary must have preceded Honorius’ Expositio, since Anselm died in 1117. Valerie Flint and E. Ann Matter have argued that Honorius used the Glossed Song of Songs as one of his sources for the Expositio; since the interpretation that the praise in Chapter 7 is directed at the Synagogue alone appeared not in the Gloss but in Anselm’s commentary, it seems reasonable to assert that Honorius may have also used

143

144 145

“Quam pulcri gressus in calciamentis filia principis. Vox eiusdem sponsi sic dicentis. Et propter hoc etiam debes illam exhortari. O sinagoga conversa quia quam id est quam inestimabiliter gressus tui futuri pulcri mea id est exempla tua et predicatio tua quam pulcra sunt futura in ea multum inquam. Et hoc o tu filia mei principia tu sinagoga conversa et ideo filia mea non debet imputare tibi cum tu sumas hoc in calciamentis id est in exemplis apostolorum qui sunt calciamentum et ornamentum scripturarum et omnium predicatorum.” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 74va. Note here that Christ specifically speaks to the “sinagoga conversa” and not the “ecclesia de Iudeis et gentibus.” Cohen, “Synagoga Conversa,” 324. Ibid., 311.

48

Chapter 1

Anselm’s continuous commentary as one of his sources.146 The interpretation in Honorius’ Expositio that Cohen deems “novel” and “innovative” may have been drawn from Anselm, which makes Anselm’s commentary loom even larger in its influence on high medieval Song of Songs exegesis.147 As many scholars have noted, twelfth-century Christian tradition is brimming over with contradictory ideas about the Jews. As Anna Sapir Abulafia has written, “Marked interest in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is proved by the exponential growth of Christian-Jewish disputations in the twelfth century and the large amount of exegetical work on the subject … But at the same time, we see the continuity of fundamental Christian ambiguity towards Judaism.”148 On the one hand, some twelfth-century scholars like Andrew of St. Victor and Herbert of Bosham knew some Hebrew and grappled with the works of Jewish commentators like Rashi.149 On the other hand, Jewish-Christian relations in northern Europe rapidly deteriorated in the early twelfth century, and many figures within the Church increasingly saw Judaism as the ultimate heresy and Jews as the most dangerous enemies of Christ. The 146

147 148

149

See Valerie I.J. Flint, “The Commentaries of Honorius Augustodunensis on the Song of Songs,” Revue bénédictine 84 (1974), 196–211 (205 for reference to the Gloss) and E. Ann Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, v. 1 (Leiden, 1997), 83–111, at 99. Cohen, “Synagoga Conversa,” 310, 320. Anna Sapir Abulafia, “Continuity and Change in Twelfth-Century Christian-Jewish Relations,” in Thomas F.X. Noble and John Van Engen, eds., European Transformations: The Long Twelfth Century (Notre Dame, IN, 2012), 314–337, at 329. There is a vast amount of literature from recent years on Christian-Jewish relations in the High Middle Ages and the interactions between Christian and Jewish scholars. Works touching on the idea of Christian Hebraism or at least the interactions between Jewish and Christian interpretations of Scripture include Deborah L. Goodwin, “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew:” Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism (Leiden, 2006); a number of essays in the excellent volume edited by Franklin T. Harkins, Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians Throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer (Notre Dame, IN, 2010); two works by Gilbert Dahan, Les Intellectuels Chrétiens et les Juifs au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1990), and the volume he edited, Les Juifs au Regard de l’Histoire: Mélanges en l’Honneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz (Paris, 1985); and Devorah Schoenfeld’s recent work Isaac on Jewish and Christian Altars: Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria (New York, 2013). Recent studies of Christian-Jewish relations include Christian Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages, ed. Michael Frassetto (New York, 2007); Anna Sapir Abulafia’s Christian-Jewish Relations, 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom (Harlow, 2011); and Irven M. Resnick, Marks of Distinction: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages (Washington DC, 2012). As is quite evident, this is a fertile area for even more future study.

“Preach, O Gathering of My Friends!”

49

attitude Anselm displays in his continuous commentary, at least, toward Jews seems opposed to that held by a significant portion of his contemporaries. As we have seen, he disparages Jews for their focus on the literal rather than the spiritual and criticizes them for past errors, but ultimately he feels that the majority of Jews will be converted and in turn work to convert others. Anselm’s contemporaries Guibert of Nogent, Rupert of Deutz, and Peter the Venerable, on the other hand, have little to no hope for the conversion of the Jews and indeed, see them as irredeemable sinners whose hands will always be stained with Christ’s blood. Like Anselm, Guibert, Rupert, and Peter all accuse the Jews of embracing carnality over spirituality. The latter three, however, all use vituperative language, excoriating the Jews not only for their rejection of Christ, but also claiming that they lack all reason. Rupert debated face-to-face with Jews, and John Van Engen reminds us that “in personal encounters [Rupert] could adopt a friendly attitude and debate on common ground” with Jews.150 In his writings, however, Rupert insists that “the Jews’ failure to receive Christ as the Son of God sprang from active rejection, from proud and stubborn resistance to God’s ways and teachings.”151 Anna Sapir Abulafia remarks that Rupert accused the Jews of both greed and irrationality, because “in their eagerness to keep what they believed to be God’s salvation for themselves they were intentionally unwilling to accept the idea that Jesus Christ had come to save the whole of mankind.”152 Guibert, like Rupert, debated Jews, in this case at Soissons. Guibert’s Tractatus de incarnatione contra Iudeos was also directed to Count John of Soissons, whom Guibert accused of being both a Judaizer and a heretic.153 In his treatise, Guibert asserts that the Jews lack the purity of mind and heart necessary to understand the idea of the Incarnation.154 Like Rupert, he writes repeatedly about the Jews’ concern with the Law, marveling that they could be “so concerned with the minutiae of some laws when the focal point of their Law, that is to say the Temple with its sacrifices and priesthood, was no more.”155 The Cluniac monk Peter the Venerable exceeds both Rupert and Guibert in terms of the polemical tone of his writings against Jews, going so far as to dehu150 151 152 153 154 155

Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz, 244. Ibid. Anna Sapir Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (New York, 1995), 121. Jay Rubenstein, Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind (New York, 2002), 115. Abulafia, Christians and Jews, 111. Ibid., 103.

50

Chapter 1

manize them completely by comparing them to animals (a trope somewhat similar to Anselm’s comparisons of heretics to various animals). In his Adversus Iudeos, Peter asserts that Christians have tried to explain the New Testament and a Christological reading of the Hebrew Bible many times, but Jews are too foolish to accept the Word of God. Sapir Abulafia notes that Peter repeatedly wonders at the nature of the Jews, saying “I do not know whether I am speaking to a man … I know not whether a Jew is a man because he does not cede to human reason, nor does he acquiesce to the divine authorities which are his own.”156 Peter objects to the Jews on economic and political grounds as well, arguing that they were wrongly protected by greedy kings and lords and were involved only in underhanded occupations, especially usury.157 Peter’s goal was to attack every aspect of Jewish life and religion, and he sees no redeeming value in Judaism or the Jewish people. Any rhetoric against Jews in Anselm’s Song of Songs commentary seems gentle in comparison to that of his contemporaries. As we saw above, in Anselm’s Song of Songs narrative, the Synagogue does realize the error of her ways and is given a chance to be converted and to contribute to the life of the Church. Above all, Anselm’s expressed desire for converted Jews to convert their former brethren clearly sets him apart from certain other representatives of the institutional Church in the early twelfth century. Anselm’s work on the Song of Songs becomes even more important when one takes into account the notion that hardly any school-based commentaries on the Song of Songs are extant from the first half of the twelfth century. The content of his commentary, especially his attitudes toward the conversion of the Jews and the necessity for Jews to take up preaching, would seem to be extraordinary for the early twelfth century. His attitude toward preaching in general places him within the orbit of the apostolic movement of this period, and makes him one of the earlier representatives of the institutional Church to call for pastoral reform and new approaches toward preaching and conversion. His commentary impresses his readers with the belief that preaching is the key to winning new converts to the Church and encouraging those “lukewarm Christians” to participate more fully in the life of the Church. As the following chapter will show, many of the ideas from Anselm’s continuous commentary on the Song of Songs would surface in the Gloss on that biblical book. Through his initiation and direction of the Glossa Ordinaria project, Anselm would continue to have an impact on learning within the Church well after his death.

156 157

Ibid., 116. Dominique Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion: Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism, and Islam (1000–1150) (Ithaca, NY, 2002), 284–85.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

51

Chapter 2

Innovation and Compilation at Laon: The Glossed Song of Songs and Its Influence You must not cease preaching for the sake of quietness, because Christ, who was in great quietness with the Father, to an extent interrupted quietness for the sake of preaching. Glossa Ordinaria, on Song of Songs 2:121

⸪ Jean Leclercq observed some years ago that “the Canticle of Canticles is a contemplative text … it is not pastoral in nature; it does not teach morality … it was more attuned than any other book in Sacred Scripture to loving, disinterested contemplation.”2 This echoes the view held by Leclercq’s medieval monastic predecessors. The Song of Songs was cherished by medieval monks, who saw contemplation of God and the divine mysteries as their primary, and sometimes sole, occupation. As Denys Turner states, the Song of Songs offered something no other biblical book could provide, “its exuberant celebration of eros.”3 Monks did not comment on the book, however, because they found the language erotic, but because they saw it as an allegory in which Christ shows His love for the human soul.4 The book’s language of desire, therefore, became the quintessential vehicle through which monks expressed their profound longing for God. For those committed to the monastic life, this sort of contemplation was more important than an active life of teaching and preaching. Action paved the way for the contemplative life but passed with this world, while contemplation continued and grew in the next life. Gregory the Great 1 “Pro quiete tua non debes dimittere predicationem, quia Christus qui in magna quiete erat cum patre quietem quodammodo pro predicatione intermisit.” Dove, Glossa, II, 12, 111, 20–22. A version of this chapter was printed as “From Contemplation to Action: The Role of the Active Life in the “Glossa ordinaria” on the Song of Songs,” in Speculum, v. 82, no. 1 (Jan. 2007), 54–69. 2 Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, trans. Catharine Misrahi (New York, 1961), 108. 3 Denys Turner, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs (Kalamazoo, 1995), 41. 4 Van Liere, “Biblical Exegesis Through the Twelfth Century,” 18.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_004

52

Chapter 2

expressed this view in his Moralia in Job, writing “although we do some good by the active life, we fly to heavenly desire by the contemplative life.”5 Although medieval commentaries on the Song of Songs customarily stressed the importance of contemplation, one commentary in particular turned this traditional order of religious life on its head. The twelfth-century Glossa Ordinaria on the Song of Songs, using material from Anselm of Laon’s continuous commentary on that text, argued for a return from contemplation to action, urging readers to arise from sleep to work in order to preach for the sake of the Church. Scholars recognize the central place of the Glossa Ordinaria (or the Gloss) in the history of western Christian reading and teaching of the Bible. They acknowledge that “the idea and initiative of the Gloss may be traced back to Laon and Master Anselm,” although the question still remains as to who compiled the various books and exactly when and where this task was completed.6 In recent years, scholars have increased their efforts to determine this information; Alexander Andrée has made a strong case for Anselm’s involvement in the compilation of the Gospel of John, and in her seminal work The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary, Lesley Smith has been able to tease out likely attributions for several books of the Gloss.7 In any event, the Gloss became the standard set of texts used by students for centuries thereafter as a basis for the study of the Bible, first in the various cathedral schools of northern France and later in university theology studies.8 Indeed, many scholars agree that the production of the Gloss was one of the key “mutations” that marked the intellectual and religious life of the twelfth century. The Gloss represented both a crucial stimulus for and intellectual product of what Gilbert Dahan called the “creation and development of schools located in towns,” which supplanted monastic schools and “transformed the approach to the studied texts, particularly the Bible, which was at the center of teaching.”9 But despite the importance attached to the Gloss, those who work on the text tend to focus on the innovative nature of its format as opposed to its actual

5 Quoted in Giles Constable,“The Interpretation of Mary and Martha,” in Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge, 1995), 20. 6 Alexander Andrée, ed. Gilbertus Universalis: Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete, Prothemata et Liber I (Stockholm, 2005), 20. 7 Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden, 2009). See page 32–33 in particular for a list of these attributions. 8 For example, see Kevin Madigan, Olivi and the Interpretation of Matthew in the High Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 2003), 18, and Smalley, Study of the Bible, 64–66. 9 Gilbert Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident medieval (Paris, 1999), 91–92.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

53

content.10 As I hope to show, the Glossed Song of Songs contains new content, which controverts scholarly assertions that the Gloss merely repackages patristic material in a new format for use in the schools.11 One great impediment to the careful study of the Gloss has been the lack of a satisfactory edition. J.-P. Migne’s edition of the Gloss in the Patrologia Latina, published in 1852, was the only easily available edition until a decade ago. Migne subscribed to the legend attributing the marginal glosses to Walafrid Strabo, and he published the Gloss under that name.12 Migne drew on a 1617 Douai/Antwerp edition of the Gloss in which it was claimed that Anselm of Laon wrote the interlinear gloss around 1100. Accordingly, Migne omitted the interlinear gloss, claiming that he would not print “additions of the writers of the twelfth, thirteenth, or even fifteenth centuries” to a work he believed was Strabo’s.13 There is no indication that anyone working on the Patrologia Latina project consulted the manuscript tradition. Although the Migne edition of the Gloss has been available to scholars for over 150 years, most have been frus10 11

12

13

In particular, see C.F.R. De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1984), 14–27. The list of scholars who have asserted that the Gloss does not contain new material is long. I will cite only Kevin L. Hughes, who states that the Gloss “is a complete edition of the bible that excerpts and summarizes patristic and medieval exegesis in marginal and interlinear glosses.” See Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages (Washington, DC, 2005), 207. Hughes finds no evidence in the Gloss on Paul of any new content, and indeed, I do not argue that new material can be found in any book of the Gloss other than in the Song of Songs. Most recent studies of the Gloss also emphasize the importance of form over content. That is not to say that these recent studies are not innovative; David A. Salomon’s work, for example, reads the Gloss as a sort of hypertext, using modern theories about the production and reception of texts. See David A. Salomon, An Introduction to the Glossa Ordinaria as Medieval Hypertext (Cardiff, 2012). Devorah Schoenfeld’s recent volume Isaac on Jewish and Christian Altars, referenced in Chapter 1, n. 149, has considered the content of a particular verse and examined it in both the Gloss and the work of Rashi, coming to important conclusions about Jewish-Christian relations in the High Middle Ages. A helpful study on the false attribution to Strabo is Karlfried Froelich, “Walafrid Strabo and the Glossa Ordinaria: the Making of a Myth” in a collection of Froelich’s works, Biblical Interpretation From the Church Fathers to the Reformation (Farnham, 2010), II, 192–196. This volume also contains several other important contributions to the study of the Gloss, including “Makers and Takers: the Shaping of the Biblical Glossa Ordinaria,” III, 1–19 and “The Glossa Ordinaria and Medieval Preaching,” IV, 1–21. Dove, Glossa, 5. For more on Migne’s editiorial decisions, see R. Howard Bloch, God’s Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Abbé Migne (Chicago, 1994), especially Chapter 4.

54

Chapter 2

trated by its faults; Beryl Smalley, for example, wrote that “anyone who has tried to use it knows how worthless it is.”14 The first impediment to close study of the Gloss was removed by the publication of a printed facsimile of the 1480/81 Strassburg edition of the Gloss in 1992.15 This text was produced by Adolf Rusch. In addition, the Rusch text contains very few glosses that are obviously corrupt, which indicates that it was based on a substantially reliable manuscript.16 Its publication has allowed scholars to examine individual books of the Glossed Bible. This edition offers insight into the format of the Gloss, but it is no substitute for a critical edition of the Gloss. In 1997, Mary Dove followed up on Beryl Smalley’s proposal to prepare “an edition of the Gloss [as it appeared] at the time it left the hands of Master Anselm of Laon and his circle” by publishing an edition of the Gloss on the Song of Songs.17 Dove located seventy manuscripts of the Glossed Song of Songs from English, Northern French, German, and Italian libraries and chose eight manuscripts upon which she based her edition. These included five manuscripts that Dove dated to before 1150, as well as three Parisian manuscripts, two of which date from the mid-twelfth century, and one dating to the last quarter of the twelfth century.18 One of Dove’s choices, Laon, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 74, is the earliest known extant manuscript of the Glossed Song of Songs.19 Because this manuscript is incomplete, however, breaking off abruptly at chapter 4, verse 14, Dove was unable to use it as the base for her 14 15

16 17 18 19

Smalley, Study of the Bible, 56. Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps: Adolf Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, intro. Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson, 4 vols. (Turnhout, 1992). Ibid., xv. Dove, Glossa, 3. See Dove’s introduction, 10–21, for a thorough description of each of these eight manuscripts. For assessments of the date of this manuscript, see Patricia Stirnemann, “Où ont été fabri­ qués 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 XII siècle, ed. Françoise Gasparri (Paris, 1994), 259–260, and De Hamel, Glossed Books, 2. While De Hamel accepts the notion proposed by Bernard Merlette that Laon MS 74 contains corrections in Anselm of Laon’s hand and therefore must be dated to before his death in 1117, Stirnemann discounts this idea and dates the manuscript from 1120 to 1135. Bringing together evidence from the work of Dove, Stirnemann, Merlette, and Guy Lobrichon, Lesley Smith has argued that the Gloss on the Song of Songs, along with those on Job and Revelation, can be tied more closely than any of the other Glossed books to Anselm himself and a circle of close collaborators at Laon. See Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, 32–33.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

55

edition. Instead she used Hereford Cathedral Library, MS P I 8, dated 1135–1145 as the base manuscript; glosses that do not appear in the Hereford manuscript but are present in one or more of the others are noted in the critical apparatus.20 By following one base manuscript, Dove achieved her goal of producing “a text of the Glossed Song of Songs that a scriptorium in the third quarter of the twelfth century would have been happy to receive as an exemplar.” In addition, by including glosses from several manuscripts in the critical apparatus, her edition serves as a representative text that incorporates readings spanning the twelfth century.21 Dove’s choice of the Song of Songs is fortunate in that it provides a basis for analyzing the Gloss’s treatment of a particularly significant biblical book. We can see what happened when a biblical book that was cherished by monks was glossed for the purpose of teaching in the schools.22 Dove’s edition allows scholars to explore the shift in format and intended audience that occurred between the many monastic commentaries on the Song of Songs and the Gloss of the text. Some scholars have argued that the format of the Gloss represented an adaptation and “continuation of the patristic tradition of biblical commentary,” with the scriptural text written in the center of the page, framed by marginal glosses and punctuated by interlinear glosses written above important passages.23 It is important to note, however, that the earlier examples of this type of glossed format, which amounts to two dozen Carolingian glossed Psalters, differ from the Gloss in that they are “not scholars’ books full of the latest information”; thus the precise origins of the particular form of the Gloss remain unknown.24 20

21 22

23

24

Dove, Glossa, 27. In addition, Dove used the Hereford manuscript to determine which glosses are marginal and which are interlinear, but she consulted the other manuscripts when it was “idiosyncratic in its positioning of glosses.” Dove, Glossa, 28. The notion that the Gloss was widely used in the schools as a reference book is confirmed by Robert of Melun’s vociferous objections to its use as the primary text for students; as Smalley writes, Robert felt that “Masters were reading the text for the sake of the Gloss instead of vice versa,” a practice which served to “merely waste time and distract the student from a serious study of the Bible and the Fathers.” See Smalley, Study of the Bible, 215–216. E. Ann Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria,” 83–111. This article offers an excellent overview of possible compilers of the books of the Gloss and the sources used by the glossators. Lesley Smith, “What Was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?,” in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmitterlalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. Robert E. Lerner and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (München, 1996), 5. Margaret Gibson has argued that the Gloss may have been distributed by Hugh of St. Victor or his colleagues. See “The Place of the

56

Chapter 2

Although many have acknowledged the way in which the Gloss revived this format, few have pursued the question of whether these changes led to any differences in the content of the commentaries. While Smalley noted that the Gloss included “occasional [independent] remarks by the glossators,” she and others who have investigated the Gloss argue that there are few, if any, original ideas, and that the glossators simply gave more efficient order to the traditions of earlier commentaries.25 According to E. Ann Matter, for example, the content of Glossed books is “ultimately patristic, often mediated through Carolingian compendia or reworkings of patristic exegesis, and then further selected and adapted for twelfth-century students of the Bible.”26 The contributions of the Gloss are said to lie in the glossators’ skill at choosing the exegetical traditions that best worked for their teaching purposes. For the Song of Songs in particular, Friedrich Ohly and Helmut Riedlinger, two German scholars of the 1950s who wrote on the history of medieval Song of Songs interpretation are probably the two most authoritative names in the field.27 Both men researched commentaries of the Song of Songs, with Ohly tracing the development of interpretation from 200 to 1200 and Riedlinger advancing into the fifteenth century and focusing on the idea of the spotless Church. Ohly believed that the Glossed Song of Songs was entirely derivative, and that its author was strictly conservative in his use of texts.28 Riedlinger stressed that “in the heart of its content, the Gloss was completely traditional.”29

25 26 27

28 29

Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis,” in Ad Litteram, ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery (Notre Dame, 1992), 5–27. Beryl Smalley, “Glossa Ordinaria,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie 13 (1984): 452–57. “… und dazu gelegentlichen Bemerkunen der Glossatoren.” Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria,” 85. Friedrich Ohly, Hohelied-Studen: Grundzüge Einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200 (Weisbaden, 1958); Helmut Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den lateinischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters (Münster, 1958) Ohly, Hohelied-Studen, 113–115. Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit, 119, “In ihrem inhaltlichen Kern war sie ganz traditionell …” Like Ohly and Riedlinger, in her book on the Song of Songs in the Middle Ages, E. Ann Matter explored various medieval commentaries. While she did not deal directly with the Gloss, Matter did delve into the details of commentaries that influenced the Glossed Song of Songs, such as that of Bede, and those that were in turn influenced by the Gloss, including the Expositio in Canticum Canticorum of Honorius Augustodunensis. E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity (Philadelphia, 1990). For other views of the Song of Songs in the Middle Ages, see Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (New York, 2002), which deals with the role of the Virgin Mary in the liturgy and how this influenced the Song of Songs (an aspect of the Song of Songs that the Gloss does not tackle), and Ann W.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

57

Dove implicitly discredited Ohly and Riedlinger by finding 207 glosses that she was unable to trace to any previous source, which showed that they were all but certainly new contributions.30 In checking the databases of the Patrologia Latina and the Corpus Christianorum, I was able to find sources for only five of these glosses.31 This reinforces the conclusion that most of the glosses untraced by Dove were original contributions to Song of Songs exegesis. While it is always possible that a handful of the untraced glosses may still be identified, I nevertheless take the liberty of referring to the collectivity of them from here on as “the new glosses.” Not only are these glosses new, but the doctrine of approximately thirty of them is new, as becomes clear when one notices that a surprising number of the 207 new glosses comment upon the importance of preaching. Unlike patristic sources for the Glossed Song of Songs, which generally favor the contemplative life, these new glosses repeatedly refer to contemplation as a time of leisure and even sleep that must be given up, at least temporarily, in order to turn to the task of preaching and conversion. While preaching is advocated in the Song of Songs commentaries produced by Bede and others, the reader is never exhorted to abandon contemplation for the sake of action. In contrast, the message behind several of these new glosses lends credence to the idea that the Glossa Ordinaria text, while incorporating many traditional sources and ideas, also produced an interpretation of the Song of Songs specifically directed toward those future clerics who would be active among the laity. Looking first at the inherited exegesis, the Gloss did draw heavily on the standard patristic and Carolingian texts. The three main authors whose works form the basis of the Glossed Song of Songs are Origen, Gregory the Great, and Bede. The Glossator likely based his text on the works of these authors as well as on those of Alcuin and Haimo of Auxerre, whose commentaries on the Song of Songs combined and condensed the ideas and language of all three of the .

30

31

Astell, The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, 1990), which concentrates on the role of the Song of Songs as literature and in literature, particularly in the vernacular. Dove does not make any special note of these untraced glosses except for a brief mention in her introduction of the allegorical and literal senses brought forth by one of them on p. 47; Since Dove herself does not indicate the number of glosses she was unable to trace, I determined their number by going through Dove’s critical apparatus and making note of those glosses that she does not trace to any source. Namely a gloss on chapter 4, verse 3, which can be attributed to Gregory the Great; glosses on chapter 1, verse 3 and chapter 1, verse 11, which were taken from Bede’s Song of Songs commentary; a gloss on chapter 3, verse 8 taken from Haimo of Auxerre’s Song of Songs commentary; and a gloss on chapter 6, verse 8 which was taken from Anselm of Laon’s Enarrationes in Cantica Canticorum.

58

Chapter 2

aforementioned patristic authors.32 Origen was the author of the first important Christian commentaries on the Song of Songs, which include a commentary that is preserved through chapter 2, verse 15 and a set of homilies through 2:14.33 These works were composed around 240–244, and later translated from the Greek by Rufinus and Jerome, respectively. Origen’s writings on the Song of Songs treated the book allegorically, both as an expression of the love between Christ and the Church and between Christ and the individual soul, and legitimized an emotional and even erotic reading of the text.34 The first two chapters of Dove’s edition of the Glossed Song of Songs offer 44 citations from Origen’s Homiliae in Cantica Canticorum. The Gloss was the first work to cite Origen by name, although previous exegetes had already extensively used his commentaries without naming the author.35 Due to Origen’s condemnation by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, his reputation suffered and exegetes were loath to cite him by name in their works, leading to a sort of “shadow tradition” throughout the early Middle Ages wherein Origen was frequently quoted but not named.36 The influence of Gregory the Great, largely as transmitted by Bede, is evident throughout Dove’s edition of the Glossed Song of Songs. Gregory’s work on the Song of Songs appears in the Moralia in Job and the Homiliae in Hiezechielem Prophetam as well as the fragmentary Expositio in Canticum Canticorum.37 As Ann Matter noted, his interpretation of the Song of Songs was new in that it showed “a pastoral concern for individual Christians, who can be led astray even by those within the hierarchy of the Church.”38 Gregory, who as both a monk and as pope was concerned with the Church’s sanctity, did not show the Church as entirely triumphant but rather as beset by enemies from within. This theme of the laxity and corruption of the Church can be seen in many medieval commentaries on the Song of Songs that followed, including the 32 33

34 35 36 37

38

Dove, Glossa, 29–30. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, 26; Origen, ed. Baehrens, Homiliae in Cantica Canticorum, trans. Jerome in Origenes Werke 8, Die griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, vol. 33 (Leipzig, 1925), 26–60. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, 30–35. Ibid., 38. Matter mentions that the Gloss’s open use of Origen influenced the popular biblical paraphrase Aurora, written by Peter Riga between 1170 and 1200, to follow suit. Ibid., 39–40. Gregory the Great, Expositio in Canticum Canticorum, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 144 (Turnhout, 1963), 1–46; ibid., Homiliae in Hiezechielem Prophetam, ed. M. Adriaen, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 142 (Turnhout, 1971); ibid., Moralia in Job, ed. M. Adriaen, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 143–143B (Turnhout, 1979–1985). Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, 95- 96.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

59

Gloss. Gregory stressed the superiority of the contemplative life, and praised the active life in terms of its role as preceding the contemplative life. The Gloss, however, alters this idea, arguing that it is necessary to arise from the rest of contemplation to an active life of preaching in order to lend aid to the Church. By far the most frequently cited work in the Glossed Song of Songs is Bede’s In Cantica Canticorum.39 This work contained a five-book running commentary on the Song of Songs and an additional book, which was a collection of passages on the Song of Songs taken from works of Gregory the Great other than his Song of Songs commentary.40 The compiler of the Glossed Song of Songs adopted a modified version of the form of Bede’s commentary, which is in speaker-rubrics.41 Therefore, the text of the Glossed Song of Songs is peppered with phrases like “the bridegroom says” and “the bride replied” that preface some of the glosses.42 This format tends to increase the interest of the reader and heighten the drama of the allegory. Bede’s commentary emphasized the monastic life of prayer and contemplation as the human ideal. Most of the passages in which Bede wrote about the active and contemplative lives urged a balanced approach. Bede follows Gregory in arguing that the two lives are connected, but clearly states in his commentary on Luke that the life of Mary (contemplative) is superior to the life of Martha (active) because it cannot be taken away from her and will continue even beyond death.43 While Origen, Gregory, and Bede all praise preaching, they always assert that contemplation is superior. In the new glosses on the Song of Songs, the Gloss author does not endorse this view. He instead argues that because the Church is in peril, preaching is superior to the contemplative life, at least for a time. Rather than merely parroting his sources, the author of the Glossed Song of Songs dared to write a commentary that introduced a new emphasis on the positive value of preaching and the active life. The new passages emphasizing preaching permeate the entire Glossed Song of Songs, beginning in chapter 1, verse 6, “show me the man whom my soul loves where you feed where you rest at midday …” The twelfth-century author expounded on this passage with a marginal gloss derived from Bede stating that this exhortation comes from the bride, asking Christ “that she may be able 39 40 41 42 43

Bede, In Cantica Canticorum, ed. D. Hurst, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 119 B (Turn­hout, 1985), 166–375. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, 97. Dove, Glossa, 29. These speaker-rubrics are also present in Haimo of Auxerre’s commentary on the Song of Songs, and may have entered the Gloss by way of this work. Ibid. Constable, Three Studies, 24.

60

Chapter 2

to discern in what kind of avocation and labor he may be found.”44 While this gloss is vague as to how to go about seeking Christ, the new gloss explaining the same passage that follows is very explicit. Specifically it says that this could also be “the voice of the preachers asking the bridegroom [Christ] to enable them to discern in what ways they ought to administer the words of life.”45 This gloss cleverly echoes the language of the one that precedes it, and easily communicates the point that preachers are to be identified with the Church and that preaching is the “kind of avocation and labor” in which Christ may be found. This marginal gloss is followed by a new interlinear gloss which equates “where you feed” with the active life and “where you rest” with the contemplative life or rest after activity, a theme that will return in other new glosses later in the Gloss.46 Chapter 5, verse 2 of the Glossed Song of Songs also emphasizes preaching over contemplation. “I am asleep and my heart keeps watch” is interpreted as the Church being “[admonished to be] strengthened by others, lest she should recklessly leave off preaching and devote herself entirely to contemplation.”47 Since the Church is not yet perfect, she must continue to preach in order to “exhort those in the Church who are lukewarm” in regard to their faith.48 The passage “my head is full of dew and my locks with the drops of the night” is taken to mean that faith in the Church has dwindled “in the hearts of those blinded by love of earthly things,” and therefore “for the sake of correcting these it is necessary for you to put aside the sweetness of contemplation.”49 44 45

46 47

48

49

Dove, Glossa, I, 6, 95, 7–8, “… exorat ut possit discernere in quorum professione et opera possit inveniri …” Dove, Glossa, I, 6, 95, 12–13, “Vel in voce predicatorum ad sponsum, ut discernere possint quibus vitae verba dispensare debeant.” Compare this to Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 62vb, “Vel in voce predicatorum ad sponsum ut discernere possunt quibus verba vite predicare debeant.” Dove, Glossa, I, 6, 105–106, 37–39,” [ubi pascas] id est actius; [ubi cubes] scilicet in contemplativis, post pastum quies.” Dove, Glossa, V, 2, 21, 8–10, “… ne secura predicationem dimittat et soli contemplationi intendat, iniungitur ei de aliorum confirmatione …” Cf. Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 70va, “ne secura ideo predicationem dimittat et soli contemplationi intendat iniungitur ei de aliorum confirmatione dum dicitur.” Dove, Glossa, V, 2, 21, 14–15, “… sed potius ad eos exhortandos qui sunt tepidi in ecclesia. Cf. Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 70va-b, “Et hic non videntur mitti ad omnio infideles sed potius ad eos exorandos qui sunt tepidi in ecclesia.” Dove, Glossa, V, 2, 24, 29–30, 34–35, “amor mei in cordibus eorum excecatis amore terrenorum refrixit et quasi prorsus defecit … et causa horum corrigendum oportet te dulcedinem contemplationis interponere.” Cf. Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 70rb, “Cincinni id est amor proximorum qui sunt capilli mihi capiti inherentes sunt pleni guttis noctium

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

61

Preaching is clearly seen as the way of protecting the Church and winning converts and lukewarm Christians to her side. If the Glossed Song of Songs can be said to follow a narrative of sorts, it follows Gregory and Bede in relating the Church’s journey from its primitive state to its ideal state in union with Christ. The idea of the primitive Church battling enemies from within and without in order to achieve perfection derives from Gregory the Great’s Expositio in Canticum Canticorum and was transmitted to the Gloss through Bede’s In Cantica Canticorum. Gregory and Bede rely primarily on a combination of monastic virtues and elements of the active life in order to spur the Church along its path to perfection. For them, action leads to the perfection of contemplation. In the Glossed Song of Songs, however, there are several new glosses dealing with the primitive church that place a particular emphasis on breaking off contemplation entirely in order to tend to the preaching and good works that will lead to the conversion of Jews and those who have become lax in their faith. The monastic idea that leaving off contemplation to preach is a form of intense suffering is present in the Glossed Song of Songs, but the bulk of the new glosses dealing with this issue praise action over contemplation or equate contemplation with rest. Interestingly, the Gloss author never seems to openly acknowledge disjunctions between the patristic sources he employs and his new glosses. These different views on the active life exist side by side in the Gloss text. At the beginning of the second chapter of the Song of Songs, the primitive Church is at rest in contemplation, having been led to a state of near perfection by the apostles and by the sacrifice of Christ. At this point in the biblical text, Christ declares “I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valley,” and adjures the Church to prepare for the duty of preaching. The marginal gloss taken from Bede that is included in the Glossed Song of Songs refers to a Church that must give up the quietness in which she delighted in order to “exercise herself in toil” by preaching.50 After lavishly praising the bridegroom, the Church is again called by Christ and she hears “the voice of my beloved/behold he comes leaping on the mountains, jumping over the hills.” In this new gloss, the bride “notices that she is being implicitly instructed that she should wish voluntarily to rise,” that is, the Church should desire to turn to the

50

id est paciuntur grave frigus persecutionis tenebrosorum id est et erga me sunt infideles et proximos persecuntur et causa horum corrigendorum oportet te dulcedinem contemplationis interponere.” Dove, Glossa, II, 1, 1, 4–5, “ad laborum exercitia.”

62

Chapter 2

active life.51 In addition, this same new gloss shows the Church and its members recognizing the job they had to do: For after the apostles placed in the primitive church of the nations had led themselves and others into such a state of perfection that they then took time off for contemplation, they again realize[d] the duty imposed on them, that of traveling throughout the world and establishing new churches.52 Although the author of this gloss does not mean to imply that contemplation is a hollow pursuit, he makes it clear that contemplation must be subordinated to action when it is necessary for the good of the Church as an institution. Christ repeats his adjuration to the Church in chapter 2, verse 10 to “arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come.” Bede’s gloss on the word “come” taken over by our glossator reads “‘Come’ to devote yourself to the salvation of your neighbours through sedulous attention to preaching.”53 This would seem to be sufficient to express the importance of preaching, but a striking new additional gloss reads “… so that you may be worthy to be received with the great company at the wedding [the heavenly banquet], as if [the bridegroom says]: ‘you believe you will quickly come [to me] if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming [to me] is through work of this kind.’”54 These words are especially potent because the author placed them in the mouth of Christ, who seems to be endorsing the salvific power of preaching over that of contemplation, at least when the Church is in peril. As the narrative continues, the importance of preaching is the subject of several more new glosses. In Song of Songs 2:12, Christ announces, “flowers 51 52

53 54

Dove, Glossa, II, 8, 54, 6–8, “… animadvertit sibi latenter precipi ut ipsa sponte surgere velit.” Dove, Glossa, II, 8, 54, 9–14, “Postquam enim apostoli in primitiua gentium ecclesia positi in tantam perfectionem se et alios induxerant ut iam contemplationi vacarent iterum intelligunt sibi impositam necessitatem discurrendi per totum mundum et construendi novas ecclesias.” Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 90, 24–25, “Veni ad impendendam etiam proximis curam salutis per studium sedulae predicationis …” Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 90, 25–28, “… ut cum magno comitatu ad nuptias merearis recipi, quasi: credis te venturam si vacaveris contemplationi, sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi.” Cf. Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 7v; Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 6r, “Surge id est interrumpe contemplationis tuam et veni id est propara comites ut digne possis accedere ad nuptias.” See also Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 7r; Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 5v, “et veni, ideo sis parata ad nuptias ita ut cum veneris vestes ac familiam tecum adducas ut digna possis venire ad nuptias.”

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

63

have come forth upon our earth, the time for pruning has come/the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land.” While the previously discussed gloss referred to Christ speaking about the importance of preaching, a new marginal gloss in this passage exhorts people to emulate Christ by leading an active life: “You must not cease preaching for the sake of quietness, because Christ, who was in great quietness with the Father, to an extent interrupted quietness for the sake of preaching.”55 Since Christ was willing to give up the perfect peace of heaven in order to preach, it should not be difficult for a prelate or priest to interrupt his comparatively inferior contemplation and quietness in order to do the same. Connected with this gloss are three new interlinear glosses that speak either of the ineffability of God or of the weaknesses of contemplation.56 These glosses assert that no one can know God, no matter how much time they spend in contemplation. In Song of Songs 5:6, the Church says, “I opened the door to my beloved but he had turned aside and gone by.” The new gloss for “gone by” asserts that “God does not show himself fully to anybody but, incomprehensible, surpasses the senses of all people.”57 Song of Songs 6:4 features Christ telling the Church, “turn your eyes away from me because they have made me flee [from you].” In the marginal glosses to this verse, Bede and Alcuin both warn against attaching too much importance to contemplation, and the new interlinear gloss expands on this, equating the eyes of the bride to “the feeble contemplation of your mind,” emphasizing the folly of devoting oneself entirely to the contemplative life.58 The final new gloss in the edition, coming at the very end of the last chapter and verse, shows the Church’s acceptance of its inability to know God while still on earth. The Church understands that Christ must depart, and says “flee, my beloved, and be like a gazelle and the young of stags upon the mountains of spices.” The new gloss of the word “flee” is again the Church saying to Christ “you do not allow yourself to be known,

55

56

57

58

Dove, Glossa, II, 12, 111, 20–22, “Pro quiete tua non debes dimittere predicationem, quia Christus qui in magna quiete erat cum patre quietem quodammodo pro predicatione intermisit.” These interlinear glosses are literally written between the lines of commentary and biblical text, and tend to be quite brief, whereas marginal glosses are found in the margins surrounding the main body of text and are often lengthier. Dove, Glossa, V, 6, 74, 37–38, “[transierat] quia Deus nulli ad plenum patet sed incomprehensibilis sensus omnium excedit.” Cf. Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 71va, “Nam ego quesivi id est investigavi illum intellectui meo sed tamen altitudinem divinitatis eius intellectu non potui comprehendere.” While the language is not the same, the idea expressed is very similar. Dove, Glossa, VI, 4, 30, 21, “[oculos tuos] tuae mentis infirmam contemplationem.”

64

Chapter 2

but to be understood by faith alone,” which stresses the simple virtue of faith over the lofty goals of contemplation.59 This idea of those who understood God by faith alone [the laity] appearing in one of the final glosses of the Songs of Songs relates to several new glosses that address the so-called simple or lowly members of the Church. Both Christ and the Church urge each other to impart wisdom to these lowly Christians and help them grow in their faith. In Song of Songs 2:17, the Church urges Christ to let his presence be known, saying “until the day will breathe and the shadows incline/turn back my beloved, be like a gazelle or like the young of stags, on the mountain of Bethel.” In the marginal gloss for the second line, Bede has the Church asking God to “Mark lofty minds with your tracks.”60 A new gloss adds, “when descending from them appear also to the lowlier [minds] that are in the valley,” asking Christ to bestow knowledge and grace on people other than simply priests, prelates, and church leaders.61 Despite asking Christ to favor lowlier Christians, the new glosses also show some fear of them. At the same time, the glosses also evince a desire to help the lowly. In Song of Songs 5:4, the new marginal gloss of the ostensibly most erotic verse “my beloved puts his hand through the aperture and my insides trembled at his touch,” has the Church saying “I am very afraid of worldly affairs, but I understand that love covers a multitude of sins [cf. 1 Peter 4:8], and I trust in the help of my beloved, by whom their hearts are already pierced.”62 As long as these worldly people have faith in Christ, the Church feels more comfortable in administering to them. Another new gloss follows, this time on “and my insides trembled at his touch.” The author equates this trembling with fear and cowardice, saying that “The heart trembles if it refuses to do for its neighbours what God did for his enemies.”63 This gloss expresses the author’s belief that preachers should be able to minister to their neighbors in Christ without any fear of their worldly nature. In two different new glosses in book five of the Glossed Song of Songs, the elect and the lowly are encouraged to learn from each other. The phrase 5:1, “I have eaten [my] honeycomb with its honey, I have drunk my wine with my 59 60 61 62

63

Dove, Glossa, VIII, 14, 26–27, “[fuge] non permittas te cognosci sed sola fide intelligi.” Dove, Glossa, II, 17, 172, 16, “In excelsis mentibus vestigia pone …” Dove, Glossa, II, 17, 172, 16–18, “… et ab illis aliquando etiam condescendendo inferioribus appare qui in valle sunt.” Dove, Glossa, V, 4, 49, 6–9, “… pertimesco quidem seculi conversationem, sed intelligo quod caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum et confido in dilecti mei auxilio, a quo iam sunt compuncta corda eorum.” Dove, Glossa, V, 4, 51, 18–19, “Cor tremiscit si facere recusant pro proximis quod Deus fecit pro inimicis.”

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

65

milk/eat, friends, and drink …” was interpreted as dishes served at a sort of banquet joining together members of the church. Bede glossed “eat, friends, and drink” as Christ encouraging “the faithful to rejoice together over the kind of banquet at which they may more fully show the mutual loving care between them.”64 The new gloss added to Bede’s states that at this banquet, “the lesser ones may concern themselves with learning by imitation what they see among the greater.”65 New glosses also encourage the reader to learn from lowly members of the clergy, who are said to display the simple virtues of faith and humility. While the new glosses in chapter 5, verse 8 do not advocate the elect imitating these lower clergymen, they do point out some of their strengths. The new marginal gloss interprets “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved/ to tell him that I am languishing with love.” The daughters of Jerusalem are “those in lowly positions in the church, whom their superiors also admonish to seek [the bridegroom] with them, because what is sought by many is sometimes found more quickly, and so that the dearness of love may be revealed everywhere.”66 This gloss assigns a positive value to the faith and religious fervor of those in lowly church positions. The new interlinear gloss of “if you find” even suggests that these humble clergymen may be more useful than the elect in seeking Christ: “it sometimes happens that one who began to search not long ago may find [the object sought] more quickly than one who began to search a long time before.”67 It is well to note that not all of the new glosses are by any means as novel and striking as those described above. Indeed, many of them expressed in different language ideas that were common in patristic exegesis of the Song of Songs. For example, the new gloss of Song of Songs 1:2, “fragrant with the best perfumes/your name is oil poured out” reads that this is true “because it [Christ’s name] surpasses all the anointings of the old law in nature and effect.”68 64 65

66

67 68

Dove, Glossa, V, 1, 5, 33–35, “… hortatur fideles ad congaudendum super tali convivio ut amplius mutuam inter se dilectiones curam exhibeant …” Dove, Glossa, V, 1, 5, 35–36, “et minores quod in maioribus viderint memoriter imitari satagant.” Cf. Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, f. 70va, “et minores, quod in maioribus viderint memoriter imitari et satagant.” Dove, Glossa, V, 8, 92, 8–12, “Vel per filias Ierusalem possumus accipere etiam inferiores in ecclesia quos admonent etiam superiores ut secum querant, quia quod a pluribus queritur quandoque citius repperitur et ut ubique caritas dilectionis ostendatur.” Dove, Glossa, V, 8, 93, 13–15, “[si inveneritis] evenit aliquando ut qui nuper querere incepit citius inveniat quam ille qui dudum querere inceperat.” Dove, Glossa, I, 2, 29, 35–36, “[unguentis optimis] quia precedit effectu et natura omnes unctiones veteris legis.”

