pdf des Bandes - Historisches Kolleg

Transcription

Schriften des Historischen Kollegs
Herausgegeben
von der
Stiftung Historisches Kolleg
Kolloquien
32
R. Oldenbourg Verlag München 1996
Neue Richtungen in der
hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen
Bibelexegese
Herausgegeben von
Robert E. Lerner
unter Mitarbeit von
Elisabeth Müller-Luckner
R. Oldenbourg Verlag München 1996
S c h rifte n des H is to ris c h e n K o lle g s
im Auftrag der
Stiftung Historisches Kolleg im Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft
herausgegeben von
Horst Fuhrm ann
in Verbindung m it
R udolf Cohen, A rnold Esch, Lothar Gail, H ilm ar Kopper, Christian Meier, Horst Niemeyer,
Peter Pulzer, W infried Schulze, Michael Stollcis und Eberhard Weis
Geschäftsführung: Georg Kalm er
Redaktion: Elisabeth Müller-Luckner
Organisationsausschuß:
Georg Kalmer, Franz Letzelter, Elisabeth Müller-Luckner, Heinz-Rudi Spiegel
Die Stiftung Historisches Kolleg hat sich für den Bereich der historisch orientierten W issen
schaften die Förderung von Gelehrten, die sich durch herausragende Leistungen in Forschung
und Lehre ausgewiesen haben, zur Aufgabe gesetzt. Sie vergibt zu diesem Zweck jährlich bis zu
drei Forschungsstipendien und ein Förderstipendium sowie alle drei Jahre den „Preis des Histo
rischen Kollegs“. D ie Forschungsstipendien, deren Verleihung zugleich eine A uszeichnung für
die bisherigen Leistungen darstellt, sollen den berufenen Wissenschaftlern während eines K o l
legjahres die M öglichkeit bieten, frei von anderen Verpflichtungen eine größere Arbeit abzu
schließen. Professor Dr. Robert E. Lerner (Evanston, I1I./USA) war - zusam m en m it Professor Dr.
Klaus Hildebrand (Bonn), Professor Dr. W olfgang J. M om m sen (Düsseldorf) und Dr. Andreas
Schulz (Frankfurt/Main) - Stipendiat des Historischen Kollegs im Kollegjahr 1992/93. D en O b
liegenheiten der Stipendiaten gemäß hat Robert E. Lerner aus seinem Arbeitsbereich ein K o llo
q uium zum Thema „Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese“ vom
6. bis 9. Ju n i 1993 im Historischen Kolleg gehalten. Die Ergebnisse des K olloquium s werden in
diesem Band veröffentlicht.
Die Stiftung Historisches Kolleg wird vom Stiftungsfonds Deutsche Bank zur Förderung der
Wissenschaft in Forschung und Lehre und vom Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft
getragen.
Die Deutsche Bibliothek — ClP-Einhcitstiufnahme
N e u e R ic h tu n g e n in d e r hoch- u n d s p ä tm itte la lte r lic h e n
B ibelexegese / hrsg. von Robert E. Lerner unter Mitarb. von
Elisabeth Müller-Luckner. - M ünchen : O ldenbourg, 1996
(Schriften des Historischen Kollegs : K olloquien ; 32)
ISBN 3-486-56083-2
N E: Lerner, Robert E. [Hrsg.]; Historisches Kolleg (M ünchen):
Schriften des Historischen Kollegs / K olloquien
© 1996 R. O ldenbourg Verlag G m b H , M ünchen
Das W erk einschließlich aller A bbildungen ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außer
halb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Z u stim m u n g des Verlages unzulässig und
strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilm ungen und
die Einspeicherung u nd Bearbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Gesamtherstellung: R. O ldenbourg Graphische Betriebe G m b H , M ünchen
ISBN 3-486-56083-2
Inhalt
Z u r E in fü h ru n g ................................................................................................................
IX
Robert E. Lerner
Verzeichnis der Tagungsteilnehmer................................................................................
XI
I. Das Hochmittelalter - Methodische Voraussetzungen und theologische
Problem e....................................................................................................................
1
Lesley Smith
W hat was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?........................
1
John Van Engen
Studying Scripture in the Early University..........................................................
17
Christel Meier
W endepunkt der Allegorie im Mittelalter: Von der Schrifthermeneutik zur
Lebenspraktik ..........................................................................................................
39
II. Das 12.J a h rh u n d e rt................................................................................................
65
Rainer Bernclt SJ
Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Exegese und Theologie in „De sacramentis Christiane fidei“ Hugos von St. V ik to r ....................................................
65
D avid Luscombe
The Bible in the W ork of Peter Abelard and of his „School“ ..........................
79
G ian Luca Potestà
„Intelligentia Scripturarum“ und Kritik des Prophetismus bei Joachim von
Fiore ..........................................................................................................................
95
III. Das 13.Ja h rh u n d e rt................................................................................................
121
Gilbert D ah an
L’utilisation de l’exégèse juive dans la lecture des livres prophétiques au
X I I I esiècle ................................................................................................................
121
Sa bin e S ch m olinsky
Merkmale der Exegese bei Alexander Minorita ................................................
139
D avid B uir
Ecclesiastical Condemnation and Exegetical Theory: The Case of O livi’s
Apocalypse Commentary ......................................................................................
149
V III
Inhalt
IV. Das Spatm ittelalter..................................................................................................
163
A las Ia ir j. M inn is
Fifteenth-Century Versions of Thomistic Literalism: Girolamo Savonarola
and Alfonso de M a d rig a l........................................................................................
¡63
A fte rw ord..........................................................................................................................
131
Robert E. Lerner
Register
189
Zur Einführung
Obwohl jährlich zahlreiche Konferenzen über die verschiedensten mittelalterlichen
Themen abgehalten werden, wird der Bereich der mittelalterlichen Exegese nach wie
vor sträflich vernachlässigt. A uf den ersten Blick mag dies überraschen. Denn das Bi
belstudium war für Gelehrte des Mittelalters eine Angelegenheit von zentraler Bedeu
tung - es war die K önigin der Disziplinen. Außerdem wurde die Bibel von einigen der
größten bzw. einflußreichsten Denker studiert und kommentiert: von Abaelard, Joa
chim von Fiore, Bonaventura und Thomas von A quin. Man sollte denken, daß es im
Bereich der mittelalterlichen Geistes- und Religionsgeschichte ein reges Interesse an
mittelalterlicher Exegese geben müßte. Doch strenge institutioneile Grenzen zwi
schen den Fachbereichen erschweren anscheinend bibelexegetische Forschungen
nicht unerheblich. Historiker mögen mittelalterliche Exegese bisweilen zu religiös
und zu wenig konkret finden. Zwar könnte derjenige, der ein sozialhistorisches Pro
blem untersucht, „nachschlagen“, was Bernhard oder Bonaventura über eine relevante
Bibelstelle zu sagen hatten, aber das hieße nicht, er verstünde, wie Bernhard oder Bo
naventura ein ganzes biblisches Buch deuteten. Andererseits könnten Religionswis
senschaftler das Studium der Exegese nicht „religiös“ genug finden. W enn sich je
mand für die Analyse eines theologischen Problems oder für die Entwicklung einer
Lehrmeinung oder für ein Thema innerhalb der Frömmigkeitsforschung interessiert,
gibt es direktere Zugänge, Entwicklungslinien zu fassen, als sich durch viele vergilbte
Foliobände von Exegese hindurchzuarbeiten.
Ich organisierte das M ünchner K olloquium in der festen Überzeugung, daß das Stu
dium der Bibelexegese unbedingt als Bestandteil des Studiums der mittelalterlichen
Kultur angesehen werden muß - das heißt, einer Kulturgeschichte, verstanden als ei
ner Geschichte des Lesens, Denkens und Kommunizierens. Natürlich ist das keine
neue Idee. Im Vorwort zur zweiten Ausgabe ihres herausragenden Buches, „The Study
of the Bible in the Middle Ages“ (1952), schlägt Beryl Smalley vor, daß „the history of
interpretation can be used as a mirror for social and cultural changes; a book as central
to medieval thought as the Bible was, must necessarily have been read and interpreted
rather differently by different generations“ (S. XIII-XIV). Smalley verwendet Exegese
kühn als Spiegel, um W andlungen in der Organisation des Lernens und in D e nk m u
stern ausfindig zu machen. Ihre Darstellung hat eine zentrale These, gemäß der die Bi
bel allmählich aufhört, als „a divine encyclopedia, written in cipher“ (294), behandelt
zu werden. Smalley behauptet, „at some tiriie in the thirteenth century commentators
stepfped] back .through the looking glass“, out of their world of reflections into every
day life“ (308). Zugegeben: Sie räumt ein, daß so wenig über die Exegese des 13. Jahr
hunderts gearbeitet wurde, daß „this part of my book consists of travellers’ tales“, und
sie fügt hinzu, daß „a traveller tends to find what he is looking for“ (264).
X
Robert E. Lerner
W eil Stnalleys Buch für das Studium der mittelalterlichen Exegese sicherlich weg
weisend ist, bat ich die Teilnehmer des K olloquium s, es als einen Bezugspunkt zu ver
wenden. (Dies implizierte keine Bedeutungsschmälerung der vierbändigen Untersu
chung über mittelalterliche Exegese von Henri de Lubac, die den Schwerpunkt auf
eine theologische Interpretation legt.) Ferner schrieb ich in meinem Einladungsschrei
ben, daß die Vorträge darauf abzielen sollten, „die spezifischen Forschungen des Refe
renten in einen der folgenden größeren Zusamm enhänge zu bringen: 1. Fragestellun
gen, die Beryl Smalley vernachlässigt hat; 2. Bereiche, in denen Beryl Smalleys Ergeb
nisse nicht mehr überzeugend scheinen; 3. Bereiche, in denen ihre Ergebnisse jetzt
überzeugender scheinen als je zuvor“.
Dasselbe Einladungsschreiben wies auf Probleme und Themen hin, die die Refe
renten nach eigenem Gutdünken in Betracht ziehen konnten: „Die Beziehungen zwi
schen ,monastischer‘ und .scholastischer Exegese; Einstellungen zur Autorschaft; der
angenommene Trium ph buchstabengetreuer Auslegung, Übernahme nicht-christlichen Wissens; Exegese als Literaturkritik; Gattungen innerhalb der Exegese; Exegese
als Gattung; die unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen von Ausdrücken wie litemliter, spiritualiter, intelleclus hisloricus, Exegese und Gesellschaft.“ Der untersuchte Zeitraum
war 1000-1500 n. Chr. Über das positive Echo auf meine Vorschläge war ich überaus
erfreut. Von den zwölf eingeladenen Experten, die Vorträge halten sollten, nahmen elf
an. Nach dem Verschicken der Einladungen merkte ich, wie unterschiedlich groß das
Interesse am Studium der mittelalterlichen Exegese in den einzelnen Ländern ist.
Wäre es m ir möglich gewesen, eine unbegrenzte Zahl von Gästen aus den Vereinigten
Staaten und Kanada einzuladen, hätte ich problemlos zehn Referenten mehr gewin
nen können. Im Gegensatz dazu war der Expertenkreis aus Europa begrenzt. Man
kann nur darüber spekulieren, warum dies so ist. Beryl Smalleys direkter und indirek
ter Einfluß auf die angelsächsische W elt könnte dazu beigetragen haben. Institutio
neile Zwänge könnten ein anderer G rund sein. Offensichtlich gibt es in den Vereinig
ten Staaten mehr Möglichkeiten, die Grenzen zwischen „reiner Geschichte“ und Reli
gion zu durchbrechen, ohne Schaden für die eigene Karriere zu nehmen. Vielleicht ist
dies ein Ergebnis von „Medieval Studies Programs“ und „joint appointments“.
Das K olloquium verlief reibungslos. Keiner der Referenten erteilte m ir in der letz
ten Minute eine Absage. Alle Sprecher ließen im voraus Übersichten oder komplette
Versionen ihrer Vorträge verteilen, um eine optimale K om m unikation untereinander
trotz Sprachenvielfalt zu gewährleisten. Die Diskussionen waren lebhaft, zum al sich
jeder bemühte, langsam zu sprechen, wiederum m it dem Ziel, die Verständigung zu
erleichtern. Die Junisonne strahlte während der Dauer des Kolloquium s; entspan
nende Unterhaltungen im Garten der Kaulbach-Villa trugen zur gelösten Atmosphäre
während der Tagung nicht unwesentlich bei.
W ichtiger jedoch als die Sonne war für den Erfolg der Konferenz die großzügige
Unterstützung durch den Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft und die ge
schickte Organisation und Gastfreundschaft durch das Historische Kolleg.
M ünchen, im Herbst 1993
Robert E. Lerner
Verzeichnis der Tagungsteilnehmer
Prof. Dr. Klaus Arnold, H am burg
Prof. Dr. Rainer Berndt SJ, Frankfurt/Main
Prof. Dr. David Burr, Blacksburg, Va./USA
Dr. Gilbert Dahan, Paris/Frankreich
Prof. Dr. Harald Dickerhoff, Eichstätt
Prof. Dr. Kaspar Elm, Berlin
Dr. Theresa Gross-Diaz, Chicago, Ill./USA
Prof. Dr. Philip Krey, Philadelphia, Pa./USA
Prof. Dr. Robert E. Lerner, Evanston, Ill./USA
(Stipendiat des Historischen Kollegs 1992/93)
Prof. Dr. David Luscombe, Sheffield/England
Prof. Dr. Christel Meier, W uppertal
Prof. Dr. Alastair J. Minnis, York/England
Dr. Gian Luca Potestä, Mailand/Italien
Dr. Sabine Schmolinsky, Ham burg
Prof. Dr. Michael Signer, Notre Dame, Ind./U SA
Dr. Lesley Smith, Oxford/England
Dr. Herbert Schneider, M ünchen
Prof. Dr. Klaus Schreiner, Bielefeld
Prof. Dr. Loris Sturlese, Siena/Italien
Prof. Dr. John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Ind./U SA
I. Das Hochmittelalter - Methodische Vor
aussetzungen und theologische Probleme
Lesley Smith
W hat was the Bible in the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries?
Introduction
Since it is the fool not the sinner who says in his heart, ‘There is no G o d ’, it was natu
ral for God - or texts about G od - to find a place in the medieval academy. But the
notion presented problems: what exactly constituted this knowledge? what was the
status of theology amongst the arts and sciences? what form did such knowledge take:
facts, moral instruction, or mystery? what were the texts that could be surely mined
for knowledge about God? and finally, by what means could this knowledge be extrac
ted? what, indeed, did it mean to be a ‘fool’ in this situation? The Psalmist says, ‘Such
knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain to it..’ This is rath
er my own reply to those questions, and it m ight be a possible response, surely, of the
medieval schoolmen to the greater issues of theological truth. Yet this was not their
response: repeatedly and at length (and I use both of those descriptions advisedly) they
attempt to find answers to the deepest problems of Creator and Creation, confident of
the possibility of being able so to do.
The classic methods of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries for revealing that truth
which they believed to be discernible from the gifts of Creation were the scriptural
commentary and the scholastic question. These two forms of proceeding and inquiry
are often seen as, if not antithetical, then at least successive. There is a tendency, asso
ciated perhaps with historians of medieval philosophy, to assume that commentary is
the simpler way, springing from contemplative monasticism, and merely a preparatory
step to the study of isolated theological issues or practical morality. W hen the pablum
of commentary had been swallowed, the student could go on to the solid food of ques
tion and answer1. This picture is too simplistic to be correct. It seems to assume that
1 Compare H aim o of Auxerre’s metaphor for understanding scripture in his com mentary on Re
velation 10:9-10. H aim o says that scripture is sometimes drink, when it is easily understood and
can be quaffed, and sometimes food when it needs chewing and digestion before the m eaning
Lesley Sm ith
2
commentary died out, ignoring its continuing central place in the theology syllabus.
As well, it implies that there was a dichotomy between biblical commentary and Sen
tences and qucstio literature, rather than that the two were complementary to one an
other. For both proceed from the study of agreed texts, or questions arising from
them; both make exposition by recourse to established authorities; and both are addi
tive in disposition, working via the unwieldy m ethod of accretion.
The text agreed as fundamental, both for authoritative exposition and for support of
argument, was clearly the Bible, basing its claim to be the primary record of revelation
on its association with Christ, the W ord of God. Identifying Christ with the text of
scripture explains what makes exegesis fundamentally both worthwhile and possible2.
All books may be read, meditated upon, and interpreted, but the Bible makes unique
claims - claims accepted by medieval interpreters - for the returns available for effort
expended: ‘Everywhere in it truth holds sway; everywhere the divine excellence beams
forth; everywhere matters of use to m ankind are related’ : Cassiodorus gives point to
the exercise of biblical interpretation3.
A lthough she called her book The Study of the Bible in the M iddle Ages, Beryl Smal
ley’s own usage reflects how rarely the word ‘Bible’ (hihlia) was used by medieval wri
ters. Instead, they choose to say sacrae paginae or sacra scriptnra, and academic theolo
gians are magistri sacrae paginae. This is more than a semantic difference. Firstly, as
Jerome and Isidore remind us, the Bible is a bibliotheca, a book repository, a library,
containing all knowledge necessary and sufficient for salvation'4. Second, the medieval
Bible was rarely a one-volume pandect but a series of volumes of related texts. The sin
gle message of the Bible was the redemption of the world, but scholars were used to
breaking that down into com ponent books and evaluating those parts individually.
The Bible was not an untouchable relic, but a living, changing, usable library.
Jerome and Isidore’s definition was standard and m uch repeated. W e see it again in
H ugh of St Victor. H ugh, chief of the Victorine scholars and a man of wide influence
with contemporaries and successors, is an excellent guide to the orthodox viewpoint:
the Victorines were nothing if not bridge-builders between the poles of the schools
and the cloister. It is to H u g h ’s exposition of the nature of scripture in the Didascalicon, the De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris and the De sacramentis that I should like to
Fortsetzung Fußnote von Seite I
can be understood. (K. Froehlich, ALT. Gibson [eds.], Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria [Turnh out 1992] at Rev. 10.)
2 For the question of the book as the object of theology see L. Smith, The Theology of the
Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Bible, in: R. Gnmeson (ed.), The Early Medieval Bible (C am
bridge 1993).
J Cassiodorus, Institutiones, bk 1, c. 16; transl. by L. W. Jones, Divine and H um a n Readings (C o
lum bia 1946) 112.
4 Isidore, Etymologiae, bk. 6, c. 3, PL 82:235-36: ‘Bibliotheca a Graeco nom en accepit, eo quod
ibi recondatur libri. N am ‘ßtßXLcov librorum 0f|XT| repositio interpretatur’, and, ibid., ‘Bibliothecam Veteris Testament! Esdras scriba ... divino afflatus Spiritu, reparavit ...’ Isidore is m aking ex
plicit Jerom e’s im plicit usage in these passages, ct., Jerome, De viris iliustris, ‘Eusebius in scripturis
divinis studiosissimus et bibliothecae diviniae cum P am philio martyre diligentissimus pervestigator’, and Epist. ad Marceilam, no. 34, C SE L 54:259-60: ‘Beatus Pamphiiius martyr ... cum Demetrium Phalereum et Pisistratum in sacrae bibliothecae studio vellet aequare ...’.
W h at was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?
3
turn5. In the De scripturis (which Grover Z in n rightly characterises as H ugh’s accessus
to his exegetical texts6), and the Didascalicon, H ugh lays out what to study and how to
do it. ‘Sacred Scriptures are those which were produced by men who cultivated the
catholic faith and which the authority of the universal church has taken over to be in
cluded among the Sacred Books and preserved to be read for the strengthening of that
same faith.’7 In the De scripturis, H ugh divides sacred scriptures into Old Testament
and New. Following Jewish practice from Jerome, he further divides the O ld Testa
ment into Law, Prophets, and Writings. The New Testament is similarly divided into
three: the first group contains the Gospels; the second the Pauline and Catholic epis
tles, Acts, and the Apocalypse; the third group includes the writings of the Fathers8.
W hen he addresses the schema of sacred scripture again in the Didascalicon9 H ugh re
peats the division and widens it slightly. The third group now includes the Decrees of
the Councils, the writings of the Fathers (mentioning by name, Jerome, Augustine,
Gregory, Ambrose, Isidore, Origen and Bede), and finally the writings of ‘many other
orthodox authors’. H ugh has thought this through: ‘In these groups most strikingly
appears the likeness between the two Testaments. For just as after the Law come the
Prophets, and after the Prophets the Hagiographers, so after the Gospel come the
Apostles, and after the Apostles the long line of Doctors. A nd by a wonderful ordering
of the divine dispensation, it has been brought about that although the truth stands
full and perfect in each of the books, yet none of them is superfluous. These few
things we have condensed concerning the order and number of the Sacred Books, that
the student may know what his required reading is’10.
Is H ugh stating, then, that for him , and for the Church, the Decrees of the Councils
(specifically Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451, i.e.,
the councils which made canon, during, and slightly later than, Jerom e’s lifetime), and
the writings of certain Doctors are on a par with the Epistles and Gospels? It would
seem so. He knows in the De scripturis that they are not in the canon but, knowing the
differences between the Greek and Hebrew canons, he remarks that this is true of cer
tain O ld Testament books too, and yet they are still read and used11.
Where did H ugh get this idea from, and why did he hold it? The Fathers could
hardly declare their own writings authoritative, could they? In fact this seems to be
close to what Jerome does im plicitly in his Catalogue of Catholic Writers (Catalogus de
’ H ugh o f St Victor, Didascalicon, transl. /. Taylor {New York 1961); De scripturis et scriptoribus
sacris, in: Opera O m n ia (Venice 1588); De sacramentis, transl. R .J . Deferrari (Cambridge M A
1951).
6 ’H ugh of St Victor and the Art of Biblical Exegesis’ in a volum e of Victorine essays edited by
/W. Signer, in press at the University of Western Michigan Press, Kalamazoo.
7 Didascalicon, bk 4, c. 1, p. 102.
8 De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, c. 6: O n the order, num ber, and authority of the books of
sacred scripture (Venice ed., fol. 2vb). O n the contents of the Law, Prophets and W ritings (H e
brew: Torah, Ncvim, Ketnbim) see Didascalicon, bk 4, c. 8.
9 Didascalicon, bks 4-6.
10 Didascalicon, bk 4, c. 2, p. 104.
1 De scripturis, bk 6, fol. 2vb: ‘Haec tamen scripta patrum in textu divinarum scripturarum non
computantur, q uem adm o dum in veteri test, (ut diximus) quidam libri sunt qui non scribuntur in
canone, et tamen leguntur, ut sapientia Salomonis etc.’
Lesley Sm ith
4
catholicis scriptoribus or De viris Mus/ris). Jerome lists 135 Christian writers, giving
short biographies and bibliographies of each. The list begins with St Peter, encompas
ses the New Testament writers, Origen (his entry, no. 54, is very long and careful), H i
lary (no. 100: ‘he translated ad sensttm a commentary on Matthew and a treatise on Job
from Origen’s greek’), and ends with Jerome himself. He lists his own accomplish
ments, in a long entry, in some detail: ‘N ovum testamentum grece fidei reddidi. Vetus
iuxtam hebraicam transtuli.’12
Jerome, then, may be a possible source for H u gh’s idea of New Testament, but why
m ight he make this unusual division at all? It seems to me that what H ugh is, in fact,
describing is a kind of glossed Bible, with a base text followed by patristic and
ecclesiastical expositions. W hat H u g h ’s distinction does is to give a more theoretical
justification for such glossed biblical books. These are all writings, the canon of scrip
ture as well as the Fathers, which have been given the approval of the Church, those
books which (as I quoted earlier) ‘the authority of the universal church has taken over
to be included among the Sacred Books’. Canon law is the product of the Councils
and can be justified as being the considered opinion of the Church as a whole. The
work of individual theologians (or even specific works of individual writers) is accor
ded this authoritative status when taken up by the Church and promulgated as useful
and true for the building-up of knowledge and faith. W hat begins as individual opi
nion becomes the received wisdom of the whole Church. Hugh, then, is taking the
doctrine of continuous revelation seriously.
It was at this point that I decided to turn from the theory to the practice and look at
the books themselves. W orking in Oxford with the resources of the Bodleian Library,
I called up all their latin Bibles from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (and some
rather earlier than those dates); I also called up all the glossed Bibles from a small se
lection of biblical books, chiefly the Epistles, Psalms, Ruth, and the Pentateuch13. That
this was a relatively unusual thing for me is instructive in itself. Even though I work
on scholastic commentary, this rarely leads me into using either plain Bible texts, or apart from an inclinable edition of the Glossa - into biblical texts other than continu
ous or lemmatised commentaries: even scholars of exegesis, then, may not often work
with a simple Bible text. So it seemed useful to discover what the books themselves
m ight tell us.
12 De viris illustris, passim. The “De viris” has been edited by E.C. Richardson (Leipzig 1896); for
ease of access I used Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Mus. 31, fols 181va-215ra.
13 Altogether I have examined about seventy manuscripts. More are available in Oxford College
collections and ( intend to consider these soon.
5
Glossed Bibles
It is a commonplace to say that for the medieval schoolman the Bible was the glossed
Bible. W hen he thought of the Bible, what came to m ind was not just the simple text
but the text with many added layers of interpretation and explanation. But the ques
tion of the origin and development of the Gloss, and what appears to be an outpouring
of MSS between c. 1140-1170, has long been a puzzle. In beginning with glossed Bi
bles, I add my own slight observations to the work of the editors of the Gloss project,
Karlfried Froehlich, Margaret Gibson, and A n n Matter, who are assembling a team of
scholars to make a new edition of the Gloss1'*. From at least Carolingian times, as
Christopher de Hamel says, Bibles are found with marginal and interlinear notes and
additions. Scholars made their own biblical commonplace books, states de Hamel, by
recording the results of their own reading. ‘Masters like Lanfranc and Berengar must
have had “teaching copies” crammed with marginal and interlinear notes.’15 If de H a
mel is right, then it was from such cramped and useful teaching copies that the Glossa
developed. I must say that I have not found any examples of such books. There are of
course a few - perhaps two dozen, according to Margaret Gibson - Carolingian glos
sed Psalters (in which she includes books made from c. 800 to c. 1050), containing a
variety of glosses in a systematically planned layout with ruled gloss-space and luxury
format; but these are not scholars’ books full of the latest inform ation1'’. There must
surely be other glossed texts17 but they remain to be discovered.
How did the Gloss develop? If it grew from the unsystematic general notes of
teachers, then I should like to see some of these books surviving. If it was put together,
or at least distributed, by H ugh of St Victor or others like him , as Margaret Gibson has
plausibly suggested18, that m ight account for the MSS seeming to spring, almost ex nihilo, well-formed into life in the early twelfth-century. W hat did the Gloss do? It pre
sented the received wisdom in easily accessible form. It petrified exegesis to some ex
tent by making a certain group of texts normative. It recorded the patristic past - the
greater bulk of truth - and in that sense, by getting it out of the way, the Gloss might
be seen as opening the path towards other forms of exposition and questioning. It did
not make commentary superfluous, but it assured that what the past had given would
not be forgotten. All these may be considered characteristically Victorine aims.
u The first fruit of this collaboration is a facsimile edition of the 1480-81 A d olp h Rusch editio
princeps of the Gloss: Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, ed. K. Froehlich, M . T. Gibson (Turnhout 1992).
” C. de Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (W oodbridge
1984) 1.
See /Vi. Gibson, Carolingian Glossed Psalters, in: R. Geuneson (ed.), The Early Medieval Bible
(Cambridge 1993).
'' For instance, there is a newly-purchased fragment of an Epistles text in the Bodleian library,
MS Lat. bib. a. 1/1-2.
is See /Vi. Gibson, The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible, in: E.A. Lieingslone(ed.), Studia Patristica
23 (Leuven 1989), 232-244; cadem, The Place of the Glossa ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis, in: K.
hmery, AL Jo rd a n (eds.), A d Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers (Notre
Dame 1992) 5-27. Both reprinted in /Vi. Gibson, ‘Artes’ and Bible in the Medieval W est (Vario
rum 1993) nos X IV and XV.
6
Lesley Sm ith
The beginnings of the Gloss project have raised several fascinating questions of in
terpretation. There is, to begin with, the problem of identification. Manuscript cata
logues list glossed Bibles fairly indiscriminately. They may be listed as Bibles with ex
position or commentary, or they may be listed under a particular biblical book or
group of books, as containing book and gloss. Occasionally they are assigned to a par
ticular author or may be identified speculatively, as in the Bodleian Summary Catalo
gue’s usual ‘text in Latin surrounded (apparently) by the Glossa Ordinaria (of Walfridus Strabo) and the Glossa Interlinearis (of Anselmus Laudunensis)’ or some such
form ula19. Sometimes, a cataloguer has his doubts ‘that wrongly ascribed to Walafrid
Strabo’, and so forth. Occasionally, he stumbles over the crucial question: ‘the text of
the Psalms, with prologue, surrounded by marginal and interlinear glosses, which are
in the main the Glossa Ordinaria and Interlinearis of Walaridus Strabo and Anselmus
Laudunensis respectively ... all succeeding catalogues have ascribed the commentary
to ¡johannis de Pagaham], He may have arranged or added to the Glossae, and the pro
logue begins “David rex Hebreorum ...” which is not one of the ordinary prologues’20.
The searcher can never be sure what text she will find. W hen do such arrangements
and additions produce a whole that is not the Glossa but something different? Collat
ing four Gloss MSS with the Rusch 1480-81 editio princeps, Mark Zier reported four
divergent texts, not merely in the order of the glosses included but in their number
and variation as well21. My trawl through the Bodleian manuscripts produced similar
results with a wider sample. The correlation is fairly obvious: the older the book, the
fewer the glosses; order depends mostly on space; additions frequently come at the
top of a book or chapter, pushing everything else around in the layout. I am not con
vinced that any two Gloss texts would be exactly alike: each area, each scriptorium,
each school and, most clearly, each master, produces its own variants.
Theresa Gross-Diaz, working on the Psalm commentaries of Gilbert of Poitiers and
Peter Lombard, has found very little difference in text between Gilbert and Peter and
the parva glosatura22. The parva text is smoothed and made continuous, but is other
wise little changed. If, as Margaret Gibson has stated, ‘Format and text together make
the Glossn> where do we draw the line? W e cannot say that merely the shape and lay
out turn a text into the Gloss, since other texts that are very different from the Gloss
appear in Gloss layout, such as Alexander Neckham’s Commentary on Psalms found
in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 284, or Herbert of Bosham’s commentary on
the Lombard on Psalms, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. E. inf. 6. But are we
right to exclude a text written as continuous commentary that has a virtually identical
Gloss text, like that of Gilbert or Peter, or the anonymous text in Paris, BN, MS lat.
19 E.g., no. 2134 in p. M a d a n (and /■/. H. E. Craslet), A Summ ary Catalogue of Western M anu
scripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 5 vols (Oxford 1895-1937).
20 M a d an , no. 2730.
21 Seeing the Forest for the Trees: the Manuscript Tradition of the Glossa Ordinaria, at the 28th
International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, M I, May 1993.
22 T. Gross-Diaz, From lectio divina to the Lecture R o o m : The Psalms Com m entary of Gilbert
of Poitiers in : /V. van Deusen (ed.), The Place of the Psalms in the Intellectual Culture of the
M iddle Ages (Bingham pton, forthcoming).
23 M . Gibson, The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible, in: cadem, ‘Artes’ and Bible, no. X IV , p. 233.
7
642<? W e cannot allow the issue to be simply one of anonymity. It is by chance that
we know the identity of Gilbert or Peter’s texts. Most twelfth and thirteenth century
school texts I have seen have no contemporary identification. How, then, can we tell
when the Gloss is not the Gloss?
1 do not mean to trivialise, since the problem of which Gloss to edit is fundamental,
and the solution that the Gloss team come up with will make a considerable differ
ence. The issue is not quite so crucial perhaps, to those who consistently work with
manuscripts or with early-medieval exegesis: anyone who knows how manuscripts
look must be aware of the problems. But if there is “out there” a scholarly audience
who, heeding the admonitions of Beryl Smalley and their own com m on sense, wish to
“use” exegesis in their own work, without it being the primary focus, the framing of a
single Gloss text as ‘the’ Bible or the standard reference Bible is a glorious invitation to
those who wish to absolutise the relative. W e may (almost) no longer hear solemn dis
quisitions on the importance of interlinear glosses consigned to the margins and vice
versa, or inexact word order, but many non-specialists are still confused as to which
variations are important in what circumstances. If we are to present codicologists or art
historians, for example, who are trying to make sense of their glossed biblical texts,
with the Gloss, we have to be quite certain what we are doing and why.
O u r view of the Gloss is marked, perhaps irreversibly, by the invention of printing,
which brought with it the possibility of standard multiple copies. From that m om ent,
the word ‘publication’ took on a meaning close to what we think of today. In the world
of manuscripts, we know little about ‘publication’. Too often scholars try to apply ana
chronistic concepts of post-printing book production. In this manuscript world where
each is a handmade individual, nothing, as I come increasingly to appreciate as I look
at larger numbers of manuscripts, can be considered impossible or even unusual.
Clearly, in the case of school or scriptural texts this individuality was a problem to be
guarded against, so that the text maintained its integrity. But even here, I suspect, we
are too m uch influenced by the classical-recensionist method of editing. Medieval
writers indeed collated texts against one another, and looked for a sensible com pro
mise; but their editing criteria rarely coincide with our own. Certainly, textual purity
was seldom upmost in their minds, nor, always, clarity and sense, as it would seem to
us. In a number of places the standard Glossa text on Ruth simply makes no sense as it
stands, and yet it circulated in many manuscripts and was printed in Rusch and other
Glossa editions. W hat does this tell us? That some texts simply circulated in a received
version, sense or no? If this is so, what should we do with a text when this seems to be
the case? In short, which text should we edit as the Gloss?
I do not mean to deny the usefulness of the Gloss project. O nly the work of editing
can definitively answer a num ber of nagging questions. For instance, where does the
Gloss turn up? The edition will tell us what we know only by instinct about the mas
sive extent of its dispersal. In what sort of places - monasteries, cathedral schools, u n i
versities, private hands or institutional libraries - is the text found? Much of this may
be sorted out. Once again, however, the question of what the Gloss exactly was, and
'* I owe this inform ation to Dr. Mark Zier.
Lesley Sm ith
8
what texts the team choose to include and exclude will affect the answers to these
questions.
How was the Gloss used? I was ready to say, with the received wisdom, that Glossa
texts are usually very little worked over until I encountered Oxford, Bodleian Library,
MS Auct. D. 1. 9, a Glossa made in Paris c. 1225 - a typical Paris ‘blue and red’ schoolbook. It reached Exeter cathedral school by 1232. The book has wide margins beyond
the marginal gloss and these have been systematically and integrally ruled to copy an
other sporadic marginal gloss and biblical cross-references to both Bible and Glossa
text25. It is a glossed Gloss. But I would stress that in my experience (limited to books
now in England) this is an exception: most Glossa texts have very little twelfth or thir
teenth century annotation, or any sign of use other than reading. The Exeter book is
interesting because the question of whether the Gloss was lectured on in the schools is
debated. Margaret Gibson believes that it was not; and yet, when bachelors lectured
atrsorie on a biblical book, which text did they have in front of them to read from?
A nd what exactly did they do? Surely it is not farfetched to see them with a Glossa on
their knees or on a bookstand, either simply reading the patristic quotations from the
margins, or expounding them, or using them as a m nem onic aid for futher exposition.
W hy do manuscripts of the Gloss seem to disappear after about 1220? The Gloss is
useful as a record book - a ready reference of what the main patristic sources say on
particular biblical texts. But it is not especially its text but rather its format that made
and make it useful. In that it is the precursor of the format innovations or re-discoveries of the St Jacques’ Dominicans of the Paris of the 1230s - their indexes, concordan
ces, distinctiones and so forth. Most obviously, perhaps, it is similar to that other book
where format determines the presentation of material: Peter Lombard’s Sentences.
Here, instead of seriatim by biblical text, the patristic material is selected and presen
ted by theme. These sorts of format are only necessary when learning has taken a cer
tain course. Anselm and Ralph of Laon, or H ugh of St Victor, or whoever put the
Gloss together, took his patristic material from the originals. Peter Lombard, although
not above using the Summa Sententiarum and various florilegia, did the same (albeit
for a limited number of source-references which he could well have gleaned from the
jyarva glosatura). Monastic writers, with time and no pressure to publish, could work at
leisure; schoolmen - masters at the top of their field - were similarly learned. But
when education became slightly more ‘mass market’, more production line, then pu p
ils needed textbooks. They could not or did not read the originals, whether from lack
of books, lack of time, or lack of intelligence, and so they needed a crib: the Gloss and
the Sentences were those beginners’ guides.
W hy then do we stop seeing new copies of Gloss manuscripts after about 1220? I
suggest that, as study of advanced theology shifted almost entirely to the University of
Paris at the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth, so the Mas
ters teaching there began to feel the need for a syllabus. As numbers increased and de
grees were granted, it became necessary to make formal arrangements for the sorts of
i5 The ruling of the added lines and the im position of ink makes me believe that these glosses
are being copied and not created in situ.
9
things students had to cover and the levels they were expected to attain. A t the begin
ning of the 1220s Alexander of Hales began to use the Sentences, which had been given
something of an im primatur by Lateran IV in 1215, as a basis for his lecture course.
C om m enting on the Sentences became a requirement for any student wishing to be
come a master, and by 1254 ‘reading' the book was included in the university regula
tions, a formal recognition of a long-held practice. By the 1220s, almost everyone school, university, master, monastery - who wanted a glossed Bible had one: there was
simply no need to make more. W hat use was a Gloss in the University situation? A
preacher wanted a pocket Bible with cross-references and marginal headings for ser
mon topics and penance; a scholar wanted concordances and indexes; for meditation
one had mystical works and continuous commentary (the late-twelfth-early-thirteenth
century monastic continuous commentaries on biblical books I have seen are nothing
like the Gloss, either in layout or content); the laity had psalters and private devotional
books; Glossa manuscripts were left for the juniores. The need for Gloss texts was not
pressing amongst university students because, by that time, reading the Bible by book
was old hat: the movement for students was toward subject and question - dispute
over problems rather than long rumination over a single text. The Sentences gave them
essentially the same material in a better, racier format. A n d from exactly the time that
numbers of new Glossa manuscripts decline and disappear we find the immense proli
feration of copies of the Sentences and its commentaries.
Plain Bibles
But the need for ordinary Bibles was still there. W hat do ‘plain’ unglossed Bibles look
like and contain? I have seen a num ber of types, from large monastic and liturgical Bi
bles, to smaller monastic reading versions, to handsize and miniature personal Bibles.
It goes without saying that the order of the biblical books is not always constant. S im i
larly, the contents of any volume are not standard, but certainly by the thirteenth cen
tury it is clear that the biblical text never stands alone. There are always the Jerome
prologues, general and particular, and, almost invariably, the Liber Nom inum Hebraeonun or some variant on it. Other com m on additions are a Correctiones Bibliae26, a gos
pel harmony or canon tables, a kalendar or lectionary (often to be found in handbook
sized Bibles), a list of subject matter with relevant biblical references for each, and
marginal cross-references, whether in the Gospels as the simplest form of harmony, or
in other books referring to similar passages elsewhere. (I would add that the Bibles I
have seen in Bodley dating from the seventh to the eleventh centuries were unglossed,
but often had biblical cross-references in the margins.) Occasionally the genealogies of
Peter of Poitiers are present, or lists of chapters in each book (more com m only the
number of chapters in each) with incipits and subject matter. I have also seen some
thirteenth-century scholars’ Bibles with wide margins for glosses which are not supp
lied.
G. D ahan, La connaissance de l’hebreu dans les correctoires de la Bible du X I I I e siècle, in: Re
vue Théologique de Louvain 23 (5992) 178-190.
10
Lesley Sm ith
it is rare in these ‘plain’ Bibles for there to be more than the occasional contem po
rary note, and so I have thought it reasonable to distinguish not by type of Bible, but
by whether or not they are systematically glossed. A n odd exception is Oxford, Bod
leian Library, MS Auct D. 3. 3, a thirteenth century scholar’s Bible, bigger than pocket-sized. It is a plain text with very few notes, except for the book of Ecclesiasticus
(and to a much lesser extent Genesis) which is covered with biblical cross-references sometimes several to a word. The text has a few simple interlinear annotations, which
do not seem to be particularly interesting. The margins, however, are full of scriptural
references. References are given by a word or two, in abbreviated form or with their
initial letters only; the scriptural reference is in arabic numerals followed by a very
short verbal reminiscence. The references are added very neatly and carefully in two
narrow, ruled columns added purposely to Ecclesiasticus and not present elsewhere;
but they seem to be adventitious in the sense of the scribe not having a model: he fits
them in where space permits. The book gives the appearance of a set of distinctiones,
ordered by text rather than by subject, or of someone preparing to write a com m en
tary by first listing all possible cross-references. If this is so, the annotator’s knowledge
is impressive: even if he used some sort of concordance to make the references, his re
call of them is triggered by only a couple of words. So far as I can tell, the references
are biblical, not patristic; and although, like most medieval glosses, they are thickest at
the beginning of the book and trail away during it, they do cover the whole text.
Cross-references seem to be the most com m on ‘personal’ addition to a plain Bible
text. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. D. 4. 11, a later-thirteenth century pocket Bi
ble with the Jerome prologues, running titles, etc., but with no gloss to the text or to
the notes, supplies cross references for the Synoptic gospels, in the form of tree dia
grams in the lower margins. The trees run by chapter and give two or three word sum
maries of the major events of the chapter, supplying cross-references to all four Gos
pels, and occasionally other biblical books as well. The references are very specific, by
chapter and position on the page although the book itself is not marked-up in this
way. This is surely a preacher’s Bible.
I admit to surprise at the variety and number of ‘plain’ Bibles; and I was also surpri
sed at the consistency of the appearance of the additions. By the thirteenth century
‘the Bible’ was the plain text together with the Jerome prologues and his interpretation
of Hebrew names. This is a not inconsiderable addition. The Bible had become Je
rome’s translation with Jerome’s explanation of the proper names, and, crucially, intro
duced by Jerome’s expositions of the basic meanings of the sections and books. Je
rome was fundamental to the understanding of the text. His status is underlined when
one remembers that Jerome’s prologues were included in the Gloss, and were com
mented on along with the text. Their existence affected the tenor of the Gloss exege
sis. The Gloss on Ruth, for example, consists of a fine exposition of details (for exam
ple, the interpretation of the names and the nature of a Hebrew contract), or an
allegorical exegesis of the text, with Ruth as the Church, Boaz as Christ, Naomi as the
early Church, and the second daughter-in-law as the Jews. These are expositions of the
text, but they fail to treat the text as narrative - as the simple story it appears to be and they do not explain why such a tale, which makes no m ention of God, is included
11
in the canon of scripture. How were readers to see the wood for the trees? The answer
is in the prologue, which sets out the keys to the book as story, points to R u th’s place
in the genealogy of Christ, and reminds us that G od moves in mysterious ways and
uses unlikely material.
W hat m ight the contents of these Bibles tell us? It is a truism of medieval studies
that most medieval theology is a footnote to Augustine. This remains true, even after
the advent of Aristotle. The Sentences of Peter Lombard are massively dependent on
Augustine. W hen the Sentences became a core of the Paris theology syllabus, the de
mands of the scholastic method, involving so much repetition, assured Augustine’s
central place in high-medieval thought. Augustine has received a great deal of atten
tion from medievalists, rather at the expense of the rest of the Fathers; and so I should
like to redress the balance here with a short excursus on Jerome27.
Jerome is always the first scholar in H ugh of St Victor’s lists of authorities, and that
priority is not, I think, a simple matter of chronology, but recognition of his founda
tional place in Christian scholarship. He may have garnered comparatively little notice
because of the nature of much of his work: it is harder to draw statements and posi
tions from commentary and letters than from treatises. But in Jerome we encounter all
the later medieval problems with the Bible, and from one who was himself the author
- in one sense at least - of the sacred text.
How did Jerome see the Bible? He begins by establishing the text, preferring the
Hebrew to the Greek, both in text and in canon. But he cannot simply follow the H e
brew system, since the official opinion of the Church was in favour of the Greek. His
scholarly m ind may have favoured the Hebrew, but his Churchm an’s m ind continued
to prefer the Greek. Even for Jerome, the question of ‘what was the Bible’ was not as
simple as establishing an unpolluted text, or recovering the Hebrew, or m aking a faith
ful translation. As in all edition and translation, the problem was one of interpretation
- what did the author intend. There are always obscurities in a text, and when the
author is the Holy Spirit we have to ask why that is. Augustine put it down to sin:
‘Hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and m anifold obscurities and am bi
guities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit
upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud
the meaning in the thickest darkness. A nd I do not doubt that all this was divinely arr
anged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and on preventing a feeling of satiety
in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without diffi
culty.’28
The issue here is exactly the same as the concern over the limits of non-literal inter-
” Jerome has drawn relatively little attention from m odern patristic scholars as well as medieva
lists. 1 draw heavily here from J. Barr, St Jerom e’s appreciation of Hebrew (Manchester 1967); D.
Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study of the Biblical Exegesis of St Jerom e (K am pen 1992); J . N. I).
Kelly, Jerome, his life, his writings and controversies (London 1975); II. F. D. Sparks, Jerome as
Biblical Scholar, in: P. Ackroyd, C. E v ans(eds.), Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1 (Cambridge
1970) 510-41.
De doctrina Christiana, bk II, c. 3, C SE L 80, p. 35; transl. J . Shaw, in: The W orks of A. A u g u
stine of H ippo, ed. Al. Dods, vol. 9 (Edinburgh 1893) 36.
12
Lesley Sm ith
pretation. The only yardstick of interpretation and meaning can be the consensus of
the body of Christ; so that from the earliest councils the fundamental question of
where interpretative power lay was settled. The Bible was never the ‘simple’ word of
God, which determined the faith of the Church - it was the Bible as interpreted by the
body of the faithful that had the last word. W hen Hugh of St Victor includes conciliar
decrees amongst the sacred scriptures he is only recognising the truth of tradition in
the Church. Although this must be based on some sort of literal interpretation of
scripture, no commentator believed that this could be without sophistication or p it
falls.
Jerome, of anyone, knew that the interpretation of scripture required a little cerebral
finesse. W ith his knowledge of Jewish exegesis, he recognised that even the text in the
original language gave rise to problems. In a view of scripture that held every word to
be the word of God, how did Jerome see himself as translator? W hat is the role of the
hum an agent who sets down the ipsissima verba? Jerome held two principles of trans
lation, one for literature and one for scripture: literature could be translated sense for
sense, but scripture was to be translated word for word29. In practice, of course, this in
an impossibility, and Jerome knew it. He translates variously for sense, for rhetorical
elegance, and sometimes for theological point.
Jerome also faced the question of what to do with Hebrew proper names. Since the
names generally have a literal meaning, he could either translate them directly or
transliterate them - either would be faithful to the text. Generally he chooses to trans
literate, but often with the addition of an interpretative gloss. For example, at Judges
12:6 ‘Sebboleth’, he adds, ‘quod interpretatur spica’, or at Ruth 1:20 ‘ne vocetis me
Noemi, id est pulchram, sed vocate me mara, id est amarum’, the interpolations are J e
rome’s. He defines the function of commentary as ‘to interpret another’s words, to put
into plain language what he expressed obscurely. Consequently, it [commentary] gives
the opinions of many people and says: “Some interpret the passage in this sense, some
in that ...” so that the wise reader, after reading these different explanations, and ha
ving familiarised himself with many that he can either approve or disapprove, may
judge which is best’ 50. This is not, in fact, what Jerome does. Like all exegetes, Jerome
has his own views on the meaning of a passage, and he expresses those views force
fully.
Thus I suggest that, just as we m ight see Jerome’s additions of interpretations of the
Hebrew names as a kind of gloss on the text, so we might consider his commentaries
to be a kind of extended translation - a sense for sense translation in full. This is his
response to the paradoxes of the Bible, which is written in time by hum an authors, but
which claims to be the eternal word of God; it is already written and complete, and yet
it must be continually subject to exegesis. In this, the Bible embodies these paradoxes
for the medieval reader, for it mirrors the paradoxical characteristics of Christ, begot
ten in time but existing before all worlds.
29 For example, ‘Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione
Graecorum absque scripturis sacris, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbo e verbo, sed
sensum exprimere de sensu.’ Epist. 5, 7 (CSEL, 54, 508). A nd see Brown, Vir Trilinguis, 104-110.
i0 Apologia contra Rufinum , bk I, c. 16, C C S L 79, pp. 14-15.
13
Conclusions
I have spoken about the Fathers, about the Gloss, and about Hugh of St Victor. I hope
Beryl Smalley would be pleased! fn conclusion, I should like to draw out from these
remarks some pointers for the future direction of exegetical study.
In his own day, and in the later Middle Ages, Jerome was acknowledged as biblical
scholar, translator and expositor supreme. Augustine himself seems to have recognised
that even had he developed the requisite linguistic skills this was not the direction of
his own scholarly gifts: ‘I have not as great a knowledge of the divine scriptures as you
have, nor could I have such knowledge as I see in you’31. Very little of Augustine’s
work is straight commentary; his output is in sermons (largely based on exegesis, of
course), treatises on theological subjects, such as De Trinitate, responses to specialised
topical issues of the day, such as the Contra Mendacium: in other words, his work is of
direct practical use to and importance for a churchman and bishop with leadership re
sponsibilities. Perhaps because of the ‘soundbite’ or argumentative quality of August
ine’s work he has received the bulk of the attention from modern scholars of medieval
exegesis. Jerome has been relatively neglected, and work attempting to redress that
imbalance would be fruitful and immensely valuable to historians of exegesis. The
medieval Bible was Jerome’s Bible even to the extent that the author portrait at the
front of many volumes of the Pentateuch was of Jerome writing it. Jerome, and occa
sionally his lion, are for the O ld Testament what the evangelists and their symbols are
for the New.
The equation of Jerome with the scriptural text serves to remind us of medieval so
phistication about the status of sacred writings. There is undoubtedly an awareness of
the canon of scripture and its varieties, but I would like to suggest that canonicity as
such is m uch more of a problem for us than for them. Invigilating for a theology de
gree paper last week I was forceably reminded of the topicality of these issues by one
of the questions: ‘The notion of a fixed canon is a hindrance rather than a help for
contemporary Christian theology. Discuss’. Respect for canon existed, but since the
object of the learned study of sacred scripture was not simply the exegesis of the text
perse, but a step on the road to wisdom, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were pre
pared to look at any text that allowed them, in Hugh of St Victor’s words, ‘to recog
nize the path of truth more perfectly themselves’ 52. As the thirteenth century progres
sed, these ‘texts’ came to include more and more observation of and experimentation
with the created world.
Medieval theologians took the notion of continuous revelation seriously, and were
thus prepared to recognise post-Apostolic writing as authoritative. Indeed they subject
texts of Patristic authors to exactly the same sort of treatment as they do the Bible
text, whether it be com m enting on them, using them to buttress argument, or
attempting to resolve discordances between their positions. H ugh of St Victor is right
31 Augustine, Epist. 28,i, quoted in Brown, V ir Trilinguis, 200. See also A:f. Vessey, Conference
and Confession: Literary Pragmatics in A ugustine’s Apologia contra H ieronym um , in: Journal of
Early Christian Studies 1 (1993) 175-213.
32 Didasealicon, bk 5, c. 10, p. 134.
14
Lesley Sm ith
in im plying that, as soon as one admits to the New Testament canon non-eye witness
accounts of Christ - in other words, Paul - on the agreement of the body of the faith
ful, the door to a wider view of sacred scripture has been firmly wedged open. It then
becomes more than reasonable to adm it the decisions of the general councils of the
Church, along with the writings of Christian authors approved by those councils
amongst the sacred writings.
Readers will have noticed that I have ceased to refer to the Bible, and have moved
back to the medieval phrase, sacred scriptures. As I noted earlier, the usage magister
sacrae pagincte was not without meaning; whatever its original context, by the time it
is used in Paris to designate doctors of theology, magister sacrae paginae referred to
those who had successfully completed the course both as biblical Bachelors and as
Bachelors of the Sentences. It was the confluence of both of these texts that made up
the sacred pages of which they were to be masters. I should, therefore, like to use
this designation to break down the division between the study of theology and the
study of the Bible, in favour of the more medieval arena of the study of ‘sacred scrip
tures’. The apparent division between writers of commentary and writers of treatises
on theological questions is said to make its appearance after the work of Abelard or,
in theology, with Peter Lombard. Thenceforward, scholars are divided into the spe
culative or practical theologians and those - purer or simpler - souls, the exegetes
who study the Bible. I have argued elsewhere that this is a false dichotomy, not be
cause writers did not have preferences or specialities but precisely because they did33.
These two facets of the search for knowledge about God are not a creation of the
twelfth century; I think we can see it emerge as early as Jerome and Augustine. For
them, as for later medieval writers, the sort of work they produced was a question of
individual gifts and response to their audiences’ needs, rather than merely a chrono
logical shift from one type of approach to another, as it is sometimes portrayed.
Rather than narrow our focus of study, then, I would suggest we widen the defini
tion of our field to make it closer to the intent of the Schoolmen, and including all
that may be described as sacred scripture. T hinking in these terms also helps us re
member that ‘the Bible’ was not a neat whole in which every part was treated
equally. The various books or sections had very different exegetical histories, depend
ing on their content and use. A history of the exegesis of the Song of Songs looks very
different from one for the Apocalyse.
The division between scripture and theology was not to be made even with Jerome
and Augustine; and if it cannot stand between them, then it cannot stand in the
Schools. Although he rarely stops at exposition for its own sake, the foundations of
Augustine’s thought are a massive knowledge of the Bible, seriously thought through.
Augustine is a user of the Bible, not a pure scholar of it. The issue of use of texts is at
once crucial and yet generally neglected by scholars in all fields. W ider consideration
of what medieval people wanted these texts for and how they were used would bring
rich rewards.
33 The Theology Faculty and the Uses of Scripture, in: II English (ed.), Learning In s titu tio n a liz
ed: Teaching in the Medieval University (Notre Dam e, in press).
W hat was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?
This brings me to my final suggestion for the future- to ask for ,
15
,
thc books of biblical scholarship, in the shape of the objects themselves W e Trc h,
1 ''
fortunate in possessing many of the actual tools with whirh '
1• .
hugely
tentions, and yet the difficulties of manuscript studies m 4 > • -
m‘
I end, then, by asking for a study of the Bibles of the Middle A g c f V neg,eCted fid d '
John Van Engen
Studying Scripture in the Early University
In the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the teaching of Scripture assumed
an institutional form invested with magisterial and judicial power. Fourteenth-century
schoolmen took the results for granted. Around 1301 Master James of Viterbo, at
tempting to define the true character of “Christian government” in the midst of grave
conflict between pope and king, confidently wove into his argument two similes: Spir
itual power is to temporal, he explained, as the architectual art is to all subservient
crafts and as the science of Scripture is to all ancillary and humanly constructed scien
ces. Just as learning in Holy Scripture (scientia sacrae scripture) sits in judgm ent on
learning in the material sciences (quamlibet scientiam physicam), so spiritual power
judges physical power1. Three generations later, Pierre d’Ailly, a more famous Parisian
master about to become university chancellor, set out the principles governing judge
ments rendered in matters of faith. Supreme judicial authority belonged to the pope,
as did a lesser and subordinate judicial authority to bishops, each to define matters of
the faith as judges (iudicialiter definire). Doctors of theology, by comparison, were to
define matters of the faith as teachers (doctrinaliter definire) because the faith rested on
Sacred Scripture and masters of theology had the task of teaching it (ad doctores theologos perlincl sacram scripturam docere). This made masters of theology and preachers of
Scripture, as it were, the highest order in the Church (quasi précipitas in ecclesia). In an
ideal world, bishops defining judicially and masters defining doctrinally would coin
cide in one and the same person2. This same outlook informed Jean Gerson’s tractate
' “Q uem adm odum enim scientia sacre scripture iudicat quam libet scientiam physicam, sic spiritualis potestas iudicat quam libet temporalem. ...Ita ergo se habet spiritualis potestas ad temporalem, sicut ars architectonica ad subservientem, et sicut scriptura sacra ad scientias hum anitus in
ventas, quibus utitur in sui obsequium ad manifestationem sue veritatis.” IL-X . Arquillière, Le
plus ancien traité de PÉglise. Jacques de Viterbe De rcgimine christiano (1301-1302) (Etude des
sources et édition critique, Paris 1926) 234, 236.
2 “Prima ergo conclusio est, quod ad sanctam sedem apostolicam pertinet auctoritate iudiciali suprema circa ea quae sunt fidei iudicialiter definire. ...Secunda conclusio est, quod ad episcopos
catholicos pertinet auctoritate inferiori et subordinata circa ea quae sunt fidei iudicialiter definire.
Tertia conclusio est, quod ad doctores theologos pertinet determinatione doctrinali et scholastica
circa ea quae sunt fidei doctrinaliter definire. Et haec probatur, quia ad eos pertinet ea quae sunt
fidei per m oduni doctrinae determinare et doctrinaliter definire ad quos pertinet sacram scrip
turam docere ... Constat autem quod officium praedicatoris est maxime praccipuum theologiae,
sicut et expositio scripturae, et per consequens patet, quod doctorum theologorum officium est
quasi praecipuum in ecclesia. D icitur autem non simpliciter sed ‘quasi praecipuum ’ propter offi
cium episcoporum, quod maius est. Et ideo licet episcopale et doctorale officium convenienter si-
Jo h n Van Engen
18
on the examination of doctrine in the Church, reviewed in the context of heretical
groups assailing magisterial authority. The primary issue was whether a teaching con
formed to Scripture; of this the examinator authenticus et fin alis index was to be a
general council, the examinator iuridieus the pope, the examinator iuridieus et ordina
rias the local prelate, the examinator partim authenticus, partim doctrinalis a licensed
theologian, and the examinator per mod um doctrinae anyone sufficiently versed in
Holy Scripture3.
The m inor premise in each of these arguments about judicial authority must be sin
gled out for closer scrutiny in this essay: their assumption that scriptural learning
came first in Church and university and that doctors of theology came first in scriptur
al learning. This assertion, treated as self-evident, sprang from the m uch deeper claim
that Scripture authoritatively revealed and defined ultimate truth, speaking the very
words of God authored by G o d ’s own Spirit4. That conviction, already a thousand
years old, generated a new institutional em bodim ent in the twelfth and thirteenth cen
turies. A licensed corporation of theologians, first formally recognized as such in ex
tant documents after the year 1200, based its claim to status in Church and university
upon its unique expertise in Scripture. For these masters of theology exegesis repre
sented more than a spiritual gift or personal vocation: studying and interpreting Scrip
ture inhered in a formal office endowed with specific powers and responsibilities.
Claims for the preeminence of scriptural study in Church or university turn out to
work much like those made for spiritual authorities in medieval politics: the more
high-sounding the claim in theory, the less realizable, often, in practice. Theologians, it
now appears, were relatively few in number, far out-numbered by graduates from the
arts and law faculties, probably as well by graduates from the medical faculty. After the
thirteenth
century they came almost exclusively from
the ranks of professed
Fortsetzung Fußnote von Seite 17
m u l in una persona concurrent, quia valde conveniens sit, ut eadem persona sim ul possit iudicialiter et sciat doctrinaliter circa ea quae sunt fidei diffinire..
Carolus du Plessis d ’Argentré, Collcctio iudiciorum de novis erroribus, Tom us 1 (Paris 1726) 76-77.
1 “A ttendendum in examinatione doctrinarum prim o et principaliter si doctrina sit conformis
Saerae Scripturae, tarn in se quam in m odi traditione. ...Exam inator authenticus et finalis iudex
doctrinarum fidem tangentium concilium est generale; deducitur haec consideratio primitius
auctoritate generalis concilii Constantiensis.... Examinator iuridieus doctrinarum fidem tangen
tium , papa est supremus in terris post generale concilium uel cum ipso; deducitur auctoritate canotuim cum ratione morali praesupposita fide. ...E x a m in a to r iuridieus et Ordinarius d o c trin a ru m
huiusm odi est praelatus quilibet in sua iurisdictione, cui com m unicat inquisitor; deducitur haec
consideratio per canónicas m onitiones et censuras praelatorum .... Examinator partim authenti
cus, partim doctrinalis huiusm odi doctrinarum est quilibet in sacra theologiae facilitate licentiatus
aut doctor; deducitur haec consideratio per form am verborum quibus datur licentia magistralis....
Examinator huiusm odi doctrinarum est per m o d um doctrinae quilibet in sacris litteris sufficienter eruditus; deducitur haec consideratio per illam maxim a Philosopho positam, quod eorum
quae quisque novit est iudex bonus.” ; Je a n Gerson, De examinatione doctrinarum ; ed. Glorieux,
Oeuvres complètes (Paris 1973) 9.465, 459-62.
4 P aul de Vooght, Les sources de la doctrine chrétienne (Bruges 1954); H erm ann Scbiissler, Der
Primat der Heiligen Schrift als theologisches und kanonistisches Problem im S p ätm itte lalte r
(Wiesbaden 1977).
19
religious. Lawyers and medical doctors earned more income and thereby lured away
many bright young men, a regular source of com plaint5. Lawyers generally exercised
greater influence in the Church, filling many of the major posts and managing most
day-to-day affairs. That is to say, the claim to status for masters of Scripture, however
seriously intended, was not easily translated into social and institutional reality.
That claim, moreover, was also challenged from within. Roger Bacon, among others,
issued a famous protest in the 1260s, just as the faculty of theology reached full
strength in Paris:
The fourth sin in the study of theology is that a master’s summary (summit magistralis), namely,
the Book of Sentences, is preferred to the Text set for the faculty of theology. After lecturing on
(legerit) the Sentences, the man presumes himself a master oi theology, although he has not
heard lectures (and¡at) on a thirtieth part of his Text. A t Paris and everywhere, a bachelor who
reads the Text yields in position (succtimbil) to the lecturer on the Sentences, who is honored and
preferred in all things. For at Paris he who lectures on the Sentences has at will the m ain hour for
lecturing, also a servant, and a room with the religious. But he who lectures on the Bible lacks
both, and begs for a lecture hour at the pleasure of the lecturer on the Sentences.6
Smalley found Bacon “extremely conservative,” even a “reactionary rebel”7. But his
complaint about the masters’ intellectual com m itm ent to the text of the Bible, what
ever its occasion or accuracy, sounds a useful warning. The study of Scripture may not
have predominated in Church and university exactly as its proponents claimed. And
yet Bacon’s very objections presumed the larger shift that underlies this paper: W hat
did it mean to make of Scripture a set textbook for lectures and to locate exegetical
expertise in a faculty of theology?
This essay, too broad in scope but thereby true perhaps in some larger way to the
spirit of Beryl Smalley, will propose that what is represented in her book as a more or
less continuously developing story m ight better be construed as two major cultural
shifts. The first, from about 1050 to 1200, involved the search for an adequate form
whereby to transform divine truth into a university discipline and Holy Scripture into
a university textbook; the second, between 1225 and 1275, worked out forms of inter
pretation and application after textbook knowledge of Scripture became the norm and
theology a recognized “science”. Too m uch of this history has been written backwards,
assuming the result and overlooking its novelty. Beryl Smalley, who challenged an
English tradition that said only politics made history, a Protestant tradition that be
rated the medieval study of Scripture, a Catholic tradition that favored philosophical
expressions of theology, and a Christian tradition that ignored Jewish interlocutors,
nonetheless herself took for granted the place and claims of “divinity,” and assumed
an identity between these medieval exegetes and the historical-critical exegetes of her
day, leaving monastic lectio to bear the burden of modern prejudice against the medie
val churchman’s reading of the Bible.
^ Be/yl,Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the M iddle Ages (Oxford 21952) 253 n. 2.
Roger Bacon, O pus Minus, ed. Brewer, 328; cited here from Heinrich D e n i fie and Emile CbateIftin, Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, vol. 1 (Paris 1889) 473-74 [hereafter CUP],
Smalley, (n. 5 above), 330.
Jo h n Van Engen
20
Just a hundred years ago, Denifle created a stir by proving that the Bible remained
the basic textbook in the medieval theological curriculum, a point reemphasized re
cently by W illiam Courtenay8. But apart from the circle of Peter the Chanter in the la
ter twelfth ccntury9, what we know about a corporate faculty of theology rests prima
rily on later medieval evidence: an “order of reading” for each Parisian faculty dated
about 1335, provisions for a new faculty of theology at Bologna in 1362 based on stat
utes prevailing at Paris, the same for Toulouse in 1366, an additional collection of stat
utes (possibly produced by a reform commission) from 1388-89, followed by those of
all the new theological faculties formed at the end of the fourteenth century. At Paris
in the thirteenth century - so one may extrapolate - a theology student, aged 21 or 22
was to hear lectures for four years on Scripture before advancing to two years on the
Sentences-, at Oxford students first read the Sentences and then the Scriptures. Regular
clergy (particularly Dominicans) were to hear lectures on the entire Bible; secular
clergy on only selected books of the O ld and New Testaments. As bachelors they were
themselves to give “overview” courses on the Bible (cursorie) for two or three years, on
the Sentences for two years. Theological masters, whatever else they taught or wrote
were to hold their ordinary lectures on the Bible. The Bible, that is to say, remained
the set text for theologians, even if the evidence - because it was so obvious? - is
sometimes indirect.
Teaching Scripture, scholars have frequently intimated, was nothing new in itself. It
built on a long tradition beginning with Augustine’s influential De doctrina Christiana
and Cassiodorus’ Institutiones, carried forward in the Carolingian reform by Rhabanus
Maurus’ De institutione clericorum'0 and come to fruition in the early twelfth-centurv
program outlined in H ugh of St. Victor’s Didascalicon, with re-statements of such ide
als everywhere in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, both by a Benedictine like R u
pert of Deutz and a mendicant schoolman like Bonaventure11. But scholars should not
glide too easily from ideal programs outlined in late antiquity to institutional practice
in the high Middle Ages. Such programs m ight well serve as a schoolmaster’s way of
venerating the sacred Book, but before the twelfth century rarely determined in prac
tice the exact approach to teaching its text or even prescribed treating the sacred book
8 Heinrich Denifle, Q uel livre servait de base à l’enseignement des maîtres en théologie dans
(’Université de Paris?, in: Revue Thomiste 2 (1894) 149-61; W illia m Courtenay, The Bible in the
Fourteenth Century: Some Observations, in: C hurch History 54 (1985) 176-87.
9 Jo h n W. B aldw in, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and
his Circle, 2 vols. (Princeton 1970) 63-170.
10 Thus in the De clericorum institutione 3.1,2: PL 107.377, 378: “Nec enim eis aliqua eorum ignorare licet cum quibus vel se vei subiectos instruere debent, idest, scientiam sanctarum scripturarum, puram veritatem historiarum, modos tropicarum locutionum , significationem rerum mystiearum, utilitatem o m n iu m disciplinarum , honestatem vitae in probitate m o rum , elegantiam in
prolatione serm onum , discretionem in exhibitione dogm atum , differentiam m e dicam inum con
tra varietatem aegritudinum . .. .F undam entum autem status et perfectio prudentiae scientia est
sanctarum scripturarum, quae ab ilia incom m utabili aetertiaque sapientia profluens...”.
" H ug h i f Si. Victor, Didascalicon, ed. Charles Harry Buttimer (W ashington, D.C. 1934); Rupert
of Deutz, De sancta trinitate et operibus eius 40: C C C M 24.2039-73; Bonaventura, De reductione artium ad theologicam, ed. A. Sepinski, in: Bonaventura, Opera Theologica Selecta, vol. 5
(Quaracchi 1964) 217-28.
21
text To argue that the arts be directed to the elucidation of the scriptural text
Tkcs on new meaning when that text predominates mostly in prayer and preaching
rather than in school.
There was another problem too, acknowledged already by Augustine, central for
these masters. Scripture was not only the source of all truth and wisdom; it was also, as
Rh'ibinus Maurus further instructed his clerics, difficult, and so obscure in many pla
ces that those reading it brashly (temcre leguni) would get lost (literally, “covered over” :
obtlucunt) in the densest of fogs'2. Four hundred years later Bonaventure expressed the
very same concern to his young clerics by way of another image, that of a dark and
tangled wood (n. 69 below). A book put at some remove from the ordinary classroom
by virtue of its sacred character, perceived additionally as confusing for the uninitiated,
Scripture hardly seemed the right book for the ordinary classroom. Neither in celebra
ting Scripture’s authority nor in warning about its difficulty had Rhabanus invited
clerics to make of it a public textbook. During the Carolingian era, in Riche’s view, the
higher faculties barely developed in any systematic fashion1’. Monks carefully copied
the text of Scripture, assembled the relevant teachings of the fathers in running com
mentaries, sometimes inserted questiones taken over from Augustine, and occasionally
reflected independently. But the teaching of Scripture, beyond the most fundamental
forms, remained a protected enterprise pursued within the privileged confines of ab
bey and cathedral, exceptionally, perhaps, at the royal court.
Consider, then, the dimensions of the cultural shift suggested by this letter from the
1080s. A German student wrote home urging a friend to re-join him , presumably in
France, where their teacher had just completed a course of lectures on the Psalms and
was about to take up the Epistles, on which he was reputed to be abler than all others.