66

Chapter 2

Although this idea was not expressed by patristic authors when commenting upon this scriptural phrase, the notion that the new law surpasses the old was certainly common in the Christian tradition. Similarly, the new gloss of Song of Songs 5:15 reads, “his thighs are marble columns established upon golden pedestals,” who are “the prophets, because He appeared just as He was predicted by those reading in the divine dispensation …”69 Again, the idea that the prophets predicted the coming of Christ has been expressed many times in patristic exegesis, so the new gloss in the Glossed Songs of Songs, while perhaps original in the way that it phrased that idea, drew on traditional exegesis. In addition, one of the new glosses seems to have been included as a point of clarification for students using the text. The first five verses of chapter 4 of the Song of Songs is an extended description of the various body parts of the beloved, which are interpreted both in the patristic exegesis and in the Glossed Song of Songs as the various groups that make up the Church. After commenting upon Song of Songs 4:1, “your eyes are of doves, apart from that which lies inside,” the compiler of the Glossed Song of Songs inserted a gloss that reads: So that all things may flow more easily, let us briefly run through the items one by one: the tresses are the willing poor, the cheeks [Song of Songs 4:3] are the noblest prelates, the teeth (those within the cheeks) [Song of Songs 4:2] other lower prelates, the lips [Song of Songs 4:3] preachers.70 Although the parts of the beloved are described again in their proper places in Song of Songs 4:2–3, the glossator of the Glossed Song of Songs seems to have wanted to ensure that the students using the text would be clear on the details of this passage. This change suggests that the author wanted to provide a point of reference that would be especially helpful to future preachers, aiding them in compiling their own sermons. Another new gloss seems to impart to students of the Bible the idea that what they study is more important than any other subject taught in the schools. A gloss on chapter 4, verse 10, “how beautiful are your breasts, my sister, my bride/your breasts are more beautiful than wine,” reads “[the bridegroom says] ‘all the things you teach are [more beautiful] more honest and more useful 69 70

Dove, Glossa, V, 15, 150, 9–11. “… id est super prophetas, quia talis apparuit qualis predictus ab illis in divina dispositione legentibus …” Dove, Glossa, IV, 1, 7, 23–26, “Ut facilius cuncta liquescant breviter singula percurramus: capilli sunt spontanei pauperes, genae summi prelati, dentes vero genarum alii inferiores prelati, labia sermocinatores.”

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

67

[than wine] than legal or philosophical teachings.’”71 This gloss shows Christ reassuring the Church that her work is superior to any sort of secular teachings, and may have been included in the Gloss text to reemphasize to scriptural students the importance of their work as preachers. Overall, it can be generalized that few (approximately 30 to 40) of the 202 new glosses are innovative, but that those that are novel are largely concerned with the importance of preaching and the active life. While these new glosses repeatedly stress the need for preaching, they are frustrating in that the glossator rarely states explicitly what should be preached and instead only offers vague impressions of what he felt was necessary for preachers to communicate to their audience. This is somewhat different from Anselm’s continuous commentary discussed in the previous chapter, which at least seemed to provide some advice to future preachers about varying their sermons for differing audiences. A new gloss on chapter 1, verse 9, “your cheeks are beautiful like a turtle dove’s,” does state that these cheeks are “preachers, who grind up the food of the Scriptures and make it edible for its hearers.”72 While this gloss does not offer any specifics, it indicates that preachers are enjoined with the task of presenting biblical texts to their audience in such a way as to make them easily understood. Another new gloss, on chapter 2, verse 12, “flowers have come forth upon our earth, the time for pruning has come,” specifically mentions that “the time for the remission of sins has come,”73 which may refer to the need to preach penance. While the new glosses never state explicitly that preachers should instruct their audience on moral issues, this is implied in several glosses that stress the importance of performing good works and teaching others to do the same. Also frustrating is the lack of specific reference to the audience preachers should be addressing. The new glosses simply speak of converting “lukewarm Christians” who have become lax in their faith. Most often, the glossator adopts 71

72

73

Dove, Glossa, IV, 10, 99–100, 30–32, “[pulchriora] honestiora et utiliora sunt omnia quaecumque tu doces/[vino] quam philosophicae vel legales doctrinae.” Cf. a similar sentiment in glossing Song 3:1 in Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338, 66ra, “Vel ideo non inveni eum quasi quesivi eum per noctes id est per philosoficas sententias quibus non potet inveniri que sententie dicuntur noctes quia sunt obscure. Deus enim solis bonis operibus et bonis cogitationibus invenitur non per philosophorum sententias.” Dove, Glossa, I, 9, 137, 39–41, “[genae tuae] vel genae, predicators qui cibum scripturarum conterunt et auditoribus comestibilem reddunt.” Cf. Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 3v, “id est illi predicatores tui qui habent officium genarum id est cibum conterunt et in alium dimittunt id est qui sacram scripturam bene perspiciunt et postea inferioribus trandunt.” Dove, Glossa, II, 12, 109, 12, “… venit tempus remissionis peccatorum.”

68

Chapter 2

the term for the preacher’s audience used by Bede: “neighbors” who need to be brought back into the fold of the church. Due to the lack of evidence it can only be inferred that because the Glossed Song of Songs was part of a project that grew out of an urban milieu, the implicit audience is the new urban population that was rapidly increasing. The theology students studying from the Gloss text would be given the task of preaching to those living in towns and cities, a task which became more urgent as the urban population grew.74 To sum up, out of the 202 untraced glosses in the Glossed Song of Songs that I am calling “new,” over thirty of them call for a special commitment to the active life. This fits well with our understanding that the Glossed Song of Songs was created in a school environment and was intended largely to help train future preachers and teachers. The Gloss was supposed to instruct people who would eventually be responsible for pastoral care, so a text that urged students to devote time to preaching makes sense within this context. These explicit calls to the active life and preaching originating in a school environment allow us to view the growing emphasis on the vita apostolica in a new context. As Caroline Walker Bynum has stated, “the years between 1050 and 1215 saw a … new emphasis on the obligation to love and serve one’s neighbor, a new sense that Christ wished his followers not merely to worship him and avoid wrongdoing but also to care for their brothers.”75 The importance of preaching as an integral part of the vita apostolica emerged gradually throughout this period. The late eleventh and early twelfth centuries saw the emergence of wandering preachers, who in many cases gained permission from the Church to preach. As Herbert Grundmann reminds us, however, many of these same preachers subsequently ran afoul of the hierarchy when they “scourged the sins of the clergy with reckless abandon, stimulating opposition from groups favoring the hierarchy as well as threatening to undermine general respect for the hierarchical order.”76 In contrast, the new glosses in the Glossed Song of Songs express the views of one who was part of that hierarchical order. The Gloss does acknowledge the possible moral failings of preachers, and in a new gloss on Song of Songs 3:8 urges students to avoid impulses of the flesh 74

75 76

It is worthwhile to note that the movement for independent urban organizations in northern France was just getting underway in the period when the Gloss was being composed. Indeed, as we have seen in Chapter 1, in Laon itself there was a communal uprising in 1112, described by Guibert of Nogent. A charter was granted to Laon in 1128, leading to the creation of an urban class with its own law and status. See the introduction to Edmond-René Labande, Guibert de Nogent: Autobiographie (Paris, 1981). Caroline Walker Bynum, “The Spirituality of Regular Canons in the Twelfth Century,” in her Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1982), 22. Grundmann, Religious Movements, 19.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

69

“lest when they preach to others they are themselves found reprobate.”77 The new glosses, however, show respect and admiration for a clergy that includes preachers who teach by word and example. The Glossed Song of Songs can perhaps be seen as representing the beginning of a shift toward authoritative acceptance of an apostolic life centered on preaching. While some canons and wandering preachers were beginning to advocate the active life by the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, monks typically defined the vita apostolica in a different way. According to Giles Constable, “up until at least the twelfth century the vita apostolica referred to the withdrawn life of the apostles described in the book of Acts.”78 In the monastic realm, some questioned the way of life that focused entirely on contemplation, but most felt that they were living the true apostolic life. As M.-D. Chenu observed, works such as De vita vere apostolica, written by Rupert of Deutz in the 1120s, claimed that the true apostolic life “was not preaching or baptizing but being virtuous and, in particular, living more humbly than anyone else.”79 Any calls to preaching that emerged in the early twelfth century “remained blocked, within this paramonastic world, by the lack of an encounter with the secular realities which condition any apostolic conquest.”80 Rupert’s position on the vita apostolica was still the prevailing one when the Glossed Song of Songs was compiled. The notion that the apostolic life did include, and indeed should be centered upon, preaching only began to emerge prominently by the middle of the twelfth century.81 Thus, the emphasis on the active life in the Glossed Song 77 78 79

80

81

Dove, Glossa, III, 8, 78, 23–24, “ne cum predicant ipsi reprobi inveniantur.” See the previous chapter for more on this theme in Anselm’s continuous commentary. Constable, Three Studies, 175. M-D. Chenu, “Monks, Canons, and Laymen in Search of the Apostolic Life,” in his Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century, ed. Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little (Chicago, 1968), 202–238, at 211. Ibid., 212–213. For more on monks and regular canons and their view of the active and contemplative lives in the twelfth century, see Caroline Walker Bynum, Docere Verbo et Exemplo: An Aspect of Twelfth-Century Spirituality (Missoula, MT, 1979). Although members of the Church were actively debating the role of preaching and the active life by the late twelfth century (see for example Phillipe Buc, “‘Vox Clamantis in Deserto?’ Pierre le Chantre et la Predication Laïque” Revue Mabillon 4 (1993), 5–47), I have been unable to find solid evidence that the official Church was placing emphasis on preaching around the time the Gloss was composed (c. 1100–1130). As mentioned above, the Church did grant permission to preach to some wandering preachers in the late eleventh and early twelfth century, but none of these figures were members of the Church hierarchy. Various apostolic groups also emerged in the early twelfth century, such as that of Stephen of Thiers-Muret (d. 1124), who believed in personal and communal poverty, and taught that the Gospel was the “Rule of Rules” for Christians, but these communities

70

Chapter 2

of Songs stands out for being so early, and indicates that the glossator’s attitude toward preaching was atypical for the time.82 By the late twelfth century, it is possible to see the impact that the Glossed Song of Songs had on those masters who trained future preachers at the university of Paris. The commentaries of Peter the Chanter and Stephen Langton, who taught at Paris roughly three-quarters of a century after the Gloss was produced, show that the idea of the importance of the active life as transmitted by the Glossed Song of Songs lived on.83 These commentaries, moreover, perhaps reflecting the increased urgency placed on preaching in the schools, further emphasized the importance of the active life. This focus on reform was already present in the Glossed Song of Songs long before the Chanter and Langton expressed it, which shows that the Glossator stood at the vanguard of

82

83

did not focus on preaching as an integral part of the active life. As Duane V. Lapsanski notes, “during the 1170s and 1180s the relationship [between the Church and apostolic groups] was marked by open conflict, bitterness, and excommunications,” indicating that the debate over what activities comprised the active life had not yet been resolved. See Lapsanski, Evangelical Perfection: An Historical Examination of the Concept in the Early Franciscan Sources, Franciscan Institute Publications, Theology Series, 7 (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1977), 36. Toward the beginning of my investigation into the Glossed Song of Songs, the notion that the author of these glosses emphasizing the importance of the active life may have been atypical led me to pursue the idea that he may have been Peter Abelard. Abelard was a student at Laon in 1113, and his frequent citations of Origen by name in his only extant biblical commentary (on Romans), may provide a link to the Gloss, which is thought to be the first work to cite Origen by name. When this possibility is examined, however, Abelard’s authorship of the Glossed Song of Songs seems rather unlikely. In the first place, Abelard’s contempt for Anselm (and vice versa) would seem to preclude Abelard’s involvement in a project spearheaded by Anselm. Secondly, in other writings, Abelard placed more importance on the contemplative life than the active life. For example, in a sermon on John the Baptist, Abelard wrote, “The more imperfect life of active men is a sort of beginning of the faithful, in which they exert themselves before they rise to the perfection of contemplation,” quoted in Constable, Three Studies, 79. The postill of Hugh of St. Cher both shows his dedication to preaching as a member of the Dominican Order and draws heavily on the Gloss interpretation, indicating that the Gloss’s influence on the content of what was taught at the university of Paris was felt well into the thirteenth century. John W. Baldwin notes that “the Chanter’s most distinctive trait was to turn the Song of Songs into an elaborate allegory on preaching and teaching that followed the parts of the sexual body,” but it seems that the Chanter adopted this method from the Glossed Song of Songs. See John W. Baldwin, The Language of Sex: Five Voices from Northern France around 1200 (Chicago, 1994), 170. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 below will elaborate on Anselm and the Gloss’ influence on these three authors.

Innovation and Compilation at Laon

71

a movement calling for increased preaching to the laity. In its role as a text widely used in the schools, the Glossed Song of Songs was able to impart this idea of the importance of preaching and the active life to those students who would serve as the link between the Church and the world.

72

Chapter 3

Chapter 3

“Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching.” Peter the Chanter’s Practical Approach to the Song of Songs As the twelfth century wore on, the intellectual scene in France began to shift from scattered cathedral schools like that at Laon toward consolidation at Paris. It was during this dynamic period that the Parisian schools “gradually surpassed those of Laon, Reims, Orléans, Chartres, and other towns to place the royal city … at the fore of learning in northern Europe.”1 As more schools were established, the number of students inhabiting Paris steadily increased, and eventually the population spilled over from the crowded Ile de la Cité to the Left Bank, which was still rather bucolic in mid-century, “with cultivated vineyards and spacious meadows and fields close at hand.”2 Even as Paris began to outstrip Laon as a center of learning, Laon’s primary intellectual product, the Gloss, continued to serve as a cornerstone of theological education. The Gloss became one of the primary textbooks used by theology students and served as the basis for biblical commentaries composed by Parisian masters. Among these masters, one of the most active and influential was Peter the Chanter (d. 1197). As John W. Baldwin and others have noted, the Chanter was the first master working in Paris to write commentaries on all books of the Bible, and therefore he left behind an extensive body of written work.3 This chapter will examine the Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary, which in both its structure and many of its ideas follows the program of interpretation laid out by the Gloss. In his commentary, however, the Chanter expanded on the Gloss’s exegetical program, and focused on what Beryl Smalley called “moral training,” the preparation of his theology students for their role in the world outside the schools.4 The Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary allows insight into the changing nature of biblical exegesis in the twelfth-century schools. As is the case with many of his medieval counterparts, the date of Peter the Chanter’s birth is unknown. John W. Baldwin, whose Masters, Princes, and Merchants is the seminal work on Peter the Chanter and the circle of men 1 2 3 4

Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 72. Ibid., 64. Ibid., 95. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 213.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_005

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

73

he taught and influenced, conjectures that the Chanter may have been born between 1127 and 1147, given that he died in 1197 and a normal life span was between fifty and seventy years.5 Charters and other legal documents indicate that the Chanter was a member of the noble Hodenc-en-Bray family that originated in the Beauvaisis. He may have received his early education in Reims, and certainly held a prebend in the church of that city. Unfortunately, no evidence has yet been discovered which yields the date and circumstances under which the Chanter came to Paris. Baldwin provides evidence indicating that the Chanter was likely in residence at Paris by 1173, but remarks that “historical sources are nearly mute on his academic career, except for an occasional recording of his title, Magister.”6 Agneta Sylwan, who edited the Chanter’s commentary on Genesis, uses the same evidence available to Baldwin and writes that the Chanter was in Paris by 1170 or soon after.7 Chronicles, charters, and other sources of evidence from Paris during the late twelfth century tend to focus on the Chanter’s activities as chanter of Notre-Dame, a post to which he was elevated in 1183, rather than his achievements as a Parisian master. Although we lack contemporary accounts of the Chanter’s academic prowess, we possess the fruits of the Chanter’s intellectual labors in the form of the many biblical commentaries he left behind. As Baldwin remarks, commenting and lecturing on the Bible was “the chief task of a twelfth-century theologian,” and these types of works are the Chanter’s major written legacy.8 The Chanter famously described the threefold function of a theologian, comparing lectio, disputatio, and predicatio to the foundation, walls, and roof of a building, respectively. He argued that the Scriptures must be fully read and understood before the task of preaching was undertaken, noting the danger posed to the faithful when a preacher does not understand the material he expounds. The Chanter was a well-known proponent of lectio, which consisted of not only reading the Bible but also lecturing on and commenting on the text. He considered lectio to be the foundation of a theological education, and noted that a 5 Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 3. The biographical details of the Chanter’s life contained in this paragraph can be found in Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 3–6. 6 Baldwin’s evidence for this dating comes from Caesarius of Heisterbach’s Dialogus miraculorum, composed between 1219 and 1223. The anecdote relating to the Chanter involves him debating the issue of Thomas Becket’s sanctity with a Master Roger in Paris. Baldwin postulates that since Becket died in December 1170 and was canonized in February 1173, the debate must have taken place by the latter date, and the Chanter must have been present in Paris. This appears to be the only piece of evidence discovered thus far about the Chanter’s arrival in Paris. See Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 5–6. 7 Agneta Sylwan, ed., Glossae super Genesim: prologus et capitula 1–3 (Göteborg, 1992), ix. 8 Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 12.

74

Chapter 3

master must understand the biblical text before attempting to dispute contradictory passages or preach the word of God.9 Therefore, one seeking insight into the Chanter’s ideas and views must look to these lectures that constituted his program of instruction at Paris. The Chanter seemed to approach glossing the Bible with a fair amount of caution; at any rate it is evident that he was mindful of the potential abuses of the glossing method. He was perhaps aware of Robert of Melun’s objections to glossing voiced in the mid-twelfth century. In the words of Smalley, Robert feared that “reading with glosses was putting the cart before the horse,” and that masters were placing more importance on interpretations of the Bible than on the text itself.10 As Gilbert Dahan states, however, historians must remember that Robert’s complaints against glossing, while giving insight into the changing nature of biblical exegesis, should be viewed in light of his particular writings and opinions and should not be taken as the general opinion toward glossing in the mid-twelfth century.11 In any case, the Chanter was somewhat wary of certain methods of biblical glossing, but he did not share Robert of Melun’s notions. While he took no issue with biblical commentaries and saw them as crucial for understanding the Bible, he did argue against the tendency toward a superfluity of glosses in his Verbum abbreviatum, a work whose very title indicates the Chanter’s preference for clear and concise language and exposition. He seems to have objected to superfluous glosses because they robbed the Scriptures of their clarity, and on a more practical note, the Chanter felt that excess glosses produced “ponderous books we lose precious time and energy in copying, reading, correcting, and even car­rying …”12 In addition, the Chanter expressed concern over unnecessary or reckless use of the allegorical sense in interpreting Scripture. He echoed a Jewish prescription that the study of books like the Songs of Songs, which cried out for an allegorical interpretation, should be forbidden to men under the age of thirty who were not yet spiritually mature.13 Overall, the Chanter saw biblical commentaries as necessary and important contributions of theologians, but argued for brevity and clarity of expression over allegorical flights of fancy. Like most biblical commentaries produced in the milieu of the twelfth-century Parisian schools, the Chanter’s works have been passed down to us in the 9 10 11 12 13

Ibid., 90–91. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 215. Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne, 96. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 94. Ibid., 94. This argument comes from the Chanter’s commentary on the Song of Songs and is discussed in more detail below.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

75

form of reportationes. As Beryl Smalley explains, the medieval reportatio “has no pretensions to be literature,” but was born out of necessity.14 A student attending a lecture in Paris would be engaged by a master to write down as full an account as possible of the master’s lecture, with the master having final approval over the document, so that it could later be reviewed for “publication” and distribution to other students. Smalley notes that the first description we have of a reportatio being copied comes from St. Victor, but that the practice could have dated back to Anselm’s tenure at Laon.15 At any rate, reportationes had become common by the Chanter’s teaching days in the latter third of the twelfth century. The manuscript copies of his commentaries bear all the hallmarks of reportationes, including the use of the third person to note the opinions of the master, noted in phrases such as dicit magister and magister his non acquiescit.16 Only one version of each biblical book the Chanter commented on is extant, unlike the more prolific Stephen Langton, whose Song of Songs commentaries will be discussed in the following chapter.17 Since we do not know the exact dates of the Chanter’s career in Paris, it is difficult to assign any firm dates for the composition of his biblical commentaries. Baldwin notes that although exact dates remain elusive, due to the extensive nature of the Chanter’s commentaries it is likely that they were composed during the entire length of his academic career.18 The only evidence for dating them comes from the commentaries themselves. Smalley points out that the Chanter’s work on Judges refers to his own gloss on the Psalms, indicating that the Psalms commentary was composed earlier. She surmises that the Chanter may have followed the same exegetical program worked out by Stephen Langton, who in turn was influenced by Hugh of St. Victor’s recommendations on the proper order of study. If this is indeed the case, then the Chanter would have commented on the Gospels before the historical books of the Old Testament and the socalled “plain and easily grasped” books of Solomon before those of the major Prophets.19 Although this supposition does not lead to any firm date, if the Chanter followed this pattern, it suggests that he may have commented on the 14 15 16 17

18 19

Smalley, Study of the Bible, 201. Ibid., 201–202. Ibid., 205. The two groups of Langton manuscripts I analyze in the next chapter contain some differences in content, perhaps indicating that two different reportationes were produced from two different lectures by Langton on the Song of Songs. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 13. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 198–199.

76

Chapter 3

Song of Songs at a relatively early point in his Parisian career, which is likely to have been in the 1170s. It is important to note that there is a striking dearth of scholastic commentaries on the Song of Songs produced between the Gloss and that of Peter the Chanter. I am unsure as to how to account for this fifty-year absence of extant scholastic Song of Songs glosses; certainly scholastic figures including Peter Abelard and Peter Comestor were active during this period and wrote commentaries on other books of the Bible. Dahan states that the Chanter’s commentaries draw on those of his immediate predecessors Andrew of St. Victor and Peter Comestor, but since neither of these men commented on the Song of Songs, we cannot see how their exegesis may have influenced the Chanter for this particular book.20 The Song of Songs remained a popular subject for monks during the early to mid-twelfth century, with Bernard of Clairvaux producing his sermons on a portion of the book beginning in the 1130s, and Honorius Augustodunensis writing his influential commentary before 1150. This lack of scholastic commentaries on the Song of Songs seems to make the Chanter’s work even more important. His commentary incorporates the Gloss interpretation while expanding on points that dovetailed with his interest in preaching and practical matters. The Chanter’s commentary thus serves as a bridge between the world of the cathedral school and that of the urban center of Paris. The Chanter’s work on the Song of Songs picks up where the Gloss left off and spreads the ecclesiological interpretation of the text and the Gloss’ focus on the active life to a new generation of Parisian scholastics. The two manuscript copies of the Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary I have studied are both located in Paris. As mentioned above, there is only one existing version of each commentary, so the content of the two manuscripts, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 15565 and Paris, Mazarine, MS 178 (Incipit: “Salomon iuxta numerum vocabulorum tres libros fecit”), is essentially the same, with only slight variations in wording throughout.21 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15565 contains several of the Chanter’s biblical commentaries, includ-

20 21

Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne, 102. The Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary remains unedited, but John W. Baldwin used both of these manuscripts and reproduced small portions of them in his book The Language of Sex. To my knowledge, the only critical edition of a Chanter commentary that has been published is the aforementioned Agneta Sylwan’s edition of a portion of Genesis. Guglielmetti mentions two other manuscripts containing the Chanter’s commentary, both housed at the Bibliothèque Municipale in Chartres; MS 85 was destroyed in the Second World War; I was not able to examine MS 201. See Guglielmetti, 48–49.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

77

ing all of the Wisdom books.22 Mazarine, MS 178, on the other hand, contains many commentaries by Gregory the Great, in addition to the Chanter’s commentaries on the Song of Songs, Daniel, and Job. Both manuscripts lack color and are unadorned, reflecting the utilitarian nature of many scholastic commentaries on the Bible. It is particularly important to examine the layout of the Chanter’s manuscripts because several changes were occurring at this time in relation to format. As Christopher De Hamel notes, earlier glossed books of the Bible produced before about 1150 “always ran down the center of the pages and formed the framework, as it were, around which the layout was constructed.”23 The layout of glossed Bibles began to shift just as Gilbert de la Porrée (d. 1154) expanded on the texts of the Glossed Psalter and Pauline Epistles. It is at this point that the central column of biblical text disappears and manuscripts featuring a twocolumn continuous commentary without biblical text appear. Another change occurred by the late 1150s in which the bulk of the biblical text is incorporated into the two-column gloss, and either underlined or written in red ink.24 The next important development came when Peter Lombard began to revise these same Glossed books. By the 1160s, glossed books of the Bible featured the biblical text written in the margins beside the gloss explicating it.25 Interestingly, the Chanter manuscripts employed here seem to incorporate the two methods of writing out the biblical text discussed above. The two manuscripts share a similar layout in which there are two columns per page of continuous commentary, and the biblical text is written phrase by phrase in the margins next to its explication in the main body of the text. In addition, the biblical text is also underlined in the main columns of both manuscripts, where it appears in a highly abbreviated form.26 In this way, although the biblical text does not 22

23 24 25 26

The manuscript order does not follow the traditional order of the Wisdom books; instead the manuscript order is Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom of Solomon. The Song of Songs commentary runs from f. 52r-66v in BnF, MS lat. 15565 and from f. 41r-50v in Mazarine, MS 178. BnF, MS lat. 15565 is marked “Sorbonne 52,” indicating that it was once part of the collection there. Mazarine, MS 178 bears the notation “Conventus Carmelitarum Parisiensium, ad usum Carmelitarum 1351.” De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible, 18. Ibid., 19. Ibid., 23. This abbreviation of the biblical text may indicate that students following along with the commentary may have had Bibles with them in the classroom, as Smalley suggests: “Then the master reads out the text and its glosses. His students, judging by the custom of a later date, were supposed to bring Bibles to class with them, and possibly these would have been glossed.” Smalley, Study of the Bible, 217. In Mazarine, MS 178, the underlining of the

78

Chapter 3

occupy the center of the manuscripts, it is still the focal point. The marginal lemmata and the repetition of the biblical text in the two columns of glosses direct readers to center their attention on Scripture and remind them that the words of the Bible, rather than the glosses, form the true core of the commentary. The Chanter’s desire for a clear and concise commentary and his desire to avoid superfluous glosses led him to cite the Bible far more frequently than the Glossator, at least in the case of the Song of Songs. In terms of his use of other books of the Bible, the Chanter often cites biblical passages without indicating the book, and never in these Song of Songs manuscripts is there a mention of specific chapter divisions by number. Citations of biblical quotations usually begin with “unde,” and are nearly always abbreviated, ending with “etc.” The Chanter also sometimes paraphrases biblical quotations, perhaps indicating that he is citing them from memory.27 Turning now to the content of the Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary, it is evident that his interpretation was greatly influenced by that of the Gloss.28 The Chanter follows the ecclesiological interpretation of the Song of Songs seen in the Gloss, with the bride and bridegroom of the text viewed as the Church and Christ, respectively. Other interpretations of the Song of Songs common in the twelfth century seem to have had no influence on the Chanter; there is almost no mention of the Virgin, despite the growing popularity in monastic circles of a Marian interpretation of the text, and the Chanter also eschews the notion of the bride representing the individual soul, an interpretation championed by Bernard of Clairvaux and other monks.29 The Chanter’s focus remains that of the Gloss. Both depict a Church assailed by its enemies from without and

27 28

29

biblical texts seems to be more haphazard than in BnF, MS lat. 15565; the underlining occurs sporadically and sometimes disappears for pages. I am not certain if this indicates anything about the quality of the reportatio; since the biblical text was already written in the margins, it seems possible that the reporter found underlining the text to be redundant, especially if students had Bibles and could easily recognize the biblical phrases in the columns as they followed along with the text. Sylwan, Glossae super Genesim, xlix-l. While the influence of the Gloss on the Chanter is marked, he does not seem to be “glossing the Gloss” in his commentary. Stephen Langton, as will be seen in the following chapter, uses the Gloss even more extensively than the Chanter, citing it frequently by name and glossing its interpretations as well as the biblical text. A Marian interpretation of the Song of Songs, dramatizing the relationship of the bride, Mary, with the bridegroom, Christ, was popularized by Rupert of Deutz in the first third of the twelfth century. Bernard’s mystical interpretation, as written in his 86 sermons on the Song of Songs, was more personal than either the Marian or ecclesiological interpretation, and was widely copied by other monks who commented on the Song of Songs.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

79

weighed down by indifferent believers from within. By the end of the Song of Songs narrative the Church has reached a state of near perfection, but still must wait for Christ’s return and the final triumph of union with Christ.30 The Chanter follows the Gloss closely throughout, but the Church’s journey from a state of uncertainty to perfect union with Christ is by no means identical in the two works. The bulk of the prologue to the Chanter’s work on the Song of Songs is unoriginal. The prologue essentially paraphrases that of the Gloss, which in turn was taken mostly from Origen’s and Bede’s commentaries on the Song of Songs. As Beryl Smalley states, “prologues seem to have been regarded as common property and were borrowed without scruple,” by authors of medieval biblical commentaries, so the Chanter was certainly not alone in this practice.31 The Chanter’s prologue repeats the standard medieval idea that Solomon authored three biblical books. Proverbs was written in order to instruct the young and beginning students in morals. Ecclesiastes was directed toward the more proficient, and teaches them to despise transitory things, opening with the line “Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity” (Eccl. 1:2).32 According to this prologue, Solomon wrote the Song of Songs for the mature and perfect, who alone are prepared to learn about the love and peace of God.33 In essence, the Song of Songs is supposed to serve as the spiritual companion to the more practical books of Solomon. Because of this status, it is particularly important that only those who are capable of understanding the Song of Songs attempt to read it. 30

31

32

33

This interpretation in the Gloss fits well with the final line of the Song of Songs, “flee, my beloved, and be like a gazelle and the young of stags upon the mountain of spices.” By the end of the narrative, the Church is resigned to the idea that her time for union with Christ has not yet come, and she agrees to wait patiently for Christ’s return. Thus, while the Gloss interpretation (which at this point is a hybrid of Gregory and Bede) does not end with a triumphant Church, the final lines are hopeful and speak to the Church’s enduring patience. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 217. See also A.J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1984) on medieval ideas behind the authorship of prologues and their adaptation. “… libros Proverbiorum in quo docet incipientes et parvulos non tam etate quam sapientia de equanimi conversione in mundo, scilicet qualiter possit uti licite temporalibus vocatus est et Ecclesiastes, id est concionatur, quo nomine censetur et secundum opus eius in quo construit … proficientes ad contemptum caducorum inquiens vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas (Eccl. 1:2). Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41ra. Words taken from the Gloss are in bold, quotes from Scripture are italicized. “… composuit Cantica Canticorum in quo libro docet maturos perfectos et pervenientes de solo amore et pace Dei …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41ra.

80

Chapter 3

This notion is emphasized in the Gloss, in which the prologue ends with the following injunction: Nor should we overlook what our scholars tell us was the custom among the Jews: they did not allow anyone to read this book [the Song of Songs] unless he was complete in knowledge and confirmed in faith, lest perhaps on account of childish weakness and inexperience in faith study might not so much refine wavering minds as the text pervert them to carnal desires.34 Interestingly, the Chanter does not include this in his prologue. Instead, these same lines appear at the very end of his commentary, which arguably gives them more importance.35 Since a student reading the Chanter’s commentary or following the lecture on which the commentary was based would have most likely had a Glossed Bible on hand, he would have noted this warning against perverting the meaning of the Song of Songs at the very beginning of his study of the book. By placing this same caveat at the end of his commentary, the Chanter reminds the student to banish any impure thoughts he might have had while studying the Song of Songs, echoing the Gloss’ statement that it is purely a book about the love of God. These admonitions in the Gloss and in the Chanter’s commentary were deemed necessary because of the ostensibly erotic content of the Song of Songs. If the text is read without an eye to allegory, it appears to be a love song between a handsome young man and his beautiful bride-to-be, and it is easy to see how the reader could think the Song of Songs was about worldly love. The book is full of imagery that could titillate a young theology student; the full breasts, scarlet lips, and shining hair of the bride were likely tempting, perhaps especially to those who had vowed to deny the flesh. The Chanter seems to be particularly aware of this, and in closing his prologue, he explains to his students that there are various kinds of love, only some of which are licit. He explains that love is a fourfold concept, the highest and most meritorious aspect of which is divine or heavenly love of God and of one’s neighbors.

34

35

“Illud vero non est omittendum quod a doctoribus nostris traditur apud Hebreos hanc fuisse observationem, ne cuiquam hunc librum legere permitterent nisi viro iam perfecte scientie et roborate fidei ne forte per imbecillitatem infantie et fidei imperitiam non tam erudiret cognitione lubricas mentes quam textus ad concupiscentias corporalis converteret.” Dove, Glossa, Prologue, section vii, lines 101–108. Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 50vb.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

81

The Chanter quickly goes on to say that the opposite of this is carnal lust and sexual desire, which proceeds from the Devil and is entirely damnable.36 This condemnation speaks directly to those “wavering minds” who are led into temptation by the erotic imagery of the Song of Songs, warning them that any such distortion of the text leads only to perdition. The other two types of love, that of parents and family and that of the world, are acceptable only if practiced in moderation and guided by love of God. The Chanter illustrates this with Scripture, quoting Matthew 10:37, “He that loves his father and mother more than me is not worthy of me,” and James 4:4, “Friend[ship] of this world is the enemy of God.”37 Thus, the only entirely worthy love is that of God and heavenly things, and the Chanter impresses this on his readers in order to focus their minds on what he sees as the proper interpretation of the Song of Songs. For the Chanter, as in the Glossed Song of Songs, this proper interpretation is ecclesiological in nature. In the Chanter’s commentary, Solomon is a theologian recounting the story of the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (the Church).38 Like the Gloss, the Chanter’s interpretation of the Song of Songs turns the text into an epithalamium, or wedding song; Christ and the Church as a betrothed couple celebrate their love for one another, describe one another’s beauty, and long for their eventual union. While the language of this longing is erotic, the Chanter, like his predecessor the Glossator, does not seem to embrace an erotic interpretation of the text; indeed, both authors reinterpret this language of desire, understanding the various body parts described as preachers, teachers, and other figures. In the Chanter’s commentary, the breasts of the bride, for example, are never described as sexual in nature. They are discussed in their capacity to give milk, which is interpreted as knowledge that nourishes the weak. As John W. Baldwin remarks, although “all elements were available for commuting the sexual desire of Scripture to the spiritual desire of God” in the Song of Songs, the Chanter is uninterested in this sort of sublimation, so famously practiced by Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermons on 36

37

38

“… quod quadruplex est amor. Est enim amor divinus vel ethereus de dilectione Dei et proximi et hic in precepto consistens meritorius est et alius diabolicus venereus libidinosus et hic dampnabilis est.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41va. “Est et alius carnalis quo quis carnem propriam vel parentes diligit qui si moderatus est et sub Deo tolerabilis est, si inmoderatus execrebilis est. Qui amat parentes, etc. (Mt. 10:37). Et alius mundialis qui moderatus licitus est si inmoderatus et contra Deum detestabilis et pernitiosus, quia amicus mundi inimicus Dei, etc. (Jac. 4:4).” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41va. “In Canticis canticorum theologus sermocinans de divinis figurabatur etiam iste canticorum Salomonis … Materia sunt sponsus et sponsa, capud et membra, Christus et ecclesia.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41rb.

82

Chapter 3

the Song of Songs.39 The Chanter’s focus is on the larger matter of the relationship between Christ and the Church as a whole, leaving the exploration of the mystical and spiritual relationship between Christ and the individual soul to monastic authors. In the body of his commentary on the Song of Songs, the Chanter tries to avoid the practice he himself criticized in biblical glosses. As mentioned, the Chanter resists the scholastic tendency to explain every passage of a biblical book with several glosses, which in his opinion led expositors further and further away from the original meaning of the text.40 His inclination toward brevity is evident in the length of his Song of Songs commentary; the Mazarine, MS 178 manuscript commentary is only ten folios long, notably shorter than two Song of Songs commentary manuscripts by the more verbose Stephen Langton, which run fifteen and seventeen folios, respectively.41 Remarking upon the Chanter’s terse commentary style, Baldwin states that “although he regularly employed the Gloss and occasionally developed the allegorical or moral sense of a passage, for the most part his comments move briskly through the biblical text.”42 Using the Gloss as a point of reference does not hinder the Chanter from keeping his commentary brief and to the point. He simply chooses the parts of the Gloss that he felt were most important, and leaves out what he thought superfluous. Ultimately for the Chanter, the Bible itself serves as an even more important source than the Gloss, and there are frequent cross-references to biblical texts other than the Song of Songs. As Baldwin states, the Chanter strives to emulate Jerome, “who by explaining the sacred text through other passages of Scripture, avoided superfluous glosses.”43 The Bible was of course regarded as the principal source of knowledge and the repository of ultimate truth, so the Chanter’s desire to employ biblical passages as much as possible in his commentary seems natural. In addition, the Chanter’s students knew the Bible better than any other source they encountered in their scholarly careers. By explaining passages of the Song of Songs with passages from other biblical books, the Chanter both draws on the knowledge of his audience and encour39 40 41

42 43

Baldwin, The Language of Sex, 171. See above, 74. The Song of Songs commentary in the Mazarine, MS 178 manuscript runs from 41ra to 50vb, with columns measuring 2 ½ inches wide by 9 ½ inches long. BnF, MS lat. 15565 runs 15 folios, from 52rb to 66vb, but with columns measuring only 2 ½ inches wide by 7 inches long. The Langton manuscripts are Paris, Arsenal, MS 64 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338. Langton’s prolixity will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. Baldwin, Masters, Prince, and Merchants, 95. Ibid., 95.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

83

ages them to understand the text more deeply. The students studying the Chanter’s commentary would be more likely to understand a familiar biblical passage than a lengthy and possibly confusing explanation for a passage in the Song of Songs, which was already regarded as a difficult and potentially dangerous book to interpret, because of the erotic content’s potential to be misinterpreted by those not mature enough to understand the “true” meaning of the text. The Chanter’s use of biblical passages also encourages students to make connections between the books of the Bible. In linking passages of the Hebrew Bible together with those of the New Testament, the Chanter draws the Song of Songs into the context of the whole Bible and its overarching history of salvation. The Chanter begins to employ biblical passages as explanatory tools from the beginning of his commentary. In his explanation of Song of Songs 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,” the Chanter lists several biblical quotations referring to mouths and kisses in both positive and negative lights. The negative depictions of kisses and mouths are all taken in this instance from the book of Proverbs, another work said to be written by Solomon. The Chanter mentions a trio of phrases that specifically refer to the dangers of women: “for your lips [those of a harlot] are like honeycomb dripping, but her end is as bitter as wormwood” (Pr. 5:3–4); “the mouth of a strange woman is a deep pit. He whom the Lord is angry with will fall in it” (Pr. 22:14); and “the woman caught the young man and kissed him” (cf. Pr. 7:13), referring to a woman who flatters foolish men and draws them into her sinful life.44 These biblical quotations help explain the phrase “the kisses of his mouth” by pointing out what those kisses are not; that is, the quotations from Proverbs are set up in opposition to the “kisses of his mouth” from the Song of Songs, which are wholly positive. Using these passages from Proverbs also allows the Chanter to point out to his students the dangers of carnal lust for women and the troubles that can result from associations with women, something that should not be overlooked in a commentary directed toward young and impressionable theology students. The Chanter immediately follows these negative depictions of kisses with positive examples that are completely devoid of any erotic meaning, including the kiss of chaste love given by the bride to the bridegroom in the Song of Songs (Song 8:1), the kiss of peace and reconciliation given to the prodigal son by his father (Lk. 15:20), and the reverential kiss given at the foot of one’s lord

44

“favus enim distillans labia tua novissima autem amara quasi absinthium, etc.” (Pr. 5:4), “fovea profunda os aliene cui iratus est dominus incidet in illam” (Pr. 22:14), “mulier apprehensum deosculatur iuvenem” (cf. Pr. 7:13). Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41vb.

84

Chapter 3

or on the hand of a priest.45 Unlike the quotations from Proverbs, these are all possible definitions for “the kisses of his mouth.” In this case, the Chanter may be using biblical passages so extensively because the phrase he is addressing is relatively difficult to explain. By giving his readers examples of both negative and carnal kisses and positive and chaste kisses, the Chanter is able to explain what he sees as the spiritual intention behind the ostensibly erotic opening line of the Song of Songs. The Chanter follows this same method of explicating the Song of Songs with other biblical passages in his commentary on 2:5, “… I am languishing with love.” He notes that this languishing is a spiritual longing that Christ and the Church have for each other. The Chanter then goes on to mention other instances of languishing in the Bible: Daniel’s physical and spiritual weakness after experiencing a troubling vision, “And Daniel was sick and my soul languished for many days” (cf. Dan. 8:27); Paul speaking of his suffering, “who is weak, and I am not weak” (2 Cor. 11:29); and David’s spiritual longing in the Psalms, “my soul languishes for your salvation” (Ps. 118:81).46 These descriptions of languishing help to describe the almost painful quality of the longing that the Church feels for Christ. Since these other biblical passages can elucidate the meaning of the Song of Songs, the Chanter does not feel that it is necessary to include his own lengthy explanation of the Church’s longing. Using this method, the Chanter is often able to follow the simple and streamlined exegetical program he proposes. He applies this method to most of the passages he explicates in the Song of Songs, although not always to such a great extent. Almost every passage is accompanied by a quotation from another biblical book that is suggested by the Song of Songs text. Not surprisingly, the Chanter quotes the Psalms more frequently than any other biblical book. In the ten folios that comprise his Song of Songs commentary, the Chanter refers to the Psalms a total of 45 times. The Book of Psalms was perhaps the biblical book most commented on in the Middle Ages, and its remarkable breadth allowed exegetes like the 45

46

“Et est osculum casti amoris scilicet osculum columbe de quo hic et item quis mihi det ut inveniam te foris et deosculer te et iam me nemo despiciat (Song 8:1). Est et osculum pacis et reconciliationis unde in evangelico pater procidens in osculo prodigi filii osculatus est eum (Lk. 15:20) et salutate vos unitie in osculo sancto … est et osculum reverentie cum quis osculatur pedem domini sui vel manus sacerdotis …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 41vb. “Unde etiam Daniel egrotavit et languit anima mea per dies plurimos (cf. Dan. 8:27). Ita et Ieremias pro reparatione Ierusalem et templi. Et apostolus quis infirmatur, etc. (2 Cor. 11:29). Et David defecit in salutare tuum anima mea (Ps. 118:81).” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 44rb.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

85

Chanter to mine it frequently for apt quotations befitting almost any situation.47 The Chanter also seems to have some favorite quotations that he uses more than once in his commentary. “We see now through a glass darkly, but then face to face” (1Cor. 13:12), appears six times in the Song of Songs commentary, usually when the Chanter is discussing the ineffability of God. He also quotes Matthew 7:6, “do not cast your pearls before swine,” three times, in each instance warning his readers not to waste the best efforts of their preaching on the undeserving. Overall, the Chanter is able to keep his commentary relatively brief by relying on an exegetical method practiced by the Church Fathers. In applying this method so diligently, the Chanter rejects the notion that biblical commentaries must be abstruse documents made nearly impenetrable by layer upon layer of exegesis. According to Peter the Chanter’s threefold system of theology, preaching is the roof built on foundations of careful reading, public lecturing, and disputation, and like a roof, preaching holds the Church together and protects the faithful within. Evidently, the Chanter held preaching in high esteem and judged its faithful execution to be perhaps the most important duty, and indeed, “the crowning adornment” of a school-trained theologian.48 Thus, it is not surprising that the Chanter stresses the importance of preaching and the active life in his Song of Songs commentary, especially since the Gloss that he so frequently looked to repeatedly dwells on the need for preaching both within and outside of the Church. By the time the Chanter composed his commentaries, some fifty years after the Gloss, those within the Church hierarchy were increasingly seeing preaching as an important tool for correcting errant Christians and winning new converts. The Chanter’s focus on preaching in his Song of Songs commentary both reflects the concerns of the late twelfth century and offers inspiration for the future preachers he sought to train. The Chanter echoes the Glossed Song of Songs in writing extensively about preaching and the active life, but he adds his own perspective and strives to outline the mission and qualifications of the preacher in a clear and concise manner. He first significantly expands on the Gloss’ notions about preaching in Song of Songs 1:16, “the timbers of our dwellings are beams of cedar”:

47

48

See Martin Morard, “Entre mode et tradition: Les commentaries des Psaumes de 1160 à 1350,” in La Bibbia del XIII secole: Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi. Atti del Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Florence, June 1–2 2001), ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi (Florence, 2004) Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 110.