The friend that had left, the addressee, planned to take up arms in Saxony14. Imagine
this choice: join the army or hear lectures on Scripture. This passage, from a letter pre
served in the Hildesheim collection, should impress us more than it has. Cathedral
schools in the Empire had produced a num ber of distinguished teachers, their attain
ments rendered public in prose epistolae and in poems. Imperial monasteries inherited
from the Carolingian era and themselves produced, as Margaret Gibson has shown,
early forms of glossed Bibles with the sayings of the fathers recorded in carefully ruled
margins15. W hy should a German student, probably associated with a cathedral school,
boast about what he had discovered elsewhere, presumably in a French cathedral
town? Had he found better teachers, new texts, an entirely new culture of education or all three, with books of Scripture counting as new texts?
12 Rhabanus Ala tints, De institutionc clericorum 3.3: PL 107.380.
1J Pierre Riche, Ecoles ct enseigncment dans le haut m oyen age (Paris 1989) 280-84.
Briefe, Hildesheim no. 48, ed. C arl Erdm ann and Norbert Fickermann (M G H Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 5, 1950) 95. In the next letter (no. 49, p. 96), this same “ H ” invites another
friend to join him : “possis venire et nobiscum de divinis legere, legendo proficerc, hec differri tibi
non videtur utile.”
Margaret Gibson, The Place of the Glossa ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis, in: ¿MarkJordan and
Kent hmery Jr. (ed.), A d litteram: Authoritative Texts and Their Medieval Readers (Notre Dame
Conferences in Medieval Studies 3, Notre Dam e 1992) 5-27.
22
Jo h n Van Engen
For monks to meditate on Scripture and sing the psalms; for canons to read daily an
office comprised largely of scriptural passages; for priests to read the prescribed gospel
and epistle texts; for deacons to carry the holy book in procession, to kiss and incense it
at the altar - all this was essential to worship and strengthened conviction that the Bible
was indeed G od’s own book. Hugh of St Victor, moreover, taught the Bible in a setting
as cloistered - or uncloistered - as that of Rupert of Deutz in Liège, one professed reli
gious explaining Holy Scripture to others. Even a figure like Anselm of Laon is tradi
tional enough if he taught future churchmen within the cathedral precinct - as Smalley
also recognized. But to carry that Book out into a dusty street, to explain it word by word
and argue over its difficult passages in the same way teachers of the liberal arts handled
books written by pagan authors - this was new. For someone to choose between arms in
Saxony or biblical lectures in France signaled a new era, perhaps in personal choice
and social mobility, certainly in the culture of teaching the Bible.
In Abelard’s account, casualness increased the shock. O n a dare and partly as a joke
(nos scholares invicem iocaremm), he took up lecturing on a difficult book of the Bible
last treated authoritatively by Gregory the Great, as if that text were no less accessible
that act no less thinkable, than taking up some rare and abstruse logical tractate by
Aristotle, even though he had no training in Scripture as such him self16. Elsewhere
students appear to have followed lectures in the arts or in Scripture with little sense of
crossing important boundaries. John of Salisbury followed Gilbert of Poitiers in logic
and in “divinity” ; he had two other teachers only in “theology,” and these he listed
last17 - by way of suggesting some ordered progression to his studies, out of deference
to theology’s claims, or simply by accident? W illiam of Tyre also began with teachers
in the liberal arts, but listed his teachers in theology amidst others, including teachers
of civil law18. Students could apparently choose to hear lectures on Boethius’ Arithme
tic
ot
S t.Jo h n ’s Gospel according to inclination, all given within a few paces of each
other on the Isle de Paris.
Was it a matter of opening wide the doors of abbey or cathedral, or was the Bible it
self carried out into the noisy streets, taught in a public stall to those who paid? One
essential pre-condition may have been the overwhelmingly clerical cast of learning in
the north. These were nearly all people preparing to enter the Church, and their lec
tures in the early days often took place in or near churches or on properties connected
to churches. This allowed for real ambiguity in what was taught in the language which
was, after all, the sacred tongue. Yet this remained an unusual act, a profaning of the
divine W ord according to some conservatives, and for another two hundred years only
at Paris - and Oxford by derivation - did a group of teachers form a separate faculty
dedicated to the sacred page. It was the exception, even if it later became the rule or at
least the model.
The new masters of Scripture presented the Holy Book as a text on which they read
lectures (legere, lectum) meant for students to hear (aitdirc). Their explanation of the
text they called “glossing”. The word appears everywhere in twelfth-century descrip16 Abelard, Historia calamitatum, e d .J. M o n frin (Paris 1959) 68-69.
17 Jo h n o f Salisbury, Metalogicon 2.10: e d .J. B. H all, C C C M 98.70-73.
18 W illia m o f Tyre, C hronicon 19.12: ed. R. B. C. Huygens, C C C M 63A.879-82.
23
of the new scriptural teaching, including Abelard’s treatment of Ezechiel. AbeT rd described his own “reading” as “glossing” (secundum hunc nosire lectionis tenorem
’ ?r, J o u m lum) and referred to students copying down his glosses (de Iranscribendis glo>\i‘> J\ method com monly applied to school texts at least since Carolingian times,
" J ssing had as its chief point to explain a text word by word. As the canonist Hugucl i o put it in the later twelfth century, the gloss is “an exposition that attends not only
tb the m e a n in g of a statement but also to its words”20. Some Carolingian scholars,
w o rk in g privately or in monastic circles, had begun to treat selected passages of Scrip
ture this way21. As heirs to those Carolingians, German monks and clerics prepared
Bibles with glosses usefully arranged in marginal columns. Between about 1050 and
1150, how ever, lecturing on Scripture, or as they said, “glossing” it, became a public
affair in northern French schools, attracting auditors with no more difficulty than lec
tures on logic and rhetoric.
Scholars since Smalley have inevitably focused upon the remarkable material evi
dence: texts of the Bible, or rather of books of the Bible, with explanatory words af
fixed between the lines or in the margins22. This was the written digest of an exchange
between master and student that contemporaries found intellectually stimulating: to
learn Scripture as a text with words, sentences, and paragraphs requiring detailed ex
planation. Their perception of this text m ust have been quite different from that of the
Scripture they had experienced as sung prayer or as church readings or as a repository
of hidden meanings. The Sacred Page was for these young clerics at once too familiar
and too unfamiliar. They would have heard parts of the Bible read or sung every day of
their lives from earliest childhood; its language would have fundamentally shaped
their Latin tongues. Yet they would never have read all the Bible through, or possibly
even one book from beginning to end, and probably could not have listed books in
some accepted order. W hat was all too familiar in the form of prayer, story, moral ad
m onition, and sacred language remained all too unfamiliar as a text with a beginning
and end, as words and sentences with specific meanings. It is striking that the Latin
term for this systematic reading became in serie. Robert of Melitn, writing in the
1150s, gives us an angry and exaggerated, but altogether amusing, picture of masters
lecturing away day and night, running through the text (pagincim tmnsciirrtint) of both
testaments, much preferring to know everything and where everything is rather than
truly to know anything in its place23. He calls this new' form of teaching, which has
19 See n. 16 above.
“ Guy Lobr,chon, Une nouvcaute: Les gloses de ia Bible, in: Purre Riche and Guy lo b rk h o n Le
Moyen Age et la Bible (Paris 1984) 95-114, see 97 n.4.
John Lonircni, The Biblical Glosses of H aim o of Auxerre and Jo h n Scottus Eriugena itr Spe
culum 51 (1976) 411-34.
’
'
R’l "?ee now ^ le m fo d u c tio n by Margaret Gibson and K a r l fried Froeblich to the facsimile edition
cm 1a Latma cum Glossa Ordinaria (1992), together with G ib so n’s “The Twelfth-Century Glossed
“ ‘ole , in: Studia Patristica 23 (1989) 232-44.
in ^S e d quom odo eos argucre aliquis audebit qui die ac nocte absque ulla intermissione lectioni
que*'11)
utr'usclue testamenti paginam transcurrunt, earumque expositores a principio uscu| C . mcm CIehro tcvolvunt, a m inim is inchoantes sine rnora ad summos utpote n u llu m obstami mvcmentes conscendunt? M alunt quippe om nia scire quam aliquid et ubique esse quam
24
Jo h n Van Engen
gained great popular favor, the stuff of boys, mere reciting (est novum clocendigenus miper exorlum, immo puerile reeitandi stuelium, populan' favore ... immoderate elevat uni).
They prefer to read away publicly rather to gain meaning (sententia) from the text2*.
Challenged on a point of detail such as whether Moses or Ezra came first, they forget
and can barely recite the number, order, and names of their texts25.
Robert engaged in hyperbole, but he made an important observation. For all their
fame and popularity these new masters did not truly get at the biblical text as such,
which for him meant its theological meaning. These first masters of Scripture were
rather masters of manipulating glosses and expositors. Called such in his day (“masters
of the glosses”), they gained their doctoral chairs and their fame by sorting out glosses,
affixing each in its right order to its correct text, thereby overturning the proper order,
putting first (the gloss) what should be secondary, and second what should be first (the
text)26. These stubborn and impudent patrons of glosses (obstinati patroni el propugnatores protervi), ready to defend them with blood, even insisted upon reading and inter
preting glosses when they made no sense, or opposed the text in sense, or were more
difficult to understand than the text itself27. They treated as the very “holy of holies”
(sánete sanetarum) the glosses on the Psalter and the Epistles28.
This massive attack on the glossators, those masters on whom Smalley spent so
much of her labor, reveals much about the true character of biblical teaching roughly
three generations after its beginning. Teaching the Bible publicly was novel in form,
and perhaps in intellectual intent; yet in practice it was more tradition-bound than
historians since Smalley often maintain. For the taught Bible, as distinguished from
the sung Psalter or the read Gospel or the meditated text, was a glossed Bible, and re
mained so to the end of the Middle Ages, the distinguishing mark of the learned mas
ter. W hen masters taught the text, they taught it by way of glosses that directed its
meaning; when students memorized the text, they memorized it with the gloss, as any
Fortsetzung Fufinote von Seite 23
alicubi...". Raymond M. M arlin , Oeuvres de Robert de Melun (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense
21, Louvain 1947) vol. 3, 7.
24 “Nam non student, sed studiosi haberi appetunt, neque legunt ut intelligant, quia m alunt non
intellexisse qtiam non legisse. N on enim vitio ducunt legere et non intelligerc...” : Ibid. 6.
2;> “...qui spatiosa volumina veteris et novi testamenti in brevi transcurrunt...neque enim in eis
hospitari sciunt aut volunt, sed continua transcursionis veloeitate omnia preteriré. ...Q uo m o d o
enim quiequam eos intellexisse credendum est, qui librorum quorum se non solum auditores sed
etiam diligentissimos expositores esse iactitant, ordinis, numeri, no m in um q ue sunt ignari?”
Ibid. 8.
26 “...a textu et serie ad docendutn susceptis ad glosas convertunt, que recto docendi ordinc o b
sérvate textui subservierent et non inquisitionem cognitionis preeederent. ...Nee hee sufficit ratio
ad asserendum aliquem aut Psalterium scire aut A postolum intelligere vel ad eorum doctrinan!
sufficere, quia glosas legit aut ubi legende sint distinguir, quoniam quos nunc famam in talibus
usque ad astra extollit, eosdem in caiiginosissimis ignorando tenebris publica voce imrnergit.
...A t quisquís solum glosillas scit recitare, easque per puncta dividere, et que quem textum legat
assignare, quam quam nee textum construendi scientism habeat, ncc iacultatem glosas ad intelligentiam [textus] exponendi, huic mirabili et super om nia laudabili venerabilis doctoris honor defertur. Hie alter Augustinus vocatur, seeundus leronimus habetur...”. Ibid. 10-12,
27 Ibid. 16-18.
28 Ibid. 23,
25
reader of later medieval sum mat' and sermons fully knows. For masters of the Sacred
Page the biblical page became nearly unimagineable, even unthinkable, apart from its
interlinear and marginal glosses. It was the glossed Bible, the prerogative of masters
and students, that supposedly unqualified lay men and women were forbidden to read
and translate in the later Middle Ages, not texts which the councils called simple
devout books.
The masters presumed what they did, and rarely described it. In Parens scientiarum,
1231, Gregory IX admonished students and masters of theology at Paris to busy them
selves worthily in the faculty they had professed, that is, not to make vain display in
philosophical matters, not to take up questions that could not be resolved by way of
theological books (libri tbeologici) and the tractates of the fathers. Pope Gregory proba
bly meant in fact “biblical books” and “received authorities”, even if his expression was
not so clear as Clement V i’s, who in 1346 admonished masters and students unam big
uously not to abandon the text us Bibliae and the fathers for intricate and vain philoso
phical questions29. For twenty years later (February 1252) the Parisian secular theolo
gians declared that no bachelor could be promoted to a chair unless he had first
proved himself by diligently lecturing on more than one book of “Theology glossed”
(,aliqtios libros Iheologie glosatos) and on the Sentences (et Sententias) in the classroom
of a ruling master30 - an attempt at guild control over the right to lecture on the Bible
and the Sentences. “Theology” meant the Bible, and the text taught was a glossed Bi
ble. This is confirmed by the statutes of 1366 (which may well retain older features).
There a biblical cursor is called a cursor Tbeologie, and he is instructed to lecture (read)
in an orderly fashion, expounding the text and setting out the noteworthy glosses as
had always (antiquitus) been done in this faculty31. That exact same description probably a phrase older than 1366 - became the first item in the oath required of
bachelors, and it appeared again in a later set of statutes where it was aimed against
those skipping ahead (per sallum ) without having completed this program32. Canon
lawyers at Paris, it m ight be noted by way of parallels, also taught from a glossed text;
their ordinary lectures on the Decretals (their basic text) were to treat in orderly fash
ion text, gloss, and other pertinent material33.
In sum, in keeping with inherited practice, that of the twelfth-century schools R o
bert of Melun described, teaching “theology” at Paris meant in the strictest sense
teaching the Bible together with its noteworthy glosses. A rotulus from 1349, bearing
the names of theology graduates for whom the University sought promotions and po
sitions by way of the papal court, described a certain man as teaching Scripture at
29 C U P 1.138, 2.588.
59 “...et concorditer inhib itu m , ne aliquis bachellarius in theologica facilitate promoveatur ad cathedram, nisi prius seipsum examinaverit, saltern aliquos libros Theologie glosatos et Sententias
in scolis alicuius magistri actu regentis diligemev l e g e n d o . C U P 1.226. The editors, notably,
also misunderstood, capitalizing “Sententias” but not “Theologie”.
31 “...statuimus quod cursores Theologie suos cursus legant ordinate, textum exponendo et glosas notabiies declarando, secundum m o d u m antiquitus in dicto studio approbatum .” C U P 3.143.
” CU P 2.705, 3.698.
...betie temperate et decenter, et complere cum textibus, glosis, et materia recte occurenti
sine vcrborum superfluitate...”. C U P 3.646.
26
Jo h n Van Engen
Amiens in the manner of the Parisian university, lecturing on the Bible and its glosse
( legendo bibliam cum glosis secundum morem studii parts tensis)’4. This affects what so t
of book students would have brought to class, as Dom inican statutes from the thir
teenth century required. Theologians in 1366 stipulated that students bring or hav
brought the Bible35. But to follow lectures these beginners would need a glossed Bible
and so it was not just laziness or privilege that allowed such a great folio volume to “be'
carried” for them. Miethke doubts that students actually bothered with bringing the
books30. However that may be, its pedagogical purpose is clear.
The teaching of the Bible, then, in its routine form, as distinguished from the work
of exceptional persons, meant not so much arranging glosses, as Robert charged, but
glossing glosses, interpreting or re-interpreting the interpretation provided by “saints”
or “expounders” in order to wring better meaning from the text itself. This is exactly
the way Peter Abelard, with all his bragging and claims to novelty, had already de
scribed his own teaching of Ezechiel. He had egged his fellow students on by marvel
ing that the writings or glosses of the saints (scripta vel glosc sanctorum) did not suffice
in reading the Bible themselves, that they still needed a teacher. So they dared him to
try. Abelard took up the expositor at once, which is to say, a text of Ezechiel glossed
probably with excerpts from Jerome, and invited them to hear him lecture. They
counseled him to take more time solidifying his sense of the inherited exposition (in
expositione rirnanda et firm anda). But Abelard stubbornly began glossing in their way
(me secundum b u m nostre lectionis tenorem a d glosandum compellerent), trusting, as he
said, more to genius (ingenium) than to custom (iisum); by the third lecture students
were so impressed that they hastened to transcribe his glosses37. This same pattern fits
exactly Herbert of Bosham’s description of the copy he had prepared of Peter Lom
bard’s gloss on the Psalter and the Epistles, the very texts Robert of Melun mocked.
Herbert distinguished between the slight words of Peter himself (glosatoris verbula),
said to be expanded from the older gloss of Anselm of Laon, and the authentic sayings
of the fathers which he explained or elaborated upon. Herbert additionally made these
distinctions visible on the page because even famous masters frequently confused the
one with the other, the glossator with the expositor - precisely Robert of Melun’s
charge as well38. Robert himself - this disappointed Smalley - never argued for teach-
34 C U P 2.624.
55 “...q uo d scholares qui novitcr incipiu nt audire Theologiam, primis quatuor annis portent vel
portari faciant ad scolas biblici Bibliam, in qua lectiones Biblie audiant diligcnter.” C U P 3.143,
1.385.
36 See the skeptical review by Jürgen Miethke, Die mittelalterlichen Universitäten and das gespochene W o rt (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 25, M unich 1990) 19 n. 38.
37 See n. 16 above.
38 “Preterea glosatoris verbula que frequenter autenticis doctorum dictis interserit, exponendo ea
vel addendo, et presertim que exponendo interserit, notavi attente et a serie seposita et vel inter
lineas seu extra signavi in margine, ne lector, ut sepe fit, errore expositorum alicui glosatoris verba
ascribat. Unde etiam et linea m ineo colore ducta, q uantum potui diligentius solito verba exposi
torum inter se et etiam a verbis glosatoris dixtinxi, ne cassiodorum pro augustino sive ierommo
vel glosatorem inducas pro expositore, in quo interdum non sitnpüces sed eruditiores etiam risim us lectores errasse. ...N am cum hec opera scriberet, nequaquam, sicut ipsomet referente didici,
-
27
is a bare text, as only text us or series. His point was that the gloss should
ing Scrl^je rs ta n d in g of this text, not be an end in itself or an obstacle to the text, not
¡¡id tin- ui
^ j e mass 0f m atenals like a “commentary”. Text and gloss together
an impetl
shtwW^y1^
Hugh 0
com mon meaning, the sententia of the text, the term used as well by
y jctor,i9 [n sum , teaching Scripture publicly, though a novel act reliculturally, represented no absolute break with inherited tradition. O n the
®,0llS ' tradition initially became more firmly attached to Scripture, on the handwritC0I1UA^ ’ jn schoolroom teaching, in the memory. Glossing tradition was the approved
rncan*' f°r teaching the text.
Ml this glossing and lecturing, so the story has usually been told since Smalley, cul■ ,t -d first in the production at Laon of that gloss which medieval masters came to
nl"u is “standard” (Ordinary Gloss), then its elaboration and standardization at Paris in
the following generation with the most manuscript copies produced apparently be
tween the years 1175 and 1225. Margaret Gibson has tried to transfer m uch of the
early work to Paris, possibly the circles influenced by H ugh of St. Victor40. If Gibson
and Froehlich are correct in viewing the 1480 printed edition as a relatively accurate
r e p r o d u c tio n
of the first standard gloss, in that gloss the fathers (the sancti or doctores
or exp o sito rs ) predominated and the masters, rarely or never identified, had only to
nuance or clarify. (The same pattern described by Herbert of Bosham regarding the
larger gloss.) That is to say, some kind of purge thinned or eliminated glosses from
many modern masters like Lanfranc, and placed a sea! of approval - in the face of
co m p lain ts from people like Robert of Melun - on the patristic and Carolingian inher
itance.
Gibson has further argued that this glossed Bible “was always a library text, rather
than in any sense classroom notes perpetually revised by masters and pupils alike”41.
Whatever she means by a library text in the M iddle Ages, this cannot be taken to
mean it was not an aid to teaching, even the text for teaching. “Setting forth the main
glosses” (glossas notabiles declarando) was exactly what bachelors swore to do, and
teaching glossed books of the Bible was what seculars demanded of mendicants42.
Whether every medieval scholar used exactly the same glossed text (hardly likely or
possible) is another matter. The manuscript evidence, not yet fully sifted, suggests va
riety. But henceforward familiarization with Text cum gloss became the work of bibli
cal bachelors, carsons who could “run over the Text” with beginning students, what
came to be called reading “ textualitef or “ biblicd’. W hether in giving or hearing a lec
ture, in personal reading or formal study, students learned the glossed Bible. Even if
this was now the stuff of beginners - m anipulating glosses would no longer make you
I'ortsetzung Fußnote von Seite 26
tpsi venit in mentem quod in scolis publtcis legerentur; solum ob id facta ut antiquioris glosatoris, magistri videlicet anselmi laudunensis, brevitatem elucidarent obscuram.” H. II. Glunz, H is
tory of the Vulgate in England from A lcuin to Rober Bacon (Cambridge 1933) 343.
2 iV " ril ,'"‘'i- PL 175.16-17.
(
(n. 15 above).
Gibson,
^ Gibson and Iroeblieh, (n. 22 above), vii.
See nn. 30-31 above.
Jo h n Van Engen
28
a doctor - arranging the gloss was still important work. H ugh of St. Cher and his D o
minican brothers prepared an enhanced gloss in the 1230s, what came to be called a
“postill,” apparently incorporating material from the 1180s and 1190s (such as the
commentaries by Stephen Langton), and then Nicholas of Lyra prepared another in
the 1320s incorporating, among other materials, sections from Thomas Aquinas’
summa. They sought to keep the taught text up to date in its glosses, reference materi
als, and framing interpretations.
Yet another issue complicates our picture of what teaching the Bible truly meant,
what the cultural realities were. It may be expressed in an even more obvious ques
tion: what was sacra scriptural At first glance the answer is obvious, and usually set
out in discussions of Scripture and its authority. In his widely influential De sacramentis fid ei christianae H ugh of St. Victor listed the books of the Bible at the very begin
ning. This was not a pro forma chapter, a mere concession to elementary education.
The term sacra scriptura was far more ambiguous than the English ‘Holy Scripture’; it
could also mean holy writing. That is, it could encompass the writings of the fathers
together with the decrees of councils and popes. H ugh himself made reference to this
meaning in his Didascalicon4>. Strictly speaking, he explained at the beginning of his
De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, the term applied only to works inspired by the Holy
Spirit in which all is true and good and sanctifies. However, within both the O ld and
New Testament canons he distinguished first-order and second-order books, that is,
the Law from the prophets, the Gospels from the Epistles, and then listed as third-or
der the decretals of popes (which he equated with canons of councils), followed by the
writings of the fathers. That is, he created both an absolute and a graded distinction44.
Twelfth-century scholars knew this way of thinking from Gelasius’ De libris recipiendis, which Peter Abelard reproduced at the beginning of his Sic et non. Abelard re
inforced it when he intermixed different kinds of authorities in his questions, from
scriptural texts to sayings of the fathers and conciliar decrees.
Despite all the high-sounding sayings about the authority of Scripture and this new
effort to teach the text itself, there was in practice a prioritized list of holy texts that
began with various books of the O ld and New Testaments. This inevitably raised ques
tions about ranking. In his Concord of Discordant Canons, Gratian reviewed the sour
ces of church law in an innovative opening treatise (D D . 1-20), and concluded with a
practical question: which has superior authority, the rulings of popes and councils or
13 “Sunt praeterea alia quam plurim a opuscula a religiosis viris et sapientibus diversis temporibus
conscripta, quae licet universalis ecciesiae probata non sint, tamen quia a fide catholica non dis
crepant, et nonnulla etiam utilia docent, inter divina com putantur eioquia,” Didascalion 4.1; cd.
Butlim er (W ashington, D.C. 1939) 71.
44 “In tertio ordine prim um locum habent decretalia, quos canonicos, idest reguläres appellamus.
Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, idest H ieronym i, Augustini, Ambrosii, Gregorii, Isidori, Origenis, Bedae et aliorum doctorum quae infinita sunt. Haec tamen scripta patrum in textu divinarum scripturarum non com putantur,... In his autem ordinibus, maxime utriusque testamenti, ap
parel convenientia, quia sicut post legem prophetae et post prophetas agiographi, ita post evangelium apostoli et post apostolos doctores ordine successerunt.” De scripturis 6: PL 175.15-16Com pare Rainer Benult, Gehören die Kirchenväter zur Heiligen Schrift? Z u r Kanontheorie des
H ugo von St. Viktor, in: Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 3 (1988) 191-99.
29
the scriptural expositions of Church fathers? A practical theologian, Gratian argued
that expositors m ight well surpass popes in learning (scientia) but popes and bishops
surpassed expositors in the jurisdictional power to settle cases (cattsis cliffiniendis); so
rulings outranked commentaries in settling church matters45. Scripture itself, however,
identical for Gratian with divine law, stood above both: He cited it nearly 500 times to
resolve conflicting authorities, but always within his own sayings (dicta) to help resolve
a case, never as itself a disputed authority, quite unlike Abelard. Once Gratian’s book
became the set text for canon law, every trained church lawyer worked through D.20
c.3, and memorized the pat lines of its Ordinary Gloss (as given in the 1584 edition)
summarizing the canonist Huguccio. A certain order was to be followed: Scripture, the
canons of the apostles and the councils, the decrees of popes, the writings of the
Greeks, the writings of the Latin fathers, then the exempta of the fathers - and finally
the views of seniors or superiors.
Teachers of Scripture surely knew the difference, instantly and visually, between the
text of the Bible in large letters in the center of the page and all the explanatory texts
scribbled around it. Yet in cultural practice the opening chapters of Genesis were
nearly inseparable in their memories from Augustine’s or Bede’s rendering of those
texts. This was another of Robert of M elun’s complaints, that in affirming or opposing
some dogma glosses were cited as equal in authority or greater than Gospels or Epis
tles46. Given the culture of teaching, of glossing the glosses, given the physical reality
of glossed bibles as the required classroom text and basic reference manual, it took
conscious effort to separate out the text itself, to go after textual meaning in its own
right, to yield to its distinctive authority. There are two famous incidents involving
Rupert of Deutz about 1116-17 in dispute with clerics in Liège, some probably
trained at Laon. First on the question of Judas’ presence at the Last Supper, then on
the question of interpreting the meaning of “light” in Gen. 1:3, Rupert departed from
the teachings of Augustine, which these clerics held up against him . Frustrated, R u
pert declared that Augustine was not in the canon of Scripture and deserved no such
authority. This, these student-clerics proclaimed in horror, was an unheard-of heresy.
Rupert held that heresy was to contradict the canonical Scriptures. But in the end he
was saved only by uncovering a countervailing authority47. At least in the case of the
text on the creation of light, the masters almost certainly knew Augustine’s teaching
more from glossed Bibles than from a careful reading of Augustine.
To see the Bible as singular in its authority, and as a text in its own right, was not an
instantaneous achievement. It was only after 1200 that Parisian masters, with perhaps
Stephen Langton leading the way, first decided to divide the text itself into units and
45 G ratianns, Decretum D.20 d.a.c. 1: ed. E m il Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici (Leipzig 187981) 1.65. See B rian Tierney, Sola Scriptura and the Canonists, in: Collectanea Stephan Kuttner I
= Studia Gratiana 11 (1967) 347-66.
4<> M artin, (n. 23 above), 19.
‘A t illi me ex hoc diffamare coeperunt tanquam haereticum, qui dixissem non esse in canone
beatum A ug ustinum .” “Haeresis, inquam , est contradicere sanctae et canonicae scripturae.” PL
170.492, 496.
Jo h n Van Engen
30
to number them consecutively for ease of reference*8. It was a generation later that the
Paris stationers began to produce one-volume, hand-held (sometimes duodecimo size)
texts of Scripture - a visual or physical testament, if you will, to this effort to recover
the text alone and to put all its books and pericopes together as one text. Precisely be
cause it was the authoritative source of Christian culture, it came to these masters
weighed down, or if you like over-written, with centuries of tradition, which masters
could gloss, amplify or nuance, but could hardly reject outright. The m onk in his cell,
meditating upon some massive codex of the biblical text, was in some sense freer.
The work of the twelfth century was to put in place the text itself as a taught text
together with the glosses which, literally, framed its meaning. Scripture was not just
a great repository of hidden meanings, the basis for preaching, the source of chants
and prayers; it was a set text for lectures, its words and meanings disputed seriatim
by university masters. But this only set the stage for the question of how licensed
masters, as distinguished from contemplative monks or relatively unlearned preach
ers, were to derive meaning from this text. Masters both faced and finessed this in
terpretive question in the course of the thirteenth century. In keeping with the
theme of institutionalization and its cultural impact, this essay will next - and briefly
- suggest the implications for the taught Bible in deriving the literal, allegorical, and
tropological senses.
A glossed or taught Bible, sometimes with the literal and the spiritual explanations
intermixed, did not in itself yield a vision of Scripture as a historical text with a literal
meaning, though achieving that as foundational was plainly a part of the masters’
glossing intent. The principle was not new: H ugh of St. Victor took it over from
Augustine and re-emphasized it, as did commentators outside the schools such as R u
pert of Deutz. The first real attempt, however, to pull together what the letter of Scrip
ture taught, its plain historical meaning, came with the work of Peter Comester in the
second half of the twelfth century. His fellow lecturers on Scripture urged him to con
struct an intelligible historical account from amidst the diffuse mass of Text and glos
ses they were lecturing on49. Students found in his book, culled from available glosses
and commentaries, including Victorine materials, the best opportunity yet to grasp the
whole of Scripture presented manageably as a historical narrative. The original exegetical activity was hidden from sight in a relatively smooth narrative that did not visibly
record the interweaving of text, gloss, and exposition - the exact opposite of what
Herbert of Bosham had wanted to achieve. This re-arranged gloss of glosses itself be
came a taught text in the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries and sometimes ac
quired glosses. Its very name (historia scholastica) suggests how contemporaries and
posterity construed it: This was the schoolmen’s reconstruction of scriptural “historia".
The shift to the literal sense as foundational arose in part from a self-conscious exegetical program, a repudiation of endless “unscientific” spiritual interpretations, and in
48 [.aura Light, Versions et revisions du texte biblique, in: La Moyen Age et la Bible, 85.
49 See D a v id Luscombe, Peter Comestor, in: The Bible in the Medieval W o rld : Essays in Memory
of Beryl Smalley (Oxford 1985) 109-29; and for its enormous impact in vernacular translation,
James H. Morey, Peter Comestor, Biblical Paraphrase, and the Medieval Popular Bible, in: Specu
lum 68 (1993) 6-35.
31
part from the cultural shift that made of Scripture, hence its -words and sentences, a
classroom textbook. Genuinely original work, such as that by Andrew of St Victor,
went on outside the school as such in commentary form. But the pedagogical point
that lectures should rest on the primary sense of the words, that this was the text to be
taught, gained general acceptance, even if later masters like Nicholas of Lyra com
plained that more still needed doing to achieve real comprehension of the letter. Peter
the Chanter and Stephen Langton, who presumably had as yet no biblical bachelors
working under them, still glossed the whole biblical text literally and spiritually. In the
thirteenth century, however, or more accurately, under the aegis of the corporate guild
of theological masters, bachelors usually assumed the task of taking students seriatim
through the biblical “letter”. Masters com m only taught individual books’0 at a more
leisurely pace, but such a “reading” (lectura), focused on the literal or plain meaning,
allowed relatively little space for detailed theological investigation. Many apparently
glossed the Text cum gloss and thought little more of it, never bothering to perfect or
publish such lectures - m uch as professors today teaching basic courses.
For those who took seriously their responsibilities as doctors of the Sacred Page,
deeper hermeneutical questions arose concerning what could be ascribed to the literal
sense. This question proved crucial theologically, and Minnis has traced out the major
teachings51. Hugh of St. Victor had pleaded for a better and more extensive reading of
the literal sense as foundational: do not despise the humble things which God has
placed there for the carnal senses as a kind of image of things spiritual52. But close
reading of the biblical text by several generations of masters yielded many puzzles,
even embarrassments - Albert the Great listed thirteen exemplarily near the begin
ning of his Summa. So the notion of what was entailed by the literal sense, by this first
level of explication, had to be refined. After responding to various objections, Albert
defined it as what an author intended (intentio dicentis expressa in littera est HtteraHs
sensus), i , and Thomas Aquinas declared the literal sense of Scripture to be what God
the author intended, though this could well include multiple significations since God
himself grasped all things at once34. To make Scripture true and theology a science,
the master had to overcome all the confusions and distractions thrown up by its va
riety and its literal meanings to discern what the author intended; this counted as
scientific exegesis. Since, for instance, God had authored the laws of the O ld Testa
ment, there could be nothing absurd or useless or irrational about them, W illiam of
,0 W hether Masters “read” a single book or the whole Bible, depended apparently on custom,
which seems to have varied generationally; see now Courtenay, (n. 6 above).
Jl A.J. M innis, Medieval Theory of Authorship (Philadelphia 21988).
“Nc forte haec prim a doctrinae rudim ents despiciat. Neque contem nendam putet harum rerum notitiam, quas nobis sacra scriptura per prim am litterae significationem proponit, quia ipsae
sunt quas Spiritus sanctus carnalibus sensibus...quasi quaedam simulacra mysticorum intellectuum depinxit." De scripturis PL 175.14.
,J Albertm Magnus, Sum m a, Tractatus 1, q.5 c.4 ad 3: ed. Dionysius Siedler, Opera O m n ia (M u n
ster 1978) 34/1. 2 1 .
‘Quia vero sensus litteralis est quern auctor intendit, auctor autem sacrae scripturae Deus est
qui omnia simul suo intellectu com prehendit.. .si etiani secundum litteralem sensurn in una lit
tera scripturae plurcs sint sensus.” Thomas, S um m a theologiae 1 q .l a. 10.
32
Jo h n Van Engen
Auvergne argued. But in explaining and defending the literal sense, he derived from it
what he called a sermo universalis, meaning, its abiding intent, that is, the timeless tea
ching intended, say, when God prescribed circumcision or forbade idol-worship55,
Bonaventure told the masters at Paris in 1273 to study the text and know it virtually
by heart, to understand what its “ nomen” imparts. But this, he added, meant more than
just the literal sense of the Jew, for Scripture is like a lute which makes melodious har
monies only when more than one note (more than one text) is sounded at once56. The
spiritual intelligence or timeless meaning of the text (beyond the plain letter), he add
ed, would come only with the aide of the saints’ exposition (originalia sanctorum), in
effect the glosses; and since these too often proved difficult, the summae of masters
were needed for further elucidation; and since they in turn made use of philosophical
terminology, the philosophical arts were required, if dangerous and distracting. That is
to say, to render truly the text of Scripture in a master’s ordinary led lira and to make
sense of the glosses or expositions of the saints, the full theological and philosophical
program of the corporate faculty was demanded. M uch the same message governed
Bonaventure’s principium or inaugural lecture. The study of the Bible, he declaimed, is
the ultimate scienlia owing to its depth, authority, certitude, and so on, with Christ the
medium of all the sciences, containing all their truths as the New Testament is already
contained in the O ld, that is, implicitly in the letter57.
Lecture courses in the early university could therefore concentrate on literal exposi
tion, meaning, all that God the author intended to convey by way of his text both at
the time of writing and at the time of interpreting. This was not to forego many subtle
distinctions, rendered in the language of m ultiple causalities, between the primary and
secondary authors, the divine and the human, as Minnis has rightly emphasized. Yet,
as Henry of G hent put it in the introduction to his lectures on Scripture, the two tes
taments were “different parts of the same science” (D istindio diversarum partium
imius scientiae), though he too followed that declaration with a m uch more differentia
ted and complicated overview of the two covenants58. Since the masters’ G od was Tri
une, this bore upon what could be conceded to the Jews as the primary intent of the
text, even of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when, say, he gave the law or pro
phesied about a young woman with child. These masters were capable of historical dif
ferentiation and of honest respect for others, but they could not give up the meaning
of the text they were licensed to teach, nor the exegeted truths which made their
55 “Apparet igitur ex om nibus his legem iMoysi Deo authore et conditore editam esse, quare n i
hil in ea inutile, nihil supervacuum, nihil absurdum, nihil igitur in ea vel praeceptum vel prohibi
tum est, nihil vel statutum vel narratum, quod non habeat causain rationalem.” W illia m of A u
vergne, De legibus: Opera O m n ia (1674; rprt 1963) 25, 47, 45.
36 “Sim iliter in sacra scriptura saepe, prim o quis debet studere in textu et ipsum habere in
prom ptu et intelligere quod dicitur per nom en, non solum sicut ludaeus qui semper tendit ad litteralem sensum. Tota scriptura est quasi una cithara, et sicut chorda per se non facit harm oniam
sed cum aliis, similiter unus locus scripturae dependet ab alio.” Collationes 19. in: Opera O m nia,
ed. A. C, Peltier (Paris 1867) 9.122-23.
57 Bonaventure, P rincipium sacrae scripturae, ibid 9.1-16.
1,8 Henry of Ghent, Introductio generalis ad sacram scripturam, in: R. Maeken (ed.), Lectura ordinaria super sacram scripturam (Opera om nia 36, Louvain 1980) 13.
33
science preeminent in the university. This understanding of the literal sense had po
tentially the same hard edge over against heretics as well, those who read the text on
their own and won from it a different meaning. Gerson, coming at the end of this de
velopment, made it explicit in a tractate directed against contemporary heretics. The
“literal sense of Scripture”, he argued, was clear in matters of salvation and rationally
taught at universities or elsewhere with the help of trained theologians59.
W hat implicitly worried these theologians, once they had acquired this overwhelm
ing knowledge of the words and gesla in their Text, was their ability to make universal
truth claims out of such a mass of particulars, a worry reinforced, it seems to me, by a
sense of disjunction between the authority claimed for this book and the familiarity
borne of routinely reading its text letter by letter. Masters and students were further
confounded by the impact of an Aristotelian model of scientia, generating in most
thirteenth-century summae the first question, whether theologia, meaning the study of
Holy Scripture, could qualify as a science. H ow could science, Albert the Great w on
dered, be based upon gesta singularity which could not count either as intelligibilia or
as universality60? Since the intent of theology ( = Scripture) was to inform piety, he
answered, it dealt more persuasively in particulars. These were potentially universal in
nature, each historical particular, like one eclipse, teaching a more universal truth61.
The summa ascribed to Alexander of Hales had been even more specific: Other texts
recounting historical deeds intended to relate only particular deeds, but the gesta re
counted in Scripture “signified universal acts and conditions instructing hum an beings
in the contemplation of the divine by way of signifying the mysteries” ; thus the suffer
ing of Abel pointed to the suffering of Christ and the just, the malice of Cain to the
perversity of the unjust, and so on. That is to say, the story line of Scripture (historici
sacrae script nine) - what the schools taught and Peter Comestor summarized - intro
duced singular deeds to signify universals, the basis of the science62. These particulars
understood as universals could yield the nodal points of theology as a science.
All masters agreed that Scripture was to be read at more than one level. Guy of Ba~
zoehes, in his famous description of Paris in the later twelfth century, celebrated the
39 “Sensus litteralis sacrae scripturae rationabiliter explicatur apud studia generalia et in ceteris
clioecesibus nedum per totam ecclesiam, sed per dioecesanorum sententiam cum consilio doctorum theologorum in eisdem studiis degentium .” It was, moreover, “satis exprcssus in libris sacrae
scripturae vel ex illis evidenter consequatur apud eniditos in eisdem libris”. Je a n Gerson, D e
sensu litterali sacrae scripturae, in: Opera om nia, ed. Glorieux 4.336.
60 “Primus accipitur ex eo de quo est; est enim de gestis singularibus dei et sanctorum veteris et
novi testamenti, quae gesta historialiter describuntur. ...Sed de his quae num qu am intelliguntur,
non potest esse scientia; om nis enim scientia ex inteiligibilibus accipitur......... scientia omnis ex
universalibus est; gesta autem historica particularia sunt per hie et nunc determinata.” Albertns
Magnus, Sum m a theologiae tr.l q.l: ed. D. Siedler, Opera o m nia (Munster 1978) V ol.34, p. 5.
61 “Propter quod particularia sacrae scripturae potentia universalia sunt, et ex ipsis ut ex univer
salibus arguitur. Si enim semel interpositio terrae recta diametro semel facit eclipsim lunae, sequitur quod semper facit. Sic igitur et hac de causa theologia in particularibus proponitur, cum
tamen verissime sit scientia universalis.” Ibid. p. 7.
62 “In tro d u d tu r ergo in historia sacrae scripturae factum singulare ad significandum universale,
et inde est quod eius est intellectus et scientia.” Alexander o f Hales, Sum m a q. 1L (Quaracchi
1924) 2-3.
34
Jo h n Van Engen
masters of the Sacred Page as teaching three senses63. At the beginning of the Glossa
Ordinaria and of nearly all systematic summae or sentence collections after the m id
twelfth century, some question was posed about the “m odes” of reading Scripture,
distinguishing the letter from the mystery and dividing the mystery, in effect, into
faith (allegorical), charity (tropological), and hope (anagogical). Even so sober a source
as Henry of G hent’s introduction to the reading of Scripture linked the three “mysti
cal” senses to the three Christian virtues64. But thirteenth-century masters brought to
their study of the spiritual senses of Scripture more than a theological rationale. They
also devised a division of labor which has received too little notice.
If Scripture were construed as universal truths rather than as textual particulars, it
would yield “theology,” meaning now not the Book but the discipline that treated
matters to be believed. Nearly all the summaries of theology written between the early
twelfth and mid-thirteenth centuries explicitly identified this with the “allegorical”
sense of Scripture, as would Henry of Ghent. H ugh of St. Victor’s De sacramente cbristianac fidei represented, he explained by way of glossing his title and introducing his
work, “allegory” or the second stage of learning (eruditio). It presented the faith de
rived from Scripture in summary form lest those reading or hearing suffer uncertainity
and be caught up in disorder, become directionless in the midst of various books of
the Bible and gaps (divortia) between lectures65. Abelard, often credited with initiating
or accelerating a more philosophical approach to theological truth, was clear that he
prepared his “theology for scholars” as a brief summary introduction to the reading of
Holy Scripture66. The same holds for Peter Lombard who described his Sentences in its
first sentence as a iractatum sacrae pagínete concerning the veteris ac novis legis continentiam. He dealt first, drawing upon Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, with the use
and enjoyment of things as signs - what elsewhere counted as “allegory.” The connec
tion of these “sentences” back to reading Scripture would have been evident to Peter’s
readers. The authorities Peter gathered thematically around certain topics first ap
peared diffusely as marginal glosses on various texts of Scripture - a point we appre
ciate by way of Ignatius Brady’s critical apparatus67, but which students who first read
(,i “Hie fons doctrine salutaris exuberat.. .dividit tripliciter intellectum sacre pagine spiritalem in
hystoricum, allegoricum, et m oralcm .” C U P 1.56.
61 “Allegorico sensu am bulandum est per viam fidei in credendis. Tropologico am bulandum est
per viam caritatis in agendis. Anagogico autem am bulandum est per viam spei in expectandis.”
Henry of Ghent, Introductio (n. 58 above), 10.
65 “C um igitur de prim a eruditione sacri eloquii quae in histórica constat lectione, compendiosum volum en prius dictassem, hoc nunc ad secundam eruditionem - quae in allegaría est [my
emphasis] - introducendis praeparavi, in quo, si fundam ento quodam cognitionis fidei an im u m
stabiliant, ut caetera quae vel legendo vel audiendo superaedificare potuerint, inconcussa permaneant. Hanc enim quasi brevem quandam sum m am o m n iu m in unam seriem compegi, ut ani
mus aliquid certum haberet, cui intentionem affigere et conformare valeret, ne per varia scripturarum volum ina et lectionum divortia sine ordine et directione raperetur.” Hugh, De sacramentis,
PL 176.183-84.
M’ “Scolarium nostrorum petition! prout possumus satisfacientes, aliquam sacre eruditionis sum
m am quasi divine scripture introductionem conscripsimus.” Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘Scholarium ’; C C C M 13.313.
67 Ignatius Brady (ed.), Magistri Petri Lom bardi Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae (Spicilegium
35
their Scriptures text us cum glossis would have instantly recognized. He was simply
organizing thematically sententiae which, read in the circumstantial order of Scripture,
m ight seem confusing.
After the 1220’s the Sentences itself became an established textbook, the object of
teaching and commentary, and eventually, so Bacon charged68, overwhelmed the
teaching of the Sacred Page. Indeed whether students should learn first the master
Text and its glosses in all their multiplicity, or begin with the master outline, the alle
gorical teachings of the fathers systematically arranged, was a matter of difference be
tween Paris and Oxford. In time the various master grids - Peter’s Sentences, Thomas’
Summa, or Bonaventure’s Breviloquium - acquired a life of their own. This was a lux
ury and a necessity: a luxury because basic mastery of the text was now presupposed
and generally in evidence; a necessity because thorough knowledge of the Text could
confuse as well as edify. Bonaventure said so explicitly in justifying his own “Brief
W ord”. The first necessity was a thorough familiarity with the text of Scripture, a vir
tual m em orizing of it: only someone familiar with the text of Scripture could rise to its
spiritual interpretation. But because beginning theologians frequently become terrified
of Scripture as of entering some tangled, dark, and forbidding wood, and the teachings
of Scripture and the doctors seemed so diffuse (sic diffuse tradita est), Bonaventure
would provide a brief summary (aiiquid breve in summa dicerem cle veritate tbeolog ia c f9.
Learning at this more abstract level, what became know'n as theology as such, even
sometimes as sacra pagina (a movement in meaning that paralleled that in Iheologia),
represented a philosophical ordering of the allegorical reading of the Bible, of what in
the Text you were to believe. Bonaventure said this explicitly in his De rcductione artium a d theologum. The first of the spiritual senses, treating allegory or what is to be
believed (allegoricns quo docemur quid sit credendum de divinitate el humanitate), is
properly, he claims, the study of theological doctors70. This was not to deny the pri
macy of knowing the text literally, as he ever insisted; whether, with Gerson, he
thought that could suffice in refuting heretics, he never said. But among the spiritual
senses, allegory, understood as yielding the theological meaning of the text, was prop
erly the work of masters of theology. Allegory, in this view, was no longer - if it ever
had been - some free spiritual interpretation for the edification of yourself or your
hearers, some -willful exercise of the imagination. Hugh of St. Victor already criticized
sharply those “doctors of the allegories” who thought they could leap to spiritual
Fortsetzung Fuftnote von Seite 34
Bonaventurianum 5, Grottaferrata 1981), where his extensive footnote apparatus often permits
one to determine which part of the scriptural gloss first supplied the texts cited.
1,8 See n. 6 above.
69 “...nisi per assuefactionem lectionis textum et litteram bibliae com m endit memoriae; alioquin
in expositione scripturarum nunq uam poterit esse potens. ...sic qui litteram sacrae scripturae
spernit ad spirituales eius intelligentias nunq uam assurget. ...novi theologi frequenter ipsam
scripturam sacram exhorrent tanquam incertam et inordinatam et tanquam quandam silvam opacam ...”. Bonaventura, Breviloquium , Prologus 6: Opera Selecta (n. 11 above) 14, 16.
0 “Circa prim u m [sensum] insudare debet studium doctorum .” Bonaventure!, De reductione ar~
tium 5: Opera Selecta (n. U above) 221.
36
Jo h n Van Engen
meaning without grounding it in the letter71. The new masters of theology like Bonaventure now laid claim to allegory as the systematic teaching (doctrina) of Scripture,
rightly understood in Christ, grounded in but rising above the letter. Allegory is prop
erly the scientific exposition of what the Text obligates Christians to believe, or theo
logy. To com m ent on the Sentences, whether early or late, was to com m ent upon the
thematically arranged interpretative gloss of the Text.
A second spiritual meaning derived from the text was the moral or tropoiogical.
Reading Scripture as a textbook raised an important question not encountered by the
m onk meditating Scripture or the canon singing the Psalms. Once Scripture had been
reduced to the format of a textbook, the master text in the center and glosses filling
the margins, the teacher or student could well wonder what made this text different
from Vergil or Aristotle. Method and format had been taken over from the latter. The
educational experience seemed the same: Get a Latin education, learn a text, get a job
in church or chancery! Robert of Melun, at the very beginning of his Sentenlie, asked
explicitly what the difference was between the sacred writings and the writings of pa
gans, and why the writings of the O ld and New Testaments are alone called sacred and
holy72. After all, he pointed out, some pagan writings also deal with divine topics, and
yet they are not called “holy”. Scripture is holy because it alone, he asserted, of all
writings is “unshakeable”, invulnerable to heretical assault. But it is holy chiefly be
cause those who do what it teaches are made holy, participate in divinity, something
never claimed for the teaching or learning of other written texts73.
W hen monks meditated or taught Scripture in their cloisters they aimed at transfor
mation. Rupert insisted that the contemplative life meant nothing less than reading or
meditating on Scripture. The model in medieval Europe for nearly 600 years was Gre
gory the Great who aimed to wring from his teachings on the book of Job moralia,
teachings encompassing nothing less than the whole spiritual life. But how was this
second of the spiritual senses, tropologia, the Text’s teachings on what you were to do,
to be appropriated by way of a classroom? Again the thirteenth-century masters intro
duced a note of specialization, a division of labor that pointed beyond the classroom
itself, unlike monks in their cloister. Since these masters were to be preachers as well
as teachers, this sense of Scripture (quid a gas') came to expression primarily by way of
sermons, even as the littera and historia did primarily in the form of lectures and the
cdkgoria in the form of theological Senimliae. Bona venture was explicit about it: Moralis, quo docemur quomodo uivcndum sit... circa secundum [sensumj studium praedicatorum.74
Just as the allegorical sense, the materials to be believed, yielded their own genres
among professionalized teachers of Scripture, mostly summae and Sentence com m en
taries, so the tropoiogical sense yielded various manuals useful to preaching, above all
71
72
11
ad
Hugh, De scripturis 5: PL 175.13-15.
Robert of M elun, Sententiae 1.5: ed. R. M a rtin 168-69.
“Divina quiciem hac de causa ciicitur, quia ill os qui earn digne observant divinos etiicit, iciest,
divinitatis participationcm perducit. Q u o d nulli alii scripture convenire nem o qui sane mentis
sit concedit.” Ibid.
14 See n. 70 above.
37
disiinctiones. Masters of the literal and historical text had begun to list parallel texts,
aides so that one word or incident could explain another, the core of future concor
dances. Masters of the text morally interpreted created chains of texts in which similar
images appear, concatenations of possible meanings associated with particular biblical
figures. W hat had been buried in glosses and commentaries became separated out in
disiinctiones organized alphabetically for ease of reference. The existence of such
chains of texts is evident in the preacher’s manual prepared for his Dom inican breth
ren by H um bert of Romans, titled, appropriately enough, De enulitione praedicalonim.
For each status in the Church he suggested pertinent biblical theme texts and useful
images or figures. Thus the morally exhortative sense became built into the very exe
gesis of those texts. The point of tropological exegesis for these masters was applica
tion, not primarily to themselves as contemplatives, but to their hearers as those for
whom the moral sense was brought to life.
For this paper I will draw upon a single instance. Nicholas of Bayard’s mid-thir
teenth century Summa de abstinentia organizes images and texts around key moral
ideas, such as abstinence, as the subjects of preaching. For each Nicholas provided a
simple moral teaching with an exemplum or similitudo, sometimes biblical, sometimes
more homely, followed with a scriptural text used to drive home the point. The sec
tion on the “W ord of G od” (De verbo dei), for instance, dealt with the subject entirely
from a tropological or moral point of view, not as a problem of exegesis or scriptural
authority, but of listening. The point in hearing the W ord of G od was its “effect” (efficaciter, iciest, a n im i effectum). He followed with a simple similitudo and a scriptural
text:
M u ltum debet confundi clericus qui per xv annos et am plius frequentavit scolas Parisius et adhue
nescit Pater noster vel Credo suum. Sic m ulti qui frequentaverunt diu scrmonem et adhuc igno
rant q uo m o d o debent vivere, Deut. vii. Diseere ea el opere adimplete.
Item si aliquis haberet lapidem preciosum qui prevaleret o m ni auro et argento et o m nem infirmitatem, non proiceret ilium set diligenter custodiret. Sic nee debet proicere verbum dei seel
diiigenter custodire quia prevalet o m ni auro et argento sicut dicitur in Ps.: michi lex oris lu i super
m ilia a u r i el argenti. Glosa: plus diliget caritas Dei legem quam cupiditas auri et argenti.75
At the end of this manual Nicholas or his copyists provided a kind of index m atch
ing moral themes to the readings assigned for each Sunday, feastday, and saints day.
The preacher had therefore only to look up the right theme for his sermon-text on a
given day, and this little book would provide him with the images and scriptural texts
he needed to address the moral sense. This is a far more sober production than the
long chains of texts and figures found in Disiinctiones; but in so far it may also come
closer to ordinary practice of the moral sense in preaching76.
This essay has attempted, in very brief space, to suggest the dimensions of the cul
tural shift that occurred when Scripture became a textbook and theology a university
discipline. The thrust of this movement was to establish the reading of Scripture in the
J Chapter 120. The work received three early editions: Cologne 1505?, Paris 1512, Strafiburg
1518. I have made use of University of Notre Dam e, Manuscript no. 15, unfoliated.
76 Compare now
B ataillo n, Early Scholastics and M endicant Preaching as Exegesis of Scrip
ture, in: A d Litteram (n. 15 above) 165-98, with bibliography and further examples.
38
Jo h n Van Engen
schoolmaster’s way, the word by word absorption of Scripture with its marginal and
interlinear glosses, of the W ord of God, not just as divine oracles or sung prayer, but as
a text. The striking historical reality is that overnight this approach became the stand
ard for the mendicants as well, taught in their studia, and thence in some fashion for
everyone in Christian Europe. Henry of G hent asked in his Sum ma whether everyone
was now to hear this science in order to know what to believe and what to do (qutlibet
tenetur an d ire hanc scienciam, ut sciat quid credendum el quid agendum sit)? Not
everyone by way of schools, he replied, alluding in effect to the specialized meanings
associated with the schoolmen’s division of labor, but everyone in some broad fashion
befitting their estate by way of public preaching77. K now ing from Scripture what to
believe and what to do, if not in the professional sense of theology and preaching, had
become in more general ways a higher mark for all, even the “m ob” and the “simple”
who needed to know what sufficed for their salvation.
There was in all this an objectifying or reifying effect upon the work of exegesis.
The senses of Scripture yielded their own specialties: W hat you were to believe (alle
gory) reserved for theology as such in the senteniiae or the disputation, what you were
to do (tropology) reserved for preaching and its manuals. Indeed Bonaventure sugge
sted that the anagogical sense, what you were to hope for, was reserved mostly for con
templatives, making all the meditational manuals of the later M iddle Ages, in effect,
the separated out teachings on the anagogical sense of Scripture. A Rupert or Joachim
who enjoyed special revelation m ight still come along, but the spirits at work in those
revelations were now to be checked by the doctores, those who had proved their pro
fessional mastery of Scripture and its meaning, whence their alloted role in rendering
doctrinal judgement. In Nicholas of Lyra’s gloss on I Cor 12:28, which lists tasks in
the church, he interpreted “apostles” as now theologi, and Paul’s doctores or teachers glossing the Gloss, which suggested those who teach boys their letters - as now the
doctors who provide moral precepts for life, possibly artists and lawyers. Virtutes re
presented in turn those who work miracles, or by extension those who preach. The
Doctores precede the virtutes in Paul’s list, Nicholas added in his gloss, because it is a
greater thing to teach than to work miracles78. Nicholas, glossing the Gloss, made pro
fessionally trained teachers superior to those who worked miracles.
77 “...no n tarnen in scolis ubi series scripture exponitur, sed in publica predicacione ubi grosso
m odo proponitur; sufficit enim turbe et sim plicibus tantum scire de scripturis q uantum expedit
ad salutem.” Cited here by way of Gerard o f Siena, as edited by Vooght (n. 4 above) 383. Compare
now A. /. M innis, The Accessus Extended: Henry of G h e nt on the Transmission and Reception
of Theology, in: A d Litteram (n. 15 above) 275-326.
78 “...dantes praecepta moralia vivendi, vel ut dicit glo. qui pueros im bu u nt, per quos significari
possunt artistae et legistae. Is. 33c Ubi est doctor parvulorum, ubi est verba legis ponderans.” “Ex
hoc quod prius nom inavit doctores quam virtutes est argum entum quod plus est docere quam
m iracula facere.” Nicholas o f Lyra, Postilla ad I Cor. 12:28.
Christel Meier
Wendepunkte der Allegorie im Mittelalter:
Von der Schrifthermeneutik zur Lebenspraktik
Friedrich Ohly zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet
I. Allegorien aus der Alltagswelt - zur Problematik einer
historischen Konturierung der Allegorie
Wer sich m it der langen Geschichte der Allegorie in der europäischen Literatur be
schäftigt, dem sind auch die kuriosen Formen ihrer Spätzeit im 17./18. Jahrhundert
vertraut, wo die behaglich-humoristische Beschaulichkeit der Tabakspfeife in allegori
schen Gedichten ebenso erfolgreich war, wie der gerade modern gewordene Teegenuß
zelebriert wird, wo Festtagsschmaus und Alltagsarbeit, Gegenstände des täglichen G e
brauchs und zufällige Begebenheiten des Individuum s gewöhnliche Materien allegori
scher Betrachtung ausmachen1.
Z u m Beispiel gibt die Festtagsgans, ihre Züchtung und ihr Verzehr, Anlaß zu traktathafter Behandlung m it christologischen, ekklesiologischen und vor allem rnoralisch-exemplarischen Lehren. 1729 erschien unter dem Titel ’Die K irm iß Ganß, was
sie für Tugenden an sich hat, wie dieselbige eingesetzet und gemästet wird, in glei
chem wie sie gebraten und zugerichtet wird, und wie sie hernach zur Speise auffgesetzet wird, und wie an der Ganß nichts zu verwerffen ist. Darauß können gar schöne
Lehren und Gleichniß genom m en werden1 das entsprechende W erk2. Die Arbeit des
1 Dazu vor allem IVolfgang Martens, Über die Tabakspfeife und andere erbauliche Materien.
Zum Verfall geistlicher Allegorese im frühen 18. Jahrhundert, in: Verbum et Signum . Beiträge
zur mediävistischen Bedeutungsforschung 1 (M ünchen 1975) 517-538; zur Tabakspfeife ver
schiedene Liedversionen vom Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts, z.B. die Aria .Erbauliche Gedanken
eines Tobackrauchers' in J.S. Bachs Klavierbüchlein für seine Frau A nna Magdalena von 1725,
ebd. 517 ff. Z u m Tee vgl. einen aus dem H olländischen übersetzten Traktat von 1697 (danach
auch Zürich 1740) .Geistlich- und H im m lischer Thee-Gebrauch oder kurtz eingefassete Vorstel
lung von dem Thee, geistlich auf Jesum Christum zugeeignet zur W eg ne hm ung der weltlichen
und eitelti Reden unter dem Thee-Trincken. Anfangs beschrieben durch den wahren Gottes-Ge
lehrten Herrn D . A lardyn.,., an itzo ... aus dem Niederländischen ins Teutsche übersetzet (Bre
men 1697); Martens, 535 f.; s. auch H. Scboffter, Das literarische Z ürich 1700-1750 (Frauenfeld,
Leipzig 1925) 102 f.
Der Traktat erschien ohne Angabe von Verfasser und O rt unter den Chiffren J.M .H . 1729,
nach der Vorrede wurde er zuerst 1697 publiziert; das W ichtigste aus dem Inhalt bei Martens,
534 f.
40
C h ristel M eier
Spitzenklöpplers spiegelt im allegorischen Lied von 1737 ein gefährdetes und gelun
genes Leben, wenn der Webfaden etwa, dem Menschenleben gleich, leicht abreißt,
wenn das Hinundhergehen „der K lippel“ als wunderbare Führung erscheint oder das
Muster der Spitze wie „des Geistes Regeln“ den Charakter des fertigen Werks vor
zeichnet, „biß daß der Tod m it seiner Scheer / des Lebens Spitz abschneidet“3.
Eine ihrer Menge nach beträchtliche Literatur in verschiedenen Textformen, wie
Lied, Gebet, Traktat, Meditation, aliegorisiert so teils ernsthaft, teils humoristisch oder
parodistisch die alltäglichen Bedingungen und Geschäfte der kleinen W elt des M en
schen. A uf beiden Seiten gibt es auch die Verstiegenheit ins Absonderliche, wie die
„Kirmißgans“, den Nachttopf, die Postbeförderung4. Doch die ernsthaft-erbaulichen
Autoren der ,Zufälligen Andachten* (Occasional Meditations, Meditationes subitaneae)5 sind sich ebenfalls bewußt, daß sie bei solcher Allegorese weit über den Gegen
standsbereich der ursprünglichen Bibelauslegung hinausgegangen sind in die Alltags
und Berufswelt. Christian Scriver sagt in der zweiten Vorrede zu seinen .Zufälligen
Andachten“ (1667 u.ö.), er habe außer der natürlichen W elt, die er m it dem alten Bild
vom Buch der Natur als der Schrift des Schöpfers umgreift, „auch allerley Wercke der
menschlichen Hände / und dann auch mancherley Zufälle des menschlichen Lebens /
in gottselige Betrachtung genom m en“6.
Selbst ohne Züge offenkundigen Humors, Scherzes, deutlicher Ironie oder Karika
tur sowie augenfälliger Verstiegenheit ist die W ertung solcher Allegorie des A lltägli
chen im 18. Jahrhundert evident: M it ihrer Verhaftung im Kleinbitrgerlich-Genrehaften muß sie als Verfallserscheinung der Allegorie gelten. Gerade auch ernsthaft vorge
bracht, wirkt sie angesichts der Skurrilität der Gegenstände, ihrer Trivialität und ihres
gelegentlich forcierten Individualismus’ unernst7. D enn wo eine auffällige Inkongru
3 Aus dem Lied ,Vor Klippel-Leute', enthalten in: Johann Jacob Gottschald, Theoiogia in hymnis,
oder: Universal-Gesangbuch, welches auf alle Fälle, alle Zeiten, alle Glaubens-Lehren, alle Le
bens-Pflichten, auf alle Evangelia und Episteln, auf allerley Stände und Personen, besonders auf
den Catechism um gerichtet, und aus 1300 absonderlich erlesenen Liedern alter und neuer Theologorum und Poeten bestehet... (Leipzig 1737) 1069; bei Martens, 530f.
'* Viele verschiedene Gegenstände dieser A rt behandelt oder erwähnt bei Martens, hier z.B. 530
m it A n m . 28. W e n n „kein Gegenstand, keine menschliche Tätigkeit [ist], die im Zeichen der zu
fälligen A ndachten nicht allegoriefähig wäre“ (ebd., 531), überrascht es nicht, daß zu erbaulichen
Zwecken auch alphabetisch angelegte Schriften herausgebracht werden; so ,Des nach der seligen
Ewigkeit reisenden Christen zufällige Andachten, in welchen den Christlichen Pilger allerhand
vorkom m ende Sachen e r w e k e n .( o .O . 1731); ebd., 532. Vgl. auch II. Beck, Die religiöse Volksli
teratur der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Leipzig 1891).
5 In der Nachfolge, d .h . Übersetzung u nd weiteren Entwicklung, der ,Occasional M editations“
des englischen Bischofs Joseph H all von 1630; vgl. Martens, 527.
6 G ottholds Zufälliger A ndachten vierhundert / Bey Betrachtung mancherley D inge der Kunst
und Natur / in unterschiedenen Veranlassungen zur Ehre Gottes / Besserung des G em üths / und
Ü bung der Gottseligkeit geschöpffet / abgefasset und entworfen ... zun vierzehnten Mal ausge
fertigt von M. Christian Scriver (Leipzig 1709; m it 200 Stücken Nürnberg 1690); Martens, 529 f.
7 Z u Recht wertet Martens, 533, in diesem Sinn die Allegorese von Kirmesgans und Tee (s.o.) als
„Beispiele besonders bohrend-spitzfindig-absonderlicher Allegorese, die in der Tat schon wie u n
freiwillige Parodien der alten from m en Dingbetrachtung anm uten können und die damit, wie
das auf ihre Manier auch die bewußte, scherzhafte Parodie m it dem Tabakspfeifengedicht tut,
W e n d e p u n k te der A llegorie im M ittelalter
41
enz zwischen Methode und Gegenständen besteht, wo Alltagsdinge in einem durch
die Exegese der Bibel nobilitierten, über mehr als 1500 Jahre praktizierten hochste
henden Deutungsverfahren das Gewicht gleichsam göttlicher Zeichen erfahren, er
scheint das Ernste in Frage gestellt.
Und doch ist die Grenzziehung und Bewertung schwierig. Ein bekanntes Gegenbei
spiel wäre die geistliche Hausmagd, die vom Spätmittelalter, also bereits Jahrhunderte
vor der .Verfallszeit', und noch bis an die Schwelle unseres Jahrhunderts m it ihren nie
deren Arbeiten, deren allegorischer Deutung und rememorativer Kraft dargestellt
wurde. In seinem sozial und geistig untersten Rang konnte ihr Tun, nach dem Sinnge
halt betrachtet, mehr spirituellen Gewinn ausdrücken als das geistliche Leben des
Mönchs oder des Einsiedlers. Dies bezeugen die Handschriften sowie die zahlreichen
Druck- und Bilderbogenfassungen, die in ganz Europa verbreitet waren8. Darin heißt
es zum Beispiel:
„W ann ich das Feuer anmache, so bitte ich Gott, daß er das Feuer göttlicher Liebe
in m ir anzünde ... So oft ich ein Messer nutze, so oft gedenke ich an den Speer,
mit welchem m ein Herr Jesus in seine heilige Seite gestochen worden ... So oft ich et
was abwasche, bitte ich Gott, daß er an mir abwasche alles das, woran er ein Mißfallen
hat .. “9
Auch die Em blematik hatte - ohne daß dies als Verfallsindikator zu werten war - in
reichem Maß Dinge der Alltagswelt als Sinnträger aufgenommen. Allerdings gibt sie
Gegenständen des adeligen Land- und Hoflebens sowie der städtisch-großbürgerlichen W elt die Präferenz. U nd auch hier wird die Ausweitung des Signifikantenfeldes
reflektiert: „Nulla res sub Sole, quae materiam Emblemati dare non possit“ ; schlecht
hin alles also, vor allem auch die Elemente der menschlichen Lebens- und H and
lungswelt, heißt es jetzt, sind als Emblemzeichen geeignet10.
So ist in den Em blem en gewöhnlicher Hausrat in erheblicher Menge vertreten:
Möbel und ihre Feile, Waschschüssel m it Krug und Handtuch, Schwamm, K am m
und Rasiermesser, ferner Uhren, Spiegel, Kerze, Fackel, Faß, Krug, Becher, Glas,
ebenfalls wohl bezeugen, daß es m it dieser W'eise der Weltauffassung und W eltausiegung zu
Ende gellt“. Trotzdem gibt es Neuerungen auch im 19. und sogar 20, Jahrhundert.
6 Adolf Spanier, Der Bilderbogen von der .geistlichen Hausm agd‘. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
religiösen Bilderbogens und der Erbauungsliteratur im populären Verlagswesen Mitteleuropas.
Bearbeitet und m it einem Nachwort versehen von Mathilde H ain (Göttingen 1970) m it Lit.;
Mathihle Hain, Aschenputtel und die .Geistliche H ausm agd“, in: Rheinisches Jahrbuch für
Volkskunde 12 (1961) 9-15; zuletzt Nils-Arvid Bringlus, Die .Geistliche Hausmagd“ im Prote
stantismus, in: Jahrbuch für Volkskunde N.F. 8 (1985) 121-142 (m it neuerer Lit.). Vgl. zur wichti
gen Verbindung von Aschenputtelstoff und Hausmagd-Tradition durch Jo hann Geiler von K ai
sersberg (T 1510), der in einer Predigt von 1501 die niederen Arbeiten ausführlich allegorisch
deutet, Samuel Singer, Schweizer Märchen I (9): Aschengrübel, in: Untersuchungen zur neueren
Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, H. 10 (Bern 1906) 1-31, bes. 1 f.
Aus dem W eißenburger Bilderbogen; dazu Spanier, Hain, Bilderbogen, 22 ff. und vgl. 199 ff.
Bobuslaus Balbinus , Verisimilia hum aniorum discipiinarum seu judicium privatum de O m n i
bus literarum (quas humaniores appelant) artificio (Augsburg 1710) 234 (‘ 1687); dazu Arthur
Henkel, Aibrecht Schöne, Emblemata. H andbuch zur Sinnbildkunst des X V I. und X V II. Ja h rh u n
derts (Stuttgart 1967) X II, X V I.
42
C h ristel M eier
Schüssel, Topf, Nachttopf u.a.m .“ . Alle Artes mechanicae m it ihren Verrichtungen
und Werkzeugen lassen sich, z.T. m it beträchtlichen Anteilen, in den emblematischen
Im agines auffinden: Architektur, Schiffsbau und Handel, Jagd und Nahrungszuberei
tung sowie Textilherstellung, Acker- und Gartenbau, Kriegskunst und Kriegsgerät,
Spiele und künstlerische Praktiken12. In gewissem Umfang sind auch die A rt cs magicae einbezogen, etwa die A lchem ie13. Entsprechend differenziert ist daher die Berück
sichtigung von Berufen im emblematischen Bildreservoir - bei deutlicher D om inanz
der Adelskultur14.