86

Chapter 3

Gloss Of cedar, incorruptible, and putting snakes, that is demons, to flight by its scent.49

Peter the Chanter Of cedar, the cedar is a tall and incorruptible tree whose sap and scent kills snakes. Preachers, moreover, are incorruptible and lacking vices, rendering others incorruptible by the scent of the honest beliefs and by the words of their preaching.50

 49 50 In this passage, the author of the Gloss simply states that cedar is incorruptible, without indicating what cedar may represent. The Chanter equates cedar with preachers, thus stating that preachers are imperishable, that is, they are saved and their souls will dwell eternally with God. More importantly, preachers who lack vices and share their honest beliefs with others by preaching are able to render others incorruptible as well. In other words, preachers who live honestly and impart the word of God act as God’s instruments on earth, saving the souls of those who would otherwise be damned. This passage goes hand in hand with the Chanter’s comment on Song of Songs 2:13, “Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come.” The Chanter warns his students to “arise from sin,” before seeking to preach to others, lest they find themselves guilty of the very sins they wish to eliminate from the Church.51 The Chanter uses these passages to offer advice to his readers, those theology students being trained at Paris. If they avoid vice and hold fast to their beliefs, not only are they saved, but they have the capacity and indeed, the duty to save others as well. By simply expanding upon the Gloss’ imagery the Chanter is able to offer instruction to his readers and assure them of the importance of their mission. The Chanter echoes the advice he gives above in his explication of 2:9, “my beloved is like a gazelle and the young of stags”:

49 50

51

Dove, Glossa, I, 16, 187, 18–19, “cedrina, imputrabilia et odore suo serpents, id est demones, fugantia.” “Cedrus est arbor alta imputribiles cuius succus et odor serpentes extinguit. Predicatores autem sunt imputribiles carentes vitiis alios etiam imputribiles redunt odore bone opinionis et verbo predicationis.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 43vb. “surge a peccato …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 45ra.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

Gloss the young of stags, according to his works, because he has opposed hostile forces.52

52 53

87

Peter the Chanter Or by a deer, which is called a gazelle, [is meant] the contemplative life, which is loftier and more acute observation of God. The young of stags, by stags [is meant] the active [life], preachers whose sound has gone forth into all the earth (Rom. 10:18), from whose mouth quickly flows the word of Christ, because they speak without scandal and without worldly concern.53

Here, the Chanter interprets the young of stags as the active life rightfully pursued by preachers. He again implicitly advises his readers, remarking that honest preachers are able to make themselves heard over all the earth because they avoid sin and scandal. In this passage, the Chanter also indicates that preachers speak without worldly concern, but still spread their message to others. He communicates to his readers that it is possible to preach and be active in the world, and still be free of worldly concern; in other words, the ideal preacher should care for his neighbors, but should avoid attaching himself to this world and any person or thing dwelling in it. The Chanter here addresses the fine line that preachers must walk between the secular and divine worlds, putting forth the notion that preachers act as a bridge through which people can gain access to God. The Chanter makes it clear that preachers are urgently needed to bridge the gap between the earthly and the divine. Commenting on Song of Songs 2:10 (“arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come”), he speaks of how the active life can serve this need and why preaching is so desperately needed at this time:

52 53

“hinnuloque cervorum, secundum opera, quia contrarias fortitudines contrivit.” Dove, Glossa, II, 9, 76, 57–58. “Vel per capream que dorcas dicitur contemplativa, que altius et acutius speculatur Deum. Per hynulum activa predicatores quorum sonus exivit in orbis terre (Rom. 10:18) in quorum ore velociter currit sermo Christi quia sine scandalo sine solicitudine seculari locuntur …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 44va.

88

Chapter 3

Gloss Arise, that is, break off contemplation and labor to gain other [converts], or arise from the love of earthly things … come to devote yourself to the salvation of your neighbors through sedulous attention to preaching … you believe you will quickly come [to me-the bridegroom] if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming to me is through work of this kind.54

54 55

Peter the Chanter Arise, arise therefore from contemplation at the right time. Arise from the love of earthly things and from the flesh to sing of [preach] repentance … hurry, because the time is short and the crops are white [to harvest] (John 4:35) … but a better way of coming to me is through work of this kind, that is useful and fruitful [work], because for many the active way of life is better than the contemplative. The contemplative life is safer, but the active life is better than the contemplative, that is, more useful to [your] neighbors.55

The Chanter adds to the Gloss by saying that necessity drives the act of breaking off contemplation and arising to action. Although the Chanter acknowledges the importance of preaching and sees it as an instrument through which reform of the Church and widespread conversion can be achieved, he, like most other medieval theologians, does not deny preaching’s potential difficulties and dangers. The Chanter stresses to his readers that they must abandon contemplation, at least temporarily, because the crops are white, that is, people are ready and willing to receive the word of God. Moreover, the people now need to hear the word of God; many within the Church lead lax lives and are believers in name only, and the Church’s enemies, especially Jews and heretics, threaten the Church from without. Despite stating that necessity leads to the need for preaching, the Chanter unequivocally avers that the active life is superior to the contemplative life. The Gloss communicates this idea as well, but the Chanter is more explicit, clearly saying that the active life is preferable 54

55

“Surge, id est interrumpe contemplationem et labora in acquisitione aliorum, vel surge ab amore terrenorum … veni ad impendendam etiam proximis curam salutis per studium sedule predicationis … credis te venturam si vacaveris contemplationi, sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi.” Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 94, 33–34 and Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 90, 24–25 and 26–28. “Surge ergo a contemplatione ad tempus. Surge ab amore terrenorum a corpore acinere penitentie … propera quia tempus breve et messes albent (Jo. 4:35) … sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi, id est utilius et copiosis, quia cum pluribus status contemplatio melior est status active. Contemplative, id est securior, sed status active melior status contemplative, id est utilior proximis.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 44vb.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

89

specifically because it is more useful than contemplation. The Chanter grants that contemplation is a safer pursuit, but he intimates that it helps no one but the person practicing it. An active life centered on preaching, on the other hand, potentially benefits everyone, and in his exposition of this passage, the Chanter encourages his readers to take up the task for the sake of reform Again in his exposition of Song of Songs 2:12, the Chanter expresses the same idea put forth in the Gloss, but more emphatically: Gloss the voice of the turtle-dove, you must not cease preaching for the sake of quietness, because Christ, who was in great quietness with the Father, to an extent interrupted quietness for the sake of preaching.56

56 57

Peter the Chanter the voice of the turtle-dove, [The bridegroom] had encouraged the bride to the labor of preaching, but because she ought not refuse that [labor], He makes clear the savior’s example, because Christ, who was resting in the bosom of the Father, wished to descend to us for our [sake] and take up the burden of preaching … as if [the bridegroom says] arise and come, and you must, because Christ himself actually came to preach.57

The author of the Gloss manages to communicate his point; Christ interrupted the ultimate quietness of eternity with the Father in order to return to the world and preach, so those on earth should be able to give up their comparatively inferior contemplation to do the same. The Chanter, however, is more direct, stating that Christ willingly left his time of rest with the Father because he knew that his preaching was needed. The Chanter also declares plainly to his readers that they must preach in imitation of Christ, without such qualifying phrases as “to an extent.” This passage serves as yet another opportunity for the Chanter to encourage his theology students to pursue the active life; the 56

57

“Pro quiete tua non debes dimittere predicationem, quia Christus qui in magna quiete erat cum patre quietem quodammodo pro predicatione intermisit.” Dove, Glossa, II, 12, 111, 20–22. “Vox, invitaverat sponsam ad laborem predicationis modo quod istud recusare non debeat ostendit, exemplo salvatoris quia Christus qui in sinu patris quiescebat voluit pro nobis ad nostras descendere et honus predicationis subire multo magis et membra sua quasi surge et veni et debes quia etiam ipsum Christus venit predicare.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 45ra.

90

Chapter 3

opportunity to follow Christ’s example is perhaps the strongest argument the Chanter can make in favor of preaching The fourth chapter of the Song of Songs, which features a lengthy physical description of the bride, is rich in opportunities for both the author of the Gloss and the Chanter to encourage the active life. Both authors compare the various parts of the bride’s body with preachers, delineating the many functions of those who pursue the active life. They are compared first to eyes, then teeth, and finally to the lips of the bride: Gloss your eyes are of doves, apart from that which lies inside, eyes, those who provide for you, or your external, historical way of life … of doves because the holy spirit appeared in the form of a dove, spiritual grace is aptly signified by its name … that which lies inside that is the intention, which alone was beautiful, and on account of which those things [good works] are to be commended.58

58 59

Peter the Chanter your eyes are of doves, apart from that which lies inside, your eyes, your providers, certainly preachers who supply just as the eyes see for the body … of doves, simple, without the folds of error and duplicity of spirit … apart from that which lies inside, besides that vision which we see face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). For no one has seen God at any time (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) in the present unless through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12), just as now you see God, but in the future you will see him more intimately.59

While the Gloss does not specifically assign a role to “those who provide for you,” the Chanter explains that these eyes are preachers, who provide and see for the Church just as the eyes see for the body. The Chanter also hearkens back 58

59

“Oculi tui columbarum absque eo quod intrinsecus latet, oculi, illi qui provident tibi, vel conversation exterior ad litteram … columbarum, quia spiritus sanctus in specie columbe apparuit merito illius nomine spiritualis gratia signatur … eo quod intrinsecus latet, id est intentione qua sola pulchra esset et per quam illa sunt commendabilia.” Dove, Glossa, IV, 1, 13–15, 43–48. “Oculi tui, provisores tui scilicet predicatores qui subditis sicut oculi provident corpori … columbarum, id est simplica, sine plica erroris et duplicitatis spiritualia … absque eo quod intrinsecus, preter illam visionem quam eum videmus facie ad faciem (1 Cor. 13:12). Deum enim nemo vidit umquam (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) in presenti nisi per speculum et in enigmate (1 Cor. 13:12) quomodo nunc vides Deum sed in futuro videbit eum interiori …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 46ra-b.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

91

to a favorite theme with a clever play on words (simplica/sine plica), that of the suitability to preach. Preachers, like doves, are simple and pure, and lack a duplicitous nature that might lead them to preach for worldly acclaim or monetary reward. The Chanter is careful to point out, however, that preachers in their role as the eyes of the Church are not granted any sort of special access to God. Though they may see for the Church, protecting and providing for her, they are only able to see God through a glass darkly in this life. The final revelation of God’s divine mysteries is withheld from both actives and contemplatives (as well as everyone else) while they are living. Thus, the Chanter ensures that his readers have no illusions about their role as preachers granting them any sort of special access to God. Preachers are then described as the teeth and lips of the Church for various reasons: 60

Gloss Your teeth, which gnaw sins and grind the Scriptures. Your lips are like a band of scarlet, preachers are said to be a band because by their preaching they restrain the unstable thoughts in the hearts of men … the teeth [are those] who grind, the lips [those] who release the things ground. Your neck is like the tower of David. On account of one thing preachers are called eyes, on account of another, teeth, on account of another, cheeks, on account of another, the neck.60

60

Peter the Chanter Your teeth, gnawing preachers, namely, who gnaw sins and grind the Scriptures, and who draw others into the body of the Church … or teeth, expositors of Holy Scripture, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory, who chew them and explain them. Your lips are like a band of scarlet, preachers who are sometimes called teeth and sometimes called lips. With those same teeth that grind, that is, that explain sacred Scripture, with those same lips they release the things ground to others. Teeth therefore are rightly called expositors, and lips, preachers, who are like a band. Just as a band holds together the hairs of the head, thus preachers suppress the unstable thoughts in the hearts of men. Or therefore, they

“Dentes, qui peccata rodunt, scripturas atterunt … sicut vitta coccinea labia, predicatores vitta dicuntur quia fluxas cogitationes in cordibus hominum suis predicationibus restringunt … dentes qui terunt, labia qui trita aperiunt … Propter aliud predicatores oculi, propter aliud dentes, propter aliud gene, propter aliud collum vocantur.” Dove, Glossa, IV, 2, 26, 24; Dove, Glossa, IV, 3, 34–35, 6–9; Dove, Glossa, IV, 4, 46, 22–23.

92

Chapter 3

Gloss

Peter the Chanter (cont.) [preachers and a band of scarlet] are compared because just as a band clings to the head, so do preachers cling to Christ, so that they do not slip away into temptation. Apart from that which lies inside, pious preachers are called by diverse names. They are called eyes, providers, called hair, voluntary paupers, called the neck because through them the food of the word of God is transmitted through the neck to the limbs.61

 61 Here, the Chanter pays homage to the Church fathers (in chronological order) whose work he most admired, equating their exegetical work with chewing the Scriptures and making them more palatable and understandable to theology students, who in turn will preach the Scriptures to others. Both the Chanter and the Glossator state that preachers are like teeth because they gnaw away at sin and grind the Scriptures, but the Chanter reconnects this with the metaphor occurring earlier in the Gloss and his commentary wherein the Church is a body, and Christ is its head. By making the Scriptures understandable, preachers thus transfer them into the body of the Church. The Chanter further develops this image when offering a summary of the names by which preachers are called. Most parts of the head, including the eyes, lips, teeth, and hair, are identified with preachers. Preachers are also the neck, because after seeing those who require instruction in the scriptures, they grind them up with their teeth, making them more understandable, and then “swallow” the word of God, which becomes food to nourish the body that is the Church. Preachers 61

“Dentes, rosorii predicatores scilicet, qui peccata rodunt, scripturas atterunt, et alios in corpus ecclesie trahiciunt … Vel dentes, expositiores sacre scripture Ieronimus, Augus­ tinus, Gregorius, qui eam masticant et exponunt … Sicut labia, sunt predicatores qui quandoque dentes, quandoque labia dicuntur. Dentes, eo quod terant, id est quod expo­ nant sacram scirpturam labia eo quod trita aliis aperiant et predicant. Dentes, ergo proprie dicuntur expositores labia predicatores qui sunt sicut vitta. Sicut vitta, capillos capitis constringit. Sic predicatores comprimunt fluxas cogitationes in cordibus hominum … Vel ideo comparantur quia sicut vitte coherent capiti, sic predicatores Christo ut nulla temptatione recedunt … habent sancti predicatores diversis vocabulis appellantur. Dicuntur oculi, provisores, dicuntur capilli, spontanei pauperes, dicuntur et collum quia per illos cibus verbi Dei ad membra mittenda transmittuntur collo etiam capud.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, fols. 46rb-46va.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

93

again act as a bridge between Christ and the Church, and the Chanter seems to indicate that without them and their crucial work, Christ and the Church might not be properly joined, and humans would not receive the message of Christ. Most importantly, the Chanter calls preachers “voluntary paupers,” in a reference that is particularly striking because it comes many years before the founding of the mendicant orders. Perhaps the Chanter was, as Philippe Buc has discussed, expressing a certain amount of sympathy for the Waldensian movement and their commitment to poverty and desire for the authorization of lay preaching.62 In any case, this use of the term “voluntary paupers” shows that the Chanter was confronting an issue that had not yet become particularly current in the 1180s. The Chanter emphasizes the close relationship between Christ and his preachers, stating that preachers cling to Christ like hairs cling to the head, and thus avoid sin and temptation. It is this relationship between Christ and those he has inspired to preach that allows preachers to communicate the word of God. If preachers do slip away from Christ and into temptation, they no longer have the authority to preach. This serves as yet another warning from the Chanter to his readers to avoid sin and remain worthy of preaching to others. Preachers bind together the hairs, or Church members, of the head which is Christ, and if preachers cease to serve as this band, the Church members drift away from Christ. For their own sake and for the good of the Church, the Chanter admonishes his audience of future preachers to realize the importance of the duty placed before them. The Chanter makes what is perhaps his most impassioned statement on the importance of preaching while commenting on Song of Songs 5:2, “open to me, my sister, my friend, my dove, my spotless one”: 63 64 Gloss Peter the Chanter [open to me] arise from the leisure [open to me] arise from the flesh, and quietness of contemplation, and from leisure, from quietness of open [your] hearts.63 contemplation, and open the hearts of your listeners with your preaching … arise from contemplation and undertake useful preaching.64 62 63 64

See Buc, “‘Vox Clamantis in Deserto?,’ 5–47. “aperi michi, surge ab otio et quiete contemplationis et aperi corda …” Dove, Glossa, V, 2, 22, 18–19. “Aperi, quasi surge a corpore, ab otio, a quiete contemplationis et aperi corda auditorum tua predicatione … surge a contemplatione et bonus predicandi suscipe.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 47vb.

94

Chapter 3

While the Gloss shows Christ telling those who are about to preach to open their own hearts, the Chanter emphasizes that the hearts preachers must open are not their own, but those of their listeners. Preaching is the instrument by which the hearts of believers and non-believers alike are opened to receiving the word of God. In addition, the Chanter repeats his earlier statement made when commenting on Song of Songs 2:10, that preaching is a useful undertaking. Because preaching brings many people to Christ, it is the most important task an educated theologian can undertake. For the Chanter, the benefits of contemplation pale in comparison to the legions of followers that can be won over to Christ by eloquent preaching, and this is the message that he impresses upon his students. According to the Chanter, preaching, in addition to inspiring the many lukewarm Christians within the Church, is also the main tool by which Jews will be converted to Christianity.65 The Chanter’s commentary shares one of the central elements of the Glossed Song of Songs narrative, the idea that the Church and the Synagogue must unite before Christ can return to the world. The first few references to the Jews in the Chanter’s commentary occur early in the first chapter of the Song of Songs and are entirely negative. In commenting on Song of Songs 1:5, “they have made me a guard in the vineyards/I have not guarded my own vineyard,” the Chanter reads this as the Synagogue’s rejection of Christ: “the Synagogue did not exhibit protection, namely because she opposed the evangelical word of God … the apostles wished to gather in order to preach, but [were] however sent away by the Jews, and thus departed.”66 Because of this rejection of the new dispensation, the Jews are the goats in Song of Songs 1:7, “go forth and depart in the footprints of the flocks and feed your goats …” Jews are “the damned hearers who are rightly called goats because they are placed at His left hand, who furthermore gnaw away at and disparage the word of God …”67 By depicting the Jews in this negative light, the Chanter shows his readers why he believes the need for conversion is so great. By the midpoint of the Song of Songs narrative, the Jews have yet to unite with the Church. The bridegroom describes his bride at Song of Songs 4:12 as 65

66

67

For more on the Chanter’s treatment of Jews beyond the Song of Songs commentary, see Jack Watt’s essay, “Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor,” in Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson, eds. The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life: Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff (Woodbridge, 1999), 55–76. “Non custodivi, id est sinagoge custodiam non exhibui quia enim repugnat verbum Dei evangelicam sed apostolos ut predicarent … cogere volebant dimissis autem Iudeis abierunt …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 42va. “hedos tuos, perditos auditores qui recte vocantur hedi, quia ad sinistras ponendi qui etiam corrodunt et vituperant verbum Dei …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 43ra.

Arise From Contemplation and Undertake Useful Preaching

95

“a garden shut up,” and the Chanter comments on this by writing “a garden, not exposed to thieves and sorceresses, and enemies [such as] heretics, Jews, pagans, and invisible demons …”68 The Church must still be protected against the Jews, who are lumped together with various other enemies of Christ. The Chanter makes it clear that the Jews will not be allowed to enter the garden, that is, the Church, until they obey evangelical precepts and convert. The Synagogue does not begin to show a desire to convert until the sixth chapter of the Song of Songs. By Song of Songs 6:9, “who is this one who comes up like the dawn rising,” the Synagogue sees the beauty and power of the Church and begins to question herself. In Song of Songs 6:11, the Synagogue admits her wrongdoing, saying “I did not know …” The Chanter remarks that the Synagogue’s error was following “the carnal sense of the law” rather than believing in the redemptive power of Christ.69 Chapter six ends with the beginnings of the conversion of the Synagogue: “turn back, the Church hears the Synagogue recognize her error and the cause of her errors is laid bare … turn back, as if up to this point she has been hindered and led astray by error, but lately [she has] turned back to knowledge of and faith in the redeemer.”70 The bridegroom then devotes a large section of chapter seven to praise of the newly converted Synagogue. The Chanter emphasizes that the conversion of the Jews is not a quick and easy task, and he reminds his readers that they must preach in order to win as many converts as possible. He interprets the passage “come my beloved, let us go out into the field, let us linger in the villages (Song 7:11) as an invitation for the Church to continue the work of conversion, saying in the voice of the Church “I will unite [Jews and Gentiles], that is, I will preach by word and example … we devote zeal and frequency to earnest preaching in converting them [Jews] …”71 The Chanter’s interpretation of the Song of Songs also refers to heretics, who must also be converted back to true faith by preaching. In the earlier portions of the Chanter’s commentary, heretics often appear alongside Jews as enemies of the Church. In Song of Songs 1:5, “my mother’s sons have fought against me,” the author of the Gloss interprets these sons as Jews who continue to reject the Church. The Chanter, on the other hand, assigns this role 68 69 70

71

“ortus, dico non expositus furibus et anibus hostibus, scilicet ut hereticis Iudeis paganis et invisibilibus demonibus …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 47rb. “… carnalis sensus legis …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 49rb. “Revertere, Audiens ecclesia synagogam recognoscere suum errorem et causam sui erroris denudantem … revertere, quasi huc usque tardata est errore seducta, sed a modo revertere ad cognitionem et fidem redemptoris …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 49rb. “… ego cooperabor, id est, verbo et exemplo predicabo … studium et frequentiam assidua predicationem impendamus in illis convertendis …” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 50ra.

96

Chapter 3

to “false brothers, heretics” who profess faith in the Church and Christ, but only pretend to be true brothers to the faithful.72 Christ, however, is not fooled by these false brothers scattered throughout the Church: “the guard in the vineyard [Christ] is not deceived in the multitude of vineyards of heretics, hypocrites, and false brothers.”73 The Chanter here states his belief that with the help of Christ and with careful attention to preaching, the Church will be able to determine who its true friends are. Above all, the Chanter impresses upon his readers the idea that the Church is facing a desperate time; there are lax Christians within the Church and Jews and heretics outside the Church who need to be inspired by preaching. The Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary is a product of the intellectual world in which it was written, although the reference to “voluntary paupers” is quite remarkable for the time. By the late twelfth century, Paris had become the center for theological studies in Europe, but students and masters alike continued to use the Gloss, composed at a cathedral school some forty years before, as their major source for the study of the Bible. Although he was at the forefront of biblical studies, the Chanter saw no reason to abandon the Gloss as the basis for his commentaries. He agreed with the ecclesiological nature of the narrative of the Glossed Song of Songs, and, as an advocate of preaching, only added to the exhortations to the active life present in the Gloss. Students reading the Chanter’s commentary were faced with a clear and concise explication of a difficult and potentially dangerous text. They could easily see that the commentary was directed toward them, as future teachers and preachers who must protect the Church from its enemies. The Chanter sought to take a text ostensibly referring to erotic love and turn the focus of the reader to the chaste love of Christ and the Church. His work on the Song of Songs exercised a clear influence on Stephen Langton, who was perhaps the Chanter’s student and who certainly fell within the orbit of the biblical-moral school. Taken together, the Chanter and Langton’s commentaries reveal the ways in which the nature of biblical and theological studies was changing in the last few years of the twelfth century. 72 73

“… falsi fratres, heretici” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 42va. “… facta sunt custos in vineis et ne fallar in multitudine vinearum hereticorum, ypocritarum, falsorum fratrum.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 42va.

Glossing the Gloss

97

Chapter 4

Glossing the Gloss: Stephen Langton’s “SuperCommentary” on the Song of Songs The Song of Songs commentary of Stephen Langton (d. 1228) combined the works of his predecessors, the Glossator and Peter the Chanter, with his own ideas, encapsulating the ecclesiological interpretation of the biblical text. This reading of the Song of Songs remained the standard in the scholastic milieu throughout the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, even as Marian readings of the text or interpretations focused on the soul’s personal relationship with Christ increasingly appeared in monastic works. This ecclesiological reading of the Song of Songs allowed secular masters to trace the history of the Church and speak about the Church in their own time. Langton’s commentary, however, differs quite radically in some respects from those explored in preceding chapters. While Langton’s commentary shares its basic form with the Gloss, it is in fact both a continuous commentary and a “gloss on the Gloss” itself, in which Langton endeavors to explain the Glossa Ordinaria and expand upon the themes that echo throughout that text and the commentary of the Chanter. The type of scholastic commentary discussed in the previous chapters reached a new height in the works of Stephen Langton, who managed to expand upon the already spectacularly ambitious exegetical programs undertaken by Anselm of Laon, the Glossator, and Peter the Chanter. Langton’s commentaries became an important part of the scholastic exegetical tradition, and had a prodigious impact on the nascent form of university exegesis that would reign supreme in thirteenth-century Paris. Stephen Langton is best known as “the great medieval protagonist of political liberty, who helped the English barons wrest Magna Carta from King John in 1215.”1 His remarkable literary output, however, was little explored until Maurice Powicke made Langton the topic of the Ford Lectures at Oxford in 1927.2 These lectures served as the impetus for a survey of extant Langton manuscripts by Georges Lacombe and Powicke’s student Beryl Smalley, who discovered that Langton commented on nearly the entire Bible and “played a role in medieval exegesis certainly as important as that of Nicholas of Lyra or 1 Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 5. 2 Maurice Powicke, Stephen Langton: Being the Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1927 (Oxford, 1928).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_006

98

Chapter 4

of Hugh of St. Cher.”3 It seems clear that by commenting on the biblical corpus, Langton was following in the footsteps of Peter the Chanter. John W. Baldwin notes that while we do not know exactly who taught Langton at Paris, the influence of Peter the Chanter and the biblical-moral school has left many traces on Langton’s biblical commentaries in that he was more interested in addressing practical moral questions than engaging in speculative theology.4 Additionally, Baldwin remarks that Langton’s career as a master beginning in the 1180s overlapped with that of the Chanter.5 Although there is no solid evidence linking Langton and the Chanter as student and teacher, the fact that Langton directly copied large portions of the Chanter’s Song of Songs commentary and drew extensively on the Chanter’s mode of exegesis lends credence to the idea that Langton was a member of the Chanter’s Parisian circle. Before delving into Langton’s commentary on the Song of Songs, it is useful to review the work that scholars have done on his university career. Following Powicke’s lectures, Smalley and Lacombe wrote on Langton’s commentaries, providing a valuable list of the extant manuscripts in addition to useful explorations of Langton’s glosses on the Historia Scholastica of Peter the Chanter and the Book of Ruth. Smalley later wrote extensively about Langton and the biblical-moral school in The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. In the 1960s and 1970s, several more scholars added to the study of Langton’s works, including Phyllis Barzillay Roberts, who studied and edited some of his sermons.6 John W. Baldwin’s work on the circle of Peter the Chanter encapsulated knowledge about Langton’s life and career and served to link him to the figure who exercised a profound influence on Langton’s exegesis. Avrom Saltman produced a critical edition of Langton’s commentary on Chronicles, which offered insight into Langton’s use of Jewish exegesis to treat a biblical book often neglected by medieval theologians.7 More recently, Riccardo Quinto has studied Langton’s questiones, which originated from disputations at Paris and 3 Ibid., 15. There is no extant manuscript of a commentary by Langton on the Psalms; Lacombe notes however that Otto of St. Blasien recorded that Langton did indeed comment on the book, remarking that “it would have been incredible that the Psalter, which with the Epistles of St. Paul was the book most commented on in the Middle Ages … should not have been glossed by Langton.” See Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum, 266–272 for a list of manuscripts of Langton’s biblical commentaries, though be advised that his attributions may not be correct. 4 Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 25. 5 Ibid., 25–26. 6 Phyllis Barzillay Roberts, Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton (Toronto, 1968). 7 Avrom Saltman, ed. Stephen Langton- Commentary on the Book of Chronicles (Ramat-Gan, 1978).

Glossing the Gloss

99

covered various theological topics such as the punishment of sins and the distinction between latria and dulia, and more practical issues such as usury.8 A conference held in Paris in September 2006 on Langton led to the publication of a volume of its proceedings, which is illustrative of the strong scholarly interest in further exploring his role as a preacher, biblical scholar, and theologian.9 Unlike Peter the Chanter, whose academic career was rarely if at all mentioned in contemporary sources, Langton’s extraordinary academic output was well recognized. In fact, Langton’s contemporaries and later writers remembered him far more for his biblical commentaries than for his activities as archbishop of Canterbury. The chronicler Otto of St. Blasien wrote about Langton’s appointment as archbishop, calling him “nominatissimus doctor theologus,” and named several of the biblical commentaries that Langton had written.10 In writing about Langton’s death, Otto declared that Langton was “a theologian known above all others of his time, who wrote many theo­logical commentaries and books worthy of the consideration of later generations …”11 Similarly, in the De Viris Illustribus of Pseudo-Henry of Ghent, Langton is remembered as presiding “over the faculty of Arts at Paris, after which he directed a school in theology, and taught that science with great distinction. He was the first who began to comment on the whole Bible in its moral and its full sense … explaining them after the method used in the scholastic lectio.”12 Although Langton’s work in Paris was obviously recognized and appreciated by his contemporaries, scholars working on Langton have been unable to uncover much information about his years in that city. The date he left Paris, 8

9 10 11 12

Riccardo Quinto, “Doctor Nominatissimus,” Stefano Langton e la Tradizione delle sue Opere (Münster, 1994); idem., “La Parabola del Levitico,” in La Bibbia del XIII secole: Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi. Atti del Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Florence, June 1–2 2001), ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Franco Santi (Florence, 2004), 187–219. Nicole Bériou, Gilbert Dahan, and Riccardo Quinto, eds., Étienne Langton: Bibliste, Prédicateur, Théologien (Turnhout, 2010). Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 14. Ibid., 14. “… super omnes sui temporis nominatus theologus, qui multas expositions theologicas fecit et scripsit, et libros ad memoriam posteris reliquit …” Ibid., 14. “Stephanus … Parisius liberalium artium scolis prefuit; inde theologice scole presidens theologiam celeberrime docuit. Totam scripturam primus medullitus et mora­ liter cepit exponere … secundum modum scolastice lectionis, exponens.” For more contemporary praise of Langton’s biblical scholarship, see Roberts, Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton, 3.

100

Chapter 4

however, is firm. A letter of Innocent III indicates that Langton was called to Rome and made a cardinal in 1206.13 The best estimate for the date of Langton’s birth falls between 1150 and 1155. Phyllis Roberts placed Langton’s inaugural sermon as master of theology in 1180, so it is not implausible that Langton may have arrived in Paris by 1170, and perhaps even before.14 There is, however, no evidence that gives any indication of Langton’s whereabouts before 1180. In terms of Langton’s writings, the first firm date we have is given by Langton himself in a version of his gloss on the Historia Scholastica. Lacombe found that the chronological data Langton recorded in the gloss dated this version to 14 March 1193, and the year at least is confirmed by a mention in the work that it was the thirty-third year of the episcopate of the bishop of Paris, Maurice of Sully.15 The dating and order of Langton’s biblical commentaries are particularly difficult to establish. Dating is complicated because many of the commentaries exist in more than one version, and there are almost two hundred extant manuscripts containing Langton’s works.16 It may be assumed that all of his commentaries were produced before he left Paris in 1206, although it is not impossible that he may have revised them in later years.17 Some of Langton’s commentaries can be grouped together, indicating that they were most likely composed in sequence. In the case of the Pentateuch, it is evident that Langton intended his commentaries on the books to be seen as a whole, as indicated by a line in his prologue to Genesis stressing that the five books were tied together.18 For the major Prophets, there exists a prologue to the entire group with an incipit that reads “Quatuor rote per bases singulas,” thus grouping the four books together.19 In addition, there is internal evidence in some of Langton’s works that shows when they were composed. Langton’s commentaries on the Minor Prophets contain two direct references to his commentary on the 13

14 15 16 17 18

19

Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 26–27. Innocent mentions in the letter that Langton had been at Paris for an extended period of time, but unfortunately, no dates are given. Roberts, Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton, 21. Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 21–22. Ibid., 16. See also Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum, 266–270 for the Langton Song of Songs manuscripts. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 30. Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 128. The text reads “Tabernaculum Moysi coopertum erat quinque cortinis,” and Lacombe stresses that Langton chose it “to let him play on the number five: ‘Item alie quinque cortine quidem sunt quinque libri Moysi.’” Ibid., 130.

Glossing the Gloss

101

Epistles of St. Paul, indicating that the epistles commentary was composed first.20 Langton also references his commentary on John in his work on Exodus. In yet another example of these internal references, Langton often mentions his commentary on Numbers in his work on Joshua, indicating that he must have worked on the Pentateuch first. From these references, Smalley and Lacombe were able to conjecture a rough order in which Langton commented on the Bible. As previously mentioned in connection with the Chanter, Langton probably glossed the Bible in the order suggested by Hugh of St. Victor; that is, he commented upon the New Testament before the Old Testament, moving from the concrete and supposedly more easily grasped books to the more complex works of the Major Prophets.21 Langton himself wrote in his commentary on Zachariah that “the moral teaching of the books of Solomon is plain and easily grasped, but that the Prophets require multiple expositions before they will yield it.”22 Following this system, Langton would have glossed the Gospels before the Pentateuch and the historical books and Minor Prophets of the Old Testament, and then commented on the sapiential books before the Major Prophets.23 For the Song of Songs (one of the “books of Solomon”) in particular, Smalley and Lacombe could not find any internal details in the work that yielded a firm date, but they argue that Langton’s work on this book “antedated his Glosses on the Historical Books, which he must have begun about 1180–1185.”24 While it must be kept in mind that according to Smalley and Lacombe’s scheme, Langton would have commented on the entire New Testament first, the evidence seems to point towards a rather early composition date in Langton’s career for the Song of Songs commentary. Thus, Langton’s commentary was most likely composed in the 1180s, which may be roughly a decade after the Chanter produced his work on the Song of Songs. As was the case with the Chanter, Langton’s biblical commentaries have been passed down to us as reportationes, a format which was discussed in the previous chapter. At any rate, Smalley and Lacombe’s conclusion that Langton’s commentaries took this format certainly does not preclude the idea that Langton would have been involved in the recording and publication of his exegesis. Like the Chanter, Langton would have determined what the final 20 21 22 23 24

Ibid., 63. Ibid., 161. Hugh of St. Victor’s order makes sense to a certain extent, but few would argue that Revelation is a more easily grasped biblical book than Leviticus, for example. Beryl Smalley, Study of the Bible, 198. Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 161. Ibid., 144.

102

Chapter 4

version of the text would look like. That the work is passed down to us as a reportatio in no way detracts from its status as a continuous commentary. All of Langton’s commentaries, however, seem to exist in more than one version. Smalley and Lacombe discovered that some versions contain just the literal interpretation of Scripture, some just the moral sense, and others combined the two, constituting a full commentary. It is most likely that the commentaries were originally produced in their full version, and later separated into literal and moral excerpts.25 Therefore, it seems evident that Langton wrote only one full commentary on the Song of Songs, and that of the extant manuscripts, some are full commentaries, while others are simply excerpted literal and moral interpretations. Lacombe and Smalley noted eight presumed extant copies of Langton’s commentary on the Song of Songs, but Rossana Guglielmetti has now attributed all of these manuscripts to the school of Laon. Helmut Riedlinger attributed two more manuscripts to Langton.26 This chapter will 25

26

Ibid., 157. As Smalley asserts, in the excerpted literal and moral forms of Langton’s commentaries, “the excerpts appear to have been taken mechanically and not always intelligently. A scholar rearranging his own work would be likely to show more care,” and this would seem to apply especially to a scholar as thorough and careful as Langton. Scholars have had differing opinions on which manuscripts can be attributed to Langton, making for a rather confusing landscape. The manuscripts that Lacombe indentifies as Langton Song of Songs commentaries are Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338, 3652, and 14801; Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 87, Bodl. 528, and Laud Misc. 37; Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1466; and Firenze, Laurentian Library, Plut. X dext. 5. As noted earlier, Rossana Guglielmetti instead attributes all these manuscripts to the school of Anselm at Laon, and I am hesitant to attribute the Oxford manuscripts or Wien MS 1466 to either Anselm or Langton. Riedlinger followed Stegmüller in attributing the Song of Songs manuscripts Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14434 and Paris, Arsenal, MS 64 to Langton, see Helmut Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche,133. Riedlinger also followed Jean Leclercq in attributing Paris, BnF, MS lat. 338, 3652, and 14801 to the “school of Laon” rather than to Langton. See Jean Leclercq, “Le commentaire du Cantique des cantiques attribué à Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 16 (1949), 29–39 and Chapter 1 above. As I have indicated in Chapter 1, since BnF, MS lat. 338, 3652, and 14801 appear to be sources for the Glossed Song of Songs, their attribution to Langton seems unlikely. Lacombe noted Paris, Arsenal, MS 64 as a collection of Langton’s works containing the Minor Prophets, Catholic Epistles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Revelation, but he placed a question mark next to the Song of Songs, indicating that he was unsure of its attribution to Langton (although he provided no reason for this uncertainty). See Lacombe and Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries,” 66–67. In sum, it seems that the eight manuscripts attributed to Langton by Lacombe in fact contain Anselm’s commentary. Guglielmetti lists eight different manuscripts that she believes contain Langton’s Expositio in Cantica canticorum: Carcassonne, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 3 (2444–5); Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.I.9; Madrid, Biblioteca

Glossing the Gloss

103

follow Riedlinger’s attribution, and treat Langton’s full commentary, found in two Parisian manuscripts, BnF, MS lat. 14434 and Arsenal, MS 64. I will also make reference to Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1301, which Guglielmetti dates to the fourteenth century, and which contains a text nearly identical to BnF, MS lat. 14434 and Arsenal, MS 64.27 The format of Langton’s commentary is very different from that of the Chanter. While the Chanter produced a relatively concise continuous commentary, Langton’s work on the Song of Songs is actually an extended commentary on the Glossa Ordinaria.28 This was by no means atypical in late twelfth-century Paris; by this period, the Gloss had become an indispensable teaching tool, and was recognized as the standard authority to be read alongside the Scriptures themselves. Indeed, if a tool such as the Gloss had not been available to students, learning the standard interpretations of biblical texts would have been a much more arduous and time-consuming process. As Avrom Saltman notes, Langton’s glosses on the Gloss, which he refers to as “supercommentaries,” helped ensure that students “understood the glosses and were capable of attaching them to the appropriate biblical texts.”29 Although the Parisian masters were accused by some of “regarding the Gloss as an end in itself,” it is evident from their lectures that they used the Gloss as a convenient starting point for further exposition.30 As Smalley remarks, “the length and thoroughness of [the Parisian masters’] exposition will convince by wearying us” that they did not simply rely on the Gloss and abandon further commentary on the biblical text.31 The manuscripts used for this chapter, BnF, MS lat. 14434, Arsenal, MS 64, and Wien, ONB, MS 1301, are nearly identical in content, but there are important differences in the ways in which they are formatted. Arsenal, MS 64 (Song

27 28 29 30 31

Nacional, MS 377 (A. 164); München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS lat. 2627; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14434; Paris, Arsenal, MS 64 and 264; and Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1301. See Guglielmetti, 335. Of these, I have examined four; as noted above, this chapter uses BnF, MS lat. 14434, Arsenal, MS 64, and Wien, ONB, MS 1301. The other manuscript I have examined, Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.I.9, suffered significant damage in a fire, and thus certain portions of the text are completely obscured. Having transcribed as much of this manuscript as possible, given the legibility issues, I am satisfied that it matches the text of the other three manuscripts with very little variation. Guglielmetti, 264. See Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, 215–217 for a good summary of this idea. Saltman, Stephen Langton- Commentary, 22. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 230. In addition, see Chapter 2, 55 and Chapter 3, 74 above for a discussion of Robert of Melun and his objections to glossing. Ibid.

104

Chapter 4

of Songs commentary, fols. 118r-132r), which bears the shield emblem of the Parisian abbey of St. Victor and a note about its Victorine provenance on the opening folio, contains several other biblical commentaries written by Langton.32 Gilbert Ouy dates the manuscripts to the beginning of the 13th ­century.33 The work on the Song of Songs is entitled “Glose super cantica canticorum.” The commentary is laid out in two columns on the page, with nothing written in the margins except for an occasional correction. Unlike the manuscripts of Peter the Chanter examined in the last chapter, the biblical text here is written with the commentary in the columns, rather than placed in the margins next to the commentary. The biblical text, and nothing else, is underlined; Smalley tells us that this is the case in the majority of Langton’s commenta­ ries.34 The relevant commentary is written in the columns after the biblical text, and words taken from the Gloss are differentiated from Langton’s own glosses by the words “Hoc vult illa glosa,” or simply “Hoc glosa.” The Song of Songs text is almost always abbreviated, either by writing out the first few words of the passage and adding “etc.,” or by using only one or two letters to represent each word of the text.35 Wien, ONB, MS 1301 (Song of Songs commentary fols. 39r-62v), is laid out in a similar way, with two columns and the biblical text underlined. Both Arsenal, MS 64 and Wien, ONB, MS 1301 are written out with the prologue (incipit: “Legitur Salomon tria habuisse vocabula”) copied at the end rather than at the beginning of the text; both manuscripts contain the words “expliciunt note super cantica canticorum” at the end of the glosses on Song of Songs 8:14, which is then followed by the words “Introitus super cantica canticorum” and the prologue in the case of Arsenal, MS 64, and “supra cantica canticorum” followed by the prologue in Wien, ONB, MS 1301.36

32

33

34 35

36

The blue and gold shield on f. 1r is surrounded by the words “Jesus, Maria, S. Victor, S. Augustinus,” and the inscription on f. 1v. reads “Iste liber est sancti victoris parisiensis.” The other commentaries in this manuscript are the Minor Prophets, the Catholic Epistles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, and Revelation. Gilbert Ouy, Les Manuscrits de L’Abbaye de Saint-Victor: Catalogue Établi sur la Base du Répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514), Bibliotheca Victorina X, Tome 2 (Turnhout, 1999), 41. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 218. For example, in f. 118rb, the first time Song of Songs 1:2, “[oleum effusum] nomen tuum” is glossed, the scribe writes “nom. tuu.” Subsequent references to the same text are “no. t.” and “n. t.” This indicates that students attending the lecture likely had Bibles in hand (perhaps Glossed Bibles) that they could consult, and that wasting valuable space on expensive parchment by writing out the full biblical text was not necessary. Guglielmetti, La Tradizione Manoscritta, 198, 264.

Glossing the Gloss

105

Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14434 also comes from St. Victor, and in addition to Langton’s work on the Song of Songs (fols. 119r-132v), the manuscript consists of various glosses on the Gospels. Ouy dates this manuscript to the first half of the thirteenth century.37 Like Arsenal, MS 64 and Wien, ONB, MS 1301, the commentary is written in two columns, and the biblical text is written, again in abbreviated form, in the columns. Interestingly, however, there are some major differences between this manuscript and the other two. BnF, MS lat. 14434 has a different prologue from Arsenal, MS 64 and Wien, ONB, MS 1301 (incipit: “Ex difficultate et dignitate”), and the words of the Gloss are underlined in addition to the biblical text.38 In both manuscripts, quotations from the Gloss are preceded with the words “Hoc vult illa glosa,” or simply “Hoc glosa.” Thus, it seems to have been superfluous to have underlined the Gloss quotations, but perhaps this can be seen as a way to place further emphasis on the commentary as both a close examination of the biblical text and as a gloss on the Gloss. Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14434 has another feature that sets it apart from Arsenal, MS 64 and Wien, ONB, MS 1301: at various places in the text from the opening folio through Langton’s exposition of Song of Songs 4:12, there are interpolations into the two-column format written in the same hand as the rest of the text. Several factors argue against Langton being the author of these inserts. Surprisingly, many of the inserts are Marian in nature, which is perhaps the strongest indication that they were added to Langton’s Song of Songs commentary by an editor. Langton, like his fellow members of the biblical-moral school, expressed little or no interest in following the Marian interpretation of the Song of Songs put forth in works by twelfth-century monastics, most notably Rupert of Deutz39 As Helmut Riedlinger remarks, the inserts are presented in an inconsistent manner, being quite numerous in the first half of the text but disappearing completely in the second half. Riedlinger notes that this rather haphazard approach seems not to fit with “Langton’s careful and almost pedantic way of working.”40 Since these interpolations appear to have little relevance to either the Gloss text or Langton’s commentary, and do not appear to have been written by Langton, they are beyond the scope of this book. Despite these 37

38 39 40

Ouy, Les Manuscrits, 43. Ouy notes that the manuscript consists of two distinct sections; folios 1–66 contain commentaries on the Gospels, and Ouy dates them to the beginning of the 13th century; folios 67–132 contain commentaries on Mark and John in addition to the Song of Songs commentary. Guglielmetti, La Tradizione Manoscritta, 187. For more on Rupert’s commentary, see Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz. Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche, 134.