Bereits bevor aber die Emblematik völlig ausgebildet ist, polemisiert Rabelais gegen
die Beliebigkeit und W illk ür des Sinnträgergebrauchs in der Impresen- und W appen
kunst, um zugleich das Hergeholte und Alltägliche in ihr der Lächerlichkeit preiszu
geben: „In ... Finsternis stecken auch diese prunkischen H öfling und Namen-Verrukker, die in ihren Divisen, um Hoffnung auszudrucken, eine runde Öffnung, oder
Hopfenstang malen lassen, ein Bein für Pein, das Kraut Ancholi für Melancholi usf.
M it gleichem Fug (man sollt aber lieber Unfug und Narrheit sagen) könnt ich einen
Schmachtriemen malen lassen zum Zeichen, daß man m ich schmachten ließ: und ei
nen Senfstopf für mein Herz, das man eben nicht sänftlich stopf und einen Pißpott als
Käm m erling ...“ (womit auf die Doppelbedeutung von ,official1, ,Nachttopf und ,b i
schöflicher Bevollmächtigter* angespielt wird)13. W enn sich hier in den ersten Jahr
zehnten des 16. Jahrhunderts Bedeutungsetymologie und Allegorie, die sich für ver
schiedene private Zwecke aller möglichen Analogien frei bedienen, angeprangert fin
den, erscheint schon das Spätmittelalter m it seinem Gebrauch von Allegorien aus der
Zivilisations- und Alltagswelt als eine Zeit des Niedergangs der Allegorie, von der es
dann weiter abwärts geht16.
Doch ein Blick auf die frühen Allegoriensammlungen, noch der patristischen Zeit,
widerlegt die Annahm e, die Allegorese der Alltagsdinge sei ein Sym ptom des Verfalls
oder der Spätzeiten - wie übrigens auch die ,geistliche Hausmagd“ schon aus der Lite
ratur der Wüstenväterzeit aus dem Umkreis der ,Vitas patrum “ stammt als die Nonne
der niedersten Hausdienste, Putzlappen des Klosters (spongia m onaslerii) genannt, die
im Spätmittelalter als viehversorgende Dorfmagd wiederkehrt und von dort in die
11 S. den Überblick in dem Teil ,Hausrat“ bei Henkel, Schöne, Emblemata, 1333 ff. und vgl. dazu
die folgenden A nm erkungen.
12 Eine große Zahl von Beispielen in den Rubriken bei Henkel, Schöne, Emblemata, 1197 ff. .Stät
ten und Bauwerke“, 1253 ff. .Insignien und Kostbarkeiten“ (auch Schm uck, M ünzen, Geldbeutel,
Geldtruhe und Spardose), 1287 ff. .Kunst- und Spielgerät“, 1321 ff. ,Speise und K leidung“, 1405 ff.
,Handwerksgerät“, 1453 ff. .Schiff und Schiffsgerät“, 1485 ff. ,Kriegsgerät“, 1076 ff. zum H andw er
ker und einzelnen Handwerken; Weiteres ist zu ermitteln über die reichen Register.
13 Z.B. bei Henkel, Schöne, Em blem ata, 1059f. und 1407.
11 D eutlich in den Q uantitäten ablesbar z.B. bei Henkel, Schöne, Emblemata, 1039ff. .Stände und
Tätigkeiten“, aber auch bei den Geräten in den oben aufgeführten Sachbereichen.
Francois Rabelais, Gargantua und Pantagruel, übers, von Gottlob Regis, ed. Ludwig Schräder
(M ünchen 1964) Bd. 1, 32 und 456 (innerhalb einer satirischen Stellungnahm e zum Gebrauch
von Farbendeutungen: I 9-10); vgl. die entsprechenden frz. W ortspiele in Francois Rabelais,
Oeuvres Com plètes, ed. PierreJourda, B d.l (Paris 1962) 41 f. (m it Komm.).
16 Dazu auch unten A n m . 35.
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle g o rie im M ittelalter
43
bürgerlich-städtische Um gebung als Stadtmagd versetzt w ird17. In dem noch schma
len W erk .Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae* des Eucherius von Lyon, der ersten be
scheidenen Allegoriensammlung aus dem 5. Jahrhundert, findet sich unter den weni
gen Sachrubriken schon eine eigene für Gegenstände und Geräte des alltäglichen
Gebrauchs: ,De his quae in usu atque in medio habentur* (Kap. V II)18. Unter den D in
gen, die jeder gebraucht und zur H and hat, werden außer eigentlichen Lebensmitteln
(Brot, Fleisch, Käse, W ein, Milch, Gewürzen etc.) die zugehörigen Behälter sowie
Werkzeuge und andere Arbeitsmittel verzeichnet: Schlauch, Mühlstein, Waage, ver
schiedene Lichtträger, Schlüssel, Riegel, Beil, (zweischneidige) Axt, Netz, Balken,
Span, Schlinge, Seil, Rad, Schwamm, Leiter, Besen. Auch die folgenden Rubriken u n
ter den Überschriften .Verschiedene Bedeutungen* (Kap. V III) und Jerusalem und
seine Gegner* (Kap. IX) enthalten zwischen anderem Werktätigkeiten und weitere
Lemmata aus den ,Artes mechanicae*, vor allem der Architektur, der Bekleidung und
der ,Ars theatrica*19, während Gegenstände des Ackerbaus bereits unter ,De terrenis*
(Kap. III) abgehandelt waren20.
Der hier schon erhebliche Anteil von Alltagsdingen am Gesamtbestand der verzeichneten Allegorien wird in dem größeren Nachfolgewerk vom Anfang des 9. Jahr
hunderts, in der ,Clavis* des Pseudo-Melito, erweitert21 und im selben Jahrhundert
noch einmal ausgebaut bei Hrabanus Maurus in ,De naturis rerum* aufgrund der von
ihm benutzten reicheren Realienquelle, Isidors von Sevilla .Etymologiae*. Besonders
der letzte Teil von Hrabans W erk, der in der Struktur Isidors Enzyklopädie genau
folgt22, enthält große Bereiche der Artes mechanicae (wenngleich nicht unter diesem
Namen zusammengefaßt) und behandelt daher zahlreiche einzelne Gegenstände, Ge17 Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, ed. C. Butler. I/ II (Oxford 1898-1904); deutsch von Jacques Lan
ger (Zürich 1987) 170 ff.; der Stoff wurde dem lat. Westen vor allem durch Rufinus und Cassianus
bekannt. Hain, Aschenputtel, 34 ff. zu den frühen Versionen des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts von
.Die selige Dorfmagd* (14. Jahrhundert) bis ,Die geistliche Hausmagd* (1436), in denen die Allegorese allm ählich aufgebaut wird.
18 Eucherius Lugdunensis, Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae, ed. Carolus Wotke (CSEL 31, Prag,
W ien, Leipzig 1894) 3 9 ff., z.B. 45: „ Claues adapertio scientiae spiritalis“ (mit Beleg Luc. 11, 52);
„item claues iustitiae misericordiae pietatisque virtutes“ (m it Beleg Mt. 16, 19). - Da im Rahm en
dieser Studie nur wenige Hinweise gegeben w'erden können, sollen die Alltagsdinge u nd ,Artes
mechanicae* in diesem Uberlieferungsstrang in einem eigenen Aufsatz untersucht werden.
Exemplarisch sei bereits hingewiesen auf Dieter Richter, Die Allegorie der Pergamentbearbei
tung. Beziehungen zwischen handwerklichen Vorgängen und der geistlichen Bildersprache des
Mittelalters, in: Fachliteratur des Mittelalters. Festschrift Gerhard Eis (Stuttgart 1968) 83-92; fer
ner zu einem alltäglichen Gegenstand: Karin Lerchner, Lectulus floridus. Z u r Bedeutung des Bet
tes in Literatur und Handschriftenillustration des Mittelalters (Pictura et poesis 6, K öln , W eimar,
W ien 1993).
19 Eucherius, Formulae, 48 ff.; auch 30 ff. in ,De uariis n o m in u m appellationibus* (Kap. V).
20 Eucherius, Formulae, 13 ff.
21 Pseudo-iXlelito, Clavis, ed .J.B. Pitra (Spicilegium Solesmense II, Nachdruck Graz 1963) bes. in
den Kapiteln IV. ,De m u n d o et partibus eius‘, VI. ,De metallis et aliis rebus quae ex eis fiunt*,
VII. ,De lignis et floribus*, X. ,De homiriibus*. X I. ,De civitate“.
Llrabanus ¡Maurus, De naturis rerum (De universo), ed. Migne PL 111, 9-614; Elisabeth lleysc,
Hrabanus Maurus’ Enzyklopädie De naturis rerum. Untersuchungen zu den Q uellen und zur
Methode der K o m pilation (M ünchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 4,
München 1969) 133 ff.
44
C h ristel M eier
rate u n d W erkzeuge, von denen w iederum ein erheblicher Teil allegorisiert wird, so
weit jedenfalls die patristischen un d frühm ittelalterlichen T raditionen Bedeutungen
zur V e rfügung stellten. D ie m edicina, agricultura, arm atura, theatrica, navigatio, architectura u n d weitere bildende K ünste, schließlich auch lan ificium , sind von Buch
X V I I I ab aufgeführt un d erklärt. Eine ko m p rim ie rte G erätedarstellung schließt nach
den K a p iteln über Speisen u n d G etränke das W e rk (Buch X X II ) ab m it K a p iteln über
zahlreiche G efäßtypen u n d Geräte:
D e vasis escariis. D e vasis lu m in a rio rum .
D e vasis potatoriis. D e lectis et sellis.
De vasis vinariis sive aquariis. D e vehiculis.
D e vasis oleariis. D e reliquis, quae in usu habentur.
D e vasis coquinariis et pistoriis. D e instrum entis rusticis.
D e vasis repositoriis. D e instrum entis hortorum .
D e canistro. D e instrum entis e quorum .
A u c h diese K apitel sind n ic h t bloß aus Isidor ü b e rn o m m e n , sondern werden, so
weit m ö g lic h , m it allegorischen D e u tu n g e n aus der Exegese aufgefüllt23.
D ie alphabetisch angelegten bibelallegorischen Lexika des 12. Jah rh un d erts erhal
ten, o bw o h l der Sachzwang, die M aterialien einer gängigen E nzyklo pädie m it deren
systematischer O r d n u n g zu üb ern eh m e n , entfällt, den Bestand an A llegorien aus d em
täglichen G ebrauch un d den m echanischen K ü n s te n , wie die pseudo-hrabanischen
,AIlegoriae super totam sacram S crip turam ‘ u n d A lans von Lille ,D istinctiones diction u m theologicaliunV. Z u r E rläuterung der B edeutungen werden auch hier oft Sacher
klärungen neu eingebracht (vor allem bei A la n von Lille)24. D ie G a ttu n g des allegori
schen W örte rb uchs transportiert so Sachwissen u n d Bedeutungen von technischem
V okabular u n d A lltagsdingen ebenso wie die E nzyklo pädie in ihren allegorisierten
Form en bis in die frühe N euzeit, o hn e daß diese G attung e n d ann endeten. D ie ,Silva
allegoriarum 1 des H ieron y m us Lauretus von 1570 e n thält etwa 120 Lem m ata (die S yn
onym e un d jeweils verw andten Begriffe n ic h t gerechnet) m it z.T. um fangreichen D e u
tungsartikeln zu diesem Bereich25.
D e r Ü b erb lick über Alltagsallegorien in den allegorischen S am m elw erken aus ei
ne m Z e itra u m von gut 1000 Jahren führt zu d em Schluß, daß solche Allegorien
23 Hrabanus Maurus, De naturis rerum, 597 ff.; z. B. bedeutet der (Koch-)Topf [olla) Geschlecht/
Stam m , ewige Verdam m nis, das jüdische Volk, die gegenwärtige W elt, das Menschengeschlecht,
die sündige Seele (602 C). Der Hauptanteil von Deutungen k o m m t aus der ,Clavis“, dazu werden
vor allem Gregor der Große, Cassiodor, Beda und A leuin genutzt; für eine größere A nzahl von
Allegorien in diesem Feld ist die Provenienz noch nicht erkannt.
24 Pseudo-FIrahanus (Garnerius von Rochefort nach Marie-Dominique Chenu, Théologie au d o u
zième siècle, 199), Allegoriae in universam sacram scripturam, ed. Aligne PL 112, 849-1088; Alanus ab Insults, Distinctiones dictionum theologicalium, ed. Aligne PL 210, 695-1012 (die Sacher
klärungen lohnen den Vergleich und die eigene Darstellung).
25 Hieronymus Lauretus, Silva allegoriarum totius sacrae scripturae (K öln 1681; Nachdruck M ü n
chen 1971, eingeleitet von Friedrich Ohly)\ zuerst Barcelona 1570; s. jetzt auch Helmut Hundsbichler u.a. (Hrsg.), Symbole des Alltags - Alltag der Symbole, Festschrift Harry K üh ne i (Graz
1992).
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle go rie im M ittela iter
45
durchgehend vorhanden waren, nicht erst im Spätmittelalter oder der frühen Neuzeit
hinzukamen, daß sie aber nicht zu allen Zeiten gleichermaßen bewußt waren, daß da
her auch der Zugriff der Forschung hier zu korrigieren wäre.
In der patristischen Schriftallegorese, deren Konzept im wesentlichen ein rhetori
sches war, standen die im .göttlichen“ Text der Bibel bezeichneten Gebrauchsgegen
stände und Werkzeuge wie selbstverständlich neben den übrigen Dingen der W elt
und wurden in figuralem Verständnis - nach Augustins Zeichenlehre, die auch bei
Eucherius gilt - als signa translata, d. h. als von W örtern bezeichnete Dinge, die wie
derum anderes bezeichnen, behandelt: wie etwa das W ort ,Waage“ (statera) das ent
sprechende D ing m eint und dieses wiederum aequitas oder divinae gubernationis potentia bedeutet26. Der Exeget als Kenner der rhetorischen Disziplin erklärte die du n k
len Figuren des Bibeltextes allegorisch: „translata (signa) sunt, cum et ipsae res, quas
propriis uerbis significamus, ad aliquid aliud usurpantur.“27 Ebenso verstand Euche
rius seine Allegoriensammlung als eine Anleitung zum Verständnis dunkler Figuren
der Bibel: „formulas intelligentiae spiritalis quas spopondim us proponamus currentes
per singulorum n om inum figuras, quibus ista in illo diuinae lectionis inserta textu accipi solent. Oremus itaque dom inum , ut reuelet condensa scripturarum suarum ...
Ergo ipsas nunc n om in um atque uerborum significantias, secundum quas uel maxime
in allegoriam trahuntur, ... explicemus.“28
Innerhalb seines rhetorischen Theoriekonzepts waren Augustin die Dinge jedoch
zum Problem geworden. Denn bei dem großen zeitlichen und kulturellen Abstand
der spätantiken W elt von der Entstehungssituation der alttestamentlichen Texte und
bei der Realienfülle vieler Textpassagen reichte die rhetorische Interpretation allein
nicht aus. Es war nur konsequent, wenn Augustin in dieser Aporie über die rhetori
sche Erschließung hinaus oder zu ihrem wirklichen Gelingen die Wissensdefizite
durch den Einsatz oder die Bereitstellung von nötigem Sachwissen behoben haben
wollte: „rerum autem ignorantia facit obscuras figuratas locutiones, cum ignoramus uel
animantium uel lapidum uel herbarum naturas aliarumue rerum, quae plerumque in
scripturis similitudinis alicuius gratia ponuntur.“29
In Augustins eigener Allegoresepraxis läßt sich beobachten, wie er auf den verschie
denen Gebieten des notwendigen Sachwissens die antike Fachliteratur konsultiert
oder eigene Beobachtungen auswertet, um der Notwendigkeit kompetenter Texterklä
rung bei der erheblichen Realienmenge (darunter auch dem Jüdisch-Antiquarischen)
u' Augustinus, De doctrina christiana II 10, 15, ed. /. M artin (C C L 32, T urnhout 1962) 41 \
Joban
thyilenuis, The Theory of Medieval Sym bolism (Societas Scientiarum Fennica, C o m m . H um .
Litt. 27, 2, Helsingfors 1960/61) 5 ff.; Ulrich Krewitt, Metapher und tropische Rede in der Auffas
sung des Mittelalters (Beih. zum .Mittellateinischen Jahrbuch“ 7, Ratingen, Kastellaun, W uppertal
1971) 118 ff., bes. 122 f.
Augustinus, De doctr. Christ., 41; Christel Meier, G e m m a spiritalis, Bd. 1 (Mtinstersche Mittelalter-Sehriften 34/1, M ünchen 1975) 3 8 ff. (m it Lit.); Heinz Meyer, Schriftsinn, mehrfacher, in:
Historisches W örterbuch der Philosophie 8 (1992) 1431-1439 (m it Lit.).
Eucherius, Pormulae, 6,4 ff.
Augustinus, De doctr, Christ. II 16,24, 49,20ff. Das von A ugustin formulierte Desiderat wird
Von Isidor von Sevilla in den ,Etymologiae“ und deren mittelalterlichen Nachfolgewerken erfüllt.
C h ristel M eier
46
zu entsprechen und so die Erhellung der „dunklen Figuren“, der signa translala, vor
anzutreiben*0.
In der Allegoresetheorie, die von der Karolingerzeit bis zu ihrem H öhepunkt im
12. Jahrhundert entwickelt wurde, verschiebt sich der Akzent von den Figuren des
Textes zu den bezeichneten Dingen der Schöpfungswelt, der Sprache des Creator
m u n d i31. Z u ihr gehören die Dinge der menschlichen Alltags- und Arbeitswelt nicht.
Sie treten daher so lange im Bewußtsein zurück (obgleich sie im Auslegungsreservoir
vorhanden sind und vermehrt werden), bis das K onzept vom allegorischen Buch der
Schöpfung neben anderen Modellen relativiert wird und zudem die feste Bindung der
Allegorese an die Bibel sich gelockert hat. Erst dann steigt ihre Schätzung und Zahl
derart, daß der Eindruck entstehen konnte, sie seien jetzt erst in das ra-Feld der A lle
gorie eingetreten; Theorie und Kritik vermerken sie.
II. Z u m Forschungsstand
Die Beurteilung der Alltagsallegorien wie der trivialen Endformen der Allegorie, das
Modell eines historischen Gesamtverlaufs wurde bis zuletzt, und gerade auch in der
Folge des vor gut zehn Jahren erschienenen interdisziplinär ausgerichteten, epochen
umfassenden Bandes .Formen und Funktionen der Allegorie“, kontrovers diskutiert32.
Die Schwierigkeiten der historischen Profilierung sind - das sei hier nur kurz ange
merkt - vor allem auch solche der Perspektive der an der Diskussion beteiligten Dis
ziplinen. Der Mittelalterforschung war daran gelegen, das Gesam tphänom en der A lle
gorese und Allegorie in ihren Möglichkeiten, auch in ihrem materiellen Ausmaß eher
idealtypisch zu erarbeiten. Dadurch trat hier der Gegenstand m ehr in seiner „m on u
mentalen Geschlossenheit“ hervor - und er schien diese bis zu den Verfallssympto
men im 18. Jahrhundert zu behalten33. Die Neuzeitforschung war bei ihrer BeschäftiJ0 Hier sei in dem systematisch noch nicht aufgearbeiteten Gebiet exemplarisch verwiesen auf
die Edelsteinallegorese: /Meier, G em m a, 90 ff., 96 ff., 116 f., wo die N utzung antiker Lithologie als
Exegesehilfe beschrieben ist.
Jl Dazu unten bei A nm . 39, 41.
32 Walter Haug (Hrsg.), Formen und Funktionen der Allegorie (Germanistische Symposien Berichtsbände 3, Stuttgart 1979) m it 32 Beiträgen, dazu Einführungen und Diskussionsberichten
sowie ausführlicher Bibliographie. Das erklärte Ziel dieses Symposions war die Erarbeitung eines
historischen Reliefs des Allegoriegebrauchs von der Spätantike bis in die Gegenwart; es wollte
sich besonders dem Problem der „W andlungsform en und Entw icklungsm öglichkeiten“ des A lle
gorischen (S. V III, 3 ff.), seinen literarischen und pragmatischen Funktionen zuwenden. Blieb
auch die „präzise historische Differenzierung“ ein Postulat, das noch nicht voll erfüllt werden
konnte, so durchzog sie als Problem vor allem die Beiträge zur neuzeitlichen Allegorie, die D is
kussionen und zuletzt die ausführlicheren Rezensionen: z.B. Dietrich Schmidtke, Formen und
Funktionen der Allegorie, in: Daphnis. Zeitschrift für Mittlere Deutsche Literatur 15 (1986) 135147; Paul ¿Michel, Formen und Funktionen der Allegorie, in: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philoso
phie und Theologie 29 (1982) 527-537.
33 Dieses etwa war die Zielsetzung des von Friedrich Ohly geleiteten Projekts zur Mittelalterli
chen Bedeutungsforschung; vgl. den., Schriften zur mittelalterlichen Bedeutungsforschung
(Darmstadt 1977) IXff. und die Projektberichte in: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968) ff. Diese
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle go rie im M ittelalter
47
gung m it der Allegorie vor allem an dem Neuen der neuzeitlichen Allegorie, also an
der deutlichen Zäsur zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit interessiert; sie erkannte eine
differenzierte Vielfalt von Formen und Funktionen, stufte wohl auch längst Vorhan
denes als typisch neuzeitlich ein, um es dem einfachen, geschlossenen Modell des
Mittelalters, das auf den Kernbereich der Schriftexegese vereinheitlicht und reduziert
wurde, entgegenzusetzen*4. So stand - kurz gesagt - das lange Mittelalter der Allego
rie einem Dreiphasenmodeil entgegen, das die - noch - üblichen Epochengrenzen
zwischen Spätantike und Mittelalter sowie Mittelalter und Neuzeit bestätigte, viel
leicht unwesentlich überspielte-15. Als Charakteristika der Neuzeit-Allegorie wurden
Individualisierung, Rhetorisierung, Säkularisierung, Asthetisierung, Funktionalisierung, die Ausbildung und zunehmende Verwendung von Aütagsailegorien und äh n li
che .Veränderungen' herausgestellt36. Dieser W andel setzt aber nicht - wie bisher an
genommen - erst zu Beginn der Neuzeit ein, sondern hat im 12. Jahrhundert begon
nen und ist in seinem Kern anfangs eine Transformation der Schriftexegese, wie hier
zu zeigen ist, in der jedoch die W eichen für den späteren Entwicklungsgang bereits
gestellt sind.
Die .W endepunkte“ der lateinischen Exegese im Frühmittelalter hatte B. Bischoff
als den charakteristischen Übergang von der Patristik zur irischen und dann zur karo
lingischen Schrifterklärung in einer umfangreichen Studie beschrieben37. W en n dieses
Stichwort hier wieder aufgenommen wird, geht es bei der Markierung von W ende
punkten doch um ein anderes Modell als die eher einsinnige Fortentwicklung, n äm
lich um ein Differenzierungsmodell (bei dem auch das Transzendieren der Bibelallegorese in Nachbargebiete hinein sachlich geboten ist).
Bemühung um das Gesam tphänom en war solange legitim, wie es noch keineswegs bewußt, ge
schweige denn als brauchbares Instrum entarium der historischen Forschung verfügbar war. Er
hebliche Bereiche neuzeitlichen Allegoriegebrauchs konnten so als homogene W eiterführung
des längst vorhandenen Bedeutungs- und A nwendungspotentials begriffen werden. Z u r .m o n u
mentalen Geschlossenheit“ s. Ernst llellgardt, Erkenntnistheoretisch-ontologische Probleme u n
eigentlicher Sprache in Rhetorik und Allegorese, in: Hciug (Hrsg.), Allegorie, 25-37, hier 34.
J" Z.B. Erich Kleinschmidl, Denkform im geschichtlichen Prozeß. Z u m Funktionswandel der A l
legorie in der frühen Neuzeit, in: Heuig (Hrsg.), Allegorie, 388-404 und Diskussion ebd., 551 ff- S.
auch die Beiträge von Ai. Schilling, D.-R. Aloser, K. Floffmann, C. Wiedemann und G. Hillen im
selben Band: m it dem hier interesseleitenden Bestreben, die Allegorie nicht nur traditionsvermit
telt und in ihren .Repristinationen“ zu erfassen.
53 Dazu Hattg (Hrsg), Allegorie, 733 ff. (bes. R. Herzogs Gliederungsentwurf); zu Veränderungen
bereits im Spätmittelalter Thomas Gramer, Allegorie und Zeitgeschichte. Thesen zur Begründung
des Interesses an der Allegorie im Spätmittelalter, in: ebd., 265-276 und Diskussion 3 5 0 ff.
36 Dazu vor allem E. Kleinschmidt: s. A n m . 34; ferner ebd. 553 ff.; zum Desiderat historischer
Funktionsbestim m ungen auch Hcirtmut Freytag, Die Theorie der allegorischen Schriftdeutung
und die Allegorie in deutschen Texten besonders des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts (Bern, M ünchen
1982) 8, 156.
Bernhard Bischoff, W endepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Frühmittelalter, in: ders., Mittelalterliche Studien, Bd. 1 (Stuttgart 1966) 205-273 (zuerst 1954).
48
C h ristel M eier
III. Erste Differenzierungsstufe der Allegorie
im 12./13. Jahrhundert
a) Schriftexegese vom Stellenkommentar zum integralen Deutungswerk:
Heilsgeschichtliche und kosmologische Allegorese
Das erste Drittel des 12. Jahrhunderts führt die mittelalterliche Allegorese auf einen
H öhepunkt, an dem sich ihre Möglichkeiten in Theorie und Praxis fast in idealer
Form entfalten. D enn was Augustin m it dem Ausgreifen auf die signa translata, die
Realien, ja die Dinge der W elt überhaupt, theoretisch vorbereitet hatte, was dann bei
Eucherius sowie in der ,Clavis* des Pseudo-Melito, bei Hraban und anderen Autoren
der Karolingerzeit praktisch in systematischen und enzyklopädischen Sammlungen
sachbereichsgebunden aus der patristischen Allegorese zusammengetragen oder in Bi
belkommentaren konzentriert war, bot nun unter den Bedingungen und Interessen
des 12. Jahrhunderts die Grundlage für die heilsgeschichtliche und kosmologische
Vollendung der Allegorese, wie sie vor allem durch Rupert von Deutz, Hugo von St.
Viktor und Honorius Augustodunensis geleistet wurde.
Bis ins 12. Jahrhundert war die theologische Wissenschaft als höchste Disziplin
ganz auf die Schrifthermeneutik, die allegorische Erschließung der göttlichen Buchur
kunde, ausgerichtet, und in der Bucheinheit war ihre Geschlossenheit, eine ideelle To
talität, gegeben. Als sichtbares Ergebnis der jahrhundertelangen Bemühungen um
diese Schriftexegese wurde im 12. Jahrhundert der W erkkom plex vollendet, der m it
der Versammlung der anerkannten Auslegungen einer längeren Tradition die Basis
des theologischen Unterrichts bilden konnte: die ,Glossa ordinaria*38. Doch gerade die
Überschreitung dieses abgeschlossenen, auf das Bibelbuch und seine O rdnung festge
legten Ganzen zu anderen Totalitäten bringt in produktiver Verarbeitung der Traditio
nen und strukturellen Neuordnung H öhepunkte der Allegorese. Es ist die A n k n ü p
fung nicht so sehr an die verba, den Text der Schrift, als an die res und fctcla m it ihren
je eigenen Strukturen in dem neuen Totum einerseits des Kosmos und andererseits
der Heilsgeschichte. Hierin erreichte das allegorische Prinzip zugleich seine volle
Reife als umfassendes Wissenschaftskonzept und philosophisches Erklärungsmodell,
ehe es bald darauf durch interne und externe Kräfte, Ursachen eines entscheidenden
Wandels, aus dieser zentralen Geltung verdrängt wird oder selbst modifizierte Anw en
dungsfelder findet.
Hugo von St. Viktor führt in seiner Theorie der allegorischen Schriftdeutung A ugu
stins Ansatz bei den signa translata konsequent weiter über das Bibeltextverständnis,
von dem er ausgeht, zur Welterklärung. Denn nicht eigentlich die dunklen Metaphern
18 Z u m Stand der Forschung Karlfried Froeblieb, Margaret T. Gibson, Biblia Latina cum Glossa
Ordinaria. Introduction to the Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps A d olp h Rusch of Strass
burg 1480/81, Bd. 1-4 (Turnhout 1992) Bd. 1, V liff.; Lesley Smith in diesem Band - eine der
wichtigsten Fortsetzungen des anregenden Werks von Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in
the M iddle Ages (Oxford 21952, ’ 1983). - Z u r herausragenden Bedeutung des ,heiligen Buchs*
bis ins 12. Jahrhundert Hagen Keller, V om .heiligen Buch* zur ,Buchführung'. Lebensfunktionen
der Schrift im Mittelalter, in: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 26 (1992) 1-31.
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle g orie im M ittelalter
49
der Schrift sind ihm erklärungsbedürftig, sondern die nach Sachgruppen unterschie
denen res (Sinnträger), wie Dinge, Personen, Orte, Zeiten, Geschehnisse, Zahlen. Dies
sind die durch das W ort bezeichneten res primae, die auf res secunclae (bedeutete
Dinge, Signifikate) verweisen39. Die gegenüber Augustinus veränderte Terminologie
ist Indikator des Wandels. Erst daraufhin kann die Grundregel allegorischer Deutung
formuliert werden, jedes D ing (res) erhalte so viele Bedeutungen (signiflcata), wie es E i
genschaften (proprietalcs) habe. In diesem Gesetz, das sich außer bei Hugo im 12. Jahr
hundert auch bei Richard von St. Viktor, Petrus von Poitiers und in den pseudo-hrabanischen ,Allegoriae“ findet40, ist die Verschiebung von dem Ähnlichkeitsprinzip
zwischen Bildspender und Bildempfänger einer Metapher zu einer Theorie, die von
der sprachlichen Figur zu den Dingen leitet und diese akzentuiert, evident. Folgerich
tig wird, obwohl im m er noch die Bibellektüre Anlaß der Erklärung ist, die in ihrem
Text enthaltene W elt, die authentisch vom Schöpfer hervorgebrachte Natur in ihrem
eigenen Verweisungsw'ert bekräftigt“*1 - wie bekannte Formeln z.B. Hugos oder Alans
von Lille bestätigen: „Om nis natura deum loquitur. O m n is creatura significans.“42 Z u
dem Offenbarungsbuch Bibel tritt das W eltbuch m it der Ding-Schrift des Schöpfers beide legen sich gegenseitig aus. Die Konsequenzen dieser theoretischen Akzentver
schiebung sind z. B. die Naturenzyklopädien (ohne oder m it eigener Allegorisierung)43.
In dem Maß, wie die W örter der Bibel zu Dingen werden, können umgekehrt die
Dinge zu W örtern des göttlichen Autors werden44. Hugo, der hier neben Augustin
vor allem die neuplatonisch-pseudodionysische Tradition m it Eriugenas Forderung ei
ner philosophisch-theologischen Doppel-Hermeneutik von Schrift und W elt rezi
piert43, bezeichnet diese Erkenntnisquellen auch als zwei Abbilder: „Dem Menschen
39 Hugo von St. Viktor, De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, ed. Migne, PL 175, 9-28, hier 21-24;
dm., Didascalicon. De Studio legendi, ed. Charles Henry Buttimer (The Catholic University of
America. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin 10, Diss. W ashington 1939); dazu Meier,
Gem m a, 45 f. (m it Lit.).
40 Hugo von St. Viktor, De scripturis, 21A; Richard von St. Viktor, Exzerptiones II 5, ed. Migne,
PL 177, 205D; Petrus von Poitiers, Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysi, ed. Philip S. Moore, J a
mes A. Corbett (Notre Dam e, Indiana 1938) 4.
41 In dieser historischen Sichtweise ist auch Hugos ontologischer Ansatz für die ,Dingallegorese‘,
die bestimmte philosophische Einflüsse zeigt (unten A nm . 44), nicht m ehr so bedenklich und als
.Verwechslung“ vom D in g und seiner gesetzten Zeiehenhaftigkeit zu werten, wie Hellgardt, (wie
A nm . 33), 33 f. meinte.
42 Hugo von St. Viktor, Didascalicon, ed. Buttimer, 123; Alan von Lille, ed. Migne, PL 210, 53A;
vgl. auch 579A im bekannten Rhythm us über die Rose; dazu Friedrich Ohly, V om geistigen Sinn
des Wortes im Mittelalter (Libelli 218, Darmstadt 1966) 4 (zuerst Z fd A 89, 1958/59).
ij Dazu Christel Meier, G rundzüge der mittelalterlichen Enzyklopädik. Z u Inhalten, Formen
und Funktionen einer problematischen Gattung, in: Literatur und Laienbildung im Spätm ittelal
ter und in der Reformationszeit (Stuttgart 1984) 467-500, hier 472 ff., 479, 484 f.; dies., Cosmos
politicus. Der Funktionswandel der Enzyklopädie bei Brunetto Latini, in: Frühmittelalterliche
Studien 22 (1988) 315-356, hier 318 ff. (m it Lit. zur Weltbuch-Metapher).
4 Alexander Neckam, D e naturis rerum, ed. v. Ihomas Wright (London 1863, Nachdruck: Nendeln 1967) 1-354, hier 125.
‘ Dazu Gangolf Schrimpf, Das W erk des Johannes Scottus Eriugena im Rahm en des W issen
schaftsverständnisses seiner Zeit. Eine H infüh ru ng zu Periphyseon (Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters N.F. 23, Münster 1982) 135 ff., 240 ff.; H ugo ist als
50
C h ristel M eier
waren zwei Abbilder gegeben, dam it er in ihnen das Unsichtbare sehen konnte: eines
der Natur und eines der Gnade ... der Anblick dieser W elt ... das Menschsein des
Wortes ... die Werke der Schöpfung ... die Werke der Wiederherstellung (Erlö
sung).“16 Die neue kosmologische Durchdringung nutzt also alte Ansätze der Allegorese, um über das vorher Angelegte doch hinauszugelangen zu produktiver Synopse.
W enn H ugo die Exegesetraditionen einerseits zum kosmologischen Gesam tkon
zept hin überschreitet, führen er und Rupert von Deutz andererseits auf ein heilsge
schichtliches Totum hin. Nahezu alle Bibelkommentare Ruperts erhalten Geschlos
senheit und Zusammenhang, wie ihn die Exegese bis dahin nicht kennt, durch konse
quente Verbindung der heilsrelevanten Facta, Geschehensreihen m it den sie verursa
chenden Kräften, die zahlhaft strukturiert sind (nach der 3,4,7,8 usf.)47. Das deutlich
ste Beispiel ist Ruperts Kom m entar zur gesamten Bibel in 42 Büchern ,De trinitate et
operibus eius‘, der in Siebenersequenzen fortschreitet durch die Zeiten, die von den
Personen der Trinität beherrscht werden (mit den Zahlen von 3, 30 und 9 Büchern).
Das W erk erstreckt sich von der W eltschöpfung und ihrem Urheber durch die alte
und neue Zeit bis zur Apokalypse m it Endgericht und neuem Jerusalem; 42 als
Sum m e der Bücherzahl bedeutet die Gesamtheit der irdischen peregrinatio (in der die
Bibelmeditation himmlische visio im Vorgriff ist)48.
Trotz der weitgehenden N utzung der exegetischen Überlieferungen waren solche
Konzepte nur durchführbar m it einem erheblichen Anteil an eigenverantworteter Er
gänzung und U m form ung der Tradition, deren sich die Autoren vollkom m en bewußt
sind - Rupert etwa eröffnet fast alle Werke m it der Verteidigung der Legitimation ei
genständiger (inspirierter) Schriftdeutung-19. Dieser Stand einer neuen produktiven
kosmologischen und heilsgeschichtlichen Bibelexegese, die, über die Bibel und die
Auslegungskonvention hinausdrängend, Leerstellen in der Tradition auffüllt und alte
Deutungen umakzentuierend in straffere, zielgerichtetere, thematisch determinierte
Deutungssequenzen einpaßt, markiert einen H öhepunkt der Allegorese im MittelalFortselzung Fußnote von Seite 49
K om m entator auch Vermittler der pseudo-dionysischen Theologie gewesen m it seiner .Expositio
in Hierarchiam caelestem', die die Übersetzung und den K o m m entar Eriugenas benutzt (und z.T.
kritisiert).
u Hugo von St. Viktor, Expositio in Hierarchiam caelestem. Pro!., ed. Migne, PL 175, 926B927A: „D u o enim simulacra erant proposita h om ini, in quibus invisibilia videre potuisset: u num
naturae et u n u m gratiae ... species hujus m u nd i ... hum anitas Verbi ... opera conditionis ... opera
restaurationis “ ; vgl. den., De sacramentis christianae fidei, Prol., PL 176, 183 f.
,<7 Wolfgang Köster, Die Zahlensym bolik im St. Trudperter H ohen Lied und in theologischen
Denkm älern der Zeit (Diss. Kiel 1963); Mariano Magrassi, Theologia e storia nel pensiero di Ruperto di D eutz (Rom a 1959) 77 ff.; John H. Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London 1983) 81 ff., 275 ff.; M aria Ludoviea Ardnini, Rupert von D eutz (1076-1129) und der
,Status Christianitatis' seiner Zeit. Symbolisch-prophetische D eutung der Geschichte (K öln,
W ie n 1987) bes. 382 ff.
18 Rupert von Deutz, De trinitate et operibus eius, ed. Rhaban Haacke (C C L C M 21-24, Turnhout 1971/72) hier Bd. 21, 126 f.; 24. 2125.
49 Friedrich Ohly, Hohelied-Studien. G rundzüge zur Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des
Abendlandes bis u m 1200 (Wiesbaden 1958) 121 ff.; van Engen, Rupert, 4 8 ff.; eine Studie zum
neuen Autorenverständnis Ruperts befindet sich bei m ir in Vorbereitung.
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle g orie im M ittelalter
51
ter, gibt jedoch zugleich dem Subjektiv-Individuellen jedes Autors Raum. Literarisch
gattungsgeschichtlich ist damit der W eg geöffnet für eine erste Überführung der Form
des Bibelkommentars in andere Gattungen, sei es durch Konzentration und Selektion
einzelner Sinnträgerkomplexe, etwa Symbole des Alten Testaments wie Arche, Stifts
hütte, Bundeslade, auf denen ein großräumiges W erk fußt (gelegentlich auch die Me
dien Text und Bild kombinierend), oder sei es durch gestrafft-systematische Darstel
lung von Problemen, die einschlägige Elemente der Bibelauslegung argumentativ zu
sammenrafft (wie Ruperts ,De victoria Verbi D ei“)50, oder endlich die Allegorien
sammlungen in allegorischen Lexika, Enzyklopädien, gegenstandsgebundenen Allego
rienwerken oder die exegetischen S um m e n51.
b) Philosophisches Integum entum
Der philosophischen Fundierung und systematischen Ausformung der Schriftallegorese innerhalb ihrer eigenen Traditionen korrespondiert das m it nur geringer zeitli
cher Verschiebung entwickelte Modell einer produktiv-neuen Allegorie, einer allegori
schen Dichtung m it philosophischer Intention, das von den Autoren selbst so bezeichnete ,Integum entum 02. Auch hier wird m it dem Übergang von der K om m entie
rung antiker Dichter und Philosophen (etwa Vergil, Martianus Capella, Macrobius33)
zu neuen eigenständigen W erken - parallel dem Gang der Bibelallegorese, ihrer the
matischen Konzentration und ihrem Ausgreifen auf neue Totalitäten - ein Fortschritt
philosophischer Reflexion in allegorischer Form erreicht. Zwar ist bekannt, daß diese
Werke in Abhängigkeit und Fortsetzung solcher spätantiken Dichtungen wie Martia
nus Capellas ,De nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae“, Boethius’ ,De consolatione Philosophiae“, Claudians ,De raptu Proserpinae' oder ,In R u fin u m “ und der ,Psychomachia‘
des Prudentius entstanden sind - in der jüngsten Forschung konnte dies noch vertieft
werden34
doch stehen die neuen Dichtungen des Bernardus Silvestris und Alans
von Lille auch in einer direkten Relation zum bibelallegorischen Bereich, die ihre In
tention besonders deutlich heraustreten läßt. Ihre Werke ,Cosmographia‘, .Planctus
Naturae“ und ,Anticlaudianus“53 decken nach ihren Hauptinhalten genau den ,Stoff“
30 Rupert von Deutz , De victoria Verbi Dei, ed. Rbaban Haacke (M G H Q G 5, W eim ar 1970)
XVIff.; Van Engen, Rupert, 282 ff.
:)l Dazu z.B. Heinz Meyer, Z u m Verhältnis von Enzyklopädik und AUegorese im Mittelalter, in:
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 24 (1990) 290-313; gegenstandsbezogene W erke sind etwa die ei
genständigen Ailegoresen von Arche (H ugo von St. Viktor), Bundeslade (Richard von St. Viktor),
Stiftshütte, (Petrus von Poitiers, A dam us Scottus).
52 Lit. dazu bei Meier, G em m a, 41 ff. und in den folgenden A n m .
33 Nach 'zahlreichen einzelnen Studien und Editionen neu zusammenfassend (mit Bibliogra
phie): Jean-Yv'es Tilliette(Hrsg.), Lectures médiévales de Virgile (Collection de l’Ecole française de
Rome 80, R om 1985); Peter Dronke (Hrsg.), A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy
(Cambridge 1988) 459 ff.
Besonders Jon Wbitman, Allegory. The Dynam ics of an A ncient and Médiéval Technique
(Cambridge, Mass. 1987).
3 Bernardus Silvestris, Cosmographia, ed. Peter Dronke (Leiden 1978); Alarms ab Insulis, De
planctu Naturae, ed. Nikolaus M. Häring, in: Studi Medievali 19 (1978) 797-879; Anticlaudianus,
ed, R. Boisnat (Paris 1955). Z u r Forschung einiges im folgenden.
52
C h ristel M eier
der Bibel ab, wie ihn Hugo von St. Viktor in knapper Synopse als materia divinanim
Scriptumrum zusammengefaßt hatte. Hugo sagt, die eigentliche Materie der Bibel be
stehe zwar in den Werken der Wiederherstellung des Menschen (opem reslaurationis);
aber zu diesen gehöre auch die .Vorgeschichte1, das heißt die Schöpfung von W elt und
Mensch sowie der Fall des Menschen: „Ad ostendendam autem primam institutionem
hominis oportuit, ut totius m undi conditio ac creatio panderetur; quia propter hominem factus est m undus ...; deinde commemorat, quaiiter hom o factus in via justitiae
et disciplinae dispositus est; postea, quaiiter hom o lapsus est; novissime, quemadmodum est reparatus.“56 Von den drei heilsgeschichtlichen Hauptereignissen, auf die der
Bibelinhalt hier zusammengezogen ist, Erschaffung von W elt und Mensch, Fall des
Menschen und Erlösung, leistet das erste Integum entum die Darstellung der Erschaf
fung von Makrokosmos und Mikrokosmos - dieses als Vollendung von jenem - und
deckt damit, wenn auch in der verfremdenden Form einer philosophisch-mythischen
Narratio, in der Schöpfergott und Trinität als Akteure fehlen, den ersten Teil der gro
ßen Menschheitsgeschichte ab. Der zweite A kt vom gefallenen Menschen wird in
Alans von Lille ,De planctu Naturae“ thematisiert, jedoch rückblickend aus dem Z u
stand der Misere auf deren Ursachen, die wiederum in eine mythische Fabel, die zei
chenhafte Geschichte vom Ehebruch der Venus m it Antigamus, eingekleidet wird57.
W ie dieser Mythos von der sexuellen Aberration als Sündenfall die Geschichte der
Gebotsübertretung im Paradies und ihre Folgen ,paraphrasiert‘, so stellt Alan im ,Anticlaudianus' die Erneuerung des Menschen ohne den Erlöser dar, gleichfalls in einer
Fabel: der von Natura initiierten Planung des neuen Menschen, der die Goldene Zeit
des Friedens und der moralischen V ollkom m enheit auf der Erde zurückgewinnt38.
Prüft man bei Bernardus Silvestris genauer als das trotz der umfangreichen For
schungsbemühungen zu seinem W erk bisher geschehen ist, die prägenden anregen
den Einflüsse auf seine ,Cosmographia‘ über den im m er schon beachteten Z usam
menhang m it der platonischen Philosophie von Chartres und deren Quellen hinaus59,
so m uß unter dem Blickwinkel der Transformation von Schriftexegese vor allem seine
Stellung zu Ovid neu durchdacht werden. Ihm verdankt Bernhard nicht nur Form u
lierungen und mythologisches Wissen - wie bisher konstatiert60 -, sondern in Ovids
Hugo von St. Viktor, De sacramentis Christ, fidei, 184AB.
57 J a n Ziolkowski, A lan of Lille’s Gram m ar of Sex. The M caning of G ram m ar to a Twelfth-Century Intellectual (Cambridge, Mass. 1985) 13 ff.; Pahst, Prosimetrum (wie unten A n m . 63), 476 ff.;
Richard II. Green, A lan of Lille’s De Planctu Naturae, in: Speculum 31 (1956) 649-674; James J.
Sheridan, Alan of Lille: The Plaint of Nature. Translation and Com m entary (Toronto 1980) 3164.
38 K onzil der N atur m it den him m lischen Kräften, Bau des Himmelswagens, Himmelsreise, Bil
dung des neuen Menschen, Tugend-Laster-Kampf, W iederherstellung der G oldenen Zeit; vgl.
auch Peter Ochsenbein, Studien zum Anticlaudianus des Alanus ab Insulis (Bern, Frankfurt/M.
1975) 6 6 ff. und passim.
59 Theodore Silverstein, The Fabulous Cosm ogony of Bernardus Silvestris, in: Modern Philology
46 (1948/49) 92-116 (m it Ausgleich der extremen Positionen der Interpretation); Brian Stock,
M yth anc Science in the Twelfth Century. A Study of Bernard Silvester (Prineeton 1972); W in
throp Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century. The Literary influenee of the
School of Chartres (Princeton 1972).
60 Die Ovid-Auswertung ging bisher nicht wesentlich über die Konstatierung von Formel-Remi-
W e n d e p u n k te der A llegorie im M ittelalter
53
Metamorphosenbeginn über die W eltentstehung hat er offenbar die Keimzelle seiner
Dichtung gesehen, seinen, des Dichters ,Genesistext“ gefunden, den es dichterisch zu
.kommentieren“ und zu amplifizieren galt: die Schilderung von der Ordnung des
Chaos, der Urmaterie zum Makrokosmos, von der Elementensonderung und der Bil
dung der vielgestaltigen phänomenalen W elt aus ihnen sowie die Entstehung des
Menschen als Mikrokosmos, in dem H im m el und Erde, Intelligibles und Materielles
verbunden sind, dem Einsicht in den göttlichen Plan gegeben ist61. W ie der Philosoph
und Theologe in Chartres - etwa Thierry von Chartres, dem Bernhard als seinem
Freund die ,Cosmographia“ widmet, und W ilhe lm von Conches - vor allem m it Hilfe
der Timaios-Übersetzung und -kommentierung des Calcidius den Genesisbeginn in
terpretiert62, wählt sich der Arteslehrer und Dichter Bernhard den entsprechenden
dichterischen ,Paralleltext1 der pagan-römischen Literatur, Metamorphosen I 5-88,
und arbeitet ihn in der philosophisch-poetischen Form des Prosimetrums (weitgehend
nach dem Vorbild des Martianus Capella) m it den dichterischen Mitteln von Personi
fikationen, Mythologemen und elokutionellem Ornatus aus63. Indem er vom selben
Punkt, der Situation des Chaos, der ungeordneten Urmaterie (Silva) beginnt wie Ovid
(15 ff.):
„Ante mare et terras et quod tegit om nia caelum
unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,
quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles.
stellt er im ersten der beiden Bücher des Werkes die Entstehung des Megakosmos, im
zweiten die Erschaffung des Mikrokosmos Mensch als dessen Vollendung dar64. DaFortsetzung Fußnote von Seite 52
niszenzen hinaus: Winthrop Wetherbee, The .Cosmographia* of Bernardus Silvestris. A Translation
with Introduction and Notes (New York, London 1973) 4 9 f., 161; ferner 28, 31, 35, 61, 144, 151;
Dronke druckt in seiner Edition jedoch auch den Metamorphosenanfang unter den Q uellen ab
(vgl. 23, 88 f.); die Auswertung des philosophisch-kosmologischen Rahmens der Metamorphosen
(vor dem H orizont der neueren Ovid-Foschung und der mittelalterlichen Interpretation) wäre
noch zu leisten.
1,1 Z u Ovid, Metam orph. I 5-88: P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen Buch I-1I1. K om m entar von
Franz Bömer (Heidelberg 1969) 5-47; s. auch unten A nm . 67.
62 Bernardus Silvestris, Cosmographia, ed. Dronke, 96; Nikolaus AI. Häring, Commentaries on
Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and his School (Toronto 1971) 553-575: Expositio in Exameron.
Lit. zu Calcidius und seiner Nachwirkung ferner bei Dronke, History, Bibiiogr.: s. A n m . 53.
65 Nach der Bestim m ung des Dichtergeschäftes bei Isidor, Etymologiae V III 7,10, ed. Wallaee
.'H. Lindsay (Oxford 1911 u.ö.), das in der Transformation des W irklichen (vere gesta) besteht „in
alias species obliquis figurationibus cum decore aliquo conversa“ S. demnächst auch Bernhard
Pabst, Prosimetrum. Tradition und W andel einer Literaturform zwischen Spätantike und Spät
mittelalter (Ordo 4, K öln, W eim ar, W ien 1994) 105 ff. zu Martianus Capella, 446 ff. zur ,C osm o
graphia1 Bernhards.
lla ijo ja n Westra, The Com m entary on Martianus Capella’s ,De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii“ Attributed to Bernardus Silvestris (Studies and Texts 80, Toronto 1986) 50, 5 0 ff.: W e n n der
Mensch in seiner K örperlichkeit als Mikrokosmos verstanden wird (Q uantum ad corpus enim dieitur hom o microcosmus), in seiner Leib-Seele-Einheit größer ist als der „m und us“ (hom o maior
est m undo ... Secundum anim am quidem attenditur ista maioritas), wird plausibel, daß Bernhards
Werk m it einer derartigen Beschreibung des Menschen in seiner Körperlichkeit endet.
54
C hristel M eier
m it läßt sich als Grundgedanke die an Ovid orientierte dichterische Genesisdarstel
lung isolieren, die m it dem philosophischen Instrumentarium des Platonismus (von
Chartres und Paris)65 und m it dem poetisch-rhetorischen ,Knowhow' des spätantiken
Prosimetrums ausgefüllt: wird; für die Ausklam merung der genuin biblisch-christli
chen Vorstellungen bildete vor allem Boethius’ ,Consolatio Philosophiae' das Vorbild.
Daß Ovids Text selbst dem W erkplan einer parabiblischen Genesisdichtung nicht ent
gegenstand, mag - schon vor der Detailanalyse und der Prüfung der entsprechenden
mittelalterlichen Metamorphosenkommentare zur Stelle66 - dadurch plausibel wer
den, daß er bei seiner Prägung durch einen hellenistischen Eklektizismus in der OvidForschung sogar die Frage nach dem Einfluß der jüdischen Genesis provozieren
konnte67. Allein die Bezeichnungen des oder der Urheber dieses Schöpfungswerkes
ließen dem Konkordanzgedanken Raum : der G ott (dem) und die „melior natura“,
„m undi fabricator“, „ille opifex rerum, m undi melioris origo“68; sie veranlaßten Her
mann von Carinthia in der 1. Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts dazu, in O vid bereits einen
Lehrer des christlichen Monismus zu sehen69.
W enn Bernhard im Mittelalter als erster die Dichtung(slehre), poesis, als eigene wis
senschaftliche Disziplin herausstellte, so daß sie in mehreren nachfolgenden W issen
schaftssystematiken einen gewichtigen Platz einnahm 70, ist seine ,Erfindung* eines
neuen Modus dichterischen präterspirituellen Schreibens im 12. Jahrhundert das pas
sende Analogon für die Praxis. W enngleich Bernardus Silvestris also das Verdienst des
Inventors dieser neuen Dichtungen hat, ist doch Alan in der Umform ulierung des
zentralen christlichen Erlösungsgeschehens besonders kühn. D enn H ugo hatte erläu
tert, auch weltliche Schriften hätten die opera conditionis („creatio m undi cum o m n i
bus elementis suis“) sozusagen in der m u n d a n a iheologia zum Gegenstand, allein die
Heilige Schrift behandle jedoch die opera restaurationis'1. W ie Alan in der einzelnen
65 Dazu Nachweise bei Dronke und Wetherhee: A n m . 55, 60; s. auch Werner Beierwalles (Hrsg.),
Platonisrnus in der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Wege der Forschung 197, Darm stadt 1969); zur
Prägung der ,Cosmographia‘ durch Calcidius und Eriugena Peter Dronke, Bernard Silvestris, N a
tura, and Personification, in: Journal of the W arburg and Courtauld Institutes 43 (1980) 16-31;
dem nächst auch Christine Ratkowitsch, Die ,Cosmographia‘ des Bemardus Silvestris - eine Theo
dizee (Ordo 5, K öln , W eim ar, W ie n 1995).
66 Eine solche gründliche Prüfung steht noch aus.
67 IP'. Speyer, Spuren der Genesis in O v id ’s Metamorphosen? in: Festschrift Munari, hrsg. von
U.J. Stäche, W, Maaz, F. Wagner (H ildesheim 1986) 90-99. Z u r weiteren Literatur zu Ovids Kosm ogonie: II. Hofmann, Ovids .Metam orphosen“ in der Forschung der letzten 30 Jahre (19591979), in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen W elt, Bd. 31.4, hrsg. von Hildegard Temporim\
Wolfgang Hanse (Berlin, New' York 1981) 2206; ferner R. Me Kim, Myth against Philosophy in
O v id ’s A ccount of Creation, in: Classical Journal 80 (1985) 97-108.
68 Ovid, M etam orph. I 21, 57, 79; K o m m .: A n m . 61; s. auch Simone Viarre, La survie d ’Ovide
dans la littérature scientifique des X I I e et X I I I e siècles (Poitiers 1966) 46 ff. u.ô.
69 Hermann von Carinthia, De essentiis, ed. Al. Alonso, in: Miscellanea Comillas (1946) V 62;
Gregor Maiirach, Ovids Kosm ogonie: Q uellenbenutzung und Traditionsstiftung, in: G ym nasium
86 (1979) 131-148, hier 144 f.
70 Bernardus Silvestris, C o m m e n tu m super sex libros Eneidos Virgilii, ed. Giulielmus Riedel
(Greifswald 1924) 58 zu Aen. 6, 136ff.; dazu Ludwig Gompf, D er Leipziger ,Ordo artiiun*, in:
Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 3 (1966) 94-128, hier 98 ff., 110 ff.
71 Hugo, De sacramentis christ, fidei, 183C-184A.
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle g orie im M ittclalte r
55
W endung Gott durch Jupiter, den Heiligen Geist durch die „himmlische Muse“ und
so auch anderes in paganer Formel ersetzt, schafft er - wie schon Bernhard - einen ra
tional auflösbaren Mythos und m it ihm gleichsam die menschliche Version der restauratio neben der Erlösungstat Christi. Dieser absichtsvoll verfremdende Mythos wurde
in der kräftig sich entfaltenden Rezeptionsgeschichte des Werkes z.T. christologisch
reformuliert, besonders im Bereich der Zisterzienser (im .Com pendium Anticlaudiani*
und im Pommersfeldener Anticlaudian), wo der neue Mensch dann wieder als der Er
löser Christus erscheint72.
Es geht über den Zufall wohl hinaus, wenn die drei Integumenta, die ,Cosmographia‘, der .Planctus Naturae' und der ,Anticlaudianus‘ m it Hugos von St. Viktor Resü
mee der Bibel sich rekapitulieren lassen:
prim um ergo describit materiam in eo
quod factus est et dispositus (homo); - deinde miseriam in culpa et poena; - deinde
reparationem ... in cognitione veritatis et amore virtutis, dem um ... gaudium beatitudinis.“7J
W enn auch die neuen integumentalen Dichtungen aus demselben ideellen Grund
hervorgehen wie die neuen bibelallegorischen Werke Ruperts, Hugos und ihrer direk
ten Nachfolger in produktiver Kraft und dem Bezug auf eine kosmologische und
heilsgeschichtliche Totalität, so bringen sie doch in der Entfernung aus dem bibelexe
getischen Raum zusätzliche entscheidende Veränderungen: erstens, die dichterische
Erfindung, den Gebrauch quasi-mythischer fa b ula e, die als humane Parallelversionen
zu den Bibelinhalten deren Hauptteile ,verkleidet1, als philosophische Erkenntnis
transportieren74; zweitens, die Ausrichtung auf den Einzelmenschen, seine rationalen
und moralischen Erkenntniskräfte und Seelenvermögen in einem totalen kosmologischen Ansatz. So stellt Bernhard die dichterischen Integumenta unter den platonisch
christlichen Satz des „Erkenne dich selbst“, „nim m Einsicht in die natura humanae vitae“75; Alan kündigt für den ,Anticlaudianus‘ moralische Belehrung an und den A n
stoß zur Ideenschau76. Drittens wird m it der Neuschaffung von D ichtungen ein be
sonderer ästhetischer Anspruch etabliert, der zum Sich-Messen m it den entsprechen
den Werken der Antike provoziert und dam it eine Rhetorisierung (d.h. hohe techni
sche Beherrschung der alten Dichtungspraktiken) bedingt77. Zugleich verbinden sich
72 Almuts, Anticlaudianus V 270 ff. u. ö. Dazu Christel Meier, Die Rezeption des Anticlaudianus
Alans von Lilie in T extkom m entierung und Illustration, in: dies., Uwe Ritberg (Hrsg.), Text und
Bild (Wiesbaden 1980) 408-549, hier 471 ff., 480 ff.
73 Hugo, De sacramentis chrtst. fidei, 184C; vgl. ders., Expositio in Hierarchiam caelestem, ed.
Migne, PL 175, 9 2 3 ff.
71 Peter von Moos, Geschichte als Topik. Das rhetorische E xem plum von der A ntike zur Neuzeit
und die ,historiae‘ im ,Poiicraticus‘ Johanns von Salisbury (O rdo 2, H ildesheim 1988) 491 ff. zur
praterspirituellen Literatur m it „auf verschiedene Arten hypothetischer - aber keineswegs kriti
scher oder negativer - A usklam m erung der zentralen christlichen D o g m e n“, insbesondere dem
,remoto Christo1, wofür Motive je im Einzelfall zu ergründen sind.
J Bernardus Silvestris, C o m m e ntu m , 3.
Alctnus, Anticlaudianus, Prol., 55 f., besonders: N icht lesen sollen die D ichtu ng diejenigen, die
nicht die Sinnenerfahrung und die Im aginationen überschreiten (wollen), „sed hü qui sue rationis
materiale in turpibus im aginibus non perm ittunt quiescere, sed ad intuitum supercelestium formarum audent attollere, m ci operis ingrediantur angustias“.
Nicht von ungefähr bildet die Them atik des Dichtens selbst einen wichtigen Aspekt in den
C h ristel M eier
56
Rhetorisches und philosophischer Gehalt derart, daß die Integumenta eine Ebene des
Problembewußtseins, der Reflexion und der Argumentation eröffnen für die neufor
mulierten alten W ahrheiten. Der an sich schwierige und theologisch anfechtbare Ver
such ist legitimiert und geschützt durch die Moralisierung der Problematik, d.h. eben
durch die Beschränkung auf den human-ethischen Bereich78.
Die integumentalen Dichtungen wurden nicht nur durch die praktischen Vorbilder
und durch den Rückbezug auf die Bibelinhalte bestimmt, sondern sie fußten auch auf
der spätantiken fabitla-Theorie79. Macrobius hatte dargestellt, welches die Bedingun
gen der Verhüllung von philosophischer W ahrheit in fiktionalen Formen (jabulosa
narmtio) seien, welche Art von Mythos also sie vermitteln dürfe. Es bleibt ein ethisch
gereinigter, auf die Seele, d.h. die psychischen und auf die kosmischen Kräfte gerich
teter Mythos erlaubt: „hoc est solum figmenti genus quod cautio divinis rebus philosophantis a d m ittit... his uti solent cum vel de anima vel de aeriis aetheriisve potestatibus vel de ceteris dis loquuntur (philosophi)“ Ausgenom m en ist der höchste Gott,
„der bei den Griechen das Gute, der die erste Ursache genannt wird“ sowie der Nous
(mens) und die Ideen (originales rertim species). Sie sind nur - in dem Bewußtsein ihrer
Unerreichbarkeit m it menschlichem Wissen und seiner Sprache - durch Gleichnisse
nach der Art des platonischen Sonnengleichnisses in uneigentlicher Rede auszudrükken80. Daher beschränken die theoretischen Aussagen des 12. Jahrhunderts zum Integum entum , auf Macrobius sich stützend, den Signifikatbereich auf philosophische Er
kenntnis gegenüber eigentlicher Offenbarungsweisheit und auf Ethik81. Ist philoso
phische W ahrheit in diesem Jahrhundert auch selbstverständlich christlich gedacht, so
ist für die Dichtung, für die figmenta poetica, doch der Argumentationsraum, den die
mythische Fabel schafft, unter Ausklammerung der transzendenten W ahrheit auf die
menschliche Ratio im Rahm en einer theologia m iindana begrenzt. D em scheint die
Himmelsreise im ,Anticlaudianus‘ zu widersprechen82. Aber wo dort die Wiederher
stellung des Menschen im überhimmlischen Ort vor Gott erreicht werden soll, wird
die W ahrnehm ung des Transzendenten in erschrecktem Staunen äußerlich und ohne
eigentliches, direktes Begreifen nur berührt, dann in der Erkenntnisohnmacht verwei
gert, um schließlich, von Fides unterstützt, im Spiegel, d.h. uneigentlich-abbildhaft,
den menschlichen Kräften erträglich und erfahrbar zu werden. Aus diesem Dilem m a
neuen W erken: dazu z. B. Dronke, Cosmographia, 58 f.; Vergleichbares gilt für Alan und Johannes
von Hauvilla (s. unten).
78 Dazu auch Peter von Moos, W as galt im lateinischen Mittelalter als das Literarische an der Lite
ratur? Eine theologisch-rhetorische A ntw ort des 12.Jahrhunderts, in: Joachim Heinzle( Hrsg.), Li
terarische Interessenbildung im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, W eim ar 1993) 447 ff.
79 Peter Dronke, Fabula: Explorations into the Uses of M yth in Medieval Platonism (Leiden,
K öln 1974).
80 Macrobius, C om m entarii in S o m n iu m Scipionis I 2, ed. Jacob Willis (Leipzig 1970) 3 ff., hier !
2, 11 und 14-16.
81 So auch Bernardus Silvestris: Westra, The Com m entary, 45 f. in der Bestim m ung von Allego
rie und Integum entum .
82 Vgl. von Moos, Das Literarische, 448 f.; Gillmn R. E m m , A lan of Lille. The Frontiers of Thcology in the Later Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1983).
57
resultiert die eigenartig-distanzierte ,Revue“ der himmlischen W under im ,Anticlaudianus“83.
c) Parabiblische neue Offenbarungsvision
Ein anderer W eg aus der traditionellen Schriftallegorese führt in die Vision, und zwar
in jene Sorte von Visionen, die sich als verlängerte quasi-biblische Offenbarung inspi
rierter fortgesetzter göttlicher Mitteilung versteht. Sie knüpft in Stoff und Legitima
tion zuerst an die alttestamentlichen Visionen, besonders des Ezechiel, und an die
Apokalypse des Neuen Testaments sowie an die entsprechenden Apokryphen und
frühe christliche Visionswerke (,Hermae Pastor“)84 an; sie bedient sich ihrer Bildele
mente mitsamt deren Deutungen sowie der gesamten Exegesetradition und schafft
aus ihnen in Kom bination oder Kollage neue Bildkontinua m it allegorischer Interpre
tation. Es entstehen so parabiblische oder postbiblische neue Offenbarungstexte. Sie
stellen als dritte Art der Überschreitung der eigentlichen Bibelhermeneutik auch das
Pendant dar zu der mythologisch eingekleideten ,weltlichen Theologie“ der präterspirituellen Integumenta, die sich auf die Grundzüge des Bibelinhalts rückbeziehen. An
K ühnheit der Erneuerung und selbstbewußtem Gestaltungswillen stehen sie jenen
nicht nach. W ie die anderen beiden Richtungen sind auch sie zunächst stark heilsge
schichtlich und kosmologisch akzentuiert, erweisen sich damit demselben philosophi
schen Ansatz verpflichtet. Ihr theoretisches Konzept, das sowohl die Möglichkeit der
Fortsetzung biblischer Offenbarung als tbeologia wie auch das Verfahren solcher Bildkollage fundiert, ist pseudo-dionysischer Provenienz, durch H ugo von St. Viktor ver
mittelt85. Die fortgesetzte polyvalente visionäre Deutung der Schrift durch die prophetae theologi, die aus den alten biblischen symbola im m er neue Erkenntnis zieht, indem
sie auch die Beschaffenheit der Offenbarungstexte als figmenta propbetica, ihre not
wendige quasi-poetische Bildrede zur Verm ittlung anders nicht mitteilbaren Intelligiblen durchschaut86, bereitet den Umschlag von der Hermeneutik der Schrift in die
Produktion neuer parabiblischer figmenta propbetica vor. Das wichtigste Beispiel die
ser Richtung im 12. Jahrhundert ist das W erk Hildegards von Bingen87. Ihre erste
große Visionsschrift ,Scivias‘ formuliert in Bilderreihen m it 26 Bildern eine große
Heilsgeschichte vom Paradies und der Beschreibung des Kosmos durch die alte Zeit,
über die Erlösung und die Sakramente der Kirche bis zu Antichrist, Zusam menbruch
83 Alanus, Anticlaudianus V 306 ff. cd. Bossuat, 132 ff.; zur O h n m a ch t und H eilung ebd. V I 1 ff.,
141 ff.
** Hermas, Le pasteur, ed. Robert Joly (Sources chrétiennes 53, Paris 1968).
83 Hugo, Expositio in Hierarchiam caelestem, PL 175, 941 Aff., 946Aff.; dazu Meier, Scientia Divinorum O perum (wie A n m . 87), 96 f.
86 lohannes Scotus Bringend, Expositiones in lerarchiam coelestem, ed. J. Barbet (CG C M 31,
1urnhoi.it 1975) besonders 2 0 ff.; dazu Meier, Scientia, 101 ff.
87 Christel Meier, Eriugena im Nonnenkloster? Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Prophetentum
und Werkgestalt in den .figmenta prophetica“ Hildegards von Bingen, in: Frühmittelalterliche
Studien 19 (1985) 466-497, A bb. 74-83; dies., Scientia D ivinorum O perum . Z u Hildegards von
Bingen visionär-künstlerischer Rezeption Eriugenas, in: Eriugena redivivus, hrsg. von Werner
Beienvähes (Heidelberg 1987) 89-141; dies., Hildegard von Bingen, in: Deutsche Literatur des
Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, Bd. 3 (^ 1981) 1257-1280.
C h ristel M eier
58
des Kosmos und Endgericht sowie der Erstehung eines neuen H im m els und einer
neuen Erde. Diesem heilsgeschichtlich und trinitarisch organisierten Werk, das ohne
den Vorgänger Rupert kaum denkbar ist88, tritt m it der letzten großen Visionsschrift,
dem ,Liber divinorum operum* und seinen zehn komplexen Visionsbildern ein eher
kosmologischer, dabei - neuplatonisch - auf Ideenschau angelegter Ansatz heraus. In
kühner Bildmontage und äußerster Bildkonzentration werden hier symbola entworfen
für den natürlichen, den ethischen und den heilsgeschichtlichen Kosmos, die, zusam
men die Totalität der W elt darstellend, wiederum überfangen werden vom trinitarischen Prinzip, ja von Bildern der Trinität und zuletzt dem Bild des einen Gottes. Die
Folge der Visionen, der Prozeß des Werkes, ahm t dabei den kosmischen Ausgang (processus) der W elt aus Gott und die Rückkehr (reditus) in ihn nach89. Die entscheidende
Veränderung der Allegorese ist also das selbständige freie Verfügen des einzelnen A u
tors über die Tradition, ihre Neuformulierung in neuen parabiblischen Bildkomplexen
m it Offenbarungsanspruch im Bezug auf die eigene Z eit90.
IV. Zweite Differenzierungsstufe der Allegorie
im 12./13. Jahrhundert
Die allegorischen Entwürfe der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts schöpfen die Im p li
kationen der Allegorese bis zu einem Idealtypus aus, der charakterisiert ist durch die
vollkommene Geschlossenheit und das harmonische Gleichgewicht von Kosmologie,
Geschichtssicht und Position des Einzelmenschen m it seinen intellektuellen und affektischen Vermögen. In der historischen Entwicklung ist dieser Typus jedoch nur
eine kurze Spanne in Gültigkeit. W urde er m it der mittelalterlichen Allegorie über
haupt gleichgesetzt, mußte es zu falschen Frontstellungen kom m en, die Forschungs
kontroversen bis in die letzten Jahre bestimmt haben91. Denn nicht nur in sich trugen
- wie gesagt - die neuen Hochformen Ansätze zum W andel, die weitere Veränderun
gen hervortrieben, auch externe Kräfte bewirkten mit, daß ein neuer, wiederum ent
scheidender Differenzierungsvorgang in der Allegorese erfolgte. Das Signal hierfür ist
- wie bekannt - in der Neuordnung der Wissenschaftssystematik nach dem aristoteli
schen Modell die Trennung von theoretischer und praktischer Philosophie, die zuerst
Hugo von St. Viktor im ,Didascalicon‘ vornimmt. Die Domäne der Theorik und bald
des ganzen höheren wissenschaftlichen Bereichs n im m t die neue scholastische Me
thode ein, die m it ihrem systematisch-rationalen Ausbau der Glaubenslehre, m it ihren
technischen Frage-Antwort-Schemata sowie logischen Divisiones der bildlich und as
soziativ orientierten allegorischen Methode und deren eigener Systematik der A nalo
gie und der Synthese entgegensteht.