106

Chapter 4

differences in the appearance and initial layout of the text in BnF, MS lat. 14434, beyond the prologue and the Mariological interpolations, the content of the commentary is essentially the same.41 Gilbert Dahan notes that the exegesis of the schools was characterized by several forms, and Langton’s Song of Songs commentary employs many of them. Dahan speaks of the gloss format as “the most elementary structure of exegesis, its ‘atom’” or most basic component.42 Langton’s commentary is continuous, but it is essentially one simple structure on top of another, with explanatory glosses elucidating other glosses on the biblical text. This format remained popular in the schools throughout the twelfth century, perhaps because of the appeal of its simplicity; glosses explained biblical text in a clear and concise way and helped students grasp difficult scriptural passages. Whereas the Chanter often combined the Gloss interpretation with his own without citing the Gloss, Langton clearly works within the framework of the Gloss, setting his own interpretation apart from the Glossator’s and noting which words are derived from that anonymous source. As Riedlinger explains, “for Langton, the Gloss is an authority which cannot be altered, so he must comment on the whole complex,” of biblical and Gloss texts, paraphrasing the Gloss and breaking it down into manageable chunks for his students to digest.43 To give an example of how this format works, I will reproduce a section of Langton’s commentary on Song of Songs 1:9, “your neck is like jewels,” below with the Gloss words in bold:

41

42

43

Historians have often given Langton credit for introducing the modern use of chapter divisions to the Bible in the twelfth century; none of the Langton manuscripts I examined contain these chapter divisions, and, as Paul Saenger has recently written, it is not likely that Langton was the orginator of these divisions at all. See Paul Saenger, “The TwelfthCentury Reception of Oriental Languages and the Graphic Mise En Page of Latin Vulgate Bibles Copied in England” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden, 2013), 31–66. Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne, 123. Dahan emphasizes in note 1 that the term “glosa” was synonymous with the term “commentary” in scholastic exegesis, and thus although Langton’s work is headed “Glose super cantica canticorum,” I often refer to it as a commentary. See also Dahan’s article “Recherches sur L’Exégèse du Cantique des Cantiques au XIII e Siecle” in Il Cantico dei Cantici nel Medioevo: Atti del Convegno Internazionale dell’Università degli Studi di Milano e della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino, SISMEL, Gargnano sul Garda, 22–24 maggio 2006, ed. Rossana E. Guglielmetti (Florence, 2008), 493–536. Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche, 133.

Glossing the Gloss

107

Your neck. The reading concerning preachers continues, as if [to say] O my bride, you have modesty in your cheeks, but you can keep this intact because your neck is like jewels. Thus continues the Gloss, who by this [grace], etc., up to by the neck, etc. Suitably therefore, through the neck preachers are signified, just as indeed by the neck we bring forth words and put in food to refresh the body, and that middle limb, [the neck] is joined to the head …44 As this passage illustrates, Langton often cites the Gloss in an abbreviated form, listing a few words from one Gloss passage and notifying his readers to look at all the other relevant Glosses, both interlinear and marginal. In this manner, Langton is able to encapsulate the Gloss interpretation, explaining it for his students even while adding his own style, language, and content, fusing his own commentary with that of the Gloss. Langton often indicates if he is referring to the interlinear or marginal Gloss, perhaps to clarify the situation for his students; an example of this can be found at Song of Songs 3:6, “who is this who comes up through the desert like a column of smoke?” Langton’s explication of this passage ends with “those two interlinear [glosses], ‘upright,’ etc. and ‘on account of’, etc., and the marginal gloss, ‘smoke from fire,’ etc.”45 In this case and several others throughout the manuscripts, Langton simply quotes a few words from the marginal and interlinear Gloss, pointing out to his students where they might be found in a Glossed Bible. Langton tends to point out the interlinear Gloss (as opposed to the marginal Gloss) more frequently, usually with the words “Glosa interlinearis” or simply “illa interlinearis.” Since the interlinear Gloss is often just a few words clarifying one or two words of the biblical text, Langton usually mentions them separately. Often, Langton simply incorporates the contents of the marginal Gloss into his own running commentary, combining them with his exegesis. In almost every case, however, Langton acknowledges this usage of the Gloss at the end of each passage of biblical text with the words “hoc vult illa Glosa” [“thus, the Gloss means”] or “hoc Glosa,” [“thus, the Gloss”] followed 44

45

“Collum tuum, etc. procedit lectio de predicatoribus quasi o sponsa sobrietatem habes in genis sed hanc conservare potes quia collum tuum sicut monilia hanc continuationem vult illa Glosa que sit huius, etc. usque ibi per collum, etc. Convenientur ergo per collum significantur predicatores sicut enim per collum proferimus verba et cibos ad reficiendum corpus trahicimus et illo medio membra capiti uniuntur” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 119va, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 121ra, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 41va-b. “ille due interlineares recta, etc. et propter, etc. et illa marginalis fumus ex igne, etc.” ­Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 122vb, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 124va, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 47rb.

108

Chapter 4

by a few words from the marginal Gloss. The structure of Langton’s commentary and the way in which he acknowledges his main source leaves no doubt that it is at least in part a gloss on the Gloss. In addition to the gloss format, Dahan identifies several other “microstructures” or simple forms found in the exegesis of the schools. The questio is a form that became very complex in the thirteenth-century university. In earlier patristic or school exegesis, questiones were rather straightforward, with an issue arising “generally from a contradiction in the commentated text (internal contradiction or between this text and another one) or from an anomaly in this text.”46 The format of the questio was increasingly structured over the course of the twelfth century, and can often be identified by words such as “queritur” and “solutio.” Langton produced questiones arising out of disputations, which are treated at length by Riccardo Quinto.47 Some of his commentaries also included questiones which were incorporated into the text. The reportatio of Langton’s gloss on the Song of Songs under examination here, however, contains no questiones. There are no passages with a “questio-responsio” format, perhaps because in this commentary Langton focuses specifically on elucidating the Gloss exegesis and does not devote attention to other authorities and any conflicts that might arise between their exegesis and the Gloss interpretation. As mentioned above, since this is a full commentary, most of the Song of Songs text is glossed both literally and allegorically or morally. Several times in his commentary, Langton identifies the type of exegesis he undertakes in certain passages. Dahan writes that Langton, like Peter the Chanter, often points out the types of exegesis in the margins of his commentaries, but in the case of these Song of Songs manuscripts, these terms are written in the columns along with the rest of the text.48 Langton indicates the literal exegesis more frequently than the various forms of spiritual exegesis, and thus the phrases “ad litteram,” and “litteram sic expone” are scattered throughout his commentary. He also points out when the Gloss exegesis is literal, often with the phrase “continuatio ad litteram est illa Glosa.” Literal exegesis of the biblical text encompasses several types of glosses, including literary, historical, and lexicographical explanations. Many of the literal expositions in this reportatio of the Song of Songs are geographical or historical in nature. For example, the literal gloss on 1:13, “my beloved is to me a Cyprus plant among the vines of Engaddi,” reads “Cyprus is an island abounding with clusters of grapes for the making of 46

47 48

Gilbert Dahan, “Genres, Forms and Various Methods in Christian Exegesis of the Middle Ages,” in Magne Saebo, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen, 2000), 196–235, at 222. See above, 98–99. Quinto discusses Langton’s questiones in “Doctor Nominatissimus” Dahan, “Genres …,” 207.

Glossing the Gloss

109

sweet wine.”49 Almost all of these literal glosses are followed by a spiritual gloss that gives the allegorical or moral sense of the passage, thus allowing the readers of the commentary to glean several levels of meaning from each portion of the biblical text. The spiritual exegesis, which is based on the idea that all words and objects in a biblical text signify something, is a type of interpretation that Langton uses frequently.50 Of the many spiritual glosses in Langton’s commentary, however, only a few are specifically labeled as being this type of interpretation. Langton provides a moral gloss dealing with proper actions and behavior at 1:5, “They have made me a guard in the vineyards. I have not guarded my own vineyard.” The moral gloss reads “or we may understand morally, by vines, our actions, which we have not guarded well.”51 An example of an allegorical, or symbolic type of exegesis can be seen in Langton’s comment on a gloss explaining Song of Songs 7:12, “let us arise early in the morning and go to the vineyards.” Here, the Gloss interprets the vineyards as a “field of Christians,” ready to listen to the inspired words of preachers. Langton adds that the Gloss interpretation here is quickly comprehended, but “nevertheless, it is in part an allegory, which must be considered carefully.”52 As Langton reminds his students, these spiritual interpretations of the biblical text are more difficult to grasp than the literal interpretation, but they yield useful knowledge, allowing students to plumb the spiritual depths of the Scriptures. Dahan notes that animals should be assigned their own category under the rubric of spiritual exegesis, and for the Song of Songs, this is particularly necessary.53 In the text, there are references to sheep, goats, foxes, leopards, lions, doves, and other creatures. Langton is wholly traditional in the way he explains the animals mentioned in the Song of Songs text. For example, at 2:15, “catch for us the little foxes,” Langton follows the Gloss, and indeed accepted tradition, in identifying the foxes with heretics, who possess the same qualities of craftiness and slyness often attributed to foxes. Similarly, the dove mentioned at Song of Songs 2:10, “Arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove” is described as a pure 49 50 51

52

53

“Cyprus est insula habundans botris racemis vinum dulce facientibus …” Stephen ­Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 119vb, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 121va, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 42va. Dahan, “Genres …,” 232. “vel possumus moraliter per vineas intelligere acciones nostras quas non bene custo­ dimus” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 118vb, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 120ra, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 40va. “illa Glosa breviter comprehensa … in agro christiani, etc. verumtamen in parte est alia allegoria quod diligenter intueberis.” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 130va, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 131vb, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 59va. See also Chapter 1, 33–34 for Anselm’s interpretation of “the little foxes” Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne 347.

110

Chapter 4

representation of the Holy Spirit.54 Every word in a biblical text, including mentions of time and season, is imbued with several meanings that must be uncovered in order to present a full explanation of the book. Thus, Song of Songs 2:11, for example, “for already the winter has passed, the rain has gone away and departed,” gives Langton an opportunity to link winter with the death of Christ, and winter’s passage with the increasing strength of the Church to fight persecution, leading to a time of greater tranquility.55 The use of spiritual exegesis allows Langton and other exegetes to assign deeper meanings to the many “things” that appear in the biblical text. One theme that has remained consistently important in all the commentaries examined thus far has been that of preaching and the active life. This certainly is the case for Langton, who, in the words of Smalley, was “giving his pupils a moral training, and preparing them for the task of preaching to clergy and people.”56 During the early part of the twelfth century when Anselm of Laon and the author of the Glossed Song of Songs were working, most theologians did not discuss the preacher’s calling. As my earlier chapters have shown, Anselm’s continuous commentary and the Gloss which borrows from it seems to be among the first works to argue for the precedence of preaching over contemplation. In the latter part of the twelfth century when Langton was writing his Song of Songs commentary, he was working at a time and within a theological school that devoted more attention to the role of preachers and the importance of participation in the active life. The standard medieval view on the issue of the active versus the contemplative life was introduced by Origen, and was often explained in exegesis of the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38–42, with Mary interpreted as representing the contemplative life and Martha the active life. In this story, the sisters Mary and Martha welcome Jesus into their home, and Mary listened at Jesus’ feet while Martha was distracted by various tasks. When Martha complained that Mary had left her to do all the work alone, Jesus proclaimed that by remaining still and listening to him, Mary had “chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” The Church Fathers argued that the two lives were linked, and that the best possible life would combine both contemplation and action. The views of Origen, Gregory the Great and others, however, held that “the merits of the active life are great, but those of the contemplative life 54 55

56

“Columba mea simplex et munda spiritu sancto illustrata” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 121va, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 123rb., Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 45rb. “Per hiemem frigus infidelitatis per ymbrem sancte ecclesie significat persecutionem. Omnia vero ista post mortem Christi transierunt quia licet in primitiva ecclesia invaluisset persecutio magna tamen illa compulsa cito reddita est tranquilitas …” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 121va, BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 123rb, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 45va. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 213.

Glossing the Gloss

111

are preferable … the works of the active life pass with the body but the joys of the contemplative life become greater after the end.”57 Many living in the twelfth century, especially monastic figures such as Rupert of Deutz and Bernard of Clairvaux, echoed this idea that contemplation was superior to action, even while stating that a combination of the two was best.58 Some, however, including Langton, presented the argument that while the contemplative life was more secure and peaceful, the active life was ultimately more fruitful and benefited more people. Simon of Tournai stated that “He who will strive more strenuously [in action and administration] will be crowned more blessedly.”59 Similarly, Innocent III, who at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 called for diocesan preachers to work among the faithful, argued, in a letter he wrote to the abbot of Tilieto in 1209, that “where the battle is harder, the victory is more glorious, as the Apostle says that he ‘is not crowned except he strive lawfully’ [2 Tim. 2:5].”60 Taking the point even further, Innocent wrote in a letter to the bishop of Cagliari, “We therefore advise you not to reject the work of pastoral rule, lest perchance He refuse to receive you with Mary at His feet if you have refused to minister to Him with the careful Martha when he visited you.”61 As Giles Constable states, Innocent communicated the idea that “to reject the summons [of Christ to action] and to prefer solitude and contemplation … was to run the risk of displeasing Christ …”62 Langton, following in the footsteps of the Glossator and the Chanter, expressed this same idea in his gloss on the Song of Songs. For Langton, while the balanced life was best, the need for the reform of the church was obvious, and necessitated arising from contemplation to action and preaching. One of the most striking passages in Langton’s commentary, as well as in the Gloss and Peter the Chanter’s commentary is the explication of Song of Songs chapter 2, verse 10, in which all three texts specifically announce that the active life is better than the contemplative life and serves as a more certain path to salvation. Langton, however, expresses this idea more forcefully than the Gloss (and assigns a different reason for preaching’s superiority than the Chanter), but is careful to add that those who live a life balanced between contemplation and action are not to be criticized. In the passage from Langton’s commentary below, material taken from the Gloss is in bold, and that taken from the Chanter is in small caps. 57 58 59 60 61 62

Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, VI, 37–60–1 in Corpus Christianorum, CXLIII, 329–31. Quoted in Constable, “The Interpretation of Mary and Martha,” in Three Studies, 20. Constable, Three Studies, 20, 76. Ibid., 91. Ibid., 99. Ibid., 98. Ibid., 99.

112

Chapter 4

63

Gloss (interlinear and marginal) And my beloved says to me arise, hurry, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come. that is, break off contemplation and labor to gain other [converts], or arise from the love of earthly things. ‘Come’ to devote yourself to the salvation of your neighbors through sedulous attention to preaching, so that you may be worthy to be received with the great company at the wedding [the heavenly banquet, as if [the bridegroom says]: ‘you believe you will quickly come [to me] if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming [to me] is through work of this kind. Arise. That is, [the bridegroom says:] ‘break off contemplation and labor to gain others,’ or ‘arise from the love of earthly things. And you must arise because I love you and you me.’ Hurry. Because the time is short. My dove. Pure of heart, not envious, illumined by the Holy Spirit. My beautiful one. Through beauty of morals.63

63

Langton Arise. That is, break off contemplation and hurry, that is you must prepare to work in gaining others (converts) or, arise from the love of earthly things so that you love heavenly things more than earthly things, and you must arise and hurry because the time is short. I say arise, and you must because you are my beloved, whom I love and who loves me. The interlinear [Gloss reads] “ and you must,” et cetera. My dove, pure and clean, illumined by the Holy Spirit. My beautiful one, through beauty of morals. I say arise, hurry, and it must be done because there is a time for all things (Eccl. 3:11), and you are strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the hearers have been prepared to undertake the faith. Certainly, therefore, before rest Paul swore to the bridegroom his labor of preaching. The Gloss [says] “arise, hurry all things.” I say arise and come to fulfill the task of the salvation of all your neighbors, this is that nuptial garment in the Gospel (Mt. 22:11), “Friend, how did you get in here without having” (a nuptial garment), et cetera. This garment is [both] twofold and simple; the simple garment is charity, which is sufficient for those who do not engage in the cause of the preacher, but this is not sufficient for others unless they have the task of the salvation of their neighbors, so

“id est interrumpe contemplationem et labora in acquisitione aliorum, vel surge ab amore terrenorum. Veni ad impendendam etiam proximis curam salutis per studium sedulae praedicationis ut cum magno comitatu ad nuptias merearis recipi, quasi: credis te venturam si vacaveris contemplationem, sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi;” surge id est interrumpe contemplationem et labora in acquisitione aliorum, vel surge ab amore terrenorum, et debes surgere quia amo te et tu me; propera quia tempus breve; columba mea simplex, non invida, spiritu sancto illustrate; formosa mea per morum pulchritudinem.” Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 90, 24–28.

Glossing the Gloss

 64

113 that therefore they are worthy to be received at the nuptial banquet. You must take up the twofold garment. It is indeed better to enter into the wedding [the heavenly banquet] with the great company than to go off alone in contemplation. The Gloss [says] “Come to fulfill,” et cetera, and below that “you will come better” [to Christ through preaching], et cetera. The rewards of preaching are greater than those of rest; that is [he who] preaches rather than contemplates will enter the heavenly kingdom with the greater company. And note that the comparison is not made unless (it is) between one who is thus in contemplation and not in the action of preaching and one who is in contemplation and sometimes engaged in preaching.64

The first thing one likely notices when looking at these two passages is Langton’s verbosity. He communicates both the Gloss interpretation of the text and his own, which is very similar to the Gloss, but much more expansive. While the Gloss certainly states that preaching should be preferred to contemplation and 64

“Surge, id est, interrumpe contemplationem et propera labora in aliorum acquisitione vel surge ab amorem terrenorum, ut plus celestia quam terrene ames et debes surgere et propera quia tempus breve est. Dico surge et debes quia amica mea es quam amo et que me amas. Hoc interlinearis [glossa] et debes et cetera. Columba mea simplex,et munda spiritu sancto illustrata. per morum pulchritudinem. Dico surge et propera et faciendum est quia omnia tempus habent et tu es solidata spiritu sancto et auditores parati sunt fidem suscipere. Scilicet ergo quod Paulo ante quietem sponse adiurbat eius laborem predicat. Hoc Glossa surge propera omnia et cetera. Dico surge et veni ad implendam omnem proximi curam salutis, hec est illa vestis nuptialis de qua in evangelio, amice quomodo huc intrasti non habens, et cetera. Hec vestis duplex est et simplex, simplex vestis est caritas que sufficit hiis quibus non est conmissa causa predicatoris sed hoc non sufficit aliis nisi et curam salutis proximorum habent ut ergo digne ad nuptias merearis recipe. Sume tibi duplicem vestem. Melius est enim magno comitatu ad nuptias intrare quam solum et contemplationi vacare. Hoc Glossa veni ad implendam et cetera, et infra sed venies melius etc … Maior est fructus predicationis quam quietis, id est maiori comitatu ingredietur celestem patriam predicator quam contemplator. Et nota quod non fit com­ peratio nisi inter illum qui est ita in contemplatione quod non in predicandi acctione, et illum qui est in contemplatione est quandoque in predicandi labore.” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 121va; BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 123rb, Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 45rb-va.

114

Chapter 4

is a better way to come to Christ, Langton’s statement is both more direct and more dramatic in that he emphasizes that “the rewards of preaching are greater than those of rest; that is [he who] preaches rather than contemplates will enter the heavenly kingdom with the greater company.” While the task of preaching is more burdensome than the security and peace of contemplation, it is a task that aids more people and reaps greater rewards. He makes clear, however, at the end of his interpretation of this passage that contemplation does not bar one from entering heaven with the greater company. Langton does not take issue with those who lead balanced lives, and indeed, as mentioned earlier, he would most likely argue along with his contemporaries that a balanced life is best. Langton only seems to object to those who completely isolate themselves from the world and ignore the Church’s appeal for aid, and yet believe that they are pursuing the best path to salvation. Despite this acceptance of a balanced life, Langton does tend to emphasize the importance of the action of preaching. By saying “It is indeed better to enter into the wedding with the great company than to go off alone in contemplation,” Langton implies that those who devote all of their time to contemplation do not merit entering heaven with the great company, which would presumably include those engaged in the active life. In addition, Langton speaks of arising from contemplation to action. As Giles Constable states, “the image of ascent and descent … was often applied to the two lives, but more often in the sense of rising from action to contemplation than the reverse.”65 In Langton’s view, one must abandon contemplation and rise to action in order to heed Christ’s call to preaching. Repeating his assertion that the active life brings greater rewards than the contemplative life is just one way in which Langton attempts to make his message clear to his students. Langton’s frequent use of the phrase “I say arise” gives the passage a rhetorical quality that may have inspired students to turn the words of the Lord into deed. In addition, Langton uses biblical examples that the students would have been familiar with to elucidate his points. He mentions that Paul swore to the bridegroom to engage in preaching and conversion before rest. While the Gloss mentions the wedding or heavenly banquet, Langton actually quotes the parable from which the Gloss takes its reference (Mt. 22:11). This method may have helped encourage students to link seemingly diverse biblical texts together, and in this case, students may have recalled the closing line of this parable, which states “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22:14). This phrase neatly underscores the hopes that 65

Constable, Three Studies, 116–17.

Glossing the Gloss

115

Langton seems to be communicating in this passage: that the future preachers in his classroom are among those who take up the task of preaching and become worthy to be received at the heavenly banquet with the great company. These students are those few who are chosen. It is important to unpack the dense language evident in this passage in order to gain a greater understanding of what Langton was actually trying to communicate to his students. In describing the nuptial garment that the preacher will be clothed in at the heavenly banquet from the parable in Matthew 22:11, Langton calls it “twofold and simple,” arguing that the simple garment represents charity. While charity is sufficient for those who do not preach, Langton stresses that preachers must take on the twofold garment, which would seem to represent the love of both God and neighbor, a twofold love that can best be expressed through participation in the active life. All of this is implied in the text, but is not clearly stated, which lends credence to the idea that students listening to a lecture like Langton’s on the Song of Songs would have a Glossed Bible in front of them so they could see where all the various biblical references in the lecture originated and better understand the message communicated by the master. Langton again echoes the Gloss, and also the various versions of Anselm of Laon’s continuous commentary, in his exposition of Song of Songs 5:5, “I arose in order to open to my beloved.” Langton writes, I arose, that is, I interrupted my contemplation so that I might open to my beloved, that is, so that I might open up sealed hearts to him. And note that the bride is rightly reminded to arise first and open to her beloved after, because it is necessary for the preacher to first arise to a good life and afterwards administer his preaching to others, lest preaching to others, he may himself be found to be reprobate. Thus, the Gloss says arise from sleep, etc.66 66

“Surrexi, id est conteplationem meam interrumpi ut aperirem meo dilecto id est reserarem conclusa corda ei. Et nota quod sponsa bene prius surrexisse et post ut aperiret dilecto commemoratur quia necesse est ut predicator primo bona vita assurgat et postea aliis predicare disponat ne aliis predicans ipse reprobus reperiatur hoc vult illa Glosa surrexi a dormitione, etc.” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 126rb; BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 128ra-b; Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 53rb. Compare this to the Gloss, which reads “Surrexi a dormitione ad laborem quia necesse est ut qui veritatem predicare disponit prius ad agenda ea que predicat assurgat, ne aliis predicans ipse reprobus efficiatur.” Dove, Glossa, V, 5, 58, 4–8. Cf. “Ideo surrexi id est a contemplationis mee quiete vacat ut aperire dilecto meo id est reserarem ei occulta corda et quia ipse tetigit ventrem et ut bonum exemplum

116

Chapter 4

In Langton’s work, we see both the idea of giving up contemplation for action and the necessity of the preacher purging himself of sin in order to provide a good example to the people and avoid being condemned for wrongdoing. Langton links this back to another interpretation taken from the Gloss on Song of Songs 5:4, “my beloved put his hand through the aperture, and my insides trembled at his touch.” For this verse, Langton writes, “… or by ‘insides,’ we can understand soft and fragile preachers who fear to take up the office of preaching because they find themselves less suitable.”67 If, Langton seems to argue, a preacher properly rids himself of vice and is willing to arise from contemplation to action, he will have no need to fear for his suitability, and will be counted among the strong and effective preachers, rather than the “soft and fragile” ones. As was the case with the Anselm’s commentary, the Gloss, and the Chanter’s work, Langton also portrays Christ as a preacher himself and as desirous of more preachers to take on important tasks in the Church. At times when expressing this idea in his commentary, Langton simply replicates what the Chanter had wrote in his commentary, clearly illustrating the Chanter’s influence on Langton. An example of this can be seen with Langton’s gloss on Song of Songs 2:12, “… the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land.” The voice of the turtledove, etc. [The bridegroom] had encouraged the bride to the labor of preaching, but because she ought not refuse that [labor], He makes clear the savior’s example, because if Christ, who was resting in the bosom of the Father, wished to descend[to earth] for us and endure the burden of preaching for us, to a much greater extent the members [of Christ’s Church], as it were, must arise and come. And you must do this, because Christ himself came to preach.68

67

68

daret eis quibus predicaret.” Anselm of Laon, Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390, f. 19r; Wien, ONB, MS 12762, f. 10v; Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290, f. 220vb. “vel possumus intelligere per ventrem molles et fragiles predicatores qui officium predicationis suscipientes timent quia se minus ydoneos cognoscunt.” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 12rb; BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 128ra; Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 53ra. Cf. the Gloss, “illorum qui predicationis officium suscipiunt quia se minus idoneos recognoscunt et ideo timent.” Dove, Glossa, V, 4, 50, 13. “Vox turturis, etc. invitaverat sponsam ad laborem predicationis sed quod istud recusare non debeat ostendit exemplo salvatoris quia si Christus qui in sinu patris quiescebat voluit pro nobis ad nostras descendere et honus predicationis subire multo magis et membra sua quasi surge et veni et debes quia ipsemet Christus venit predicare.” Stephen Langton, Arsenal, MS 64, f. 121vb; BnF, MS lat. 14434, f. 123va; Wien, ONB, MS 1301, f. 45va.

Glossing the Gloss

117

This passage is almost identical to what the Chanter wrote on this particular verse, that potential preachers must follow the example of Christ, who gave up perfect contemplation and understanding alongside the Father to descend to earth and preach. Both the Chanter and Langton, echoing the Gloss before them, argue that preachers must, like Christ, work here on earth. They must strike a careful balance between caring for the people of the Church and striving to win new converts and avoiding becoming overly attached to secular affairs. It is clear in the work of Langton that preaching is difficult and can be construed as a burden, but only the strongest can lift this burden and act as guardians of the Church. Langton’s work on the Song of Songs represents another step in the evolution of the scholastic Song of Songs commentary. He incorporated material from the Gloss, Anselm, and the Chanter while expanding upon the content of their commentaries with his own verbose style. Langton goes further than any of his sources in his support for the active life, arguing that preaching pays the greatest benefits to both the preacher and the audience. As Riccardo Quinto remarks, Langton privileged preaching in his commentary, and he “goes further than Peter the Chanter, underlining the dignity of an intellectual approach to the Holy Scripture.”69 Perhaps most important, however, is the very format that his commentary takes. Langton’s “gloss on the Gloss” raises the Glossed Song of Songs to a more important level that we see in the Chanter’s commentary because Langton cites it by name. He is careful, however, to separate his own exegesis from that of the Gloss, which allows the reader to easily identify sections where Langton goes beyond his sources and offers his own interpretations of the biblical text. As Quinto writes, Langton shows “a certain continuity between this attitude [toward preaching and Scripture] and the intellectual skill that early Dominicans tried to attain in order to be effective in their pastoral activity … Stephen Langton is in this sense definitely not part of the

69

Compare this to the Chanter on this phrase, which was discussed above on page 126: “Vox, invitaverat sponsam ad laborem predicationis modo quod istud recusare non debeat ostendit, exemplo salvatoris quia Christus qui in sinu patris quiescebat voluit pro nobis ad nostras descendere et honus predicationis subire multo magis et membra sua quasi surge et veni et debes quia etiam ipsum Christus venit predicare.” Peter the Chanter, Ma­zarine, MS 178, f. 45ra. Riccardo Quinto, “The Influence of Stephen Langton on the Idea of the Preacher in the De eruditione predicatorum of Humbert of Romans and the Postille on the Scriptures of Hugh of St-Cher,” in Christ Among the Medieval Dominicans: Representations of Christ in the Texts and Images of the Order of Preachers, Kent Emery, Jr. and Joseph Wawrykow, eds. (Notre Dame, IN, 1998), 64.

118

Chapter 4

environment which produced monastic theology.”70 Thus, these new developments in the format and content of Song of Songs commentaries lead to both continuity and change as the mendicants inherit the task of scholastic biblical exegesis in Paris. 70

Ibid.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

119

Chapter 5

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill: Reading the Song of Songs as a Mendicant Text The themes of the importance of preaching and the active life which are so central to the Gloss and the Song of Songs commentaries of the figures explored in previous chapters are also strikingly evident in the postills on the Bible written­ under the guidance of the Dominican Hugh of St. Cher (c. 1190/1200– 1263). Going beyond their predecessors, however, Hugh and his team will not simply champion action in their Song of Songs postill, but will argue for the superiority of the mendicant way of life above all other religious callings. Before delving into the project that Hugh and his brothers undertook, therefore, it is important to note the changes happening in the Church around the turn of the thirteenth century and the impact that both reform movements and heresies had had on the direction of the Church so that we can account for Hugh’s argument. We must, in short, see where Hugh and his brothers had their origins in order to understand their particular reading of the Song of Songs. The early thirteenth century saw a number of important developments within the Church, including the founding of the monumentally significant mendicant movements. While the impetus for these movements came from figures like Francis and Dominic, without papal approval and acclaim, they would not have been able to play the pivotal role they did in the history of the Church. A belief in the importance of preaching and support for a well-regulated apostolic life is clearly evident in the sermons, letters, and actions of Popes Innocent III (r. 1198–1216) and Honorius III (r. 1216–1227). Under the aegis of these two popes, and due to the initiative of the mendicant leaders Francis and Dominic, the program of preaching advocated by the “masters of the sacred page” became a reality, and orthodox preachers took up the mantle of reform that was in danger of being appropriated by heretics and lay preachers throughout the twelfth century. Innocent and Honorius used the position as vicars of Christ to promote preaching as a tool to combat heretics and Muslims, to convert Jews, and to inspire Christians who had become lax in their faith. In a brief thirty-year period, Innocent and Honorius enacted two of the most important reforms of the medieval Church: the provisions of the Fourth Lateran Council and the approval of the new mendicant orders. Both Innocent and Honorius sought to bring about reform of the Church, clergy, and laity from the top

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_007

120

Chapter 5

down, which was precisely the kind of reform advocated in the Song of Songs commentaries of Anselm and the Parisian masters. As Malcolm Lambert remarks, “Paris masters combined intellectual activity with action to instruct the priesthood, and arm them against heretics,” and “the traditions of reforming schoolmen thus contributed directly to the mendicant advance.”1 Therefore, the actions of Innocent III and Honorius III can be seen as the culmination of the movement toward the active life that had been building among certain schoolmen since the early twelfth century. The writings and actions of these two popes clearly illustrate that the ideas circulating in biblical commentaries had important practical implications. Innocent in particular can be seen as an heir to this Parisian exegetical tradition. Lotario of Segni, the future Innocent III, studied in Paris in the 1170s, and as John C. Moore states, “Lotario’s stay in Paris probably lasted six to ten years, giving him time to complete his studies in the liberal arts and to pursue courses in theology.”2 According to John W. Baldwin, Innocent may have had an association with the circle of Peter the Chanter, and did study with Peter of Corbeil, a theologian who was also interested in the practical problems that Peter the Chanter and his associates were addressing.3 Consequently, Innocent received the bulk of his training in an environment where scriptural study and exegesis ultimately leading to preaching was paramount. This is reflected in his theological treatises and especially in his sermons, which are, in the words of Corinne J. Vause and Frank C. Gardiner, “‘meta-pastoral,’ in that they teach the pastoral role even as they are the means Innocent employs for carrying out that role.”4 What Innocent learned at Paris continued to influence him throughout his career, and his enthusiasm for preaching is evident in his legislation at the Fourth Lateran Council, as well as in his letters and sermons. It is telling that Innocent was one of the few popes of the High Middle Ages to have compiled a sermon collection. Vause and Gardiner go so far as to say that “before Innocent’s time, only Leo I (r. 440–61) and Gregory I (r. 590–604), 1 Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 99. I do not argue here that Innocent and Honorius were directly influenced through reading the previously discussed Song of Songs commentaries, but simply that the ideas circulating in Laon and then in Paris certainly had an impact on two men whom we might call “biblical-moral popes.” 2 John C. Moore, Pope Innocent III (1160/61–1216): To Root Up and to Plant (Leiden, 2003), 8. 3 Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 343, 18, 46. Baldwin notes on page 46 that “none of his [Peter of Corbeil’s] academic writings have been successfully identified,” but works that he is suspected of authoring investigate the sorts of practical problems that also interested Peter the Chanter. 4 Corinne J. Vause and Frank C. Gardiner, Pope Innocent III: Between God and Man: Six Sermons on the Priestly Office (Washington, DC, 2004), xiv.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

121

also men deeply engaged in administrative and secular affairs, had left such extensive homiletic legacies.”5 This would appear to be illustrative of the importance Innocent and other secular clergy placed on preaching, and indeed, of the growing need for the reform of the Church. Innocent’s collection of 79 sermons, which are included in volume 217 of the Patrologia Latina, seems to have been compiled between 1201–1205.6 John C. Moore writes that there is evidence in the sermons that they were actually given, including “occasional phrases indicating that Innocent has become aware his is running on too long and must cut the sermon short.”7 Much can be gleaned from these sermons and from Innocent’s letters about his attitude toward preaching and the value of the active life.8 In particular, a letter Innocent sent to Arnald, the abbot of Cîteaux, to serve as a prologue to his sermon collection illustrates Innocent’s commitment to the duty of preaching and his recognition of its power. He wrote to Arnald that “[a]mong the many ministries that belong to the pastoral office, the virtue of holy preaching is the most excellent … [i]ndeed preaching has such great power that it calls the soul back from error to truth, and from vices to virtues.”9 In their acknowledgement of the preeminence of preaching, these sentiments echo those seen in the Song of Songs commentaries of Anselm and the Parisian masters. For all these men, instructing others in the faith and building upon the foundation of the Scriptures is the most difficult, most rewarding, and most important task that any clergyman could perform. Innocent’s letter to the Bishop of Cagliari (quoted above, p. 111) reinforces this idea by declaring that the active life should be favored over the contemplative. Innocent, like the masters who preceded him, believed that the clergy must reform itself before the wider goals of preaching could be accomplished. As Vause and Gardiner state, “[b]ecause the reformation of the clergy was at the heart of Innocent’s plan for the reformation of the [C]hurch, his instructions on the nature of priesthood give us a valuable key for understanding the 5 Ibid., xiii. 6 John C. Moore, “The Sermons of Pope Innocent III,” in Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 36 (Vienna, 1994), 81–142, at 87. 7 Ibid., 83. 8 Innocent, like the other men discussed in this book, was heavily indebted to Gregory the Great for his thoughts on pastoral care and his writings; for further discussion on the relationship between Innocent and Gregory, see Christoph Egger’s essay, “‘The Growling of the Lion and the Humming of the Fly’: Gregory the Great and Innocent III,” in Frances Andrews, Christoph Egger, and Constance M. Rousseau, eds., Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton (Leiden, 2004), 13–46. 9 Vause and Gardiner, Pope Innocent III: Between God and Man, 4.

122

Chapter 5

attitudes he held while undertaking that reform.”10 Innocent and the Parisian secular masters emphasized the role of priests as intermediaries between Christ and His people, and thus stressed that priests must be morally upright in order to properly communicate Christ’s message. This message is particularly present in Innocent’s sermon to the Roman synod. In this sermon, Innocent outlined how priests should behave and what their duties entailed. He wrote that priests are held to a higher standard than the laity, and that “the sin of the priest is equivalent to the sin of the whole people because the priest, in his sin, brings guilt down upon the people.”11 The priest serves as an example to his congregation, so “many sins are venial for the laity that are mortal sins for the clergy.”12 Any priest who commits sins infects those under his pastoral care, so Innocent emphasized that more than anyone else, priests must strive to live blameless lives. The consequences if they fail to live up to this standard is a theme touched upon in the Gloss, which warns preachers to avoid sin, “lest when they preach to others they themselves are found reprobate.”13 Innocent quotes this same passage in his letter to Arnald of Cîteaux, and also urges clergy not to look to favorably on their own preaching skill, noting that “certainly the dust of vainglory often clings to the feet of preachers.”14 Innocent and his predecessors argued that only those who were morally pure were able to successfully take up the burden of preaching. Going hand in hand with this moral reform of the clergy was the need for educational reform. The Parisian masters felt strongly that scriptural interpretation was an activity which required rigorous orthodox training, and they viewed lay attempts to read and explain the Bible as “roughly the equivalent of a modern person’s practicing surgery or dentistry without any formal education – laughable if it were not so dangerous.”15 The training and moral rectitude necessary for priests discussed above was important precisely because a growing number of laypeople were growing dissatisfied with inadequate clergy and wished to interpret Scripture for themselves. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, the Church hierarchy seemed to lag behind popular wandering preachers like Norbert of Xanten and Robert of Arbrissel in its attempts to satisfy some laypeople who showed a growing interest in reading Scripture and leading the apostolic life. 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ibid., xxvii. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 9. See above, Chapter 2, 69. Vause and Gardiner, Pope Innocent III: Between God and Man, 6. Moore, Pope Innocent III, 10.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

123

By the late twelfth century, Innocent was forced to confront the problem of laypeople gathering to read and interpret vernacular translations of Scripture, an act which teetered dangerously on the brink of heresy. A revealing example of Innocent’s attempts to deal with this problem can be found in his letter to the people of Metz, written in 1199. In the letter, addressed to the citizens of the diocese as whole, Innocent expressed his alarm over supposed secret gatherings of laypeople to read vernacular Scripture. He emphasized that “the desire to understand the divine Scriptures and to encourage enthusiasm for them deserves not censure, but praise,” making clear that he wants the laity to be involved in the Church, one of the overarching goals of his pontificate.16 Innocent does not hesitate, however, to announce to the people of Metz that they “deserve to be criticized for holding their meetings in secret, usurping the office of preaching, making fun of the priests’ simple-mindedness, and scorning the company of those not interested in such things.”17 Although Innocent realized that there were many parish priests who were unequipped to shepherd their flocks, above all he cautioned the laity in Metz that they must honor the dignity of the priestly office, and not try to usurp it in any way. Innocent used scriptural references to argue against secret meetings and to upbraid the citizens for criticizing even “simpleminded priests,” who should “really be chastised in the spirit of mildness by the bishop for whose correction he is appointed.”18 The letter ended on a threatening note, with Innocent writing, “[u]nless you humbly and devoutly accept our fatherly correction and admonition, we will pour wine on after the oil, and apply ecclesiastical severity, so that those who would not willingly obey may learn to give in even against their will.”19 This warning helps to reinforce the scriptural arguments Innocent made earlier in the letter and allows him to deftly and subtly outline the spiritual consequences that those who continue to defy him will face. When confronted with out-and-out heresy, however, Innocent did not fail to strike more harshly with both the spiritual and the temporal sword.20 16

17 18 19 20

Innocent III, “Letter to the People of Metz,” (1199) in Julius Kirshner and Karl F. Morrison, eds., University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization: Vol. 4-Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1986), 363. Ibid. Ibid., 365. Ibid., 367–8. When confronted with religious groups that had earlier been deemed to be heretics, such as the Humiliati, Innocent granted many of them at least some form of approval, see Frances Andrews’ article “Innocent III and Evangelical Enthusiasts: The Route to Approval” in John C. Moore, ed., Pope Innocent III and His World, (Aldershot, 1999), 229–241. For more on Innocent’s decretals dealing with heresy, particularly the decretal Vergentis of 1199, see

124

Chapter 5

There is no doubt that the increasing activity throughout parts of Europe of those the Church considered heretics was one impetus for Innocent’s interest in preaching. The heresies discussed in Chapter 1 continued to spread throughout the twelfth century, and by the time of Innocent’s papacy, Catharism and Waldensianism were strong forces. Despite the fact that we can identify the heretics that threatened the Church at this time, Innocent, like Anselm, the Chanter, and Langton, is distressingly vague about the heresies that preachers must combat. He does argue, in his sermon to the Roman synod, that heretics look for preachers to commit errors, in order to prey on the weak minds of the congregation and lure them into heresy. He wrote, “[w]hen heretics see us sin, they teach that alms should not be given to us, drawing on the authority of Sacred Scripture …. When heretics see us sin, they teach that our preaching should not be listened to, proving this by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”21 These heretics, like the crafty foxes who populate the Song of Songs commentaries of Anselm and the Parisian masters, are well-versed in Scripture and able to draw on that knowledge to argue against orthodox preachers.22 To confront these heretics, particularly those in Languedoc, Innocent appealed to the Cistercians in the first year of his pontificate to go out and preach.23 In letters written to persuade the Cistercians, Beverly Mayne Kienzle notes that Innocent laid out his argument for the importance of preaching, noting that it was necessary even for the Cistercians to “leave the contemplative life of Rachel and Mary and to take on the burden of Leah or the service of Martha.”24 The Cistercians continued in their roles as preachers even when the papal legate Peter of Castelnau was murdered in 1208, which led Innocent to call the Albigensian Crusade. The Cistercians and Innocent made use of the vineyard imagery so prevalent in the Song of Songs, and wrote and preached about the “little foxes” who persisted in destroying the Lord’s vineyard. Joining the Cistercians in Languedoc were popular preachers who were associated

21 22

23 24

Keith H. Kendall, “‘Mute Dogs, Unable to Bark’: Innocent III’s Call to Combat Heresy,” in Wolfgang P. Müller and Mary E. Sommer, eds., Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington (Washington, DC, 2006), 170–178. Vause and Gardiner, Pope Innocent III: Between God and Man, 10. For more on Innocent III and the members of the biblical-moral school on orthodoxy vs. heresy, see Jessalyn Bird, “The Construction of Orthodoxy and the (De)construction of Heretical Attacks on the Eucharist in Pastoralia from Peter the Chanter’s Circle in Paris” in Caterina Bruschi and Peter Biller, eds., Texts and the Repression of Medieval Heresy (York, 2003), 45–61. Innocent was also sending popular preachers and trying to recruit the Cistercians to preach a crusade in the East. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade, 135–6.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

125

with the circle of Peter the Chanter, most notable Fulk de Neuilly and Jacques de Vitry. Kienzle notes that these “[c]onnections between the Cistercians and the Chanter’s circle illustrate the white monks’ involvement in the ambitious program of reform mandated by Innocent III.”25 This broad coalition speaks to Innocent’s belief that preaching was the most powerful spiritual weapon available to combat the incursions of heretics into orthodox society. The culmination of Innocent’s reform program was the legislation enacted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Broadly stated, Innocent’s goals in ­convening the council were “rooting up vices and planting virtues, correcting excesses and reforming morals, eliminating heresies and strengthening faith …” among other things, including calling the Fifth Crusade.26 Several of the canons reflected Innocent’s desire to enact far-reaching moral reforms. Canons 7 and 8 called for investigation into any sin or wrongdoing by a prelate and canons 10 and 11 guaranteed that the material and educational needs of the clergy would be met, which would ensure that they were prepared to lead by word and example. Canon 10 in particular asked bishops to appoint “suitable men, potent in work and word, to carry on the office of holy preaching in a beneficial way.”27 These canons are perhaps the strongest indicator of Innocent’s devotion to the priesthood. Clergy was to be supported, and their moral character was to be strictly upheld so that the laity could reap the benefits of honest preaching. Phyllis B. Roberts writes that Innocent served as a model preacher who set an example with his own preaching and his reform program, and that “[m]asters in the cathedral schools in Paris who were trained in theology, such as Stephen Langton, later archbishop of Canterbury, Peter the Chanter, and Robert of Courson, responded to this call.”28 Innocent certainly played a pivotal role in bringing about the reform of the clergy and laity, but it is important to note that rather than responding to his call for preaching, Langton and especially the Chanter were on the vanguard of this movement, calling for more widespread preaching and the education of clergy well before 1215. We must not underestimate the role that these secular masters, stretching back to Anselm of Laon in the early twelfth century, played 25 26 27

28

Ibid., 173. Moore, Pope Innocent III, 207. James M. Powell, “The Prefatory Letters to the Sermons of Pope Honorius III and the Reform of Preaching” in Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 33 (1979), 95. These canons echo the ideas about the morality of preachers put forth by Anselm, the Gloss, the Chanter, and Langton in their Song of Songs commentaries. Phyllis B. Roberts, “Preaching in/and the Medieval City,” in Medieval Sermons and Society: Cloister, City, University: Proceedings of International Symposia at Kalamazoo and New York (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1998), 153–4.