88 Z u Rupert oben A n m . 47 f.
89 Meier, Scientia, 105 ff.
90 W e n n J . Van Engen, Studying Scripture in the Early University (in diesem Band) zeigt, wie die
Bibel im 12. Jahrhundert neu gelesen wird wie andere Bücher auch, so ist wohl nun umgekehrt
der produktive Gebrauch und die Fortsetzung dieses Buches zugleich ermöglicht.
91 Dazu die Literatur oben unter II.
59
W enn auch zunächst der gleiche Impetus der freieren Verfügung über die Exegese
traditionen und ihre eigenständige Beurteilung, ihr schöpferisches Weiterdenken die
Richtungen verbindet, hier wie dort der neue, jeweils letzte Interpret gegenüber allen
vor ihm konsultierten Autoritäten in seiner Kom petenz aufgewertet wird92, fällt doch
das Ergebnis der Seite einer neuen dialektischen Theologie ganz anders aus. Nach
Abaelards ,Sic et non‘ und seiner Synopse der Auslegungstraditionen m it dem kriti
schen Autoritätenvergleich auf Widersprüche hin, m it der Suche nach rationaler Lö
sung der kritischen Punkte werden völlig neue Textformen außerhalb des allegori
schen Schrifttums geschaffen. M it einem Bild des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts ausge
drückt, ist der Wechsel von der Gebäudemetapher des vierfachen Schriftsinns (mit
dem Fundament der historia, den W änden der allegorla, dem Dach der anagogkt und
der Bemalung der tropologia) zu einem Bauwerk der scholastischen Untersuchungs
methode m it dem Fundam ent der Autoritäten, den W änden der Fragen und Argu
mente, dem Dach der Lösungen und rationalen Beweise bezeichnend93.
Neue Entwicklungen gibt es auch im Bereich der praktischen Philosophie. Durch
das ganze 12. und noch ins 13. Jahrhundert ziehen sich die Bemühungen um eine von
der theologisch orientierten Theorik abgehobene Moralphilosophie, die weitgehend
aus antiken moralphilosophischen Quellen schöpft. Sie sucht entweder die K onkor
danz m it der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition nachzuweisen oder baut bewußt präterspirituell in Parallele dazu eine allgemein-menschliche Ethik auf94.
Beide wissenschaftlichen Neuansätze haben die Allegorese entscheidend beeinflußt.
Die scholastische Methode beginnt sie aus der hohen theologischen Wissenschaft, aus
der Theorik, zu verdrängen93. D am it verlagert sich das Hauptgebiet der Allegorese ins
Moralische, so daß hier vor allem in der Z uk unft ihre Innovationen sich ausbilden96.
Im Anschluß an die Ergebnisse des ersten Differenzierungsschubs lassen sich die
Konsequenzen der Umstrukturierung m it wenigen Strichen zeichnen (auch wenn die
Komplexität des allegorischen Schrifttums insgesamt zunimmt).
92 Das gilt für Rupert von D eutz ebenso wie für Peter Abelard, Sic et non, edd. Blanche B, Bayer,
Richard McKean (Chicago 1977) Prolog 89 ff.; kurz dazu Kurt Flasch, Das philosophische D e n
ken im Mittelalter. Von A ugustin zu Machiavelli (Stuttgart 1986) 2 11 ff., 298 ff.; s. auch David E.
Lnscombe (in diesem Band).
l>i Z u r Gebäudem etapher für den O rd o der Schriftsinne seit H ieronym us u nd Gregor d. Gr.
Haus-Jörg Spitz, Die Metaphorik des geistigen Schriftsinns (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften
12, M ünchen 1972) 205 ff., zum scholastischen Bauwerk Petrus von Capua 217 f. (nach M, Grab
mann, Scholastische M ethode, Bd. 2, 532 f.).
9,1 Von Moos, Geschichte als Topik, 441 ff., 488 ff. (m it Lit.) zum ,M oralium dogm a philosophorum‘ u.a.
95 ln dieser Erneuerung der theologischen Wissenschaft ist das Kerninteresse zu sehen von Beryl
Smalley, The Bible; die Entw icklung der Allegorese sowohl innerhalb als auch außerhalb der
Schriftexegese (jedoch aus ihr angeregt), auf die es hier ankam, fand - wie Smalley im ,Preface to
third edition' selbst sagt (V Ilif.) - nicht ausreichend Aufmerksamkeit.
Innerhalb der Bibelexegese prägt sich zunächst der Gegensatz zwischen den quaestionistae
und den morales aus, wobei den letzten der Vorwurf gemacht wird: „N on est b onum in theologia
tot moralitates fingere“ ; zitiert bei Smalley, Bible, 269 (nach H ugo von St. Cher, wie A nm . 98,
Bel 6, 94rb).
60
C hristel M eier
a) Moralische Schriftexegese
In der Bibelallegorese weitet sich vom späten 12. ins 13. Jahrhundert hinein der Anteil
des Moralischen aus, oder - von der Gegenseite her gesehen - die heilsgeschichtlichen
und christologischen Deutungen nehmen ab. Zugleich differenziert sich die morali
sche Exegese und reagiert damit.auf die gleichfalls komplexere Situation der Kirchen
stände. G ing es im frühen Sensus moralis mehr um die Seele in ihren grundsätzlichen
Bedingungen zwischen Heil und Verdammnis sowie um christliches Handeln über
haupt, so wird nun der Bereich der äußeren Handlungsanweisungen verstärkt und da
bei auf spezifische Situationen und Gruppen oder Stände der Kirche hin ausgerichtet.
Z unehm end greift die Exegese so auch in die konkrete Lebenswirklichkeit aus, wird
zur Handlungs- und Sozialdidaxe97. Der Übergang vom im engeren Sinn religiösen
Bereich zu Anweisungen über generell gutes Handeln des Menschen wird fließend.
Z u m Beispiel n im m t in dem großen bibelallegorischen W erk Hugos von St. Cher, des
Dominikanerprovinzials und Kardinals ( f 1263), und seiner Helfer der Sensus moralis
den größten allegorischen Auslegungsteil ein m it den genannten neuen Differenzie
rungen der verschiedenen Stände der Kirche, der verschiedenen Orden, der Gelehrten
und Laien, obwohl der A utor im Prolog noch eine nach den vier Schriftsinnen ausge
wogene Darstellung ankündigt98. Was an der Kommentarallegorese, Predigt, den
Distinctiones, moralallegorischen Handbüchern und verwandten Gattungen im ein
zelnen noch weiter zu untersuchen wäre, läßt sich schon jetzt, beweisen etwa an den
großen moralenzyklopädischen Sammelwerken des Petrarca-Freundes Petrus Berchorius aus dem 14. Jahrhundert. Seine riesige moralexegetische Trias .Reductorium m o
rale“, .Repertorium morale“ und ,Directorium morale“, bei deren Entstehung er oft wie er im Vorwort gesteht - vor Überarbeitung sein Bett m it Tränen benetzte99, ver
folgt vor allem im ersten Werk, das von den Dingen und ihren Eigenschaften ausgeht,
deren omnivalente Anw endung im moralischen Bereich: „...ad finem scilicet, quod ad
omne propositum possit hom o proprietates rerum adducere, et moralizatas, expositas
et applicatas ad omne, quod voluerit, invenire.“ 100 Der weiten Ö ffnung in verschiede
nen möglichen Anwendungsfeldern entspricht die Aufnahm e auch der poetischen
und mythischen Stoffe (jabulae et aenigmata Poetanim) im Sinnträgerbereich: „Das
alles zusammen wurde von m ir exzerpiert und auf die Lebensführung angewendet“
(ad mores applicata)10'. Bibel, W elt und Mythos werden so durch die m om lisatioverei91 Die hier skizzierte Entwicklungsrichtung, sie sich in den verschiedensten Bereichen spätm it
telalterlicher Literatur nachweisen lassen dürfte, hat sich für m ich an U ntersuchungen in m ei
nem Forschungsprojekt zur mittelalterlichen Enzyklopädik (im Sonderforschungsbereich 231 /
Münster) konkretisiert; Publikationen dazu von H einz Meyer und m ir sind in Vorbereitung.
98 Hugo von St. Cher, Opera om nia, Bd. 1 (Lyon 1645) Prolog Iva: Nach der Erklärung der vier
Sinne (m it Relation zu den vier Farben des Tempelvorhangs), die alle berücksichtigt werden sol
len, kündigt er aber doch eine stärkere K onzentration auf den historischen und moralischen Sinn
an: „Nos igitur duo m edia (allegoriam et anagogen) relinquentes ad praesens, p rim u m et u ltim um
(sc. sensum, id est historicum et moralem) ... prosequemur“, das heißt, „quid factum“ und „quid
faciendum “ ist vordringlich.
99 Petrus Berchorius, Reductorium morale (K öln 1731) 3a.
100 Ebd., Ib.
101 Ebd., Ib.
61
nigt: „Circa conditionem operis notandum est, quod labores mei nihil aliud sunt,
quam quaedam morales reductiones, quaedamque proprietatum moralizationes, et
quaedam exemplares applicationes, quibus sc. conditiones virtutum et vitiorurn pos
sint ostendi, et quibus exemplis et figuris mediantibus, possint illa, quae ad fidem et
mores pertinent, manu duci. Et sic dico, quod in isto opere proprietates rerum, figmenta Poetarum, aenigmata scripturarum sint pro materia, applicatio vero ad mores
est pro forma, ... salus vero anim arum est ibi pro causa finali.“ 102 Die Verbindung von
Allegorien, Exempeln, Metaphern, Mythen und anderen dichterischen Jabulae in ei
nem weiteren ethischen Feld ist dam it programmatisch angekündigt und im Werk
ausgeführt.
b) Moralisierung des Integum entum
Das Integum entum bringt ebenfalls neue Werke hervor, die die Tendenz einer wach
senden Ethisierung des allegorischen Schrifttums bestätigen. Mit einer deutlichen L ö
sung aus der philosophisch-kosmologischen Determination zeigen sie die moralische
Dimension dominant, und auch diese spaltet sich bald in verschiedene Spielarten. Der
,Architrenius‘ des Johannes von Hauville von 1184/5 ist das erste dieserart Werke.
Ethisch ist die Gesamtintention der Dichtung; sie „erzählt die Geschichte eines ju n
gen Mannes, des Architrenius, der voll K um m er über die eigene Sündhaftigkeit und
menschliche U nvollkom m enheit beschließt, Mutter Natur aufzusuchen und ihre Hilfe
zu erbitten“ 103. So schildert die Dichtung denn seine W anderung zur Natur, deren
Stationen fast alle ethische Haltepunkte, Gefährdungen und ihre Überwindung bedeu
ten, etwa der Palast der Venus, die Orte von Völlerei, Ehrgeiz und Macht, Verkehrt
heit in Praesumptio, Superbia und Cupiditas sowie Avaritia. W ie die antiken Lehren
und Exempel durchgehend besonderes Gewicht haben104, geschieht endlich die Be
lehrung zur Rettung von Seiten einiger Repräsentanten antiker Weisheit: Architrenius
hört die Reden einer auf Tylos, der Insel ewigen Frühlings, versammelten Schar von
zwölf antiken Philosophen an, nach denen als dreizehnter auch noch Pythagoras die
sieben Weisen einführt, die gleichfalls über Ethik reden, bis schließlich die Natur auf
seine Klage und Anklage hin ihm zur Heirat m it Moderantia rät105. Die daraufhin
vollzogene Heirat ist wiederum durch und durch moralisch, nicht nur die Braut, son
dern auch die Mitgift, Dienerinnen der Braut und Gesinde, ja sogar das Hochzeitses
sen bestehen in ethischen W erten106. Doch gibt es auch Einschüsse aus dem realen
102 Ebd., la.
105 Johannes de Hauvilla, Architrenius, ed. Paul Gerhard Schmidt (M ünchen 1974) 30; vgl. auch
judson Boyee Allen, The Ethical Poetic of the Later M iddle Ages: A Decorum of Convenient
Distriction (Toronto, London 1982); dazu die Rezension von AlastairJ. Alinnis, in: Speculum 59
(1984) 363-366.
IW Johannes de Hauvilla, Architrenius, ed. Schmidt, 53.
105 Johannes de Hauvilla, Architrenius, Buch 6-8 (215 ff.) die Weisen der A ntike (Archytas, Pla
ton, Cato, Diogenes, Sokrates, Dem okrit, Cicero, Plinius); Buch 8-9, 2 5 9 ff.
106 Johannes de Hauvilla, Architrenius, 9, 348 ff. (279 ff.).
C hristel M eier
62
Leben der Zeit, wie die Trinksucht der Engländer, die strenge Enthaltsamkeit der wei
ßen Mönche, das mühsame Pariser Studentenleben und das Lob Cornwalls107.
Von diesem allegorisch-moralischen Integum entuni aus differenziert sich die ästhetisch-dichterische Allegorie in eine große Zahl derartiger Dichtungen über Jah rh u n
derte, unter deren frühen der ,Rosenroman1 wohl die berühmteste ist108.
c) Handlungs- und Sozialethik in der Moraldidaxe Innerseelisch-erfahrungsmystische Allegorik
Von der visionären parabiblischen Neuformulierung allegorischer Bilderreihen, wie sie
Hildegard von Bingen m it heilsgeschichtlicher und kosmologischer Akzentuierung
entwarf, führt gleichfalls ein W eg in entsprechende moralische Formen. Das geschieht
wieder unter der Differenzierung eines älteren einheitlichen Modells, in dem der Sen
sus moralis die Einzelseele im Ganzen, das heißt innere Vorgänge und Handlungsbe
züge, umfaßte. D enn nun trennt sich eine komplexere Handlungs- und Sozialethik in
der Moraldidaxe von einer vertieften, auf innerseelische Erfahrungen und Erkenntnis
prozesse gerichteten mystischen Allegorese. In dieser erfährt die Allegorie nicht nur
eine Intensivierung des ,inneren' Sensus moralis, sondern dam it auch eine Individuali
sierung und Verpersönlichung. Diese Transformation kündigt sich in Vorformen seit
dem frühen 12. Jahrhundert an. Bei Rupert von Deutz gibt es eine Reihe von aus exe
getischen Elementen zusammengesetzten .persönlichen“ Legitimationsvisionen, die
den innovativen Ausleger Rupert in seinem officium bestätigen, während seine Werke
selbst noch überwiegend heilsgeschichtlich ausgerichtet sind109. Hildegard von Bin
gen, die solche Legitimation auch kennt, formuliert darüber hinaus den individuellen
Charakter ihrer Allegorese auch theoretisch, indem sie diese in pseudo-dionysischem
Sinn beschreibt als individuelle Inkorporationen oder „Inkarnationen“ der ewigen
W ahrheit, der Ideen, die ihre eigentümliche Gestalt nach dem Individuum annehmen,
das sie vermittelt110. D am it ist der W eg in die mystische Allegorese geöffnet. In den
folgenden Werken, zum Teil bereits seit Bernhards von Clairvaux Hoheliedauslegung,
in breiterer Entwicklung jedoch erst vom 13. Jahrhundert ab, wird persönlich-indivi
duelle Gotteserfahrung gerade auch in allegorischen Formen reflektiert111. Bibel
kommentare zuerst, besonders zum Hohenlied, und verschiedene freiere Textsorten
danach lassen diese mystische Allegorie bis in die Barockzeit wirken und sich erneu
ern.
107 Johannes de HauuUla, Architrenius, 2, 3 1 0 ff. (154 f.); 2, 379 ff. (157); 3. 1 ff. (161 ff.); 5, 475 ff.
108 Hans Robert Jaiiß , Alterität u nd Modernität der mittelalterlichen Literatur (M ünchen 1977)
153 ff. ,Zur allegorischen D ic htu ng “, besonders 285 ff. .Allegorese, Rcm ythisierung und neuer
Mythus“ (zuerst 1971).
109 Dazu Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz, 48 ff.; diese Visionen bedürfen noch der weiteren Er
schließung.
110 D azu Meier, Scientia, 140.
111 Z u nennen wären hier etwa Elisabeth von Schönau, Hadewijch, M echthild von Magdeburg,
die Helftaer Mystikerinnen.
W e n d e p u n k te der A lle g o rie im M ittelaiter
63
V. Ergebnis und Ausblick
Die doppelte W ende der Allegorie im 12./13. Jahrhundert, wie sie hier vorgeschlagen
wurde, erscheint m ir als der bedeutsamste W andel in der Geschichte der Allegorie,
wichtiger als die Veränderungen zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit. In ihren beiden
Phasen sind fast alle systematischen Möglichkeiten im allegorischen Feld angelegt als wesentliche spätere Neuerungen (des 16. Jahrhunderts) könnte man das intramundane Verweissystem der Signaturenlehre“ 2 und die feste Kombinationsform aus Text
und Bild des Emblems nennen. In der Aufeinanderfolge der zwei Phasen der Diffe
renzierung tritt, ganz vereinfacht gesehen, eine W ende und in ihrem zweiten Schritt
ein Übergang von der Schrifthermeneutik zur Lebenspraktik ein, aus der kontem plati
ven Bucherklärung in die M ultiplikation entsprechend einer sich differenzierenden
Erfahrens- und Handlungswelt des Menschen ins Psychologische und Soziale, in Pro
fessionalität und Politik. Hieraus erklärt sich auch das neue Bewußtwerden der A ll
tagsallegorie und ihr Zuwachs im Spätmittelalter. Freilich ist der breite Strom der
spätmittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Allegorien auch durch die Gleichzeitigkeit des
Ungleichzeitigen charakterisiert; dies hat irritiert. Je neue Vermischungen und Separa
tionen für neue Gebrauchszusammenhänge sind möglich. Sie scheinen nun eher Ver
schiebungen im kulturell-sozialen Feld anzuzeigen als echte Neugründungen allegori
scher Formen zu sein.
An ihrem Anfang war die Allegorese Textkommentierung und damit ein A b
komme der alexandrinischen philologischen Wissenschaft. A n
ihrem
Ende im
18. Jahrhundert unterliegt sie einer verwandten Einschränkung, führt in Formen der
Erstarrung und Pedanterie. Doch dazwischen spannt sich der Bogen ihrer Entwick
lung und W irkung. Aus einer Schrift-Gattung des gelehrten Kommentars hat sie nicht
nur eine enorme Literaturmenge überhaupt hervorgebracht, sondern auch eine große
Vielfalt literarischer Formen herausgetrieben, und dies seit den W endepunkten im
12./13. Jahrhundert.
Sie geht also aus dem M edium Buch hervor, ist auf Vermittlung durch das Buch we
sentlich angewiesen, und der allegorische Schriftkommentar ist bis ins 12. Jahrhundert
entscheidendes M edium der Entwicklung der europäischen Schriftkultur im Mittelal
ter; auf ihn waren bis dahin verschiedene Fähigkeiten und Methoden der Textbearbei
tung vereinigt.
In dem Übergang dieser in andere, neue Textsorten und in ihrer eigenen Diversifi
zierung wird die Allegorie Mitbegründerin und Trägerin wesentlicher Zweige der
europäischen L iteratur"3. Allein in der erzählenden Dichtung gibt es bald verschie
dene allegorische Groß- und Kleinformen, sie hat Anteil am neuzeitlichen Drama, ist
in der Lyrik verbreitet. Nach der raschen Entwicklung der neuen wissenschaftlichen
Methoden, der Ausbildung von neuen Gattungen fachwissenschaftlicher Abstraktion
112 Dazu Friedrich Ohly, Die W elt als Text in der ,G e m m a Magiea' des Ps.-Abraham von
Franekenberg, in: Text-Etymologie. Festschrift für H. Lausberg zu m 75. Geburtstag, hrsg. von
Arnold Arens (Wiesbaden, Stuttgart 1987) bes. 258 ff.
Ein knapper, aber reichhaltiger Gesam tüberblick jetzt bei Wiebke Freytag, Allegorie, A llego
rese, in: Historisches W örterbuch der Rhetorik 1 (Tübingen 1992) 330-392.
64
C h ristel M eier
und fortschreitender Intellektualisierung sowie der Verwaltung m it wachsender Büro
kratisierung des Lebens im Hochmittelalter bleibt sie daher auch Asyl der Kreativität,
der Phantasie, der Kunst. Als Phänom en endlich, das nicht auf das Buch beschränkt
ist, sondern zunehm end auch in visuellen oder kombinierten Formen realisiert wird,
bewahrt die Allegorie die Verm ittlung zwischen Schriftlichkeit und anderen A us
drucks- und Kom m unikationsform en.
II. Das 12. Jahrhundert
Rainer Berndt SJ
Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Exegese und
Theologie in „De sacramentis Christiane fidei“
Hugos von St. Viktor
Das sich seit einigen Jahren unter Mediävisten verschiedener Fachrichtungen neu arti
kulierende Interesse an der Pariser Abtei St. Viktor bezieht sich auf alle intellektuellen
Beiträge, die deren herausragende Köpfe zur geistigen Gestalt des 12. Jahrhunderts er
bracht haben1. Seit insbesondere Beryl Smalley ein Viertel ihres initiierenden Werks
The Study 0} the Bible der viktorinischen Exegese widmete und Henri de Lubac in
Exégèse médiévale die Schlüsselstellung eines Hugo und Richard von St. Viktor in der
Geschichte der Schriftsinne aufzeigen konnte, liegt das Desiderat eines neuen Z u
gangs zur Theologie der Viktoriner auf der Hand.
Angestoßen von B. Smalley und P. de Lubac haben sich die Mediävisten daran ge
macht, die zahllosen, meist unbekannten Bibelkommentare sowie die erhaltenen Pre
digten zu sichten und zu untersuchen. A uch die Werke der Exegeten aus St. Viktor
wurden herausgegeben und analysiert. Mein verehrter Lehrer Jean Châtillon beispiels
weise edierte die Predigten Achards von St. Viktor2. U nd während die noch vor kur
zem nur handschriftlich erhaltenen Kommentare des Viktoriners Andreas nun entwe
der gedruckt vorliegen oder aber gerade vorbereitet werden3, warten die entsprechen
den Texte Richards, von Ausnahm en wie dem Liber exceptiomim abgesehen, auf ihre
Bearbeitung. Schließlich: Umfang und Gestalt der opera omnia Hugos von St. Viktor
im Unterschied zu den ihm zugeschriebenen Werken werden sich, so darf man hof
1 Verwiesen sei nur aut Jean Längere (Hrsg.), L’abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Age.
Com m unications présentées au X I I Ie Colloque d’hum anism e médiéval (1986-1988) (Bibliotheea
Victorina 1, Turnhout 1991), und Patrick Gautier Dalché, L’école de Saint-Victor au Moyen Age,
in: Revue de synthèse, IV e série (1993) 289-295.
2 Aehard de Saint-Victor, Sermons inédits. Texte latin avec introduction, notes et tables, hrsg.
von Jean Châtillon (Paris 1969).
3 Das auf acht Bände angelegte Gesamtwerk wird im Corpus Christianorum. C ontinuatio Mediaeualis 53-53G erscheinen. Vier Bände liegen vor: Expositio super H eptateuchum , hrsg. von
Charles Lohr und Rainer Berndt (Turnhout 1986); Expositiones historicae in libros Salomonis,
hrsg. Rainer Berndt (Turnhout 1991); Expositio in Ezechielem, hrsg. Michel Signer (Turnhout
1991); Expositio super Danielen!, hrsg. Mark Zier (Turnhout 1990). Alle übrigen Kom m entare
befinden sich in Vorbereitung.
66
R ain e r B erndt
fen, schrittweise aus dem weiteren Fortgang der Frankfurter kritischen Edition erge
ben. Seine Schriftkommentare, von denen manche handschriftlich sehr verworren
überliefert sind, werden besonderer Sorgfalt bedürfen.
Dank der bisher zu verzeichnenden Ergebnisse in der Erforschung der biblischen
Auslegungsgeschichte dürfte jetzt unbezweifelbar sein: Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
und Neuen Testaments stellte in der mittelalterlichen W elt den überragenden Bezugs
punkt politischen Handelns, kirchlicher Lehre und humanistischer Wissenschaft dar4.
Der vordringliche Gesichtspunkt, der zu dieser Schlußfolgerung führt, ist natürlich
nicht die Tatsache des quantitativ enormen Einflusses der Bibel, sondern die im präzi
sen Sinn weitreichende Rezeption der Heiligen Schrift in der gesamten K ultur des la
teinischen Abendlandes. Alle im 12. Jahrhundert der Abtei St. Viktor zuzurechnen
den Autoren, nicht nur ihre eigentlichen Mitglieder also - über die schon genannten
hinaus wären Gottfried und Absalon zu nennen -, sondern auch ihre zahlreichen
Freunde aus dem Diözesanklerus - beispielsweise Petrus Manducator, Petrus Lombardus oder Maurice von Sully3, vertreten dabei Wissenschaftsmodelle, die sich aus den
Problemen m it der Schriftrezeption ergeben6. Predigt und theologische Lehre der ge
nannten Schriftsteller offenbaren darüber hinaus eine grundlegend heilsgeschichtliche
Orientierung.
W eil uns die Erforschung der Exegesegeschichte die zentrale Bedeutung der H eili
gen Schrift in der mittelalterlichen K ultur zu erkennen gibt, können die Historiker
der Philosophie und Theologie nicht mehr um hin, sich auf die jetzt erforderliche neue
Betrachtungsweise einzulassen. W enn es angehen mag, die Schriftbezogenheit der ka
rolingischen Renaissance für evident oder wenigstens leicht einsehbar zu halten, so
läßt man dies seit noch nicht allzu langer Zeit auch für die auf Anselm von Canterbury folgenden Generationen gelten7. Z u selbstverständlich mag einem Historiker der
Theologie das Verhältnis von ratio und fides bzw. auctoritas als oppositionell oder gar
als einander ausschließend erscheinen, als daß die Möglichkeit einer sich aller wissen
schaftlichen Mittel bedienenden Schriftauslegung überhaupt in Betracht gezogen
wird. Infolgedessen dürfte es dem Theologiegeschichtler noch schwerer fallen, die
Konsequenzen aus diesem Typ von Exegese für das gesamte Gebäude der Theologie
'' Vgl. dazu Guy Lobrichon, G li usi della Bibbia, in: Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, I: II Medioevo latino, 1. La produzione del testo (Rom 1993) 523-562.
5 Vgl. Rainer Bcnult, Art. Victorins, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 14 (Paris 1992) 559-562.
Z u m Lombarden ist jetzt maßgebend Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lom bard (Leiden, New York, K öln
1994) I, 16-18.
6 Vgl. dazu die einschlägigen U ntersuchungen von Jean Châtillon, Le «Didascalicon» de Hugues
de Saint-Victor, in: Cahiers d’histoire m ondiale IX /3 (1966) 539-552, reprint in: ders., Le m ouve
m ent canonial au m oyen âge. Réforme de l’Église, spiritualité et culture. Etudes réunies par Patrice Sicard (Bibliotheca victorina 3, Paris, T urnhout 1992) 403-418; Philippe Delhaye, Le «Microcosmus» de Godefroy de Saint-Victor. Etude théologique (Lille, G em bloux 1951); Luee Giard,
Logique et système du savoir selon Hugues de Saint-Victor, in: Thalès 16 (1979/81) 3-32; HansWemer Goetz, Die „Geschichte“ im Wissenschaftssystem des Mittelalters, in: Franzjosef
Schmale, Funktion und Formen mittelalterlicher Geschichtsschreibung. Eine E inführung (D arm
stadt 1985) 165-213.
7 Vgl. G illian Rosemary Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible. The Earlier M iddle Ages
(Cambridge 1984) 17-26; dies., A nselm and Talking about G o d (Oxford 1978).
Z u m V erhältnis v o n Exegese u n d T h eologie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
67
des 12. Jahrhunderts zu ziehen8. Die Schule von St. Viktor hat m it Hugo, Andreas
und Richard weitgehend die Bibelauslegung des Mittelalters beeinflußt. W ie gestaltet
sich aber bei den Viktorinern das Verhältnis von Exegese und Theologie?
Heute können wir dazu nur Überlegungen vortragen, die sich auf das Hauptwerk
Hugos von St. Viktor beschränken, nämlich auf seine theologische Sum m e De sacra-
menlis Christiane fidei, sowie auf einzelne Aspekte der Frage. W ir schicken gleichsam
nur einleitende Bemerkungen voraus, die zu einer späteren monographischen Be
handlung des Themas einladen. So wollen wir beginnen m it einer Vergewisserung des
exegetisch-theologischen Schrifttums Hugos (I), um dann der biblischen Grundlegung
einiger theologischer Sum m en des 12. Jahrhunderts nachzugehen (II). Anschließend
soll am Beispiel der heilsgeschichtlichen Begrifflichkeit in De sacramentis Hugos theo
logische Schriftauslegung gezeigt werden (III), so daß ausblickend Hinweise auf das im
Mittelalter zunehm end gespanntere Verhältnis von Schriftauslegung und Theologie
stehen können.
I.
Die theologische Exegese Hugos von St. Viktor
Andreas von St. Viktor, der sicherlich zu den Schülern Hugos zu rechnen ist, ragt auf
grund seines eigenwilligen Werkes aus der Schar der Autoren des 12. Jahrhunderts
heraus: Er hat ausschließlich Bibelkommentare verfaßt und nur zu Büchern des Alten
Testaments9. Um Andreas’ Besonderheit zu verstehen, müssen wir vorausgehend be
denken, daß die christliche Schriftauslegung m it Hilfe der Schriftsinne die jüdische
Bibel exegetisch rezipierte und sie theologisch als Altes Testament deutete. A nge
sichts seiner - wohl bewußten - rhetorischen Exegese, die sich auf den Dreischritt lit-
tera-sensiis-senlentia beschränkt, stellt sich prägnant die Frage nach der Theologie des
Andreas von St. Viktor. W elche Theologie kann aus dieser einseitigen Literalexegese
entstehen?
Sowohl das literarische Erbe als auch der theologisch-spirituelle Einfluß von Magi
ster Hugo sprengen bei weitem das Fortleben des Andreas. Dam ien van den Eyndes
Essai sur la date et la succession des écrits de Hugues de Saint- Victor (Rom 1960),
8 Der Beitrag Jean Leclercqs, The Renewal of Theology, in: Renaissance and Renewal in thc
Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable with Carol D. Lanbam (Oxford
1982) 68-87, bleibt im wesentlichen seiner schon früh geäußerten dualistischen Grundidee von
monastischer und scholastischer Theologie verhaftet. Die verdienstvolle U ntersuchung Lauge
Olaf Nielsens, Philosophy and Theology in the Twelfth Century. A Study of Gilbert Porreta’s
1 hinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period
1130-1180 (Leiden 1982), berücksichtigt nicht die exegesegeschichtlichen Forschungsergebnisse
über die genannte Periode. Marcia Colish, Systematic Theology and Theological Renewal in the
Twelfth Century, in: Journal of Médiéval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988) 135-156, geht nicht
auf unsere spezifische Frage ein.
9 Vgl. dazu Rainer Bernclt, A ndré de Saint-Victor ( f 1175). Exégète et théologien (Bibliotheca
Victorina 2, T urnhout 1991).
68
R ain e r B erndt
Joachim Ehlers’ Studien zum Geschichtsdenken (Wiesbaden 1973) und das Handschrif
tenverzeichnis von Rudolf Goy (Stuttgart 1975) können als bahnbrechende Arbeiten
über die literarische Form der Schriften Hugos gelten. Sie rufen als Konsequenz nach
einer neuen theologischen Einschätzung10.
Z u Beginn von De sacramentis unterscheidet Hugo die prim a eruditio sacri eloquii,
die aus der lectio histórica besteht und der er schon eine eigene, umfangreiche Schrift
gewidmet hat, von dem neuen W erk, das die secunda eruditio ist und die lectio allegorica durchführt11. D am it zieht der Meister von St. Viktor selbst, auf dem H öhepunkt
seines Schaffens, einen geistigen Rahm en um seine Theologie. Denn ausgehend vom
Didascalicon, dem philosophisch-theologischen Frühwerk, spannt sich für ihn ein ein
ziger intellektueller Bogen über das Chronlcon, die erwähnte lectio histórica, bis hin zur
Sum me seiner Theologie in De sacramentis Christiane fidei. Ä hnlich bahnt Hugo in
bezug auf die Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des menschlichen Lebens einen Weg, der
von De institutione nouitiorum 12 bis hin zu den Homilic in Ecclesiasten führt. In diesen
zweifachen, intellektuellen und ethischen, Kontext fügen sich alle seine Schriften ein:
sowohl die des lector artium, als auch diejenigen des lector diuinus.
Das im Didascalicon ausgearbeitete Wissenschaftsgefüge ordnet das in den artes
verfügbare Wissen sämtlich auf das adäquate Verstehen der Heiligen Schrift hin. G e
gen Ende dieser „Wissenschaftskartographie“, um einen kürzlich von Luce Giard ge
prägten Begriff aufzugreifen13, spricht Hugo eine viel bem ühte Em pfehlung aus.
„Lerne alles, später wirst D u sehen, daß nichts überflüssig ist“, ein W ort, das nicht als
Aufforderung zu undifferenzierter Wissensanhäufung gelesen werden darf. W issen
schaft und Wissen sind frei. Sie dürfen ihre je eigene Dynam ik nach im m er tieferem
Verstehen entwickeln, sofern sie darauf ausgerichtet sind, die Heilige Schrift auszu
10 Die jetzt erschienene U ntersuchung von Patrice Sicard, Diagrammes médiévaux et exégèse vi
suelle. Le «Libellus de formatione arche» de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Bibliotheca Victorina 4,
Turnhout, Paris 1993) weist hier den W eg, der über literarkritische Arbeit (in diesem Fall der
vom selben A utor vorbereiteten kritischen Edition der bislang als «De archa morali-* und ..De archa mystica* bekannten W erke Hugos) hin zu neuer theologiegeschichtlicher Einsicht (hier die
D e utung des Verhältnisses zwischen Bibeltext und entsprechender Z e ich nung als Exegese) führt.
" De sacramentis, Î, Prologus (183A/184A): „C um igitur de prima eruditione sacri eloquii que
in historica constat lectione com pendiosum uolum en prius dictassem, hoc nunc ad secundam
eruditionem que in allegoria est introducendis preparaui. In quo si fundam ento quodam cognitionis fidei an im u m stabiliant, ut cetera que uel legendo uel audiendo superedificare potuerint inconcussa permaneant.“
12 Siehe dazu die erhellende Studie von C. Stephen Jaeger, H um a nism and Ethics at the School of
St. Victor in the Early Twelfth Century, in: iMediaeval Studies 55 (1993) 51-79; vgl. auch die an
regenden Überlegungen Jean-Claude Schmitts, La raison des gestes dans (’O ccident médiéval (Pa
ris 1990). Die starke handschriftliche Überlieferung von De institutione nouitiorum (die Daten
bank unseres Instituts nennt etwa 200 Textzeugen, für das Didascalicon aber nur 140) ist ein
Indiz für das hohe Ansehen des Textes im Mitteialter. Dies läßt vorerst jedoch nur vermuten, daß
den mittelalterlichen Lesern die Schlüsselfunktion des Werks evident war.
13 Siehe Luce Giard, Hugues de Saint-Victor: cartographe du savoir, in: Längere, L’abbaye pari
sienne, 253-269.
Z u m V erhältnis von Exegese u n d T heo lo gie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
69
legen. Denn nur eine derartige Wissenschaft, so weiß Magister Hugo, macht froh14, da
sie alle Voraussetzungen für ihre Vollendung in der meditatio m itbring t13.
O hne die verschiedenen literarischen Gattungen der Schriften des Viktoriners alle
samt in ein Schema zwängen zu wollen, lassen sich die Texte durchweg dennoch als
Bibelauslegung verstehen. Man kann sie alle einer Phase des von ihm bevorzugten
Dreischritts
historia-allegoria-tropologia zuordnen16. Diese
Betrachtungsweise er
scheint unproblematisch einerseits für die Kommentare zu den historischen Büchern,
den Klageliedern und den Psalmen etwa, andererseits für De archa Noe, die Homilie in
Ecclesiasten und den Kom m entar zu Pseuclo-Dionysius. Erst auf den zweiten Blick
wird man allerdings in De uanitate m und i und den sogenannten spirituellen Schriften
eine tropologische Exegese erkennen, die aus der Bibel die forma recte uiiiendi zu eru
ieren versucht17.
Die Bezugspunkte dieser theologischen, d.h. auf einen übergeordneten theologi
schen Gesamtentwurf ausgerichteten Exegese Hugos von St. Viktor liegen nicht allein
bei der Bibel im engen Sinn. Ein weites Verständnis von Inspiration und Kanon, das
er übrigens m it seinen Zeitgenossen teilt18, ermöglichen Hugo eine ebenso weite exe
getische, d.h. grundlegend von der Schrift her kommende Theologie. Er kommentiert
Bücher des Alten Testaments und Schriften der Kirche. Im Magnificat-Kommentar
beispielsweise und im Eulogium sponsi et spouse, ein Kom m entar zum Canticum Canu Didascalicon, V I, 3 (ed. Charles Henry Buttimer [Washington 1939] 115): „O m nia disce, uidebis postea nihil esse superfiuum. Coartata scientia iucunda non est.“
15 Didascalicon, III, 10 (ed. Buttimer 59): „Meditatio est cogitatio frequens cum consilio, que
causam et originem, m o d um et utilitatem uniuseuiusque rei prudentcr inuestigat. Meditatio principiurn sum it a lectione, nullis tarnen stringitur regulis aut preccptis lectionis. ... Principium ergo
doctrine est in lectione, consum m atio in m editatione, quam si quis familiarius amare didicerit eique sepius uacare uoluerit iucundam ualde reddit uitam et inaxim am in tribulatione prestat consolationem.“ Ibidem , V I, 13 (ed. Buttimer 130).
16 Siehe De tribus maximis circumstantüs gestorum (ed. William M. Green, in: Speculum 18
[1943] 491, 4-11): „D iuinarum scripturarum expositio om nis secundum triplicem sensum tractatur: historiam, allegoriam, et tropologiam, id est moralitatem. Hystoria est rerum gestarum narratio per prim am litterae significationem expressa. Allegoria est cum per factum hystoriae quod in
sensu litterae inuenitur aliud siue praeteriti siue praesentis siue futuri temporis factum innuitur.
Tropologia est cum in eo quod factum audim us, quid nobis sit faciendum agnoscimus. Vnde
ctiam recte tropologia, id est sermo conuersus siue locutio replicata, noraen accepit, quia nimirum alienae narrationis sermonem ad nostram tune eruditionem conuertimus, cum facta aliorum
legende ea nobis ad exem plum uiuendi conform am us.“ Im übrigen hat Henri de Lubac, Exégèse
médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Ecriture, 1/1 (Paris 1959) 146-157 sowie das lange Kapitel in Ii/1
(Paris 1961) 287-359, überzeugend und eindrucksvoll Hugos Stellung in der Geschichte der
Schriftsinne dargestellt.
'' ln der Prefatio des Didascalicon (cd. Buttimer 3) kündigt H ugo in dieser Weise sein H a u p tin
teresse an: „Deinde docet qualiter legere debeat sacram scripturam is qui in ea correctionem morutn suorum et formam uiuendi querit.“ Siehe auch ibidem , V, 2 (96): „... et quid agendum sit pa
ri ter per tropologiam demonstret“ ; ibidem , V, 6 (104): „Gem inus est diuine lectionis fructus, quia
nientem uel scientia erudit uel m oribus ornat. docet quod scire delcctet et quod imitari expediat.
quorum alterum, id est scientia, niagis ad historiam et allegoriam, alteruni, id est instructio moruin, ad tropologiam magis respicit.“
Vgl. m einen Beitrag: Gehören die Kirchenväter zur Heiligen Schrift? Z u r Kanontheorie des
Hugo von St. Viktor, in: Biblisches Jahrbuch 3 (1988) 191-199.
70
R a in e r Berndt
ticorum, 4, 6-8, legt er die in der Abtei St. Viktor gebräuchlichen liturgischen Fassun
gen der entsprechenden Bibeltexte zugrunde19. Mit anderen Kirchenvätern gilt ihm
auch Pseudo-Dionysius als authentischer Schriftsteller des Neuen Bundes'0.
M it dem zu Beginn der dreißiger Jahre des 12. Jahrhunderts entstandenen Chroni-
con legt Hugo seinen eigenen W orten zufolge das fundamentiim / undamenti in der
Exegese vor, nämlich die lectio histórica der gesamten Heiligen Schrift, also eine histo
rische Sum m e21. Deshalb kann kurze Zeit später De sacramentis Christiane Jidei m it
Recht als H öhepunkt hugonischer Theologie betrachtet werden. Der Intention nach
erklärt Hugo seine Schrift als exegetisches W erk (secunda crudillo que esl allegaría),
formal und inhaltlich ist sie jedoch eine theologische Summe.
H ugo schließt, nach De sacramentis, sein Lebenswerk m it den Homilie in Ecclesia stcn ab22, ln der Vorrede zu dieser Sam m lung weist er weit von sich, einen weiteren
K om m entar schreiben zu wollen, nur um diejenigen zu befriedigen, die in der Bibel
eine mystiea intelligentia suchen oder die profimclitas allegoriarum entdecken wol
len25. Mit der Niederschrift der Homilie will er seine Leser vielmehr dazu bewegen,
sich nicht nur am liebevoll Gelesenen zu erfreuen, sondern vor allem am liebevoll
Verstandenen2"*. In bemerkenswerter K ontinuität bewahrt H ugo somit seine zentrale,
aus der Begegnung m it der Schrift gewonnene theologische Erkenntnis. Denn schon
im Didascalicon, wo er die doctrina als aus lectio und meditatio bestehend definierte,
verstummt er letztendlich vor dem Zielpunkt der meditatio: Es sei würdiger, gänzlich
darüber zu schweigen, als irgend etwas Unvollkommenes zu sagen25.
19 Siehe die Untersuchung von Eva-Maria Denner, Serua sccretum, custodi com m issum , absconde creditum. Historisch-systematische Untersuchung der „Expositio super C anticum Marie“
Hugos von St. Viktor, in: Sacris erudiri 35 (1994), sowie die Einleitung von Uugh Eeiss zur kriti
schen Edition des Eulogium .
20 Cf. Didascalicon, IV, 2 und 14 (ed. liuttimcr 72 und 88-89). Siehe Ludwig Ott, H ugo von St.
Viktor und die Kirchenväter, in: Divus Thomas 27 (1949) 190-191; Rainer Berndt, Gehören die
Kirchenväter zur Heiligen Schrift?, 194-195.
21 De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum (ed. Green 491, 11-16): „Sed nos hystoriam nunc
in m anibus habemus, quasi fundam entiim om nis doctrinae prim u m in memoria collocandum.
Sed quia, ut diximus, m em oria brevitate gaudet, gesta autem tem porum infinita pene sunt, opor
tet nos ex óm nibus brevem quandam sum m am colfigere quasi iünd am e n tum furidamenti, hoc
est, prim u m fundam entum , quam facile possit animus comprehendere et m em oria retiñere.“
22 VgJ. Van den Eynde, Essai sur la date, 108-110; Ehlers, Studien, 202. Goy, Überlieferung, 339340, beläßt es bei der V erm utung einer Entstehung nach dem Didascalicon.
2’ H om ilie in Salomonis Ecclesiasten, Prefatio (PL 175, 115A): „M ulti uirtutem Scripturarum
non intelligentes expositionibus peregrinis decorem ac pulchritudinem earuni o bnubilant et cum
occulta reserare debuerint etiam manifesta obscurant. M ichi uero sitnili culpe subiaccre uidentur
uel qui in sacra Scriptura mysticam intelligentiam et allegoriariim profimditatem nel inquirendarn pertinacitcr negant ubi est uel apponendam superstitiose contendunt ubi non est.“
2-1 In Ecclesiasten, Prefatio (PL 175, 115BC): „Sed aliud est, quo tota scribentis intentio totaque
narrationis series ducitur attendere; atque aliud quedam ex accidenti mystice dicta et spiritualiter
intelligenda non negligenter pretereunda putare. N unc itaque narrationis superficiem que tanta
eloquii ac sententiarum uenustate pollet explanandam suscipimus, ut ea que scripta nunc legitis
(hac qualicunque lucubratiuncula, iter ad intelligentiam prebente) am odo non solum uobis
scripta, sed a uobis intellecta gaudeatis.“
25 Didascalicon, VI, 13 (ed. Butiimer 130): „Et iam ea que ad lcctionem pertinent, quanto lucidius et compendiosius potuiinus, explicata sunt. De rcliqua uero parte doctrine, id est medita-
Z u m Verhältnis von Exegese u n d T h eologie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
71
II.
Die biblische Grundlegung theologischer Summen des 12. Jahrhunderts
Die .sich neu bildenden, systematischen Werke der Theologie im Frühmittelalter kann
man hinsichtlich ihrer Struktur grob in drei große Gruppen einteilen26. Zunächst fal
len Peter Abelard und die Autoren aus seinem Umkreis ins Auge, z. B. Roland von
Bologna und Omnebene, oder die Sententie Florianenses und Sententie Parisienses. Sie
gliedern ihre systematischen Versuche im Anschluß an die drei theologischen Tugen
den (vgl. Hebr. 11, 1) in die Trilogie / ides-sacramentum-cciritas oder auch / ides-caritassacramentum27. Oft hebt die Durchführung der Sum men im ersten, der [¡des gewid
meten Teil m it der Darstellung der Trinitäts- und Gotteslehre an. Einem Abstiegs
schema folgend werden dann die Christologie und die Sakramente behandelt. Die
zweite große Gruppe hat sich dem heilsgeschichtlichen Modell Hugos von St. Viktor
angeschlossen. Dazu gehören etwa die Autoren aus der Schule von Laon oder Robert
Pullen und Petrus Lombardus, in der zweiten Hälfte des Jahrhunderts dann Petrus
Cantor und Petrus Mandueator. Schließlich gibt es eine Gruppe, deren systematische
Darstellungen zwar den logischen Plan Abelards aufgreifen, sich aber dennoch nicht
der heilsgeschichtlichen Dim ension verschließen, z. B. Otto von Lttcca m it seiner
Summa Sententiarum und Roland von Cremona. Petrus Lombardus gehört der ganzen
Anlage seines Werks zufolge zur viktorinisch geprägten Gruppe. Nichtsdestoweniger
aber bildet er m it seinen vier Büchern der Sentenzen einen eigenen Entwurf, weil er
ausgehend vom augustinischen
uti-frui eine theologische Zeichenlehre vorlegt28.
Diese Lehre von den res und signa ist das eigentliche Strukturelement seines Werkes.
Sie fungiert als Schaltstelle zwischen der sacra pagina und der sacra doctrina19.
W ir sind heute relativ gut im Bilde über die literarische Herkunft dieser frühen Ver
suche, die Theologie zu systematisieren. Die in den Sentenzensammlungen zu bewäl
tigende Materie wächst im 11. Jahrhundert an, wie auch diese seit der Karolingerzeit
entstehenden Sammlungen selbst an Zahl zunehmen*0. Es scheint aber, als müsse die
tione, aliquid in presenti dicerc om itto, quia res tanta speciali tractatu indiget et d ig nu m magis
est om nino silere in huiusm odi quam aliquid imperfecte dicere.“
Vgl. zum folgenden Henri Clocs, La systématisation théologique pendant la première moitié
du X I Ie siècle, in: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 34 (1958) 277-329; Colish, Lombard, I,
42-43.
27 Pitrus Abaelanlus, Theologia „Scholarium “, I, l (ed. F. /IL Iiuytacrt-C. /liens [CCCM 13],
1 urnhout 1987, 318) führt die ersterc Formel ein: „Tria sunt ut arbitror in quibus hum ane saiutis
summa consistit, fides uidclicet, caritas et sacramenta.“ Dem gegenüber ist Sic et non (PL 178,
1339-1610) entsprechend der zweiten Formel strukturiert: j icles-säcramenta-earitas. Vgl. Cloes, La
systématisation, 28 2 .
Cf. Petrus i.ombanlus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, I, I, 1-3 (editio tertia [Grottaferrata
1971] 55-61).
Ibid ein, I, I, 1 (55): „C linique his intenderit theologorum speculatio studiosa atque modesta,
diuinam Scripturam, formam prescriptam in doctrina, teuere aduertet.“
Vgl. dazu die bahnbrechenden Arbeiten von Alois Grilhneier, Fulgentius von Ruspe, De fidc
äd Petrum und die Sum m a sententiarum. Eine Studie zum W erden der frühscholastischen Syste-
72
R ain e r B erndt
Theologie in besonderer Weise nach ihrer inneren Einheit suchen, während sie dabei
ist, sich literarisch greifbar neu zu ordnen. Diese neuen literarischen Formen der
Theologie - Sentenzensammlungen und Sum men - haben als solche den Bezug zur
Heiligen Schrift verloren; aus dem einfachen Grund, weil sie keine Komm entare sind.
Sie finden ihr Ordnungsprinzip nicht aus einem auszulegenden biblischen Buch. Viel
mehr ordnet die theologische O ption des Autors der Sam m lung bzw. der Sum me
Auswahl und Zusammenstellung der Vätertexte. Die in Sentenzensammlungen und
Sum m en sich artikulierende ratio konstruiert eine Ordnung, die zu vermitteln ver
sucht zwischen: der Notwendigkeit einerseits, textlich und gedanklich in der Nähe der
Heiligen Schrift zu bleiben, und andererseits der Attraktivität intellektueller Selbstor
ganisation.
Das spannungsvolle Verhältnis von auetoritas und ratio ist in exemplarischer Weise
der Motor des 12. Jahrhunderts. Anselm von Canterbury gilt vielen gern als der Vater
einer von der Theologie sich befreienden Philosophie. Gleichwohl kann man nicht
übersehen, daß der große Kirchenlehrer sich intellektuell vornehmlich für den Gottes
gedanken interessiert31. Den biblischen A nknüpfungspunkt dieser Verbindung von
G ott und Mensch lassen die Historiker dabei leicht außer acht und verlieren damit
doch den Sitz im Leben des Problems. Denn die anselmisch entscheidende Denkform
der rationes necessarie ist sehr wohl eine von ihm rezipierte antike Form des Argumentierens. Sie gelten in seinem W erk aber als begriffliche K lam m er zwischen Schriftaus
legung und systematischer Theologie. Denn die Eigenschaften von Gott, die Anselm
als rationes necessarie apostrophiert, stammen aus der biblischen O ffenbarung'2. W enn
Anselm beispielsweise G ott als das bestimmt, was nicht größer gedacht werden kann,
schöpft er wohl die ihm zu Gebote stehenden logischen Möglichkeiten voll aus; in der
Sache gründet dieser Satz jedoch ganz auf der in der Heiligen Schrift sich niederschla-
Vortsetzung Fußnote von Seile 71
matik, in: Scholastik 34 (1959) 526-565; ders., Vom Sym bolum zur Sum m a. Z u m theologiegcschiehtlichen Verhältnis von Patristik und Scholastik, in: Kirche und Überlieferung. Festschrift J.
R. Geiselm ann, hrsg. von Josef Hetz und Heinrich Fries (Freiburg I960) 119-169. Richard Heinz
mann, Die Sum m e „Colligite fragmenta“ des Magister Hubertus (Clm 28799). Ein Beitrag zur
theologischen Systembilchmg in der Scholastik (M ünchen, Paderborn, W ie n 1974), untersucht ei
nen für diesen Kontext wichtigen Zeugen. Anregend, wenn auch nicht direkt unser Thema be
treffend, Marcia Colishs, A nother Look at the School of Laon, in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale
et littéraire du moyen âge 53 (1986) 7-22; dies,, Systematic Theology.
31 Siehe beispielsweise Anselm von Canterbury, M onologion, Prologus (ed. Francisais Salesius
Schmitt, Opera om nia, Band I [Seckau 1938] 7): „Q uidam fratres saepe me studioseque precati
sunt, ut quaedam, quae illis de m editanda divinitatis essentia et quibusdam aliis huiusm odi meditationi cohaerentibus usitato sermone colloquendo protuleram, ...“ ; Proslogion, Prooemium
(Opera om nia, ibidem 93):
si forte posset inueniri u num argum entum quod nullo alio ad se
probandum quam se solo indigeret et solum ad astruendum quia deus uere est, et quia est sum
m u m b onum nullo alio indigens.“
32 Siehe zu diesem Begriff die historische A nm erkung in Richard de Saint-Victor, La Trinité.
Texte latin, introduction, traduction et notes, hrsg. von Gaston Salet (Sources chrétiennes 63, Pa
ris 1959) 465-468.
Z u m V erhältnis v o n Exegese u n d T h eologie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
73
genden geschichtlichen Erfahrung m it diesem G ottj i . Darüber hinaus kennen wir aus
Anselms W erk leider nicht eine literarische Form, in der der Zusam m enhang zwi
schen Exegese und Theologie gewahrt wäre.
Ä hnlich kann man auch die Systemversuche Peter Abelards und seiner Schule deu
ten. Die Trilogie / idessacramentum-caritas bietet zwar einen systematischen Aus
gangspunkt in der Darstellung der gesamten Theologie, doch scheint sie letztlich
ebenfalls biblisch-historisch orientiert zu sein*4. Bei Peter Abelard schließt die fides
des Neuen Bundes das gesamte alttestamentliche Gesetz ein, sowohl in seinem Cha
rakter des preeeptum als auch der promissio. Fides erfüllt alle Vorschriften, in ihr reali
sieren sich auch alle Verheißungen. Das sacramentum des Neuen Bundes teilt dem
Menschen in den raum-zeitlichen Grenzen der Geschichte das absolute Göttliche
m it35. Insofern folgt als letzter Schritt die carilas. Sie ist eine Konsequenz aus der fides
und nährt sich durch die in den sacramenta empfangene Hoffnung-*6. Die abelardsche
Trilogie bietet eine Grundstruktur für theologische Systematik, die sich nicht nur be
grifflich aus der Bibel herleitet. Sie rezipiert auch biblische Heilsgeschichte.
Ähnlich sollte man, scheint es, auch die Ordnung der vier Sentenzenbücher des
Lombarden verstehen. Seine Lehre von den res und signa ist patristisch-frühmittelalterliches Gemeingut. Er greift auf die bekannte Hermeneutik Augustins zurück. Aller
dings wendet er sie in einem radikalen Schritt auf die gesamte Heilige Schrift an,
wenn er sagt, daß diese von nichts anderem als von res und signa handelt37. U nd weil
die Trinität die summa res schlechthin sei, wolle er sie auch, gleichsam auf dem Gipfel
beginnend, an den Anfang seiner doetrina stellen. Demzufolge also versteht Petrus
Lombardus seine Sentenzen insgesamt als Schriftauslegung in systematischer Absicht.
Die Funktion der rationes necessarie bei Anselm von Canterbury und der abelardschen
Trilogie übernim m t beim Lombarden die /•«-.s/gnrt-Lehre Augustins. Sicherlich, im
weiteren Verlauf der theologischen Schriften aller drei Autoren kann m an unter
schiedliche Weisen des Schriftgebrauchs ausmachen. W ie gestaltet sich nun das Ver
hältnis von Exegese und Theologie bei Hugo von St. Viktor?
s- Siehe in Proslogion V I-IX (ibidem 104-108) den historischen, induktiven Beweis für Proslogion V (104): „Q uid igitur es, do m ine deus, quo nil maitis ualet cogitari?“
^ Siehe dazu m einen Beitrag La théologie com m e système du monde. Sur l’évolution des som
mes théologiques de Hugues de Saint-Victor à saint Thomas d’A qu in (im Druck).
Siehe Petrus Abaeleirdus, Theologia „Scholarium “, I, 9 (ed. Buytaert-Meivs 321): „Q u id sit sac
ramentum? Sacramentum uero est uisibile signum inuisibilis gratie dei, ueluti cum quis baptizatur, ipsa exterior ablutio corporis, quam uidemus, signum est interioris ablutionis anim e, ...“; ib i
dem, I, 1 1 (322): „Ac prim um de fide, que naturaliter ceteris prior est tam quam bonorum
om nium fundam entum . Q u id enim sperari uel speratum amari potest, nisi prius credatur? Credi
autem potest, si non speretur uel ametur “
Petrus Abaelardtis, Theologia „Scholarium “, I, 6 (ed. Buytaerl-Mews 320): „N ichil igitur amandum est, nichil om nin o faciendum nisi propter D eum , ut in Deo finem o m n iu m constituamus.
Vnde et ipse alpha et omega dicitur, hoc est principium et finis.“
Sententiae, I, I, 1 (ed. Grottaferrata 55): „Vcteris ac novae Legis continentiam diligenti indagme etiam atque etiam considerantibus nobis, praevia Dei gratia innotuit sacrae paginae tractatum circa res vel signa praecipuc versari.“
R ain e r B erndt
74
III.
h'eilsgeschkb/lifhe ßegriffiicbkeit: Eine modellbaße theologische Sehriftauslegiing
Offensichtlich ist Hugos Hauptwerk kein exegetischer Kommentar. Diese Evidenz
bezieht sich aber allein auf die literarische Form von De sacramentis, die nicht in der
fortlaufenden Kommentierung eines oder mehrerer biblischer Bücher bestellt30 Im
Vergleich mit entsprechenden Systementwürfen des 13. Jahrhunderts fällt auf, daß die
Summen des 1 2 . Jahrhunderts durch ihre literarische Herkunft aus den Sentenzensammlungen gezeichnet sind39. Diese leiten ihre Ordnung nicht aus artieuli und questione< her die aus der freien akademischen Diskussion hervorgegangen sind, sondern
sie gliedern sich beispielsweise in Bücher, Teile und Kapitel. Insofern haben sie eher
den Charakter von Abhandlungen40.
U nbeschadet späterer Erkenntnisse infolge der kritischen Edition von De sacramen-
ti< möchte ich hier unseren Text als Paradebeispiel anführen. Die bisher durchgesehe
nen ältesten H an d s ch rifte n von De sacramentis bestätigen die A nordnung des Werkes,
wie wir sie aus der Patrologia latina kennen. A m Anfang steht ein genereller Prolog,
gestaltet nach den Regeln der accessus a d auctores. W ie üblich in seinen Schriften, legt
Hugo dabei besonderes Gewicht auf die Einteilung der zu behandelnden Materie: hier
G lie d erung in zwei Bücher, deren erstes aus zwölf Teilen besteht. Daran schließt sich
die Tabula capitulorum von Buch I an. Dem ersten Buch schickt er dann wiederum
einen Prolog in sieben Kapiteln voraus, der m it einer Vorrede eingeleitet wird. Das
zweite Buch eröffnet ein knapperer Prolog, gefolgt wiederum von der Tabula capilulonim Der Prolog zum ersten Buch legt die theologische und exegetische Perspektive
des Projekts offen. Hugo erklärt dort zunächst seine zentrale theologische Begrifflichkeit Das heilsgeschichtliche Modell seiner W eltdeutung drückt sich anhand der Beoriffe o/un conditionis und Opus restaurationis aus; anschließend setzt er diese in Bezug
,s Pelms Cnmeslor hat m it seiner Historia Scholastiea (PL 198,
1053-1722)
e in entsp rech ende s
W erk beschaffen, das die G eschichte des Volkes G ottes erzählt. D ab e i h at Petrus C o m e s to r zuïchst°cini»c historische B ücher des A lte n u n d N e u e n T estam ents (H e p ta te u c h , Reges, D a n ie l,
I ' lith Fsther Maccabaei) oder auch n u r b e s tim m te Passagen (Tobias, E zec h ie l, H isto ria evangelic'i) -uiscewählt und diese Texte dann parap hrasiert. Die von ihm vorgenommene T extausw ahl
und Textparaphrase sum m ieren sich zu e in e m
L e h rb u ch in b iblisc h er G e s c h ic h te . Erst die
höchst dringliche kritische E d itio n der H istoria scholastica w ird die T ex tgeschichte erhellen.
der Forschungen Heinrich Wnsweilm (z. B. D ie A rb e its m e th o d e H u g o s v o n St. V ikto r.
Fin Beitrag zum Entstehen seines H auptw erkes D e sacram entis, in :
Scholastik 20-24 (1944-49)
59 87 733—267) u n d Ludwig Otts (H u g o u n d die K irch env äter, 29:3-332) ist seit la n g e m sch o n
die Q uellenabhängigkeit (von W e rk e n D ritte r wie von den eigenen) als charakteristisches M e r k
mal von De sacramentis bekannt.
«o y ^ j
ß
('■ ßnztin, John W'.
Wipfel, Gérard Fransen et D. Jaequart,
Les questions disputées et
les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de T héologie, de D r o it et de M é d e c in e (T ypologie
des sources du moyen âge occidental 44-45, L o uvain 1985). - Z u r P ro b le m a tik der W erkgliede’
n im Mittelalter vgl. Jean
Châtillon,
D ésarticu lation et restructuration des textes à l’é p o q u e
scôlastique (XT -X IIF siècle), in: Roger Läufer, La notion de paragraphe (Paris 1985) 23-40; Nigel
/■ Palmer K apitel u n d Buch. Z u den G lie d e ru n g s p rin z ip ie n m itte la lte rlic h e r B üch er, in : F r ü h
mittelalterliche Studien 23 (1989) 43-88.
Z u m V erhältnis von Exegese u n d T h eologie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
75
zur H eiligen S c h rift". Dieser Prolog zu Buch I fungiert für De sacramentis aber n ich t
n u r als herm eneutischer, sondern auch als form aler Schlüssel. D e n n die literarisch-for
male E in fü h ru n g in das G esam tw erk (m it der Abfolge genereller Prolog-Kapiteleinteilun g von Buch Í) weitet sich dort plö tzlic h auf die Frage des Verhältnisses zwischen
Exegese un d Theologie hin aus4'.
W ä h re n d im späteren Zeitalter der universitären D ispu ta tion das V erhältnis von
Exegese un d Theologie in der sacra doctrina neu b e stim m t wird, sind die theologi
schen System entwürfe aus der G eneration H ugos von St. V iktor noch eindeutig der
sacra pagina verpflichtet. D ie intellektuelle O rdnung skraft der questiones u n d disputationes des 13. Jah rh und erts geht, d a m it sage ich Ihn e n nichts Neues, von d em durch
den neuen Aristoteles d em A b e n d la n d zur K e n n tn is k o m m e n d e n W issenschaftsbe
griff aus. D ie T rennung der Artisten-Fakultät von der Theologie e rm ög lich t die Frei
heit der disputationes, wo eine zu entfaltende doctrina die Analyse der Begriffe sowie
die G e w ic h tu n g der A rgu m e nte erfordert. Im vorausgehenden 12. Ja h rh u n d e rt reich
ten selbst die logischen Vorstöße Peter Abelards m it Sic et non oder das Decretum Gra-
tia n i n ic h t aus, die schon dam als sich anbahnende neue O r d n u n g theologischen D e n
kens von der Exegese zu lösen. W as Abelards Tbeologia „Scholarium“ m it der b ekan n
ten Trilogie n u r andeuten mag, sagt H u g o ausdrücklich: M it De sacramentis will er die
lectio allegorica der ganzen H e ilige n Schrift vorlegen. D er A n g e lp u n k t der hugonischen Theologie ist som it unzw eifelhaft eine den Schriftsinnen verpflichtete Exegese4J, wobei H ug o gleichzeitig für m ethodische W eitere ntw icklu ng e n offen ist un d
ein breites S pektrum an verwendeten Q u e lle n aufzuweisen hat (Kirchenväter, Rechts
texte, antike A utoren, zeitgenössische Theologen). V on der G eschichte der Exegese
her gesehen, zeigt H ug o die T ie fe ndim e nsio n dieser A rt von Schriftauslegung an. A l
legorische A uslegung m e in t n ä m lic h n ic h t eine m e h r oder weniger g ekünstelte zweite
Stufe der Textbetrachtung. Sondern sie fokalisiert die B edeutung der ganzen Bibel in
der Person Jesu von Nazareth, in d e m sie eine christologische relecture der jüdischen
Schriften v o rn im m t. Letztere werden ja allein dadurch zu m A lte n Testam ent, d. h. zur
11 D e sacram entis, I, Prol., 2 (P L 176 183A): „M ateria d iu in a r u m scrip tu ra ru m o m n iu m su n t
opera restaurationis h u m a n e . D u o e n im su n t opera in q u ib u s uniuersa c o n tin e n tu r q u e facta sunt.
P rim u m est opus co n d itio n is . S e c u n d u m est o p u s restaurationis. O p u s c o n d id o n is est q u o fac
tu m est, u t essent q u e n o n erant. O p u s restaurationis est q u o factu m est, lit m e liu s csscnt q ue perierant.“ V gl. die im m e r n o c h sehr lesenswerte S tu d ie von Luis F. Uularici, C rea ció n y salvación
en la cristologia de H u g o de San V ícto r, in: M iscelánea C o m illa s 31 (1973) 261-301 u n d 32
(1974) 63-100.
12 D e sacram entis, I, Prol., 2-3 (P L 176, 18 3C /1 84 B ): „ In his ó m n ib u s opera restaurationis conside ra n tu r in q u ib u s d iu in a r u m S c rip tu ra ru m tota uertatur in te n tio . M u n d a n e sine seculares scripture m a te riam h ab e n t opera c o n d itio n is . D iu in a Scriptura m a te riam habet opera restaurationis.
Propterea tan to ex ccllentior o m n ib u s scripturis iure creditur q u a n to d ig n io r est et s u b lim io r m a
teria in q u a eius consideratio practatio q ue uersatur. N a m opera restaurationis m u lta dig nio ra
su n t o peribus c o n d itio n is q u ia illa ad seru itu te m facta su n t ut stanti h o m in i subessent hec ad salu te m u t la p su m erigerent. Q u a m u is a u te m p rin cip alis m ateria d iu in e S crip tu re sint opera restauvationis, tarnen u t c o m p e te n tiu s ad ea tractanda accedat p r im u m in ipso capite narrationis sue
breuiter se c u n d u m fidem rerum gestaru m e x o rd iu m et c o n s titu tio n e m narrat o p e rtim c o n d itio
nis.“
V gl. o b e n A n m . u n d de Liibctc, Exégèse m é diév ale, I I / 1, 287-289; n e u erd in g s n u n ist auf Si
ca nl, D ia g ra m m e s m é diév au x zu verweisen (cf. A n m . 10).
76
R ain e r Berndt
Heiligen Schrift auch der Christen'14. Der sensus allegoricus öffnet also das Tor zu einer
Gesamtdarstellung christlicher Lehre, die grundsätzlich biblisch orientiert bleibt. Im
12. Jahrhundert kann der sensus allegoricus somit zum Ausgangspunkt systematischer
Theologie werden.
Daß Hugo von St. Viktor in seiner theologischen Sum me Schriftauslegung betreibt,
zeigt sich am deutlichsten an seinen zentralen theologischen Kategorien opus conditio
n s - ojnis restaumtionis oder auch an Begriffen wie lex und scuramcntum. Ei' gewinnt
sie aus der leclio historien der Bibel und wandelt sie zu Strukturelementen für die
■Masse des von ihm thematisch zu behandelnden Stoffs um. W eil der sensus allegoricus
für De sacramentis lediglich theologisch-hermeneutisches Strukturelement ist, ergänzt
Hugo ihn durch die tabule capituloruiu beider Bücher als literarisch-formale Elemente
seiner Summe.
Begnügen wir uns hier für die Begriffsanalyse m it einem Beispiel*5. W iederholt de
finiert der Viktoriner in seinen Werken seine theologischen Kategorien. Das opus conditionis beschreibt er als den Vorgang, „durch den wurde, dam it sei, was nicht war“,
und das opus restaumtionis als die „Inkarnation des Wortes m it allen seinen Heilszei
chen: sei es denen, die ihr seit Anbeginn der Zeit vorausgingen, oder denen, die ihr
bis zur Vollendung der Welt noch folgen werden“46. Dabei beginnt die restauratio
wohlgemerkt am Morgen nach dem Sündenfall'*7. Hugo liest die Heilige Schrift als
Weltgeschichte. Sie ist für ihn ein Geschichtsbuch, das die historischen Details nicht
um ihrer selbst willen berichtet, sondern sie deutet und in ihrer sinnhaften Tragweite
offenbart. Conditio und restauratio sind für Hugo diese grundlegenden und umfassen
den Deutemuster. Er entwickelt sie aus der Heiligen Schrift als der Prämisse von
Theologie schlechthin. Seine in De sacramentis intendierte leclio allegorica vollzieht
sich darin, daß er die im Alten Testament geschilderte Menschheitsgeschichte - be
ginnend mit dem ersten Schöpfungstag - von Jesus Christus her universal neu deutet:
44 Vgl. Rainer Berndl, D ie Beziehungen zw ischen Ju d e n u n d C h risten im M ittelalter. T h e o lo g i
sche D eutungen einiger Aspekte, in: Theologie u n d P hilo so p h ie 68 (1 9 93) 5 46, 550.