126

Chapter 5

in spurring concrete reforms with the exhortations to the active life that are infused throughout their commentaries on the Song of Songs. After the death of Innocent III in 1216, Honorius III succeeded him as pontiff and sought to further develop the program laid out by his predecessor. Honorius’ writings and personality seem to pale in comparison to Innocent, who was certainly a more dynamic pontiff, and who brought the papacy to the height of its power. Nevertheless, in many ways Honorius strove to continue Innocent’s legacy of reform, and his sermons extend a pastoral message even further than Innocent III’s writings. Since Innocent died in 1216 soon after the adjournment of the Fourth Lateran Council, it was left to Honorius to carry out the canons and the reform of preaching. As James M. Powell notes, “one of the most significant changes to occur during [Honorius III’s] pontificate was the emergence of the mendicant orders, and particularly the Dominicans, as popular preachers.”29 Honorius was instrumental in encouraging the growth of the mendicant orders and in urging them to preach. He went even further by sending his sermon collections to the Dominicans, Cistercians, and others, indicating that like Innocent, Honorius wished to cultivate a broad base of support for pastoral missions and reform. Powell argues that by sending his sermon collections to the Dominicans first (c. 1220–1), Honorius was indicating that he had marked the Dominicans as the group most suited to carry out canon 10 of the Fourth Lateran Council.30 Thus, Honorius continued in the tradition of his predecessor Innocent and the Parisian masters in recognizing the power of preaching and its usefulness in carrying out reform. The commitment to preaching and the active life evinced by Innocent and Honorius echoed the reform movement already underway in the schools as shown in the Gloss and the Song of Songs commentaries of Anselm, the Chanter, and Langton. This commitment also paved the way for the confirmation and support of the Franciscan and Dominican orders, who would carry out the mission of preaching. Innocent’s blueprint for moral reform had been provided by works like the Gloss and the commentaries of the Parisian masters. Innocent and Honorius bridged the gap between the scholastic masters and the mendicants, imparting the message of reform to a new type of reformer. As Phyllis B. Roberts reminds us, it is important to see “[t]he founding of the mendicant orders and their rapid spread throughout the cities of western Europe in the course of the thirteenth century … as part of this ongoing effort by the Church to educate and persuade the laity of the medieval city.”31 Now 29 30 31

Powell, “The Prefatory Letters,” 96. Ibid., 100. Roberts, “Preaching in/and the Medieval City,” 154.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

127

that the clergy had been placed on the path toward reform, the laity, and in particular urban populations like that in Paris, became the focus of the mendicants. The following chapter will explore Hugh of St. Cher, a member of one of these new mendicant orders, the Order of Preachers, and his supervision of the project to assemble wide-ranging postills on the entire Bible in the 1230s. Hugh and the Dominicans on his exegetical team incorporated the old traditions of the Gloss with the opinions of the biblical-moral school. The importance of preaching and the active life remains a central theme in Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs. Innocent and Honorius, perhaps more than anyone else, fostered this tradition of biblical exegesis that was subsequently adopted and further transformed by mendicants in the thirteenth century. Within a few short decades of their foundation, the mendicant orders that Innocent III and Honorius III had championed had established themselves as leaders of thirteenth-century Parisian intellectual life, establishing studia where they studied and taught the Bible. The establishment of these orders had a prodigious impact on the Church for many reasons, not the least of which was that “after the departure of the theology master Stephen Langton” from Paris in 1206, “the secular masters in particular gradually abandoned the practice of lecturing ex cathedra on different biblical books and circulating their biblical lecture courses in extended published commentaries.”32 It was left to the mendicants to take up the task of teaching and writing on the Bible that Anselm and the Parisian moralists had done so extensively, and they certainly answered the call. The Dominican Hugh of St. Cher was prominent among these early mendicants, and in the 1230s, Hugh and a team of fellow Dominicans at the Parisian studium of St. Jacques produced three massive scriptural projects: a biblical concordance, a correctorium, and postills encompassing the entire Bible.33 Since, as Bert Roest remarks, “solid biblical learning was a cornerstone of the Dominican identity from the outset,” it is not surprising that a Dominican team would work to reshape how medieval students and masters used the Bible.34 This postill project was a remarkable undertaking, 32

33

34

Bert Roest, “Mendicant School Exegesis,” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity, eds. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly (New York, 2011), 180–181. For Hugh’s biographical data, including his time as a cardinal, see Jacques Verger, “Hugues de Saint-Cher dans le Contexte Universitaire Parisien,” 13–22, and Pierre-Marie Gy, “Hugues de Saint-Cher Dominicain,” 23–28, in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien, eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy (Turnhout, 2004). Roest, “Mendicant School Exegesis,” 179.

128

Chapter 5

which may have had the goal of supplanting the Glossa Ordinaria and incorporating interpretations of the Bible produced since the writing of the Gloss. Most scholars agree that Hugh was successful in establishing the postills as a major biblical reference used in the schools; Gilbert Dahan has called the postills “the most important commentary of the thirteenth century (by its impact),” and Beryl Smalley asserts that the postills “were to be found on the shelves of any self-respecting library in the later middle ages.”35 The postills were also printed many times between the late fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, suggesting that they had a lasting impact on biblical exegesis. The height of Hugh of St. Cher’s career as an exegete in Paris came between 1230–1240, “at the precise moment when theology was being constructed as a science,” separate from the study of Scripture, and school exegesis was evolving into a particular kind of university exegesis.36 Martin Morard notes that there are “numerous details that indicate they [the postills] were addressed to a university public”, and Patricia Stirnemann, in her work on postills manuscripts, refers to Sorbonne 16, a pecia manuscript prepared for a university audience.37 Hugh’s work on the postills project, however, “pertains more to the genre of exegesis of the schools than to that of university exegesis, which grew during his lifetime.”38 Instead of serving as a link between school exegesis and the more structured and scientific exegesis of the universities, Hugh connects two other medieval intellectual traditions. His work connects the biblical-moral school and the mendicant movement by injecting the ideals of both groups into his postills. Thus, Hugh’s postills can be seen as the culmination in a way of the exegetical work of the Gloss, Anselm of Laon, and the members of the biblical-moral school. He employs their ideas, but lends them a particularly mendicant sensibility, producing a postill that serves as an ideal endpoint for an investigation of Song of Songs exegesis in the schools.39 The most extensive investigations into Hugh’s postills in the mid-twentieth century were made by Beryl Smalley, who incorporated sections on the postills into both The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages and The Gospels in the Schools. In recent years, scholars have begun to answer Smalley’s call for “a 35 36 37

38 39

Gilbert Dahan, “Genres …,” 211; Smalley, Study of the Bible, 270. Bataillon, Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), 7. Martin Morard, “Hugues de Saint-Cher, Commentateur des Psaumes”, 122; Patricia Stirnemann, “Les Manuscrits de La Postille,” 34. Both in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Dahan, “Genres …,” 211. See also M. Michèle Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study:’ Dominican Education Before 1350 (Toronto, 1998), especially 485–506 for an overview of the postills project.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

129

critical study of the manuscript tradition and the sources of Hugh’s postills.”40 The proceedings of a 2000 international colloquium on Hugh of St. Cher spearheaded by Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy held in Paris contains a number of papers that help to clarify Hugh’s life and his exegetical, homiletic, and theological work.41 Perhaps the most important discovery that scholars studying Hugh have made was that the postill project was a collaborative effort. These scholars acknowledge that the sheer size and breadth of the postills renders unlikely the idea that Hugh alone wrote or compiled them. As Robert E. Lerner remarks, “not only is it inconceivable that a single individual could have accomplished such a vast amount of work by himself while also attending to weighty academic, homiletic, and administrative responsibilities, but the postills contain within them differing opinions that attest to multiple authorship.”42 Nonetheless, the postills circulated under Hugh’s name, and he likely directed any collaborative effort to write the works, so I will refer to the authors of the postills as Hugh or occasionally “Hugh and his team” or make reference to the “Hugh postill” throughout this chapter.43 40 41 42

43

Smalley, Study of the Bible, 270. The proceedings are collected in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), a volume containing twenty invaluable articles on Hugh and his works. See note 33 above. Robert E. Lerner, “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher: Hugh of St. Cher between Peter the Chanter and Albert the Great,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien, 215. Lerner also expressed this idea in his earlier work “Poverty, Preaching, and Eschatology in the Revelation Commentaries of ‘Hugh of St. Cher,’” in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood (Oxford, 1985), 157–189. Philippe Buc has also noted that political opinions expressed in the postill differ from one book to another, lending credence to the idea that the postills were a collaborative project. See Philippe Buc, L’Ambiguité du Livre, (Paris, 1994), 64. Lesley Smith’s contribution to a volume honoring the late Michael Signer serves as an important corrective to this idea. Smith notes that scholars such as Lerner and Riccardo Quinto who have argued that the postills were a collaborative project do not have much evidence for this claim, and tend to quote each other when making this assertion. Both Lerner and Quinto refer to “Hugh” when discussing the postills, emphasizing the notion that Hugh himself was not solely responsible for their authorship. Ultimately, Smith rejects this notion and argues that Hugh played a role as “the controlling mind in writing and producing the Postilla at St. Jacques.” See Lesley Smith, “Hugh of St. Cher and Medieval Collaboration,” in Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians Throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer, ed. Franklin T. Harkins (Notre Dame, 2010), 241–264. I will not follow the practice of Lerner and Quinto of always placing Hugh’s name in quotation marks. Although I make no pretensions to know whether or not Hugh of St. Cher can be considered the “author” of the postills, as I argue in this chapter, the postill on the Song of Songs attributed to Hugh does seem to have a cohesive message and distinctive character.

130

Chapter 5

One question that many have struggled with is why these works were known as “postills.” Beryl Smalley notes that the term may derive from “post illa verba,” which may “refer to the fact that the comment was written out as a continuous gloss, interposed between the loci of the text.”44 Smalley also mentions that this became the standard term for texts of this kind, and that the term can be used to refer to “commentaries emanating from the schools.”45 In any case, the precise meaning of the term still remains elusive. As mentioned above, in the intervening years between the production of the Gloss and the issuance of Hugh’s postills, many new scriptural interpretations had appeared. Smalley argues that Hugh and his team had a systematic goal in mind when producing his postills: he wanted to supplant the Gloss as the established reference Bible used in the schools and include these new interpretations, especially those of the members of the biblical-moral school.46 Lerner is less certain that the authors of the Hugh postill had this particular goal in mind, asserting that the postills more closely resemble “a great bulging duffle bag” crammed with all sorts of interpretations rather than a systematic supplement to the Gloss, and that we cannot know exactly what goal Hugh and his team had in mind when composing the postills.47 In any case, as Gilbert Dahan notes, these new works, especially those commentaries by Peter the Chanter and Stephen Langton, had in a way completed the Gloss and become the commentaries of reference in Paris by the beginning of the thirteenth century.48 Hugh’s postills in turn added to the available interpretations. Hugh was also careful to incorporate other current interpretations of the Song of Songs into his postill, including works by the Cistercians Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas the Cistercian, and various aspects of the Marian interpretation of the book popularized by monks. In combining the Gloss, with its vast compendium of the scriptural interpretations of the Church Fathers, with contemporary works on the vanguard of biblical exegesis, Hugh was able to produce a work that remained the standard biblical reference for the rest of the thirteenth century, whether he intended to or not. Patricia Stirnemann, Bruno Carra de Vaux, and others have noted that most of Hugh’s postills exist in both long and short versions.49 The short versions, as 44 45 46 47 48 49

Smalley, Study of the Bible, 271. Ibid. Smalley argues that “postilla” may have replaced “glossa” because the latter term was beginning to have a pejorative sense. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 272. Lerner, “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher,” 216. Dahan, L’Exégèse chrétienne, 107. See Patricia Stirnemann, “Les Manuscrits de La Postille,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien, 31–42, which provides invaluable information on the collections of postill manuscripts and their provenance.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

131

Carra de Vaux writes, “appear more neglected: their style is more syncopated, sometimes at the risk of becoming obscure,” and biblical quotations are incomplete, with only the first word or two presented.50 The short versions of the postills are not simply abridgements of the long; they seem less concerned with interpreting some verses, but give longer expositions of others than the long version, so the relationship between the two versions of the texts remains somewhat obscure and cannot be generalized.51 It is difficult to say why there are two versions of the postills; Beryl Smalley’s idea that “the only safe hypothesis must be that the postills were given as lectures in some places and in some places reported, either before or after the travail d’équipe of Hugh and his assistants,” still seems to be the best available explanation.52 For the Song of Songs postill, Friedrich Stegmüller notes that the long version is found in a series of printed editions produced in Venice in the early eighteenth century. These Venetian editions are by no means the earliest editions of the postills that were produced; there are, for example, editions of Hugh’s postills printed in Basel, 1498–1502 and Paris, 1531 and 1539.53 Nevertheless, the printed editions seem to always contain the same text, so the Venetian editions of the eighteenth century and the earlier (and later) editions are essentially the same. There do not appear to be any surviving manuscripts that contain the long version of the postill.54 The short version exists in four manuscripts, including three located in Paris.55 For the purposes of this study, I have used the long version of the Song of Songs postill in the Venetian edition of 1732, found at the Newberry Library in Chicago.56 50

51

52 53 54

55 56

“… apparaît plus négligé: son style est plus syncopé, au risque parfois d’être obscure. Citant l’Ecriture, il se contente souvent de quelques premiers mots de la phrase, laisée incomplѐte …” Bruno Carra de Vaux, “La Constitution du Corpus Exégétique,” in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien,43–63, at 49. Here, I take Carra de Vaux to mean by the term “syncopated” that Hugh and his team cut out certain words of the text in constructing the short versions of the postills. Ibid., 51. Lesley Smith argues that the short versions may have not been supervised by Hugh, who would have been a cardinal by the time the earliest surviving manuscripts of the short versions were produced. See “Hugh of St. Cher and Medieval Collaboration,” in Transforming Relations, 254. Beryl Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, c. 1100–1280 (London, 1985), 126. Lerner, “Poverty, Preaching, and Eschatology,” 158. Athanasius Sulavik notes that this is also the case for the postill on Baruch; the long version of the postill remains only in these Venetian printed editions. Athanasius Sulavik, “Hugh of St. Cher’s Postill on the Book of Baruch: The Work of a Medieval Compiler or Biblical Exegete?” in Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien, 155–171, at 158. Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum, v. 3, 136. Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, vol. III (Venice, 1732).

132

Chapter 5

The postill on the Song of Songs is certainly a wide-ranging work, containing many different modes of biblical interpretation. In the Venetian edition, there are notations indicating the kind of scriptural interpretation presented in the columns scattered throughout the text. The types of interpretation most frequently noted are the moral and mystical. These notations are often repeated in the body of the text itself, reading for example, “moraliter secundum B. Greg.” Or “Mystice. Potest hoc exponi secundum nominum interpretationem.”57 In addition to these notations, the edition also contains scattered notations reading “aliter,” which point out each new interpretation in the text. Hugh also relates the literal or historical interpretations of many verses, but these are almost never marked with notations indicating what the sense is. An example of this can be seen in Hugh’s exposition of the Song of Songs text at 1:12, “A little bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me,” which he begins by borrowing from the Gloss, writing “Myrrh is an Arabian tree, five cubits in height.”58 While Hugh’s commentaries on some verses of the Song of Songs are lengthier and more in depth than others, he offers at least one literal, moral, and mystical interpretation for every verse. Another prominent feature in Hugh’s postill is the presence of distinctiones, or different definitions for words, in this case found in biblical quotations, that preachers could use to further develop their sermons. As Athanasius Sulavik remarks, these distinctiones were common at the time and “would have provided accessory material which could easily be inserted into a sermon.”59 The Song of Songs postill is studded with these distinctiones, which are often noted in the margins as, for example, “Triplex onus amoris,” or “Quatuor soni.”60 The Hugh postill then gives the various senses of the keys words chosen, which allows for the development of the various spiritual and moral meanings of the text. An example of a distinctio in the Song of Songs postill can be found at 1:15, 57 58 59

60

Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 108rb; f. 107vb. “Myrrha est arbor Arabie, quinque cubitorum altitudinis.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 111ra. Sulavik, “Hugh of St. Cher’s Postill on the Book of Baruch,” 162. In addition, there is a wide array of secondary literature on the development of sermons in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and beyond. See, for example, Nicole Bériou’s seminal work, L’avènement des Mâitres de la Parole: la Prédication à Paris au XIII e siècle, vv. 1 and 2 (Paris, 1998) and her volume edited with Franco Morenzoni, Prédication et liturgie au Moyen Âge (Turnhout, 2008). Other useful works on the history of medieval preaching include the volume edited by Jacqueline Hamesse and Xavier Hermand, De l’Homélie au Sermon: Histoire de la Prédication Médiévale (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993), and the volume directed by Beverly Mayne Kienzle, The Sermon. Typologie des sources du Moyen Age, fasc. 81–83 (Turnhout, 2000). These notations are found on f. 107va and f. 119ra, respectively.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

133

“… our bed is flowery.” After lengthy explanations of the literal, moral, and mystical senses of this verse, Hugh explains that this bed is also usually separated into four different aspects. The first is the filthy bed of wantons, which is bad. Second is the lasting bed of married people, which is good. Third is the pure bed of those abstaining, which is better. Fourth is the flowery bed of the virgin, which is best. Of the first bed, in Romans 13d, it says “not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness.” [Rom. 13:13]. Of the second bed Hebrews 13a says “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled.” [Heb. 13:4]. Of the third bed, Luke 11a says “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed” [Lk. 11:7], that is, good desire and good work in a chaste heart. About which it is rightly said: this bed is pure because it has been washed in the tears of penitence. From whence Psalm 6 says “every night I will wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears.” [Ps. 6:7]. Of the fourth bed, this is said: “Our bed is flowery,” [Song 1:15].61 This distinctio enumerates the various meanings of the word “bed” for preachers, and then offers biblical quotations suitable for each meaning. It is easy to see that these distinctiones would be useful tools for preachers, who could pick and choose meanings and quotations that would suit their purpose. The presence of these distinctiones in the postill indicates that it was meant to be used as a tool for preachers in addition to its role as a schoolbook and Gloss supplement, which is not surprising, given that the postill was composed by members of the Order of Preachers. As may be expected for such an ambitious and extensive work, the postills of Hugh of St. Cher appear to be influenced by a wide variety of sources. The works that exerted the most influence on the postill on the Song of Songs were the Gloss, the Song of Songs commentaries of Peter the Chanter and Thomas 61

“Solet autem quadruplex lectus hic distingui. Primus est sordidus luxuriosorum, malus. Secundus solidus conjugatorum, bonus. Tertius candidus continentium, melior. Quartus floridus virginum, optimus. De primo dicitur Rom. 13d. Non in comestationibus, et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus, et impudicitiis. De secundo Heb. 13a. Honorabile connubium in omnibus, et thorus immaculatus. De tertio dicitur Luc. 11a. Noli mihi molestus esse; iam ostium clausum est, et pueri mei mecum sunt in cubili, id est bona desideria, et bona opera in casto corde. Unde recte dicitur: candidus lectus iste, quia lotus lachrymis penitentie. Unde Psal 6. Lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum, lachrymis meis stratum meum rigabo. De quarto dicitur hic: Lectulus noster floridus.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112rb.

134

Chapter 5

the Cistercian (d. 1198), and the works of Bernard of Clairvaux, especially his sermons on the Song of Songs. These first two sources are not surprising, since the Gloss was a well-known textbook to which Hugh and his team may have wanted to add new information, and the Chanter’s attitude toward preaching meshed well with Hugh’s own. The expansive use of Cistercian texts, however, sets Hugh’s postill apart from the Song of Songs commentaries of the biblicalmoral school, and will be discussed in more detail below. One may perhaps anticipate that Stephen Langton’s work would influence Hugh’s postills, and indeed, as Riccardo Quinto states, those who have compared the biblical commentaries of Langton and Hugh “maintain that Hugh’s commentaries are not much more than updated abridgements of those by Stephen.”62 Quinto disagrees with this position, and I hope to demonstrate that it is certainly not the case for the postill on the Song of Songs. There are echoes of Langton throughout the Song of Songs postill, and thus it is clear that Hugh knew Langton’s work, but I have not found direct quotations of any length.63 Hugh and Langton both emphasize preaching and the active life, but Hugh quotes the Gloss and the Chanter on these issues rather than Langton. This would seem to fit with Quinto’s findings on the relationship between the work of Langton and Hugh; Quinto compared several passages in the Epistles commentaries of the two men and reported that he “did not find the strict dependence of Hugh on Stephen which the claims of earlier scholars had led [him] to expect.”64 In heeding Quinto’s advice to carefully check and compare the exegesis of Langton and Hugh, I find that for the Song of Songs at least, Hugh is far more dependent on sources other than Langton, and in no way simply produces an updated version of Langton’s commentary. 62

63

64

Riccardo Quinto, “Hugh of St.-Cher’s Use of Stephen Langton,” in Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition: Acts of the Symposium, the Copenhagen School of Medieval Philosophy, January 10–13, 1996, eds. Sten Ebbesen and Russell L. Friedman, (Copenhagen, 1999), 281–300, at 284. Quinto notes that Artur Landgraf (who examined Hugh’s postills on the Pauline Epistles) and Avrom Saltman (Chronicles) made claims of this nature. Beryl Smalley also writes about Langton’s influence on Hugh in both The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (see pages 295 and 305 in particular) and The Gospels in the Schools (see pages 135–136). Robert E. Lerner notes that Hugh used Langton’s work in several of the postills, so the fact that he does not employ Langton’s commentaries in the Song of Songs postill may be yet another indication that the postills were composed by a team of Dominicans. Robert E. Lerner’s reference to the postills as a “great bulging duffle bag” in “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher,” (see p. 182 above) stuffed with a variety of different sources certainly does bring to mind the prolix Langton; perhaps Hugh and his team drew inspiration from Langton’s commentaries, trying to incorporate as much information as possible into their postills. Quinto, “Hugh of St.-Cher’s Use of Stephen Langton,” 285.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

135

In addition to his reliance on the aforementioned moderni, Hugh frequently quotes Church Fathers like Gregory the Great and Augustine, and makes references to authors such as Boethius, citing all of these authors by name.65 Quotations from ancient pagan authors appear in the Song of Songs postill on a much smaller scale, which lends some credence to Smalley’s assertion that “[pagan] writers do not figure largely” in Hugh’s postills.66 Aristotle, for example, is cited as “Arist.” for a quotation which I was unable to trace, and another quotation by “quidam Philosophus” is perhaps a reference to one of Zeno’s paradoxes, that a friend is another self (“alter ipse amicus.”)67 Hugh also makes reference to types of works not mentioned in the earlier Song of Songs commentaries I have discussed. For example, he cites two hymns from the Good Friday liturgy in commenting on Song of Songs 8:5, “… I raised you up under the evil tree.”68 Another interesting reference comes at Song of Songs 4:9, “you have wounded my heart, my sister, my bride.” Here among several other interpretations, Hugh implicitly quotes the anonymous twelfth-century poem Pamphilus, writing that “the bridegroom seems to say ‘I am wounded, and I bear the weapon enclosed in my heart.’”69 As Anne Howland Schotter notes, “Pamphilus is a product of the twelfth-century revival of interest in the trivium, and its dialogue form suggests that it may have been written as a schoolroom 65

66 67

68

69

For example, Gregory the Great, III, f. 108 rb; Augustine, III, f. 115va; Boethius, III, f. 109rb; Ambrose, III, f. 136vb. In addition, Hugh attributes a quotation from the De rerum natura of Hrabanus Maurus to Augustine, “Maior enim est fructus predicationis, et uberiorem reddit ecclesiam, ut dicit Aug., quam quietis.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, f. 113rb. The quotation can be found in Hrabanus Maurus, De rerum natura, Book XIX. This may be due to any number of factors, including scribal error or the misattribution of the source in the library of St. Jacques. Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 134. The Aristotle quotation simply reads “Et majora, et minora videntur, ut dicit Arist.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 109rb. The other reads “ut dicit quidam Philosophus, amicus meus non est, nisi alter ego.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112ra. It is difficult to say whether these reference were found in the manuscript, or were added in the printed edition. As Beryl Smalley notes, Hugh does not necessarily quote these sources verbatim, and indeed, quotations such as the one above, and that Smalley lists, “men are friends because they have an enemy in common,” could possibly be clichés. See Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 134. “Quod de ligno crucis potest exponi, de quo cantamus: Nulla silva talem profert/Fronde, flore, germine … Unde cantat ecclesia: Ipse lignum tunc notavit/Damna ligni, ut solveret.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 137ra. These lines are taken from the Pange Lingua of Venantius Fortunatus (530–609). Vulnerasti, etc. “… ut videatur Sponsus dicere: Vulneror, et clausum porto sub pectore telum.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 126rb. A note in the margin next to the text reads “Pamphilus.”

136

Chapter 5

exercise in disputatio for young men studying dialectic.”70 Thus Hugh or a member of his exegetical team may have been familiar with the poem from their school days, and the wound imagery in Song of Songs 4:9 may have recalled the line from Pamphilus to mind. This rather staggering array of sources ensures that Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs is host to a number of different interpretations of the biblical text. The extent to which Hugh actually names the sources that he cites varies widely. Hugh and his team seem to consistently cite older sources by name more frequently than newer ones, with Bernard of Clairvaux being the exception. Thus, when Gregory the Great, Augustine, or another Church Father is cited, the text is prefaced with phrases such as “ut dicit Aug.” and “quas ponit hic Greg.”71 Hugh also cites the Bible more explicitly than his predecessors. Unlike the other exegetes discussed in this book, Hugh names the books and chapters from which he draws his biblical quotations. This would allow Hugh’s readers to quickly locate the verses in their own Bibles and immediately begin to associate the themes of the Song of Songs with those of other biblical books.72 Those quotations and ideas drawn from sources produced in the generations directly preceding Hugh’s tend to cited by name less frequently in the Song of Songs postill. Of these more modern authors, only the Gloss and Bernard of Clairvaux are cited by name. Hugh often attributes interpretations and direct quotations that he takes from the Gloss, writing for example in his explication of Song of Songs 1:2, “… your name is oil poured out, therefore the young girls have loved you,” that “the Gloss says ‘because they are not able to see you as you really are, they regard you more highly than all other things for the sweetness of you name alone.”73 This is a direct quotation from the Gloss, with no alterations. There are several occasions, however, when Hugh quotes the Gloss, but does not cite the text by name. An example of this can be found in Hugh’s commen70

71 72

73

Anne Howland Schotter, “The Transformation of Ovid in the Twelfth-Century Pamphilus,” in Desiring Discourse: The Literature of Love, Ovid Through Chaucer, eds. James J. Paxson and Cynthia A. Gravlee (Selinsgrove, PA, 1998), 72–88, at 73. Schotter notes that the poem is about “a seduction that ends in a rape,” which may strike modern readers as an odd subject for a school text. See Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 108ra and f. 111va. There are several examples of this on every folio of Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs, on f. 131r alone, for example, there are quotations from the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, John, Corinthians, Galatians, and Timothy. “Unde dicit Gloss. Quia te in essentia videre non possunt, sola dulcidine nominis tui omnibus rebus anteponunt.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 106vb. Cf. Dove, Glossa, I, 2, 35, 44–45.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

137

tary on Song of Songs 2:7, “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and the stags of the field …” After offering a number of other interpretations, Hugh and his team quote a description of stags taken from the Gloss, writing “stags leave their native country at breeding time, and they hold themselves up with the haunches of one placed on the head of another …”74 This particular line is drawn directly from the Gloss. While the remainder of the passage is not taken verbatim from the Gloss, it is very similar in language and content, and unlike many other contributions from the Gloss, this quotation is not introduced by “unde dicit Glossa” or any other signifier. The general pattern seems to be that short quotations from the Gloss are cited by name, whereas when Hugh borrows longer passages from the Gloss, he does not indicate this in his text. In any case, using both of these methods, Hugh incorporates large portions of the Gloss interpretation of the Song of Songs into his own text. Bernard of Clairvaux is cited several times in the printed edition of the postill as “B. Bern.,” and many of the quotations taken from Bernard’s sermons on the Song of Songs are clustered in the first two chapters of the Hugh postill. This is not surprising, since Bernard’s 86 sermons only cover the biblical text through Chapter 3, verse 1. Quotations from Bernard that appear later in the postill are taken from various other sermon collections. Although Hugh’s postill is peppered with quotations derived from the Song of Songs commentaries of Thomas the Cistercian and Peter the Chanter, in this work, Hugh never cites either man by name. Smalley notes that Hugh quotes the Chanter by name in his postill on Matthew, ascribing an exemplum to the Chanter with the words “sicut narrat Cantor Parisiensis,” so it was not unknown for Hugh to acknowledge his debt to the Chanter.75 Thus, it seems that there was no set practice for determining which sources would be cited by name in the postills. Overall, the Song of Songs postill is marked by the influence of a wide array of sources, and therefore contains many different interpretations of the biblical text. Moving now to the content of the Hugh postill, it introduces certain themes that received little attention in the Glossed Song of Songs and in the commentaries of the members of the biblical-moral school and gives them a more extensive treatment. Chief among these is the Marian interpretation of the Song of Songs. While the Virgin Mary is hardly a popular topic of discussion in the commentaries I have discussed in preceding chapters, a Marian reading of the Song of Songs was popular in monastic circles, and thus is included in a work such as Hugh’s that attempts to include all current interpretations of the 74 75

“Cervi tempore amoris discendentes a patria, alter alterius clunibus supposito capite transeuntes …” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 116rb. Cf. Dove, Glossa, II, 7, 43, 21–22. Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 126.

138

Chapter 5

Song of Songs in one text. As Rachel Fulton remarks, “[b]y the second half of the twelfth century, the Marian reading of the Song of Songs had entered the mainstream of the commentary tradition,” and so it is an interpretation that Hugh was certain to include in his postill.76 Fulton notes that several verses of the Song of Songs came to be interpreted in commentaries in a Marian sense because of their use in sermons and hymns in feasts in celebration with the Virgin. Of the eight verses that Fulton remarks were often given a Marian sense, Hugh assigns this interpretation to six.77 There are other references to the Virgin scattered throughout the postill, often noted by the phrase “de Beata Virgine.” There appears to be no original content in Hugh’s Marian interpretations, but the very fact that he devotes considerable space to pursuing Marian themes sets his commentary apart from those of the biblical-moral school and the Gloss, works which contained only faint traces of the Marian interpretation of the Song of Songs. Hugh often incorporates the Marian interpretation into verses that he comments upon at length. For example, in his exposition of Song of Songs 1:15, “Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, and lovely, our bed is flowery,” Hugh fills an entire folio with a number of moral, mystical, literal, and allegorical interpretations of this verse. The postill briefly mentions the Virgin, stating “In another way, the bed is the womb of the blessed Virgin, in which the most blessed bridegroom glorified their union, where he deigned to join himself with human nature.”78 This is a rather commonplace interpretation of this phrase, and Hugh seems to include it among a long list of other interpretations in order to ensure that his postill remains comprehensive. Hugh and his team repeat this same kind of interpretation at Song of Songs 3:9, “Solomon the king made a litter for himself from the trees of Lebanon,” writing, “and this is also explained concerning the blessed Virgin Mary: That Solomon the king made a litter for himself, that is Christ, whom she carried in her womb for nine months.”79 Again, this interpretation is included alongside a number of others as part of Hugh’s wide-ranging exegetical program. There are several other Marian verses in the postill that praise the Virgin for her virtues, chief among which is Hugh’s comment on Song of Songs 5:9, “What 76 77

78 79

Rachel Fulton, “The Virgin Mary and the Song of Songs in the High Middle Ages” (Unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1994), 543. The verses that Fulton notes are the following: Song of Songs 1:2–3; 1:4; 3:6; 4:12; 6:3; 6:8; 6:9; and 8:5. Hugh mentions the Virgin in his commentary on all of these verses save 1:2–3 and 6:8. Fulton also notes the responsories and antiphons which were linked to these particular verses, see Fulton, “The Virgin Mary,” 543–544. “Aliter: Lectulus est uterus B. Virginis, in quo Sponsus beatissimam copulam celebravit, qua humane nature dignatus est copulari.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112rb. “Exponitur et hoc de B. Virgine Maria etiam: Quam Ferculum fecit sibi Rex Salomon, id est, Christus, que eum in utero suo novem mensibus portavit.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 122rb.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

139

kind of beloved is yours from the beloved, O most beautiful of women?” Hugh writes, What kind of beloved is yours, not adding ‘from the beloved,’ so that there is a nod to seeking what kind [of beloved] it is according to human nature [rather than divine], according to which it is not ‘from the [male] beloved’ but rather ‘from the [female] beloved’, namely the Virgin Mary, as if she is as lovely, as incomprehensible, as holy, and as undefiled and beautiful in appearance in comparison with any daughter of men, as full of grace and truth, as excellent in every kind of goodness.80 Here, Hugh describes Mary as the height of feminine perfection, and praises her rather than the bridegroom, who is the actual subject being discussed in the biblical verse. The Virgin possesses all possible virtues, and is as worthy of praise as Christ, according to Hugh. He praises the Virgin again at Song of Songs 6:9, “Who is this one who comes up like the dawn rising, beautiful as the moon, excellent as the sun, terrible as a line of battle assembled in the camps,” arguing that Marian verses of the Bible can be employed to combat enemy groups. He writes, assembled in three ways against three battle lines of enemies, namely pagans, heretics, and Jews. Of which Ecclesiasticus 50d [says] ‘there are two nations which my soul hates, and the third is no nation, which I hate, etc.’ (Ecclus. 50:27). They are arranged against pagans, exhibiting true worship of God while saying: ‘my soul magnifies the Lord,’ etc. (Lk. 1:46) … Against heretics, while saying ‘and my spirit has rejoiced,’ etc. (Lk. 1:47). Against Jews, while saying ‘he has received Israel as his servant,’ etc. (Lk. 1:54).81 Thus true Christians can align themselves in battle against their enemies, and Hugh argues that verses in praise of the Virgin should be used in order to resist the pagans, heretics, and Jews that try to harm the Church. Hugh, therefore, 80

81

“Qualis est dilectus tuus, nec addit ex dilectio, ut innuat se querere quails sit secundum humanum naturam, secundum quam non est ex dilectio, sed potius ex dilecta, scilicet Virgine Maria, quasi quam amabilis, quam incomprehensibilis, quam sanctus, et quam impollutus, quam speciosus forma pre filiis hominum, quam plenus gratia et veritate, quam excellens omnimoda bonitate.” Hugh of St.Cher. Opera omnia, III, f. 130va. “Ordinata tripliciter contra tres acies inimicorum, Paganos scilicet, Hereticos, et Judeos. De quibus Eccl. 50d, Duas gentes odivit anima mea, et tertia non est gens quam oderim, etc. Contra paganos ordinata est, latriam exhibens Deo vero, cum dixit ‘Magnificat anima mea Dominum, ‘ etc … Contra hereticos, cum dixit ‘Et exultavit spiritus meus,’ etc. Contra Judeos, cum dixit ‘Suscepit Israel puerum suum,’ etc. Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 133rb.

140

Chapter 5

combines traditional Marian interpretations of the Song of Songs with effusive praise for the Virgin, a powerful partner of the bridegroom whose virtues are inspirational to Christians in their quest to strengthen the Church. Some of these Marian elements, along with the tropological interpretation of the bride and bridegroom as the individual soul and Christ, enter the Hugh postill through the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas the Cistercian. Beryl Smalley notes that “Bernardine spirituality appealed to our Dominican,” and that Hugh used Bernard’s words in two ways, “partly as an exegetical source … and partly to sugar his comments on the text with pious thoughts and rhetorical exclamations.”82 Smalley also argues that “this massive infiltration was new” and that while other secular clerics writing at Paris occasionally quoted Bernard, Hugh and the Dominicans were among the first to quote Bernard’s works extensively and put them in wide circulation in the schools.83 As stated above, quotations from Bernard’s sermons on the Song of Songs appear mostly in the first two chapters of the Hugh postill. Most of the quotations taken from Bernard’s sermons fall under the rubric of the moral interpretation, and offer advice or warnings about moral behavior to the reader. For example, in commenting on Song of Songs 1:6, “show me the man whom my soul loves, where you feed, where you rest at midday,” Hugh and his team replicate a large portion of Bernard’s Sermon XXX, “Mystical Vineyards and the Prudence of the Flesh”, writing, “B. Bern. ‘What amazes me,’ he says, ‘is the audacity of those who seem to harvest only brambles and thistles from their own vineyards, and yet are not afraid to intrude themselves on the vineyards of the Lord … will a flood of tears be enough to fertilize the barrenness of my soul?’”84 After recapitulating this passage, Hugh returns to distinctiones, listing the four different types of tears. He quotes Bernard again in commenting on Song of Songs 1:12, “a little bundle of myrrh [is] my beloved to me, he will remain between my breasts.” Here, he writes, “according to blessed Bernard, speaking and introducing and explaining this opinion to his brothers, ‘you too, if you are wise, will imitate the prudence of the bride, and never permit even for an hour that this precious bunch of myrrh [representing the suffering and death of Jesus] should be removed from your bosom.’”85 In passages such as these, we can see both the “pious thoughts and rhetorical exclamations” that 82 83 84

85

Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 132. Ibid. “B. Bern. Miror, inquit, audaciam plurimorum; quos videmus de sui vineis non colligere nisi spinas et tribulos, vineis enim dominicis etiam se ingerere non vereri … Quo imbre lachrymis ego rigabo sterilitatem vinee mee?” Translation taken from Kilian Walsh, trans., Bernard of Clairvaux : On the Song of Songs, v. II, (Kalamazoo, MI, 1983), 117–118. “Unde et B. Bern., fratribus suis loquens et inducens et exponens hanc auctoritatem, dixit, ‘tu quoque si sapis, imitaberis Sponse prudentiam et hunc myrrhe, tam charum fascicu-

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

141

Bernard’s words lent to Hugh’s postill, along with elements of practical moral instruction that would have appealed to Hugh in his quest to ensure that his mendicant readers became worthy of imitation themselves. Rachel Fulton has noted Hugh’s reliance on Thomas the Cistercian, remarking that he “drew the majority of his citations from Thomas the Cistercian’s comprehensive compendium of Song exegesis.”86 I think that this perhaps overstates Hugh’s dependence on Thomas’ commentary, but nevertheless, the Cistercian’s work was an important source for Hugh. Thomas, who is also known as Thomas of Perseigne and Thomas of Vaucelles, was active in the last third of the twelfth century, making him a contemporary of Peter the Chanter. Denys Turner writes that there are but two works attributable to Thomas, “the De preparatione cordis, a rambling ascetical treatise, and his vast Commentary on the Song of Songs.”87 This latter work, which Turner notes comprises 845 columns in the Patrologia Latina, survives in sixty manuscripts, indicating that it was a very popular commentary.88 Thomas’ commentary is notable in that it is lengthy and rather loosely structured, includes citations from a wide array of ancient and medieval sources, and incorporates several themes seen in other Song of Songs commentaries, including the importance of balancing the active life with the contemplative. In its length and breadth, Thomas’ commentary is rather similar to Hugh’s postill, and Thomas seems to share Hugh’s goal of including a variety of interpretations in his work. Hugh does not turn to Thomas’ work for citations on any particular theme. Instead, he tends to borrow quotations that fit into the structural elements of the postill, and thus, many of the passages taken from Thomas’ commentary contain distinctiones and biblical quotations. One example of this comes at Hugh’s exegesis of Song of Songs 1:4, “I am black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem.” Hugh borrows several lines from Thomas’ commentary, writing “black through the worthlessness of the body, but beautiful through the sanctity of the soul. Black on earth, but beautiful in heaven. Black through suffering the evils of the temporal world, but beautiful through the hope for eternal joy. You hear beautiful ‘rejoicing in hope’ (Rom. 12:12), you hear black, ‘patient in tribulation’ (Rom. 12:12).”89 This example is similar to many of the other ele-

86 87 88 89

lum de principali tui pectoris, nec ad horam patieris auferri …’” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 111ra. Translation taken from Walsh, 221. Fulton, “The Virgin Mary,” 583. Turner, Eros and Allegory, 309. Ibid. “Nigram per corporis vilitatem, sed formosam per anime sanctitatem. Nigram in terris, sed formosam in celis. Nigram mala temporalia patiendo, sed formosam eternal gaudia sperando. Audi formosam spe gaudentes, audi nigram in tribulation patientes. Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 107vb; Thomas the Cistercian, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Patrologia Latina 206: 66C.

142

Chapter 5

ments of Thomas’ commentary that Hugh borrows. Since Thomas’ project was so similar to Hugh’s in many ways, Hugh was able to incorporate many portions of the Cistercian commentary. Despite the inclusion of these diverse strands of exegesis and the influence of many interpretations of the Song of Songs, the Hugh postill remains centered on the ecclesiological interpretation of this biblical text. In making the relationship between Christ and the Church the focal point of the postill, Hugh continues the exegetical program followed by the Glossator, Anselm of Laon, Peter the Chanter, and Stephen Langton. Like these men, Hugh traces the relationship between the bride, who represents the Church, and the bridegroom, who represents Christ, leading to their eventual union at the close of the Song of Songs narrative. Throughout his commentary, Hugh argues forcefully that preaching and devotion to the active life are necessary activities for those prelates, clerics, and mendicants within the Church, who must help her achieve her triumphant union with Christ. This theme, which was so integral to the Song of Songs commentaries I have treated in the preceding chapters, occupies the central role in Hugh’s exegesis. He reiterates the arguments of his predecessors, and then consistently expands on what they say about the active and contemplative lives. It is primarily in this context that Hugh displays original thought. Although the Glossator and the members of the biblical-moral school have already established the theme of preaching as the central concern for the passages that follow, Hugh adds his own ideas to their commentary. In these passages, Hugh is more critical in his assessment of the contemplative life than his models, and he praises action evenly more openly. He urges his readers to follow a life devoted to preaching, arguing that it is both more useful and more rewarding than contemplation, and writes that humility and poverty are the core values that preachers must hold dear. At several points in the postill, Hugh rails against what he sees as the hypocrisy of monks and secular clerics who live leisurely lives and do not labor on behalf of others. In these trenchant comments, modern readers are most clearly able to see the distinctive contributions of Hugh and his team to Song of Songs exegesis. Hugh emerges in this postill as a staunch defender of not only an active way of life, but of a particularly mendicant way of life that is clearly cast in opposition to monastic and secular vocations. For Hugh and his Dominican brothers, living the active life was at the core of their order’s mission, and this sentiment is clearly expressed in the Song of Songs postill. It is in these passages that Hugh appears to us not simply as a compiler of past interpretations, but as an exegete with original ideas. As was the case with the Gloss, Peter the Chanter, and Stephen Langton, Hugh’s comment on Song of Songs 2:10 speaks to the superiority of the active life. I have argued in previous chapters that the Gloss introduced the idea that preaching is a “better way of coming” to Christ in its explication of this verse,

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

143

but that the Chanter and Langton went beyond the Gloss in using more forceful language to argue for the importance of preaching. Hugh follows this pattern, moving even further beyond the members of the biblical-moral school in his praise of action. He adopts the language of both the Gloss and the Chanter, but seems to advocate a life almost wholly devoted to action, rather than the “balanced life” of both preaching and contemplation that those works argued was the ideal. Below, I will use parallel columns to compare the writings of Hugh of St. Cher with the Gloss and Peter the Chanter’s commentary when warranted. Material that Hugh takes from the Gloss is in bold, and that taken from the Chanter is in small caps. 90

Gloss Arise, that is, break off contemplation and labor to gain other [converts], or arise from the love of earthly things … come to devote yourself to the salvation of your neighbors through sedulous attention to preaching, so that you may be worthy to be received with the great company at the wedding [the heavenly banquet] … you believe you will quickly come [to me-the bridegroom] if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming to me is through work of this kind.90

90

Peter the Chanter Arise, arise therefore from contemplation at the right time. Arise from the love of earthly things and from the flesh to sing of [preach] repentance … hurry, because the time is short and the crops are white [to harvest] (Jo. 4:35) … but a better way of coming to me is through work of this kind, that is useful and fruitful [work], because for many the active way of life is better than the contemplative. The contemplative life is

Hugh of St. Cher Arise from the bed of contemplation where until now you have been pleasantly been sleeping, so that you may stand on the battlefield of action. Hurry, because the time is short, and vice is growing stronger, and therefore delay is dangerous, because ‘it is too late to employ medicine when evil has grown strong by long habit’ (Ovid, Remedia Amoris XCI.) Concerning this, Proverbs 6:3 says ‘go, hurry, and plead with your neighbor. Give your eyes no sleep,’ as if [the bridegroom says] for the salvation of others, you must interrupt your sleep. The Gloss says you must not cease preaching for the sake of quietness, because Christ, who was in great quietness with the father, to an extent interrupted quietness for the sake of preaching. (Gloss comment on 2:12) And come to devote yourself to the salvation of

“Surge, id est interrumpe contemplationem et labora in acquisitione aliorum, vel surge ab amore terrenorum … veni ad impendendam etiam proximis curam salutis per studium sedule predicationis…credis te venturam si vacaveris contemplationi, sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi.” Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 94, 33-34 and Dove, Glossa, II, 10, 90, 24–25 and 26–28.

144

Chapter 5

Gloss

Peter the Chanter safer, but the active life is better than the contemplative, that is, more useful to [your] neighbors.91

 91 92 91

92

Hugh of St. Cher (cont.) your neighbors through sedulous attention to preaching, so that you may be worthy to be received with the great company at the wedding [the heavenly banquet,] as if the bridegroom says to the bride ‘you believe you will quickly come to the wedding if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming [to me] is through work of this kind. The Gloss says that the active [life] is better than the contemplative [life.] And this is true, but the contemplative [life] is happier and safer. The Apostle says that one should not glory in the quietness of contemplation, but in the toil of preaching: ‘By the grace of God,’ he says, ‘I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain, but I have labored more abundantly than any of them.’ (1Cor. 10:15) … Arise from the earth to heaven through voluntary poverty, from sin to grace through penitence.92

“Surge ergo a contemplatione ad tempus. Surge ab amore terrenorum a corpore acinere penitentie … propera quia tempus breve et messes albent (Jo. 4:35) … sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi, id est utilius et copiosius, quia cum pluribus status contemplatio melior est status active. Contemplative, id est securior, sed status active melior status contemplative, id est utilior proximis.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 44vb. “Surge a lectio contemplationis, ubi usque modo suaviter dormivisti, ut stes in campo actionis. Propera quia tempus breve est, et morbus invalescens: et ideo mora in periculo est, quia sero medicina paratur: cum mala per longas convaluere moras. De hoc dicitur Prov. 6 a. Discurre, festina, suscita amicum tuum, ne dederis somnum oculis tuis, quasi dicat, pro salute aliorum debes irrumpere somnum tumm. Unde dicit Glosa Pro quiete tua non debes dimittere predicationem quia Christus qui in magna quiete erat cum Patre, quietem suam quodammodo pro predicatione intermisit. Et veni ad impendendam curam salutis proximis per studium sedule predicationis, ut cum magno comitatu ad nuptias recipi merearis, quasi dicat Sponsus Sponse: Tu credis te venturum ad nuptias si vacaveris contemplationi, sed venies melius per laborem huiusmodi. Hec Glosa vult,

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

145

Here, Hugh borrows a fair amount from the Gloss, echoing the idea that preaching serves as an imitation of Christ and that devoting oneself to preaching rather than contemplation leads to greater rewards. Hugh has also reproduced the Chanter’s idea that preaching is a more worthy pursuit, but the contemplative life is more secure and restful. Hugh’s lengthy and detailed exposition of this verse and his descriptive language, however, seem to have more in common with the style of Stephen Langton than the more spare and economical language that the Gloss and the Chanter employ.93 While the Gloss and the Chanter speak simply of breaking off or arising from contemplation, Hugh emphasizes the leisureliness of this mode of life, referring to the “bed of contemplation” upon which people pleasantly slumber. He contrasts this with the “battlefield of action,” where the challenge is greater, but the rewards are as well. Like Langton, Hugh offers numerous quotations in order to make his argument for the importance of preaching, including in this case a quotation from Ovid’s Remedia Amoris.94 These quotations offer new evidence for preachers to use in order to emphasize the urgency of the Church’s situation, although once again, we are given no specific reasons as to why preaching is so greatly needed at this moment. Hugh’s exposition of this verse is also striking in that he is even more forceful about the supremacy of preaching than his predecessors. While both the Chanter and Langton are more direct than the Gloss in stating their preference for the active life, Hugh goes beyond even them, simply rephrasing the Gloss and boiling it down to its essential elements: “The Gloss says that the active [life] is better than the contemplative [life.]” He provides the reader of the postill with the text from the Gloss itself, and then baldly states the Gloss’ meaning, making certain that the message is absolutely clear and implicitly arguing that the Gloss can be taken as a trusted authority on this subject. In addition, Hugh and his team follow the Glossator in using Christ and the saints to endorse the power of preaching. In the Gloss, Christ argues that “you believe you will quickly come [to me] if you go apart in contemplation, but a better way of coming to me is through work of this kind.” Hugh chooses a biblical verse from 1 Corinthians that he believes illustrates St. Paul saying “that one should not glory in the quietness of contemplation, but in the toil of preaching” Hugh

93 94

quod melior sit activa, quam contemplativa. Et verum est, sed contemplativa felicior, vel securior est. Unde Apostulus, non de quiete contemplationis gloriatur, sed de labore predicationis: Gratia Dei, inquit, sum id, quod sum et gratia eius in me vacua non fuit, sed abundantius illis omnibus laboravi (1Cor. 15b) … Surge a mundo ad celum per volun­ tariam paupertatem, a peccato ad gratiam per penitentiam.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia III, f. 117vb. See above, Chapter 4 on Langton’s verbosity and expansive style. See Chapter 4 for Langton’s argument in favor of preaching.

146

Chapter 5

repeats Christ’s endorsement of preaching from the Gloss, and then adds a similar one from St. Paul, along with a biblical verse to support his assertion. By fashioning these strong statements of divine approval for preaching, Hugh is able to argue that the active life is most pleasing to God. At other points throughout the Hugh postill, he strongly asserts the superiority of preaching over contemplation. As with Hugh’s exposition of 2:10, in these following passages, Hugh’s originality lies in the very forcefulness of his message and his blunt assessment of the relative values of action and contemplation. In commenting on Song of Songs 3:9, for example, “Solomon the king made a litter for himself from the trees of Lebanon,” Hugh equates Solomon’s litter with the loftier position of action relative to contemplation, writing: As if King Solomon says ‘if I ascend, it is not on account of myself, for it is for Christ himself, ruling all and making peace in all respects, that I made myself this litter’, a vehicle which is higher. Through this it is evident that the status of preaching is loftier, greater, and more worthy than the status of contemplation. As Paul said to the Corinthians ‘For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body’ (1Cor. 6:20) And in praise of Paul, the Lord said to Ananias in Acts 9 ‘to me he is a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15). He [the Lord] did not say ‘to pray’, or ‘to read’, or ‘to contemplate my name,’ but ‘to carry’ [my name] to others, preaching by word and example, which is higher.95 Hugh uses aptly chosen biblical quotations including words like “bear” and “carry” in order to comment upon a passage about a litter, a vehicle upon which people are carried. Bearing God in one’s body is equated to carrying the name of the Lord to others through preaching. As was the case with Chapter 2, verse 10, we again have a reference to what Christ or a saint “said,” using biblical quotations to make strong statements of divine approval for preaching. Here, Christ says that “to carry’ his name means to preach to others by word and example. This “carrying” that Christ specifically requests does not consist of 95

“Ferculum fecit … Ierusalem. Quasi dicat non est ex me si ascendo quia Rex Salomon, id est Christus omnia regens, et omnia pacificans, feci me sibi ferculum id est vehiculum quod plus est. Per quod patet, quod altior est, maior, et dignior status predicationis quam contemplationis. Unde et Paulus dicit Corinthiis: Empti estis pretio magno: gloricate et portate Seum in corpore vestro 1Cor. 6d. Et in laudibus Pauli dixit Dominus Ananie, Act 9. Vas electionis mihi est iste, ut portet nomen meum coram Gentibus, et Regibus, et filiis Israel. Non dicit, ut oret, vel legat, vel contempletur nomen meum; sed ut portet aliis predicando verbo et exemplo, quod plus est.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera Omnia, III, f. 122ra.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

147

praying or reading or contemplating his name, but only of preaching. Preaching is elevated to a status above all other religious duties, which makes clear in Hugh’s interpretation that the active life is “loftier, greater, and more worthy” than the contemplative. This assertion dovetails well with the idea stated in the Gloss and echoed in Hugh’s postill, that preaching is the best way of coming to Christ. This declaration of the superiority of the active life appears in many other places throughout the Song of Songs postill. Hugh designates the field in Song of Songs 2:1, “I am the flower of the field …”, as the location for the labor of preaching, and contrasts it with the bed in Song of Songs 1:15, “… our bed is flowery,” which he associated in one interpretation with contemplation.96 He writes that the field “is called this in opposition to certain people who, presuming most vainly, suppose there to be salvation only in the ease of contemplation, not in the labor of action or in the concerns of prelates, as if only the bed of contemplation is flowery, and the whole field of the active way of life is filthy.”97 According to Hugh, it is possible for both the bed and the field to be blooming with flowers, which can be seen as representing the approbation of Christ. Hugh seems to communicate here and in Chapter 1:15 that there is merit in both the active and contemplative lives, but he also appears to be on the defensive, shielding a devotion to preaching and pastoral concerns against those “certain people” who believe their own contemplative way of life to be superior, and indeed, the only certain way to salvation. This bed of contemplation/field of action theme arises again in Hugh’s exposition of Song of Songs 3:1, “On my bed, night after night I have sought him whom my soul loves. I have sought him and not found [him].” Here, Hugh seems to give no quarter to the contemplative life at all, writing “I have sought him and not found him, Therefore the bridegroom must be sought in the field of battle and in the field of work, not in the bed of contemplation.”98 In using language that is more declarative than defensive, Hugh forcefully asserts his stance on which way of life is superior. At other points in his commentary on Song of Songs 3:1, Hugh shifts from simply defending the active life from the onslaughts of contemplatives and takes the offensive, seeming almost to deni96 97

98

“Lectulus dicitur gratia, sive quies contemplationis …” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112ra. “Ego flos campi. Hoc dicitur contra quosdam vanissime presumentes, qui in solo otio contemplationis, non in labore actionis, vel in sollicitudine prelationis opinantur esse salutem, quasi solus lectulus contemplationis sit floridus, et totus campus conversationis active sit sordidus.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112vb. “In campis ergo certaminis, et in agro laboris querendus est Sponsus, non in lectulo contemplationis.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 120rb.

148

Chapter 5

grate the contemplative life in writing that members of various monastic orders do not find Christ when they seek him: … I have sought him with many groans and sighs, and not found him. Why? Because by nights I am still in bed. It is better to seek him by working, and he is found more quickly by working than by sleeping … I shall arise from beds of this kind, where I have not found the bridegroom, and go around the city, the world, where I might be able to find the bridegroom somewhere. Through the streets and squares I shall seek him whom my soul loves, that is, through all strict monasteries and more lax cloisters and secular orders, as if one street is the Carthusian order, another street the Cistercian order, and another street the Cluniac order, and thus the others. Indeed, the squares can be called the more lax convents or the secular orders. And as if he has not yet found the bridegroom he adds: I have sought him and not found him, because he has steadfastly concealed himself so that he is not found … the watchmen, that is, preachers, who guard the city found me, that is, preachers … very shortly after I had run through them … that is, I had run through them, seeing their conduct and hearing their preaching. I found the one whom my soul loves, by them leading me, etc. and by teaching me by word and example …99 Through the striking imagery of this passage, Hugh conjures up an image of the bride, or the Church, frantically examining all manner of different ways of monastic and secular life in an attempt to find Christ. In a rather stunning turn of phrase, Hugh argues that those monks and secular clerics (the “streets and squares”) can be grouped together in their inability to find Christ precisely because he has concealed himself from them. In other words, Hugh declares 99

“Quesivi illum et non inveni gemitibus et suspiriis multiplicatis, et non inveni. Quare? Quia per noctes etiam in lectulo. Melius enim queritur operando, et citius invenitur, quam dormiendo … Surgam de huiusmodi lectulo, ubi Sponsus non invenitur et circuibo civitatem (Ps. 58 :7), mundi, si enim alicubi possim invenire Sponsum. Per vicos et plateas queram quem diligit anima mea id est, per omnes conventus arctiores, et laxiores claustrales, et seculares. Quasi enim unus vicus est ordo Carthusiensum, alius vicus ordo Cisterciensum, alius vicus ordo Cluniacensum, et sic de aliis. Platee vero possunt dici conventus laxiores, vel conventus seculares. Et quasi nondum invenerit Sponsum, subjungit. Quesivi illum et non inveni, quia forte absconderat se, ne inveniretur … Invenerunt me vigiles, id est, predicatores … Paululum cum pertransissem eos, id est transissem per eos, videns eorum conversationem, et audiens eorum predicationem. Inveni, quem diligit anima mea, illis me ducentibus, etc. docentibus verbo et exemplo.” Hugh of St Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 120rb-va.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

149

that Christ is actively ensuring that He cannot be found by means of contemplation. This connects with the theme of the ineffability of God that I have touched upon in previous chapters, and the idea expressed by the Glossator and Anselm of Laon in particular that contemplation, philosophy, and erudition cannot help one to know what is incomprehensible.100 Hugh and his team go a step beyond these authors, however, in declaring that preaching will indeed lead the Church to Christ and allow Him to be found. It is action, and not contemplation, that is the true route to Christ. Only after the bride is found by the watchmen, or the preachers, is she able to find Christ, the one whom her soul loves. It is the preachers who find the Church and teach her by word and example, thus allowing her to find her beloved. In addition, Hugh seems to imply that these preachers are Dominicans. The phrase “go around the city, the world” is similar to the language of a proclamation in the postill on Isaiah 2:4, noted by Robert E. Lerner, “Behold the order of the preacher [Ordo Praedi­ catoris]! First, he is bound to teach; second, to walk, not only the roads of the commandments but the narrow paths of the counsels; third, to preach.”101 Lerner also finds that in the Hugh postill on the Psalms, Hugh refers to the Dominicans in glossing Ps. 58:7, writing “Of the Order of Preachers it may be said: they will be converted in the evening, for now is the evening of the world; and they will be reputed as dogs [Ps. 58:7], namely converting some; and they go around the city [Ps. 58:7], that is, preaching in the world.”102 In the Song of Songs postill, Hugh seems to connect the idea of preachers going around the city with this proclamation of the duties of Dominicans. While Hugh does not explicitly say that these preachers are Dominican, this notion can still be found in the text. Hugh fires a salvo at monks and secular clerics from another direction with his commentary on Song of Songs 4:1, “… your eyes are [the eyes] of doves, apart from that which lies inside.” Hugh’s interpretation of “that which lies inside” builds upon that of the Gloss, which states that the spirit, preaching, and good intentions lie inside and are pleasing to God.103 Hugh uses the verse to rail against those who neglect all these things and focus instead on external appearances:

100 101 102 103

See above, Chapter 1, 26–29; Chapter 2, 63–64. Lerner, “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher,” 230. Robert E. Lerner, “Philip the Chancellor Greets the Early Dominicans in Paris,” in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 77 (2007), 5–17, at 13. See Dove, Glossa, IV, 1, 11–16, 41–49.

150

Chapter 5

‘Apart from that which lies inside,’ which is said against hypocrites, and as many others, both monks and seculars, who improve their more external selves with remarkable zeal, and adorn themselves with remarkable splendor; and truly allow their more interior selves to go entirely uncultivated, as if it is not more dangerous to displease God, who sees within, than men, who [only] see the exterior; or as if it is easier to deceive God than men; or as if God is more interested in our more external selves, than in what lies inside … Thus Matthew chapter 23c says “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of rapine and dirtiness. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside may also become clean.”104 Here Hugh is not criticizing the contemplative life, but taking monks and secular clerics to task for hypocritical behavior and for bending more to the will of men than to the will of God. As was the case with the previous passage, the language here is also striking. Hugh openly accuses certain religious of neglecting that which lies inside, their spirit, for their more external selves, which as he remarks, do not particularly concern God. These hypocritical monks and clerics are more concerned with life on earth and mundane matters such as wealth and appearance than with spiritual matters and with adorning their own souls. Hugh even goes so far as to say that these hypocrites believe that they can actually deceive God in the same way that they deceive men with their outward appearances. Again Hugh seems to locate the most apt biblical quotation, comparing these hypocritical monks and clerics to the Pharisees that Christ condemns. Whereas in his exposition of Song of Songs 2:10, Hugh employs a literary device that uses biblical quotations to express divine approval for preaching, here Hugh uses the same method to express divine disapproval of the hypocritical behavior and spiritual neglect perpetrated by certain monks and secular clerics. 104

“Absque eo quod intrinsecus latet. Quod dicitur contra hypocrites, et multos alios tam claustrales, quam seculares, qui exteriora sua miro studio excolunt, et miro apparatus exornant, interiora vero sua omnino inculta dimittunt, quasi periculosius non sit Deo displicere, qui videt interius, quam hominibus, qui vident exterius, aut quasi facilius sit fallere Deum, quam homines ; aut quasi Deus exteriora nostra magis curet, quam interiora … Unde Matth. cap. 23c, Vae vobis, scribe et Pharisei hypocrite, qui mundatis, quod deforis est calicis, et parapsidis ; intus autem pleni estis rapina, et omni immunditia. Pharise cece, munda prius, quod intus est calicis, et parapsidis,ut fiat et id, quod deforis est, mundum.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 124rb.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

151

We have seen that Hugh frequently expresses his disapproval of monks and secular clerics who neglect action for contemplation or behave hypocritically. The Hugh postill also praises preaching and those prelates who pursue the active life. And yet, he never refers in this postill either to Dominicans specifically or mendicants in general. Beryl Smalley found this to be the case in her research on Hugh as well, stating that “Hugh never mentions either his Order or its founder,” and she takes this to mean that Hugh was either very conservative or “unwilling to annoy the older religious and the seculars by cracking up the friars.”105 The vitriolic language in the Song of Songs postill alone would seem to contradict the latter notion. After condemning hypocritical monks and secular clerics and arguing that Carthusians, Cistercians, and Cluniacs are on the wrong path to God, it is quite clear that Hugh was not afraid “to annoy the older religious and the seculars.” Is there any evidence, then, in the Song of Songs postill that Hugh believed that the mendicant way of life in particular was the ideal, in spite of the fact that he does not specifically refer to mendicants?106 I believe the answer to that question can be found in Hugh’s specific references in the postill to preaching in voluntary poverty and humility. For Hugh, poverty and humility are the most important values for a preacher, and these two values, along with a love of learning, are paramount for the Dominicans. Robert E. Lerner notes that Hugh links poverty and humility with good preaching in other postills, and argues that this is an indication that “the first generation of Dominicans in St. Jacques lives up to expectations in its dedication to poverty and humility.”107 The many references to poverty and humility and their importance for preaching in the Song of Songs postill tend to reinforce this notion. While the references to poverty in the postill are certainly not as stunning as Peter the Chanter’s brief but striking mention of “voluntary paupers,” they are no less

105

106 107

Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 138. One should never say never in the field of biblical studies, of course, and Robert E. Lerner has found references to both the Dominicans and the Franciscans in Hugh’s postills, and argues that the orders being mentioned together and carrying out the mission of preaching shows that the postills show “a special sense of calling.” Lerner also mentions a passage in the postill on Luke that “offers a sequence of salvational history” in which the mendicants supersede secular preachers, and argues that this contradicts Smalley’s statement. See Lerner, “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher,” 228–230. As noted above, the discussion of preachers “going around the city” might be an implicit mention of the Dominicans rather than just generic “preachers.” Lerner, “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher,” 224.

152

Chapter 5

interesting, and they reveal to us Hugh’s belief that mendicancy is the most useful way of life.108 The first reference Hugh makes to poverty in his postill is connected with the Chanter’s discussion of preachers in his exposition of Song of Songs 1:16, “the timbers of our dwellings are beams of cedar.” The Chanter writes that “[P] reachers, moreover, are incorruptible and lacking vices, rendering others incorruptible by the scent of the honest beliefs and by the words of their preaching.”109 Hugh echoes the Chanter, but then adds that preachers are “incorruptible due to their chastity, incombustible due to their love of poverty.”110 Thus, in addition to the good qualities of preachers that the Chanter lists, Hugh adds that a dedication to poverty also helps preachers remain free from corruption and better able to lead others to Christ. Hugh and his team explore another aspect of poverty in his exposition of 2:10, which I have mentioned above. They link poverty with even loftier aspirations than preaching to others, writing, “[A]rise from the earth to heaven through voluntary poverty, from sin to grace through penitence.”111 Here, Hugh indicates that voluntary poverty aids in turning one’s thoughts’ from earthly things to heaven. In monastic commentaries on the Song of Songs, it is usually contemplation that fills this role. Thus, Hugh seeks to shift the focus of the religious way of life, allowing poverty to play an integral role in the lives of religious. Poverty helps mendicants to preach to those in the world, and it helps them turn their sights on heaven. The Hugh postill expands on the Chanter’s brief mention of voluntary paupers in his exposition of Song of Songs 4:1, “… your tresses are like flocks of gazelles.” While the Chanter simply writes that preachers are “called hair, voluntary paupers,” Hugh offers an explanation as to why this should be the case, writing, “Your hair, that is your faithful ones, slender due to humility, thinned by voluntary poverty …”112 Hugh seems to note here that a life of voluntary poverty is difficult, but preachers, represented by the hairs, still cling closely to the head, or Christ. In this way, Hugh makes clear that the preacher’s devotion to a life of poverty is an integral part of what allows him to remain close to God. 108 109

110 111 112

See above, Chapter 3, 92. “Predicatores autem sunt imputribiles carentes vitiis alios etiam imputribiles redunt odore bone opinionis et verbo predicationis.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 43vb. See above, Chapter 3, 86 for more on the Chanter’s exposition of this verse. “Imputrabiles castitate, incombustibiles paupertatis amore …” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 112va. “Surge a mundo ad celum per voluntariam paupertatem, a peccato ad gratiam per penetentiam.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia III, f. 117vb. “Capilli tui, id est, fideles tui graciles humilitate, attenuate voluntaria paupertate …” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 123ra.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

153

The vow of poverty that mendicants take also protects the Church from the incursions of its enemies, as Hugh notes in his exposition of Song of Songs 4:12, “A garden shut up is my sister, my bride,” writing, “[T]hat garden is shut up. First, against lasciviousness, through the vow of continence. Against greed, or desire for worldly things, by the vow of poverty. Against spiritual negligence, through the vow of obedience …”113 The bride, or the Church, is a garden shut up, sealed off from danger by the vows taken by religious, with poverty protecting against greed. By vowing to remain paupers, Hugh notes that religious are able to fortify the Church and preach to others more effectively. Hugh and his associates also believe that preachers must remain humble in order to win converts and preach morals and repentance to Christians. In the commentary on Song of Songs 2:14, “show me your face and let your voice sound in my ears,” Hugh writes, “show me your face, that is your intention, so that you do not presume to teach or preach for the sake of another [rather] than for my glory, and the salvation of your neighbors.”114 Here, Hugh wants to ensure that his readers are preaching for the right reasons, and not for the sake of another, that is, for the sake of the adulation of those hearing the sermons. Preachers must remember that they are preaching for the glory of God, and to ensure the salvation of others. Seeking fame and fortune through preaching contradicts the principles of the mendicants, and Hugh seeks to communicate to his audience that those who take up the task of preaching must do so only for the right reasons. These quotations illustrate that Hugh does not need to mention the mendicant orders by name in order to communicate his belief that a specifically mendicant way of life, and not simply the active life, is best. While Smalley states that “the Friar Preacher, devoted not only to preaching, but to preaching in poverty” remains elusive in Hugh’s work on the Gospels, I believe that Hugh emerges as just this sort of figure in the Song of Songs postill, despite the lack of explicit references to mendicancy.115 Besides offering this more general moral advice to preachers, Hugh even provides his readers with practical advice on approaches to preaching in his comment on Song of Songs 7:11, “Come my beloved, let us go out into the field, let us linger in the villages.” 113

114

115

“Conclusus est hortus iste. Primo contra lasciviam, per votum contientie. Contra cupiditatem, sive mundi concupiscentiam, per votum paupertatis. Contra spirituals nequitias, per votum obedientie …” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 127ra. “Ostende mihi faciem tuam, id est, intentionem tuam, ut non ob aliud, quam ob gloriam meam, et salute proximi tui predicare, vel docere presumas.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 118vb. Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, 143. This difference is yet another indication that there was more than one author of the postills.

154

Chapter 5

Gloss Come my beloved, let us go out into the field, let us linger in the villages. The Church, seeing that she is not in herself sufficient to do good works, or to ‘go out’ [to convert others,]’ or to [‘linger in the villages,’ that is] persevere in goodness, or to perceive how much her hearers have accomplished, pleads for help … By ‘field’ is signified Christians, by ‘village,’ unbelievers … [let us linger] by earnest preaching [in the villages] in those already instructed in how to live lawfully.116 116 117

Hugh of St. Cher Come my beloved, let us go out into the field, let us linger in the villages. By villages are understood neophytes [newly converted Christians] and the simple and the uncultivated, who have less order, sophistication, fortification, and foresight than [people in] camps or cities, linger for a greater amount of time, until they come to greater perfection. You should linger in these villages, moreover, by instructing these people, by governing their morals, by presenting yourself to them as friendly, and by showing them sociable goodwill.117

Hugh’s commentary on this passage is especially noteworthy because it offers a glimpse into the practical details of preaching to certain audiences, a concept which has remained abstract throughout the commentaries I have discussed. Hugh urges his readers to follow the biblical text to the letter, and “linger in the villages,” or the more unsophisticated rural areas where the people are less knowledgeable about their own religion then their more refined urban counterparts. Hugh tells his audience that they should be sure to preach concerning morals in particular, which will be valuable in leading these undeveloped Christians into greater perfection. Perhaps most interestingly, Hugh writes that preachers attempting to instruct villagers in Christian doctrine 116

117

“Veni, etc. Ecclesia videns quod nec ad bene operandum vel egrediendum per se suffi­ cit nec in bono persistere, vel auditores quantum profecerint discernere, implorat auxilium … In agro Christiani, in villa pagani … [commoremur] assidua predicatione [in villis] in illis iam ad legitime vivendum instruendis.” Dove, Glossa, VII, 11, 83–89, 4–25. “Commoremur in villis Per villas neopyti et simplices, ac rudes intelliguntur, qui minus habent compositionis, urbanitatis, munitionis, et circumspectionis, quam castra, vel civitates, circa quos est amplius commorandum, donec veniant ad maiorem perfectionem. Commorandum autem est in eis eos instruendo, morem eis gerendo, se eis affabiles exhibendo, ad socialem dilectionem ostendendo.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 135ra-b.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

155

must not hold themselves aloof from the population. Rather than simply preaching their sermons and then refusing to further interact with the local population, Hugh urges his readers to be friendly and show goodwill to those whom they wish to impart their knowledge and moral guidance. This passage reveals fascinating insights into the practicalities of the mission of preaching, details which have been sorely lacking in earlier Song of Songs commentaries. It serves as an illustration of Hugh’s desire for preachers to truly instruct others by both word and example. This passage also challenges the standard notion that the Dominicans preferred preaching in cities. Hugh’s idea of Dominicans lingering in rural villages, instructing unrefined peasants and being friendly with them does not fit the traditional image we have of the Dominicans preaching in places like Paris. The passage goes on to say “or in the villages, literally in worldly parishes, where orphans without walls and without the protection of any rule are confined.”118 Here, the Hugh postill may be referring to members of the rural parish clergy, living in villages that unlike cities, lack walls. These poorly educated priests, unlike the Dominicans, do not have the benefit of living under a rule and being well educated. Hugh seems to be telling his readers that these parish priests need instruction so they can better serve their flocks, and that those who do live under a rule and who do have the benefit of education, the Dominicans, should make it one of their tasks to teach these priests. Thus, the focus of the Dominicans should not be only those living in cities, but those in the countryside as well. Hugh, like his predecessors that I have previously discussed, seems to argue that one of the primary objectives of preaching is to combat heretics, a nebulous and insidious group that continues to be a concern for orthodox clerics a century after the Glossator wrote about their malign influence on weakminded Christians. In his interpretation of Song of Songs 2:15, “Catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vineyards,” Hugh borrows from the Gloss and the Chanter, but also incorporates Isidore’s Etymologies:

118

“Vel in villis ad litteram in secularibus parochiis, ubi sunt pupilli absque muro et defensione alicuius certe regule, qua claudantur.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, III, f. 135rb.

156

Chapter 5

Gloss Catch for us the little foxes, Foxes hide in holes, and when they come out they never run in straight lines, just like heretics. Or little, that is, that is [catch them] in the very beginning of [their] trickery, lest greater acts should harm more considerably … [catch] seize and subdue the little foxes schismatics and heretics who are cunning and make themselves out to be humble.119

119 120

119

120

Peter the Chanter Catch, therefore, seize and subdue the foxes, clever schismatics and heretics … little, that is while they are little, in the beginning of their trickery, lest they grow and thus harm more considerably. Catch for us, for my honor and glory and for our advantage.120

Hugh of St. Cher Catch, with the snares of doctrine and the hunting spears of preaching…for us, not for you, that is [both] for my honor and glory and for your advantage. The little foxes, that is cunning heretics and clever schismatics. Little, that is while they are little, and new in their trickery, lest greater acts should harm more considerably, and they are not able to be captured. Or little, that is, humble, not in truth, but by pretense. According to Isidore, they are called foxes, as if [the word were] volipes (they are twisting on their feet), whether by flying due to their swiftness, or by rolling on account of enveloping [themselves] in deceitfulness. And therefore heretics are rightly called foxes because they walk twisting and entangled paths in disputing with and speaking to others. Thus Job Chapter 6c says “the paths of their steps are entangled, they shall walk in vain, and shall perish,” (Job 6:18). The fox also displays this kind of deceitfulness: when it has no food, it pretends to be dead, and snatches and devours the birds that descend toward it [cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, Book

“Capite nobis vulpes parvulas, vulpes in fovee abduntur et cum apparuerint numquam directis itineribus currunt, sic heretici. Vel parvulas, id est in ipso initio fraudis ne maiores effecte amplius noceant … [capite] deprehendite et debellate vulpes parvulas scismaticos et hereticos qui callidi sunt et se humiles fingunt.” Dove, Glossa, II, 15, 155–156, 9–12 ; II, 15, 160, 20–21. “Capite ergo deprehendite et debellate vulpes astutos scismaticos et hereticos … parvulas id est dum sunt parvule initio fraudis destructe hereses ne grandescant et ita amplius noceant capite inquam nobis ad gloriam et honorem mei et utilitatem nostri.” Peter the Chanter, Mazarine, MS 178, f. 45ra.

Hugh of St. Cher and the Postill

 121

157 XII, 2, 29]. Thus heretics pretend to be dead to the world, and they snatch the incautious ones coming to them, dragging these people into hell with them, just as is said in Proverbs 9d, “her guests are in the depths of hell” [Prov. 9:18] which can indeed be applied to those descending into hell. Therefore catch for us these foxes, either with snares, as was said [above], or with the might and power of the secular arm.121

Here, Hugh echoes the Gloss, the Chanter, and most other exegetes in interpreting the foxes as heretics. He also parrots the Gloss in arguing that heretics must be caught and either reformed or punished while they are “little,” or before they have caused irreparable harm to the surrounding community. Hugh, however, adds the colorful imagery of Isidore, who relates that foxes feign death in order to lure unsuspecting birds into their mouths. Hugh provides the reader with a striking image when he argues that heretics do this as well, by pretending to be “dead to the world,” or by feigning humility and pretending that they do not care for worldly things. The heretics then drag their unsuspecting victims into the depths of hell, where their souls are devoured. In order to defeat heretics, Hugh proposes two solutions: they can be caught with the snares and spears of good doctrine and preaching, or, if that fails, they can be executed by the power of secular law. Thus Church and state must work together in order to combat that grave threat of heresy. Hugh not only expands 121

“Capite retibus doctrine, et predicationis venabulis … nobis, non vobis, id est, ad honorem et gloriam meam, et utilitatem vestram. Vulpes, id est, callidos hereticos, et astutos schismaticos. Parvulas, id est, dum parvule sunt, et nove in fraude sua, ne majores effecte plus noceant, et capi non possint. Vel parvulas, id est, humiles, non veritate, sed simulatione. Secundum Isid., vulpes dicitur, quasi volipes, sive a volando propter velocitatem, sive a volvendo propter involutionem dolositatis. Et ideo recte heretici vulpes dicuntur, quia tortuose et involute ambulant disputando, vel alias colloquendo. Unde Job 6c, Involute sunt semite gressuum eorum, ambulabunt in vacuum, et peribunt. Habet etiam istam fraudulentiam vulpes, ut cum escam non habet, mortuam se simulate, et aves ad ipsam descendentes rapit, et devorat. Ita heretici mundo mortuos se simulant, et incautos ad eos venientes rapiunt, et secum detrahunt ad infernum, sicut dicitur Prov. 9d, In profundis inferni convive eius, qui enim applicabitur illi, descendit ad inferos. Has igitur vulpes capite nobis ve retibus, ut dictum est, vel vi et potentia brachii secularis.” Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia, f. 119ra.

158

Chapter 5

upon the already colorful imagery we have seen applied to heretics by the Glossator, Anselm, and the Chanter, but he goes beyond his predecessors in calling for the ultimate punishment to be meted out to those heretics who cannot be swayed by preaching and the powers of the Church. Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs is different from the works discussed in preceding chapters in that it contains interpretations that do not play a significant part in these other scholastic works, including the Marian interpretation and the tropological interpretation. Nevertheless, the postill has far more similarities than differences with the Gloss and the commentaries of Anselm of Laon and the members of the biblical-moral school. Chief among these similarities, of course, is the extensive amount of attention that Hugh devotes to discussing the importance of preaching. In this way, the postill can certainly be seen as following in footsteps of its predecessors. As is the case with the Gloss, Hugh’s postill on the Song of Songs was a project launched in order to gather together and simplify the work of biblical exegetes. But the postill is also similar to the Gloss in that both works contain many original contributions, and in particular offer forceful opinions on the importance of preaching and the active life to the health and survival of the Church. Hugh is not only calling for a life focused on preaching, but he is living it out. Even more so than the Glossator, Hugh speaks in his own voice, arguing for the supremacy of the mendicant life of preaching, humility, and voluntary poverty. Between 1100 and 1250, the model established in part by Gregory the Great and Bede, but in its fullness by Anselm of Laon, the Chanter, Langton, and Hugh, had become a reality. A mendicant order devoted to preaching above all else was established. Popes called for preaching, wrote and delivered sermons themselves, and gathered Church councils that enacted sweeping reforms. The field of pastoralia, replete with collections of distinctiones and guidebooks for pastoral care, exploded in popularity. A biblical book that had been viewed as monastic in nature had been transformed into a text that featured both Christ and the Church giving a ringing endorsement to an active life of preaching rather than a quiet and retired life of contemplation. The commentary of Anselm of Laon and the Gloss derived from it and Hugh of St. Cher’s postill serve as bookends for an era of strikingly original interpretations of the Song of Songs that differ greatly from monastic works and test our notions of how we should define medieval Song of Songs exegesis.

Epilogue-Mendicant SongExegesis of Songs Exegesis Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs

159

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis in the Late 13th–Early 14th Centuries: The Commentaries of Peter Olivi and Nicholas of Lyra While the end of the exegetical work of Hugh of St. Cher and his team around 1240 did not signal the absolute end of this particularly scholastic species of Song of Songs commentary that focused on preaching and combating heresy, the Hugh postill seems to be one of the last Song of Songs commentaries that treats these issues in such depth. Overall, as Bert Roest has stated, “the relative weight of biblical studies vis-à-vis Sentences lectures and advanced quaestiones literature within mendicant circles” had changed after the 1230s, and lectures on the Bible declined.”1 This did not, however, signal an end to biblical lectures and biblical commentary altogether. Commentaries by the Franciscans Peter Olivi (1248–1298) and Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270–1349) do not comfortably fit into the same category as the commentaries I have previously discussed, but Nicholas’ work in particular managed to exercise a considerable amount of influence. While preaching is mentioned in the commentaries of both Olivi and Nicholas, the pursuit of the active life is not a central concern of either text. Each man concentrates on new themes and modes of exegesis, for the most part leaving the mode of his predecessors behind. Despite all this, however, mendicant exegetes continued to write “within homiletic contexts,” producing commentaries and postills that gave, in the words of Roest, “fellow preachers the materials to expound the word of God in the world.”2 Peter Olivi, as David Burr has remarked, was “a man apparently born to polarize opinion.”3 He was educated in Paris, likely arriving at the Franciscan studium no later than 1268, but never attaining the rank of master.4 Olivi was then sent to southern France, and during his time at houses in Montpellier and Narbonne in the 1270s and 1280s, he produced a number of biblical commentaries, most likely including that on the Song of Songs.5 After being accused of error in 1282, Olivi successfully defended himself and was rehabilitated at the Franciscan General Chapter of Montpellier in 1287.6 Olivi’s work did not face 1 Roest, “Mendicant School Exegesis,” 193. 2 Ibid., 196. 3 David Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy (Philadelphia, 1989), 158. 4 Madigan, Olivi and the Interpretation of Matthew, 68. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 71.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_008

160

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

condemnation again until after his death, when his Revelation commentary was questioned in a lengthy process at the Council of Vienne in 1311 and finally condemned by John XXII in 1326.7 Olivi’s commentary on the Song of Songs, however, did not face any particular scrutiny, and was not controversial. Johannes Schlageter, who has produced an edition and German translation of the commentary, notes that like other ecclesiastical commentators, Olivi rejects the notion that the Song of Songs is concerned with carnal love.8 Instead, he believes that it treats divine love, and he mixes an ecclesiological interpretation of the text, which had been employed by most of his predecessors, with a more focused spiritual/mystical interpretation, concentrating on the relationship between Christ and the individual soul. In this respect, Olivi’s commentary has more in common with monastic works on the Song of Songs such as Bernard of Clairvaux’s sermons than with the works of Anselm, the Chanter, and others who favored exploring the story of Christ’s relationship with the Church. Despite this significant difference, however, Schlageter notes in his apparatus 52 instances in which Olivi refers to the Gloss. In several of these references, Olivi cites the Gloss explicitly. For example, in commenting on the “vineyards of Engaddi” in Song 1:13, Olivi writes, “And the Gloss says that these balsam trees which grow in Engaddi are called vines because they are cultivated in the [same] way as vines.”9 Here, Olivi echoes the Gloss nearly word for word, suggesting that he had a Glossed Bible alongside him as he worked on his own commentary. The other commentators that Olivi refers to by name include Church Fathers such as Jerome and Isidore of Seville and more modern writers including Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of St. Victor, but he makes no reference, implicit or explicit, to the works of Anselm, the Chanter, Langton, or Hugh of St. Cher. Indeed, the references that Olivi does make to the Gloss do not focus on preaching or the active life, so it is perhaps not surprising that he does not make use of the commentaries I have previously discussed. The issues that these commentators focus on are not the issues that Olivi chooses to emphasize in his own commentary. 7 David Burr, Olivi’s Peaceable Kingdom: A Reading of the Apocalypse Commentary (Philadelphia, 1993), 221. 8 “Olivi distanziert sich nun grundsätzlich von einer Deutung des Hohenlieds auf bloß ‘fleisch­ liche liebe’ und verwirft sie im Einklang mit kirchlicher Tradition als ‘ketzerisch.’” Johannes Schlageter, ed. and trans., Petri Johannes Olivi, Expositio in Canticum Canticorum (Rome, 1999), 42. 9 “Et dicit Glossa quod hic appellat vineas arbores balsami que in Engaddi crescent, quia in modum vinearum excoluntur.” Schlageter, Petri Johannes Olivi, 144.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

161

Olivi does make a few scattered references to preaching and the active life, but these references make no claim that the active life is superior to the contemplative, a notion that we have seen in all the commentaries explored in this book. For example, in commenting on Song of Songs 7:1, “… the juncture of your thighs like jewels which are made by the hand of a craftsman,” Olivi writes that “… or by this ‘juncture,’ may be designated the unity of the active and contemplative lives, in whose radical connection and stability lies the strength [of the] proclaimed spiritual generation.”10 Here, Olivi asserts, as many of his predecessors have done, that a life uniting the active and contemplative is best, and it is in this type of life that future generations of religious will flourish. He does not argue, as Hugh of St. Cher in particular had so forcefully stated, that the active life is superior to the contemplative, instead remaining rather traditional in calling for a balanced life. Olivi is somewhat more forceful in his support of preaching in his epilogue, in which he elaborates on the Song of Song’s description of the various body parts of the bride, which can be found in Chapters 4 and 7 of the text. In writing about the bride’s feet, Olivi notes that “By ‘feet’, one may understand perfect actives [those living the active life] who go forth around the world humbly and in support of the whole Church; or ‘feet’ are evangelical preachers wandering about to and fro in poverty of spirit and in their nakedness for the spiritual support of the Church.”11 Here, Olivi seems to argue that preachers, those “perfect actives,” serve as the “feet” of the Church, in that they support the Church by serving as a solid base and by their wandering preaching, which wins more support for the Church. This echoes the attitudes toward preaching expressed by Olivi’s predecessors, who all argue that preachers play an integral role in protecting the Church and supporting it by spreading its message throughout the world. These few passages are the only ones in which Olivi comments on preaching and its importance. In commenting on verses like Song of Songs 2:10, “Arise, my beloved, and come,” and 4:1, “How beautiful you are, my beloved,” Olivi’s predecessors had all discussed the importance of preaching and in most cases, the superiority of the active life. In his Song of Songs commentary, Olivi either discusses spiritual matters and the virtues of contemplation (as is the 10

11

“Vel per hanc ‘iuncturam’ potest designari concordia vite active et contemplative a qua manant gressus supradicti, in quarum radicali connexione et consistentia est vis conceptiva prolis spiritualis.” Schlageter, Petri Johannes Olivi, 276. “Per ‘pedes,’ etiam possunt intelligi perfecti active circa terram humiliter et in supportationem totius ecclesie procedentes; vel ‘pedes’ sunt predicators evangelici in paupertate spiritus et in nuditate ipsius pro spirituali supportatione ecclesie discurrentes hinc inde.” Schlageter, Petri Johannes Olivi, 332.