45 W eil hier nicht der R au m ist, ausfüh rlich auf die exegetische G r u n d le g u n g der Begriffe lex
und sacramenhim bei H u g o einzugehen, sei n u r folgende H yp o th ese fo rm u lie rt: H u g o s K o n z e p
tion der Zeitenfolge (tempus legis naluralis - tempus legis scripte - teinpns gratie) erw ächst aus de m
exegetischen Dreischritt littera-allegoria-trupologia. A nders gesagt: D ie Bibel k a n n g em äß den
drei Schriftsinnen als testamentum legis jeder der drei Z e ite n gelesen w erden. A n a lo g verhält es
sich m it der Sakram ents-Definition in D e sacram entis I, IX , 2 (P L 176, 3 !7 C D ), in de r H u g o z u
nächst sigtuim von Si/ernmenliim unterscheidet. D a n n aber füh rt er eine dreigliedrige D e fin itio n
ein, die dem schon genannten exegetischen D reischritt n ac hg e bild et sc h ein t: „Si q u is a u tem plenius et perfeetius quid sit sacram entum diffinire uo luerit diffinire potest q u o d s a cra m e n tu m est
corporale ucl materiale ele m e n tum foris sensibiliter p ro p o s itu m ex s im ilitu d in e representans et
ex institutione significans et ex sanctificatione contin ens a liq u a m in u is ib ile m et sp irita le m gra-
tiam“. Anders gesagt: H ugo d e h n t die M eth od e der Schriftlesung aus auf die relecture de r ganzen
Schöpfung, so daß diese ganz u n d gar sakram ental wird.
46 D e sacramentis, I, Prologus, 2 (PL 176, 183AB): „O p u s c o n d itio n is est q u o fac tu m est, u t cssent que non erant. O p u s restaurationis est q u o factum est, ut m e liu s essent q u e perierant. Ergo
opus conditionis est creatio m u n d i c u m o m n ib u s elem entis suis. O p u s restaurationis est incarnatio Verbi cum om nibus sacramentis suis, siuc iis que precesserunt ab in itio seeuli siue iis q ue subsequuntur tisque ad finem m u n d i.“
47 Vgl. De sacramentis, 1, Prologus, 2 (PL 176, 184AC).
Z u m V erhältnis von Exegese u n d T heologie bei H u g o von St. V ik to r
77
auf die conditio folgt die restauratio. Beide Begriffe sind so komplementär, wie die von
ihnen bezeichnten weltgeschichtlichen Ereignisse einander ergänzen. Allegorische
Schriftdeutung setzt also nach H ugo von St. Viktor die Erkenntnis darüber voraus, daß
ein bestimmtes Ereignis ein anderes - vergangenes, gegenwärtiges oder zukünftiges Ereignis bezeichnet48. Systematische Theologie, die aus Schriftauslegung erwächst,
bleibt in ihrer Begriffsbildung auf die sich aus der augustinischen Hermeneutik erge
benden Möglichkeiten beschränkt. Das H aupt der Schule von St. Viktor bietet jedoch
m it seiner Summe einen Entwurf, der alle ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel aus
schöpft.
*
*
*
*
Die Beziehungen zwischen Exegese und Theologie vom 12. zum 13. Jahrhundert
Ich habe mich eben in bezug auf die Exegese des Andreas von St. Viktor gefragt, wel
che Theologie sie ermöglicht. Nach dem sehr einem Holzschnitt ähnelnden Gang
durch einige systematisch-theologische Werke des 12, Jahrhunderts deutet sich jetzt
vielleicht eine Antwort an. Seine Exegese begnügt sich - und das ist das wesentliche
Charakteristikum seiner Werke - auf den aus der Antike bekannten rhetorischen
Dreischritt littera-seiisus-sententia49. Bei anderen Schriftauslegern ist dieser Dreischritt
Teil der Literalexegese und insofern integriert in den Horizont des vierfachen Schrift
sinns. Da Andreas sich aber praktisch von letzterem distanziert, führt die exklusive
Anw endung von littera-sensus-sentcntia zur Trennung von der allegoria. Die Logik des
von Andreas beschrittenen Weges führt meines Erachtens direkt zu dem Typ von
'Theologie, der im 13. Jahrhundert an den Universitäten aufkommt. Dieser neue Typ
von Theologie kann aber erst aufkom men, nachdem das Abendland den aristoteli
schen Wissenschaftsbegriff kennengelernt hat. Deshalb können wir in der Rückschau
sagen, daß Andreas von St. Viktor die im Didascalicon schlummernden methodischen
Möglichkeiten von Schriftauslegung ausgeschöpft, zugleich aber das Verständnis und
die Rezeptionsfähigkeit seiner Zeit überfordert hat.
In unserem Zusam m enhang scheint es mir darüber hinaus angezeigt, auf das Fort
leben der Sentenzen des Lombarden im 13. Jahrhundert hinzuweisen. Seitdem von
den dreißiger Jahren des 13. Jahrhunderts an der Lombarde universitäres Lehrbuch
wird, verläuft seine Rezeptionsgeschichte analog zu der der Bibel: Bibelkommentare
und Sentenzenkommentare degradieren zu Übungsfeldern für baccalarii biblici und
sententla n i, die sich auf dem W eg zur Ausformulierung ihrer eigenen sacra doctrina
befinden30. D am it komme ich zum letzten Aspekt unserer Überlegungen.
‘8 D e sacramentis, I, Prologus, 4 (P L 176, 185A ) : „H istoria est rerum gestarum narratio que in
p rim a sig nification e littcrc c o n tin e tu r. A lle g o ria est c u m per id q u o d factum d ic itu r a liq u id aliud
factu m siue in preterito siue in presenti siue in futu ro significatu. T ro po lo g ia est c u m per id q u o d
factum d ic itu r a liq u id fa cie n d u m esse sig nificatur.“
49 V gl. Bernd!, A n d ré de Saint-V ictor, 177-182.
30 V gl .Jacques Verger, Baccalarius, in : L ex ik on des M ittelalters 1 (1980) 1323.
78
R a in e r B crndt
Gegen Ende des Didascalicon beschreibt Hugo von St. Viktor sein Verständnis von
doctrina, indem er sie als aus lectio und meditalio entstehend begreift51. Die doppelt
durchgeführte lectio sacri eloqiiii, bistorica und allegorica endet vor dem göttlichen G e
heimnis, das sich als sacrttm eloquium dem Menschen mitteilt. Erst dann kann die me-
Da vid L¡iseom be
ditatio beginnen, dann soll sie aber auch beginnen, weil sie nach H ugo das innerlich
angestrebte Ziel aller lectio ist52. Die Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift will als ihr eigent
liches Ziel den Menschen zum Verstummen vor Gott führen. W ir erfassen jetzt den
gravierenden Unterschied zwischen der sacra doclrina des 13. Jahrhunderts und den
The Bible in the Work of Peter Abelard
and of his „School“
systematischen Entwürfen des 12. Jahrhunderts, insbesondere Hugos: Die viktorinische doctrina könnte man umschreiben als Gottesbelehrtheit, als instruiert sein vom
göttlichen W ort, nachdem der Mensch den W eg von der Schöpfung über das sacrum
eloquium hin zum Verstummen genom m en hat. Die sacra doclrina universitärer Ra
tionalität im darauffolgenden Jahrhundert dagegen organisiert sich diskursiv selbst.
Beryl Smalley did not devote a section of The Study of the Bible in the tMiddle Ages to
Abelard and his name does not loom large in the index. He got only scattered refer
ences. She acknowledged that he was an outstanding figure in a period that gave scope
to personality1, that he was a thoroughgoing dialectician with a sharper m ind and a
very different temperament from Anselm of Laon whom he found wordy and secondrate2. But she also recognised that Abelard himself followed current traditions and was
less original than he m ight appear: in introducing quaestiones into his commentary on
Romans he did no more than was usual at Laon5. But quaestiones were to multiply in
number in the second quarter of the twelfth century. ‘Each pupil enlarges on his mas
ter’, she wrote referring by way of example to the Commentarius Cantabrigiensis writ
ten by a disciple of Abelard4. She noted that D o m Lottin had suggested that all the
teaching of theology at Laon consisted of lectures on sacra pagina: discussions of
questions concerning the creation, the angels, the fall, would take place within the
framework of lectures on the Hexaemeron, while most other doctrinal matters would
arise naturally from the text of the Letters of St Paul5. She m ight have added that Abe
lard himself wrote commentaries on both the Hexaemeron and on Romans. O n the
other hand she clearly contrasted the conservatism of Laon with the progressive spirit
of Abelard who had ‘a great preference’ for the quaestio as an exegetical instrument
over straightforward commentary and gloss6. Abelard’s brush with Anselm of Laon
was over the superficiality and the pretentiousness that go with overlaying the text
with unnecessary quotation and explanation. His choice of the Book of Ezekiel as the
subject of his lectures at Laon7 is a further example of creativity because the schools of
the time neglected the Prophets and many other books as well and concentrated
somewhat narrowly on the Psalter and on the Letters of St Paul.
1 B. Smalley, The S tu dy of the Bible in the M id d le Ages (O x fo rd ^ 1958) xvii. H e n c e fo rth cited as:
Smalley, Study.
J Ibid. 51.
' 1 Siehe ob e n A n m e r k u n g 24.
52 D id ascalico n , V I, 13 (ed. Buttimer 130): „Res e n im ualde su btilis est et s im u l iu c u n d a , q ue et
3 Ibid. 73.
4 Ibid. 73.
in cip ie n te s e ru d it et exercet c o n s u m m a te s . In experta a d h u c sty lo id e o q u e a m p lio s pro sequenda,
5 Ibid. 73.
rogem us ig itur n u n c S a p ie n tia m , ut radiare d ig n e tu r in cordibus nostris et ¡Ilu m in are no b is in se-
6 Ibid. 73-4.
m itis suis, u t in tro d u cat nos ad p u ra m et sine a nitn alib u s c e n a m .“
Ibid. 77 (but correct the dates given there to 1112-13).
D a v id Luscom be
80
Beryl Smalley wrote with interest of the relations between Christians and jews and
she cited Abelard’s Dittlogus inter Pbilosophtmi, ju dae m n et i.hn stian um as an exam
ple of Christian tolerance and appreciation of the Jewish point of view8. She reminded
us that he lived in the early days of ‘a great movement’ to translate works out of Greek
and Arabic into Latin, to convert the infidel, to increase Latin scholarship in philoso
phy and science and to correct the texts of the Bible. Scholars went off to Spain,
southern Italy and Sicily in search of Arabic learning; they also consulted Jews on
their doorstep at home9. She noticed that Abelard told Heloise that he had once lis
tened to a Jew commenting on a text of Kings10. She noticed too that one of Abelard’s
pupils, the writer of the Commentarius Cantabrigiensis, reported that his master had
questioned Jews11. She cited the Ysagoge in tbeologicim, a work which makes frequent
reference to Abelard’s theological teaching, on account of its presentation of quota
tions in Hebrew from the ten commandments and from the Prophets12. In addition
Abelard recommended that Heloise and the sisters of the Paraclete should learn the
Biblical languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin in order to understand Scripture in the
original and to restore the scholarly ideal of lectio divina as taught by St Jerom e13.
Abelard’s injunction to the nuns of the Paraclete was almost certainly too ambitious
but the general trend of his efforts and those of others - at the new abbey of St. Victor,
for example - was in favour of biblical scholarship.
It is fair to observe that Dr Smalley never fully confronted Abelard as a com menta
tor on the Bible. On the other hand her portrait of Abelard as a biblical scholar is just
and her stimulus to more recent study of the Bible in the Middle Ages has been enor
mous. In the Preface to the third edition of her book she herself added nothing on
Abelard but her Bibliography cites new work by R. Peppermiiller14 and by E. Kear
ney15.
The present essay is intended to be a selective consideration of four subjects which
are: the relationship between scholastic and monastic elements in Abelard’s exposition
of Scripture; his use of textual or literary criticism; his reference to non-Christian and
especially pagan learning to enhance the understanding of Scripture; and finally the
ways in which Abelard used the Bible to shape his views about society, and especially
about women.
8 Ibid. 78.
9 Ibid. 81.
10 Ibid. 78; Problemata Heloissae, 36 (P L .178, 718A).
11 Smalley, Study, 78; Com m entarius C antabrigiensis in Epístolas P auli e S chola Petri A baelardi,
ed. /I./If. Landgraf (4 vols), vol. 1 (Publications in Mediaeval S tudies. T he U niversity o f Notre
D a m e 2, Notre Dam e, indiana Í937-45) 65.
12 Ysagoge in theologiam, ed. A.M. t.andgraj, Ecrits théo lo g iques de l’école d ’A b é la rd (Spicileg itim sacrum lovaniense 14, Louvain 1934) 61-289.
13 Smalley, Study, 79, 81-2. Abelard, Letter 9, ed. E R . Smits, Peter A b elard . Letters IX - X IV
(G ro n in g e n 1983) 219-37; PI.,. 178, 325-36.
14 R. Peppermiiller, Abaelards A uslegung des Röm erbriefes (Beiträge z u r G e sc h ic h te der P h ilo so
p h ie und Theologie des Mittelalters, N eue Folge 10, M ün ster 1972).
15 l i F. Kearney, Master Peter Abelard. Expositor of Sacred S cripture (U n p u b lis h e d P h .D . Disser
tation su b m itte d to the Faculty of the G raduate School, M arquette U niversity, M ilw au k ee, W is
consin 1980).
The Bible in the W o r k of Peter A b elard an d of his „ S c h o o l“
81
Peter Abelard was both a schoolman and a m onk: a schoolman at Melun, Corbeil
and on the M ont Ste Geneviève; a m onk at St Denis, St Ayoul, the Paraclete, St Gildas, Cluny and St. Marcel. His writings reflect both his scholastic and his monastic ex
periences and commitments; so does his Biblical exegesis. He appropriated non-Chris
tian learning in his study of the Bible, Jewish scholarship in particular and also the
religious, moral and scientific views of the ancient pagan or gentile philosophers. He
formulated principles of textual criticism. He also developed biblical exegesis into a
means of com menting upon society. !n particular he developed distinctive views about
the role of the Christian scholar and about women.
Abelard’s first foray into biblical exegesis was his exposition of Ezechiel16. This in
volved three improvised lectures at Laon where, interestingly, we are told that his
hearers eagerly made copies of his glosses. The glosses (which have not survived) were
extended and found readers on Abelard’s return to Paris, thus marking the point
where Abelard could claim to have acquired a competence in sacra lectio to com ple
m ent his position as a philosopher.
After entering the abbey of St Denis in 1117/18 following his castration, Abelard
withdrew to a cell of the monastery where he resumed teaching. In his autobiography
Abelard repeats his claim to be no less accomplished in the lectio of clivina script urn
than of secularis and he justifies his continued teaching of the secular arts, although
now a m onk, on the ground that he used them as a hook to bring his pupils into the
study of true philosophy, following the example of Origen, the greatest of all Christian
philosophers17.
W hile at St Denis Abelard would appear to have embarked upon writing his Sic et
non. In his Prologue to this work Abelard discusses at some length the principles of
textual criticism. The work seeks to investigate the diversities of doctrine contained in
the authorities, including Scripture. Boyer and McKeon in their edition of the Sic et
non provide an excellent index of the sources cited by Abelard including his quota
tions from Scripture. These are relatively few, about 150 or so (or about ten per cent of
the total number)18, and especially few from the O ld Testament. It is often assumed
that the Sic et non is the quarry from which Abelard obtained the quotations he used
when writing the later versions of his Theologia. But I can find only about 35 of these
Scriptural quotations in the index which D r Mews gives in his edition; these are often
from Matthew and P aul'9. However, when citing the Fathers Abelard often cites their
commentaries on Scripture in which quotations from the Bible are abundant. These
Scriptural quotations contained within Patristic works are not included in the index of
Boyer and McKeon. For example, in quaestio C X V I (Quod peccata patrum rcddanlnr
u’ Abelard, H istoria ca la m ita tu m , ed. /. Monfrin (Paris 21962) il. 164-25 1. H e n c e fo rth cited as
Abelard, H isto ria cala n iita tu m , ed. Monfrin.
17 Abelard, H isto ria c a la m ita tu m , ed. Monfrin, 11. 663-89.
M B.B. Boyer an d R. McKeon, Peter A b a ila rd , Sic et N o n : A C ritical E d itio n (C h ic a g o 1976-77)
653-5. H e n ce fo rth cited as Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer an d McKeon.
19 Petri A b aelard i O p e ra theologies 3. T h eolog ia ‘S u m m i b o n i’; T heologia ‘S c h o la r iiim ’, ed. UAL
Huyiaeri an d C.J. Aiews (C orp us C h r is tia n o r u m . C o n tin u a tio M ediaeualis 13, T u r n h o u t 1987)
557-70. H ence fo rth cited as Petri A b aelard i O p e ra th eolog ica 3.
D a v id L uscom be
82
in filios et contra) Abelard cites a short passage from Ezechiel 18.1-2 but also cites a
long string of passages from Jerom e’s Commentary on Ezechiel20 and these Jerome
passages include Scriptural quotations. The relative paucity of Scriptural quotations in
the Sic et non reflects the fact that Abelard found more cases of apparent disagreement
between post-Scriptural writers than he found in Scripture itself; there were anyway
more post-Scriptural texts to draw upon than there were books in the Bible.
The lessons taught in the Prologue to the Sic ct non are well known to all medieval
ists: the verba of the saints sometimes seem both diversei and adversa. But this does
not mean that they are untruthful or wrong, for we may lack understanding, under
standing (for example) of unusual modes of speech or of alternative meanings of
words. Nonetheless, mistakes can be found even in Scripture. Matthew 13. 34-5 puts
into the m outh of Jesus a saying which Matthew attributes to Isaiah, but in fact it be
longs to Asaph; Matthew 27.9 refers to Jeremiah instead of Zachariah. The evangelists
differ over the hour of the crucifixion21. But Jerome shows that these mistakes were
made by copyists. The early church contained many uneducated gentiles who did not
know their O ld Testament; their scribes easily confused Asaph with Isaiah, Jeremiah
with Zachariah, one Greek number for another. Sometimes the words of Scripture can
mislead us if we do not make allowance for colloquialism as when Mary mentions J o
seph as Jesus’ father22 or for modesty as when Paul calls himself a fool for Christ2J or
for unavoidable ignorance as when the author of Hebrews speaks of Melchidesech
having neither father nor mother, having no genealogy, no beginning and no end to
his days24 or for context as when the witch is said in I Kings 28.12 to see Samuel who
was in fact dead as the story itself makes perfectly clear25. Gregory the Great in his
first H om ily on Ezechiel gave examples of the Prophets sometimes speaking with the
spirit and grace of prophecy and sometimes without it: St Peter himself lapsed into er
ror over the observance of the old rituals such as circumcision and had to be publicly
corrected by St Paul26. Abelard quotes at length from St Augustine to prove that the
Scriptures contain errors but never intentionally mislead: and he writes (characteris
tically): magis iuxta intentionem loquentis quam secundum qnalitatem locutionis Dens,
q u i cordis et reman probator est, pensat, non tain ea quae jiu n t quam quo anim o jiu n t
attendens21. The authority of the Bible would collapse if it contained deliberate de-
:,i Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer an d AlcKeon, 376-8.
21 Ibid. 91-2.
22 L u ke 2.48; Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer a n d McKeon, 94.
2i 1 C o r 4.10; Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer an d AlcKeon, 95.
1' H eb.7 .3; Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer and AlcKeon, 95.
25 Ib id . 95.
26 Ib id . 97.
27 Ib id . 99. This is pro bably the earliest k n o w n occasion o n w h ic h A b e la rd w rote this phrase
w h ic h he was to use again an d again in his later w ritings o n ethics. T he w ords qui cordis et renurn
probator arc from Ier. 20.12; cf. Prov. 24,12; the source of the later part of the phrase is Augustine,
D e serm onc D o m in i in m o n te , ii. 13, n.46 (C o rp us C h ris tia n o ru m , Series L atin a 35) 1:37 or PL.34.
1289); it is fo u n d in w ritings fro m the school of A n s e lm of L aon. See Peter Abelard, E thics, ed.
D.E. l.uscombe (O x fo rd M edieval Texts, O x fo rd 1971) 28, n.3. See too Abelard, E thics, ed. I.uscombe, 28, 40; Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria in E pistolarn Pauli ad R o m a n o s , ed. E.Al. Kuytaert, in: Petri
83
The Bible in the W o rk of Peter A b e lard an d of his „ S c h o o l“
ceit28. So, to understand the Scriptures we have to question them and in this we have
to follow the example of Christ himself who at the age of twelve questioned the doc
tors in the Temple: qiuierile et invenielis, pulsate ct aperietur vobis. Behind a master and
a preacher, even in the case of the perfect wisdom of God, lies a disciple and an en
q u ire r y.
At about the time of starting to write the Sic et non Abelard was also engaged in
writing his Tbeologia ‘Suinm i boni’, °. In the Theologia Abelard brings together exposi
tion of Scripture and the lectio philosopborum. The work provides philosophical solu
tions to questions about faith ’ 1. It also includes many Scriptural references and these
were to recur in the later versions of the work which are known by the titles Theologia
Christiana and Theologia ‘Scholarium’-'2. The work includes, by way of introduction in
Book f, a powerful interpretation, in a trinitarian sense, of passages from the Law and
the Prophets as well as from the writings of the gentile philosophers}i.
It is well known that Abelard detected in Plato’s idea of a world soul the basis of the
Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He justified his interpretation by arguing that it
is necessary to pierce behind the surface of the letter, behind its integumentum. A
mystical interpretation is needed where a true or easy interpretation is unavailable *
Likewise, the Prophets expressed arcane truths, not in popular style ( vulgaribus verbis)
but with the aid of similitudes (comparationibus sim ilitudinum ) which provided a
beautiful wrapping (per puleherrimam involucri figuram). They did so to make them
selves more attractive to readers. W hat the Prophets and the philosophers wrote must
seem mere fable and utterly meaningless when read superficially in a literal way (secun
dum litterae super/idem). But when readers realise that they are full of great mystery
they will warm to them and welcome them on account of their great contribution to
Fortsetzung Fußnote eon Seite 82
A baelardi O p e ra theologica
1 (C o rp us C h r is tia n o r u m . C o n tin u a tio M ediaeualis
U,
iu r n h o u t
1969) 65, 306; Petrus Abaelardus. D ialo g u s inte r P h ilo s o p h u m , Ju d a e u m et C h r is tia n u m , ed. R.
Thomas (Stuttgart, Bad C a n n statt 1970) 163. A lso, ileloise, Letters 1(2), ed. Aionfrin, Abelard, Historia c a la m ita tu m , 116; Letter 5(6), P L .178, 223C.
"8 Abelard, Sic et N o n , ed. Boyer a n d AleKeon, 101-2.
n Ibid., 103-4, M a tt.7.7.
,0 Abelard, 1 h eologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’, ed. It. Ostlender, Peter A baelards T h eo lo g ia S u m m i Boni
(Beiträge zur G e sch ich te der P h ilo s o p h ie u n d der T heolog ie des M ittelalters 35. 2-3, M ün ster
1939, intro d. 21); new e d itio n by C.J. Alews, in: Petri A b aelard i O p e ra theologica 3. H enc e fo rth
cited as Abelard. T heologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’, ed. Aleies. For the date see C. Aleies, ‘O n d a tin g the
works of Peter A b e la rd ’, in: A rchives d ’histoire d octrinale et littéraire d u m o y e n âge (1985) 73134, here 127. Aleies states that the “Sic et N o n ” was p robably beg u n after the c o u n c il of Soissons
in 1121 at w h ich A b e la rd ’s T heologia had been c o n d e m n e d , b u t a start before 1121 is also a p o s
sibility.
’ ’ Abelard. H istoria c a la m ita tu m , ed. Aionfrin, 11. 690-708.
See the “index b ib lic u s ” w h ich M ew s provides in: Petri A b aelard i O p e ra th eo lo g ica 3, 557-70.
”
Abelard, Theologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’ I, 5, 6-12, 13-29, ed. Mews, II. 56-62, 6 3 —113, 1 14-293.
”
T heologia Christiana I, 117 ed. F.AL Buytaert, in: Petri A b aelard i O p e ra th eo lo g ica 2. H e n c e
forth cited as Abelard, T heologia Christiana. T heologia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ I, 180 ed. F.AL Buytaert and
(../.
in: Petri A b aelard i O p e ra th eo lo gica 3, 394.
84
D a v id L u sco m b e
teaching. The wrapping keeps them clean, as Augustine wrote35. The Lord likes to rest
in the shade: hidden there he appears more welcome to those who see him. The great
er the difficulty experienced with the Scriptures, the greater the merit their readers ac
quire. As Proverbs say (25.2), Gloria Dei est celare verbum et gloria regum investigare
sermonan. So the obscurities of Scripture are like the shade in which God rests and
where he will be found. Proverbs 1.6 also invite us to investigate them: Sapiens animadvertet parabolam et inlerpretationem, verba sapientium et aenigmata eorum. The
wise man shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise and
their mysterious sayings. The greater the effort spent in understanding, the sweeter it
is36. Abelard adds a quotation from St Jerome which explains the opening of Proverbs
as an invitation to us understand words of wisdom, plays upon words, parables, ob
scure speech, saws and enigmas - which are the domain of dialecticians and philoso
phers (quae proprie dialecticorum et pbilosophorum s u n tf1. The Apostles understand
the mystery of G o d ’s kingdom: others hear parables on ly ’8.
D r Mews has written that Abelard’s favourite Scriptural text in his Theologia ‘Sum mi
bond is Romans 1.18-21: that which is known of God is manifest in them; the invisi
ble things of God have been revealed to the gentiles. Abelard turns this text “into a
eulogy of pagan philosophical insight”39. In fact Abelard cites the text only three times
in this work and its principal appearance is at the close of the third and final book
where Abelard suggests reasons why Jews and gentiles have been able to perceive the
trinitarian nature of God even without the knowledge of the Incarnation which is
needed to make such a perception clear40. The appeal of Paul’s remarks appears to
grow upon Abelard in the course of writing his Theologia Christiana and his Theologia
‘S cholarium’ 'where he exploits them more frequently and fully41. The theme unfolds
clearly in the second book of the Theologia Christiana: on the authority of Paul, A b e
lard suggests that G od had revealed to the gentiles what was invisible about him,
namely his Spirit. The gentiles, precisely because G od has revealed to them invisible
truth concerning the trinity, are not infidels. True, the gentiles had no legis scriptum
but according to Paul (Romans 2.14—15) they did naluraliter quae legis sunt; the legis
scriptum was written on their hearts. The gentiles, even without the written law, and
even without circumcision, can be justified through faith42.
3’ Abelard, T h eologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’, ed. Mews, 1.37-8; T heologia C h ris tia n a 1.97-8; Abelard.
T h e o lo g ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ 1.157-8, ed. E/M . Buytaerl and
C.J. Mews,
in: Petri A b a elard i O p e ra thco-
iogica 3. H e n ce fo rth cited as Abelard, T heolog ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’.
36 Abelard, T heologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’, ed. Mews 1.39-40; T h eo lo g ia C h ris tia n a 1.100-1; Abelard,
T h e o lo g ia ‘S c h o la riu m ’ 1.160-1.
31 Abelard, T h eologia C h ris tia n a 1.102; T h eolog ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ 1.162; C f. Jerome, E pist. 70, ed.
Hllberg (C S E L 54) 701; PL.22, 665.
38 M ark 4, 11—12; Abelard, T h eo lo gia Christiana 1.105; T h eo lo g ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ 1.165.
39 In : Petri A baelardi O p e ra theologica 3.52.
40 Abelard, T heologia ‘S u m m i b o n i’ I I I . 100, ed. Mews. Cf. also Abelard, T h e o lo g ia ‘S u m m i b o n i'
I.32, III. ( 7 ed. Mews-, T heologia C h ris tia n a I V .159, 1.58; T h eo lo g ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ 11.183; 1.98.
41 Abelard, T h eo lo gia C h ris tia n a 1.54, II.6, 11.12-13, IV .85, V .4; T h e o lo g ia ‘S c h o la r iu m ’ 1.94, 100,
II.6 ,12 ,11 .11 0,1 11 .4.
u Abelard, T h eo lo gia
C h ris tia n a 11.13-22.
T he B ible in the W o rk of Peter A b e la rd an d of his „ S c h o o l“
85
To support this view that the gentiles living before the coming of Christ could ob
tain some knowledge of the truths upheld by Christians, Abelard also provided evi
dence of the virtuous lives led by pagan philosophers as well as by illiterate men, living
by the natural law alone. He drew his examples - of Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras and
others - largely from book 8 of Augustine’s City of God. Plato in particular identified
the aim of the good life as the love of G o d 43.
In the second book of the Theologia Christiana Abelard uses non-biblical sources to
define the social roles of men and wom en in association with biblical texts. He sees in
the care given by gentile philosophers to the well-being of cities and their citizens an
expression of evangelical and apostolic values which is not at odds with Christian
teaching44. The philosophers did not know about the Incarnation or the sacraments or
the Resurrection but the moral teachings of the Gospel are “nothing other than a re
formation of the natural law” which the philosophers upheld45. The gentile philoso
phers organised cities into what may be called “convents of married people” ruled by
rectors who should themselves be celibate and abstinent like modern m onks and
clergy. These cities were fraternities upheld by charity like the communities of Chris
tians described in the Acts of the Apostles 4.32'16. In book 2 Abelard also builds up
the ideal of the philosopher-hermit. The Theologia Christiana was written while A be
lard was living at Quincy, in a small, isolated, rural hermitage, living as a m onk but tea
ching philosophy and the Scriptures. At this time he developed his vision of virtue as
the path to wisdom. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, requires isolation from the world
and com m itm ent to prayer, study and the practice of virtue, if perfection is to be at
tained47. Many of the pagan philosophers, many pagan women also, set examples of
conversion from the world48.
Some ten years later, when Abelard wrote his autobiography, he reproduced some
examples from this large repertory of gentile seekers after wisdom. He attributed them
to Heloise as he told the story of how she had begged Abelard not to marry her. In
this context the similarities that Abelard wished to highlight between the examples of
continent living among gentile philosophers, Jews and Christians are more clearly pre
sented: among the Jews’ the Nazarenes and the followers of Elijah, the Pharisees, the
43 Ib id . 11.23-42.
44 Ib id . 11.43-59.
45 Ib id . 11.44: ‘Si e n im dilig e n te r m o ralia E u a n g e lii praecepta co nsid ere m us, n ih il ea aiiu d q u a m
re fo rm a tio n e m legis naturalis in u e n ie m u s , q u a m secutos esse p h ilo so p h o s constat, - c u m lex magis figuralibus q u a m m oralibus n ita tu r m a n d atis, et exteriori p o tiu s iustitia q u a m interio ri abundet. E u a n g e liu m uero uirtutes ac u itia d ilig e n te r e x am inat, et se c u n d u m a n im i in te n tio n c m o m
nia sieut et p h ilo s o p h i pensat’. See for furth er discussion D. Luscomhe, C ity a n d P olitics Before
the C o m in g of the Politics, in: C h u r c h an d C ity . Essays in H o n o u r of C h ris to p h e r Brooke, ed. D.
Abulajia, At Franklin an d At Rubin (C a m b rid g e 1992) 41-55.
Abelard, T h eolog ia Christiana 11.45: in s t itu e r u n t a u te m , iuxta euan g elicam p ra edic a tio nem ,
tarn c o n iu g a to r u m q u a m recto rum q u a m c o n tin e n tiu m u ita m , c u m et c iu ita tib us quasi coniugatorum c o n u e n tib u s m o d u m uitae assignauerunt, et quales ipsi rci p u blica e rectores esse o porteret
defin ie ru n t, et in se ipsis c o n tin e n tiu m atq ue a b s tin e n tiu m u ita m expresserunt, q u a m n u n c clerici siue m o n a e h i p ro fite n tu r.“
47 Ib id . 11.60.
48 Ib id . 11.61-115.
86
D av id Luscom be
Saducees and the Essenes, all present examples of lives that Christians would call m o
nastic but which gentiles would call philosophic49.
A t about the same time, as abbot of St Gildas, Abelard uses the same repertory of
examples in his Sermon on St John the Baptist50. He invokes Job and the figure of the
wild ass, non domesticus sed silvestrtf,>free not fettered, like a m onk free of sexual ties
and of the responsibilities of a wife and family. “W ho hath sent out the wild ass free?
... To whom have I given a house in the wilderness...? He scorneth the multitude of
the city.”52 From this generic example of the monastic ideal Abelard passes to the spe
cific figure of John the Baptist (summo illo monachorum [nincipifK But he refers first
to the O ld Testament figures of Elijah and Elisha, who lived in solitude in the coun
tryside, and to the early Christian monks, Paul, Anthony, Hilarion and Macharius, who
are all models of the monastic life which is the “Christian philosophy”54. O f John the
Baptist Abelard wrote: in eremo pbilosophalnr... Non unit cum hominibus conversari, in
eremo cum angel is philosophatur - he philosophised in the hermitage ... He did not
wish to converse with men. He philosophised in his hermitage with the angels55. Abe
lard uses these examples of perfection to criticise the monastic society of his own day,
with its greed to acquire parishes, its involvement in lawsuits, its close association with
the affairs of cities and castles.
Abelard wrote four expositions of Scripture. His glosses on Ezekiel do not survive;
his commentary on the Paler nosier is short56, but those on Romans and on the llcxaemeron are substantial57.
49 Abelard, Historia c alam itatu m , ed. Monfrin 11.425-558. Cf. Abelard, Theologia C h ristia n a 11.67,
71. In b o th T heologia C h ristian a a n d H istoria c a la m it a t u m A b ela rd relies largely u p o n y m w if ,
A dvcrsus Io v in ia n u m .
50 S e rm o n 33, PL.178, 582-607.
51 ,O n a g e r q u ip p e no n dom esticus, sed silvestris asinus d ic itu r’, S erm o n 33, PL.178, 582C.
32 ,Q u is d im is it onag ru m lib e ru m , et v in cu la eius qu is solvit? C u i dedi in s o litu d in e clom um , et
tab e m acu la ejus in terra salsuginis? C o n te m n it m u ltitu d in e m civitatis, et cla m o re m exactoris non
au dit. C ire u m sp ie it m ontes pascuae suae, et virentia q u a eq u c p e rq u irit’, Jo b 39.5-7.
53 S e rm o n 33, PL.178, 585A .
’ 4 ,A b his ... dueibiis nostri propositi, sen p rin c ip ib u s hujus p h iio so p h ia e christianae tarn in veteri q u a m in novo p o p u io studio su n t exorta’, S e rm o n 33, PL.178, 585BC.
33 S e rm o n 33, PL.178, 585D .
36 E xp ositio orationis do m in icae . The Prologue begins: ‘M u lto r u m leg im u s orationcs ...’ I he text
begins: ‘Pater noster q u i es in celis. C u m pater potius d ic it’. C.S.P. Burnett has c o nv inc ing ly estab
lished A b e la rd ’s a uth o rsh ip of this w o rk 'a n d p rovided an e d itio n , The Expositio Orationis Domi
nicae ''Multorum legimus orationes": A b e la rd ’s E x p o sitio n of the L o rd ’s Prayer?, in: Revue benedictine 95 (1985) 60-72. See J u lia Barrow, Charles Burnett, David Luscombe, A C hecklist of the
M an uscrip ts C o n ta in in g the W r itin g s of Peter A b elard and H eloise a n d o th e r W o rk s Closely As
sociated w ith A belard and his S ch o o l, in : R evue d ’H istoire des Textes 14-15 (1984-5) 18 3 - 30 2 ,
here 184-5, 248 (no.287). H e n ce fo rth cited as Barrow, Burnett, Luscombe, C h eck list. O n e of Abe
lard's S erm on s (14, PL.178, 489-95) incorporates a further b u t sim ilar ex p o sition of the L o id s
prayer. T he “ E xpositio orationis d o m in ic a e ” w h ich begins ‘In ter o m n ia quae fragilitas and w h ic i
is p rin te d alongside A b e la rd ’s c o m m e n tarie s o n the A p o s tle s’ Creed and on the Athanasian
Creed in PL.178, 611-18 is p ro bably by R ich ard of St. V icto r; see Barrow, Burnett, Lustom;
C h e ck lis t, 184-5, 265-7 (no.348).
57 A n u m b e r of uncertainties still s u rro u n d two oth er c o m m en taries that have at one time
T he Bible in the W o rk of Peter A b e lard and of his „ S c h o o l“
87
Abelard lectured on the Letters of Paul, not only on Romans. He did so famously, if
one takes into account the work of his hearers. One of these, the author of the CommenUirius Cantabrigiensis, heard his lectures and makes frequent reference to Abelard
whom he calls simply philosophies58. Another was Robert of Melun who was clearly in
spired by Abelard’s commentary on Romans when he wrote (c. 1157 or earlier) his Questiones de epistolis P au lP 9. Rolf Peppermiiller has brought to light an anonymous com
mentary on Romans and on Corinthians (to II Cor. 10.12) from the late twelfth
century, found in three manuscripts and not printed, in which Abelard’s commentary
on Romans is followed as a source word for word on more than eighty occasions. A n
other source used in this commentary is Robert of Melun but neither Abelard nor
Robert is nam ed60. In addition, Peppermiiller has shown that books 6-8 of the Allego
rien' super novum teslamentum, printed among the works of H ugh of St Victor in vol
ume 175 of the Patrologia latinei, and very widely copied in the Middle Ages, are
nothing other than an abridgement of these commentaries61. However, the only
surviving commentary by Abelard on Paul to have been identified so far is the com
mentary on Romans62. A disciple of Abelard wrote an abridgement of this com m en
tary which Landgraf edited and published65.
another been attribu ted to A b e la rd ; these are listed in Barrow, Burnett, Luscombe, C heck list,
267-8, nos. 349, 350.
58 C o m m e n ta riu s C antabrigiensis in E pistolas P auli e Sehola P. A baelard i, ed. A .M . Landgraf (4
vols), v o l.2 (P u b licatio n s in M ediaeval Studies. T he U niversity of N otre D a m e 2, N o tre D a m e , I n
diana 1937-45).
59 Ed. R.J. Martin, O euvres de R o b e rt de M e lu n (S p ic ile g iu m S acrum Lovaniense 18, L o u vain
1938).
Z u m F o rtw irken von A baelards R ö m e r b r ie fk o m m e n ta r in der M itte la lte rlic h e n Exegese, in:
Pierre A belard, Pierre le Venerable. A b b a y e de C lu n y , 2 au 9 ju ille t 1972 (Colloques in te rn a tio
nal ix d u Centre N atio nal de la R ech e rch e S c ie n tifiq u e 546, Paris 1975) 557-68. H e n c e fo rth cited
as Peppermiiller, Z u m Fortw irken. A b ae lard (1079-1142), in: T heologische R e a le n z y k lo p ä d ie 1.717, here 14. H e n ce fo rth cited as Peppermiiller, A b aelard (1079-1 142). T he M S S are V atican lat.
O tto b o n ia n u s 445, Troyes B ibl. m u n . 770, Paris A rsenal 534.
61 P L .175, 879D -924. Peppermiiller, Z u m F o rtw irken , 565-7; A b aelard (1079-1142), 14. Pepper-
»liiller also finds traces of the a n o n y m o u s c o m m e n ta ry in the “Q u a estio nes in epistulas P a u li”
printed u nd e r the nam e o f Hugh of St. Victor in PL. 175, 431-634.
C o m m e n taria in E p is to lam P au li ad R o m a n o s , ed. Buyiaert, in: Petri A b aelard i O p e ra theologica 1 (C orpus C h ris tia n o ru m . C o n tin u a tio m e diae u alis 11, T u r n h o u t 1969). H e n c e fo rth cited as:
Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria . For c o m m e n t an d criticism of this e d itio n see R. Peppermiiller, Z u r k riti
schen Ausgabe des R ö m e rb rie f- K o m m e n ta rs des Petrus A baelard, in: S c rip to riu m 26 (1972) 8297. H enceforth cited as: Peppermtiller, Z u r k ritisch en A usgabe. For a full stu d y o f the c o m m e n
tary see R. Peppermiiller, A baelards A u s le g u n g des R öm e rb rie fe s (Beiträge zur G e sc h ic h te der
Philosophie u n d T heologie des M ittelalters, N eu e Folge 10, M ü n ste r 1972). H e n c e fo rth cited as:
Peppermiiller, Abaelards A u s le g u n g . T he P rologue has been translated in to E n g lish in : M edieval
Literary Theory and C ritic ism c .l lOO-c.1375. T he C o m m e n ta ry - T ra d id o n , ed. A.J. M innis and
A.B. Scoliwnh the assistance of D a v id W a lla c e (O x fo rd 1988) 100-5. A.J. M innis c o m m e n ts o n
the Prologue in: M edieval T heory o f A u th o r s h ip . Scholastic literary attitudes in the later M id d le
Ages (Scolar Press, A ld e rs h o t 21988) 59-63.
Petri Abaelardi E x p o s itio n s in E p is to la m S. P auli ad R o m a n o s A b b re v ia tio , ed. A.M . l,and-
gwj, in: Bohoslavia 13 (L em berg 1935) 1-45.
88
D a v id L usco m b e
In the Prologue to his commentary on Romans Abelard offers a broad statement as
to what the Scriptures are and what they do6**. They are a form of rhetoric. They aim
to teach and to urge (docere, mouere). Scripture teaches what should be done and what
should not be done. Scripture tells us to refrain from wrong and to devote ourselves to
doing good. Both the O ld Testament and the New Testament achieve this end
through a similar tripartite arrangement: first, the Law and the teachings of the Lord
are provided in the five books of Moses and in the Gospels. Secondly, exhortation is
provided in the prophetical and the historical books of the O ld Testament and in the
Epistles and the Apocalypse in the New Testament. Thirdly, the historical books of
the O ld Testament and the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament give exemplei
in narrative form in order to show what rewards there are for virtue and what punish
ments there are for transgressions. Paul’s Letter to the Romans was written to advise
the Romans to obey the teaching of the Gospel. To do this Paul stresses the im por
tance of divine grace over that of hum an action. The Letter is entirely about divine
grace and hum an action - to advise the proud Romans not to glorify their own
achievements but rather to glorify the Lord.
W hen E.M. Buytaert edited this Expositio of Romans in 1969 he described it as ‘a
literal interpretation of the Epistle as it was understood in those days, but with a good
many theological or theologico-exegetical questions interspersed. The originality of
the Commentary resides more in the questions inserted than in its exegesis proper165.
Peppermuller showed that there is a lot of theology and also a lot of ethics in the
Com mentary66. Abelard uses auctoritales (Augustine, Origen, Haymo, Ambrosiaster,
Jerome etc)67, and follows closely the text of the Letter, but it is the questions that
Abelard raised which most reveal his purpose68. A n d frequently Abelard refers the
reader to another work of his in which he promises to pursue a question further. O n
eight occasions, for example, he promises answers to questions on grace, sin, provi
dence and predestination in his Theologia; he promises answers to questions about
Christ and the redemption in his Anthropologia, and, on three occasions, to questions
about grace, virtue, sin and merit in his E t h ia f 9. Undoubtedly the two most important
questions which Abelard raises in his Expositio are questions about redemption and
about original sin70.
Buytaert worked hard on his edition of the Expositio. But he was also preparing at
the time an edition of Abelard’s Theologia7' . The introduction which Buytaert wrote to
44 Abelard, Com m entaria, 41-6. A t 1.6 Buytaert chooses the verb mouere; Peppermuller, Z u r kritischen A usgabe, 85-6, prefers mouere.
65 Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 16.
66 A baelards A u sle g u ng .
67 Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 20-1.
68 Peppermuller, A baelards A u s le g u n g , 12-14 c o n v e n ie n tly lists 29 q u estio n s in the sequence in
w h ic h they occur in the co m m e n ta ry . Buytaert, in Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 17-20 classifies them
as q uestio n s ab o u t faith, charity or sacram ent.
69 Buytaert, in : Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 27-8.
70 Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 113-18, 163-175.
71 T he fruits of Buytaert's labours o n the T h eologia are c o n ta in e d in : Petri A b aelard i O p e ra theologica 2 and 3.
T he Bible in the W o rk of Peter A b e lard an d of his „ S c h o o l“
89
his edition of the Expositio is largely about Abelard’s Tbeologia, about the questions
raised in the Expositio in this regard and about the references found there to the var
ious versions - both written and yet to be written - of the Tbeologia11. Buytaert argued
that the questions which Abelard raised in the Expositio related to the three divisions
of all Scriptural knowledge: faith, charity and sacrament73. Around these three divi
sions Abelard structured his Tbeologia as well as his Sentences. I find this less than con
vincing. It is true that in the Expositio Abelard raises questions that are about faith,
about charity, about sacrament. But in the Prologue Abelard describes the Gospels as
contributing to salvation through what they say about faith, hope and charity or the
sacraments (de fide et spe et caritate sett sacramentisf4 - a different division. It does not
seem to me that Abelard consciously grouped his questions in the Expositio around
the three divisions of theology which he introduced into his Tbeologia and his Sen
tences.
In the Expositio in Elexaemenm we see Abelard’s monastic and scholastic interests
com ing together. Abelard wrote this Commentary for the nuns of the Paraclete. In his
Preface he explains that Heloise had asked him to explain Augustine’s De Genesi ad
lit le m n p . W e know from Letter 9 that Abelard exhorted the nuns to study Scrip
ture76. They had clone so and they had found the beginning of the Book of Genesis
too hard. So Abelard wrote a commentary for them 77. To a considerable degree, Abe
lard’s work is a development of the work of Augustine. But Abelard’s approach includ
ed an interest in the natural science aspects of the account of the creation of the phys
ical universe and thereby offers similarities to the thought and writings of such
twelfth-century philosophers as Adelard of Bath and Thierry of Chartres. Augustine
focussed upon his doctrine of seminal reasons; Abelard, like some of his scientific con
temporaries in the twelfth century, focussed upon the idea of natural causes, upon the
power or the force of nature, the vis naturae18. The will of God, voluntas Dei, is the
cause of all that happens during the six days. However, when the natures of things
have been established by God, he rests and the force of nature suffices to keep crea
tion in being. Abelard defines nature as ‘a force and capacity invested in those works at
that time (i.e. creation), so that they should be sufficient in themselves for effecting
what happens consequently'79. He uses the theory of the four elements, ‘heaven’ being
12 Abelard, C o m m e n ta ria , 16-20, 27-33.
73 ibid. 17-20.
74 Ibid. 42, 1.62.
73 PL. 178, 731-2. T his Preface is addressed to Heloise.
76 Ed. HR.
Smits,
Peter A b elard . Letters IX-XIV (G r o n in g e n 1983) 219-37. H e n c e fo rth cited as:
Sm its.
77 PL. 178, 731-84.
7° J-Jolt vet, E le m e n ts d u co n ce p t de nature chez A b élard , in : La Filosofia della natura tiel Medioevo (A tti del I I I Congresso in te rn azio n aie di filosofia m é diév ale, M ila n 1966) 297- 304; D.E.
Lmtombe, N ature in the T h o u g h t of Peter A b e lard , in: La Filosofia della natura nel M ed io ev o ,
314-19, F. Gregory, C o nsid ératio n s sur ratio et natum chez A b éla rd , in: Pierre A b éla rd , Pierre le
Vénérable. A b baye de C lu n y , 2 au 9 ju ille t 1972 (C o llo q u e s in te rn a tio n a u x d u C entre N a tio n a l de
la R echerche S c ie n tifiq u e 546, Paris 1975) 569-84.
,N ih il n u n c n a tu ra m a liu d d ic im u s , nisi v im et facultatem illis o peribus tu n e c o lla tam , und e
90
D a v id L u sco m b e
interpreted as the elem ents of fire and air, ‘earth’ as the elem ents of
water and
earth«
To begin with, the newly created elements are mixed up. This is what Gen
the abyss and what classical poets and philosophers call chaos81. The relat'5 ' 2 Ca**s
the elements to chaos or byle is one of the problems that Abelard tried t
°f
Eileen Kearney, in a fine article published in 198 082, showed that A b e la r d ^ r ^
than provide a literal exposition of the Hexaemeron8J. He considered as well ti ^ n"l° rc
logical and moral implications (moralitas). Thus, the image of the snint <
6
, . „
,
.
0
spmt wannint,
.
waters m Genesis 1.2 prefigures the action of the ‘waters of baptism’ w hich '
life to m an84. Abelard also provides a mystical interpretation (ctlleôricif5
'KSV
this purpose Augustine’s De Genest contra Manichaeos in which A ugustine i n t ' ^ ^
the six days of creation as the six ages of world history.
L *^rcts
Dr. Kearney also noted that Abelard’s Commentary parallels the first book
Hym ns that he wrote for the nuns of the Paraclete86. Joseph Szôvérffy in the Int
duction to his edition of the Hym narius Paraditensis, has elucidated these import,
parallels very well. The nocturnal hymns are based upon the narrative of the six cl'av
of creation but the diurnal hymns (which have a different rhythm and a different nie!
ody) contain allegorical and moral interpretations of the six days as the six ages of sal
vation and the six ages of man from infancy onwards87.
There exist two versions of the Commentary on the Hexaemeron, one shorter and
the other longer. It is conceivable that Abelard wrote first the shorter version in which
attention is especially given to the doctrines of the pagan philosophers, especially
Plato. Later, when Heloise asked for a commentary, Abelard may have expanded his
work and made it appropriate for the nuns of the Paraclete by adding more material
ilia sufficerent ad e ffic ie n d u m haec qu ae p o s tm o d u m inde c o n tig e ru n t’, E xp o sitio in H ex aem o
ro n, P L.178, 749C .
30
81
ib id . P L .178, 733C .
Ib id . P L.178, 735A .
°2 F..F. Kcnrney, Peter A b e lard as B iblical C o m m e n ta to r: A S tu d y of the E xpositio in Hexaem e
ro n, in: Petrus A baelardus (1079-1142). Person, W e rk u n d W ir k u n g , ed. R. Thomas, w ith /. um
eet, D.E. Luscombe an d L.M. de Rijk (Trierer T heologische S tu d ie n 38, Trier 1980) 199-210.
H e n ce fo rth cited as Kearney, A b e la rd as B iblical C o m m e n ta to r.
83 Kearney, A b elard as Biblical C o m m e n ta to r, 203-4; E xp o sitio in H ex aem ero n , PL.178,
'
84 E x p o sitio in H ex aem eron 77 1D - 2A .
83 Kearney, A b e lard as B iblical C o m m e n ta to r ,
200.
s<’ J. Szôvérffy, Peter Abelard’s H ym narius Paraditensis. A n annotated edition with introduction,
2 vols (Classical Folia Editions, Albany, N.Y. and Brookline, Mass. 1975) I, 33-4. Hencefom,
ted as: Szôvérffy. C. Waddell has also edited the Hym narius in: H ym n Collections from the Para
clete, 2 vols (Cistercian Liturgy Series 8-9, Gethsem ani Abbey. Trappist, Kentucky 40051, 1989
[vol.l], 1987 fvol.2]).
87
T he E xp o sitio has been edited fro m all the M S S by M.F. Romig, A C ritical E d itio n of Peter
A b e la rd ’s E x p o sitio in H ex ae m e ro n (u n p u b lis h e d P h D dissertation, U niversity of S outhern C ali
fornia, Los A ngeles 1981). T he e d itio n in P L.178, 731-84 is based on A vranches, Bibliothèque
m u n ic ip a le , M S 135. T he tw o versions of the Expositio (of w h ic h the shorter survives only in frag
m e ntary form ) are fo u n d in Paris, B ib lio th è q u e nation ale, M S lat. 1725 1; see H.M. Buytaut, Abe
lard’s E xp ositio in H e x aem ero n , in : A n to n ia n u m 43 (1968) 163-94 a n d Barrow, Burnt!f. U » .
combe, C h eck list, 247-8, 259, nos 286, 325.
The B ible in the W o rk o f Peter A b e lard and of his „ S c h o o l“
91
and the Fathers. But this can only be a hypothesis, and another view is
from
a”ers;on is an abbreviation written by a disciple88. In either event, the
that the sholtU
was despatched to the Paraclete reflects both the philosophical
luiip'1 " ’ ’l0n
onrv philosophers and the spiritual requests of Heloise and the
, i u , . i i " ' - ■« c o n t
nuns
F
^
jet£er s]ie wrote to Abelard following her discovery of his epi-
Hekn',L,j t^ oria gsked him for help and guidance: she asked him to share with her
slola
daughters - in the convent of the Paraclete the knowledge he had of
sisters ~
^ t|ie pathers had written to instruct, stimulate and console religious wom-
ffCs»'Xbclard’s guidance was powerfully shaped by the example of St. Jerome who
60
f w ith century had advocated the study of the Bible to the Christian ladies of
*n
his reply he asked Heloise and the sisters to present to him their enquiries
^ ° niC the Bible91 Apparently the nuns did so, for Heloise wrote a letter to Abelard to
^ t h a t 's h e and the sisters were studying Scripture and were following the example
S/
t. j set Thjs letter introduces forty two Problemata which are questions
that the nuns have not been able to answer in the course of their studies. Some of
these questions fall into groups (10-12, 14-20, 25-6, 30-39) and some of these groups
forns unon certain parts of the Bible. Professor Dronke has shown that there is a per
sona!
a u to b io g r a p h ic a l
streak in some of these Probkmctld’1. The last, for example,
asks whether anyone can sin in doing something that has been permitted or even
co m m a n d e d by her lord93. Heloise was perhaps reflecting on the com mand (iwfi/o) she
received from Abelard to marry him and then to enter religion94. Abelard’s answer is a
defence of marriage. The second Problcma (James 2.10-11: whoever offends in one
point of the Law becomes guilty in all) raises a question which Heloise was concerned
about in her third letter9’. The fourteenth, about the Beatitudes, gives Abelard an opM ,Quot aiitem et quantos tractatus in doctrina vel exhortatione sen etiam consolatione sanctarum feminarum sancti patres consummaverint quanta eos diligentia composuerint, tua melius exiHlcntia quam nostra parvitas novit’, ed.J.T. Muckle, (ed.), ‘The Personal Letters between Abaefciru and Heloise’, in: Mediaeval Studies (5 (1953) 47-94 here 70 (henceforth cited as Muckle,
Personal Letters); P L .178, 184B.
Abelard. Letter 9, ed. Smits, 219-37; PL.178, 325A-336A.
N
"I iis etiam quae ad D eum pertinent magisterio nostro atque scriptis indiges, super his
ribe rnihi at ad ipsam rescribam prout m ih i D o m inu s annuerit’, Abelard, Letter 3, ed,
Muitdi, Personal Letters, 73; PL.178, 187C. . .im itam ini saltern et amore et studio sanctarum litterarum 1kmtas illas sancti H ieronym i discipulas P aulam et E u sto ch iu m q u aru m p reeip u e rogatu
tot Hihmmiibus ccclesiam praedietus doctor illustravit’, Abelard, Letter 8, ed. T.P. McLaughlin,
'Abelard's Rule for Religious W o m e n ’, in: Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956) 241-92 here 292; PL.178,
3 1 IB.
,
'^ k m a t a Heloissae, PL.178, 677-730; Heloise’s prefatory letter is printed here at cols.
/. I)i‘,n;.e, Heloise’s Problemata and Letters: Some Questions of Form and Content, in: Petrus
!i; ’‘lc a' c*u' ’ ec^' Ihomas, 53-73, here 60-1; reprinted in: Dronke, Intellectuals and Poets in Meueval Lumpe (Storia e Letteratura 183, Rom e 1992) 295-322. Cf. also P. Dronke, W o m e n WriVIlclcl,e A 8es (Cambridge 1984) 134-9.
,;i ‘ roWema 42, PL.178, 723-50. '
»j
’ lx'tters 2 and 4, ed. Muckle, Personal Letters, 72, 81; PL.178, 186C, 197D.
! L L-8, 679C-680A; Letter 6, PL.178, 214CD.
92
D a v id L u scom b e
portunity to declare that those who are pure in heart can be blessed even in yielding,
in marriage, to sensual desire"6. The eleventh questions the nature of true repen
tance97. 31-4 concern Anna, mulier nimis infelix>s, the eighth concerns the woman
taken in adultery59, the twentieth is about the com m and ‘do as you would be done
by” 00. Professor Dronke advises that we should be careful not to read too m uch per
sonal involvement into these Problemata, many of which are purely exegetical, but
there can be no doubt that they do represent an endeavour to find answers to ethical
as well as to textual questions and to raise the level of biblical knowledge in a female
com m unity101.
This last point bears upon the general theme of the relationship between the m edie
val study of the Bible and the position of women in medieval society. Abelard’s contri
bution was a personal one and no generalisations should be derived from it. But the
days have long gone since Abelard was regarded as antifeminist on account of his
heartless treatment of Heloise. There are numerous examples in his writings where
Abelard searches the Scriptures for examples of women who were pleasing to G o d 102.
Szoverffy has shown in his study of Abelard’s H ym nanus Parachtensis that women are
portrayed in the hymns as strong personalities who often surpass men. Although man
was created in the image of God and woman only in his likeness and although the fe
male sex is weaker than the male, women have shown greater constancy and courage
in professing their faith than men. Jephtha’s daughter inspires one of Abelard’s beauti
ful Planctus. Other exemplary female figures whom Abelard extolls in his hymns are
Esther, Debra, Anna and Elisabeth, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Egypt10’.
These ideas come together in the last two letters in the collected correspondence of
Heloise and Abelard, letter 7 in which Abelard outlines to Heloise the origins of nuns
and letter 8 in which Abelard sends to Heloise his Rule for the convent of the Para
clete. Letter 7 argues especially that the Gospels highlight how close women were to
Christ and how prominent they are in the Gospel stories on account of their charity
and faithfulness. Abelard fills page after page with examples. A n d he scours as well the
Acts of the Apostles for women supported the Apostles too: eas ipsi pariter cum apostolis quasi inscparabiles co/mlcs adbaerere. Demtim (al. Detnde) vero bums professionis
religioiie in feminis punter ut in tuns rnultiplicata, in ipso statim hcclesuie nascentis ex -
96 PL. 178, 696-702, here 701C.
97 PL. 178, 692-3.
98 PL. 178, 714-16.
99 PL. 178, 689-91.
100 PL. 178, 708-9.
101 Dronke, Heloise's Problemata, in: Petrus Abaelardus, ed. Thomas, 61.
102 AIM. McLaughlin, Peter Abelard and the D ignity of W o m e n: Twelfth Century ‘Fem inism ’ in
Theory and Practice, in: Pierre Abelard. Pierre le Vénérable. Abbaye de C luny, 2 au 9 juillet 1972
(Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 546, Paris 1975) 287334.
,0} Szovérffy, 114-21. Planctus 3, PL.178, 1819—20. For a more recent edition of Planctus 3 see
W. irm der Steinen, Die Planctus Abaelards-Jephthas Tochter, in: Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 4
(1967) ¡22-44.
T h e Bible in th e W o r k of P e t e r A b e l a r d a n d o f his „ S c h o o l "
93
o rd io a c q u e s k u t v i r i'04. A n d t h e n A b e la rd tu r n s b a c k to the O l d T e s t a m e n t to u n d e r
line t h e g r e a tn e s s of D e b r a , J u d i t h a n d E s t h e r : q u o n a i i m d i l c r f e m i n e u s se x u s csl i n f i r m io r, eo v ir tu s est D eo a ccep ta b ilio r, et h o n o re d ig n i o r 10'’ .
10i Letter 7, PL.J78, 233D.
105 Letter 7, PL.178, 245A.
Gian Luca Po testa
„Intelligentia Scripturarum“ und Kritik
des Prophetismus bei Joachim von Fiore*
I.
In i h r e m g r u n d l e g e n d e n W e r k ü b e r „ T h e S tu d y of th e Bible in th e M id d le A g e s “
(zweite Auflage 1952) b i e t e t Beryl Sm alley e ine s e h r u n b e f r i e d ig e n d e E in s c h ä t z u n g
von J o a c h i m von Fiore. Sie ü b e r g e h t J o a c h i m bei d e r B e h a n d l u n g d e r e x e g e tisc h e n
S t r ö m u n g e n d e s 12. J a h r h u n d e r t s u n d b e r ü c k s i c h ti g t ih n n u r im K a p ite l ü b e r die B e t
telo r d e n , das sich m it d e m „ N i e d e r g a n g d e r sp iritu a le n A u s l e g u n g “ beschäftigt. D o r t
wird J o a c h i m als ein v e rs p ä t e te r E x p o n e n t d e r pa tristisc h e n , d e n B u c h s ta b e n als
Fleischliches a b w e r t e n d e n T r a d i t io n dargestellt, die er in s e i n e r L eh re v o m b e v o r s t e
h e n d e n d r i tt e n Z e i t a l te r w i e d e r z u b e l e b e n suc h e . Miss Sm a lle y w u n d e r t sich fast d a r
über, d a ß seine I d e e n bei D e n k e r n d e s b e g i n n e n d e n 13. J a h r h u n d e r t s G e h ö r fa nd en,
„als o b es sich u m eine e ig e n tlic h e E xegese h a n d e l t e “ 1. F ü r sie „ist d e r O r t d ie s e r A rt
von S p e k u l a t i o n n i c h t die E xegese (...) D ie se D isz ip lin m u ß t e im M itte lalter m e r k
w ü r d ig e G ä ste b e h e rb e r g e n . I m 13. J a h r h u n d e r t e n tl e d ig t e sie sich lang sam d ieser
E in d r in g lin g e u n d w u r d e w i e d e r H e r r i n im e ig e n e n Hau s. J o a c h i m w ar d e r letzte, de r
n o c h e in t r e t e n k o n n t e , u n d d e r g e fäh rlic h ste fü r seine G a s tg e b e r in .“ ' I m V o r w o r t zur
d ritte n A u s g a b e v o n 1983 e r k a n n t e Miss Sm a lle y die S c h w ä c h e d e r Passage ü b e r J o a
c h im u n d ä n d e r t e d e n T o nfall; w ä h r e n d sie 30 J a h r e v o r h e r von e i n e m „Anfall von
n a c h l a s s e n d e r G e iste s k ra ft“ d e r sp iritu a len E xegese g e s p r o c h e n hatte, g a b sie je tz t zu,
daß d iese in J o a c h i m ein b l ü h e n d e s K i n d h e r v o r g e b r a c h t h a be, das z u a d o p ti e re n sie
allerdings k e in e L ust g e h a b t h ä t t e 3. D a s U rte il b leib t a b e r negativ, u n d es h ä tte a u ch
Ich m ö c h t e Prof. Alessandro Ghisalberti für einige wertvolle Hinweise und Andreas R ehberg
für das groß e E ng ag em en t bei d er Überse tzung danken. Die F uß n oten übersetzte fre undlicher
weise H e r r Stefan Mauerer.
1 „The seem ing justification of his m e t h o d caused intense excitem ent. Intelligent an d sensible
men th o u g h t there m ight be som e truth in it. T h e Oxford friar, A d am Marsh, sending J o a c h i m ’s
works to Grosseteste for his opinion, refers to th e m as .expositions* a nd .interpretations' as if they
were real exegesis“ ; Beryl Smalley, T h e Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 21952) 289.
„But the place for his type of speculation is no t exegesis. This discipline had to h arbour strange
visitors in the middle ages, as we have seen. In the th irtee n th century it was slowly getting rid of
them and b eco m in g mas ter of its ow n house hold. Jo a c h i m was the latest en tran t and also the
most danger ous to his ho st“, Sm alley, T h e Study (wie A n m .l) , 292.
„The section called ,Thc Spiritual Exposition in Decline* is the faultiest part of my c h ap ter on
the friars. I dismissed Jo a c h im of Fiore a n d j o a c h i s m as ,an attack of senile d em en tia1 in th e spiri-
G i a n L u c a P o te s tä
96
n i c h t a n d e r s sein k ö n n e n : Die a p o k a l y p t is c h e Visio n J o a c h i m s h a tte k e in e n Platz in
i h r e m e x e g e tis c h e n Mittelalter, das sie auf die Idee e in e r s c h r ittw e is e n B e h a u p t u n g
des h i s t o r is c h - w ö r tlic h e n S c h rifts in n e s b e z o g 4.
U n g e a c h t e t d ies er „ re tr a c ta tio “ b le ib t für u n s die Frage offen: U n t e r w e l c h e m Titel
w o h n t J o a c h i m im „ H a u s d e r E x e g e se “ ? W i r fragen un s m i t a n d e r e n W o r t e n , o b seine
gew altige h isto r is c h - e sc h a to lo g is c h e K o n z e p t i o n die F r u c h t e in e r e x e g e ti s c h e n u n d
th e o l o g i s c h e n A rb e it war o d e r o b sie n i c h t v i e l m e h r ein e p r o p h e t i s c h e A n k ü n d i g u n g
u n d e in e visionäre H a l t u n g z u m A u s d r u c k b ra ch te. Z w eifellos galt J o a c h i m s e in e r
Z e i t v o r allem als „Spezialist für P r o p h e t i e “ ( G r u n d m a n n ) 3. B e r ü h m t e M ä n n e r se in er
Z e i t w o llte n ih n treffen u n d ü b e r die b e v o r s t e h e n d e A n k u n f t des A n t i c h r i s t s befragen,
u n d u n t e r d ie s e m V o r z e i c h e n z ir k u lie rte n in d e n e rsten J a h r z e h n t e n des 13. J a h r h u n
d e rts seine W e r k e in E urop a. So b ild e te sich das K lisc h ee v o n e i n e m H e l ls e h e r u n d
P r o p h e t e n J o a c h i m (D a n t e : „ d e r k a la bresisch e A b t m it p r o p h e t i s c h e m G e i s t b e g a b t “),
das bis in u n s e r J a h r h u n d e r t h i n e i n a u c h die V o rs te llu n g d e r G e s c h i c h t s s c h r e i b u n g
g e p r ä g t hat. G e m ä ß e in e r h e u t e w e it v e rb re i te t e n Ü b e r z e u g u n g h ä tte sich d a g e g e n
J o a c h i m stets als ein e in fa c h e r E x e g e t v e rs t a n d e n - eifrig d a r u m b e m ü h t , in d e r
Sc hrift d e n S in n d e sse n zu e n tziffern, was b e reits g e s c h e h e n sei u n d was sich n o c h in
d e r m e n s c h l i c h e n G e s c h i c h t e a n b a h n e n w erde. Also, P r o p h e t o d e r E xege t?
U m u n s t a tt h a f te V e r e i n f a c h u n g e n zu v e r m e id e n , e r i n n e r n w ir u n s d aran, d a ß s c h o n
in d e r Patristik die V o rs te llu n g v e rb re i te t war, d aß a u c h ein S c h rifta u sleg e r in ge w isse n
Fällen als P r o p h e t g e lt e n k ö n n e . In d iese R i c h t u n g w eisen die b e r ü h m t e n B e k e n n t
nisse des hl. A u g u s ti n u s , n a ch d e n e n d e r A u s le g e r v o n V isio n e n m e h r P r o p h e t sei als
d e r e in fa ch e V isio n ä r 6; u n d C a ssio d o r d r ü c k t sich in d i e s e m P u n k t g a n z klar aus,
w e n n er die g u t e n D e u t e r d e r S c h rifte n u n t e r d ie je n ig e n zählt, die die G a b e d e r P r o
p h e ti e e r h a lte n h a b e n 7. E rst in d e n A u s e i n a n d e r s e t z u n g e n u m die G r u n d l a g e n de r
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite 95
tual exposition. T h e outflow of books an d papers on the subject has m ad e m y m e t a p h o r look
silly. I m u s t change it an d say that the spiritual exp os ition in its old age p rod uced a thriving child,
th o u g h no t one th at 1 should carc to a d o p t “; Preface to third Edition, in: Sm alley, T h e Stu dy (O x
ford 51983) XIII.
4 „My bo ok can therefore be read as a period piece. Its main th e m e is the medieval study of the
literal historical sense an d the s t o r y of ho w it cam e into m ore p r o m in e n c e “ ; Preface, i n : Sm alley,
T h e Stud y (Oxford 1983) VII. Z u m u n z u l ä n g l i c h e n Verständnis Jo a c h i m s bei Smalley (u nd H. de
Lubac) vgl. auch die Bem erk un gen bei C laudio Leonardi, L’esegesi biblica medievale co m e prob l e m a storico. In trod uzio n e alPedizione italiana, in: Beryl Smalley, Lo S t u d i o della Bibbia nel Medioevo (Bologna 1972) XXI-XXII.
' Herbert G ru n d m a n n , Kleine Beiträge üb er Jo a c h im von Fiore, in: Z f K 48 (1929) 148, auch in:
Aus gew ählte Aufsätze, Bd. II (Schriften der M o n u m e n ta G erm an iae Historica 25, 2, Stuttgart
1977) 82.
6 Vgl. in diesem S inne das n e u n t e Kapitel des zwölften Buches von D e genesi ad litteram (CSEL
28, I I I / l , 391), das der P rophetie gew id m et ist: „M inus ergo propheta, qui reru m , quae significantur, sola ipsa signa in spiritu per reru m corpora lium imagines uidet, et magis propheta, qui solo
earu m intellectu praeditus est; sed m ax im e propheta, qui utro qu e praecellit, ut et uideat in spiritu
corpora lium reru m significatiuas sim ilitudines et eas uiuacitate m en tis intellegat, sicut Danihelis
excellentia tem tata est et probata, qui regi et so m n iu m , q u o d viderat, dixit et qu id significaret
aperuit “
7 Vgl. das erste Kapitel (De prophetia) der Expositio Psalm orum i-LXX, hrsg. von M arens A d-
„ fn te llig e n tia S c r i p t u r a r u m “
97
P r o p h e t ie w ird diese tr ad itio n e lle Ü b e r z e u g u n g von d e n T h e o l o g e n d e r e rs te n Hälfte
d e s 13. J a h r h u n d e r t s e in g e h e n d d i s k u t ie r t u n d k r itisie rt8.