162

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

case in his interpretation of 4:1), or offers no comment at all (which is the case for 2:10). The themes that had preoccupied Olivi’s predecessors do not capture his interest in the same way. While Olivi’s predecessors all show an interest in combating heresy, Olivi shows little concern about heretics. In commenting on Song of Songs 2:15, “catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vineyards,” all of Olivi’s predecessors specifically associate these foxes with heretics. Olivi is more vague about the foxes, writing, Note that just as during the time of the flowering of the vineyard of the primitive Church, there were false apostles who wandered to and fro like little foxes gnawing the new flowers and buds of the newly converted with their cunning teeth; thus in other times where there is a similar beginning of a spiritual epoch, hypocrites alleging false humility and temperance stream forth and lay waste to the new buds of the vineyard of the Church.12 Here, Olivi echoes Anselm and the Chanter in particular, referring to hypocrites who allege false humility, but unlike those commentators, Olivi does not explicitly refer to these hypocrites as heretics. While his predecessors use Song of Songs 2:15 along with other verses as opportunities to rail against heretics who are currently damaging the Church, the above comment serves as the only one by Olivi that refers even obliquely to heresy. Indeed, it is possible that Olivi means to refer not to heretics, but to those in his own order whose opinions clash with his own. For Olivi, they may be more damaging to the Church than any particular heretical group. Unlike his commentaries on Matthew and the Apocalypse, which are rife with references to Franciscan poverty, Olivi makes but one reference to this issue in his Song of Songs commentary. In his interpretation of 8:7, “… if a man were to give all the substance of his household for love, he would scorn it as nothing,” Olivi writes that

12

“Nota quod sicut tempore primitive ecclesie florentis instar vinee fuerunt pseudo-apostoli quasi vulpecule discurrentes hinc inde et novos flores et germina noviter conversorum suis dolosis dentibus corrodentes, sic in ceteris temporibus circa consimilia initia spiritualem statuum exundant hypocrite quamdam falsam humilitatis modicitatem pretendentes et novella vinearum Christi germina devastantes.” Schlageter, Petri Johannes Olivi, 168–170.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

163

… perfect love – the love of the bride must certainly be of this kind – always includes in itself evangelical poverty, as long as it is a more internal action, which, unless legitimate obstacles or impediments are present, it is always necessary for external action to follow. This [external] action, in fact, is the nature of our perfect internal will.”13 Here, Olivi expresses the idea that voluntary poverty is an integral part of perfect love, and in fact stems naturally from the internal will. When perfect love manifests itself in external actions, these actions always include adherence to poverty, unless there are extenuating circumstances of some kind, which Olivi fails to describe in detail. For Olivi, evangelical poverty is natural and good, and comes from perfect love and a perfect internal will. There is no negative or vitriolic language directed against those who Olivi sees as being on the wrong side of the usus pauper controversy, only this positive declaration of the perfection of evangelical poverty. Interestingly, at least in the case of his Song of Songs commentary, Olivi seems less concerned with addressing the importance of voluntary poverty than Hugh of St. Cher and his team, who, as mentioned above in Chapter 5, repeatedly mention poverty alongside humility as essential qualities of preachers. Anyone reading Olivi’s Song of Songs commentary knowing his devotion to the issue of poverty would likely be surprised by his lack of emphasis on this issue in this particular work. Since he was a mendicant and since his Song of Songs commentary was written in the wake of that of Hugh of St. Cher and his team, one reading Olivi’s work might expect to see similar language and content to Hugh’s postill.14 But in Olivi’s commentary, there are no indictments of monks and secular clerics for hypocritical behavior. There is no outright championing of the active life of prayer over the contemplative life of isolated meditation, as we have seen in Hugh’s postill and in the works of Olivi’s other predecessors. Instead, Olivi’s commentary is a rather traditional offering from a Franciscan who courted 13

14

“… perfecta caritas – qualis utique debet esse caritas sponse – includit in se simper evangelicam paupertatem quoad suum actum interiorem, quem-nisi assit legitimum obstaculum vel impedimentum-actus suus exterior simper et necessario habet sequi. Hoc enim est de natura perefecti actus interioris nostre voluntatis.” Schlageter, Petri Johannes Olivi, 316. Olivi does not cite Hugh in his Revelation commentary either, perhaps indicating that Hugh’s postills were not quite so “indispensible” as Smalley believes them to have been. See Smalley, Study of the Bible, 273. We must also keep in mind that Olivi was not a typical Franciscan of his era, and may not have used all the typical sources. He was sent away from Paris, and although his Song of Songs commentary was not questioned, other works he wrote were cited for error.

164

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

controversy his whole career and faced condemnation for his Apocalypse commentary. The commentary is quite distinct from the Song of Songs commentaries of Olivi’s predecessors discussed earlier in this book, despite the presence of a few scattered similarities to those works. Overall, Olivi’s commentary cannot be said to fall into the same tradition as the other works discussed in this book, perhaps indicating that by Olivi’s time, the method and content used to compose Song of Songs commentary had shifted once more, at least for some working on the text. Nicholas of Lyra’s postill on the Song of Songs, like Olivi’s commentary, does not dwell on the importance of preaching and the active life. Nicholas has been called “the greatest biblical exegete of the fourteenth century, and perhaps the greatest in the West since Jerome.”15 He earned this reputation due to his knowledge of Hebrew teachings, his clear and simple style of exegesis, and his dedication to commenting on the literal sense of the books of the Bible. He entered the Franciscan order in 1300, and became a master in 1308, joining the theology faculty at Paris the following year.16 Nicholas began his literal postill on the entire Bible in 1322, and completed it nine years later, producing a work that sought to complement the allegorical interpretations produced by his predecessors and contemporaries.17 By 1339, he completed the much shorter moral postill, which, as Bert Roest states, “was meant to be a concise handbook for order lectors and preachers in the provinces, providing short moral, typological, and allegorical notes …”18 Nicholas himself noted that the Song of Songs was particularly difficult to interpret literally, and he seems to have commented on the book only once.19 Through the use of the “parabolic” or double literal sense, Nicholas was able to show that which is signified by the words and 15 16 17

18 19

Philip D.W. Krey and Lesley Smith, Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture (Leiden, 2000), 1. Ibid., 2. Deeana Klepper notes that “[b]y the time he began compiling his definitive version of the Postilla litteralis super Bibliam in 1322, he had already worked out earlier versions of commentary on a number of books, which helps to explain how he was able to complete such a monumental task single-handedly in the span of nine years. See Deeana Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Readings of Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 2007), 10–11. Roest, “Mendicant School Exegesis,” 195. As James Kiecker notes, “quite possibly Lyra’s attitude toward the Song was the same as his attitude toward the Epistles which he also explained only once: sensus litteralis est simpliciter moralis propter quod illas pertranseo (the literal sense is simply the moral sense, so I will skip them). See James George Kiecker, ed. and trans., The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra on the Song of Songs (Marquette, WI, 1998), 12.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

165

the figurative meaning of the words.20 In this way, he produced a cleverly written work that serves as “one of scholasticism’s most significant contributions to the creative understanding of biblical literature.”21 Nicholas opens his postill on the Song of Songs with a lengthy passage describing the many types of Song of Songs exegesis and laying out his rationale for interpreting the text literally. Interestingly, this is not a separate incipit, but part of his commentary on 1:1, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” Nicholas notes that the Song of Songs “directs us to seek heavenly bliss,” and writes that he “already explained this quite fully” in his preface to the three books of Solomon.22 Nevertheless, he still feels that it is necessary to describe fully how he plans to interpret the text and what pitfalls the exegete of this enigmatic book may encounter. Among these problems Nicholas notes is that “our [Latin] translation frequently disagrees with the Hebrew text.”23 The other major difficulty with the text, according to Nicholas, is that while the Song of Songs takes the form of a parable, “it is not clear to whom the points of the parable should be applied in order to arrive at the literal sense, and this makes it difficult to interpret this book.”24 In other words, there is a bride and a groom, but the text does not offer any clues to tell the reader who this bride and groom are or how their wedding song should be interpreted. These are the major issues that Nicholas grapples with in his postill. It is interesting to note that these issues do not seem to have piqued the interest of the predecessors of Nicholas whose commentaries I discussed earlier.25 The Glossator, Anselm, the Chanter, Langton, and Hugh all subscribe to the ecclesiological interpretation of the Song of Songs and for the most part show little to no concern with 20 21 22

23 24

25

Mary Dove, “Literal Senses in the Song of Songs,” in Krey and Smith, Nicholas of Lyra, 132. Ibid., 146. “… tertius inducens ad amorem superne felicitates; sicut dictum fuit plenius … ubi posui quondam prefationem pro istis tribus libris.” All translations from Nicholas’ Song of Songs commentary are taken from Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra; this quotation can be found on 28–29. The first number indicates the page number of the original Latin (from the Biblia cum postillis, 3 vols., Venice: Franciscus Renner, 1482), the second the page number of the English translation. “… translatio nostra in pluribus locis discrepat a littera Hebraica …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 28–29. “… nec tamen apparet lucide quibus personis determinate parabole secundum sensum litteralem sint applicande, et hoc cum predictis difficultatem ingerit in hoc libro.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 28–29. As was the case with Olivi, when I refer to “Nicholas’ predecessors” or “the schoolmen who preceded Nicholas” in this chapter, I am referring only to the Glossator, Anselm, the Chanter, Langton, and Hugh, and not any other commentator on the Song of Songs whose work I have not discussed extensively.

166

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

(or knowledge about) differences between the Hebrew and Latin text. These characteristics of Nicholas’ postill serve to set it apart from these other commentaries, and show the new ground he was breaking as a biblical exegete. Nicholas goes on in his prefatory remarks to note the different interpretations of the parable told in the Song of Songs. He writes that some assign the role of the groom to Solomon, while his bride is Pharaoh’s daughter, but Nicholas rejects this notion as improper for Scripture, for although this love would be “within the bonds of matrimony … nevertheless, it would be fleshly and often such a love has a certain dishonorable and improper quality about it.”26 Thus, Nicholas rejects this interpretation as faulty because a parable dealing with carnal love of any kind would not be “included among the canonical books by the Hebrews and the Latins …”27 Nicholas also finds problematic the very interpretation of the text on which his predecessors relied. He notes that Hebrew scholars have interpreted the text as referring to the love between God and the Jews, while “Catholic expositors commonly say that this book depicts the love between Christ and the Church, understanding the Church as an entity separate from the Synagogue …” and that in doing this, “the Catholic interpreters like the Hebrews try to use the text for their own purposes.”28 In stating this, Nicholas does not seem to account for the fact that many of his predecessors followed the Glossator’s lead (and indeed that of Gregory the Great, Bede, and others), arguing that the Church and Synagogue joined together toward the end of the Song of Songs narrative. Mary Dove notes that “Nicholas must certainly have known that all significant Catholic expositors identify the bride both with the Synagogue and with the Christian Church,” but he may have been attempting to set himself apart from what he saw as incomplete expositions of the Song of Songs text.29 Nicholas claims that both interpretations are too narrow, and that the Hebrew interpreters cannot explain some things without the New Testament, and Catholic interpreters often use the Hebrew Bible incorrectly. The only way to 26

27 28

29

“… infra limies matrimonii contentus … tamen carnalis fuit, et frequenter habet talis amor aliquid inhonestum et illicitum adiunctum” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 28,30; 29. “… hic liber qui semper fuit ab Hebreis et Latinis inter canonicos libros reputatus …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 30–31. “Expositores vero Catholici dicunt communiter, quod iste liber loquitur de amore Christi et Ecclesie, accipiendo Ecclesiam prout dividitur contra synagogam … et sic tam illi quam isti nituntur ad suas intentiones litteram applicare.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 30–31. Mary Dove, “Literal Senses in the Song of Songs,” 135.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

167

attempt to combine these interpretations and get closer to the true meaning of the Song of Songs is to give the literal sense. Nicholas states that the literal sense is “not that which is signified by the words, but that which is signified by the things signified by the words.”30 For Nicholas, the thing that is signified by the word “bridegroom” is God, and that signified by “bride” is the Church, “embracing the circumstances of both Testaments. For just as there is one faith held by modern and ancient people … so there is one Church though there are differences depending on greater or lesser closeness to God, with greater closeness occurring in the time of the New Testament.”31 Thus, Nicholas writes that his exposition of the Song of Songs will fit into a historical context. Chapters one through six will describe the love between God and the Church during the time of the Hebrew Bible, and the last two chapters will describe the love during the New Testament. As Dove notes, this structure is untraditional in that “Nicholas divides up the book in such a way that Old and New Testaments are given something like proportional representation.”32 Throughout the first half of his postill, Nicholas, like many Rabbinic exegetes including Rashi, describes the Song of Songs in the historical context of the Jews and their exodus from Egypt. Dove remarks, however, that even while Nicholas concentrates on the literal-historical interpretation of the Jews and their interactions with God through chapter six of the Song of Songs, he mentions the New Testament when commenting on Song 4:6, writing “Till the day break, namely, the period of the New Testament … And the shadows retire, because in the New Testament the figures cease when the Truth comes, whose shadows in a certain sense they were.”33 Thus, Nicholas devotes space in his postill to both the history of the Jews and the love between Christ and the Church as displayed in the New Testament.

30 31

32 33

“… non ille qui per voces significatur, sed qui per res significatas primo intelligitur …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 30–31. “… complectens statum utriusqur Testamenti, quia sicut est una fides modernorum et antiquorum … sic est una Ecclesia variata tamen secundum maiorem et minorem coniunctionem ad Deum, quia magis coniuncta est tempore Novi Testamenti …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 32–33. Dove, “Literal Senses in the Song of Songs,” 136. “Donec aspiret dies, scilicet, Novi Testamenti … Et inclinentur umbre, quia in Novo Testamento cessant figure adveniente veritate, cuius quodammodo errant umbre.” Keicker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 68–69. Dove notes that the New Testament is first mentioned here at the midpoint of the Song of Songs text, saying that “the moment of transition from Old to New is nevertheless at the centre of history, and so, for Nicholas, it is the cent[er]point of the text.” Dove, “Literal Senses in the Song of Songs,” 136.

168

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

Throughout his postill, Nicholas compares the Hebrew text with the Latin and almost always finds the Latin text lacking, a flaw that he is not at all reluctant to emphasize. For example, in commenting on Song of Songs 1:9, “Your cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove’s,” Nicholas writes: The Hebrew text has, Thy cheeks are beautiful in rows, that is in rows of ornamentation circling your face, orderly arranged. This fits in with the statement which follows, Thy neck as jewels, since jewels are ornamentation for the neck … The Hebrew word used here means both “turtledoves” and “rows.” Our [Latin] translation follows the first meaning, but the Hebrew interpreters follow the other. The word “rows” agrees more with the statement which follows, as we saw. It also fits better with the statement that comes after that: We will make thee chains of gold inlaid with silver.34 Here, Nicholas uses the context of the passage to determine that the Hebrew meaning of the word used by Jewish commentators is superior to that used by Latin exegetes. As he often does throughout his postill, Nicholas sides with Jewish exegetes, who he believes have chosen the correct interpretation of the term. Thus, Nicholas goes back to the Hebrew source and looks at Jewish interpretations of the text in order to determine the best translation. This sort of exercise was not performed by his predecessors, who had little or no knowledge of Hebrew and did not appear to have examined Jewish interpretations of the Song of Songs in any depth. Nicholas also examines the Hebrew text in commenting on 1:3, “Draw me after you, we will run to the odor of your ointments.” He notes, however, that this last phrase, “to the odor of thy ointments, does not belong in the [Latin] text because it is not in the Hebrew. Apparently, some doctor wrote this phrase as an interlinear gloss, and later it was inserted in to the [Latin] text by scribal error.”35 Here, we not only see Nicholas examining the Hebrew, but also finding 34

35

“Pulchre sunt gene tue sicut turturis, id est, pulchritude fides tue est mihi amabilis. In Hebreo habitu: Pulchre sunt gene tue in ordinibus, id est in ornamentis circa faciem tuam ordinate dispositis, et ad hoc consonant litteram sequens cum dicitur: Collum tuum sicut monila, sunt enim monila colli ornamenta … nomen Hebraicum ibi positum est equivocum ad turtures et ordines, translatio nostra sequitur primam significationem, Hebrei vero aliam quorum dicto magis consonant littera sequens, ut visum est. Et ad idem pertinent quod subditur: Murenulas aureas faciemus tibi vermiculatas argento …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 42–43. “Trahe me post te … Hoc tamen, scilicet, In odore unguentorum tuorum, non est de textu, quia non est in Hebreo, secundum ab aliquot doctore fuit appositum per modum interlin-

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

169

what appears to be a phrase in the Latin translation that was not in the original text. He even posits a plausible-sounding reason for this error. All the commentaries I have examined by his predecessors, of course, contain the phrase “to the odor of your ointments,” and comment on it. They also all make reference to the island of Cyprus when commenting on Song of Songs 1:13, “a cluster of cypress is my love to me,” whereas Nicholas simply writes, “Cypress here is not the name of the island [Cyprus], which is in the Mediterranean Sea.”36 Since Cyprus is in the Mediterranean and not the Holy Land, it does not fit into the literal-historical narrative that Nicholas is trying to construct in his commentary, and thus he rejects the commonplace used by so many of his predecessors. Nicholas shows his knowledge of Hebrew once again in commenting on 8:5, “under the apple tree, I raised you up.” He writes “You must also realize that the word ‘apple’ here is not an adjective, as some think, explaining this as a reference to the tree which was forbidden to Adam and Eve, because in Hebrew, instead of two words ‘apple tree,’ there is only one word, red, which refers to a pomegranate tree. The former explanation comes from an ignorance of idiomatic Hebrew.”37 Here, Nicholas again tears down a well-established interpretation of this verse used by all his predecessors and implicitly criticizes other Latin exegetes for not knowing Hebrew so they can try to recapture the original meaning of the text. Nicholas displays a difference between his interpretation and those of the Glossator and Anselm in his comment on 1:1, “because your breasts are better than wine.” He writes The Hebrew word used here means both ‘loves’ and ‘breasts’ … in this case the Hebrew interpreters seem to be on better ground, because, according to the peculiar nature of the Hebrew language, what seems here to be directed to the bride is actually directed to the groom, and, in praising the groom, it does not seem proper to mention his breasts. On the other hand, it might be said that, by the breasts of the groom, the fullness of God’s mercy is understood.38

36 37

38

earis glose, qua postea inserta fuit textui per imperitam scriptorium.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 36–37. “Et ideo Cyprus non est hic nomen insule que est in Mari Mediterraneo, quia ibi non sunt dicte vine.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 44–46; 47. “Et sciendum quod littera malo non est hic adiectivum, ut credunt aliqui, exponents hoc de arbore vetita Ade et Eve, quia in Hebreo pro istis duabus dictionibus, arbore mal, ponitur punica, que significant malogranatum, ideo exposition illa procedit ex ignorantia idio­matis Hebrei.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 112–114; 115. “… nomen enim Hebraicum hic positum equivocum est ad amores et ubera … in hoc videntur Hebrei melius dicere, quia secundum proprietatem Hebraici sermonis sponsa hic alloquitur sponsum, in commendatio vero sponsi non videtur decenter fieri mentio

170

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

Despite this last comment, Nicholas seems unconvinced that the bridegroom’s breasts should be mentioned at all; he immediately begins to talk about the bridegroom’s loves in the next sentence. The Glossator, following Bede, differed from Nicholas in that he felt that the term “breasts” had been used deliberately in order to show that “from the very beginning of this song, he may reveal himself to be speaking figuratively.”39 While Bede and the Glossator are not as disturbed by the phrase as Nicholas seems to be, they still feel the need to further explicate this somewhat confusing verse. Anselm of Laon, on the other hand, has no qualms in accepting Christ as having breasts, Anselm simply writes, “your breasts, that is, your teachings, which are breasts, that is nourishing the faithful, just as breasts nourish children,” with no extraneous explanations.40 Nicholas himself then seems to reject his own squeamishness with the idea of Christ’s breasts in his comment on 7:7, “your stature is likened to a palm tree, and your breasts to clusters of grapes.” Here, Nicholas writes with no other comment that “Christ’s breasts contain an abundance of milk for nursing his sons and the whole Church.”41 Perhaps there is no ambiguity with the Hebrew here, or perhaps Nicholas felt that “the breasts of Christ” made more sense in this context than in 1:1. In any case, Nicholas’ interpretation is much closer to that of his predecessors in this second reference. Throughout his postill, Nicholas seems to accept the Hebrew interpretation over the Latin in several cases. He rejects the Hebrew interpretation, however, rather strikingly in his comment on the last verse of the Song of Songs, 8:14. It reads: Flee away, O my beloved … This ‘flee away’ means the taking of the bride with the groom to heaven in the near future, which the Church so highly desires and seeks in her ‘flee away’ in line with the mistaken Jewish belief, saying that with these words the Jewish people seek to be freed from the captivity in which they now live by the coming of the Messiah. But this

39 40 41

de uberibus. Potest tamen dici quod per ubera sponsi hic intelligitur plentudo misericordie Dei.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 32–34; 35. “Ubera sponsi nominat, quod muliebre est, ut ipso carminis initio figurate se loqui manifestet.” Dove, Glossa, I, 1, 11, 37–38. Dove also discusses this in “Literal Senses,” 133. “… ubera tua id est precepta que sunt ubera id est fideles nutrientia ut ubera nutriunt pueros …” Anselm of Laon, BnF, MS lat. 338 f. 61rb; BnF, MS lat. 3652, f. 12r. See above, 19. “abundantiam lactis ad nutritionem filiorum Christi et Ecclesie.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 196–107.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

171

explanation is based on a shaky foundation. These words are better explained as I did.42 When his ideological difference with the Jewish interpretation is great, Nicholas has no problem bluntly rejecting it. Interestingly, unlike in other passages, Nicholas does not try to explain or qualify why he chooses this particular interpretation. It seems that theology and the basic difference in the tenets of Christianity and Judaism led Nicholas to draw his commentary to a close with a strong Christian message. The notion of the importance of preaching and the active life is almost entirely absent in Nicholas’ Song of Songs postill, as is any mention of the perils of heresy, both issues that occupied large portions of his predecessors’ commentaries. Nicholas makes no specific references to heretics, and only two somewhat oblique references to preaching, which both occur in Chapter 7. In his comment on 7:8, “I said, I will go up into the palm tree,” Nicholas writes “For while they are in contemplation, contemplatives absorb what they afterwards pour forth in their teaching, as can be clearly seen in the case of Paul after his vision, and in the lives of many other doctors of the Church.”43 This sounds as if it could have come from the commentaries of any of Nicholas’ predecessors, who favored preaching over contemplation, and yet argued that a balanced life in most cases is best, and that one should “go up” from contemplation to action. Two verses later, Nicholas also echoes some of his predecessors in his comment on 7:11, “Let us go out into the field, let us linger in the villages”, writing, “This is what the bride is asking for here, when she says, Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the villages, by spreading the faith throughout the world. Let us abide in the villages by building churches in the cities and villages.”44 Again, Nicholas essentially follows the same interpretation as his predecessors, albeit in a more subdued manner. 42

43

44

“… per eam intelligitur velox translatio sponse cum sponso ad celestia, quod summe desiderat et petit in orationibus suis Ecclesia, ut patet in officio ecclesastico, et per talem modum exponit hanc fugam Rabbi Salomon trahendo tamen litteram ad errorem Iudaicum, dicens quod plebs Iudaica per hoc petit liberari a captivitate ista in qua est modo per Messiam futuram. Sed hec expositio fundatur super falsum fundamentum, ideo bene exponitur modo predicto …” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 122–124; 123–125. “Contemplativi enim in contemplatione hauriunt que postea per doctrinam effundunt, sicut patet de Paulo post eius raptum, et de multis aliis doctoribus.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 106–107. “… et hoc est quod petit sponsa hic: Veni dilecte mi egrediamur in agrum, per diffusionem fidei in orbe terrarium. Commoremur in villis, edificando Ecclesias in civitatibus et villis.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 108–109.

172

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

For the most part, however, Nicholas seems unconcerned with issues like preaching and heresy. In commenting on verses of the Song of Songs which figures like the Chanter and Langton had used to write about preaching and the active life, Nicholas employs his own literal-historical interpretation of the text and eschews his predecessors’ example. For 2:15, “catch for us the little foxes,” for example, Nicholas’ predecessors (and older figures such as Gregory the Great and Bede) all refer to the foxes as heretics who are destroying the vineyard (the Church) and must be captured. Nicholas, on the other hand, writes that the foxes are those persons who cunningly led the people into idolatry. For our vineyards, that is, the Israelites, as in Isaiah 5 [7]: ‘For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel … Just as wolves, running through a vineyard in blossom, cause great damage by knocking off the blossoms, so the above-mentioned idolaters caused great spiritual damage in the vineyard of Israel.45 While one could interpret “those persons who cunningly led the people into idolatry,” as heretics, Nicholas specifically couches the foxes in terms of those who led the Israelites into idolatry in the book of Exodus, which is the historical context in which Nicholas writes the first half of his commentary. In contrast with his predecessors, he seems unconcerned with contemporary problems with heresy. While Nicholas’ comment on 2:15 could possibly be interpreted as referring in some way to contemporary heretics, his explication of 4:1, “apart from that which lies inside,” bears no relation to the interpretations of his predecessors. Nicholas asserts that the opening verses of Chapter 4 describe the bride’s physical beauty, which is in turn equal to her spiritual beauty. Overall, she can be interpreted as representing Israel. Therefore, “apart from that which lies inside is interpreted as “the beautiful alignment of the limbs concealed under the clothing,” and not as Hugh interprets it, referring to hypocritical monks and seculars.46 In addition, the hair, teeth, and lips are actually the hair, teeth, and 45

46

“… personas dolose inducentes populam ad idolatriam. Nam vinea nosta, id est, plebs Israelitica, Isaias V: Vinea Domini exercituum domus Israel est … sicut tempore floritionis vinee vulpes ibi transeuntes et flores excutientes faciunt magnum damnum, sic predicti idolatre in vinea Israel fecerunt magnum damnum spiritual. Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 54–55. “Absque eo quod intrinsecus latet, id est, pulchra membrorum dispositio sub vestibus latent.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 64; 65–67.

Epilogue-Mendicant Song of Songs Exegesis

173

lips of the bride, and not preachers or voluntary paupers or any other more allegorical figures. Song of Songs 2:10, “Arise, hurry, my beloved, and come,” which has been a key verse for Nicholas’ predecessors in talking about arising from contemplation to action, is interpreted by Nicholas as “lift up your spirit at my words, my love, that is, by means of love, my dove, by undivided attention, my beautiful one, by outward decency, and come, to serve me alone.”47 Thus, the themes that seemed to have driven the other commentators for the most part have disappeared in Nicholas’ postill. In his desire to explain the Song of Songs in a literal and historical sense, he avoided the allegorical interpretation favored by his predecessors, who turned the Song of Songs into an urgent divine command to preach in order to save the Church from peril. Nicholas of Lyra, on the other hand, strove to incorporate Hebrew interpretations into his postill, and to produce a clear and useful interpretation of the Song of Songs. Overall, the striking similarities that seem to group together the Gloss and the Song of Songs commentaries of Anselm, the Chanter, Langton, and Hugh are largely absent from the commentaries of Peter Olivi and Nicholas of Lyra. The general emphasis on preaching and combating heresy in order to improve the state of the Church that characterized the first set of works is difficult to find in the second set. Why is it the case that the commentaries of two Franciscans, members of an order dedicated in large part to preaching, rarely even mention preaching? Perhaps the best answer to this question is to note that the nature of biblical exegesis changed by the end of the thirteenth century. As Beryl Smalley notes, “If we examine a Paris postill of the later thirteenth century we shall be equally impressed by what is not there. Masters have reduced both form and content of their lectures to something more closely resembling a modern university course.”48 Gone were the days of lengthy, overstuffed commentaries like those of Langton; late thirteenth century and early fourteenth century biblical commentaries tended to be more specialized. In addition, Smalley writes that “the art of preaching was not actually taught as a separate subject in the schools; but the production of the ars predicatoria and the exempla collection has relieved him [the master] of the need to put so much instruction on preaching into his lectures”49 Thus, the emphasis that the Glossator, Anselm, and the Parisian masters placed on preaching in 47

48 49

“Surge propera, ide est, animum erige ad verba mea. Amica mea, per caritatatem. Columba mea, per intentionis simplicitatem. Formosa mea, per exteriorem honestatem. Et veni, ad serviendum mihi soli.” Kiecker, The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, 52–53. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 368. Ibid.

174

Epilogue-mendicant Song Of Songs Exegesis

their Song of Songs commentaries found another outlet in these new types of collections. By the late thirteenth century, these specialized preaching collections may have made commentaries containing lengthy passages on the importance of the active life obsolete in a way. Parisian masters, even those mendicants whose orders were founded on preaching, now dedicated their Song of Songs commentaries to new topics and new ways of seeking various interpretations of the text. Themes that had been dominant among the biblical-moral school and Hugh of St. Cher and his team were supplanted by new themes. Nevertheless, Anselm, the Glossator, the Chanter, Langton, and Hugh all played an important role in the medieval schools, wielding considerable influence over the clergy and its interactions with the laity. The ideas of the first four men contributed to the founding of the mendicant movement that the fifth man represented so well. This group of exegetes helped establish a particular species of scholastic exegesis that flourished in Paris and environs for almost two hundred years, leaving its mark on the high medieval Church. They took a biblical text that monks had seen as a reflective work championing contemplation and transmuted it into a guidebook for leading a religious life marked by pastoral reform in the exciting environment of spiritual ferment in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Europe.

Bibliography Bibliography

175

Bibliography

Unpublished Primary Sources

Anselm of Laon. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 290. ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 338. ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 568. ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 3652. ———. Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares (Biblioteca del Cabildo), MS 5–13. ———. Tortosa, Archivo Capitular de Tortosa (Biblioteca de la Catedral y del Cabildo de la Santísima Iglesia Catedral), MS 219. ———. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 12762. ———. Zwettl, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, MS 390. Stephen Langton. Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.I.9 ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Arsenal, MS 64. ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 14434. ———. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1301. Peter the Chanter. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 178. ———. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 15565. Uncertain Attribution. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 87. ———. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 528. ———. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 37. ———. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1466.



Published Primary Sources

Abelard, Peter. Historia calamitatum. In Betty Radice, trans., The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. London: Penguin, 2004. Bede. In Cantica Canticorum. Ed. D. Hurst, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 119 B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard of Clairvaux : On the Song of Songs, v. II. Trans. Kilian Walsh. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1983. Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps: Adolf Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81. Introduction by Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson, 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_009

176

Bibliography

Gilbertus Universalis. Gilbertus Universalis: Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete, Prothemata et Liber I. Ed. Alexander Andrée. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2005. Glossa Ordinaria in Canticum Canticorum, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, CLXX. Ed. Mary Dove. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Gregory the Great. Expositio in Canticum Canticorum, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 144. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. ———. Homiliae in Hiezechielem Prophetam. Ed. M. Adriaen, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 142. Turnhout: Brepols, 1971. ———. Moralia in Job. Ed. M. Adriaen, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 143–143B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1979–1985. Guibert of Nogent. Guibert de Nogent: Autobiographie. Ed. Edmond-René Labande. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1981. Guibert of Nogent. A Monk’s Confession: The Memoirs of Guibert of Nogent. Ed. Paul J. Archambault. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1996. Hugh of St. Cher. Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, vol. III. Venice, 1732. Innocent III. “Letter to the People of Metz,” (1199) In Julius Kirshner and Karl F. Morrison, eds., University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization: Vol. 4-Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Innocent III. Pope Innocent III: Between God and Man: Six Sermons on the Priestly Office. Trans. Corinne J. Vause and Frank C. Gardiner. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2004. Langton, Stephen. Stephen Langton- Commentary on the Book of Chronicles. Ed. Avrom Saltman. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1978. Nicholas of Lyra. The Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra on the Song of Songs. Ed. and trans. James George Kiecker. Marquette, WI: Marquette University Press, 1998. Olivi, Peter. Petri Johannes Olivi, Expositio in Canticum Canticorum. Ed. and trans. Johannes Schlageter. Rome: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1999. Peter the Chanter. Glossae super Genesim: prologus et capitula 1–3. Ed. Agneta Sylwan. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1992. Thomas the Cistercian, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Patrologia Latina 206, cols. 17–860.



Secondary Sources

Abulafia, Anna Sapir. Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Bibliography

177

———. Christian-Jewish Relations, 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom. Harlow: Pearson, 2011. ———. “Continuity and Change in Twelfth-Century Christian-Jewish Relations.” In European Transformations: The Long Twelfth Century. Eds. Thomas F.X. Noble and John Van Engen. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012. Andrews, Frances. “Innocent III and Evangelical Enthusiasts: The Route to Approval.” In Pope Innocent III and His World. Ed. John C. Moore. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999, 229–241. Andrée, Alexander, ‘The Glossa ordinaria on the Gospel of John: A Preliminary Survey of the Manuscripts with a Presentation of the Text and its Sources’, Revue bénédictine 118 (2008): 109–34 and 289–333. Astell, Ann W. The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Baldwin, John W. The Language of Sex: Five Voices from Northern France around 1200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ———. Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle, v. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy, eds. Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Bériou, Nicole. L’avènement des Mâitres de la Parole: la Prédication à Paris au XIII e siècle, vv. 1 and 2. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1998. ——— and Franco Morenzoni, eds. Prédication et liturgie au Moyen Âge. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. ———, Gilbert Dahan, and Riccardo Quinto, eds., Étienne Langton: Bibliste, Prédicateur, Théologien. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Bird, Jessalyn. “The Construction of Orthodoxy and the (De)construction of Heretical Attacks on the Eucharist in Pastoralia from Peter the Chanter’s Circle in Paris.” In Texts and the Repression of Medieval Heresy. Ed. Caterina Bruschi and Peter Biller. York: York Medieval Press, 2003. Bloch, R. Howard. God’s Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Abbé Migne. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Bolton, Brenda. The Medieval Reformation. London: Edward Arnold, 1983. Bruschi, Caterina. The Wandering Heretics of Languedoc. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Buc, Philippe. L’Ambiguité du Livre. Paris: Beauchesne, 1994. ———. “‘Vox Clamantis in Deserto?’ Pierre le Chantre et la Predication Laïque.” Revue Mabillon 4 (1993): 5–47. Burr, David. Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.

178

Bibliography

———. Olivi’s Peaceable Kingdom: A Reading of the Apocalypse Commentary. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Bynum, Caroline Walker. Docere Verbo et Exemplo: An Aspect of Twelfth-Century Spirituality. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. ———. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Carra de Vaux, Bruno. “La Constitution du Corpus Exégétique.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and PierreMarie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 43–63. Chenu, M.D. “Monks, Canons, and Laymen in Search of the Apostolic Life.” In Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century. Ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Clanchy, M.T. Abelard: A Medieval Life. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Cohen, Jeremy. “The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, From Augustine to the Friars,” Traditio 39 (1983): 1–27. ———. “Synagoga Conversa: Honorius Augustodunensis, the Song of Songs, and Christianity’s Eschatological Jew.” Speculum 79 (2004): 309–340. Colish, Marcia L. “Another Look at the School of Laon.” Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 53 (1986): 7–22. ———. Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400–1400. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Constable, Giles, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ———. Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Dahan, Gilbert. L’Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident medieval. Paris: Cerf, 1999. ———. “Genres, Forms and Various Methods in Christian Exegesis of the Middle Ages.” In Magne Saebø, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, v. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprech, 2000, 196–235. ———, ed. Les Juifs au Regard de l’Histoire: Mélanges en l’Honneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz. Paris: Picard, 1985. ———. Les Intellectuels Chrétiens et les Juifs au Moyen Âge. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1990. ———. “Recherches sur L’Exégèse du Cantique des Cantiques au XIII e Siècle.” In Il Cantico dei Cantici nel Medioevo: Atti del Convegno Internazionale dell’Università degli Studi di Milano e della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino, SISMEL, Gargnano sul Garda, 22–24 maggio 2006. Ed. Rossana E. Guglielmetti. Florence: SISMEL, 2008, 493–536. De Hamel, C.F.R. Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 1984.

Bibliography

179

Derolez, Albert. The Paleography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth Century to the Early Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Egger, Christoph C. “‘The Growling of the Lion and the Humming of the Fly’: Gregory the Great and Innocent III.” In Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton. Eds. Frances Andrews, Christoph Egger, and Constance M. Rousseau. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 13–46. Ferruolo, Stephen C. The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100–1215. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1985. Fichtenau, Heinrich. Heretics and Scholars in the High Middle Ages, 1000–1200. Translated by Denise A. Kaiser. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1998. Flint, Valerie I.J, “The Commentaries of Honorius Augustodunensis on the Song of Songs,” Revue bénédictine 84 (1974): 196–211. ———. “The ‘School of Laon’: A Reconsideration,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médievale 43 (1976): 89–110. Frassetto, Michael, ed. Christian Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 2007. Froehlich, Karlfried. Biblical Interpretation From the Church Fathers to the Reformation. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2010. Fulton, Rachel. From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800– 1200. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. ———. “The Virgin Mary and the Song of Songs in the High Middle Ages” Unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1994. Gibson, Margaret. “The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis.” In Ad Litteram. Ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992, 5–27. Giraud, Cédric. “Lectiones Magistri Anselmi. Les Commentaires d’Anselme de Laon sur le Cantique des Cantiques,” In The Multiple Meaning of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and Medieval Culture, Ed. Ineke van ‘t Spijker. Leiden: Brill, 2008, 177–202. ———. ‘Per verba magistri’. Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Goodwin, Deborah L. “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew”: Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Grabmann, Martin. Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, v. 2. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1911. Grundmann, Herbert. Herbert Grundmann: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, v. 1. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Stuttgart, 1976. ———. Religious Movements in the Middle Ages. Translated by Steven Rowan. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.

180

Bibliography

Guglielmetti, Rossana E. La Tradizione Manoscritta dei Commenti Latini al Cantico dei Cantici, Origini-XII Secolo. Florence: SISMEL, 2006. Gy, Pierre-Marie. “Hugues de Saint-Cher Dominicain.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 23–28. Hamesse, Jacqueline and Xavier Hermand, eds. De l’Homélie au Sermon: Histoire de la Prédication Médiévale. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1993. Hughes, Kevin L. Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2005. Iogna-Prat, Dominique. Order and Exclusion: Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism, and Islam (1000–1150.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. Kendall, Keith H. “‘Mute Dogs, Unable to Bark’: Innocent III’s Call to Combat Heresy.” In Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington. Eds. Wolfgang P. Müller and Mary E. Sommer. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2006, 170–178. Kienzle, Beverly Mayne. Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145–1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard. Bury St. Edmunds: Boydell, 2001. ———. dir. The Sermon. Typologie des sources du Moyen Age, fasc. 81–83. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Klepper, Deeana. The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Readings of Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Knowles, David. The Evolution of Medieval Thought. 2nd Edition. London: Longman, 1988. Krey, Philip D.W. and Lesley Smith. Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lacombe, Georges and Beryl Smalley. “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton.” Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 5 (1930): 5–151. Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2002. Lapsanski, Duane V. Evangelical Perfection : An Historical Examination of the Concept in the Early Franciscan Sources. Franciscan Institute Publications, Theology Series, 7. St. Bonaventure, New York: The Franciscan Institute, 1977. Leclercq, Jean. “Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques attribué à Anselme de Laon.” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médievale 16 (1949): 29–39. ———. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture. Translated by Catharine Misrahi. New York: Fordham University Press, 1961. Leinsle, Ulrich G. Introduction to Scholastic Theology. Trans. Michael J. Miller. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2010.

Bibliography

181

Lerner, Robert E. “Philip the Chancellor Greets the Early Dominicans in Paris.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 77 (2007): 5–17. ———. “Poverty, Preaching, and Eschatology in the Revelation Commentaries of ‘Hugh of St. Cher’” In The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985, 157–189. ———. “The Vocation of the Friars Preacher: Hugh of St. Cher between Peter the Chanter and Albert the Great.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 215–231. Lipton, Sarah. Images of Intolerance: The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible moralisée. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Matter, E. Ann. “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists. Ed. Irena Backus, v. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 83–111. ———. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Madigan, Kevin. Olivi and the Interpretation of Matthew in the High Middle Ages. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2003. Minnis, Alexander. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. London: Scolar Press, 1984. Moore, John C. Pope Innocent III (1160/61–1216): To Root Up and to Plant. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “The Sermons of Pope Innocent III.” In Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 36. Vienna, (1994): 81–142. Moore, R.I. The Origins of European Dissent. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. ———. The War on Heresy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012. Morard, Martin. “Entre mode et tradition: Les commentaries des Psaumes de 1160 à 1350.” In La Bibbia del XIII secole: Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi. Atti del Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Florence, June 1–2 2001). Ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi. Florence: SISMEL, 2004, 323–352. ———. “La Harpe des Clercs: Réception Médiévales du Psautier Latin Entre Usages Populaires et Commentaires Scolaires.” Unpubl. Ph. D. diss., Université Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, 2008. ———. “Hugues de Saint-Cher, Commentateur des Psaumes.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and PierreMarie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 101–153. Mulchahey, M. Michèle. “First the Bow is Bent in Study”: Dominican Education Before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1998.

182

Bibliography

Ohly, Friedrich. Hohelied-Studen: Grundzüge Einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200. Weisbaden: Steiner, 1958. Ouy, Gilbert. Les Manuscrits de L’Abbaye de Saint-Victor: Catalogue Établi sur la Base du Répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514) Bibliotheca Victorina X, Tome 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Powell, James M. “The Prefatory Letters to the Sermons of Pope Honorius III and the Reform of Preaching.” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 33 (1979): 95–104. Powicke, Maurice. Stephen Langton: Being the Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1927. Oxford: Clarendon, 1928. Quinto, Riccardo. “Doctor Nominatissimus,” Stefano Langton e la Tradizione delle sue Opere. Münster: Aschendorff, 1994. ———. “Hugh of St.-Cher’s Use of Stephen Langton.” In Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition: Acts of the Symposium, the Copenhagen School of Medieval Philosophy, January 10–13, 1996. Eds. Sten Ebbesen and Russell L. Friedman. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1999, 281–300. ———. “The Influence of Stephen Langton on the Idea of the Preacher in the De eruditione predicatorum of Humbert of Romans and the Postille on the Scriptures of Hugh of St-Cher.” In Christ Among the Medieval Dominicans: Representations of Christ in the Texts and Images of the Order of Preachers. Eds. Kent Emery, Jr. and Joseph Wawrykow. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998, 49–91. ———. “La Parabola del Levitico.” In La Bibbia del XIII secole: Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi. Atti del Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Florence, June 1–2 2001.) Ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Franco Santi Florence: SISMEL, 2004, 187–219. Resnick, Irven M. Marks of Distinction: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2012. Riedlinger, Helmut. Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den lateinischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters. Münster: Aschendorff, 1958. Roberts, Phyllis Barzillay. “Preaching in/and the Medieval City.” In Medieval Sermons and Society: Cloister, City, University: Proceedings of International Symposia at Kalamazoo and New York. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Mediévales, 1998, 151–164. ———. Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1968. Roest, Bert. “Mendicant School Exegesis.” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity. Eds. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011, 179–204. Rubenstein, Jay. Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Bibliography

183

Sackville, L.J. Heresy and Heretics in the Thirteenth Century: The Textual Representations. York: York Medieval Press, 2011. Salomon, David A. An Introduction to the Glossa Ordinaria as Medieval Hypertext. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2012. Schoenfeld, Devorah. Isaac on Jewish and Christian Altars: Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria. New York: Fordham University Press, 2013. Saenger, Paul. “The Twelfth-Century Reception of Oriental Languages and the Graphic Mise En Page of Latin Vulgate Bibles Copied in England.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible. Eds. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 31–66. Schotter, Anne Howland. “The Transformation of Ovid in the Twelfth-Century Pam­ philus.” In Desiring Discourse: The Literature of Love, Ovid Through Chaucer. Eds. James J. Paxson and Cynthia A. Gravlee. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1998, 72–88. Smalley, Beryl. “Glossa Ordinaria.” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie 13. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. ———. The Gospels in the Schools. London: The Hambledon Press, 1985. ———. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Smith, Lesley. The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. “Hugh of St. Cher and Medieval Collaboration.” In Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians Throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer. Ed. Franklin T. Harkins. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010, 241–264. ———. “What Was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?” In Neue Rich­ tungen in der hoch- und spätmitterlalterlichen Bibelexegese. Ed. Robert E. Lerner and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1996. Stegmüller, Friedrich, with N. Reinhardt. Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi. 11 vols. Madrid: Matriti, 1950–1980. Stirnemann, Patricia. “Les Manuscrits de La Postille.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 31–42. ———. “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 XII siècle. Ed. Françoise Gasparri. Paris: Léopard d’Or, 1994. Sulavik, Athanasius. “Hugh of St. Cher’s Postill on the Book of Baruch: The Work of a Medieval Compiler or Biblical Exegete?” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 155–172. Turner, Denys. Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1995.

184

Bibliography

Van Engen, John. Rupert of Deutz. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Van Liere, Frans. “Biblical Exegesis Through the Twelfth Century.” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity. Eds. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011, 157–178. Verger, Jacques. “Hugues de Saint-Cher dans le Contexte Universitaire Parisien.” In Hugues de Saint-Cher (+1263), Bibliste et théologien. Eds. Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Gilbert Dahan, and Pierre-Marie Gy. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 13–22. Watt, Jack. “Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor.” In The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life: Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff. Eds. Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson. Woodbridge: The Ecclesiastical History Society/The Boydell Press, 1999, 55–76. Wei, Ian P. Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University c. 1100– 1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Index Index

185

Index Page numbers in italics indicate tables. Abelard, Peter, 10–11, 10n13, 70n82, 76 Abulafia, Anna Sapir, 48–50 active life: Anselm of Laon and, 4–5, 17, 50, 111, 126; apostolic imitation and, 1–2, 38; the Chanter and, 76, 85–90, 88, 96, 111, 126; Christ imitation and, 2, 63, 89, 110–11, 145; Church debates and, 69, 69n81; Glossed Song of Songs and, 5, 59–63, 67, 70–71, 70n82, 88–89; Martha and, 59, 110–11, 124; mendicants and, 7; and monastic life combination, 59–60, 110–14, 117–18, 141, 143, 161–62, 171; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 159–61, 163, 171–72, 174; papacy and, 111, 120–21, 124, 126; patristic exegesis, 51–52, 59–61, 110–11; Song of Songs text and, 3–4, 4n4; superiority of, 1–4, 6–7, 51–52, 59–61, 67, 76, 85–90, 88, 96, 110–16, 119, 126, 142–49, 151, 153. See also preaching; teaching Alcuin, 57–58, 63 Alexander of Hales, 43 allegorical exegesis: animals/heretics and, 32–37, 32n81, 33n84, 124, 155–58, 162, 172; body parts and, 70n83, 81, 90–93, 152, 161; individual soul and, 2, 51, 58, 78, 78n29, 82, 97, 140–41, 147–49, 160; Israel and, 172; Langton and, 108–10; scholastic exegesis and, 3. See also bride allegory; bridegroom allegory Andrée, Alexander, 52 Andrew of St. Victor, 48, 76 animals/heretics allegory, 32–37, 32n81, 33n84, 124, 155–58, 162, 172 Anselm of Canterbury, 19n41 Anselm of Laon: abridged commentary and, 4, 11n17, 18; active life and, 4–5, 17, 50, 111, 126; animals/heretics allegory and, 32–37, 32n81, 33n84, 124, 157–58; attributions/ misattributions of commentaries and, 11–17, 11n17, 12n22, 13, 14, 14nn27–28, 16n33, 102, 102n26; biographical information about, 8–11; breasts imagery and, 18–19, 19n41, 36–37, 169; bride/Church allegory

and, 18–25, 18n40, 20n46, 45–46, 142, 160; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 19–24, 20n46, 46, 142; bride/Synagogue allegory and, 18n40, 31–32, 44–48, 44n132, 50; the Chanter on, 8; classifications of Song of Songs and, 12–17, 12nn21–22, 13, 14, 13n26, 14nn27–28, 16n33, 17n37; continuous commentaries and, 4, 8, 8n3, 11n17, 12–18, 12nn21–22, 13, 14, 13n26, 14n28; conversion of Jews and, 5, 8, 17–18, 18n40, 24, 31–32, 43–44, 44n132, 44n134, 50; erotic imagery and, 23; exegetical commentaries and, 8; the Gloss and, 4–5, 8, 17, 50, 52, 54, 54n19; Glossed Song of Songs and, 4–5, 8–9, 11–12, 17–18, 21–22, 50, 52, 70n82, 97, 111; heresy threats and, 5, 17, 25–26, 32–43, 32n81, 33n84, 37n101, 37n103, 38n109, 40n117, 41–43, 124, 157–58; Jews as preachers and, 47, 50; Langton and, 97, 106, 111, 115–17; Laon school masters and, 9; lax Christians and, 18; literal exegesis and, 44–45, 49; negative view of Jews and, 18n40, 32; philosophical ideas as suspect and, 26–28, 27n69, 149; positive view of Jews and, 5, 44–45, 48–50; practical issues and, 29; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 17, 23–24, 27–31, 41, 125n27, 162; preaching and, 4–6, 8, 17–26, 19n41, 19n44, 20n46, 24–26, 29–43, 30n78, 32n81, 33n84, 37n101, 37n103, 46, 50, 110, 116, 121; reform and, 25, 50, 119–20, 120n1; reportationes and, 75; salvation and, 24–25; scholastic theologians' influences and, 5–6, 9, 11, 47–48, 50, 158; speaker-rubrics and, 18, 18n40, 59; students’ preparation for preaching and, 23–24, 29–31; teaching and, 8, 10–11; union of Christ with Church and, 18; wandering preachers as heretics and, 38–40, 38n109, 40n117, 42–43 apostles, 1–2, 38, 62, 69 apostolic life: Christ imitation and, 2, 4; Church debates and, 1–2, 4–5, 7, 68, 69, 69n81; exegetical commentaries and, 1–2; Glossed Song of Songs and, 5, 68; heresy apostolic life: Christ imitation and (cont.)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004313842_010

186

threats and, 1, 4, 123; papacy and, 119; poverty commitment and, 69n81; preaching and, 1, 4, 68–69; reform and, 7; Song of Songs verses and, 4n4; superiority of, 1–3, 6–7; teaching and, 1 Aristotle, 135, 135n67 Astell, Ann W., 56n29 Augustine, 41, 43, 135–36 Baldwin, John W., 5n5, 70n83, 72–73, 73n6, 75, 76n21, 81–82, 98, 120 Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, 129 Bede: active and monastic life combination and, 59–60; animals/heretics allegory and, 172; breasts imagery and, 170; bride/ Church allegory and, 2, 166; bridegroom/ Christ allegory and, 2, 19, 59–60, 166; conversion of Jews and, 43; exegetical commentaries and, 3; faith and, 65; Glossed Song of Songs and, 56n29, 57n31, 57–62, 64–65, 67–68, 79; laity and, 64; lax Christians and, 61; monastic life as superior and, 2, 59, 61, 63; preaching and, 2, 59–61, 67–68; salvation and, 62; scholastic theologians' influence and, 158; union of Christ with Church and, 61, 79n30 Bernard of Clairvaux: active and monastic life combination and, 111; animals/heretics allegory and, 33n84, 172; breasts imagery and, 19n41, 140; Dominicans and, 140; individual soul and, 2, 78, 78n29, 140, 160; monastic life as superior and, 111; moral behavior and, 140; postills project and, 130, 133–34, 136–37, 140; practical issues and, 140–41; sermons and, 76, 78n29, 81–82, 133–34, 137, 140, 160; as source for commentaries, 160; spiritual/mystical exegesis and, 78, 78n29 biblical exegesis. See exegetical commentaries biblical-moral school: the Chanter and, 5, 5n5, 72, 96, 98; Langton and, 96, 98, 110; mendicants and, 128; papacy and, 120n1; postills project and, 127–28, 130, 134, 137–38, 142–43 biblical texts: chapter divisions and, 106n41; salvation and, 83–84; as source for commentaries, 78, 82–85, 114–15, 127, 136,

Index 136n71, 139, 141, 146, 166–67, 167n33; teaching and, 52 body parts allegories, 70n83, 81, 90–93, 152, 161 Bolton, Brenda, 1–2 breasts imagery, 18–19, 19n41, 36–37, 66–67, 81, 169–70 bride allegory: Church and, 2–4, 4n4, 18–25, 18n40, 19n41, 20n46, 45–46, 61–62, 142, 148–49, 153, 166–67; individual soul and, 2, 51, 58, 78, 82, 140–41, 147–49, 160; Mariology and, 2, 78, 78n29, 97, 138; Synagogue and, 18n40, 31, 43–46, 44n132, 47, 50, 94–95, 166 bridegroom allegory: Christ and, 2–4, 4n4, 19–24, 19n44, 20n46, 46, 59–62, 138–39, 142, 166–67; Solomon and, 138, 166 Bruschi, Caterina, 38 Buc, Philippe, 93 Burr, David, 159 Carolingian texts, 55–57 Carra de Vaux, Bruno, 130–31, 131n50 Catharism, 43, 124, 148 cathedral schools: exegetical commentaries and, 2–3, 7; the Gloss and, 5–7, 52, 55, 55n22; Glossed Song of Songs and, 66, 70–71; Laon school and, 1–3, 8–11, 52, 54, 54n19, 68n74, 72; scholastic exegesis and, 1. See also Parisian masters and schools Chenu, M.-D., 1, 69 Christ: active life as imitation of, 2, 63, 89, 110–11, 145; apostolic life as imitation of, 2, 4; breasts imagery and, 18–19, 19n41, 170; bridegroom allegory and, 2–4, 4n4, 19–24, 19n44, 20n46, 46, 59–62, 138–39, 142, 166–67; faith and, 63–64; individual soul relationship with, 2, 51, 58, 78, 78n29, 82, 97, 140–41, 147–49, 160; preaching and, 2–4, 4n4, 19–24, 20n46, 38, 46, 61–62, 89–90, 93–94, 113–14, 116–17, 145–50; union of Church with, 18, 61–62, 79, 79n30, 81–82, 84, 92–95, 138–39, 142 Cistercians, 124n23, 124–26, 130, 133–34, 137, 140–42, 148, 151 Clanchy, Michael T., 9–10 Clement of Bucy, 41–42 Cohen, Jeremy, 47–48

Index Colish, Marcia L., 11, 27n69 Comestor, Peter, 12n22, 27, 76 Constable, Giles, 2, 69, 70n82, 111, 114 conversion of Jews: Anselm of Laon and, 5, 8, 17–18, 18n40, 24, 31–32, 43–44, 44n132, 44n134, 50; Bede and, 43; the Chanter and, 43, 85, 88, 94–96, 117; the Gloss and, 117; Glossed Song of Songs and, 44n132, 44n134, 45, 61; Langton and, 43, 117; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 7; papacy and, 119; preaching and, 18, 18n40, 88, 94–96; scholastic exegesis and, 4, 4n4 Dahan, Gilbert, 52, 74, 76, 106, 106n42, 108–9, 128–30 De Hamel, C.F.R., 54n19 Derolez, Albert, 16–17, 17n37 disputations (disputatio), 10–11, 48, 73–74, 85, 98–99, 108, 135–36. See also questiones distinctiones, 132–33, 140–41, 157 Dominic (saint), 119 Dominicans, 3, 6, 117–19, 126–27, 140, 151, 151n105, 155. See also mendicants; postills project; and specific individuals Dove, Mary, 11, 17, 54n19, 54–55, 55n20, 55n22, 55n24, 57n30, 57–58, 166–67, 167n33 erotic imagery, 23, 51, 58, 64, 80–81, 83–84, 96. See also love concepts Evrard of Bucy, 41–42 exegetical commentaries: Anselm of Laon and, 8; apostolic life and, 1–2; Bede and, 3; cathedral schools and, 2–3, 7; the Chanter and, 72–73, 75–77, 77n22; Dominicans and, 127; format of texts and, 77n26, 77–78; glossed Bibles and, 54, 77, 80, 104n35, 107, 115, 160; historical context and, 167n33, 167–69, 172–73; by Jews, 168, 170–71, 173; Langton and, 75, 98, 98n3, 99, 100n18, 100–101, 101n21, 104, 104n32, 108; Latin versus Hebrew text and, 165–66, 168–70, 173; mendicants and, 127, 159, 164; new themes in, 173–74; Nicholas of Lyra and, 159, 164; Olivi and, 159; papacy and, 127; Parisian masters and, 3, 103; postills project and, 128; poverty commitment and, 162; scholastic exegesis and, 2–3; transformation of, 1–2, 52, 127, 158

187 faith, 27–28, 63–65 Ferruolo, Stephen C., 27 Fichtenau, Heinrich, 43 Flint, Valerie I.J., 11, 47 Fourth Lateran Council, 6, 111, 119–20, 125 Francis (saint), 119 Franciscans, 6–7, 119, 126, 151n105, 159. See also mendicants ; and specific individuals Fulk de Neuilly, 124–25 Fulton, Rachel, 56n29, 138, 138n77, 141 Gardiner, Frank C., 120, 121 Gibson, Margaret T., 17, 55n24 Gilbert de la Porrée, 77 Giraud, Cédric, 8n3, 16 Glorieux, Palemon, 15 Glossa Ordinaria (the Gloss): active life as superior and, 111–14, 126, 142–43, 145; Anselm of Laon and, 4–5, 8, 17, 50, 52, 54, 54n19; biblical texts and, 78; body parts allegories and, 92; breasts imagery and, 169–70; bride/Church allegory and, 142, 166; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 142, 166; Carolingian texts and, 55–57; cathedral schools and, 5–7, 52, 55n22, 55–56, 70; conversion of Jews and, 117; editions of, 53–55, 54n19, 57, 57n30; erotic imagery and, 81; format of texts and, 52–53, 55–56, 97; glossing style and, 145; heresy threats and, 155; history of, 5, 55n24; interlinear glosses and, 53, 53n11, 55, 55n20, 60, 63, 63n56, 65, 107, 112; Langton and, 97, 103–9, 111–17; Laon school and, 8, 52, 54; marginal glosses and, 53, 53n11, 55, 55n20, 59–61, 63n56, 63–65, 107–8, 112; original content exegesis and, 53, 53n11, 56–57, 57n30; Parisian masters and schools and, 70n83, 72, 76; patristic exegesis and, 53, 53n11, 55–58, 56n29, 57nn30–31, 58n35, 70n82, 79; postills project and, 6, 70n83, 127–28, 130, 133–34, 136–38, 142–47, 149–50, 155–58; preachers’ moral suitability and, 68–69; preaching and, 142, 145, 147; reform and, 126; salvation and, 111–12; scholastic theologians' influences and, 8, 70n83, 73; as source for commentaries, 160; teaching and, 52 glossed Bibles, 54, 77, 80, 104n35, 107, 115, 160

188 Glossed Song of Songs: overview of, 68–70; active life and, 5, 59–63, 67, 70–71, 70n82, 88–89; animals/heretics allegory and, 32–35, 32n81, 157–58; Anselm of Laon citations and, 4–5, 8–9, 11–12, 17–18, 21–22, 50, 52, 70n82, 97, 111; apostolic life and, 5, 68; audience and, 55, 67–68, 68n74; Bede citations and, 56n29, 57n31, 57–62, 64–65, 67–68, 79; breasts imagery and, 19, 66–67; bride/Church allegory and, 18–19, 18n40, 19n41, 20n46, 46, 61–62; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 19, 19n44, 20n46, 46, 59–62; cathedral schools and, 66, 70–71; the Chanter and, 70n83, 72, 76, 78, 78n28; Christ imitation and, 89; conversion of Jews and, 44n132, 44n134, 45, 61; corruption of Church and, 58–59; erotic imagery and, 23, 51, 58, 64; format of texts and, 55, 97; Gregory the Great and, 57n31, 58–59; heresy threats and, 32–35, 32n81, 157–58; Honorius Augustodunensis’ commentary and, 47; laity and, 64–65; lax Christians and, 58–61, 67–68; manuscript versions of, 11, 11n17; monastic life and, 5, 51, 59–64, 66–67, 69–71, 70n82, 85; original content exegesis and, 5, 59, 68–70; patristic exegesis and, 5, 56n29, 56–59, 57n31, 66; preachers' characteristics and role and, 19, 19n41, 21, 23–24, 26, 63–69, 125n27; preaching and, 5, 20n46, 34–35, 46, 51, 59–62, 66–68, 70–71, 85, 110; prologues and, 79; reform and, 70–71; salvation and, 62, 88; scholastic theologians' influences and, 9, 70n83, 73; speaker-rubrics and, 18, 59, 59n41; students’ preparation for preaching and, 66, 68, 70; teaching and, 52, 55–56, 66–69; text clarity and, 65–66; union of Christ with Church and, 79, 79n30. See also Glossa Ordinaria (the Gloss) gloss on the Gloss, 6, 97, 103, 105–8, 117 Grabmann, Martin, 5n5 Gregory the Great: active and monastic life combination and 59–60; active life as superior and, 51–52, 59–61; corruption of the Church and, 58; Glossed Song of Songs and, 57n31, 58–59; lax Christians and, 58, 61; monastic life as superior and, 51–52,

Index 59–61, 110–11; postills project and, 135–36; preaching and, 59, 121n8; reform and, 1, 3, 40; scholastic theologians' influence and, 158; union of Christ with Church and, 61, 79n30; writings of, 37n103, 120–21, 121n8 Grundmann, Herbert, 1, 40–41, 68 Guglielmetti, Rossana E.: abridged commentary by Anselm of Laon and, 11n17; the Chanter’s Song of Songs commentaries and, 76n21; continuous commentary of Anselm of Laon and, 11n17, 12–17, 12nn21–22, 13, 14, 13n26, 14nn28–29, 15n29; Song of Songs commentaries manuscripts and, 12–17 Guibert of Nogent, 9, 41–42, 42n126, 49, 68n74 Gy, Pierre-Marie, 129 Haimo of Auxerre, 15, 15n30, 57n31, 57–58, 59n41 Hebrew language, 165–66, 168–70, 173 Henry the Monk, 42–43 Herbert of Bosham, 48 Hereford Cathedral Library manuscript of the Gloss, 55, 55n20 heresy: Anselm of Laon and, 5, 17, 25–26, 32–43, 32n81, 33n84, 37n101, 37n103, 38n109, 40n117, 41–43, 124, 157–58; apostolic life and, 1, 4, 123; the Chanter and, 88, 94–96, 157–58; Glossed Song of Songs and, 32–35, 32n81, 157–58; Langton and, 109–10, 124; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 7, 162, 171–73; papacy and, 119, 123n20, 123–24; postills project and, 119, 139; preaching against, 1–2, 4, 4n4, 4–5, 7, 25, 32–43, 32n81, 33n84, 34–35, 37, 37n101, 37n103, 95–96, 119–20, 124; teaching against, 1; wandering preachers and, 38–40, 38n109, 40n117, 42–43 historical context exegesis, 167n33, 167–69, 172–73 Holy Spirit, 90, 109–10, 112 Honorius Augustodunensis, 2, 47–48, 56n29, 76 Honorius III, 6, 119–20, 120n1, 126–27 Hughes, Kevin L., 53n11 Hugh of St. Cher: biographical information about, 128, 131n51; Order of Preachers and,

Index 6–7, 127, 133, 149; scholastic theologians' influence and, 97–98, 128; as source for commentaries, 160; writings of, 127. See also postills project Hugh of St. Victor, 12n22, 43, 55n24, 101, 101n21 hymns, and commentaries, 135 individual soul, 2, 51, 58, 78, 78n29, 82, 97, 140–41, 147–49, 160 Innocent III, 6, 100, 100n13, 111, 119–27, 120n1, 121n8, 123n20, 124n23, 125n27 Isidore of Seville, 155–57, 160 Israel allegory, 172 Jacques de Vitry, 27, 125 Jerome, 58, 82, 91, 160, 164 Jesus Christ. See Christ Jews (Judaism): Christians’ relationship with, 48–50, 53n11; disputations and, 48; exegetical commentaries by, 168, 170–71, 173; Hebrew language and texts and, 164–66, 168–70, 173; historical context exegesis and, 167; love concepts and, 166; negative view of, 18n40, 32, 48–49, 94–95, 139; positive view of, 5, 44–45, 48–50; as preachers, 47, 50; salvation and, 49; Synagogue allegories and, 18n40, 31–32, 43–48, 44n132, 50, 166. See also conversion of Jews John XXII, 159–60 Kiecker, James George, 164n19 Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, 32n81, 124–25 Knowles, David, 27n69 Lacombe, Georges: attributions/misattributions of commentaries and, 12–13, 15–16, 102, 102n26; Langton and, 97–98, 98n3, 100n18, 100–102, 102n26 laity, 2, 4, 4n4, 64–65, 122–25, 123n20, 140–42 Lambert, Malcolm, 40, 40n117, 120 Landgraf, Artur, 134n62 Langton, Stephen: overview of, 6, 117–18; active and monastic life combination and, 111–14, 117; active life as superior and, 6, 110–13, 115–16, 126, 142–43, 145; allegorical exegesis and, 108–10; animals/heretics allegory and, 109–10; Anselm of Laon and,

189 97, 106, 111, 115–17; attributions/misattributions of commentaries and, 12–13, 13n25, 15–17, 16n33, 102, 102n26, 102–3; biblicalmoral school and, 96, 98, 110; biblical texts as source and, 114–15; biographical information about, 97, 99–100, 100n13; bride/Church allegory and, 142; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 142; the Chanter and, 96–98, 100–104, 106, 108, 111, 116–17; chapter divisions in Bible and, 106n41; continuous commentaries and, 102; conversion of Jews and, 43, 117; exegetical commentaries and, 75, 98, 98n3, 99, 100n18, 100–101, 101n21, 104, 104n32, 108; format of texts and, 97, 103–6, 104n35, 105n37, 106n41; the Gloss and, 97, 103–9, 111–17; glossing style and, 75, 82, 106, 106n42, 113, 134n63, 145; gloss on the Gloss and, 6, 97, 103, 105–8, 117; heresy threats and, 109–10, 124; Holy Spirit representation and, 109–10, 112; lectio and, 99; literal exegesis and, 102, 102n25, 108–9; manuscript versions of Song of Songs commentary and, 82, 82n41, 102n26, 102–6, 104n32, 105n37, 106n41; moral exegesis and, 102, 102n25, 108–9; postills project and, 134, 134nn62–63, 142; practical issues and, 98–99; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 125, 125n27; preaching and, 6, 110, 113–16; questiones and, 98–99, 108; reform and, 70, 111, 125; reportationes and, 75, 75n7, 101–2, 108–9; salvation and, 111–14; scholarship on, 98n3, 98–102, 102nn25–26; scholastic theologians' influence and, 6, 97–99, 130, 158; spiritual/mystical exegesis and, 108–10; students’ preparation for preaching and, 110, 114–15 Laon, history of, 9–10, 68n74 Laon school, 1–3, 8–12, 52, 54, 54n19, 68n74, 72 Lapsanski, Duane V., 69n81 Latin compared with Hebrew text, 165–66, 168–70, 173 lax Christians: Anselm of Laon and, 18; Bede and, 61; the Chanter and, 78–79, 88, 96; Glossed Song of Songs and, 58–61, 67–68; Gregory the Great and, 58, 61; Innocent III and, 119; papacy and, 119; preaching and, 18, 18n40, 59–61, 67–68, 85, 93–94, 96

190 Leclercq, Jean, 11–13, 51, 102n11 lectio, 73–74, 85, 99 Leo I, 120–21 Lerner, Robert E., 129nn42–43, 129–30, 134nn62–63, 149, 151, 151n105 literal exegesis: Anselm of Laon and, 44–45, 49; Langton and, 102, 102n25, 108–9; mendicants and, 164n19, 164–67, 169, 172–73; Nicholas of Lyra and, 164n19, 164–67, 169, 172–73; postills project and, 132–33, 138 Lobrichon, Guy, 54n19 Lombard, Peter, 27, 77 Lotario of Segni. See Innocent III love concepts, 80–81, 83–84, 96, 160, 162–63, 167, 169–70. See also erotic imagery Mariology: bride allegory and, 2, 78, 78n29, 97, 138; monastic life and, 59, 78, 78n29, 110–11, 124; postills project and, 130, 137–40, 138n77; sermons and, 138; Song of Songs and, 56n29, 78, 97, 105–6 Martha (biblical figure), and active life, 59, 110–11, 124 Matter, E. Ann, 47, 56, 56n29, 58, 58n35 Maurice of Sully, 12n22, 100 mendicants: active and monastic life combination and, 117–18, 161–62, 171; active life and, 7; animals/heretics allegory and, 162, 172; biblical-moral school and, 128; body parts allegories and, 161; breasts imagery and, 169–70; bride/Church allegory and, 166–67; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 166–67; Dominicans and, 3, 6, 117–19, 126–27, 140, 151, 151n105, 155; exegesis style and, 159, 164; exegetical commentaries and, 127, 159, 164; Franciscans and, 6–7, 119, 126, 151n105, 159; Hebrew language and texts and, 164–66, 168–70, 173; historical context exegesis and, 167n33, 167–69, 172–73; history of, 6, 119, 126; individual soul and, 160; Jewish exegesis and, 168, 170–71, 173; Latin versus Hebrew text and, 165–66, 168–70, 173; literal exegesis and, 164n19, 164–67, 169, 172–73; love concepts and, 160, 162–63, 167, 169–70; moral exegesis and, 164, 164n19; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 7,

Index 159–61, 161–64, 163n14, 171–72; papacy and, 119, 126–27, 159–60; poverty commitment and, 6, 142, 144, 151–53, 162–63; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 151, 162, 164; preaching and, 7, 117, 119, 126, 149, 151, 151n105, 155, 159, 161, 171; reform and, 119, 126; scholastic theologians' influence and, 6, 97–98, 140, 159; source texts for commentaries and, 160, 166–67, 167n33; spiritual/mystical exegesis and, 160–62; studia and, 3, 6, 124, 127, 159; superiority of, 119, 151, 151nn105–6, 153. See also postills project; and specific individuals Merlette, Bernard, 54n19 Migne, J.-P., 53–54 monastic life: and active life combination, 59–60, 110–14, 117–18, 141, 143, 161–62, 171; apostles and, 69; Glossed Song of Songs and, 5, 51, 59–64, 66–67, 69–71, 70n82, 85; individual soul and, 51, 78, 78n29, 82, 97; inferiority of, 6, 142, 147–51; Mariology and, 59, 110–11, 124; Song of Songs and, 3, 7, 51, 76; spiritual/mystical exegesis and, 82; superiority of, 7, 51–52, 59–61, 110–11; teaching and, 1, 51; vita apostolica and, 69 Moore, John C., 120–21 Moore, R.I., 38n108, 40 moral exegesis, 102, 102n25, 108–9, 132–33, 138, 164, 164n19 Morard, Martin, 128 mystical/spiritual exegesis, 78, 78n29, 82, 108–10, 132–33, 138, 160–62 Nicholas of Lyra: active and monastic life combination and, 171; animals/heretics allegory and, 172; biblical texts as source for commentaries and, 166–67, 167n33; breasts imagery and, 169–70; bride/Church allegory and, 166–67; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 166–67; exegesis style and, 159, 164; exegetical commentaries and, 159, 164; Hebrew language and, 165–66, 168–70, 173; historical context exegesis and, 167n33, 167–69, 172–73; Jewish exegesis and, 168, 170–71, 173; Latin compared with Hebrew text and, 165–66, 168–70, 173; literal exegesis and, 164n19, 164–67, 169, 172–73; love concepts and, 163, 167, 169–70;

Index moral exegesis and, 164, 164n19; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 7, 159–61, 171–72; preachers’ sermons and, 164; preaching and, 7, 159, 171; scholastic theologians' influence and, 97–98, 159 Norbert of Xanten, 40, 40n117, 122 Ohly, Friedrich, 56n29, 56–57 Olivi, Peter, 7, 159–64, 163n14 Order of Preachers, 6–7, 127, 133, 149 Origen, 2, 57–59, 58n35, 70n82, 79, 110–11 original content exegesis, 5, 10, 53, 53n11, 56–57, 57n30, 59, 68–70, 142, 146 Otto of St. Blasien, 98n3, 99 Ouy, Gilbert, 104–5, 105n37 Pamphilus, 135n69, 135–36, 136n70 papacy: active life and, 111, 120–21, 124, 126; animals/heretics allegory and, 124; apostolic life and, 119; biblical-moral school and, 120n1; conversion of Jews and, 119; crusades and, 124n23, 124–25; exegetical commentaries and, 127; Fourth Lateran Council and, 6, 111, 119–20, 125–26; heresy threats and, 119, 123n20, 123–24; laity and, 123, 123n20; Langton and, 100, 100n13; lax Christians and, 119; mendicants and, 119, 126–27, 159–60; Parisian schools and, 120; practical issues and, 120; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 122, 125, 125n27; preaching and, 119–22, 121n8, 124–26, 158; reform and, 119–20, 119–22, 120n1, 125–26, 158; scholastic theologians' influence and, 6; writings and, 100, 100n13, 111, 120–23, 125n27, 126, 158 Paris, 3, 6, 72, 137 Parisian masters and schools: animals/ heretics allegory and, 124; exegetical commentaries and, 3, 103; the Gloss and, 70n83, 72, 76; history of, 72; Innocent III and, 120; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 122, 125; preaching and, 119–21, 126; reform and, 119–20, 120n1, 122, 124–26; scholastic exegesis and, 1–2, 97. See also Peter the Chanter (the Chanter) patristic (Church Fathers) exegesis: active and monastic life combination and, 59–60, 110–11; active life as superior and,

191 51–52, 59–61; corruption of the Church and, 58–59; the Gloss and, 53, 53n11, 55–58, 56n29, 57nn30–31, 70n82, 79; Glossed Song of Songs and, 5, 56n29, 56–59, 57n31, 66; glossing style and, 85; Gregorian Reform and, 1, 3, 40; individual soul and, 58; lax Christians and, 58, 61; monastic life as superior and, 51–52, 59–61, 110–11; original content exegesis and, 10; postills project and, 130, 135–36; preaching and, 59, 121n8; scholastic theologians' influence and, 158; Song of Songs and, 2; as source for exegesis, 160; union of Christ with Church and, 61, 79n30. See also exegetical commentaries Peter of Bruis, 42–43 Peter of Castelnau, 124 Peter of Corbeil, 120, 120n3 Peter of Poitiers, 27–28 Peter the Chanter (the Chanter): overview of, 5–6; active life as superior and, 76, 85–90, 88, 96, 111, 126, 142–44, 145; on Anselm of Laon, 8; biblical-moral school and, 5, 5n5, 72, 96, 98; biblical texts and, 78; biblical texts as source and, 82–85; biographical information about, 72–73, 73n6; body parts allegories and, 70n83, 81, 90–93, 152; breasts imagery and, 81; bride/Church allegory and, 81–82, 84, 94–95, 142, 160; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 81–82, 84, 94–95, 142; bride/Synagogue and, 94–95; Christ imitation and, 89–90; conversion of Jews and, 43, 85, 88, 94–96, 117; disputation and, 73–74, 85; erotic imagery and, 80–81, 83–84, 96; exegetical commentaries and, 72–73, 75–77, 77n22; format of texts and, 77–78, 104; Glossed Song of Songs and, 70n83, 72, 76, 78, 78n28; glossing style and, 74, 78, 82, 84–85, 106, 145; heresy threats and, 88, 94–96, 157–58; Langton and, 96–98, 100–104, 106, 108, 111, 116–17; lax Christians and, 78–79, 88, 93–94, 96; lectio and, 73–74, 85; love concepts and, 80–81, 83–84, 96; manuscripts of Song of Songs commentaries and, 76n21, 76–77, 77n22, 82, 82n41; Mariology and, 78, 78n29; negative view of Jews and, 94–95; postills project and, 133–34, 137, 141–45, 151–52,

192 Peter the Chanter (the Chanter): (cont.) 155–58; poverty commitment and, 93, 96, 151; practical issues and, 5, 76, 120, 120n3; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 85–87, 90–91, 93, 125n27, 162; preaching and, 5–6, 70n83, 73–74, 76, 81, 85–96; prologues and, 79; reform and, 70, 88–89, 124–25; reportationes and, 74–75, 101–2; salvation and, 83, 111; scholastic theologians' influences and, 6, 130, 158; Solomon as theologian and, 81; students’ preparation for preaching and, 5, 5n5, 72, 85–86, 92–93; teaching and, 70n83, 81; understanding/misunderstanding text issue and, 73–74, 74n13, 79–80, 83; union of Christ with Church and, 79, 79n30, 81–82, 84, 92–95 Peter the Venerable, 43, 49–50 philosophical ideas as suspect, 26–28, 27n69, 149 postills project: overview of, 6–7, 128, 158; active life as superior and, 6, 119, 142–49, 151, 153, 161; allegorical exegesis and, 138; animals/heretics allegory and, 155–57; Anselm of Laon and, 142; Augustine and, 135–36; authorship and, 129, 129n42–43; Bernard of Clairvaux and, 130, 133–34, 136–37, 140; biblical-moral school and, 127–28, 130, 134, 137–38, 142–43; biblical texts and, 127, 136, 136n71, 139, 141, 146; bride/Church allegory and, 142, 148–49, 153; bridegroom/Christ allegory and, 138–39, 142; the Chanter and, 133–34, 137, 141–45, 151–52, 155–58; collaboration and, 6, 127, 129, 129nn42–43, 134n62, 153n115; distinctiones and, 132–33, 140–41; exegetical commentaries and, 128; the Gloss and, 6, 70n83, 127–28, 130, 133–34, 136–38, 142–47, 149–50, 155–58; glossing style and, 145; goals of, 127–28, 130, 141; Gregory the Great and, 135–36; heresy threats and, 119, 139, 155–58; individual soul and, 140–41, 147–49; laity and, 140–42; Langton and, 134, 134nn62–63, 142; literal exegesis and, 132–33, 138; manuscript versions of, 130–31, 131nn50–51, 131n54; Mariology and, 130, 137–40, 138n77; mendicant movement and, 119, 128, 151,

Index 151nn105–6; monastic life as inferior and, 6, 142, 147–51; moral exegesis and, 132–33, 138; mystical/spiritual exegesis and, 132–33, 138; negative view of Jews and, 139; original content exegesis and, 142, 146; patristic exegesis and, 130, 135–36; postill defined and, 130, 130n45; poverty commitment and, 6, 142, 144, 151–53, 163; practical issues and, 140–41, 153–55; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 6, 132, 142, 147–50, 151, 153, 155, 163; preaching and, 6, 120–21, 121n8, 122, 127, 142, 145–47, 149–51, 158; reform and, 6, 119; salvation and, 147, 151n105, 153; scholarship on, 128–29; scholastic theologians' influences and, 128, 158; source texts and, 133–37, 134nn62–63, 135n65, 135n67, 135n69, 136n70, 136n72, 140–41; studia and, 6, 127; Thomas the Cistercian and, 130, 133–34, 137, 140–41; union of Christ with Church and, 138–39, 142, 148–49 poverty commitment, 6, 40–41, 69n81, 93, 96, 142, 144, 151–53, 162–63 Powell, James M., 126 Powicke, Maurice, 97–98 practical issues, 5, 29, 76, 98–99, 120, 120n3, 140–41, 153–55 preachers’ characteristics and role: Anselm of Laon and, 17, 23–24, 27–31, 41; audiences and, 67–68; bridge between God and man and, 26, 87; distinctiones and, 132–33, 140–41, 157; Dominicans and, 151; educational reform and, 122–23, 125–26; faith and, 27–28, 63–65; fame/financial gain versus glory of God and, 17, 22–24, 87, 149–50, 153; fears and, 23–24, 64, 116; good works and, 27–28, 41; humility and, 6, 23–24, 65, 142, 151, 153, 163; Jews as preachers and, 47, 50; mendicants and, 151, 162, 164; moral suitability and, 4, 17, 20–22, 26, 41, 68–69, 86, 91, 93, 122, 125, 125n27, 153, 162; papacy and, 122, 125, 125n27; Parisian masters and, 122, 125; poverty commitment and, 6, 40–41, 93, 96, 142, 144, 151–53; reform and, 6, 50, 122–23, 125–26, 158, 174; sermons and, 17, 19, 19n41, 29–31, 66–67, 132–33, 138, 140–41, 153, 155, 157, 159, 162, 164; virtue/values and, 27–28, 41,

Index 63–65; wandering preachers and, 38–43, 38n109, 40n117, 68, 69n81, 122 preaching: Anselm of Laon and, 4–6, 8, 17–26, 19n41, 19n44, 20n46, 24–26, 29–43, 30n78, 32n81, 33n84, 37n101, 37n103, 46, 50, 110, 116, 121; apostolic imitation and, 38; apostolic life and, 1, 4, 68–69; body parts allegories and, 70n83, 81, 90–93; bride/ Church allegory and, 2, 4, 4n4; the Chanter and, 5–6, 70n83, 73–74, 76, 81, 85–96; Christ and, 2–4, 4n4, 19–24, 20n46, 38, 46, 61–62, 89–90, 93–94, 113–14, 116–17, 145–50; Church debates and, 69, 69n81; conversion of Jews and, 18, 18n40, 88, 94–96; Dominicans and, 117, 126, 149, 151, 151n105, 155; exegetical commentaries transformation and, 1–2; fame/financial gain versus glory of God and, 4, 17, 22–23, 23–24, 149–50; the Gloss and, 142, 145, 147; Glossed Song of Songs and, 5, 20n46, 34–35, 46, 51, 59–62, 66–68, 70–71, 85, 110; Gregory the Great and, 59, 121n8; heresy threats and, 1–2, 4, 4n4, 4–5, 7, 25, 32–43, 32n81, 33n84, 34–35, 37, 37n101, 37n103, 95–96, 119–20, 124; laity and, 2, 4, 4n4, 122–23, 122–25; Langton and, 6, 110, 113–16; lax Christians and, 18, 18n40, 59–61, 67–68, 85, 93–94, 96; mendicants and, 7, 117, 119, 126, 149, 151, 151n105, 155, 159, 161, 171; monastic life and, 1–2, 2–3, 5, 6, 7, 51, 70; new themes in scholastic exegesis and, 7, 161–62, 172–73; Nicholas of Lyra and, 7, 159, 171; Olivi and, 7, 159, 161; papacy and, 119–22, 121n8, 124–25; Parisian masters and, 119–21, 126; postills project and, 127, 142, 145–47, 149–51; power of, 17, 24–25, 24–26, 30–31, 30n78, 121, 126, 145; simplification of text and, 17, 19, 19n44, 29–31, 67; superiority of, 1–3, 7, 111; as useful to Church, 2, 6, 7, 24, 59–62, 85, 88–89, 94; vita apostolica and, 68. See also wandering preachers prologues, 79 Pseudo-Dionysius, 27n69 Pseudo-Henry of Ghent, 99 questiones, 98–99, 108. See also disputations (disputatio) Quinto, Riccardo, 98–99, 108, 117–18, 129nn42–43, 134, 134n62

193 Ralph of Laon, 8, 11 Rashi, 48, 53n11, 167 reform: overview of, 1–3, 7; Anselm of Laon and, 25, 50, 119–20, 120n1; apostolic life and, 7; the Chanter and, 70, 88–89, 124–25; Dominicans and, 119, 126; Fourth Lateran Council and, 6, 111, 119–20, 125–26; the Gloss and, 126; Glossed Song of Songs and, 70–71; Gregory the Great and, 1, 3, 40; Langton and, 70, 111, 125; mendicants and, 119, 126; papacy and, 119–20, 119–22, 120n1, 125–26; Parisian masters and, 119–20, 120n1, 122, 124–26; postills project and, 6, 119; preachers’ characteristics and role and, 6, 50, 122–23, 125–26, 158, 174 reportationes, 74–75, 101–2, 108–9 Riedlinger, Helmut, 13, 16, 56n29, 56–57, 102n26, 102–3, 105–6 Robert of Arbrissel, 40, 122 Robert of Courson, 125 Robert of Melun, 55n22, 74 Roberts, Phyllis Barzillay, 98, 100, 125–26 Roest, Bert, 127, 159, 164 Rufinus, 58 Rupert of Deutz, 2, 10, 49, 69, 78n29, 105, 111 Rusch, Adolf, 54 Sackville, L.J., 33, 33n84, 36–37 Saenger, Paul, 106n41 St. Victor abbey, 75, 104n32, 104–5 Salomon, David A., 53n11 Saltman, Avrom, 98, 103, 134n62 salvation, 24–25, 49, 62, 83–84, 88, 111–14, 147, 151n105, 153 Schlageter, Johannes, 160 Schoenfeld, Devorah, 53n11 scholastic exegesis: overview of, 1–4, 4n4, 7, 11, 38, 158, 174; new themes in, 7, 159–74, 163n14, 167n33; university exegesis and, 97, 128, 173. See also exegetical commentaries; and specific individuals Schotter, Anne Howland, 135–36, 136n70 Simon of Tournai, 111 Smalley, Beryl: Anselm of Laon and, 8; attributions/misattributions of commentaries and, 12–13, 15; biblical-moral school and, 72, 98, 110; the Chanter and, 72, 75; format of texts and, 77n26, 104; the Gloss and, 53–54, 55n22, 56; Langton and, 97–98,

194 Smalley, Beryl: Anselm of Laon and (cont.) 101–4, 102n25, 110; Parisian masters’ exegetical commentaries and, 103; postills project and, 128–29, 130n45, 131, 134n62, 135, 151, 151n102, 153, 163n14; prologues and, 79; reportationes and, 75 Smith, Lesley, 52, 54n19, 129n42, 131n51 Solomon (biblical figure), 81, 138, 166 Song of Songs: attributions/misattributions of commentaries and, 11–17, 11n17, 12n22, 13, 14, 13n25, 14nn27–28, 16n33, 102, 102n26; classifications of manuscripts and, 12–17, 12nn21–22, 13, 14, 13n26, 14nn27–28, 15nn29–30, 16n33, 17n37; monastic life and, 3, 7, 51, 76; verses on active life and, 3–4, 4n4. See also cathedral schools; Glossa Ordinaria (the Gloss); Glossed Song of Songs; Parisian masters and schools; and specific theological scholars speaker-rubrics, 18, 18n40, 59, 59n41 spiritual/mystical exegesis, 78, 78n29, 82, 108–10, 132–33, 138, 160–62 Stegmüller, Friedrich, 16n33, 98n3, 102n26, 131 Stephen of Thiers-Muret, 69n81 Stirnemann, Patricia, 54n19, 128, 130 Strabo, Walafrid, 53 Strassburg, 1480/81 edition of the Gloss, 54 students’ preparation for preaching: Anselm of Laon and, 23–24, 29–31; biblical-moral school and, 5, 5n5, 72, 96; the Chanter and, 5, 5n5, 72, 85–86, 92–93; Glossed Song of Songs and, 66, 68, 70

Index studia, 3, 6, 124, 127, 159 Sulavik, Anthanasius, 131n54, 132 Sylwan, Agneta, 73, 76n21 symbolic exegesis. See allegorical exegesis Synagogue allegories, 18n40, 31–32, 43–48, 44n132, 50, 166 Tanchelm of Antwerp, 42–43 teaching: among laity, 2; Anselm of Laon and, 8, 10–12; biblical texts and, 52; body parts allegories and, 70n83, 81; the Gloss and, 52; Glossed Song of Songs and, 52, 55–56, 66–69; heresy threats and, 1; monastic life and, 1, 51; university exegesis and, 97, 128 Thomas the Cistercian, 130, 133–34, 137, 140–41 Turner, Denys, 51, 141 union of Christ with Church, 18, 61–62, 79, 79n30, 81–82, 84, 92–95, 138–39, 142, 148–49 university exegesis, 97, 128, 173 Van Engen, John, 49 Van Liere, Frans, 1 Vause, Corinne J., 120, 121 Virgin Mary. See Mariology vita apostolica, 68–69 Waldensianism, 43, 93, 124 wandering preachers, 38–43, 38n109, 40n117, 68, 69n81, 122