D ie se e in f a c h e n A n m e r k u n g e n m a c h e n d e u tlic h , wie k o m p li z ie r t sich das P r o b l e m
darstellt, v o r a lle m für e in e G e s t a lt wie J o a c h i m . In d i e s e m L ic ht w irkt das b e r ü h m t e
Z e u g n i s v o n R a lp h v o n C o gge sha ll w e it w e n i g e r klar, als es auf d e n e rsten Blick zu
sein s c h e in t (u n d als es g e m e i n h i n in te r p r e t i e r t wird). D e r e n g lisc h e C h r o n i s t sc h ild e r t
das T reffen , das J o a c h i m ein ige J a h r e v o r s e i n e m T o d e in R o m m it d e m Z is te r z ie n se rA b t A d a m vo n Pe rse ign e hatte. A u f die präzise Frage A d a m s b e z ü g lic h seines C h a r is
mas, o b e r es n ä m l i c h w agen w ü r d e , sein e g e s c h ic h tl i c h e n V o ra u ss ag e n „an ex p r o p h e tia, an c o n je c t u ra seu r e v e la tio n e “ a u fzu stellen, a n tw o r te te J o a c h i m , d a ß er „ n e q u e
p r o p h e t i a m n e q u e c o n je c t u r a m n e q u e r e v e la tio n e m de his habere. Sed D e u s - in q u it
- qui o lim d e d it p r o p h e ti s sp i r i tu m p ro p h e ti a e , m ih i d e d it s p i r i tu m inte lligentiae, ut
in D e i sp iritu o m n i a m y steria sa crae S c rip tu ra e clarissim e in telligam sic u t sancti prop h e ta e i n te lle x e r u n t, q ui earn o lim in D e i s p iritu e d i d e r u n t “9. D ie K l a r h e i t d e r U n t e r
s c h e i d u n g d arf n i c h t tä u s c h e n . M ir sc h e in t, daß sich J o a c h i m m it d ies er E r k lä r u n g in
z ie m lic h k o m p l e x e n Begriffen vorstellt: W ä h r e n d e r s ic h weigert, sich d e n G e ist d e r
P r o p h e t ie z u z u s c h r e ib e n , r e k la m ie r t er a n d e r e rse its e ine e ige n e F ä h ig k e it d e r S c h r if t
a uslegun g, die ih n h in si c h t l ic h d e r E in s ic h t in das g ö ttlic h e M y s te r iu m zur H ö h e d e r
P r o p h e t e n v o n „ ein st“ (olim) trägt. W o h l v e r s t a n d e n , er v e rgle ic ht sein e ige nes C h a r is m a
als E x e g e t m it d e m d e r alten P r o p h e t e n : D ie V e r ä n d e r u n g d e r Z e i t e n hat d e n Ü b e r g a n g
von d e r P r o p h e t ie z u r E xege se o f f e n k u n d i g g e m a c h t ; a b e r im G r u n d e a h n t m a n ein e
u n v e r ä n d e r te A u fg a b e u n d V e r a n t w o r t u n g g e g e n ü b e r d e r H e ils g es ch ich te . M e in Beitrag
will g e n a u d e n W e g r e k o n s t r u ie r e n , auf d e m J o a c h i m d a zu gelan gte, sein e e ig e ne B e r u
fu n g z w isc h e n E xegese u n d P r o p h e t ie zu e r k e n n e n u n d zu b e s t im m e n .
Fortsetzung F u ß n o te von Seite 96
rieten (CC ser.lat. 97) (Turnholti 1958) 9: „N am et q uibus data est facultas bene intelligendi uel interpretan di seripturas díuinas, a m u ñ e r e p rophetiae n o n u id en tu r excepti, sicut apostolus ait in
epístola ad Corinthios prima: Spiritus p r o p h e ta ru m pr ophetis subiectus est.“
8 Vgl. Bruno Decker, Die Analyse des O ffenbarungsvorganges beim hl. T h o m a s im Lichte vorthom istischer Pro phetietrak tate, in: A ng elicu m 16 (1939) 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 (über die sinnbildliche Posi
tion bei W ilh e lm von A u xerrt)\ Jean-Pierre Torreil O.P., Théorie de la p rop hétie et philoso phie de
la connaissance aux environs de 1230. La co n tribu tio n d ’H ug u es de S aint-C her (Ms. Douai 4:34,
Q uestion 481) (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 40, Leuven 1977) bes. 168.
9 Radulp hi de Coggeshall C h r o n ic o n angl icanum , hrsg. von J. Stevenson (R erum Britannicarum
Medii Aevi Scriptores 66, Lo nd o n 1875) 68. Die D atieru ng der Episode ist um stritten; im C h r o
nicon wird sie u n te r den Ereignissen des Jah re s 1195 überliefert. Herbert G rundinann, Z u r Bio
g r a p h i e j o a c h i m s von Fiore u n d Rainers von Ponza, in: DA 16 (1960) 507, auch in: Ausgewählte
Aufsätze, Bd. II, 323, bezieh t sie auf ein D a tu m zwischen 1195 un d 1196; / Marjorie Reeves, The
Influence of P ro phecy in the later Middle Ages. A Stu dy in J o a ch im is m (Oxford 1969) 13, A n m . l
un d 14 schlägt 1198 vor. K urt-V ictor Selge, L’origine delle opere di Gioacchino da Fiore, in: L’attesa della fine dei tem pi nel Medioevo, hrsg. von Ovidio C a p ita n i und Jürgen M ietbke (Bologna
1990) 116, An m .6 4, plädiert für 1196'. Im Hinblick auf diese A n n a h m e n erschein t die D atierun g
auf 1195 überzeugender: Robert F. Ferner, T he Powers of Prophecy. T h e Cedar of Lebanon Vi
sion from the Mongol O n sla u gh t to the Dawn of the E n lig h te n m e n t (Berkeley 1983) 96,
A nm .27: Er lenkt die A u fm erk s am k eit auf ein u n b ek an n tes Zeu gnis von Heinrich von Kirke stede, d er sieh auf ein Manusk ript aus von Coggeshalls C h ro n ico n A n glicanu m bezieht, das 1195
überliefert.
G i a n Luc a P o te s tä
98
II.
Die ältesten Belege für das literarische Schaffen J o a c h i m s g e h e n auf s e i n e n A u f e n t h a l t
in Casamari zurück, wo er z w isc hen 1 1 8 2 u n d 1 1 8 3 eintraf. E r blieb d o r t ca. ein u n d
ein halbes Jahr u n d arbeitete an s e in e n H a u p t w e r k e n . E r e n tw a rf z u erst die C o n c o rd ia ,
d a n n die E xpositio in A p o c aly p s im u n d schlie ßlic h das P s a lte riu m d e c e m c h o r d a r u m ,
das er zuletzt begann, a b e r als erstes v o lle n d e te ( 1 1 8 5 - 1 1 8 6 ) , als er sc h o n in sein K l o
ste r in Corazzo in Kalabrien z u r ü c k g e k e h r t war. V o n Casam ari b e g ab sich J o a c h i m im
Mai 1 1 8 4 in das n ahe Veroli, w a h rsc h e in lic h , u m von P a p st L ucius III. e in e A u t o r i s a
tion u n d eine E r m u t i g u n g für sein literarisc hes U n t e r n e h m e n zu e rh a lte n , das er seit
k u r z e m b e g o n n e n h a t t e ’0.
U n t e r d e n Schriften ein es jü n g st v e rs to r b e n e n K a rd in als h a tte m a n e in e n d u n k l e n
sibyllinisc hen T ex t (Sibilla Samia) g e f u n d e n ; fast als wollte m a n d e n k a la bresisch e n
A b t auf die Pro be stellen, bat m a n ihn, d iesen T e x t zu d e u t e n " . J o a c h i m v e r m i e d es,
sich auf d e n V e rsuc h e in e r w ö r tlic h e n E rk lä ru n g d e r Sibylle e inz ulassen , u n d ergriff
v ie lm e h r die G e leg e nheit, u m ein e erste Skizze s e i n e r e ig e n e n G e sc h ic h tsv isio n , a u s
g e h e n d von d e m S c h e m a d e r Ü b e r e i n s t i m m u n g d e r sie b en V e r f o lg u n g e n d e s A lte n
T e s ta m e n ts m it d e n je n ig en des N e u e n , zu biete n, die sich w ä h r e n d seines g e s a m t e n li
terarisch en Schaffens w ie d erfin d en s o l l te 12. A u f d e r a n d e r e n Seite ist se in K o m m e n t a r
n o c h o h n e jene L eh re le m en te, die in d e n fo lg e n d e n J a h r e n seine sc h rittw e ise Ü b e r
w i n d u n g von einigen Eckpfeilern des L eh r g e b ä u d e s des hl. A u g u s ti n u s a n z e ig e n w e r
den. H ie r ist das Bild n o c h w e i tg e h e n d a u g u stin isc h ; die e sc h a to lo g is c h e V e r k ü n d i
g u n g b e sc h rä n k t sich auf d e n A ppell, sich auf die b e v o r s t e h e n d e A n k u n f t d e s A n t i
christs vorzubereiten, des e in z igen A n tich rists, d e m u n m i t t e l b a r da rauf d e r T a g des
G e r ic h te s folgen w e r d e 0 . Satan, d e r „per a n n o s m u l t o s “ d u r c h das W ir k e n C h risti u n d
se in e r M ärtyrer gefesselt g e blie ben war, ist seinerseits dazu b e s t im m t, von s e i n e n B a n
d e n gelö st zu w erden u n d u n g e h i n d e r t in d e r k u r z e n Z e i t v or d e m E n d e zu w i r k e n 14.
N i c h t alles sc h e in t in W a h r h e i t das b e v o r s t e h e n d e N a h e n d e r e n d z e it l ic h e n V e r f o l
g u n g e n a n z u k ü n d ig e n ; fast beiläufig stellt J o a c h i m n ä m lic h fest: „ v id e m u s sa n e relig io n e s veteres ex nim ia vetustate c o rru p ta s, novas vero in novitio ferv ore c o n s titu 10 G rundm ann, Kleine Beiträge, 81-82.
11 Vgl. Reeccs, Prophecy, 4 - 6 ; Selge, L’origine, 105. Z u r sa mischen Sibylle u n d zur Gestalt des
Kardinals Matteo d’Angers vgl. Bernard M cG inn, Jo ach im an d the Sibyl. A n Early W o r k of J o a
ch im of Fiore from Ms. 322 of the Biblioteca A n ton ian a in Padua, in: Citeaux 24 (1973) 119-12 0
(Joachims Text: 129-138). Ein Ges am tbild der sibyllinischen Literatur im Mittelalter findet m an
bei B ernard M cG in n ,,Teste David cum Sibylla1. T he Significance of the Sibylline Tradition in the
Middle Ages, in W o m en of the Medieval W orld: Essays in H o n o r of J o h n H. M undy, hrsg. von
J u liu s Kirsbner und Su zanne E W emfde (Oxford 1985) 7-35.
12 G rundlegende Hinweise darauf bei M arjorie Reeves und Beatrice Hirscb-Reich, T h e Seven Seals
in the Writings of Joachim of Fiore, with Special Reference to the Tract De S eptem Sigillis, in:
RT A M 21 (1954) 211-247.
13 M cG inn, Joa chim , 131 (bzgl. der Position des Augustinus: D e civ. Dei XVIII, 52-53). Robert
E. Lerncr, Antichrists and Antichrist in Joa ch im of Fiore, in: S pecu lum 60 (1985) bes. 555 -5 56 ,
zeigt, wie sehr die Formulierung Jo achim s in der Spur der traditionellen Lehre üb er d e n A n t i
christ bleibt.
14 M cG inn, Joa chim , 138 (bzgl. der Position des Augustinus: De civ. Dei, XX, 7-9).
„ In te llig e n tia S c r i p t u r a m m “
99
tas.“ 13 A b e r diese B e m e r k u n g im p liz ie rt k e in e V o r s te llu n g v o n e in e m n e u e n A n fa n g ,
vo n e i n e m z u k ü n f ti g e n „ n o v u s o r d o “. Es liegt in d e r „ sp i r a l e n fö rm i g e n “ B e w e g u n g
d e r G e s c h i c h t e b e g r ü n d e t , d a ß das A lte u n d das N e u e sich a n n ä h e r n , w obei G o t t u n
a u fh ö rlic h die Ü b e r h e b l i c h e n e rnie drig t, u m die N ie d r ig e n zu e r h ö h e n . W ie er in d e r
V e r g a n g e n h e it das j ü d is c h e V o lk verließ, als er sah, daß es n i c h t m e h r fähig war,
F r u c h t zu g e b e n , u n d e r sich s ta ttd e sse n die U n g l ä u b ig e n w ä h l t e 16, so w e r d e n in d e n
b e v o r s t e h e n d e n letz te n T a g e n die C h r i s t e n „ n ac h d e m N a m e n “ v e rg e b lic h auf ihn
v e rtr a u e n , w ä h r e n d sich die R ü c k k e h r d e r J u d e n in ih r e r lang e r s e h n t e n e n d g ü lt i g e n
B e k e h r u n g erfüllen w i r d 17.
D e r T e x t d e r Sibylle bie te t also J o a c h i m eine G e l e g e n h e i t , u m in g r o ß e n Z ü g e n e i
n e n e rste n E n tw u r f s e in e r G e s c h i c h t s i d e e v o rz u le g en , für die er auf die a lt t e s t a m e n t a
risc h en P r o p h e t e n sc h a u t, in e rste r Linie auf Isaia, J e r e m i a s u n d Daniel. D ie A u s
d rü c k e , die er b e n u tz t , sind u n m iß v e r s t ä n d li c h : I m V ergleich zw isc h en J e r e m i a s u n d
d e r Sibylle Hegt d e r erste re v o r n e , d a d e r g ö ttlic h e U r s p r u n g d e r z w e ite n alles a n d e r e
als e rw iese n i s t 18. Ja, er s p ü r t die N o t w e n d i g k e i t , sich d a fü r zu re c h tfe rtig e n , d a ß er e i
n e m s o lc h e n T e x t e in e n e ig e n e n K o m m e n t a r g e w i d m e t hat. E r t u t dies in d e n A n
fang szeilen des K o m m e n t a r s , i n d e m er sich a u s d rü c k lic h in d e n S c h a tte n des hl. A u
g u s t i n u s stellt. D ie s e r berief sich auf gew isse „ m e r k w ü r d i g e P r o p h e t i e n “, weil diese
n i c h t v o n d e n S c h rifte n a b w e i c h e n w ü r d e n u n d d e n G l ä u b ig e n n ü t z l i c h w ä ren . E r tat
dies in d e m B e w u ßtse in, d a ß sie n ic h ts d e m h in z u f ü g e n k ö n n t e n , was d e r b iblisc he
K a n o n b e in h a lte , u n d daß sie k e in e W a h r h e i t b ie t e n k ö n n t e n , die m i t i h m n i c h t ü b e r
e i n s t i m m e n w ü r d e 19. W ie , als o b er seine D i s t a n z vo n d e m T ext, d e n er zu k o m m e n
15 M cG inn, Jo a ch im , 133.
16 „Inde est q u o d Salvator in m u n d u n i venions I u d aeorum g enu s ipsa sua vetustate c o r ru p tu m
m axim a ex parte deseruit, gentile vero ut fructui a p t u m acsi novae plantationis vincam ad fructum faciendum elegit“ ; M cG inn, Jo a chim , 133.
17 „Exaltat Iu daieu m h u m iiiatu m , hum iliât gentilem exaltatum et nu ne; quia naturalibus ramis
non pepercit, profecto nec gentilibu s parcet, sed et illi inseren tur (ed.: inseretur), quia illorum incredulitas eo nv ertetu r ad fidem (...) Frustra enim confidit de Christiano no m in e qui Christi hum ilitatem n o n servat (...) Qui ergo in im o est confidat, qui vero in alto timeat, quia et ilium gratia
erigit ad sa lutem et istum supe rbia trahit ad ima. Q ui videtur Christianus timeat, ne caecus fiat.
Confidat iam n u n e Iudaeus, quia eius curatio p rope es t“ ; M cG inn, Joach im , 134 -135 (ich ver bes
sere den Tex t der Edition, die nach ms. Padova, A n to n ian a 322, ff. 149v-151v, angefertigt wurde,
wobei ich ms. Roma, A rchivio Generale dei Ca rmelitani, III, Varia 1, ff. 123v-126v, b erü cksich
tige). Diese „spiralenförmige Vision der G e s c h ic h te “, die d urch die Dialektik H o c h m u t / B e s c h e i
d en heit charakterisiert wird, bes tim m t, neb en den and eren Schriften Jo achim s, be sonders die
„Dialoge“ u n d die „Intelligentia super calathis“.
18 „Illud manifeste fateor, q u o d sub hoc regno Babylonis c o m p l e b u n t u r ea in eeclesia quae Ieretnias alp habeto multiplici in Lam entationib us déplorât. Sed et illud q u o d in verbis istis sc riptum
reperim us, nescio an divinitus sit m iss um , an spiritu prophetiae révélante inveniatur conscript u m “ ; M cG inn, Jo a chim , 132.
19 „Beatus A ugustinus quasdam peregrinas prophetias opusculis suis (ed.: sacris) inseruit, quae in
cathalogo sacrarum scripturaru m scriptae (ed.: om.) non esse videbantur, quas n im iru m in argu
m e n t u m fidei accipiendas non creder et si a sacris apicibus discreparent; et nullam (ed.: nullas) i n
ter eas et p r o p h e ta ru m dicta c o m p er it esse dissonantiam . Eo ad utilitatem fidelium inter sacra
verba pr oferendas credidit, q u o in eis, auctoritate ipsa, magistra veritas rutilabat. N e q u e Sibyllae
enim vaticinium sa crarum scripturaru m cathalogus recipit, q u o d ipse A ugustinus tan top ere suis
100
tie ren ha tte , b e k räftig e n wollte, stellt J o a c h i m fest, d a ß d e r W e r t d e r „ m e r k w ü r d i g e n
u n d d u n k l e n V a tiz in ie n “ sich in i h r e r F u n k t i o n des T a d e ls an d e r U n t e r w e i s u n g d e r
u n s e n s ib e l g e w o r d e n e n G l ä u b ig e n d u r c h die P r o p h e t e n e r s c h ö p f e 20. G e r u f e n , ein
O r a k e l zu e n th ü l l e n , p r ä s e n tie r t er sich also als E x e g e t d e r Schrift, d e r sich für die I n
t e rp re ta t io n d e r G e s c h i c h t e u n d für die V o r a u ss ic h t des W e s e n s d e r e n d z e it l ic h e n
K ä m p f e n u r ihr allein a n v ertrau t. D ie E n t w e r t u n g d e r p ro p h e ti s c h - s i b y l li n i s c h e n L es
art ist klar: I h r w ird eine rein u n t e r g e o r d n e t e F u n k t i o n z u e r k a n n t, ein e n e b e n s ä c h l i
ch e, e ine F u n k t i o n also, die einfa ch n u r die L ehre d e r Bibel b e stätigt, u n d zwar in d e n
G r e n z e n , die ihr vo n d e r a u g u s t in i s c h e n L ehre e in g e r ä u m t w e rd en .
III.
In d e r s e lb e n Z eit, als er die S a m is c h e Sibylle e n ts ch lü ss elte, vollzog J o a c h i m d e n e n t
s c h e i d e n d e n F o r t s c h r i tt in d e r A u s r e i f u n g s e in e r e ig e n e n visio näre n L ehre. W ie er
se lbst erklärte, lö sten sich se in e U n s ic h e r h e i te n in d e r Folge v o n zwei E rle b n isse n , die
er e in m a l an P fin g ste n u n d e in m a l an O s te r n ha tte . V o n d e m e rsten s p r i c h t er im
P s a lte riu m d e c e m c h o r d a r u m : D a s M y s te r i u m d e r D re ifa ltigk e it habe sich i h m n a c h
e in e r s c h w e r e n G l a u b e n s k ri s e u n v e r s e h e n s a n e in e m P fin gsttag e n th ü l l t, als er einige
P s a l m e n zu E h r e n des Hl. G e istes re z itie r te 21. V o n d e m z w e ite n E rle b n is s p r i c h t er in
d e r E x p o sitio in A p o c a l y p s im . D o r t e rz ä h lt er, daß er bei d e r A b f a s s u n g dieses K o m
m e n t a r s u n g e f ä h r ein J a h r lang a m V ers O ffb 1, 10 s t e h e n g e b li e b e n sei; a b e r d a n n
h a b e er in e in e r O s t e r n a c h t plö tz lic h das G e s c h e n k d e r B e fähigu ng z u e in e r n e u e n
S c h r if ta u sle g u n g e rh a lte n , die aus zwei E l e m e n t e n b e s t a n d : e rstens, die vo llständig e
A n w e n d u n g des P rin z ip s d e r K o n k o r d a n z (ich w ü r d e sagen: die I n t e g r a ti o n des M o
dells d e r Z w e i [ T es ta m e n ta] zu d e m j e n i g e n d e r D re i [Status]) u n d z w e ite n s die A usleFortselzung F ußnote von Seite 99
verbis interp o nere studuit, ad m irans in eo m u lto magis tes tim o n iu m e xh ibitum veritati“ ;
M cG in n , Jo a c h im , 129 (zu A u gu stinu s u n d der Sibylle vgl. Berthold A ltaner, A u gu stinu s un d die
neutes tam entlic hen A p o k r y p h en , Sibyllinen un d Sextus-Spriiche. Eine qu ellen kritisch e U n t e r s u
ch ung, in: An. Boll. 67 [1949] 244-247).
20 „Exposui au tem illa ad cautelam fidelium p rout divinis auctoritatibus concordare videbantur,
reputans hoc ne forte D eu s ad increp atio nem h u m an ae duritiae ea in m e d iu m proferri volucrit,
quatinus quibus verba pr o p h e ta ru m viluerunt, peregrinis saltem vel silvestribus vaticiniis movea n tu r “; M cG inn, Jo a ch im , 138.
21 Psalterium d ecem cho rdarum , Prefatio (Venedis 1527, anast. N ach d ru ck Fra nkfurt a.M. 1965)
227rb-227va: „Accidit (...) d iem adesse so le m n e m , in qu o d o n a sancti Spiritus su p e r sanctos apostolos effusa su nt (...) Interea c u m ingrederer or atorium et a dorarem o m n i p o t e n t e m D e u m coram
sancto altari, accidit in m e velut hesitatio q u e d a m de fiele Trinitatis, ac si difficile esset intellcctu
vel fide esse tres personas u n u m D e u m et u n u in D e u m tres personas. Q u o d c u m accideret timui
valde et conter ritus v e h e m e n t e r co m pu lsu s su m invocare S piritum sa nctum , cuius sacra solennitas presens erat, ut ipse mihi dig naretur ostendere sacrum m ysterium Trinitatis, in q u o nobis promissa est a D o m i n o o m n is notitia veritatis. Hec dicens cepi psallere, ut ad p ro p ositu m n u m e r u m
pervenire m. Nec m ora occurrit an im o m e o forma psalterii decacordi, et in ipsa tarn lu cidum et
ap e r tu m sacre m y steriu m Trinitatis ...“ . Ich habe d en T ext den Hinweisen von Ku rt-V ictor Selge
g em äß korrigiert, d er eine kritische E dition des Psalteriums vorbereitet (vgl. den in L’origine 9 8 99, A n m . 30 zitierten Abschnitt).
„ I n te llig c n tia S c r i p t u r a r u m “
101
g u n g d e r A p o k a l y p s e g e m ä ß d e m P rin z ip d e r „ p le n i t u d o “ . G e s t ä r k t d u r c h d ie s e n d o p
p e lte n G e w i n n h a b e er, wie er erklärt, die e ig e n e T a tk ra ft w i e d e r g e w o n n e n u n d d e n
i n n e r e n W i d e r s t a n d ü b e r w u n d e n 22.
D as W e s e n d ies er b e id e n E rle bn isse u n d ihr g e n a u e r G e h a l t sind n i c h t g a n z klar.
D ie G e s c h i c h t s s c h r e ib u n g h a t sie V isio n e n , E r l e u c h t u n g e n , O f f e n b a r u n g e n u n d I n t u i
t io n e n g e n a n n t 23. Ihre g e n a u e D a t i e r u n g u n d ihre c h r o n o lo g i s c h e A u f e in a n d e r f o lg e
s in d d e r G e g e n s t a n d su b tile r D i s k u s s i o n e n g e w e s e n 24. M ir s c h e in t aber, daß m a n die
R eflexio n ü b e r d e n lite rarisc h en A s p e k t d e r E r z ä h lu n g J o a c h i m s v e rtiefe n m u ß . W e n n
er sich das vor A u g e n ruft, was ih m a m P fin g sttag u n d in d e r O s t e r n a c h t (also a u s g e
r e c h n e t in d e r S t u n d e , in d e r J e s u s v o n d e n T o t e n aufersta n d) w id e rfu h r, d a n n m u ß
m a n sich fragen, o b m a n diese B e h a u p t u n g e n so a u f n e h m e n darf, als o b es sich u m
Z e u g n i s s e v o n w ö r tlic h zu n e h m e n d e n h i s to r is c h e n E reig n isse n h a n d e lte . M a n k a n n
ge w iß n i c h t a u ssc hlie ß en, d a ß J o a c h i m sein e e n t s c h e i d e n d e n th e o l o g i s c h e n F o rt22 Expositio in Apocalypsim , Prim a pars (Venetiis 1527, anast. N achd ru ck Frankfurt a.M. 1964)
39rb-va: „C um (...) per ven ire m ad locum istum [Offb 1, 10: Fui in spiritu in dom inica die], tantam fateor difficultatem ct quasi preter solitum perpessus su m angustias intellectus, u t sentiens
o pp o situ m mihi lapidem ab ostio m o n u m e n t i hebetatus su bsisterem et dans h o n o r e m D eo qui
pro veile suo claudit et aperit, relicto loco ipso intacto ad se quentia pertransire m, servans diffi
cultatem e a n d e m universali magistro, ut ipse qui aperuit librum et solvit se p tem signacula eins,
cu m sibi esset placitum, mihi vei aliis aperiret. C u m q u e m e o c c u p a tu m in multis hoc ipsum oblivio procul dueeret, factum est verso atini circulo diem adesse paschalem m ih iq u e circa horam
m atu tin am excitato a so nin o aliquid in libro isto m editan ti occurrere, pro q u o confisus de d on o
Dei audacior factus su m ad sc rib e n d u m (...) In suprascripta nocte (...) circa m e d i u m (ut opinor)
noctis silentium, et horam qua leo no ster de tribu luda resurrexisse extim atur a m ortuis, subito
mihi m editanti aliquid q u ad am m entis oculi intelligentie claritate per cepta de plenitudine libri
huius et tota veteris ac novi testa m enti concordia revelatio facta est et nec sic recordatus su m suprascripti capituli: cu r videlicet Ioannes dixerit: Fui in spiritu in do m in ica die, et u tru m pertineret ad rem, q u o d hec ipsa revelatio libri hu ius in die do m in ica facta esse narra tu r (...). C u m ergo
post aiiq u an tulu m tem po ris (...) parum id q u o d notaveram relegissem, perveni ad lo cu m istum,
in qu o et dicitur: Fui in spiritu in dom inica die, et tune p rim o intellexi quid sibi vellet in mysteriis id q u od ait loannis: Fui in spiritu in do m in ica die, conferens m e c u m vel ea ipsa q u e acciderant, vei ea que de ipso die scripta fore n oscuntur; et q u o d inde inceperit spiritus excitatus a li
tera, et m ulta hu ic similia, q ue in hoc loco perstringere l on gu m est (...). H ec dies in qua Christus
resurrexit a m ortuis, sublato m ag n o illo lapide ab ostio m o n u m e n t i . H ec dies in qua aperuit discipulis suis se n su m ut intelligerent scripturas.“ Z u r In terp retation des Ostererlebnisses vgl. vor al
lem Lerna; Jo a c h im of Fiore’s Breakthrough to Chiliasm, in: Cristianesimo nella storia 6 (1985)
4 89 -51 2 (er sieht hier die erste A n k ü n d i g u n g der neuen Interp retatio n sm eth o d e der A p o k a
lypse, wobei er die B ezug nahm e auf die Concord ia bagatellisiert) u n d Selgc, L’origine, 110-112.
!> Vgl. Selge; L’origine, 98.
24 Griinelm ann, Kleine Beiträge, 81, stellt das Ostere rlebnis (1183) vor das Pfingsterlebnis. Für
das V orherg ehen der Ostervision plädieren ferner Reeves, T h e Influence, 23 A n m . 1 (Ostern 1183;
Pfingsten 1184); B ernard M cG inn, T h e Calabrian Abb ot. Jo a c h im of Fiore in the History of W e
stern T h o u g h t (New York 1985) 22 (beide Erlebnisse 1183); Robert E. Lernet; Jo a c h im (wie A n m .
22). Selge, L’origine, 9 7 - 1 1 3 ve r m u te t hingegen, daß das Pfingsterlebnis (1183) dem jen igen an
Ostern (1185) vorangeht. Die Differenzen bei d er D atieru ng des Ostererlebnisses ergeben sich
aus der un terschiedlichen D atierun g der Abfass ung des „Tractatus de vita sancti Benedicti“, die
ihrerseits u m stritten ist (1186/1188). Bezüglich d er G rü n d e, die die D atierung des Tractatus unsi
cher m achen , erlaube ich m ir hinzuweisen auf Giein Laca Potestä, Gioacchino riform atore m o n á
stico nel Tractatus de vita sancti Benedicti e nella coscienza dei primi florensi, in: Florensia 6
(1992) bes. 74-8 0.
102
G ia n Luca Potestà
sc h ritte w irk lic h a n d e n b e i d e n Festtagen g e m a c h t h a t; m i r scheint es a ber plausiblei,
d a ß m a n es h i e r m it e in e m literarisc hen T opos zu tun hat, de r die A b s ic h t vei folgt,
s e i n e n F o r t s c h ri tt e n in d e r L e h re eine höchste Legitim ation z u g e b en, i n d e m e r sie in
e in e ü b e r n a t ü r li c h e D i m e n s i o n stellt u n d sie m it e in e m geheim n isvo llen, gö ttlich e n
Siegel a u s z e i c h n e t : A u s g e r e c h n e t zu Pfingsten, an d e m Tag, an d e m m a n die H e i a b k u n f t des H e ilig e n G e istes feiert, erklärt Jo a c him , habe er das G e s c h e n k eines be sse
re n V e r stä n d n is se s des trinitarisc hen W u n d e r s erhalte n, u n d a u sg e re c h n e t zu O stern ,
an d e m Tag, an d e m sich das G ra b Christi öffnet (ein Ereignis, in d e m eine festste
h e n d e t h e o lo g isc h e T r a d i t io n die sym bolische A n k ü n d i g u n g de r Befreiung d e r Schrift
v o n d e r Last des B u c h sta b e n s sah)25 habe er den großen S p r u n g im Schriftv erständnis
v ollzogen.
Fass en wir z u s a m m e n : Im Lichte e in e r u m fasse n d en Ü b e rp r ü f u n g se in er D o k trin
u n d d e r e n E n tw ic k l u n g g e h t u n leu g b a r hervor, daß J o a c h i m in de r Z e it zwischen
1183 u n d 1185 e i n e n e n t s c h e i d e n d e n F o rtsc hritt in s e in e n e ig e n e n e x eg e tisc h e n u n d
t h e o lo g is c h e n K o n z e p t i o n e n g e m a c h t hat. U n d es ist auch w ahrscheinlich, daß er m it
e i n e m S ch lag die S c h w ie rig k e ite n ü be rw and , m i t d e n e n er käm pfte. W e n n ich m i r voi
A u g e n halte, d a ß se in e S p ra c h e stets m it starken sy m b o lis ch e n A n k la n g e n b e h aftet ist,
s c h e i n t m ir, d a ß d e r V o rsatz d e r G e sc h ic h tss c h r e ib u n g ü b e r p rü ft w e r d e n m u ß , m i t
d e m i m m e r w ä h r e n d e n K a l e n d e r in de r H a n d zu d e n g e n a u e n D a ten de r Feiertage zu
g e la n g e n , auf die J o a c h i m seine Schlüsselerlebnisse zurückfü hrte.
Mit d e n t h e o lo g is c h e n F o r ts c h r itte n wuchs in J o a c h i m a u ch das Bewußtsein, daß ei
sich z u m V o r re it e r e in e r m o n a s ti s c h e n Reform m a c h e n m üsse. K u r z n ach seinen
R ü c k k e h r n a c h C o ra z z o d u r c h le b te er ein e P eriode d e r Krise. Er ü b e rw an d sie, i n d e m
e r sich v o m K lo s te r e n tf e r n te u n d beschloß, ein en h ö h e r e n G ra d de r P erfektion a n z u
s t r e b e n ; zu d i e s e m Z w e c k z o g e r sich in das Sila-G ebirge zurück. Die A b k e h r v on C o
razzo, die Z e i t d e r M e d ita tio n in Petra Lata, die A ufga b e des A m t e s als A b t von C o
ra zz o u n d die G r ü n d u n g d e r e rste n florensischen N ie d e rla s su n g in d e r Sila e reig n ete n
sich in d e r Z e i t z w isc h e n 1 1 8 6 /8 7 u n d 1188/89- In diese Periode fällt auch die N i e
d e rs c h r i f t d e s T ra c ta t u s de vita san cti B e n ed icti26. Im V ergleich z u m K o m m e n t a r zu
d e r S a m is c h e n Sibylle u n d z u m e rsten Buch d e r C o n c o r d ia zeigt d e r T ractatus voi al
le m in s e i n e r L e h r m e i n u n g ein e b e m e r k e n s w e r te W a n d l u n g . Die Vision dei dieigeteilten G e s c h i c h t e u n d die E r w a r t u n g des N e u e n Z eitalters, die be reits im zweiten
B uc h des P s a lte r iu m s ( 1 1 8 5 - 1 1 8 6 ) a n g e s p ro c h e n w o rd e n waren, w e rd en jetzt z u m ei2> Vgl. vor allem den klassischen Tex t von Johannes Scotus Rriugtrna, Homélie sur le Fiologu«. de
Je an, III, hrsg. von É d o n n n l Jenuneiui (Sources chr étiennes 151, Paris 1969) 212: „M o nu m entu m
Christi est diuina scriptura, in qua diuinitatis et hum an itatis eius misteria densitate litterae uc uti
q u ad am m u n i u n t u r petra" (die ob en bei A n m .22 zitierte Passage von Jo achim zeigt, daß er eine
vollständige K e n n tn is dieser Tra dition hat),
26 Die Schrift wird auf 1186/1187 datiert, sowohl vom Her ausgeber, Cipriano baraul, u n ia
tado in éd ito de Joaquín d e Fiore: D e vita sancti Benedicti e t de Officio divino se eun du m eins
do ctrinam , in: Analecta Sacra Tarraconcnsia 24 (1951) 7, als auch von Grundnuinn (Zui Biogu
phie, 309, A n m . 87) u n d von Stephen I 7,, Wessley, Jo a chim of Fiore and Monastic Reform (■ !e ''
York 1990) 3. Lerner, Jo a c h i m (wie A n m . 22), 509 schlägt 1187 vor, Selge, L origine, 100 . 11
Z u r Schwierigkeit, eine gen au e Datier ung zu geben, vgl. m ein en oben A n m .24 angeführten et
trag.
„ I n te llig e n tia S c r i p t u r a r u m “
103
g e n tl i c h e n t h e o r e ti s c h e n A n l i e g e n : Es g e b e k e in e n Satz in d e r Schrift, stellt J o a c h i m
fest, d e r n i c h t im H i n b l ic k auf d e n d r i tt e n S ta tu s i n te r p r e t i e r t w e r d e n k ö n n e 27. H i e r
v e r k ü n d e t e r z u m e r ste n Mal, d a ß d e r Satan n a c h d e r A n k u n f t des A n t i c h r i s t s a n g e
k e tte t w e rd e u n d d a ß auf E r d e n eine Z e i t des S abbats a n b r e c h e n w e r d e 28. W e n n m a n
d e n S a c h v e rh a lt e x tr e m verein fac ht, k a n n m a n feststellen, d a ß J o a c h i m v o n e in e r „ sp i
r a le n f ö r m i g e n “ Vision d e r G e s c h i c h t e zu e in e r „ a u fs t e ig e n d e n “ P e rsp e k tiv e ü b e r g e
g a n g en ist: D ie Pe rio de, die d e r A n k u n f t des A n t i c h r i s t s folgen w e rd e, w e rd e ein e
n e u e Stufe d e r V o l l k o m m e n h e i t auf E r d e n m i t sich b rin g e n , die er m it v ib r ie r e n d e r
B e g e iste ru n g schildert.
D a s B e v o r ste h e n d e r E n d z e i t e rfo r d e rt n e u e m o n a s ti s c h e E r f a h r u n g e n ; im T rac ta tus k ü n d i g t sich die A b k e h r v o n d e m z is te r z ie n sisc h e n M ö n c h t u m u n d die S c h a f fu n g
des n e u e n F l o r e n s e r - O r d e n s an. D e r A n s t o ß zu e i n e m s o lc h e n U n t e r n e h m e n zeigt,
daß J o a c h i m n i c h t n u r ein n e u e s e s c h a to lo g is c h e s B e w uß tse in auf t h e o r e t i s c h e m Feld
g e w o n n e n hat, s o n d e r n a u c h die Ü b e r z e u g u n g , daß er für ein e g e s c h ic h tlic h e n t s c h e i
d e n d e A u f g a b e als M ö n c h s r e f o r m e r b e r u fe n sei. U n d in d e r T a t ü b e r d e n k t d e r kalabresische A b t , in d e m M o m e n t , in d e m er sich d a r a n m a c h t , die florensisch e B e w e
g u n g in G a n g zu se tze n, im T ra c ta tu s das v o r a u s g e h e n d e M ö n c h t u m als u n a u f h ö rl i c h e
R e fo r m b e w e g u n g . S e in e A u f m e r k s a m k e i t k o n z e n t r ie r t sich auf B e ned ikt. B e s c h rä n
ken wir u n s darauf, n u r e in e n P u n k t des W e r k e s zu b e tr a c h t e n . J o a c h i m e r i n n e r t hier
an die E p is o d e in d e n D ia lo g e n vo n G r e g o r d e m G r o ß e n (II. B u ch, 1. Kapitel), in d e r
ein P rie ster in d e r N a c h t auf O s te r n e in e Vision hatte. G o t t ford erte ihn auf, d e m hl.
Benedikt, d e r seit drei J a h r e n in e in e r H ö h l e e in g e sc h lo s se n lebte, a m Fe sttag ein e
Speise zu b rin g e n . D e r Prie ster m a c h t e sich auf die S u c h e n a ch B e n e d i k t „ p e r a b ru p ta
m o n t i u m , p e r con ca v a vallium, p e r defossa t e r r a r u m “ . Als e r ih n g e f u n d e n h atte, lud
er ihn ein, m it d e m F a ste n a u f z u h ö r e n u n d die i h m von G o t t g e s a n d te G a b e a n z u n e h
m en . J o a c h i m v e rg le ic h t sein e ige nes O s te re r le b n is , das sich, wie er sagt, drei J a h r e
vorher e r e i g n e t ha tte , m i t d e m j e n i g e n d e s Priesters: N a c h d e m er lange Z e i t h e r u m g e
irrt sei, b rin g e d e r P rie ster d e n hl. B e n e d i k t d a zu, die m ate rie lle Speise a n z u n e h m e n ,
seine H ö h l e zu verlassen u n d sein L ic h t allen M e n s c h e n a n z u b i e t e n . J o a c h i m sc h lie ß
lich k a n n jetz t n a ch drei J a h r e n d e r S u c h e das O s te r g e s c h e n k , das e r drei J a h r e z uv or
erhalten hat, n ä m l i c h seine n e u e F ä h ig k e it d e r Sc h rifta u sleg u n g , als spiritu elle Speise
für die E r n e u e r u n g des M ö n c h t u m s a n b ie te n . B e n e d i k t als Inbegriff des n e u e n O r d e n s
k o m m t n a c h dre i J a h r e n d e r S u c h e an das Licht, g e n a u so wie Elias - a u c h er das
Sinnbild d e r n e u e n O r d n u n g - n a c h drei J a h r e n w i e d e r e r s c h e i n t (1 K ö n 18,l ) 29. Spä" Baraul, Un Tratado, 71: „Ulud au tem de tertio statu p ret e rm i t t e n d u m n o n est, q u o d nullus
mihi ad huc occurrit locus in Scripturis autenticis, qui in hoc tertio statu spiritaliter solvi nequeat,
et qui mistice in hoc articulo interpretari n o n possit “
"i Betraut. Un Tratado, 63: „Diabolus au tem erit incarceratus et regnutn o b tin e b u n t sancti. ln
fine autem t e m p o r u m et a n n o r u m solvetur Satanas d e carcere suo, sicut jezechiel p r o p h eta et l o
harmes circa fidem librorum su o ru m ante q uam tractent de su perna Jeru salem aperte describunt.“ Z u r zukünf tigen ligatio S athane vgl. auch 70 -7 1 . Z u r W e n d e , die der Tractatus de vita
sancti Benedicti für die eschatologischen Auffassungen J o a ch im s bed eu tet, vgl. Lerner, Antichrist
(wie Anm. 13), 560; Lerner, Jo a c h i m (wie A n m . 22), 509.
Betraut, Un Tratado, 19: „Necesse est e n im p rim o latitantem per tres an n os requirere, donis
nobis divinitus traditis ipsius a n i m u m refocillare, ne forte ad rem pertineat q u o d et nobis, licet in-
104
G i a n L u c a P o testa
te r im T e x t de fin ie r t J o a c h i m d e n hl. B e n e d ik t, als e r die B e h a n d l u n g e in ig e r e x e m p l a
r isc h e r E p is o d e n se in e r B iog raphie abschließt, als „ n o s t e r iste p r o p h e t a “. D a jetz t drei
J a h r e v e rg an g e n seien, erklä rt er - u n d d a bei läßt er d u r c h b li c k e n , d a ß e r sich jetzt
n i c h t n u r auf B e n ed ik t, s o n d e r n a u c h auf sich selbst b e z i e h t - , daß „es Z e i t ist, d a ß das
L ic h t e n t d e c k t w i r d “. B e n e d i k t ist in d e r T a t das S i n n b ild d e r n e u e n O r d n u n g . W ie
dies er auf d e n M o n t e C a ssino stieg u n d d o r t „ p r o p h e t ie s p ir itu illustratu s e s t “, so steig t
die n e u e O r d n u n g „in m o n t e m (...), ubi p r o p h e ti e sp iritu r e p le n d u s e st“ 30. J o a c h i m
fü h lt sich sein erseits d a z u aufg eru fe n , d e r p r o p h e t i s c h e n E r f a h r u n g d e s „heiligen V a
ters“ (Benedikts) n e u e s L e b e n zu g e b e n , u m zu g e w ä h rle is te n , daß die n e u e O r d n u n g
ans L ic h t k o m m e , d a m i t sie die R e f o r m e r f a h r u n g B e n e d ik ts e r n e u e re . D ie se h a tt e Be
n e d i k t g e n a u so m i t Blick auf das a n tik e M ö n c h s id e a l vollz o ge n, w'ie sie d e r hl. B e r n
h a rd b e zü g lich d e r C l u n ia z e n s e r realisierte31.
M an m u ß das klar s e h e n : D e r T r a c ta tu s e n th ä l t ein M otiv d e r Z w e id e u ti g k e it , das
d e u tlic h sein m u ß . In ty p o lo g isc h e r P e r sp e k tiv e b e z e ic h n e t die G e sta lt vo n B e n e d i k t /
Elias die n e u e O r d n u n g ; u n d t r o tz d e m , d ie g a n z e S c hrift su g g e rie r t d e m Leser, daß
J o a c h i m auf d e r p e r s ö n l ic h e n E b e n e e in e E r f a h r u n g m a c h t , die im G r u n d e m it d e r je
nig e n B e n e d ik ts v e r g le ic h b a r ist, u n d d a ß e r s e in e n A u fs tie g z u r Sila wie e in e n A u fForlsetzung Fußnote von Seite 103
dignis, ad p ro p rium c o m m o d u m p reparantib us escas, in n octe diei paschalis serm o hic factus est,
ita ut ex eo usq ue ad presens per abrupta m o n t i u m , per concava vallium, per defossa ter rarum
transiremus universa, scilicet, veteris et novi T estam en ti ora lustrantes, et n e c d u m nobis apparuit
qui latebat in an tro per an no s tres; nisi m o d o q u ip p e, c u m et Helias an n o tercio apparuisse legatur. Utique et ann us iste tercius est, q u o taliter am bular e cepim us, et in hac q u ip p e sollem pnitate
paschali c o m p leb itu r et dies, q u e m tercium sacra Scriptura cognom inat. D e n iq u e et tem pu s
istud, s e c u n d u m q u o d alibi disputavimus, resurrectionis est, quia necesse est ut hoc tem pore
am oveatur lapis presolito, et spiritalis veritas de m o n u m e n t o ascendat. Quis ergo per Benedictum,
qui tribus annis in specu latuit, nisi ordo inchoatus ab ipso, ut iam clarere incipiat p er Spiritum
sa nctum , qui usq ue ad t em p o ra ista, velut in se p ulch ro D o m in u s, diebus tribus absco nditus m ansit? (...) N u n c ergo te m p u s est ut lucerna supra candelabrum vetiiat, ut iam ita spitalibus epulis
refectus p r o d e a t...“.
30 B a m u t, Un Tratado, 42: „His de vita sancti Benedicti q u a m breviter prelibatis libet iam n u n c
de eins doctrina aliquid spiritaliter dicere, u t q u an tus fuerit ap u d D e u m , tarn ipse q u a m et hi om nes qui significantur per ip su m , noster iste propheta, operibus eius et doctrina consonantibus, agnoscatur, et agat de cetera fiducialius q u i c u m q u e eius m onitis acquiescit. T e m p u s est enim ut detegatur lux, peractis, ut iam dixi, tribus annis (...) Et hoc q u id c m fieri cepit, ex eo q u o Benedicti
Regula in Galliarutn partibus magnificata est, s e c u n d u m ea que dicta su nt de m o n ach is primis,
qui eu m occidere voluerunt, et de d uo d ecim monasteriis q u e ipse fundavit; sed m u l t o clarius et
manifestius c u m in m o n te m ascendet, ubi p ro ph etie spiritu rep lend us est or do ipse q u e m Benedictus designat, quia in m o n t e p ro ph etie spiritu illustratus est, ubi et archana consilia eid em detecta sunt, et m u nd atis m entis oculis, c eles tem et deificam lucem vidit.“ Vgl. auch 71 (103): „Hec
de spiritalis doctrina sancti Patris breviter dicta sint, ut sciamus ilium, sicut verbis, ita qu o q u e
operibus et institutionibu s prophetasse (ed: propretasse), p ro p ter eos qui in statu tertio sub disciplina eius erudiendi erant, habituri et ipsi p r o p riu m tem pus, sicut et ceteri electoru m ordines, qui
illos in tem p orib us precesserunt “
31 Bernhard wird seinerseits als im Geiste Moses’ ges ch ick ter P ro p h e t bezeich net, so wie J o h a n
nes der Täufer im Geiste Elias’geschickt wurde, in: Beim ut, U n Tratado, 54: „Igitur terminatis sex
preliis pro quibus sex psaimi decursi sun t, o p ortebat sequi se c u n d u m versiculum qui preiret lecciones, q u o d et factum est. Missus est sanctus Bernardus in spiritu Moysi, sicut Iohannes baptista
in spiritu et virtute Helie ...“.
105
stieg zu e i n e m n e u e n M o n t e C a ssin o v e r k ü n d e t 32. D e r Schriftausleger, d e r drei J a h r e
lang das A lte u n d N e u e T e s t a m e n t v o m A n f a n g bis z u m E n d e d u r c h s c h r i t t e n hat, h a t
j etzt ein z ie m lich h o h e s u n d g e n a u e s B e w ußtse in se in e r e ig e n e n V e r a n t w o r t u n g in d e r
M ö n c h s - u n d H e ils g e s c h ic h te erreicht.
IV.
D e r A b t fü h r te seit d e m J a h r e 1189 in d e r n e u e n flo ren s is ch e n N i e d e r l a s s u n g A r b e i
ten zu s e i n e r L eh re w e ite r u n d se tzte sich g leic h ze itig für die V e r b r e i t u n g u n d für die
k irch lich e A n e r k e n n u n g se ines W e r k e s ein. D ie Ph ase d e r U n r u h e u n d d e r S c h w ä r
m erei, die die T r e n n u n g v o n C o r a z z o g e p r ä g t hatte, ist jetzt ü b e r w u n d e n . In d ies er r u
hig eren, i n n e r e n A t m o s p h ä r e k a m er z u m vollen B e w u ß tse in s e i n e r Berufung.
In d e n 9 0 e r J a h r e n ist das literarische S c h affen J o a c h i m s e n o r m . D e r E in f a c h h e it
u n d K l a r h e i t h a lb e r w e rd e ich von zwei T e x t e n a u s g e h e n , die u n t e r e i n a n d e r z a h lre i
che B e r ü h r u n g s p u n k t e aufw eisen. Es h a n d e l t sich e r ste n s u m das k u r z e V o r w o r t z u r
A p o k a ly p se , die a m B e g inn d e s J a h r z e h n t s als e r ste r E n tw u r f b e zü g lich d e s g r o ß e n
K o m m e n t a r s e n ts ta n d , d e r erst a m E n d e d e r 9 0 e r J a h r e v o l le n d e t w e r d e n sollte, u n d
zw eitens u m das V o r w o r t z u r C o n c o rd ia , das aller W a h r s c h e i n l i c h k e i t n a c h bei d e r
V o l l e n d u n g d e s W e rk s , also 1196 o d e r etw as früher, g e s c h ri e b e n w u rd e . Es h a n d e l t
sich u m zwei p r o g r a m m a t i s c h e Z u s a m m e n f a s s u n g e n , in d e n e n die H a u p t p u n k t e d e r
S e lb s te in s c h ä tz u n g J o a c h i m s fixiert sind, die er a u c h s e in e n g r o ß e n W e r k e n z u g r u n d e
legen will. D a sie b e m e r k e n s w e r t e B e r ü h r u n g s p u n k t e au fw eisen u n d e in e m an alo g en
Ziel v e r p flic h te t sind, s c h e in t es m i r n ü tz lic h , g leic h z u r D a r l e g u n g d e r H a u p t p u n k t e
in b e id e n S c h rifte n ü b e r z u g e h e n .
In d e r E i n f ü h r u n g z u r A p o k a l y p s e kritisiert e r die p r o p h e t i s c h e u n d visionäre L ite
ratur z ie m lich scharf, i n d e m er ih r die W a h r h e i t d e r h eilig en Sc hrifte n , d a r u n t e r i n s
b e so n d e re die d e r A p o k a ly p s e , e n tg e g en s te llt. J o a c h i m tritt e n ts c h i e d e n für die tr a d i
tionelle A u ffa ss u n g ein, n a c h d e r die Z e i t d e r P r o p h e t ie sich m i t d e r A n k u n f t J e s u
vo llen det h a t 33. Das E n d e d e r a p o sto lisc h e n Z e i t b e d e u t e das E n d e d e r P r o p h e t e n .
Je g lic h e r V e r s u c h , d e n P r o p h e t i s m u s w i e d e r a u f z u n e h m e n , e n t b e h r t des F u n d a m e n t s ;
das, was jetz t n o c h im U m l a u f ist, s in d „die K l a g e lie d e r d e r falschen P r o p h e t e n “ u n d
„ap o k ry p h e M u t m a ß u n g e n “. D a s A b n e h m e n d e r P r o p h e t e n k o m m t s t a ttd e sse n d e n
Auslegern d e r Bibel z u s t a t t e n : W e n n sich die S t i m m e d e r P r o p h e t e n e r h e b t , k ö n n e n
die T h e o l o g e n u n d E x e g e te n sie n i c h t ü b e r g e h e n . D a s h a t z u r Folge, daß die P r o p h e
tie das eig e n tlich e S c h rif tv e r stä n d n is e in z w ä n g t, ja g e r a d e z u z e r q u e ts c h t. D a s S c h w e i
gen d e r P r o p h e t e n e rla u b t d a g e g e n d e m „ sp e c u l a t o r “, sich zu d e n H ö h e n d e r K o n
tem p latio n zu befreien , o h n e E i n s c h r ä n k u n g e n in d e r e ig e n e n F o r s c h u n g s f r e ih e it z u
e rfa h re n 34.
31 Bezüglich dieses A spekts vgl. m a n vo rn eh m lic h die Darlegungen von Wessley, Jo a ch im , 1-17.
Zu dieser Auffassung vgl. m an den g ru n d leg en d en Text bei A ugustin, D e diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII, q. LVIII, D e J o a n n e baptista, hsrg. von A lm u t M utzenbecher (CC ser. lat. 44A,
Turnholti 1975) 104-105.
K urt-V ictor Selge, Eine E in fü hru ng Joa ch im s von Fiore in die Jo hannesa pokaly pse, in: D A 46
106
G i a n L u c a P o te s tà
E inige J a h r e s p ä t e r k e h r t J o a c h i m in d e r E in le itu n g z u r C o n c o r d ia zu d ie s e n T h e
m e n z u r ü c k 35. D e r A u s g a n g s p u n k t des T e x t e s ist d ie V e r k ü n d u n g des N ie d e rg a n g s
d e s „la bentis ac p e ritu ri secu li“ . D e r A b t v o n San G io v a n n i in Fiore b e a n s p r u c h t sei
ne rseits die A ufga b e, das, was die „ s u p e rn a d i s p e n s a ti o “ „ ihm , d e m U n w ü r d i g e n “ b e
z üglich d e r l e tz te n T age a n v e r t r a u t habe, „ad c a u te ia m (...) f i d e liu m “ zu e n t h ü l l e n u n d
die fin stere n H e r z e n d e r Schläfrigen m it e i n e m u n g e w ö h n l i c h e n K la n g zu w e c k e n 36.
E r ist also d e r W a c h p o s t e n , d e r d e n A l a r m g e b e n m u ß 37. A b e r w o ra n e r k e n n t m an ,
(1990) 105 -1 06 : „N am que future er an t in testa m en to novo intus co nsisteb an t in nucleo, sciri et
discuti n e e d u m poterant, nisi m o d o in spiritu prophetie. Sed et fu turu m no n erat, q u o d ipsi iam
ce rnim us, ut aliquis post apostolos et evangelistas m itteretu r propheta, qui historias ecclesiasticas,
quasi designaturas aliquid, ut olim in veteri fiebat, coiligeret, ne liber ad c o n t e m p l a n d u m p o p u lus, ut olim lu d eo ru m , m an ere coger etur sub pedagogo. Ubi enini prophetie Spiritus loquitur,
spcculator sc rip turarum co m p rim itur, et presum ere iam q uiequ am , veluti potes tate q u ad am obum bratus, pallcscit. (...) Q u a n d o enim ad c o n te m p la n d a sécréta p en etram u s misteria, ac si quib usd am pennis ad celi altiora levamur, sed mox, ubi vox su p e r f irm a m e n tu m insonat, alas d eponim us, quia necesse est lit hom o , q u a n ta c u n q u e plenus sit gratia, sileat, ubi spiritus ipse loquitur,
et vocem suam com prim â t. Licet ergo sancta animalia pennas h ab ean t ad c o n t e m p l a n d u m , quibus ea, que infra f irm a m e n tu m sun t posita, hoc est infra sa crarum scripturaru m volum en, intelligere possint, c u m tarnen vox fit super firm am en tu m , alas sub m ittu n t, quia si q u a n d o prophetie
spiritus aliquid per prophetas loquitur, q u o d in sacris codicibus n o n habetur, mox a sua c o n tem platione quies cunt, et, ut h o n o r d e tu r spiritui sancto, a sua m o x libertate s u c c u m b u n t. V er u m hoc
in testa m e n to novo raro contingit rariusque recipitur, ut et liberum sit nobis co n t e m p l a n d o proficere et falsorum p r o p h e ta ru m nenias devitare po ssim us (...) U t au tem coniecturas apocriphas
confutare possim us ...“.
35 Mit aller W ah rsc hein lichk e it wurde die Einleitung zur C oncord ia spätestens zwischen 1195
u n d 1196 geschrieben (Selge, L’origine, 105 un d 117, A n m e r k u n g 64). Darauf hat sc h on Herbert
G ru n d n u m n vor über fünfzig J a h ren hingewiesen, wobei er allerdings die Bedeutu ng relativierte:
„Die Vor rede zu r Concord ia ... klingt ... so, als sei das W e ite n d e u n d die vorausgehende A n t i
christzeit der eigentliche G eg en s tand seines Buches“, u nd G r u n d m a n n stellt sogar die Hy po these
auf, daß Jo a chim „darin noch n icht seine eigene D e n k r ic h tu n g g e fun d en h a b e n “ mag (Studien
üb er Jo a c h im von Floris [Leipzig, Berlin 1927] 56). Gewiß, in d er Praefatio ist die sorgenvolle A n
k ün d ig u n g d er bev orstehend e n A n k u n f t des A ntichristen u n d der letzten Ver wirrungen d o m i
nierend. A b e r dieser A spekt steht tatsächlich ständig im Vo rd erg run d von J o a ch im s Auffassu n
gen. Die A n k ü n d i g u n g der Sabbatzeit erfolgt für ih n später (auch w enn natürlich für die G e
schichtsschre ibung dies im Vo rd ergrun d steht, weil gerade darin der innovative Faktor liegt, der
von Jo a c h im in das ab endländische D e n k e n eingeführt w o rd en ist). A b e r das, von d e m Jo a chim
glaubt, daß es sich nähere, ist i m m e r u n d in erster Linie der A ntichrist - was Kriege, Verfo lgu n
gen, Ver wirrungen bedeu tet. Bei der historischen R e k on stru ktio n darf dies auf keinen Fall ver
gessen werden, ansonsten läuft m an Gefahr, eine einseitige In terp retation seiner G esch ichtsauf
fassung zu geben (wie es italienische G elehrte in der V ergangenheit getan haben), die n ich t die
p sa lm odierende Erw artung des friedlichen endzeitlichen Ju bels ist, so n d ern die sorgenvolle A n
k ün d ig u n g d er nahe bev orstehen d en Krise.
36 Liber de C o ncord ia Noui ac Veteris Tes tam enti, Pre phatio, hrsg. von F. R andolph D aniel, in:
Transactions of the A m erican Philosophical Society 73/8 (1983) 7: „Quia labentis ac perituri se
culi perurgere ruinam scripta in euangelio signa terroresque fatentur, n o n a fructu operis ot iosum
existimo ea, que de tem p o rib u s extrem is su perna mihi indi gno dispensatio credidit, ad cauteiam
reserare fidelium; et torpentia so m p n o l e n t o r u m corda sono uel insolito excitare, si q u o m o d o ad
c o n t e m p t u m m u n d i n ou o saltim gen ere e x po nend i euigilent q uibus larga et multiplicia patrum
m o n ita assiduitate diutina uiluerunt.“
37 Liber de Conc ordia, Prephatio, 10-11: „N o s tru m est enim bella predicere, u estru m ad arma
107
da ß d e r F e in d n a h t? D ie A n t w o r t J o a c h i m s k lin gt wie e ine stolze V e r k ü n d u n g d e r e i
g e n e n B erufung. G e w isse u n k l u g e L e u te z ö g e r te n n icht, für ihre falschen A n g a b e n aus
a p o k r y p h e n O p u s c u l a zu s c h ö p fe n . W e r i h n e n r e c h t g ibt, läuft G e fahr, das für w a h r zu
ha lte n, was falsch ist, u n d e in e n W e g zu sic h e rn , w ä h r e n d d e r F e in d sich v orb e re ite t,
vo n d e r a n d e r e n Seite h e r a nzugre ife n. M an m u ß e h e r v e rsu c h e n , das W o r t G o tte s zu
klären, als sich i r g e n d e in e r „ p e re g rin a tra d itio “ a n z u v e r tr a u e n . U n d es ist g e n a u diese
A ufgabe, die d e r A b t, wie e r erklärt, in d e n lan g e n J a h r e n a n g e n o m m e n h a be, in d e
n e n er an d e m L ib er c o n c o r d i e a rb eite te, d e n e r jetz t d e m P a p st v orlege n w o lle 38.
In b e id e n E in l e it u n g e n p r ä s e n t i e r t sich J o a c h i m also als S c h rif tin te rp r e t, d e r die e i
g e n e n L eser da v o r w a rn t, „ eig en a rtig e n P r o p h e t i e n “, e in e r „ fre m d a rtig e n T r a d i t io n “ ,
„ ab g e le g e n e n u n d e ig e n a r tig e n L e h r e n “ zu folgen. D ies sin d Begriffe, die an die A u f
f o r d e r u n g e n z u r V o rs ic h t e r in n e r n , die er b e reits b e zü g lich d e r S a m is c h e n Sibylle e r
h o b e n h a t 39. Ihre V e r w e n d u n g b e d e u t e t tatsächlich k e in e e ig e n tlic h e N e u h e i t im V e r
h a lte n J o a c h i m s ; b e s t i m m t a b e r ist das U rteil b e z ü g lic h des p r o p h e t i s c h e n S c h rift
tu m s, das k e in e G r u n d l a g e in d e r Schrift hat, je tz t e n t s c h i e d e n e r u n d e x p liz ite r als
vorher. U m ein e s d e r E n d k ö n i g r e i c h e zu b e s c h re i b e n , h a tte sich d e r A b t n o c h im
T rac ta tu s d e vita sancti Ben ed icti e in e s S in n b ild e s b e d ie n t , das i h m die P r o p h e t ie des
„M e rlinu s b r ita n ic u s “ g e b o t e n h a t t e 40. G e g e n diese L ite ra tu r d e r a p o k r y p h e n V o r h e r Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite 106
concite properare. N o s tr u m est asccndere su p e r sp ecu lam m on tis et, uisis hostibus, dare signum.
V estm m , audito sigtio, ad loca confugere tutiora. Nos, q uam u is indigni speculatores sumus, longe
ante predicta bella aduenisse tes tamur .“
JS Z u r Polemik gegen die V erk ü n d er des Endes, die sich von den ap ok ry ph en Bü chern inspirie
ren ließen, vgl. Liber de Conc ordia, Pre ph atio, 11 —12: „N o uim us en im nonnullos su m p ta ex libellis apocrifis friuola q u e d a m in m e d i u m im p u d e n t e r deferre, in q uibus de m u n d i fine aliqua
plura de filii perdictionis adventu scripta su nt que, c u m nec probationi nec auctoritati eonsentiant, nulla su nt ratione a uiris catholieis approbanda. S em p e r en im cura peruigil inesse d ebet electis, ne qua peregrina traditio sine preiuditio ad m ittatu r; ne d u m incaute falsa recipiunt, a ueris incautius secludan tur; et d u m securus forte aditus m uniri queritur, ex im pro uiso hostis angulo
fortius p r o m u n itu s insurgat. (...) Et q u id e m de pressuris seculi et m u nd i fine, de signis et terroribus et er u m p n is seu etiam de pseudochristis et p se ud o pro ph etis plura scripta su nt in diuinis sermonibus, q u e idcirco n o n o m n ib u s clara sun t quia mul tis sun t perplexa nodis et occultis mysteriis inuoluta. (...) Ne igitur in bis que proposui libera erroris con ceda tu r facultas, doctrinisque
uariis ac peregrinis locus relinquatur uaeuus in ecelesia Christi, ad cautelam eo ru m qu i sim plici
ter am b ulan t et sathane altitudinem n on agnoscunt, q u i n i m m o ut falsorum pr o p h e ta ru m figmenta a q uibus si fieri possit in erro rem d u c e n tu r etiam electi, in q u a n t u m deus an nu it, deuitare
possimus; opere p retium estim auim us ex ueteribus et nouis hystoriis opus istud co m p o n e r e ...“.
Zur Z weckmäßigkeit, sich auf die Heiligen Schriften zu b ezieh en u nd die a p ok ryp h en beiseite zu
lassen, vgl. Liber de Concordia, Prephatio, 13-14: „Sola ergo q u e in diuinis scripta sun t uolum inibus perstringentes et ex eis, q u e clara sun t in auctoritate, su m ente s, superflua illa, q ue de ortu et
operibus antichristi ac fine m u n d i ex apocrifis ut dictu m est su m p ta iibellis a pl erisque simplicium am p leetu ntu r, uelut peregrina et extranea co n futam us.“
19 Vgl. oben, bes. A n m . 19.
,0 Vgl. Betraut, Un T ratado, 63: „D e q u o videlicet hirco caprarum etiam Merlinus britanicus videtur facere m e n t i o n e m , qui p o stq u a m locutus est de q u o d a m rege, q u e m et satis c o m m e n d a t,
adiecit et ait: se q u e tu r hircus venerei casti.“ Z u r P ro phetie des Merlinus vgl. Geoffrey o f M onmouth, The Historia reg u m Britannie. I. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS. 568, hrsg. von N eil W right
(Cambridge 1985) 77.
108
G i a n L u c a P o te s ta
sa g en u n d d u n k l e n V isio n e n , die e r stets m i t V o r b e h a l t b e tr a c h t e t h atte, p o l e m i s i e r t er
jetz t g a n z offen. In s e i n e n S c h rifte n d e r 9 0 e r J a h r e w e r d e n w e d e r die Sibylle n o c h
M erlin w e ite r zittert.
W e n n J o a c h i m s e in e n Sta tus als E x e g e t b e to n t , w e n n er die P r o p h e t e n fü r a u s g e
s t o r b e n e rk lä rt o d e r w e n n er g e g e n d e n falschen P r o p h e t i s m u s p o lem isiert, s c h e i n t er
e in Bild von sich zu g e b e n , das k e in e n A n flu g v o n P r o p h e t i s m u s aufweist. A u f d e n e r
ste n Blick zeigen diese P o s it i o n e n e in e b e m e r k e n s w e r t e W a n d l u n g g e g e n ü b e r d e r
Prosa d e s T ra c ta tu s d e vita sancti Benedicti. U m die D if f e re n z in d e n S t a n d p u n k t e n
e r k lä r e n zu k ö n n e n , m u ß m a n n i c h t n u r die v e r s c h i e d e n e n E n ts t e h u n g s b e d i n g u n g e n ,
s o n d e r n a u c h das a n d e r e P u b l i k u m u n d literarische G e n u s b e r ü c k s ic h tig e n . D e r T r a c
tatus d e vita sancti B e n ed icti ist ein e Schrift z u m m o n a s t i s c h e n G e b r a u c h , d a z u b e
s t i m m t , d e n M ö n c h e n d e n S in n des R in g e n s ihres A b t e s u n d die fo lg en s ch w e re h i s t o
rische P e r sp e k tiv e z u illustrieren, d e r er sich v e r p flic h te t fühlt: N a c h drei J a h r e n des
S t u d i u m s d e r S c hrift e n t h ü l l t er i h n e n schließlich d ie e ig e n e B e s t i m m u n g z u m
M ö n c h s r e f o r m e r . In d e r Hl. Schrift h a t e r die Z e i c h e n d e r n e u e n O r d n u n g e n t d e c k t
u n d er s e tz t alles d aran, ih r e n t g e g e n z u g e h e n u n d m i t Blick auf d e n „n o v u s o r d o “ auf
die Sila zu steig en. D a s V o r w o r t z u r A p o k a l y p s e u n d das V o r w o r t z u r C o n c o r d ia sind
da g e g e n b e s t im m t, d e n S in n ein e s jah re la n g e n S t u d i u m s e i n e m g r ö ß e r e n u n d qualifi
z ie rte re n P u b l i k u m zu illustrieren. D i e E r r e g u n g J o a c h i m s hat sich gelegt, die florensisc he E r f a h r u n g ist jetz t a n g e k o m m e n , die P h a se des „ e n t s t e h e n d e n st a tu s “ ist a b g e
sc h lossen. W a s i h m jetzt a m H e r z e n liegt, ist die H e r a u s a r b e i t u n g des „ w isse n sc haftli
c h e n “ C h a r a k t e rs d e r e ig e n e n A rb e it. Es w a r v o r a lle m n ö tig, d e n V e r d a c h t a u s z u r ä u
m e n , d a ß sein e e sc h a to lo g is c h e B otsc h aft v o n w e n ig zuverlässigen Q u e l le n a b h ä n g i g
sei: W i e j e d e r g u t e E x e g e t d e r A p o k a l y p s e e rk lä rt er, d a ß er in k e in e r W e is e die v o l k s
t ü m l i c h e n S p e k u l a t i o n e n ü b e r d ie A n k u n f t des A n t i c h r i s t s teile41. A b e r vielleicht
k ö n n e n wir u n s bei d e r K l ä r u n g d e r G r ü n d e d a fü r n o c h w e ite r v o rw a g e n u n d a u c h d a
n a c h fragen, w a r u m seine K ritik a m P r o p h e t i s m u s in d e n 9 0 e r J a h r e n so h a r t ausfällt.
Z w i s c h e n d e m E n d e d e r 8 0 e r J a h r e u n d d e m B e g inn d e r 9 0 e r J a h r e w ar J o a c h i m s R uf
als M a n n , d e r die Z e i c h e n des W e i t e n d e s entz iffe rn k ö n n e , b e a c h tlic h g e w a c h se n . D a
von legt sein T reffe n m i t R ic h a rd L ö w e n h e r z Z e u g n i s ab, das im W i n t e r 1 1 9 0 - 9 1 in
M essina sta ttfa n d : A m V o r a b e n d d e r A b f a h r t z u m K r e u z z u g will d e r e n g lisc h e K ö n i g
in i h m d e n „vir religiosus“ treffen, d e r fähig ist, die Z u k u n f t v o ra u s z u s e h e n u n d zu b e
r e c h n e n 42. D e r A b t b e s c h rä n k t sich allerdin gs auf die E r k lä r u n g d e r F igur des D r a
c h e n s d e r A p o k a l y p s e , K a p ite l 12 u n d 17, u n d zwar in e in e r W e ise , die w a h r s c h e i n
lich R i c h a r d n i c h t g a n z befriedigte. W e n n e r also d e n P r o p h e t i s m u s kritisierte, d i s t a n
zierte sich J o a c h i m im G r u n d e v o n d e m Bild v o n i h m als W a h rsa g e r , das sich m i t t l e r
weile v e rb re ite t h a b e n m u ß t e u n d m it d e m er sich d u r c h a u s n i c h t identifizierte.
11 Z u r A b l e h n u n g d er volkstüm lichen S p ekulationen über die A n k u n f t des A n tichristen seitens
d er Exegese vgl. Smalley, T h e S tudy (wie A n m .l) , 287 (sie verweist auf W ilhelm K am leth, A p o k a
lypse u n d Geschichtstheologie [Historische Stu dien 285, Berlin 1935]).
“ Z u m Treffen vgl. statt aller M cG in n , T h e Calabrian Abbot.
109
V.
V o n d e r E r k e n n t n i s de s g ö t tl i c h e n M y s te r i u m s h e r b e tra c h te t, ist die Lage d e s Schrifte x e g e te n allerdin gs n i c h t d e rje n ig e n d e r alten P r o p h e t e n u n te rle g e n . M it Hilfe d e r
G e s c h i c h t e w ä c h s t die E r k e n n t n i s . Mit d e m N a h e n d e r E n d z e it w ird das W is s e n ü b e r
das, was im E n t s t e h e n begriffen ist, i m m e r b re ite r u n d präziser.
E in e sic h ere Spur, u m d e r R e ifu n g J o a c h i m s in d i e s e m P u n k t z u folgen, w ird in se i
n e m U m g a n g m it zwei V e rse n D a n iels g e b o t e n : „ P e r tr a n s i b u n t p l u rim i et m u ltip le x
erit sc ien tia “ (D a n 12,4); „Vade D an iel, q uia clausi s u n t sig n a tiq u e s e r m o n e s u s q u e ad
t e m p u s p r e f i n i t u m “ (D a n 12,9). Im V o rw o r t z u r A p o k a l y p s e z eig en diese V erse n u r
beiläufig an, daß m a n d e n G e ist n i c h t a u slö sc h e n u n d m a n g e m e i n s a m d e n Beweis d e r
E in s ic h t g e b e n m ü s s e 43. Im 5. Buch d e r C o n c o rd ia , das w a h rs c h e in lic h in d e r e rsten
Hälfte d e r 9 0 e r J a h r e verfaßt w urde'44, k o m m e n sie d a g e g e n h ä u fig e r vor. Sie k e n n
z e i c h n e n die B e h a u p t u n g e n J o a c h im s , daß die E in s ic h t in das g ö ttlic h e M y s te r iu m m i t
Hilfe d e r G e s c h i c h t e w a c h s e 45. I m V o r w o r t d e r C o n c o r d ia (u m 1196) w ird die Frage
schlie ßlic h g a n z klar ge stellt. V o r allem wird an d e n S p r u c h von P a u lu s e r in n e r t: „Als
ich e in K i n d war, r e d e t e ich wie ein K i n d (...). Als ich ein M a n n w u r d e , legte ich ab,
was K i n d an m i r w ar“ (1 K o r 13,11). J o a c h i m gib t d ie s e r F e stste llu n g e in e n g e s c h i c h t
lic hen B e zug u n d e rk lärt: Es ist na tü rlic h , daß wir, die w ir w e ite r m it d e n J a h r e n sind,
besser se h e n , was für un s g e g e n w ä r tig ist, w ä h r e n d m a n in d e r V e r g a n g e n h e i t n u r a h
n e n k o n n t e . H e u t e ist es im ü b rig en n ü tz lic h , zu zeigen, daß d e r für die V e r g a n g e n h e it
vorausgesagte N i e d e r g a n g e in g e t r e t e n sei; es ist z ie m lic h n ü tz lic h , m it d e n z u r V e r f ü
g u n g s t e h e n d e n I n d iz ie n das Z u k ü n f t i g e v o ra u s z u s e h e n , weil m a n fern von i h n e n steSelge, Eine Ein führung, 106: „Spiritum no n extinguas, sed liceat probare, si ex deo est. Scrip
tum est enim in libro Danielis p ro p hete: Vade Daniel, quia clausi su nt signatique se rm o nes u s
que ad te m p u s prefinitum . P ertra nsibunt e n im plurimi, et multiplex erit scientia. Qui igitur hec
dixit, spiritum e x t i n g u e n d u m prohibuit. A t qui ait: Nolite credere om ni spiritui, sed tem ptatc
spiritus si ex deo su n t (1 J o b 4, 1), cautelam proculdubio in diseretione adhibuit.“
“ Die Concord ia w urde von Jo a c h im nach der Abfolge der fünf Bücher verfaßt (die Einleitung
wurde zuletzt hinzugefügt). Das erste Buch g eh t auf das J a h r 11 83 -1 18 4 zurück, die V ollendung
des vierten datiert 1188-1190, die des fünften zwischen 1195 un d 1196 (vgl. Selge, L’origine).
Concordia Novi et Veteris T estam en ti, i. V, c. 67, Venetiis 1519 (Frankfurt a.M. 1964) 96va (da
eine m od erne Edition des fünften Buches fehlt, habe ich den T ex t der g e n a n n te n Ausgabe ver
bessert, wobei ich die - bisher u n gedru ck te - Arbeitsedition von H erb ert G r u n d m a n n berü ck
sichtigt habe. Ich danke Prof. A lexan d er Patschovsky, der mir diesen Tex t zu r Ver fügung gestellt
hat): „Et n o t a n d u m qu o d in tertio statu n ud a e r u n t mysteria et aperta fidelibus, quia per singulas
etates m u n d i m u ltiplicabitu r scientia, sicut scriptu m est: Per transibunt plurimi et m ultiplex erit
scientia.“ 1. V, c. 111, f. 127rb, wo Joa ch im , bezogen auf die Vision des Standbildes des N eb uk ad nezar und die Interp retation, die er von „quidam patres“ gibt, aber n ich t teilt, bekräftigt: „Uiide
et aliqua o pin an d o sc ripserunt, aliqua retractando em en d av eru n t, aliqua reliqueru nt intacta expotienda singula in t em p orib u s suis. Nos au tem qui in fine sum us, m ulta po ssu m u s colligere de fine
rerum, que latebant antiquos, dicente - ut iam m e m i n i m u s in hoc opere - angelo Danieli: P er
transibunt plurim i et multiplex erit scientia. A rb itram u r au te m nos ultimi, qui mala illis futura
nobis presentia in tu em u r, significatum fore in auro re g n u m C ha lde oru m ...“. Vgl. ferner 1. V, c.
118, 133vb. Z u D an 12, 9 vgl. 1. V, c. 46, f. 81rb; 1. V, c. 118, 133vb-134ra; 1. V, c. 119, 135rb. Es
muß b etont werden, daß in den vier v o rh erg e h en d en Büchern der C oncord ia w eder Dan 12, 4
noch Dan 12, 9 zitiert werden.
110
G i a n Luc a P o t e s t á
h e n ka n n. D ie T a t s a c h e n ä m lic h , d a ß w ir b e z ü g lic h d e r Z u k u n f t w e n ig s te n s I n d iz ie n
b ie te n k ö n n e n , re sultie rt aus d e r N ä h e d e r G e g e n w a r t zu d e n z u k ü n f ti g e n E reignissen.
Als Beweis d ies er B e h a u p t u n g w e r d e n D a n 12, 4 u n d D a n 12, 9 z itie rt46. D i e K e n n t
nis dafür, fährt J o a c h i m fort, w ird n i c h t n u r e in m a l v e rlieh e n , s o n d e r n a u s g e h e n d von
d e m M aß an G e ist d e n e in e n u n d a n d e r e n , bis „wir z u m v o l l k o m m e n e n M e n s c h e n
w e r d e n u n d C h r i s t u s in se in e r v o lle n d e te n G e s ta lt d a rs t e l l e n “ ( E p h 4,13). W e d e r die,
die n a c h u n s k o m m e n w e rd e n , n o c h w ir selbst, die wir n a c h d e n V ä te r n g e ru fe n w u r
d e n „sorte se r ó t in a “, k ö n n e n etw as für un s ve rla ng en. J e n e s a m m e l t e n die K ö rn e r , wir
d a g eg e n h a b e n u n s a u f g e m a c h t, die Ü b e rb leibse l, o d e r be sse r die h e r u m l i e g e n d e n
G a r b e n , e i n z u s a m m e ln . D ie e in e n sind die, die m ä h e n , die a n d e r e n d ieje n ig e n , die die
G a r b e n e in s a m m e l n . D e n M ä n n e rn k o m m t es zu, zu m ä h e n , d e n K i n d e r n , e i n z u s a m
m e ln . U n d t r o t z d e m ist es an d e n K i n d e r n u n d n i c h t an d e n M ä n n e r n , die g e s a m
m e l t e F r u c h t v o r z u z e ig e n 47. H i n t e r d e n r e sp e k tv o lle n F o r m u l i e r u n g e n - d e r h ä rte ste
Teil d e r A r b e i t ist v o n a n d e r e n e rle digt w o r d e n , t r o t z d e m ist es u n s e r e A u fgabe, das
v o lle n d e te W e r k v o rz u ze ig e n , o b w o h l w ir als letzte g e k o m m e n s i n d 48 - s t e h t die
Ü b e r z e u g u n g , ü b e r e in viel h ö h e r e s S c h r if tv e rstä n d n is zu v e rfüge n als frü h e re G e n e r a
tione n . D ie se s ist se inerseits d a zu b e s t i m m t , kraft des h i s to ris c h e n F o r ts c h ritts ü b e r
w u n d e n zu w e rd e n .
U m d e n tiefen G e h a l t d ies er B e m e r k u n g e n zu v e r s te h e n , m u ß m a n sich zwei S te l
len bei G r e g o r d e m G r o ß e n v o r A u g e n ha lte n , e in e m A u to r , d e r für J o a c h i m eine si
c h e re u n d w ic h tig e Q u e lle d a rstellt49. Im z w e ite n B uc h d e r H o m i l i e n ü b e r E ze chie l
in te r p r e t i e r t G r e g o r eine N a c h r i c h t ü b e r das G r ö ß e n m a ß d e s z u k ü n f ti g e n T e m p e l s als
L ehre b e z ü g lic h des A n w a c h s e n s de s S c h riftv e rstän d n iss es d e r „ V äte r im G l a u b e n “ .
Ul Liber de Conc ordia, Prephatio, ed. D aniel, 14: „ N i m q u a m intelligentia scripturaru m pari
m o d o pr esto est de futuris et de preteritis, apos tolo attes tante qui dicit: C u m essem paruulus, loq uebar ut paruulus, sapiebam ut paruulus, cogitabam ut paruulus. Q u a n d o a u tc m factus sum uir
euacuaui q ue eran! paruuli. Ea p rop ter nec faceré preiudicium p ossunt agentibus de preteritis hii
qui de futuris in qu ire n d o hec et illa lo q u un tur, d u m q u o d ilii in absentia clare intueri n eq u eu n t,
isti in presentia manifeste cognoscunt. V erum etsi illi loqui clarius, u tpo te de preteritis aut prese ntibus q ueu n t, hii tarnen necessarius ut de futuris. D u m illi ruin am retrodictam n o n satis utiliter iam per actam o ste n du nt, hii ut caueri ualeat indiciis q uibus ua lent affuturam pred icu nt. N am q ue et h o c ipsum q u o d ipsi ca pim us ut a nobis uet indicia dari q u e a n t ipsa presentis tem poris
uicinitate contingit. Sic en im dicit ángelus Danieli: Clau de se rm o n es et signa librum usq ue ad
tem p us statu tum . P ertra nsibunt plurimi et multiplex erit scientia. Et post pauca: Vade Daniel
quia clausi sun t signatique se rm o n es usq ue ad t e m p u s prefinitum .“
41 Liber de Conc ordia, Prephatio, ed. Daniel, 15: „Q uod, si ita est, constat q u o d no n uni totum
scire sed diuisim pro m en su ra spiritus aliis et aliis d a tu m est, q u ou sq ue , ut ait apostolus, occurram us ornnes in uirum pe rfe ctum in m e n s u ra m etatis plenitudinis Christi. Quocirca nec qui futuri
s u n t post nos nec ipsi qui post patres sorte serótina uocati sum us, aliquid nobis arrogare ualemus.
Illi en im messu erunt, nos ad reliquias ingressi sum us, q u i n i m m o ut co m p eten tiu s dicam, ad spa
ros d u d u m m anípulos colligendos ad aream. In hoc est en im u e r b u m uerum , quia alii su n t qui
m e t u n t et alii qui m anípulos colligunt. D e n iq u e pueris istud, illud magis uiris ascribitur. Et ta
rnen aceruu m se getum non o s te n d u n t illi sed isti, quia illis m etere eure fuit, istis in aceruu m colligere.“
48 Vgl. in diesem Sinne schon Selge, Eine Ein führung, 112: „ T em p u s en im colligendi et tem p us
co m ed en d i est. Alii collegerunt et nos in eo ru m opera indigni et im m eriti introivimus.“
49 Vgl. Delno C. W est u n d S andra Z im dars-Sw artz, Joachim of Fiore: A S tudy in Spiritual Perception and History (Bloomington 1983) 30-40.
„M it d e m F o r t s c h r e it e n d e r Z e i t w u c h s die g eistige K e n n t n i s d e r Väter. M oses war
m e h r m it d e r E r k e n n t i s des a llm ä c h ti g e n G o t t e s b e g a b t als A b r a h a m , die P r o p h e t e n
m e h r als M oses u n d die A p o s te l m e h r als die P r o p h e t e n . Ich tä u s c h e m ic h , w e n n d i e
selbe Schrift dies n i c h t b e h a u p t e t : Viele w e rd e n Vorbeigehen, u n d die E r k e n n t n i s w ird
vielfältig sein.“ 50 B e züg lich d ie s e r Passage w u r d e richtig b e o b a c h te t , d a ß sich G r e g o r
auf d e n F o r t s c h ri tt d e r O f f e n b a r u n g v o m A l t e n z u m N e u e n T e s t a m e n t b e zieht, n i c h t
a b e r auf e in e n E r k e n n t n i s f o r ts c h r i t t, d e r sich in e in e r Z e i t n a ch d e m E r s c h e i n e n des
S o h n e s ein g e stellt h a t 51. D a g e g e n h a t eine Stelle in d e n „M oralia in l o b “ e in e n a n d e
re n W e r t , in d e r G r e g o r das W is s e n d e r G e l e h r t e n m i t d e m L ic h t vergleicht, d a n k d e s
se n d e r R e g e n d e r P r e d ig t d e n G l a u b e n e r w ärm t. D ie „scie ntia caelestis“ w ä ch s t von
T ag zu Tag. „ D a in d e r T a t das E n d e d e r W e l t b e v o r ste h t, w ä c h s t u n d v e r m e h r t sich
die h ö c h s t e W is s e n s c h a ft i m m e r intensiver. U n d d a h e r sa gt m a n d u r c h d e n M u n d D a
niels: ,Viele w e r d e n v e r g e h e n u n d die K e n n t n i s w ird vielfältig se i n ““32 J o a c h i m folgt
ex akt d e r S p u r d e r l e t z t g e n a n n t e n Passage von G r e g o r, aber, wie m a n sagen w ürde,
m it e in e m B e w u ß tse in u n d e in e r K o n s e q u e n z , die i h m eine sc h ärfere E r k e n n t n i s d e r
U r s a c h e n e n th ü l l e n , d u r c h die die m e n s c h l i c h e E r k e n n t n i s des g ö t tl i c h e n M y s te riu m s
i m Laufe d e r Z e i t a n g e w a c h s e n ist. Die g r u n d l e g e n d e Rolle, die er D a n 12, 4 b e im iß t,
e rk lä rt sich im L ic h te se in e r G e s c h ic h ts v is io n als „ a u f s t e ig e n d e m “ Verlauf, d e r i m m e r
h ö h e r e F o r m e n des sp iritu e lle n L eb e n s u n d d e r E r k e n n t n i s des g ö t tl i c h e n W u n d e r s
verlangt. D ie G e s c h i c h t e sc h r e i t e t voran, u n d dies m a c h t es J o a c h i m m ö g lic h , sich an
die - n a tü r lic h prov isorisc he - Spitze e in e r E n tw ic k lu n g s lin ie in d e r t h e o lo g is c h e n
L eh re u n d in d e r E xeg e se zu stellen, die h ö h e r als die P r o p h e t e n u n d die A p o s te l
steht.
N u r e in e vertiefte U n t e r s u c h u n g ü b e r die V e r w e n d u n g v o n D a n 12, 4 in d e r f r ü h
m itte la lte r lic h e n T h e o lo g ie w ird es e r m ö g l i c h e n , d ie R e ic h w e ite d e r G r e g o r - L e k t ü r e
J o a c h i m s rich tig e i n z u s c h ä t z e n 53. E in e rste r A n s a tz d a fü r w ird von Beryl Sm a lle y ge„Q ua in re hoc q u o q u e nobis sc ien d u m cst quia et per increm enta te m p o r u m creuit scientia
spiritalium patrum . Plus natnq u e Moyses q u a m Ab raham , plus p rop h etae q u a m Moyses, plus
apostoli q u am p ro ph etae in o m n ip o tcn tis Dci scientia eruditi sunt. Fallor si haec ipsa Scriptura
non loquitur: Pertransib un t plurimi, et multiplex erit scientia.“ Gregorii Magni Hom iliae in Hiezechihelem p ro p h etam , II, IV, 12, hrsg. von A larais A driaen (CCL 142, T urn ho lti 1971) 267.
:>1 Pier Cesare Bari, L’in ter pretazione infinita. L’erm eneutica cristiana antica e le sue trasformazioni (Bologna 1987) 84.
52 „A pparente d o c t o r u m scientia, d u m m en s nostra itnbre praedicationis infunditur, fidei calor
augetur. Et perfusa terra ad fru ctu m proficit cum lu m en aetheris ignescit, quia uber ius frugem
boni operis reddim us, d u m per sacrae eruditionis f lam m am in corde clarius ar demus. D u m q u e
per eos dicbus singulis magis m agisqu e scientia caelestis ostenditur, quasi interni nobis luminis
u er n u m tem pu s aperitur, ut n o uu s sol nostris m entibtis rutilet et eo ru m uerbis nobis cognitus, se
ipso cotidie clarior micet. U rgente etenim m u n d i fine, s up e rna scientia proficit et largius cum
tem pore excrescit. H in c n a m q u e per Danielen! dicitur: Pertran sib un t plurim i et mul tiplex erit
scientia.“ Gregorii Magni Moralia in lob, 1. IX, par. 11, hrsg. von M arens A driaen (CCL 143,
T urn holti 1979) 467.
,} Dan 12, 4 wird von Jo a c h i m ferner in folgenden T ex ten zitiert: Dialogi de prescientia Dei et
predestinatione electorum , I, hrsg. von G inn Ltiea Poteslä (Fonti per la storia d ’Itaiia, voraussicht
lich Rom a 1995); E nchiridion su per Apocalypsim , hrsg. von E d w a rd K. Burger (Studies and
Texts 78, T o ro n to 1986) 146; Tractatus su p e r q u atu o r evangelia, hrsg. von Ernesto B uonaiuti,
Fonti p er la Storia d ’Itaiia 67 (R om a 1930) 7. Der letztgenannte Passus ist der interessanteste:
112
b o t e n , die in i h r e m g r u n d l e g e n d e n W e r k auf d e n P r o lo g des R ic h a rd s v o n S. V ik to r
zu d e r E ze ch ie l-V is io n e inge h t. A u c h h i e r k o m m t d ie B e r u f u n g auf D a n 12, 4 d e m
A n s p r u c h auf S u p e r io r itä t in d e r E r k e n n t n i s g e g e n ü b e r d e n V ä t e r n gleich. Bei R i
ch a r d w ird a b e r die V o rs te llu n g d e r g e w a c h s e n e n E r k e n n t n i s n i c h t exp liz it m i t j e n e r
Id e e ein e s o r g a n is c h e n A n w a c h s e n s im Laufe d e r G e s c h i c h t e v e r k n ü p ft. D e r T e x t R i
c h a r d s leb t vo r a lle m v o n d e r G e g e n ü b e r s t e l l u n g d e r a n ti k e n u n d d e r m o d e r n e n A u
t o r e n ; er a p p ellie rt d aran, die in te lle k tu e lle T r ä g h e it u n d die e n t s p r e c h e n d e F u r c h t d a
vo r zu b e sieg e n , „ c u m o m n i alacritate“ das zu e rfo rs c h e n , was die V ä te r a usgelassen
habenu .
VI.
D ie h ö c h s t e E in s ic h t in die G e s c h i c h t e , die g rö ß te N ä h e zu d e n e n d z e it l ic h e n E r e i g
nisse n m e r z e n a b e r n i c h t die Z w eifel u n d U n g e w i ß h e i t e n d a r ü b e r aus, was g e s c h e h e n
m u ß . W ä h r e n d se in es g e s a m t e n lite rarisc h en S c haffens s t e h t J o a c h i m vor e in e m D i
le m m a : A u f d e r e in e n Seite m u ß er v e r k ü n d e n , was er in d e n S c h rifte n e n t d e c k t h at
u n d v o n d e m er ü b e r z e u g t ist. A u f d e r a n d e r e n Seite m u ß er z u g e b e n , d a ß n i c h t e i n
m a l für d e n sc h a rf s in n ig s te n B e o b a c h te r die Z e i t e n u n d die A r t u n d W eise , wie sich
das ä u ß e r n wird, präzise zu b e s t i m m e n sind. Es g i b t ein e rse its Z u g e w i n n e d e r E i n
sicht, u n d es g i b t a n d e re rse its e in fa ch e I n t e r p r e ta t io n s h y p o th e s e n . D ie e rs te n g e h ö r e n
z u r S p h ä re des In tellec tu s , die z w e ite n in d e n B ereich d e r O p i n i o . W i e m a n im V o r
w o r t z u r C o n c o r d ia liest, w ird d e r L eser e in e n Beweis s e i n e r V o r s ic h t g e b e n m ü s s e n ,
w e n n e r sich v o r B e h a u p t u n g e n g e stellt sieht, die die V e r n u n f t n i c h t für sic h e r e r a c h
tet, u n d w ird e r k e n n e n m ü s s e n , daß sie in d e n B ereich d e r M e i n u n g (opinio) fallen55.
Das Begriffspaar i n te l le c t u s / o p i n i o e r s c h e i n t s c h o n im „T ra cta tus d e vita san cti Ben e d ic t i “ . D i e M e i n u n g (opinio) ist eine i n te r p re ta tiv e H y p o t h e s e , die z w ar a n d e r e n
v o rz u z i e h e n , a b e r d o c h o h n e a b so lu te G e w i ß h e i t ist. W i e w ird tatsä ch lich das W e s e n
v o n G o g s e i n 56, wie soll m a n sich g e n a u die A u f e r s t e h u n g d e r G e r e c h t e n a m T a g des
Jo a chim vergleicht das Aufw achsen (profectus) Jesu bis z u m zwölften Lebensjahr, wie es im L u
kas-Evangelium bes ch rieb en wird, m it der fortgesetzten Z u n a h m e d er kirchlichen Lehre, „que
incipiens a Io hann e Baptista, velut per intervalla te m p o r u m perven it ad in c r e m e n t u m usq ue ad
hec t em p o ra nostra, iuxta illud Danielis: per transib un t plurim i et mul tiplex erit scientia ...“. Zu
Dan 12, 9 vgl. Tractatus su p er q u atu o r evangelia, 15.
34 Prologus in visionem Ezechielis, PL 196, 527 (auf diese Passage verweist Smalley, T h e Study
[wie A n m .l], bes. 108; vgl. auch Bori, L’interpretazione infinita, 82-83).
53 „Melius est enim salua fide opinioni cedere ubi certitudo n o n est, q u a m diffinire aliquid pertinaciter q u o d n e q u e rationi nec auctoritati consentit.“ Liber de Conc ordia, hrsg. von D aniel, 13.
36 Beiraut, Un Tratado, 60: „E odetn m o d o lo qu itur Jezechiel propheta, qu i p ostq ua m agit, occulto q u o d a m misterio de ressurrectione m o r tu o r u m , in fine t e m p o r u m et a n n o r u m introducit
v e n tu r u m Go g de terra Magog, principe capitis Musoch et Tubal. Ut hanc autem o p in io n e m O m
nibus aliis p refe ren dam m o n strem u s, qualiter in eam co n ven ian t o m n e s auctoritates, discutiend u m est.“
„ I n te ilig e n tia S c r i p t u r a r u m “
113
H e r r n v o r s t e ll e n 57, w e r sind e ig e n tlic h die zwei Z e u g e n in O ffb 11, die eine feste e x e
ge tisc h e T ra d i t io n m i t E n o c h u n d Elias i d e n tif iz ie r t58? Die A n t w o r t e n auf all diese
F ragen s in d p r o visorisc h u n d h y p o t h e t i s c h . W i r b e f in d e n u n s auf d e m Feld d e r e in fa
c h e n o p i n i o 59.
Die A b s ic h t, d e r W a n d l u n g d e r S e l b s t e i n s c h ä tz u n g J o a c h i m s zu folgen, i n d e m m a n
die H ä u f ig k e it d e r V e r w e n d u n g b e s t i m m t e r Begriffe in s e i n e m W o r t s c h a t z u n t e r
su c h t, ist n a tü r l i c h z ie m li c h riskant. U n d t r o t z d e m b i e t e t das Begriffspaar inte lle c tu s/
o p i n io R a u m fü r V o r s te llu n g e n , die m a n n i c h t ü b e r g e h e n m ö c h t e . D ie S c h rifte n d e r
9 0 e r J a h r e e n t h ü l l e n in d i e s e m S in n in te r e s sa n te E le m e n t e . Das, was in J o a c h i m h e r
anreifte, ist das w a c h s e n d e B e w u ß tse in v o n e i n e m G e g e n s a t z se in e r h e r m e n e u t i s c h e n
M e t h o d e m i t d e r T ra d i t io n in n i c h t u n w i c h ti g e n P u n k t e n u n d die A uffa ssung , sich
i h m n i c h t e n t z i e h e n zu k ö n n e n . D ie se s B e w u ß tse in liegt „ D e u ltim is t rib u l a ti o n i b u s “
z u g r u n d e . D e r T e x t ist e in e k u r z e W i e d e r h o l u n g d e r D e u t u n g d e r D a n iel-V isio n , die
die C o n c o r d ia b e s c h li e ß t 60. D ie E in le itu n g , in d e r J o a c h i m n i c h t zögert, die eigene
D e u t u n g s t h e o r i e in d e n G e g e n s a t z zu a n d e r e n zu stellen, ü b e r ra s c h t: „Als wir in u n s e
ren S c h rifte n die e n d z e it l ic h e n V e r f o lg u n g e n b e s p r a c h e n , h a b e n wir die M e i n u n g e n
diverser a n d e r e r u n d die u n s e r e dargelegt. A b e r da m a n c h m a l die K n a p p k e i t , ein a n
deres Mal das Ü b e r m a ß d e r W o r t e S c h w ie r ig k e ite n be re ite n , h a b e n wir in d i e s e m k u r
zen D is k u r s u n s e r e M e i n u n g d ie s b e z ü g lic h z u s a m m e n g e f a ß t. “61
D e r h e r m e n e u t i s c h e K o n f l i k t zeigt sich im K o m m e n t a r z u r A p o k a l y p s e in s e in e r
g a n z e n b e u n r u h i g e n d e n Tiefe. D a s W e r k w u r d e , wie wir wissen, s c h o n in Casam ari
b e g o n n e n , b e sc h äftig te a b e r d e n A u t o r fast bis z u m V o r a b e n d se ines T odes. D e r d ritte
Teil g e h t w a h r s c h e i n l ic h auf das J a h r 1196 z u r ü c k 62. J o a c h i m d i s k u t ie r t in i h m s e h r
37 Betraut, U n Tratado, 51: „ O m n i u m q u ipp e iustorum resurrectio die d om in ico asscribenda est,
in quo resuscitatus est D o m inu s, sive Christi et eo ru m qu i c u m ipso vixerunt, sive eo ru m de quibus dicit A posto lus ‘e t m ortu i qu i in Christo sun t resu rgent p rim i’, sive e o r u m qu i relinquen di
sunt, rapiendi obviam Christo in aera, de q uibus op iniones varie, intellectus au te m m odicus aut
quasi nullus.“
38 B araut, Un Tratado, 82: „Et q u a n d o erit istud? Arb itro r prim o op o rtere pati quasi Moysen et
Heliam, quasi Io h a n n e m Babtistam et C h ristu m Ihesum , hoc est illos prophetas, vel potius ordines significatos per istos, qui predicaturi sun t tanto t em p o re q uan to pred icaver unt Iohan nes et
Christus, et post dies duos et d im id ium , p r o p h ete ipsi excitabu ntu r a mor tu is et ascen dent in al~
tum: tune m i ru m m isterium consum ari incipiet (...) D e bis a u te m prophetis qui d dicam, ce rtum
non habeo, nisi q u o d universa p en e d o c t o r u m ten et opinio esse illos E no ch et Heliam ,“
>9 Die Außenwelt, liest m a n im letzten Kapitel des vierten Buches des Liber de Conc ordia, hrsg.
von Daniel, 4 2 1 - 4 2 2 , g eh ört zu r opinio, n ich t zu m intellectus: „At nos h u cus qu e cucurrim us et
peruenim us u sq ue ad nos. Q u o d au tem reliquum est, ultra nos est; et magis opinioni subiacere
censemus q u a m intellectui, ex pectan tes potius q u am ex hib en tes et orantes d o m i n u m , ut sit nobisciim, sicut fuit cum patribus nostris...“. Z u r D atierung dieses Abschnitts d er Concord ia auf die
Zeit nach d e m „Tractatus de vita sancti Benedicti“ vgl. ob en , A n m .44.
60 Folglich wie diese n ich t früher als 119 5-1196. Vgl. Selge, L’origine, 117.
61 K url-V ictor Selge, Ein Traktat J o a ch im s von Fiore üb er die Drangsale der End zeit: „D e ultimis
tribulationibus“ , in: Florensia 7 (1993) 7.
6‘ Einen diesbezüg lichen Hinweis findet m a n in d er Expositio in Apocalypsim, tertia pars (Venetiis 1527) 134rb-va, wo Jo a c h im sich auf eine Begegnung 1195 („preterito a n n o “) in Messina
bezieht. Hier be finden wir uns gen au im Z e n t r u m des dr itten Teils (ff. 123-153). Z u r Datier ung
114
G i a n Luc a P o te s tà
a u sfü h rlic h die I d e n ti t ä t d e r zwei Z e u g e n im 11. K a p ite l d e r A p o k a ly p se . W o e r sich
im T ra c ta tu s d e vita sancti Benedicti n o c h da rauf b e s c h rä n k t e , die a llg e m e in e M e i
n u n g , die in i h n e n E n o c h u n d Elias sah, a n z u f ü h r e n 61, u n t e r z i e h t er sie jetz t e in e r
b ü n d i g e n Kritik. E r , b e g i n n t d a m it, d a ß m a n ü b e r ihre Id e n ti t ä t viel u n d k o n tr o v e r s
g e s p r o c h e n habe. U n d da einig e B e h a u p t u n g e n v o n s e h r a n g e s e h e n e n M ä n n e r n g e
m a c h t u n d als A u t o r i tä t e n in d e r K i r c h e a u f g e n o m m e n w o r d e n seien, sc h e in e es i h m
nü tzlich , diese A u s s a g e n zu v e rg le ic h e n u n d - (b e sch e id en ) als d e r jü n g e r e - s e in e n e i
g e n e n S t a n d p u n k t e i n z u b r i n g e n 64.
D i e Id e n ti fi z i e r u n g d e r b e id e n Z e u g e n als E n o c h u n d Elias g e h t auf d e n hl. H i e r o
n y m u s z u rü ck . J o a c h i m legt W e r t da rauf, g e n a u d e n U r s p r u n g d a rzu leg e n . Es w ar e i
ne r, d e r H i e r o n y m u s ü b e r E n o c h u n d Elias befragte, so als o b d e r Evan gelist J o h a n n e s
klar ihre N a m e n in das Buch d e r A p o k a l y p s e g e s c h r i e b e n hä tte , was e r a b e r e b e n
n i c h t g e ta n hat. Seit d i e s e m A u g e n b l ic k sei es z u r G e w o h n h e i t g e w o r d e n , „ u t n o n s o
lu m a p u d c o m m u n e vulg us o p i n io t r a n s ie n t in i n te lle c tu m , q u i n p o t iu s in s o l e m n e m
a u c t o r it a te m m a g n o r u m p a tr u m , q u o r u m d o c tr i n a u s q u e h o d i e illu stra tu r ecclesia“65.
I n d e m e r sein e ig e n e s E r s t a u n e n o ffenbart, gib t J o a c h i m zu b e d e n k e n , d a ß m a n „ w e
d e r m i t d e m sp iritu a len n o c h m it d e m h i s to ris c h e n S c h rif ts in n die v o n J o h a n n e s Be
s c h r i e b e n e n m it E n o c h u n d Elias id entifiz ie re n k a n n “. Als die M e i n u n g des H i e r o n y
m u s in die T ra d itio n d e r E xege se einfließt, se tz t sie sich auf B e tre ib en G r e g o rs des
G r o ß e n d u r c h u n d w ird als so lc h e v o m k i r c h lic h e n S t a n d p u n k t h e r s a k r o s a n k t 66. T a t
sächlich a ber e r la u b t es d e r A p p e l l des H i e r o n y m u s , se in e W o r t e n i c h t w örtlich , s o n
d e r n „in sp i r i tu “ zu v e r s te h e n , die Frage n e u zu stellen u n d die b e id e n Z e u g e n als M o
ses u n d Elias zu v e r s t e h e n - d e r ein e als das S in n b ild d e s o r d o c le ric o r u m , d e r a n d e re
als das des o r d o m o n a c h o r u m 67. D e r z en trale P u n k t d e r B e w e is f ü h ru n g J o a c h i m s ist
die R e d u z i e r u n g d e r P o s itio n d e s H i e r o n y m u s auf seine u r s p r ü n g l i c h e D i m e n s i o n : Es
Fortsetzung Fußnote von Seite I Fi
des dritten Teils auf 1196, zur G rundlage dieser A n n a h m e u n d an derer ch ronologischer H i n
weise vgl. bereits Selge, L’origine, 125, A n m .
6-’ Vgl. oben, A n m . 56.
bi Expositio, tertia pars, f. 146ra: „D e his d uobus testibus m ulta m ulti loqu uti sunt, et diversi diversa. Et quia aliqui eo ru m magtie auctoritatis fu crunt viri, et q u e scripserunt de eisdem testibus
iani p ene in toto or be diffusa sunt, et lecta sepe sepius in ecclesia sa nctoru m , videtur mihi b o n u m
saltem eo ru m qui no m inatiss imi sun t patres sententia s ad m e d i u m ferre, ne si aliquid in tarn solenni re contra m a lo r u m o p in io n e m dicimus, vid eam ur pru dentes esse co ram nobisipsis - quam vis non o m n i n o videatur illicitum o stendere iuniore m o p in io n e m suam ubi diversi diversa dieunt: quia et Paulus novissimus ap ostolo rum non solum do cuit fideles q u o d alii n o n docebant,
v erum etiam au det dicere Petrutn ap osto lo ru m p r i m u m no n recte ingressuni ad veritatem evangelii.“
Expositio, 146rab.
66 Expositio, 146vb: „Q uia vero tantus et talis vir [Gregor d er GroiSe] hoc et in loco isto et aliis
aut intelligens altius sicut sanctus aut opin an s aliquid sicut h o m o f re q u e n ta n d u m credidit et scrib e n d u m , tacend u m mihi esset in loco isto, potius q u a m aliquid l o q u e n d u m , nisi m e ad prose
q u e n d u m rectum iter co m p elleret et simul cepta e x po n en di materia, ne soluta parte una littere
pars altera que aliud sonat relinquatur intacta.
67 Expositio, 146vb: „At si verba ista s e c u n d u m H ie r o n y m u tn in spiritu, n o n ad litteram, intelligend a sunt, possunt s e c u n d u m spiritum accipi duo viri ipsi Moyses et Helyas, q u o r u m unus dési
gnât or d in e m clericorum, alius o rd inem m o n a c h o r u m .“
„ in t e l l i g e n t i a S c r i p t u r a r u m “
115
h a n d e l e sich bei i h r u m e in f a c h e „ o p i n i o “, u n d n i c h t u m „ in te lle c tu s “. E in e r M e i n u n g
k a n n m a n legitim e rw eise a u ch a n d e r e h i n z u f ü g e n , u n d J o a c h i m legt se ine eigene
vo r68. Das Begriffspaar I n t e l l e c t u s / O p i n i o e r la u b t es also J o a c h i m , die e ig e n e D e u t u n g
d e r je n ig e n des hl. H i e r o n y m u s e n tg e g e n z u s t e ll e n , i n d e m e r b e id e in d e n R a n g ein fa
c h e r M e i n u n g e n z u r ü c k s t u f t 69.
In tellec tu s u n d o p i n io b e z e i c h n e n zwei e n tg e g e n g e s e t z t e B e w u ß t s e in s e b e n e n , d e
n e n ein u n t e r s c h i e d l i c h e r W a h r h e i t s g e h a l t z u k o m m t . A u s d e r A r t u n d W eise , wie J o a
c h im d e n e in e n o d e r d e n a n d e r e n Begriff wählt, e r k e n n t d e r L eser g a n z g e n a u , w e l
c hes G e w i c h t J o a c h i m selbst d e r e ig e n e n L e h r m e i n u n g b e im e s s e n will. In d ieser
P e rsp e k tiv e v e r d ie n t e in e e r n e u t e L e k tü r e d e r Passage des A p o k a l y p s e n k o m m e n t a r s
A u f m e rk s a m k e it , d e r d e r „ligatio S a th a n e p e r a n n o s m ille “ g e w i d m e t ist. W i r b e f in d e n
uns h ie r im sie b te n T eil des K o m m e n t a r s , d e r z w isc h e n 1196 u n d 1199 verfaßt w o r
d e n ist70. Die D is k u s s i o n ü b e r die k o m m e n d e Z e i t d e s Sabbats se tz t m i t d e r V o r s te l
lung d e r d ie s b e z ü g li c h e n P o s itio n e n des hl. A u g u s ti n u s u n d des „ R e m i g iu s “ (d.h . H a i
m o s von A u x e rre ) ein. Es ist a u fsch lu ß re ic h , wie J o a c h i m seine e ig e n e P o s itio n e in b e
zieht. Ü b e r das Feld d e r M e i n u n g e n a n d e r e r b r i c h t sie sich langsam die Bahn. So l e h n t
sie sich d e m R e m i g i u s g e g e n die M e i n u n g an, n a c h d e r es n a c h d e m Fall d e s A n ti6S Expositio, 147r b : „Q uid si in illis rebu s que voluit deus occultare usque ad tctn pu s pr efinitum
aliquid occurrit pie qu erentib us sentire vel opinari q u o d aliter in parte fu tu ru m sit, ut ipse sit
se m p er magister o m n i u m et n o n glor ietu r o m n is caro in co nspcctu eins. Ex parte, inquit ap o sto
lus, co gnoscim us et ex parte pro p h etam u s; c u m au tem venerit q u o d per fe ctum est, evacuabitur
quo d ex parte est. fgitur opinari aliquid in hu iu sm o di q uo d non sit contra fidcm catholicam et
falli, humanum est. Excusat au tem o p in a n te m pietas ilia que excusavit Mariam Magdalenam dicc ntem : T u le ru n t d o m i n u m m e u m et nescio ubi p osue run t e u m (...) Nee istud tarnen dicimus ut
negem us E no ch v e n t u r u m c u m Helya aut affirmem us Moys en vivere p ro p ter o p in io n e m illam
Am brosii que supra scripta est, sed ut o ste n dam u s q u id in opini one, q uid in intellectu accipiend um sit.“ Vgl. auch Expositio, 148r b : „Quam vi s ob cautele custodia m pie magis eligam in tanto
articulo o p i n a n d u m q uam tem ere aliquid i n g erend u m (...) quam vis hec om n ia ad cautelam opinando dixerimus et nihil tem ere affirmando.“ Die Schlußfolgerung ist schließlich folgende
(148vab): „Quia vero in hoc articulo n o n sibi c o n v e n iu n t sancti patres, sed diversi diversa senserunt, puto q uo d a bsco nd itu m hoc esse voluerit usq ue ad te m p u s sta tu tu m iis qui celavit ver bum
ab Helyseo propheta, ut quicq uid diceretur ab his et illis, opi nio magis sit q ue falli potest, quam
notitia vel intellectus, qui si verus est falli n o n potest. Si e n im (ut ait sanctus Gregorius) etiam
prophete falluntur, quid m iru m si fallitur opi nio eo rum qui p ro ph ete non sunt? Sic enim ait
idem do ctor Petro dyacono. Q u id miraris si fallimur, qui p r o p h ete non sum us? (...) Hec idcirco
dico, quia si ver um est q u o d occidendi sint Enoch et Helyas, fallitur opi nio e o r u m qui putaverunt
eos n on morituros. Et si ipsi m orituri no n sunt, sed alii qui sint in spiritu E n o ch et Helyas, vel
potius (ut supra scripsimus) Moyses et Helyas, alterius partis o p in io n e m falli necesse est, quia
utrunque verum esse non potest. Q uam vis de opin ion e certu m nihil, et in intellectu dubia multa,
doncc illucescat dies, et Lucifer nascatur in cordibus nostris. Et hec q u id e m dieta su nt in discussione littere q u e oecidit, cuius in multis est am biguus et ten eb rosu s intellectus.“
b> Die Frage wird im gleichen se m an tis ch en Feld wieder au f g e n o m m e n und gelöst im Liber Introductorius zu r Apok alypse, c. 26, in Expositio, 25va (er wurde von Jo a c h im m it aller W a h r
scheinlichkeit nach der Expositio verfaßt: Selge, L’origine, 124): „... Et si dicit aliquis du os illos
prophetas, qui scripti su n t in hoc libro, esse Enoch et Helyas, o p in an do q u id e m dicere po tes t ex
aliquibus conjecturis, que extra sunt, no n intelligendo et asserendo; quam vis q u id significent ipsi
duo, non per op in io n em d ubiam , sed p er certain intelligentiam diei queat, quia aliud est assimi
late illud illi, aliud est dicere qu id sit illud ve! illud.“
711 Vgl. Sclgc, L’origine, 124-126.
__
116
christs ke ine Z w i s c h e n z e i t auf E r d e n v o r d e m l e t z te n G e r i c h t g e b e n w e r d e 71. Er e r
klärt, daß er n i c h t die M e i n u n g d e r vielen ü b e r g e h e n wolle, d ie n i c h t be reit seien, an
die F e ss elu n g des Satans zu g l a u b e n 72. Schließlich d i s ta n z ie rt er sich v o n d e r Position
des A u g u s tin u s, die er zu d e m R a n g e in e r „rationalis o p i n io q u e n o n est c o n tr a fi d e m “
z u r ü c k s tu f t73. I n d e m e r sich ü b e r die I n t e r p r e ta t io n e n u n d M e i n u n g e n stellt, g e h t J o a
c h im sc hließlich daran, g e n a u z u e rklä ren, was ih n v o n d e r K ritik de s A u g u s t i n u s an
d e n M ille nariste n tr e n n t, „ q u o r u m o p i n io n i in p a r te c o n s e n ti r e videtur, in p a r te resistere, n i m i r u m quia et pars o p in io n i s vera fuit et pars vacu a et inanis. Q u o d e n itn t e m p u s iliud q u o d f u t u r u m e s t p o s t p r e l i u m s u p r a s c r i p t u m in s e p t i m a m e t a t e m e t in sabb a tu m r e p u ta tu m d ix e ru n t, vera fuit iilo ru m o p in io , i m m o n o n tarn o p in io , q u a m
s e renissim u s intellectus. Q u o d a u t e m e i d e m s e p t i m e etati s e p t i m u m m i l l e n a r i u m d e d e r u n t, falsum o m n i m o d i s esse co n stat, e t a p u d G r e c o s et a p u d L atin o s.“74 D ie K o r
r e k tu r e n u n d P rä z isie run gen , die J o a c h i m in d e r Folge b e z ü g lic h d e r D a u e r d e r „se ptim a etas“ vorsc h lägt75, k ö n n e n diese G e w iß h e it, d ie d e u tl i c h als „ se re n issim u s in te l
lectus“ g e k e n n z e i c h n e t wird, n i c h t e n t w e r t e n : I m G e g e n s a t z zu A u g u s t i n u s ist fü r ihn
g a n z klar, daß es n a ch d e r A n k u n f t des A n t i c h r i s t s e in e Z e i t d e s S abb ats auf E r d e n g e
b e n werde.
71 Vgl. Expositio, séptim a pars, 21 Ora, wo von d er M e in u n g Au g u stin s u n d d e r des Re migius b e
richtet wird: „Beatus quo qu e Remigius in certu m esse do cens spatiu m tem po ris q u o d erit post casum antichristi, destruens et ipse o p in io n e m iilorum qui p u ta n t c u m casu ipsius antichrist! trans
ire tém pora secularia, et o m n i n o instare c o n s u m a tio n e m seculi, igno rantes q u o d dies novissimus
seu finis m u n d i n on sit s e m p e r accipiendus p ro u ltim o articulo finis m u n d i, sed magis p r o t e m
pore finis (hoc est) pro ultima etate m u n d i “. Rem ig iu s’ Position wird weiter u n t e n wied er aufge
griffen, Expositio 2 1 0 vab: „Sed quis seit q u a m breve esse poter it sabbatum ipsum ? Si autem
breve erit ternpus ipsius sabbati e t re vera antichristus ¡am er it presens q u a n d o s u p e ra b u n t u r b e
stia et pse udopropheta, quid obstat opinari e l i m in a n d u m esse ipsum ad h o ram a con sp ectu electorum, ut quia n on poterit vincere in p r im o et s e cun do bello sexti temporis, conferat se ad hu c ad
sythicas nationes...? (...) Et se cu n d u m hoc vera esse potes t opinio eo ru m qui d ic u n t remanere
tem p u s post casum antichristi...“. Z u r Identifikation Remigius’ m it H aim o von Auxerre vgl. Lerner, Jo a chim (wie Anm . 22), 505.
11 Expositio, 21 Ova: „N unc autem audito q u o d alligandus sit Sathanas et iterum solvendus, eo
hebetatur m u lto rum sensus, q uo longe h oc esse videtur ab o pin io ne m u lto ru m . V er u m hoc magis
urgeret si n u m erus mille a n n o r u m no n per recapitulationem ad to tu m te m p u s ecclesie esse referendus. Q ua n im iru m opinione e m edio sublata, eo ru m dico qui p utant istos mille an no s referendos ad sabbatum, et non potius s e c u n d u m significatum ad to tum tem p u s ecclesie...“ .
73 Expositio, 21 Ova, eine Äußerung, auf die bereits G ru n d m a n n , Stu dien ü b er Jo a c h i m von Fiore
(Stuttgart 21966) 98, die A ufm erk sam k eit g elenk t hat.
74 Expositio, 211 ra.
71 Expositio, 2 I l r b : „Liquei q u o d etas sé ptim a in q u a m a g n u m M ud sabbatum fu tu ru m est, et
secun d um partem incepit ab illo sabb ato q u o requievit d o m i n u s in sepulchro, et s e c u n d u m plenitudinem sui a ruina bestie et pse u do pro p hete. Quocirca etsi ab illo tem po ris articulo id qu od
scriptum est de incarceratione S athane perfecte o porteat c o n s u m a n , n ih ilom in us tarnen inchoatio mille annorum a resurrectione d o m ini initiata es t...“.
117
VII.
K e h r e n w ir jetzt zu d e r A nfa ng sfra ge v o n Miss Sm a lle y z u rü c k , ob J o a c h i m n i c h t s w e
n ig e r als ein „ E in d r in g lin g im H a u s e d e r E x eg e se “ sei. D ie P r ü f u n g s e i n e r S c hriften
b e stätig t vo r allem , d a ß er sich se lbst stets u n d in erster L in ie als ein S c h r i f ti n t e r p r e t
be tr a c h te te . D ie H e r a u s a r b e i tu n g d e s trad itio n e lle n V o r g e h e n s d e r c o n c o rd ia , die R e
o r g a nisation d e r vier S c h r if ts in n e u m d e n in te lle ctus ty pic u s h e r u m , die N e u d e u t u n g
d e r A p o k a l y p s e im S i n n e d e r p l e n i t u d o sin d ein ige d e r w ic h tig ste n F r ü c h t e s e in e r A r
beit als E x e g e t 76. D ie E n ts c h l ü s s e l u n g d e r G e s c h i c h t e u n d d e r Z u k u n f t k a n n n u r i n
n e r h a lb d e r Schrift u n d d u r c h sie selbst erfolgen. In d i e s e m S in n e g e s t e h t J o a c h i m
k e in e r F o r m v o n P r o p h e t i s m u s e in e n W e r t zu. D ie se H a ltu n g , die bereits in d e r D i
sta nz zu d e r S a m is c h e n Sibylle e r k e n n b a r ist, fixiert sich in d e n 9 0 e r J a h r e n in d e r a u s
d r ü c k li c h e n A b l e h n u n g des lite rarisc h en G e n r e s d e r „ u n g e w is se n P r o p h e z e i u n g e n “ .
D e r A n s p r u c h , die E n d z e it e n auf d e r Basis d u n k l e r a p o k r y p h e r V o r h e r s a g e n zu b e
r e c h n e n , ist illusorisch, d e r P r o p h e t i s m u s e r d r ü c k t die e ig e n tlic h e t h e o lo g is c h e F o r
s c h u n g d e s „ s p e c u la to r“ d e r Schrift. I ronie d e r G e s c h i c h t e : D e r N a m e J o a c h i m s sollte
ü b e r die J a h r h u n d e r t e h i n w e g g e r a d e d e s h a lb b e k a n n t w e r d e n , weil m a n ih m O ra k el
u n d P r o p h e t i e n d ies er A r t z u s c h re i b e n w e r d e n wird.
A u f d e r a n d e r e n Seite b le ib t das Bild J o a c h i m s g e p r ä g t v o n p r o p h e t i s c h e r D ic h te .
Das k o m m t vo r a lle m d u r c h se in e I n te r e s s e n als Bibelexeget. P ra k tis ch w ä h r e n d d e r
g e s a m t e n Z eit, in d e r er als Literat b e le g t ist, hat d e r kala bresische A b t n ie m a ls a u fg e
hört, sich m it d e r A p o k a l y p s e z u b e sc h äftig e n , d e r er e in e n g r ö ß e re n K o m m e n t a r ,
dessen F e rtig s te llu n g ca. 15 J a h r e erfo rd e rte, u n d e ine Serie vo n k le i n e re n A r b e i te n
w id m ete. Es g ib t k e in B uc h d e r Bibel, d e m er sich m it g r ö ß e r e r I n te n s itä t u n d K o n t i
nu itä t w id m e te . W ie er n i c h t m ü d e wird zu w i e d e rh o le n , stellt sie d e n p r o p h e t i s c h e n
T ex t pa r e x ce lle n ce dar, da sie die g e s a m t e W e l t g e s c h i c h t e im v oraus b e sc h re ib t. Sie
vereint in sich alle a n d e r e n G e s c h i c h t e n u n d P r o p h e t i e n 77.
Gewiß, dieses langjährige I n tere sse für e in e n p r o p h e t i s c h e n T e x t g e n ü g t für sich al
lein nicht, u m das E r s c h e i n u n g s b i l d seines I n t e r p r e te n als p r o p h e t i s c h zu k e n n z e i c h
nen. T a tsa c h e ist aber, d a ß J o a c h i m sich n i c h t als ein b e lie b ig e r D e u t e r d e r A p o k a
lypse p rä sen tiert. K e h r e n wir für e in e n M o m e n t zu d e m O s te r e rl e b n is z u r ü c k , so wie
76 Z u den H a u p t p u n k t e n von Jo a ch im s exegetischer M etho d e und seiner U m w e r tu n g der m i t
telalterlichen D o ktrin von den vier Schriftsinnen vgl. M cG inn, T h e Calabrian A bb ot, p. II, c. IV;
M arione Reeves, T h e A b b o t J o a c h i m ’s Sense of History, in: 1274, A n n é e charnière. M utations et
continuités (Paris 1977) 7 8 1 - 7 9 6 .
77 Einführung, 103: „Gesta vero tiovi testa menti adhuc futura erant, quando Chr istus venit in
m u n d u m , et quia historice n e c d u m scribi poterant, in libro apocalipsis verbis su nt propheticis coartata.“ Vgl. auch 105, wo die Apokalypse als „generalis prophetia“ definiert wird. Enchiridion,
hrsg. von Burger, 12-13: „ N o n enim haec prophetia qu alisc um qu e est, sed o m n i u m aliarum, si
sane sapimus, prophetia, utp ote quae o m n e s p aene alias c o m p r e h e n d i t in u n u m et, q u o d eo majus est, c o m p r e h e n d i t at aperit. Aliae n a m q u e prophetiae aut pauca aut obscura protulerant specialium p o p u loru m bella in typo futu ro ru m tangentes, haec generaliter occulta reserat, patefacit
archana, solvit signacula, tenebrosa illustrât. Mirum istud, sed alterum mirabilius. Ita ecclesiastica
proelia su m m a tim et seriatim prosequitur, ita per curricula te m p o r u m or dines et bella distinguit,
ut tarnen a veteribus non discordet, o ste nd en s in ecclesia com pl er i q u a e c u m q u e in H eb raeo ru m
populo in figura praecesserant nec confuso id or dine factum esse.“
118
er es in d e r d e fin itiv e n V e rsio n des A p o k a l y p s e n k o m m e n t a r s in d e r D is ta n z v o n m i n
d e s t e n s 10 J a h r e n b e sc h re ib t. H i e r stellt er sie als e in e a u th e n t i s c h e g ö t tl i c h e O f f e n b a
r u n g dar, die i h n d e m A u t o r d e r A p o k a l y p s e ä h n li c h g e m a c h t hat: W i e J o h a n n e s sich
„in sp iritu in d o m i n i c a d ie “ (vgl. O ffb 1,10) in die g ö t tl i c h e n M y s te rie n v e r s e n k t ha b e,
so h a b e e r - J o a c h i m - in d e r O s t e r n a c h t die „ R e v e la tio “ e m p f a n g e n , die i h m die M y
ste rie n d e r Hl. S c h rift e n t h ü l l t e 78. D a ß J o a c h i m die O s t e r e r f a h r u n g u n d das d a rau s e r
w a c h s e n e t h e o lo g isc h e W e r k u n t e r das Z e i c h e n d e s V e rg leich s m i t d e m E v an gelisten
J o h a n n e s stellt, ist ein A s p e k t , d e m , m e i n e r M e i n u n g n a c h , e r h e b l ic h e B e d e u t u n g z u
k o m m t . W e r ist J o h a n n e s für ih n ? M a n liest in d e m s e l b e n A p o k a l y p s e n - K o m m e n t a r
be z ü g lic h d e r B e z u g n a h m e auf d e n E v ang e liste n in O ffb 10, 11 (Et d ix it m ih i : o p o r t e t
te ite r u m p r o p h e t a r e po p u lis e t lin guis et r e gib us m ultis): „ K o r r e k t sagt er n i c h t ,evange lisie r e n “, s o n d e r n . p r o p h e z e i e n “; weil ,eva ng elisiere n‘ a u sd r ü c k l i c h h e iß t ,die W o r t e
de s E v a n g e liu m s d e r h i s t o r is c h e n W a h r h e i t g e m ä ß z u v e r k ü n d e n ' , ,p r o p h e z e ie n ' d a g e
g e n ,die Z u k u n f t zu v e rk ü n d e n , sei es kraft e in e r d u n k l e n u n d be lie b ige n In sp ira tio n ,
sei es kraft e in e r sp iritu a le n E in s ic h t “. O b w o h l es in d e r T a t e in e S a c h e ist, die P r o p h e
z e iu n g zu h a b e n , u n d eine a n d e r e , die G e h e i m n i s s e z u k e n n e n , w u r d e es v o n d e m A u
g e n b lic k an, als u n t e r V e r m i t t l u n g b e id e r die Z u k u n f t v o ra usg esag t w u r d e , üblich , das
eine für das a n d e r e zu h a lte n .“79 In se in e r F u n k t i o n als V e r k ü n d e r d e r Z u k u n f t wird
d e r E vange list also zu R e c h t P r o p h e t g e n a n n t . I n d e m sich J o a c h i m m i t J o h a n n e s w e
g e n d e r zu O s t e r n e m p f a n g e n e n g ö t tl i c h e n G a b e n vergle ic ht, stellt J o a c h i m sein erseits
die e ige n e h e r m e n e u t i s c h e u n d e x e g e tisc h e M e t h o d e u n t e r das Z e i c h e n d e r p r o p h e t i
sc h e n V e r k ü n d i g u n g . In d i e s e m L ic hte e rk lä rt sich sein B ru c h m i t C o r a z z o u n d die
P r o p a g i e r u n g d e s n e u e n M ö n c h s o r d e n s in e i n e m s e h r h o h e n B e w u ß tse in d e r e ig e n e n
h i s to ris c h e n Rolle. A u c h als er diese P h a se ü b e r w u n d e n hat, b e h ä l t er das B e w ußtse in
d e r e ig e n e n R olle als a p o k a l y p t is c h e r W a c h p o s t e n bei, d e r d a z u b e r u fe n ist, die M y
ste rie n des „ n o v is sim u s dies“ zu s e h e n u n d zu v e r k ü n d e n .
H i e r e r k e n n t m a n sch ließ lich die i m m a n e n t e S p a n n u n g u n d das u n a u fg elö ste
S e lb s tb e w u ß ts e in J o a c h i m s ; er fühlt, d a ß e r ein g ö ttlic h e s C h a r is m a besitzt, a b e r er
weiß, daß er sich n i c h t P r o p h e t n e n n e n k a n n , da d ie Z e i t d e r P r o p h e t e n ab g es ch lo ss en
ist. D a z u g i b t es e in e n b e r ü h m t e n Passus im v ie r te n Teil d e s A p o k a l y p s e n k o m m e n
tars, d e s s e n L e k tü r e es u n s erla ub t, die A m b i g u i t ä t fe stz u h a lte n , d e r sich J o a c h i m im
G r u n d e se lbst n i c h t g a n z e n t z i e h e n k a n n 80: „ M e h rm a ls e r in n e re ich d aran, das gesagt
zu h a b e n u n d a u c h an g e e i g n e t e r Stelle m u ß ich da sse lbe w i e d e rh o le n . Ich will nich t
s c h e in e n , was ich n i c h t b in , i n d e m ich etw as aus A n m a ß u n g fingiere. Ic h will nicht,
78 Vgl. den oben zitierten Abschnitt, A n m . 22. Z u r Selbstidentifizierung m it Jo ha n nes, wie sie
Jo a c h im vornahm , vgl. Lernet-, Jo a c h im (wie A n m . 22), 4 9 7 - 4 9 8 ; Robert E. Lerner, Ecstatic Dissent, in: S p ecu lu m 67 (1992) bes. 41,
79 „Et recte n o n ait: o po rtet te iteru m evangelizare, sed prophetare, quia evangelizare proprie
dictu m est predicare verba evangelii s e c u n d u m hystorie veritatcm, p ro p h etare vero annunciare
futura seu per o ccu ltam inspirationem gratie seu per intelligentiam spiritualem. Q uam vis enim
aliud sit habere p rop hetiam , aliud nosce mysteria, quia t u m per u tr u m q u e p red icu n tu r futura, recipi aliud pro alio in divina pagina consuevit.“ Expositio, tertia pars, 142va.
80 Z u r D atieru ng des Passus halte m a n sich vor A u g en (vgl. Selge, L’origine, 125, Anm.), daß der
vierte Teil d er Expositio auf die C o ncord ia als bereits abgeschlossen Bezug n i m m t ; er ist daher
nicht vor 1196 verfaßt worden.
„ In te llig e n tia S c r i p t u r a r u m “
119
d a ß j e m a n d g laubt, v o n m i r etw as fo r d e r n zu m ü s s e n , d e r ich seit m e i n e r J u g e n d ein
B a uer bin (vgl. Sach 13,5). D ie s ist n ä m l i c h e in V e rlan g e n , das n i c h t e in m a l v o n d e n
P r o p h e t e n vor ih r e r Z e i t a n g e f o r d e r t w e r d e n k a n n , da a u c h sie teils v o ra u s s a h e n u n d
teils p r o p h e z e i t e n ; u n d a u c h wir se h e n a u ch n u r z u m Teil, u n d a u c h dies n u r in rä tsel
h a fte r F o rm , wie in e in e m Spiegel, o b w o h l d e rselb e Teil d e r Vision n o tw e n d ig e r w e is e
im Laufe d e r Z e i t g e w a c h s e n ist. E in a n d e r e s ist es, viel zu se h e n , w i e d e r ein and ere s,
alles. Das e in e ist es, die S t a d t in d e r E n t f e r n u n g z u s e h e n , w e n n m a n sich ihr n ä h e rt,
etw as a n d e r e s ist es, sie bei d e r A n k u n f t an ih re n T o r e n zu se h e n , w ie d e r etw as a n d e
res, w e n n m a n sie betritt. W ir, also, die wir a n d e n T o r e n s te h e n , k ö n n e n viele D i n g e
sagen, die e in m a l z u m Teil o d e r völlig v e r b o rg e n blie b e n ; a b e r n i c h t wie diese, die d a
rin sein u n d d ire k t m it i h r e n A u g e n s e h e n w e rd e n , w e n n sich das e rfüllen w ird, was in
d ie s e m K a p ite l g e s c h r i e b e n ist.“81 In d ies er Passage e in e n H i n w e i s auf e ine m u t m a ß
lich b ä u erlic h e H e r k u n f t J o a c h i m s zu s e h e n , wie dies in d e r V e r g a n g e n h e i t g e l e g e n t
lich g e sc h ah , ist völlig abwegig. H i e r m a c h t er sich die W o r t e d e s P r o p h e t e n Z ac h aria s
(Sach 13, 5) zu eig en, d e r das V e rsc h w a n d e n d e r P r o p h e t e n a m V o r a b e n d d e r letzten
P r ü fu n g a n k ü n d ig t . J o a c h i m b e d i e n t sich d e r W o r t e e in e s P r o p h e t e n , u m d a r a n zu e r
in n e r n , d a ß e r k e in P r o p h e t sei. U n d g leic h ze itig e rk lä rt er, m e h r als die a lte n P r o p h e
ten zu se h e n , da die G e s c h i c h t e w e i te rg e g a n g e n ist, u n d m i t ihr die E rk e n n t n i s , d e re n
G ipfel n o c h n i c h t e rre i c h t ist.
81 Expositio, quarta pars, 175rb: „Sepius m e dixisse recolo et ad h u c in suis locis repeter e idipsum
compellor: Nolo videri q u o d n o n sum , fingcns aliquid ex p resu m p tio n e mea. Nolo ex tim et aliquis ex ig en du m a me, qui su m h o m o agrícola a iuventute mea, q uo d ab ipsis q u o q u e prophetis
exigi ante sua tém pora n o n licebat, quia et ipsi ex parte videbant et ex parte p rop hetab an t, et nos
adhuc ex parte vi dem us et hoc ipsum per sp e cu lu m in enigmate, etsi qu ideni ipsam pa rtem visionis pro tem po re grandesc ere oportuerit. Aliud est en im videre multa, aliud omnia. Al iter videtur
civitas, cum adhuc per die tam iongius distat, aliter cum v e n itu r ad ianuam , aliter c u m per gitur
mtus. Nos igitur qui ad ianuam sunuis, m ulta q u id em loqui po ss um us, q ue aliquando ex toto vel
ex parte latebant, sed non sicut hi qui e r u n t intus et oculo ad o cu lu m videbunt, c u m ea que
scripta su nt in hoc capitulo in cipien t co nsum ari.“
III. Das 13. Jahrhundert
Gilbert Dahan
L’utilisation de l’exégèse juive dans la lecture
des livres prophétiques au XIIIe siècle
P a rm i les a p p o rts m a je u rs de Beryl Sm a lle y à l’é tu d e d e l’e xégèse m é d ié v a le d e la Bible
o n p e u t a s s u r é m e n t c o m p t e r la m ise en va le ur des i n te r p r é t a ti o n s juives citées pa r les
c o m m e n t a t e u r s c h r é tie n s. Beryl Sm a lle y a n o n s e u l e m e n t révélé le rôle décisif à cet
égard des v icto rins e t d e l’«école b ib liq u e -m o ra le » m ais elle a é g a l e m e n t m o n t r é la p e r
sistance d e c ette p ra ti q u e au X I I I e e t au X I V e siè cle', à u n m o m e n t d o n c o ù la situatio n
des juifs e n O c c i d e n t s’é tait c o n s i d é r a b l e m e n t d é g rad é e, r e n d a n t p lus difficiles les r e la
tions e n tr e c h ré t ie n s e t juifs. M ’a v a n ç a n t sur la piste q u e Beryl Sm a lle y avait ainsi m a
g n i f i q u e m e n t ou v e rte , j’ai t e n té , p o u r m a part, d ’évaluer l’a p p o r t d e l’e xégèse juive à la
lecture c h r é t ie n n e d e la Bible e t esquissé u n e typ olo gie d e ses utilisations. Surpris pa r
la f r é q u e n c e des H e b r a e l d i c u n t (ou des l u d a e i j a b i d a n h t r . . .), j’ai re c h e r c h é , d a n s la
lignée des travaux de l’a u t e u r d e T h e S tu d y o f th e B ib le in th e M i d d le A ges, u n e e x p lic a
tion h isto r iq u e (d’histoire littéraire, aussi), d a n s la p e rsista n c e des re la tions e n tr e sa
vants des d e u x b o r d s m a lg r é la c o n jo n c t u r e d e plus e n plu s m auv a ise, d a n s le rôle des
convertis o u da n s l’utilisation c o n t i n u e (voire d e plus e n plus large) de textes latins i n
term édiaires, c o m m e les c o m m e n t a i r e s d ’A n d r é d e S a in t- V ic to r o u c e u x d e H u g u e s de
S a in t-C h e r (trib utaire l u i - m ê m e d ’A n d r é ) 2.
' T he Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford ’ 1983) fournit év i d e m m e n t de nom b reu ses
données; mais bien d ’autres études de B. Smalley, attentives à l’utilisation d ’interpré tations juives,
contiennent des ren seig nem en ts précieux à ce sujet; outre ses travaux sur A n d ré de St-Victor et
son influence et les étu des qui sero nt citées par la suite, on m e n t i o n n e r a par exem p le Ralph of
Flaix on Leviticus, in: RT AM 35 (1969) 7 8 - 9 9 ; William of Auvergne, J o h n of La Rochelle an d St
Thom as Aquinas on the O ld Law, in: St T h o m a s Aquinas 12 7 4 -1 9 7 4 (Tor on to 1974) 10-71.
2 Gilbert D a h a n , Exégèse et po lém iq u e dans les co m m en taires de la Genèse d ’É tienn e Langton,
in: Gilbert D a h a n (éd.), Les Juifs au regard de l’histoire. Mélanges en l’h o n n e u r de B. Blumenkranz (Paris 1985) 12 9-14 0; Les interprétations juives dans les c o m m en taires du P en tateu q u e de
Pierre le Cha ntre, in: D. Wood, K. W alsh (édd.), T h e Bible in the Medieval World. Essays in M e
mory of B. Smalley (Oxford 1985) 13 1-1 5 5; Les interprétations juives dans les co m m en taires bi
bliques des maîtres parisiens d u dern ier tiers du XIIe s, (sous presse); La connaissance de l’exégèse
juive par les chrétiens, du XIIe au XIVe s., iti: La culture juive en France d u no rd au m o yen âge
(sous presse).
122
G ilbert D a h an
C e p e n d a n t , u n e é tu d e p lus a tte n tiv e des m é c a n i s m e s m ê m e s de l’exégèse c h r é
tie n n e , et p lus p a r ti c u l i è r e m e n t d e s p r o b l è m e s d ’analyse d u langage b ib liq u e (dans le
p r o l o n g e m e n t , c e tte fois, des travaux d e H e n n i g B r i n k m a n n 3 et d ’A lastair M i n n i s 4),
m ’a incité à r e p o s e r la q u e s t io n d e l’u tilisation de l’e xégèse juive à la lu m i è r e d e ces a p
p r o c h e s plus ré ce n te s. E n gu ise d e p r é a m b u l e m é t h o d o l o g i q u e à cet expo sé , je f o r m u
lerai d o n c p lu sieu rs in te r ro g a tio n s globales q ui d é c o u l e n t de cet e x a m e n . Puis, après
u n e analyse ty p o lo g i q u e plus c o n v e n t i o n n e l le des in te r p r é t a ti o n s juives, je tâcherai,
n o n de r é p o n d r e aux q u e s t io n s in it i a l e m e n t p o sé e s - ce qu i s e m b le r a it p r é m a tu r é
da n s l’é ta t actuel d e n o s réflexions - m ais p l u tô t d ’i n d i q u e r q u e lq u e s pistes possibles,
q u i p r o l o n g e r o n t ainsi les voies a d m i r a b l e m e n t tracées p a r Béryl Smalley.
1. Q u elqu es considérations générales
1.1. Plusieurs q u e s t io n s p r é lim in a ir e s d o i v e n t être e n effet posé e s: m ê m e s’il s’agit
d ’u n e p ra ti q u e c o u r a n t e et a n c i e n n e d a n s l’e x ég èse c h r é t ie n n e , l’utilisation d e s i n te r
p r é ta tio n s juives p a raît d e soi faire p r o b l è m e ; il s e m b le e n effet q u e l’o n ait affaire e n
q u e l q u e so rte à u n «chassé-croisé idéologique» bien p lus q u ’à u n e su c c ess io n de r e
c ou rs p o n c tu e ls. U n b ref r a p p el h is t o r iq u e t e n te ra d ’éclairer c ette p r o b l é m a t i q u e . E x é
gèse juive et e x ég èse c h r é t ie n n e n a is se n t da n s u n m ê m e m ilieu, d a n s u n m ê m e c o n
tex te c u ltu rel et u tilise n t les m ê m e s m o y e n s : l’e x ég èse h e ll é n is ti q u e pa raît être le
c r e u se t où se f o r m e n t l’u n e et l’autre. Il s e m b le q u e l’o n puisse, au prix d ’u n e r é d u c
tio n grossière, r a m e n e r à d e u x les c ara cté ristiqu es essentielles de c e tte e x ég èse h e llé
n istiq u e :
- la pluralité d e s niv ea u x d e lec ture , q ui se n o u r r i t d ’u n e ré fl exion su r e t d ’u n e p r a ti
q u e d e l’a llé go rie 5;
— l’idée q u e le te x te (p o é ti q u e o u sacré) est m y th iq u e , c ’est-à-d ire utilise le m y t h e
c o m m e m o y e n d ’e x p r i m e r des réalités m é t a p h y s i q u e s o u m o r a le s à travers d e s récits
d o n n é s à i n t e r p r é t e r 6.
La sé p a ra tio n e n t r e e xégèse c h r é t i e n n e e t e x ég èse juive se fera à p a rtir de la p r é d o
m i n a n c e de c h a c u n de ces d e u x é lé m e n t s da n s l’u n e et d a n s l’a u tre : l’e xégèse c h r é
tie n n e p r e n d ses d istan c es avec le m y t h e ; d é valorisant n o n s e u l e m e n t l’exégèse des
pa ïe n s m ais s u r t o u t l’a p p r o c h e m y t h i q u e d e s textes sacrés, elle c ho isit l’allégorie (c’est
3 H ennig B rin k m a n n , Mittelalterliche H e r m e n e u tik (Tübingen 1980).
4 A la s la ir J , M in n is, Médiéval T h eo ry of A uthorship. Scholastic A ttitudes in the Later Middle
Ages (London 1984).
5 Voir les travaux de Jea n Pépin, n o t a m m e n t M ythe et allégorie. Les origines grecques et les c o n
testations jud éo -ch rétienn es (Paris -1 9 7 6 ).
6 E n plus de l’ouvrage de J. Pépin, on se référera ici à l’ap p o rt de l’école de Je an-P ierre Vernant;
voir, par exem ple, Jean-Pierre Vernant, M ythe et société en Grèce an cien ne (Paris 1 9 7 4 ); L’indi
vidu, l’am our, la mort. S o i-m êm e et l’au tre en Grèce a n cien n e (Paris 1 9 8 9 ); M arcel Détienne, Les
Ja rdin s d ’Adonis. La m ythologie des arom ates en Grèce (Paris - 1 9 8 9 ); Dio nyso s à ciel ouvert (Pa
ris 1 9 8 6)', Jea n -L o u is D u ra n d , Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne. Essai d ’an thropologie reli
gieuse (Paris, R o m e 1 9 8 6 ). 11 est bien e n t e n d u q u e dans ces travaux et dans la pr ésente étude
m ythe est pris au sens où l’e n t e n d e n t les an th ropologues dans la lignée de Clau de Lévi-Strauss.
L’u til is a ti o n d e l’e x é g è s e juive
123
déjà le cas c h e z saint P a u l7), prise aussi bien c o m m e f ig u r e à i n t e r p r é t e r q u e c o m m e
d é c r o c h e m e n t g é n é r a t e u r d e s se ns spirituels (c’est dire q u e p a r a llé g o rie n o u s n ’e n t e n
d o n s ici ni la figure d e style catalo g u é e pa r les traités de r h é t o r i q u e ni le s e c o n d des
q u a tr e se ns de la liste d e v e n u e c a n o n i q u e au X I I I e siècle8).
L ’e x ég èse juive q u a n t à elle o p t e p o u r l’a p p r o c h e m y t h i q u e - le ju d a ï s m e h e llé n is ti
q u e m e u r t , u n e p e n sé e juive (nouvelle ?) naît, qui utilise avec aisance d e s catégories
plus sp é c ifiq u es à u n u n iv e rs m e n t a l q u ’o n qualifiera, sans d o u t e tro p r a p id e m e n t ,
¿ ’«oriental»: l’exégèse sp é c if iq u e d u m id r a s h n e s e m b le ê tre rien d ’a u tr e q u ’u n e lec tu re
m y t h i q u e d e l’É criture , m y t h i q u e à d o u b l e
titre, p u i s q u ’elle d é c r y p t e
l’E critu re
c o m m e e n s e m b l e de m y t h e s e t q u ’elle utilise e l l e -m ê m e le m y t h e c o m m e p r o c é d é
d ’exp ress io n - je v eux p a rle r ici d e s agculot, q u e l’o n p o u r ra d é fin ir c o m m e de s « m icro
m yth es», d o n t l’e fflore sc enc e tâ c h e d e lire le texte sacré: c e tte oscillation e n tr e m y th e à
lire et m y th e -le c te u r i m p l i q u e u n i n v e s ti s s e m e n t h e r m é n e u t i q u e p articulier, q u i c o n
fronte l’e x égè te à u n e p e r p é t u e l l e c o m b i n a is o n e n tr e signifiant et signifié, d o n t la li
m ite n e pa raît jam ais b ien fixée9.
J e vous d e m a n d e p a r d o n p o u r la l o n g u e u r de ces c o n s id é r a tio n s g é n éra le s: elles e x
p liq u e n t, se m ble-t-il, c o m m e n t , à pa rtir des m ê m e s m o y e n s et d e p r o c é d u r e s i d e n t i
ques, se d é v e l o p p e n t d e u x e x ég è se s différe n te s; elles s o u l i g n e n t ainsi l’é tr a n g e t é q ue,
en d e h o r s d e t o u te c o n s i d é r a ti o n id éo lo g iq u e, p e u t avoir l’utilisation d ’i n te r p r é t a ti o n s
juives p a r les c h ré t ie n s d u X l l e et d u X I I I e siècle. Plus p a r ti c u l i è r e m e n t , elles p e u v e n t
éclairer l’u n e d e s acc u sa tio n s f o r m u lé e s à [’e n c o n t r e d e l’e x ég èse juive: I iu la e i f a b u l a n tur. O r le t e r m e d e f a b u l a recou vre , c o m m e le m o n t r e n t n o t a m m e n t les travaux de
P e ter D r o n k e , la c atég orie d u m y t h e 10: plus q u ’u n e s im p le raillerie d e v a n t les délires
ou les rêveries des juifs, l’a c c u sa tio n de J a b u l a r i cristallise le refus d ’u n e h e r m é n e u t i
q u e évacuée (c’est d u m o i n s ce q u i est déclaré) p a r l’e xégèse c h r é t ie n n e .
7 Cf. Gai. 4, 21 -31.
8 La vieille définition de saint Augustin, «Quid est allegoria nisi tropus ubi ex alio aliud intelligitur- (De Trin. XV, 9, 15), ne suffit plus. Hug ues de St-Victor prop ose de d isting uer la sim ple fi
gure de style (allegoria sim plex) de l’allégorie c o m m e sens spirituel: «Dicitur allegoria quasi alieniloquium, quia aliud dicitur et aliud significatur [ce qui est encore la définition classique d ’un
trope; cf. Isidore, Etym. I, 37, 22], quae subd ividitur in sim plicem allegoriam et anagogen. Et est
simplex allegoria, c u m per visibile factum aliud visibile [M igne invisibile] factum significatur.
Anagoge, id est sursutn ductio, c u m per visibile invisibile factum declaratur» (De Scripturis et
scriptoribus sacris, 3 in: PL 175, 12). Voir aussi, par exem ple, Pierre de Poitiers, Allegoriae super
labernaculum Moysi. Ed. Ph, S. Aloore. J. A. Corbett (Notre D a m e 1938) 100 -1 01 , ainsi que les
considérations de A larie-D o m in iqtte Chenu, La théologie au d ou zièm e siècle (Paris 21966) 191.
’’ Les définitions q ue nous prop oson s du m idrash (app roche m y t h i q u e de PÉcriture) et de la
agada («micro-mythe») so n t nôtres. Il existe trop peu de travaux sur l’h e r m é n e u t i q u e d u midrash',
pour un p rem ier aperçu, voir E liane Ketterer, Aiichel Rem and, Le Midrash (Cahiers Evangile,
suppl. CE 82, Paris 1992); plusieurs élém en ts intéressants (niais les perspectives so nt différentes
de la nôtre) dans le recueil récent: Aliehael Fishbane (éd.), T he Midrashic Imagination. Jewish
Exegesis, T h o u g h t an d History (Albany 1993), et D a v id B anon, La lecture infinie (Paris 1987).
Peter Dronke, Fabula. E xplorations into th e Uses of Myth in Medieval Platonism (Leyde 1974).
Voir aussi Pau le Dem ats, Fabula. Trois études de m yth og rap h ie an tiqu e et médiévale (Genève
1973) 5-60.
124
G ilbert D aban
C e p e n d a n t, au X IIe siècle les juifs d ’O c c i d e n t o n t a d o p té les c atégories d e la p e n sé e
occidentale, d ans laquelle dès la fin d u X I e siècle le logos p r e n d le pas su r le m u th o s
( rappe lo ns-n ous saint A n s e l m e e t A bélard): ils ne p o s s è d e n t plus les clés leu r p e r m e t
tant de c o m p r e n d r e l’exégèse m y t h i q u e d u m id r a s h ; d ’où, avec Rashi et ses su c c e s
seurs, le d é v e l o p p e m e n t de l’exégèse d u p e s b a t qui, à so n tour, a ura des r é p e r c u ssio n s
sur l’exégèse c h r é t i e n n e 11. D e v a n t le r e p ro c h e d e «fabulation», les juifs r e s t e r o n t
m uets, ou s’e ffo rceron t de justifier le m id r a s h c o m m e s’il s’agissait d u p eshat.
1.2.
U n e s e c o n d e série de ré flexions n o u s m è n e s u r u n terain m o i n s a cc id e n té, parce
q u e déblayé pa r les travaux de Béryl Smalley; m ais se p o s e n t e n c o r e des q u e s t io n s de
fond. Le re cours aux in te r p ré ta tio n s juives s’intensifie au X I I e siècle; cela est d é so rm ais
bien c o nnu . O n se rappelle q u e la (re)découverte de l’e x ég è se juive su it le re n o u v e l le
m e n t radical de celle-ci, au q u el on vien t de faire allusion (le passage d u m id r a s h au p e
shat). Bien s o u v e n t a été d o n n é e l’e x plication suivante: v o y a n t e n les juifs d ’u n e part
des conn aisseu rs de la lan gue de l ’A n c i e n T e s ta m e n t , d ’a u tre p a r t les dé p o sita ires de
traditio ns historiques, les c h r é tie n s leur d e m a n d e n t l’ex p lic itatio n d e détails lin guisti
ques, h istorique s o u a r c h é o lo g i q u e s 12. C e tte e x p lic ation est t o u t à fait plausib le e t n o u s
a u ro n s l’occasion de f ou rnir des e x e m p le s qui la justifient. Mais la s i m p le lec tu re des
c o m m e n ta ir e s d u X I Ie siècle m o n t r e q u ’en fait (si l’o n e x c lu t les e x p lic a tio n s lin gu isti
ques) la m ajorité des in te r p r é ta tio n s juives ressortissent d e la a g a d a e t n o n d u se n s lit
téral, q u ’elles s o ie n t rejetées ( I u d a e i f a b u l a n l m ) ou a c c e p té e s ( H e b r a e i d i a i n t ) xi. P a r
lera-t-on d ’u n e r é su rg en c e in c o n s c i e n t e d e la c atég orie d u m u th o s d a n s l’e x ég è se c h r é
t ie n n e ? C e tte h y p o t h è s e s’a cc ord erait bien en to us cas avec d ’a u tre s aspe cts de la
p e nsé e d u X I I e siècle, n o t a m m e n t avec l’effort d ’i n te r p r é t a ti o n d e s tex te s profanes
c h ez les a u te u rs qualifiés d e c hartrains - d o n t o n sait q u ’ils r e d o n n e n t u n e va le ur p o si
tive à des t e rm e s tels q u ’ in te g u m e n tu m o u f a b u l a . 14 C ’est e n c o r e u n e ex p lic atio n p o s
sible. O n do it e n tous cas c o n sta te r la persistance d u re c o u r s a ux i n te r p r é t a ti o n s juives
au X I I I e siècle, après l’e n tré e d e l’aristo télism e et l’a b a n d o n d e s tr a d itio n s p l a t o n i c i e n
n e s des chartrains. O r ce m ê m e X I I I e siècle est celui d ’u n e i n te r r o g a t i o n s u r le langage
de rÉ c r i tu r e : elle b u t e d ’ab o rd c o n tre ses aspects m y th i q u e s , p a r fa i te m e n t analysés du
reste (le p s e u d o - D e n y s - u n oriental - est a pp elé à la r e s c o u s s e 15), puis ré s o u t la diffi
11 Les travaux d'E lazar Touitou m o n tre n t bien que l’exégèse juive du XIIe s. s’inscrit dans le
m o u v e m e n t intellectuel co ntem porain: voir n o tam m en t: La Renaissance du 12e s. et l’exégèse bi
blique de Rashbam, in: Archives juives 20 (1984) 3 - 1 2 ; Q u elq u es aspects de l’exégèse biblique
juive en France médiévale, in: Archives juives 21 (1985) 3 5 - 3 9 ; Rashi’s Com m entary on Genesis
1-6 in the C o ntext of Judeo-C hristia n Controversy, in: H ebrew U n io n College A n n u al 61 (1990)
159-183.
12 Cf. par exem ple A ryeh Grabats, T h e Hebraica veritas an d jew ish -C h ristian Relations in the
12th century, in: Sp écu lum 50 (1975) 6 1 3-63 4, et les affirmations très nuancées de Béryl Smalley,
L’exégèse biblique du 12e siècle, in: M aurice de Gandillac, E d o u a r d J e a u m a u (édd.), Entretiens
sur la Renaissance du 12e s. (Paris, La Haye 1968) 273-283.
u Voir certaines des interprétations relevées dans nos études sur Pierre le C h an tr e et Etienne
L angton (citées n. 2).
11 Voir n o t a m m e n t M arie-D om inique Chenu, involucrum, le m y th e selon les théologiens m édié
vaux, in: A H D L M A 22 (1955) 7 5 - 7 9 ; E douardJeauneau, L’usage de la no tio n d ’in te g u m e n tu m à
travers les gloses de Gui llaum e de Conches, in: A H D L M A 24 (1957) 3 5 -10 0.
15 Dans les prologues des co m m entaires des Sentences et des S o m m es; voir, par exem ple, Alex-
L’utilis a tio n d e l’e x é g è s e juive
125
c u lté p a r u n e réflexio n s u r la m é t a p h o r e , laquelle a tt e in t so n p o i n t d e p e r fe c tio n avec
sa int T h o m a s d ’A q u i n 10. A lors, p lus q u e la th é o rie des q u a tr e sens, d e v e n u e la réfé
re n c e c o n s t a n t e , l’in vestiga tio n p o u s s é e s u r la n a tu r e d e l’allégorie ( c o m m e « d é cro c h e
m ent» g é n é r a n t le sens spirituel), d e la f a b u l a e t d u langage m é t a p h o r i q u e c o n s t it u e la
grille d ’u n e h e r m é n e u t i q u e nou velle, a n c ré e ainsi da n s u n e solide ré fl exion th éo riq u e.
D e la sorte, le re c o u rs a u x i n te r p r é t a ti o n s juives p e u t s’e x p li q u e r d o u b l e m e n t : 1° j o u
a n t avec le m y t h e (fût-ce i n c o n s c i e m m e n t ) , elles s t i m u l e n t la ré fle xion su r le langage;
2° elles p r o c u r e n t u n e série n o u v e lle d e d é c h i f f r e m e n t des m é t a p h o r e s . O n a jou tera
u n e tr o is iè m e ra ison - à p r e n d r e p e u t - ê t r e plu s c o m m e u n e c o n s i d é r a ti o n gé néra le
s u p p l é m e n t a i r e q u e c o m m e u n e e x p lic a tio n véritable: u n e p o sitio n p o l é m i q u e r é p a n
d u e d é n o n c e d a n s l’e x ég è se juive u n e in ca p ac ité à s’extraire d u se ns litté ra l17: m id r a s h
et p e s b a t se tr o u v e n t nivelés e n u n e to talité p e r ç u e c o m m e re le v an t u n i q u e m e n t de
l’o rd re d e la litte r a - cela aussi e x p li q u e les railleries à l’é gard d ’in te r p r é t a ti o n s m id ra sh iq u e s m is es s u r le m ê m e p lan q u e l’a p p r o c h e littérale: les c a ra cté risations c o m m e
d e lir a tn e n ta o u a b s u r d ita te s p a ra iss e n t alors légitim es. Mais, e n m ê m e t e m p s et d ’u n e
c ertaine m a n iè re , p a r ce biais l’a p p r o c h e m y t h i q u e se tro u v e e n c o r e p r é s e n t e d ans
l’exégèse c h r é t ie n n e .
1.3. La d e r n iè r e série d e réflex ion s g é n éra le s c o n c e r n e r a la c atégorie d e te x te s pris
ici en c o n s i d é ra ti o n : le c h o ix d e s livres p r o p h é t i q u e s n ’est é v i d e m m e n t pas fortuit,
p u isq u e c’est s u r t o u t à p a r tir d ’e u x q u e se d é v e lo p p e la ré flexio n s u r la n a tu r e d u la n
gage scripturaire. E n effet, à la différe n ce des textes h is to r iq u e s o u m o r a u x , les textes
p r o p h é ti q u e s se d o n n e n t i m m é d i a t e m e n t c o m m e textes à i n te r p ré te r , i m p l i q u a n t par
e u x - m ê m e s l’effort h e r m é n e u t i q u e 18. La q u e s t io n d u niveau d e se ns a été p osé e à leur
propos, p a r T h o m a s o u d ’a utre s; plus q u e leur ré p o n se, n o u s i m p o r t e ici le fait q u e de
la réflexion a u t o u r de ce p r o b l è m e se d égage u n e analyse rig o u reu s e d e s p r o c é d u r e s de
la m é t a p h o r e ; da v a n ta g e q u e p o u r d ’a u tre s types d e textes, l’e xégèse juive p o u r r a aider
au d é cry p tag e de s m é t a p h o r e s p r o p h é ti q u e s . Mais la q u e s t io n d e s se ns ne sa u rait être
évacuée; la c o n tr o v e rs e j u d é o - c h r é t i e n n e s’e n n o u r ri t: p o u r r a - t - o n dire q u e l’a c c o m
plis se m e n t e n le C h rist d e s p r o p h é ti e s m e s s i a n i q u e s re p o se su r u n e lecture g lo b a le
m e n t litté r a le ( in té g ra n t la m é t a p h o re ) , p o sitio n q u e r é c u s e n t é v i d e m m e n t les juifs,
tandis q u ’u n e lec tu re a llé g o r iq u e justifierait l’in te r p r é t a ti o n juive? U n e telle a ffirm ation
va à l’e n c o n t r e d e s idées g é n é r a l e m e n t reçues; s’a p p u y a n t s u r le té m o i g n a g e d e p lu sie
urs textes, elle n e p e u t q u e n o u s c o n v a in c r e d u caractère c o m p l e x e et d y n a m i q u e de
l’exégèse m éd ié v ale des P r o p h è te s .
Voilà a u ta n t de c o n s i d é r a ti o n s qui, je l’esp ère, é claire ro n t l’analyse d e s i n t e r p r é t a
tions juives utilisées d a n s les c o m m e n t a i r e s des livres p r o p h é ti q u e s . C o m m e a n n o n c é ,
andre de Haies, S u m m a theologica, tract, in tro d ., q. 1, c. 4, art. 1, «An m odus sacrae S cripturae sit
artificialis vel scientialis» (Q uaracchi 1 9 2 4 ) 7 - 8 .
Voir Gilbert D aban, Saint T h o m a s d ’A q u i n et la métaphore. R h é to riq u e et h er m é n e u tiq u e , in:
Medioevo 18 ( 1 9 9 2 ) 8 5 - 1 1 7 .
Voir Gilbert D a h a n , Les intellectuels chrétien s et les juifs au m o y en âge (Paris 1 9 9 0 ) 4 7 5 - 4 8 0 .
Cf. Thomas d ’A q u in , S u m m a theologica la, q. 1, a. 9.
126
G ilbert D ahan
je fournirai u n é c h a n ti l lo n n a g e à l’i n té r i e u r d ’u n e typologie, qui ira d e s cas les m o i n s
a m b ig u s a u x p lu s difficiles à caractériser. Si, e n effet, l’e x ég è se p h i l o s o p h i q u e et la
p r é se n c e de la p o l é m i q u e n e p o s e n t pas de p r o b l è m e s m aje u rs , e n re v an c h e, p o u r les
passages ra p p o rt é s à u n e m e ille u r e c o n n a iss a n c e des lieux o u d e s i n stitu tio n s , puis
au d é c ry p ta g e d e s m é t a p h o re s , n o u s d e v r o n s t e n i r c o m p t e de ces re m a r q u e s p r é lim inaires
!0
.
2. L’exégèse p h ilosoph iqu e
N o u s n o u s l im ite r o n s ici à l’utilisation de M a ï m o n i d e . N o u s avo ns m o n t r é ailleurs la
p r é se n c e d e d e u x a u tre s a u te u rs juifs d a n s la p e n s é e c h r é t i e n n e d u X I I I e et d u X I V e
siècle20; elle ne n o u s p a raît pas significative d a n s le c a d re p r é s e n t : A v i c é b r o n (Salo
m o n ib n Gabirol) passe p o u r m u s u l m a n (et d e to u te s les façons il est p e u utilisé da n s
l’exégèse); Isaac Israeli, é v i d e m m e n t p e r ç u c o m m e juif (il est a p p e lé Isa a c Iitd e u s pa r
les Latins), n e fo u rn it q u ’u n a p p o r t s e c o n d a ir e à l’e x ég è se - so n L ib e r d e d e fin i ti o n ib u s
est cité à l’o c ca sion p o u r p r é c is e r tel ou tel c o n c e p t 21. E n r e v an c h e, la p r é s e n c e de
M a ï m o n i d e ( R a b b i M o yses p o u r no s a uteurs) est à la fois re la ti v e m e n t i m p o r t a n t e e t si
gnificative. C ’est e n c o r e à Béryl S m a lle y q u e re v ie n t le m é r i t e d ’avoir m o n t r é q u ’il p é
n é tra it da n s l’e x ég èse c h r é t i e n n e d a n s le t e m p s m ê m e o ù celle-ci s’o u v ra it à la p h i lo s o
p h i e et accueillait A risto te e t A v e r r o è s 22. Le cas d e M a ï m o n i d e , s’il offre b e a u c o u p de
sim ilarité avec celui de ces p h ilo s o p h e s , p r é s e n t e c e p e n d a n t u n e pa rticula rité e s s e n
tielle: ni A r is to te ni A v e r r o è s n ’o n t e u à se c o n f r o n t e r aux p r o b l è m e s p o sé s pa r des
textes b i b li q u e s 25, alors q u e l’A n c i e n T e s t a m e n t est c o n s t a m m e n t p r é s e n t c h ez M a ï
m o n id e . Celu i-ci n e n o u s e n a laissé a u c u n c o m m e n t a i r e , m ais le G u id e des égarés, tra
d u i t e n latin e n t r e 1225 et 1230, jo in t à u n e réflexio n a p p r o f o n d i e s u r le p r o b l è m e g l o
bal de la lec tu re d u texte b ib liq u e ( p a rt i c u l i è r e m e n t su r le langage d e l’É c ritu re et ses
m é t a p h o r e s ) u n e f r é q u e n t e p r a ti q u e d e l’exégèse sc r ip tu r a ir e : ses r e m a r q u e s c o n c e r
n e n t la p l u p a r t d e s livres d e l’A n c i e n T e s ta m e n t , m ais c’est à p r o p o s d e J o b , au c en tre
19 U ne observation c on cernant notre m é t h o d e dans ce qui suit: nous étud ion s la fonction des in
terprétations juives dans l’exégèse du X IIIe s.; cela exclut les con sidérations critiques sur le texte
h éb reu (elles co ns titu en t u n sujet différent); d ’autre part, l’im po rtan c e de la re cherche des sources
se trouve d im in u ée: nous les avons identifiées cepen d an t, dans la m esu re d u possible, dans les
textes latins mais il n e n ous a pas paru utile (sauf exception ) de retracer ici leur origine juive.
20 Intellectuels (cité n. 17), 311-3.14; L’incontro co n la filosofia ebraica, in: Pietro Rossi, Carlo A u
guste V iano (édd.), Storia délia Filosofia Laterza, t. 2, 11 m e d io evo (Roma, Bari 1994) 196-214.
21 Voici un exem ple, dans le c o m m en tair e de J o b d ’A lbert le G ra n d (sur J o b 18, 18): «Propter hoc
dicit Isaac in libro d e diffinitionibus s e c u n d u m Stoicos loquens, q u o d im p iu s d e p r im e tu r sub
tristi orbe et ar debit in igne magno.» Ed. M e k b io r W ciss(Freibu rg i.B. 1904) 225; cf. /. T. M uckle.
Isaac Israeli. Liber de definicionibtis, in A H D L M Â 11 (1 936-3 7) 305.
22 T he Study of the Bible, 2 9 4 - 2 9 6 ; William of Auvergne, J o h n of La Rochelle ... (cité n. 1).
23 C ep end an t, Averroès doit résoud re les problèm es posés par des textes coraniques: voir n o t a m
m e n t son Fasl al maqal, «Traité décisif d é te r m in a n t la nature de l’accord en tre religion et philoso
phie.. Trad. angl. George F. H ourani, Averroes. O n the H a r m o n y of Religion an d Philosophy
(Londres 1961).
127
d u G u id e , q u ’elles s o n t les plus n o m b r e u s e s 24. D a n s le c o r p u s ici c o n sid é r é , je d i s t i n
g uerai trois types d ’e m p r u n t s à R a b b i Moyses.
2.1. C ita tio n s p h ilo so p h iq u e s . -
D a n s ce ty pe d ’o c c u r re n c e s , M a ï m o n i d e est cité
c o m m e le s o n t les a u tr e s p h i lo s o p h e s : à p r o p o s d ’u n e n o t io n particulière, les exégètes
d o n n e n t u n e p h ra se d u G u id e , p r o p r e à c o n f o r t e r leur analyse. C ’est dire q u e , c o m m e
celles d ’A risto te ou d ’A verro ès, ces c ita tio n s n ’o n t q u ’u n rôle illustratif, q u e l’o n dirait
e n m a rg e des p r o b l è m e s d ’e xégèse p r o p r e m e n t dits. O n n o t e r a q u e ces c ita tio n s s o n t
plus fré q u e n t e s au X IV e siècle. U n seul e x e m p l e suffira. J a c q u e s de L a u s a n n e (o.p., m.
1322) m e t e n tête d u p r o l o g u e d e so n c o m m e n t a i r e d u livre d e D a n i e l u n v erset de
jo b ( jo b 28, 11), A b s c o n d ita p r o d u x i t in lu cem , q u ’il a c c o m p a g n e des r e m a r q u e s s u iv a n
tes:
«Rabbi moyses. Tria sun t que, ut ait Alexander, in p ediu nt h o m i n e m a p p r e h e n d e r e ueritatem rei,
scilicet a m o r altitudinis, subtilitas ae profunditas rei inuestigate et ignorantia inquisitionis.»’5
Il s’agit d ’u n e p h ra se tirée d u c h a p i t re 31 d u livre I d u G u id e , da n s leq uel M a ï m o n i d e
cite l u i - m ê m e A l e x a n d r e d ’A p h r o d i s e 26.
2.2. E xégèses p h ilo so p h iq u e s. - C e tt e fois, il s’agit de l’e x ég è se m ê m e d e c e rta in s v e r
sets, fo u rn ie p a r le G u id e. O n qualifiera v o lo n tie rs d e p h i lo s o p h i q u e c ette exégèse, qui
se d istin g u e aussi b ien de l’e x ég èse d u p e s h a t d e s c o m m e n t a t e u r s d e F ra n c e d u N o rd
q u e de l’e xégèse t r a d itio n n e lle d u m id r a s h . L’a p p r o c h e p h i l o s o p h i q u e d e M a ï m o n i d e
to u c h e parfois à l’allégorie (elle a lim e n te r a , da n s l’exégèse juive d u m id i d e la F ra n c e et
d’E spagne, u n fort c o u r a n t allégoriste, q u i sera v iv e m e n t c o n t e s t é 27); m ais elle est s u r
to u t in té re s sa n te par la m a n i è r e d o n t elle utilise, sur les versets m ê m e s d e l’É criture,
des c o n s id é ra tio n s p h i lo s o p h i q u e s aux origin e s diverses m ais d e c o n s o n n a n c e g é n é r a
l e m e n t aristoté licie n ne. Les c o m m e n t a i r e s d ’A l b e r t le G r a n d fo u r n is s e n t p lu sieu rs o c
c u rre n c es d e ce type d ’u tilisa tion; o n n e sera pas é t o n n é d ’e n t r o u v e r d a n s so n E x p i a n a tio in lib r u m
lob, avec n o t a m m e n t ce passage très c ara cté ris tiq u e, qu i re p re n d
l’in te r p r é ta tio n de M a ï m o n i d e , b ie n diffusée au X I I I e siècle, selo n laq uelle c h a c u n des
pe rso n n ag e s r e p ré s e n t e u n s y s tè m e p h i lo s o p h iq u e :
«Homo a d laborem nascilur et avis a d vo la n d u m ... [Job 5, 7] T o tu m au tem hoc dicitur p rop ter hoc
quod qu idam p h ilo so p h o ru m d ixerun t q u o d g u b e m a t i o h om in is ad b o n u m vel ad m a l u m esset
ex infaustis vel faustis scintillationibus periodi, quia, quam vis creator res faciat, factas tam en mutabiles gu b ern and as co m m i t t i t periodo et casuali mutabilitati naturae mortalis. Et h anc opinionera iste Eliphaz lob attribue bat, c u m ta m e n hoc n o n fuorit verum , u t dicit Rabbi Moyses Acgyptius in tertia collatione D ucis n eutrom m , cap. xxiv°, haec opinio videtur fuisse Aristotelis et
q uorundam Peripatetic orum .»28
■'* O n utilisera ici la trad, française r ic h e m e n t a nn otée de Salom on M u n k , Maïmonide. Le Guide
des égarés (Paris 1 8 5 6-18 66 ; réimpr. 1960). La traduction latine médiévale a été publiée à Paris
en 1520 par A. Justiniani, D u x seu D irector du b itan tiu m seu perplexoru m . Su r l’exégèse de Maï
monide, voir M auriee-R uben H âyoun, L’exégèse philo so ph iqu e dans le ju daïsm e médiéval (Tü
bingen 1992) 171-233.
25 Ms. Paris, Mazarine 183, fol. 36va.
lb Trad. M u n k , t. 1, p. 107.
7 Voir Charles Touati, Pro phètes, talmudistes, ph iloso phes (Paris 1990) 20 1 -2 1 7 .
28 Ed. iMelchior IFeiss, 86.
128
G ilbert D a h an
Il s’agit, d a n s la n u m é r o t a t i o n actuelle, d u c h a p itre 23 d u livre III d u G u id e ; toutefois
A l b e r t d é v e l o p p e l’a sp e c t a stro lo g iq u e d e la p o sitio n a ttrib u é e à J o b 29.
2.3.
N o tio n s p h ilo so p h iq u e s. -
Plus in té re s sa n te e n c o r e est la tr o is iè m e catégorie
d ’o c c u r r e n c e s : il s’agit ici d e n o t io n s p h i lo s o p h iq u e s i n té g rée s e n q u e l q u e so rte à l’e x é
gèse - n o n plus e x ég èse de tel o u tel verset, m ais t h è m e s qui, à la m a n i è r e d e th è m e s
a u g u stin ie n s pa r e x e m p l e , p a r c o u r e n t d ’u n e m a n i è r e r é c u r r e n te c e rta in s c o m m e n t a i r e s
de la s e c o n d e m o itié d u X I I I e siècle. O n p e rç o it ici la f o n c tio n g é n é ra le des e m p r u n t s
de s p e n s e u rs c h r é t ie n s d u X I I I e siècle à M a ï m o n i d e : celui-ci a f o r m u lé e n te rm e s clairs
les p r o b l è m e s posés p a r la c o n f r o n t a ti o n e n tre u n e tra d itio n f o n d é e s u r l’E critu re
s a in te e t c ertain e s th ès es a risto té licie n nes, a p p o r t a n t des so lu t io n s q u e les p e n s e u rs
c h r é t ie n s r e t i e n n e n t (ou é c a r te n t - m ais a p rès les avoir discutées). P a rm i ces t h è m e s , le
p lus c o u r a n t est celui, b iblique , de la c ré a tio n e x n ih ilo o p p o s é e à l’é te rn it é d u m o n d e ;
o n le re tro u v e d a n s q u e l q u e s c o m m e n t a i r e s de la G enèse’0. Le t h è m e de la p ro p h é ti e ,
p o u r lequ el les c o n s id é ra tio n s d u G u id e des égarés s e r v e n t d e réfé re nce , est davantage
e n relation avec les tex tes q u e n o u s c o n s i d é r o n s ici. U n e r e m a r q u e d ’A l b e r t le G r a n d ,
da n s le p r o l o g u e d e sa P o stilla su p e r is a ia m cite n o m m é m e n t M a ï m o n i d e :
«Rcvelatio enim vel per modum visionis est vel per modum oraculi. Somnium enim et phantasia
et sensus, quae a quibusdam species revelationis dicuntur, non prophetiac sunt, sed, sicut dicit
Rabbi Moyses, casus a prophetia, quia si aliquid forte aliquando futurum in talibus significatur,
umbrosum est, coniecturis fallacibus acceptum et nihil habens firmitatis.»31
La c ita tio n n ’est pas littérale; il s’agit d e to u te s les façons d u g r a n d d é v e l o p p e m e n t d u
livre II d u G u id e relatif à la p r o p h é t i e 52. J a c q u e s de L a u s a n n e se m b le re n v o y e r au
m ê m e passage da n s so n c o m m e n t a i r e de D a n ie l 33.
N o u s n ’av o n s p a s r e p éré d a n s les c o m m e n t a i r e s de s livres p r o p h é t i q u e s les autres
t h è m e s d u G u id e utilisés p a r les p e n s e u r s d u X I I I e siècle (attributs divins, anges, p r é
c e p te s d e P A n c ie n T e s t a m e n t ) 34.
25 Trad. M unk, t. III, p. 180. - A utre exem p le dans le m ê m e co m m en taire: «D ix it ergo D om inas
a d Sata n : Ucce in m a n u tua est, verum tam en a n im a n t illitis serra... [Job 2, 6] Q u o d ex po n it Rabbi
Moyses de eo q u o d r em an et anim a post m o rte m , qu o d licet de intellectu intelligat, qui sicut ipse
dicit prim o m o tori c o n tin u a tu r post m o r te m , tarnen h ereticu m est, quia to ta anim a post m orte m
manet» (éd. Ai. 1Veiss, p. 44); cf. G u ide III, 22 (trad. M u n k , t. III, p. 166; voir la no te de Munk).
30 M aïm onide est aussi utilisé à propos d ’/ i x 3, 14; on se référera encore à la célèbre étude
A’Etienne Gilson, M aïm o nid e et la philo so phie de l’Exode, in: Medieval Studies 13 (1951) 2 2 3225. Voir ég alem en t Robert A. Herrera, St. T h o m a s an d M aim o nid es on the T etrag ram m aton : the
«Exodus- of Philosophy?, in: T h e M o d e m Schoolm an 59 (1982) 179-193.
31 Postilla su p e r Isaiam, prol. Ed. F crdinandus Siepm ann (M ünster i.W. 1952) 3.
32 Voir G u ide II, 36 (trad. M u n k , pp. 2 82 -2 87 ) ou 37 (p. 291). Sur l’utilisation de M a ïm o n ide par
Alber t le G ran d dans sa Quaestio de prop hetia, voir Jean-Pierre Torrell, R ech erc h es sur la théorie
de la p rop h étie au m o y en âge (Fribourg 1992) 144 et 147.
33 Sur Dan. 1, 17; ms. Paris, Mazarine 183, fol. 40va.
3i Voir en co re A m os Funkenstein, G es etz u n d Geschichte: zu r histor isierenden H e r m e n e u t i k bei
Moses M aim onides u n d T h o m a s von Aquiti, in: Viator 1 (1970) 14 7 -1 7 8 ; W arren Z. Harvey,
Maimonides an d A qu inas on Interpretin g the Bible, in: Proc. of the Am erican A cad e m y for J e
wish Research 55 (1988) 59 -77.
L’utilis a tio n d e l’e x é g è s e juive
129
3. La p olém ique
Il est banal de dire q u e l’e xégèse d e la Bible est l’u n des lieux de la p o l é m i q u e c o n tr e
le ju d a ï s m e : celle-ci se f o n d a n t e s s e n t ie l le m e n t s u r les a u c to r ita te s fo u rn ies pa r l’A n
cien T e s ta m e n t , o n n e sera pas su r p r is d e t ro u v e r clans les c o m m e n t a i r e s b ib liq u e s u n
é c h o (et s o u v e n t d avantage) d e s c o n tro v e r s e s sur les versets d e v e n u s des te s tim o n ia
c o u r a n t s de la d o c tr i n e c h r é t i e n n e : G en. 49, 10, Ps. 2, 7, Ps. 109, 1, Prov. 30, 1 8 - 2 0
e tc 3’ . Les livres p r o p h é t i q u e s p r o c u r e n t é v i d e m m e n t u n e riche m o is s o n d e tels ve r
sets, mais, m ê m e s u r le p la n précis d e la p o l é m i q u e , le re co urs à l’e xég è se juive va plus
loin q u e la sim p le ré fé re n c e à des te s tim o n ia . N o u s c o m m e n c e r o n s p a r ceux-ci.
3.1.
T e s tim o n ia . - Il suffit d e se r a p p e l e r le rôle jo ué da n s la c o n tr o v e rs e avec les
juifs p a r d e s ve rsets tels qu7.s\ 7, 14, Is. 9, 6 - 5 ,, / « '. 11, 19 ,J é r . 31, 3 2 - 3 3 o u le c h a p itre
53 d ’h a ï e p o u r s’a t t e n d re à tro u v e r d a n s les c o m m e n t a i r e s de ces versets u n ra p p el des
thèses e n p résen ce. E t c ’est b ie n le cas e n effet, m ais il faut aussi n o t e r q u e cela n ’a rien
de sy s té m a tiq u e , p lu sie u rs c o m m e n t a i r e s n e faisant a u c u n e a llusion à la p o l é m i q u e à
p ro p o s de te s tim o n ia b ie n c o n n u s . Mis à p a r t les victorins, les c o m m e n t a t e u r s d u X I I e
siècle se c o n t e n t a i e n t s o u v e n t d e re p ro d u i r e u n e a r g u m e n t a t i o n juive sté r é o ty p é e , telle
q u ’elle apparaissait c h e z les Pères o u d a n s les oeuvres p o l é m i q u e s ’6. Les c o m m e n t a i r e s
d u X I I I e siècle p r é s e n t e n t u n e é v o lu tio n n o ta b le su r ce p lan : l’a r g u m e n t a t i o n juive,
c o n n u e de p r e m i è re o u de s e c o n d e m ain, y est parfois l o n g u e m e n t citée e t les ré fu ta
tions r e p r e n n e n t les o b je c tio n s et c o n tr e - o b je c ti o n s des juifs. Le cas d u c o m m e n t a i r e
d ’h a ï e d e G u e r r ic d e S a i n t - Q u e n t i n (o.p., m . 1245) est p a r ti c u l i è r e m e n t in té re s sa n t à
cet égard: il ne c o n sa cre pas m o in s d e q u a tr e c o lo n n e s à la d isc u ssio n su r Is. 7, 14J7.
C o m m e n ç a n t p a r le d é b a t t r a d i t io n n e l s u r le sens d e l’h é b r e u a i m a (« sum itur aim a
a p u d h e b r e o s et p ro a d o le s c e n t u l a et p r o abscondita»), G u e r r ic e x p o se la th è s e bien
c o n n u e des hebrei, p o u r q u i l’e n f a n t qu i d o it n a ître est E zéchias, le fils d ’A c h az , puis la
réfu tation de c ette th ès e p a r J é r ô m e . Mais la r é p o n s e des juifs suit, de m ê m e q u ’u n e
autre thèse juive qui voit e n l’e n f a n t u n fils d ’Isaïe. L’o b je c tio n c h r é t i e n n e p o r t e alors
sur le caractère n o n m ir a c u l e u x d ’u n e telle naissance. C e tt e r e m a r q u e p e r m e t u n e l o n
gue d isc ussion su r le r a p p o r t t e m p o r e l e n tr e le signe et la chose , e x t r ê m e m e n t i n té r e s
sante p o u r u n e c o n t r i b u t i o n à la th é o rie de la p r o p h é t i e 38; a r g u m e n t s juifs e t o b je c
tions c h r é t ie n n e s s’y e n tr e c ro is e n t. C e c o m m e n t a i r e se m b le b ien m o n t r e r d e la sorte
33 Voir M arcel Sim on, Verus Israël (Paris 21964) 177-187; B ern h a n l B h tm en kra n z, Juifs et chré
tiens dans le m o n d e occidental 4 3 0 - 1 0 9 6 (Paris, La Haye 1960) 2 2 2 - 2 3 8 ; Gilbert O a b a n , In tel
lectuels (cité n. 17), 3 8 6 - 4 0 5 et 4 4 0-4 5 6 .
J<’ C’est le cas, par exem ple, des c o m m en taires de G uibert de N o g e n t (sur les Petits Prophètes)
ou de Rup ert de Deutz - quels q u e soient sur d ’autres plans les mérites de ces oeuvres.
s' Ms. Paris, iMazarine 240, fol. 16va-17rb, - Sur ce com m en taire, voir Béryl Sm alhy, A Com mentary on Isaias by G u erric of Saint-Q u en tin , o.p., in: Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, t. 2 (Città
del Vaticano 1946) 3 83 -3 9 7 . - La source de ce long passage est la Postille de Hu gu es de St-Cher,
t. 4 (Cologne 1621) fol. 20ra-vb.
JS Cf. fol. 16vb: «Ad s e c u n d u m d i c e n d u m q u o d sig n um et precedit et com itatu r et se q u itu r rem
signatam. Signum rem signatam precedit, ut flos fructum. Signum rem signa tam com itatur, ut fumus ignem. Signum rem signatam se qu itu r ut cinis ignem.»
130
G ilbert D a h an
q u e la disc ussion su r Is. 7, 14 se p r o lo n g e au X I I I e siècle. Le tex te q u e Pierre d e J e a n
O lieu c o n s a c r e a u m ê m e verset insp ire des réflexio ns i d e n t i q u e s 39.
L’e x e m p l e su iv a n t c o n c e r n e u n a u tre lieu de la p o l é m i q u e , Is. 11, 1 et 6; le c o m
m e n t a ir e de ces v ersets d û à G u i l la u m e d ’A l t o n (o.p., ni. 1265), p lus tra d itio n n e l, se
c o n t e n t e d e r a p p e le r r a p i d e m e n t l’in te r p r é t a ti o n juive h a b itu e lle, parfois r a p p o r t é e par
ses p ré d é c e s s e u r s 40:
«Ascendit [sic]... Iudei et uirgam et florem e x p o n u n t de suo messia et q u e d a m glosa ut rasque de
Christo, qui dicitur uirga prop ter regnandi po testa te m qua malos et rebelles c o m p e s c u i t . .. Minabit, id est d ueet eos, scil. in uiam pacis. ïudei fabulantur hic q u o d t em p o re sui messie m ansuete
er u n t o m n e s bestie hominibus.»41
3.2. C o n te s ta tio n s d e l ’exégèse juive. - E n d e h o r s m ê m e d e s disc u ssio n s s u r ces lo ci c o m
m u n e s d e la p o l é m i q u e , l’e x ég èse juive se tro u v e c o n te s t é e assez f r é q u e m m e n t da n s les
c o m m e n t a i r e s d e s livres p r o p h é ti q u e s . Le d é sa cc o rd n a ît é v i d e m m e n t d e l’a p p r o c h e
globale: si les livres des P r o p h è t e s s o n t t o u t e n tie rs des a n n o n c e s d e la v e n u e , d e la vie
e t d e la Passion d u C h r i s t 42, l’e xégèse juive, q ui re nv oie soit à des é v é n e m e n t s a n t é
rieurs au C h r ist soit à la fin des t e m p s , n e saurait co n v en ir. Le c o m m e n t a i r e d ’A l b e r t le
G r a n d s u r les Petits P r o p h è t e s ré fu te ainsi à d e n o m b r e u s e s reprises les i n te r p ré t a ti o n s
juives: celles-ci c o n c e r n e n t l’histoire passée d ’Israël o u bien, q u a n d elles s o n t e sc h ato l ogiq ues, la g u e rre d e G o g e t M agog; ces d e u x types d ’i n te r p r é t a ti o n s n e sa u ra ie n t t e
nir p o u r A lb ert. Voici u n e x e m p l e d ’in te r p r é t a ti o n h isto r iq u e :
• E t sa lva b it D o m in as tabernacula hida, sicut in principio ut non m a g n ifia ' glorietur dom us D a
vid... [Zach. 12, 7] ïmpii iudaei haec perverte ntes dicun t q u o d haec intelliguntur de principibus
I u d eo rum obsessis in Ierusalem, qui pro tem p ore pr o ru m p e n te s a dextris et a sinistris prostraver u n t hostes, quasi ignés dévorantes, c u m Egesippus et Ioseph historiographi nihil talium n ar
rent... Et p rop ter hoc ta m q u a m m e n d o s a relinquentes, cer tam p r o s e q u a m u r expositionem .»43
39 Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat. nouv. acq. lat. 774, fol. 66r-v.
■‘° Cf. Thom as d ’A q u in , Expositio su p e r Isaiam ad litteram. Ed. Léonine, t. 28 (Rom e 1974) 78 et
82: «Iudei d icunt q uo d flos et uirga refertur ad C h ristu m ... Iudei e x p o n u n t hoc to t u m factum ad
litteram. Alii dicun t per hoc significari q u o d tem po rib u s illorum reg u m c o m m i t t e b a n t se parvuli
audacter illis qui prius fuerant pr edatores et crudeles.» Ce c o m m en taire est l’u n e des pr emières
oeuvres de saint T h o m a s (avant 1252) cf. en dernier lieu Jean-Pierre Tonrell, Initiation à saint T h o
mas d ’A q u in (Paris, Fribourg 1993) 4 0 - 5 2 ; Gui llaum e d ’A lton a été son successeur à Paris, en
1 25 9-6 0 ; cf. Palémon Glorieux, Répertoire des maîtres en théolog ie de Paris au X IIIe s., t. 1 (Paris
1933) 113-116. - A n d ré de St-V ictor d o n n e une explication globale: «Secundum hebr eos, qui ista
de eo q u e m ad hu c ex p ectant messia...» [ms. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 574, fol. 39; Mazarine 175, 63ra),
mais rien qui concerne la seconde glose; lin g u es de St-Cher, fol. 20rb, d o n n e u ne interprétation
différente.
41 Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 573, fol. 18vb et 19rb. Ci. Jérôme, In Esaiam. Ed. M arc A driaen (Turnho u t 1963) [CC 73] 147: «Virgam et florem de radice lesse ipsum D o m i n u m ludaei interpretantur» (voir ausssi p. 150); repris par la Glossa (Anvers 1634) t. 4, col. 146 et 150.
42 Voir les textes cités par H enri de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de PEcriture 1/1
(Paris 1959) 3 2 0 - 3 2 7 , n o t a m m e n t cette affirmation d’H ilaire, In Ps. 54, 2: le Christ est celui «de
q u o et per q u e m o m n is prop hetia est».
43 A lbert le G rand, Enarrationes in XII Proph. Min., in: O p era omnia. Ed. A lbert Borgnet, t. 19
(Paris 1892) 595. Cf. Pierre le Chantre, ms. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 16 793, fol. 144vb: «S ecundum iud e u m sa lva b it ta b ernaculum : urbes, opp ida et uillas tribus Iude q ue uastata fuerant instaurabit si
cut fuerant a n te q u a m uastarentur.» Jérôme, In pro p hetas minores. Ed. A iare A driaen (Turnhout
131
Le m ê m e c o m m e n t a i r e d e Z a c h a r ie n o u s d o n n e r a aussi u n e x e m p l e d ’in te r p r é t a ti o n
juive e s c h a to lo g iq u e :
«El h a b ita b u n t in ea et a n a th em a non erit am plius, sed sedebit Ierusalem secura [Zach. 14, 11].
H aec impii ludei per vertentes dicun t im p lcn da esse post bella Gog et Magog in aurea Ierusalem,
q u a n d o c u m rege suo David in pace se d eb u n t mille annis, de q u o r u m fabulis nihil curamus.»14
O n est assez surpris d u to n v i v e m e n t p o l é m i q u e d e ces r e m a r q u e s . D ’a u tre part, on
n o t e q u ’A l b e r t se réfère p lu sieu rs fois à ces in te r p r é t a ti o n s juives q u i r e n v o ie n t à la
g u e r re de G o g e t M agog et à la «Jé rusalem d ’or»"*5 des t e m p s m es sian iq u e s.
U n d e r n ie r e x e m p l e f ourn ira u n e in te r p r é t a ti o n h is to r iq u e c o n te s t é e pa r G u i l la u m e
d ’A l t o n , q ui l’e m p r u n t e à H u g u e s d e S a i n t- C h e r (mais celui-ci n e l’a ttr ib u a it pas aux
juifs):
.I n die ilia [/.(. 26, 1], scilicct c u m Moab fuerit trituratus. ludei e x p o n u n t illud de letitia filiorum
israel te m p o r e Mach abeorum , sed aliqua q u e se e u n tu r litteraliter exponi non possunt.»46
P o u r G u i l la u m e , la joie e x p r i m é e d a n s le verset a c c o m p a g n e r a F«écrasement» ( tr ilu r a tio) d u diable. La d e rn iè re partie d e c e tte é tu d e m o n t r e r a q u e lq u e s cas d e ré fu ta tio n
plus globale de l’exégèse juive. D è s à p r é s e n t n o u s p o u v o n s o b s e r v e r q u e c’e st m o in s
da n s les c o m m e n t a i r e s b ib liq u e s q u e d a n s les o uvrages p o l é m i q u e s q u e se tr o u v e n t
explicitées les thèses g é n é ra le s d e l’e xégèse c h r é t ie n n e e n face d e l’e xégèse ju ive47.
Mais les livres p r o p h é ti q u e s , e x ig e a n t u n effort i n te rp r é ta tif qui t r a n s c e n d e le «sens
propre», p o s e n t u n p r o b l è m e pa rticulier: il est é v id e n t q u e l’e x ég èse juive d é passe le
niveau d u se ns obvie p o u r d é c r y p t e r le m essa g e d e s p r o p h è te s ; le p o l é m i s t e se trouve
d o n c m o i n s à l’aise q u a n d l’é q u a t i o n qui lui est habituelle, e xégèse juive = exégèse
littérale, n e paraît plus si exacte. Le d iffére n d p o rte alors, c o m m e n o u s l’av o n s vu,
plus su r les in te rp ré t a ti o n s p ro p o s é e s q u e su r la d é m a r c h e h e r m é n e u t i q u e e n ellem ême.
A v a n t de clore c ette partie, il n o u s faut dire u n m o t des so u rc e s des i n te r p r é t a ti o n s
juives da n s ces pa ssages p o l é m i q u e s . C h e z c ertains a u te urs, la p ré c isio n e t la c o m p l e
xité d ’u n e a r g u m e n t a t i o n a b s e n te d e s textes latins a n té rie u rs p e u v e n t laisser s u p p o s e r
des disc u ssio ns réelles avec d e s juifs: m ê m e si c ette h y p o t h è s e se h e u r te à des o b s t a
cles historiq ue s, d u fait de la d é g r a d a ti o n d e la situ atio n des juifs en E u r o p e d u n o r d ouest, d é g r a d a tio n qui e n t r a î n e le d é clin e t la f e rm e tu r e de n o m b r e d ’écoles ta l m u d iFortsetziaig Fußnote von Seite 130
1969/70) [CC 76A] 8 6 4 - 5 , repris par la Glossa interlinearis, n ’attribue pas cette interpré tation aux
juifs.
M Ed. citée, 608. Cf. Pierre le C hantre, ms.cité, fol. I45va; Jérôme (p. 885) parle b ien de H ierusalem aurea mais pas de G o g et Magog; les d eu x son t m entio n n és dans la Glossa, col. 2199.
' ’ L’expression, que nous n ’avons pas repérée dans la littérature rabbinique, sem ble re m o n t e r à
Jérôme. Parmi de n o m b r e u x autres exemples , cf. A lbert sur Os. 1, 11: «Ci ponent sibim et caput
unum . Q u o d ludaei d icu nt David su scitatum in aurea Ierusalem, m e n d a c iu m et fabula est, et ideo
e x p o n en d u m est de Christo» (éd. citée, 16-17).
16 Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 573, fol. 47va. Cf. H ugues de Saint-C her, fol. 74va. Cf. H ugues de StCher, t. 4 (Cologne 1621) fol. 56va (mais n ’attribue pas l’interprétation aux juifs).
7 Gilbert D ahan, La p o lém iq ue ch rétienn e contre le judaïsm e au m o y en âge (Paris 1991) 129134.
132
G ilbert D ahan
q u e s, il se m b le q u e les c o n ta c t s e n t r e in te lle ctue ls se s o i e n t pou rsu iv is m a lg ré t o u t avec sans d o u t e u n e différe nce de n ivea u e n tre des m a î t r e s c h r é t ie n s a y a n t re çu u n e
f o rm a tio n universitaire et de s i n te r l o c u t e u r s juifs a p p a r t e n a n t à u n e c o m m u n a u t é a p
p auvrie in te l le c t u e ll e m e n t da n s la s e c o n d e m o itié d u X I I I e siècle'18. Mais l’a r g u m e n t a
tio n juive est é g a l e m e n t citée d e s e c o n d e m a i n : plus q u e jamais, J é r ô m e (à travers la
G lossa o u in o r ig in a li) reste le g r a n d f o u r n isse u r d ’i n te r p r é t a ti o n s juives; o n le voit, pa r
e x e m p l e , d a n s les c o m m e n t a i r e s d e Pierre de J e a n O lieu , qu i cite s o i g n e u s e m e n t ses
s o u r c e s 49. D ’a u tre part, la le c tu re des c o m m e n t a i r e s d u X I I I e s. c o n f ir m e q u ’A n d r é de
S a in t-V ic to r est d e v e n u l’a u to r ité m a j e u re en m a tiè r e d ’e xégèse au niv eau d e la litte ra ;
il faut de n o u v e a u r e c o n n a ît r e ici les m é r ite s de Béryl Sm alley, d o n t le travail d e r e d é
c o u v e r te d u rôle d ’A n d r é est a u j o u r d ’h ui poursuiv i pa r R a in e r B e r n d t 30. P o u r les livres
p r o p h é ti q u e s , l’e x p o s itio n d ’A n d r é re joint parfois les th ès es juives; o n a fait allusion à
la c o n tr o v e r se a u t o u r de l’E m m a n u e l . A u - d e l à de Sa int-V ic tor, elle se p o u r s u i t (et
m ê m e , o n l’a vu, se d é v e lo p p e ) au X I I I e siècle, c ertains c o m m e n t a t e u r s n e se p rivant
pas d e d é n o n c e r ce « chrétien qu i judaïse» (bien q u ’e n fait A n d r é se d é m a r q u e très n e t
t e m e n t d u j u d a ïsm e , c o m m e l’a m o n t r é R a in e r Berndt). D e u x c ita tio n s illu stre ro n t la
p r é s e n c e d ’A n d r é d a n s l’e x ég èse d u X I I I e siècle et l’a c c u sa tio n q u i lui est faite d e «judaïser». Ainsi, G u e r ric de S a i n t- Q u e n t i n , s u r Isa ïe 9, 6:
«Princeps pacis, duos po pu los in u n a m ecclesiam colligendo, Eph. ii° [14], Ipse est p a x nm tra, q u i
fecit utraque u num . Iudei et A n dréas iudaizans c o m b in a n t ista n o m in a sic: A d m ira b iiis consiliarius, Deus fo rtis etc. Nec ex p on it Andréas istum tex tu m aliter q u a m iudei, im m o p on it exposition e m iud eo rum et dicit sicut d icu nt iudei.»’1
D e m ê m e , H u g u e s d e S a i n t - C h e r d é s a p p ro u v a i t l’i n te r p r é t a ti o n d u c h a p itre 53 d ’h a ï e
e n ces te r m e s :
• And réas ad litteram ex po nit hoc cap itulu m s e c u n d u m Iudaeos de p op u lo captiuato, q u o r u m fab ulam p o n e m u s im p ro b a n d o magis q u a m approbando.»52
Mais c ’est s o u v e n t d ’u n e m a n i è re p lu s vague q u e c ertain s c o m m e n t a t e u r s c o n d a m n e n t
des c h r é t ie n s q ui «judaïsent», sa ns q u ’A n d r é soit n é c e s s a i r e m e n t visé. Voici q u e lq u e s
o c c u r r e n c e s de ces i n te r p r é t a ti o n s c o n sid é r é e s c o m m e t r o p p r o c h e s de l’e xégèse juive:
48 Voir Robert C hazan, Medieval Je w ry in N orth ern France (Baltimore 1973) 141-145.
49 Par exem ple, sur Os. 11, 12: «Ieronimus tarnen refert hic q u a n d a m trad itio n em iudeorum ,
q u a m hic et alibi rep uto quasi fabulam, q u o d scilicet in ingressu Maris rubri, ceteris trib ubus de
D eo desperantibus, solus ludas ex precepto Dei est ingressus mare, c u m sanctis fidelibus Moyse
et Aaron», ms. Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 507, fol. 5rb; cf .Jérôme, C C 76, 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 (et H ugues de St-Cber,
t. 5, fol. 176rb); sur loti. 1, 2 : - Ut fugeret in Tharsis... Glosa uero Iero nim i dicit q u o d Heb rei putant mare uocari Tharsis, iuxta illud psalmi: In spiritu uehem enti contenus naues Tharsis [Ps. 47,
8]», ibid., fol. 11 va; ci. Jérôme, C C 76, 381 (repris par la Glossa, col. 1946, et Hugues de St-Cber, fol.
I92va).
50 R a in er Berndt, A n d ré de Saint-Victor, exégète et théologien (Paris, T u r n h o u t 1991) 8 9-106.
51 Ms. Paris, Mazarine 240, fol. 22rb. Cf. A n d ré de S t- Victor, ms. Paris, Mazarine 175, fol. 61 r b ;
cep en d a n t A n dré ne p rend pas à son c o m p te cette in terpré tation: «Que nos diuisim, illi ad m inus
bina [?] iungentes n o m in a poru int et ex nostris sex q u atu o r c o n s titu u n t nomina.»
52 Ed. de Cologne 1621, t. 4, fol. 124va.
L’utilis a tio n d e l’e xég è s e juive
133
- Albert, sur Is. 34, 9: «Cf converientur torrentes... Quidam iudaizantes torrentem dicunt esse exer-
citus impetuose in Iudaeam venientes et templum et civitates incendentes. Et totum illud réfé
rant ad Iudaeae desolationem factam per captivitatem Rom anorum .. ,53»
- Guillaume d’Alton, sur Is. 8, 3: «Iudei et quidam christiani iudaiçantes legunt sic ab illo loco
sum e tib i etc. dicentes quod ysaias iubetur scribere nomen filii sui nascituri de uxore sua adolescentula et dicunt ilium puerum notatum.54»
- Nicolas de Gorran, sur Is. 11, 16: «/« die qu a ascendí!, scil. per Mare rubrum de ta r a Egipti, exo.
xiiii. Ieronimus in originali. Prudens et christianus lector hanc habeat prophetalium promissionum regulam ut, que iudei et nostri - immo non nostri - iudayzantes carnaliter futura contendunt, nos spiritualiter iam transacta doceamus..
4. L’éclaircissem ent de la littera
Si les p r o b l è m e s liés à l’e x ég è se p h i lo s o p h i q u e o u m ê m e à la p o l é m i q u e p o u v a ie n t
ê tre f a c ile m e n t circonscrits, il n ’e n est pas d e m ê m e p o u r les i n te r p r é t a ti o n s dites litté
rales. Il m e se m b le q u e l’o n n ’a pas été assez c o n s c ie n t d e s p r é s u p p o s é s d e le u r utilisa
tion. Les histo rie n s d e n o t r e siècle o n t tro p fa c ile m e n t e m b o î t é le pas a u x m é d i é v a u x
qui, je l’ai dit, n ivela ie nt l’e x ég è se juive, la b l o q u a n t au n iv ea u d e la litte ra . C e tte r é
d u c ti o n n ’est pas d u e s e u l e m e n t à u n e p o sitio n p o l é m i q u e m ais s u r t o u t aux difficultés
po sé e s p a r la p r é se n c e d a n s l’e x ég èse juive d ’é lé m e n t s tra d itio n n e ls , q u e n e c o m p r e
n a ie n t pas t o u jo u r s c la i r e m e n t les juifs d ’O c c i d e n t e u x - m ê m e s ; c ’est q u e c e tte exégèse
re n o u v e l é e et ta n t b ie n q u e m a l a d a p t é e a u x m o u le s d e l’e xégèse o c c id e n ta le c o n t i
n u a it à c h arrier des é lé m e n t s p r o v e n a n t d u m id r a s h \ le c o m m e n t a i r e d e Rashi m é
lange sans cesse ces d iffére n ts ty pes de m a té ria u x et, m ê m e si c ertain s d e ses su c c e s
se u rs (S a m u el b e n Meir, J o s e p h b e n S i m e o n Q a r a voire J o s e p h B e k h o r Sho r) ré serv e n t
au p e s b a t la place la p lus g r a n d e , ils n e p e u v e n t t o t a l e m e n t re je te r les d o n n é e s tr a d i
t io n n e l le s 56: en t r a n s p o s a n t cela da n s l’e xégèse c h r é t ie n n e , n o u s a u r io n s d e s textes où
l’o n passerait sans cesse d e c o n s i d é r a ti o n s p s e u d o - d i o n y s i e n n e s à u n e e x ég è se d u type
des A d n o ta t i o n e s de H u g u e s d e S a in t- V ic to r (du reste, c’est parfois le cas d a n s la G lossa
o r d in a r ia ). 11 se m b le q u e la lim ite n ’ait pas t o u jo u r s été p e r ç u e p a r les juifs - je ne
parle pas des m a îtr e s qui, d a n s la m o u v a n c e d e Rashi, t e n t e n t d e f o n d e r u n e exégèse
littérale ( c o m m e S a m u e l b e n Meir), m ais des lecteurs n o n p r o fe s sio n n e ls d e l’exégèse,
si je p uis dire, et q u i s e m b l e n t ê tre de plus e n plus s o u v e n t les i n te r l o c u t e u r s h a b itu e ls
d e s m a î t r e s chrétie ns. E n d i s t in g u a n t les différen ts n iv e a u x d ’e xégèse d a n s les i n te r
33 A lb e rti M a g n i Postilla su p e r Isaiam. Ed. F erdinandus Siepm ann (Münster i.W. 1952) 67. La ré
férence (vague) de l’éditeu r à H u gu es de S t-C h er n e se m ble pas fondée (cf. éd. de C ologne 1621,
fol. 75va). Cf .Jérôm e, C C 73, 421. La Glossa n ’attribue pas cela aux juifs et dit se u le m e n t (col.
317): «Hyperbolice saeuitiam Rom anorum .»
,A Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 573, fol. 13va. Nous n ’avons trouvé cette interpré tation ni chez A ndré
ni chez H ugues de St-Cher. Cf. Thom as d ’A q u in , In Isaiam, éd. citée, 60: «Hoc autem signum Iudei ad litteram e x p o n u n t de filio Ysaie, per cuius n o m e n D o m i n u s significare volebat d ecem trib u u m destructionem.»
n Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14 431, fol. 60va. Source: Jérôme, C C 73, 157.
56 Voir B enjam in Celles, Peshat a nd Der ash in the Exegesis of Rashi (Leiden 1981); Sarah K aw/'n, Jew s an d Christians In terp ret the Bible 0 éru salem 1991) partie hébraïque 7 3 - 9 8 (Joseph
Bekhor S h o r et sa po lém iq u e contre l’allégorie).
134
G ilbert D ahan
p r é ta tio n s juives citées p a r les c o m m e n t a t e u r s c h r é tie n s, o n t âc h era de clarifier ces
p ro b lè m e s .
4.1. I n te r p r é ta tio n s littérales. - U n c ertain n o m b r e d ’i n te r p r é t a ti o n s littérales a p p a r
t i e n n e n t au n iv ea u d u p esh a t. C o m m e o n l’a dit, elles v i e n n e n t éclairer des détails h is
to r iq u e s o u a rc h é o lo g i q u e s d u texte. J e ne crois pas q u e l ’é ru d it i o n b ib liq u e des juifs
m é d i é v a u x ait été b ien su p é r i e u r e à celle des c h r é tie n s : m ais le u r c o n n a is s a n c e de la
la n g u e h é b r a ï q u e et, s u r t o u t , celle d ’u n certain n o m b r e d ’usages d e m e u r é s à p e u près
se m b la b le s au c o u rs des siècles le u r p e r m e t d e c o m p r e n d r e p lus fa c i le m e n t certaines
particularités des textes d e l’A n c i e n T e s ta m e n t . O n relè vera t o u t d ’a b o r d u n e id e n tifi
catio n g é o g r a p h i q u e tro u v é e pa r A l b e r t le G r a n d c h e z M a ï m o n i d e m ais d o n t , pas plus
q u e les é d ite u rs de C o lo g n e , n o u s n ’avo ns p u d é c e le r l’origin e:
• E t erit in die illci: adiieiet D om inas secundo m a n m n suant a d possidendum residuum poptili sai...
[/s. 11, 11] Alii enim, qui ultra m o n te s Caspios translati sunt, sicut dicit Rabbi Moyses, relieta lege
ad g en tilem ritu m se transtulerunt...*57.
U n e d isc ussion lin g u istiq u e su r le ré fè re n t d u possessif e n Is. 6, 2 a p p a r a ît da n s p l u
sieurs c o m m e n t a i r e s d u X I I I e siècle (p a n a v p e u t e f fe c ti v e m e n t ê tre c o m p r i s «son vi
sage» =
fa c ie m eiits o u «leu r visage» = fa c ie m s u a n i, l’h é b r e u n e faisant pas la diffé
re n c e e n tr e possessif réfléchi e t n o n réfléchi); o n la citera d ’après G u e r r ic de SaintQ u e n tin :
«D u a b u s aliis velabant faciem eius... Quod potest intelligi tam singulare quam plurale et potest
referri ad Dorninum vel ad seraphim. Et secundum iudeos refertur ad scraphim, ut intelligant
quod seraphim faciem suam et pedes suos velabant et non faciem vel pedes Domini et dicunt
Isaiam blasphemasse eum dixit V id i D o m in u m .»58
Le c o m m e n t a i r e d e G u i l la u m e d ’A l t o n sur Is. 32, 1 n o u s d o n n e r a en fin u n e x e m p le
d ’in te r p r é t a ti o n h is t o r iq u e à laquelle est o p p o s é e u n e e x égè se c h ris tiq u e :
- bitt in iustitia. Hic subdit eausam predictorum, seilicet regis Ezechie bonitatem, secundum
quod iudei exponunt. Sed, quia secundum glosam, finita prophetia de hiis qui in Egiptium descendebant, incipit de adventu Christi et apostolorum eius, ideo hoc prosequamur.»59
4.2. In te r p r é ta tio n s m id r a s h iq u e s . - Les c ho se s se c o m p l i q u e n t avec l’utilisation d ’i n
te r p r é ta t io n s qu i resso rtisse n t au m id r a s h . D a n s b e a u c o u p d e cas, le m id r a s h a p p ara ît
57 Ed. Siepm ann (citée n. 30) 181.
58 Ms. Paris, Mazarine 240, fol. 13vb. Cf. Hugues de St-Cher, éd. de Cologne 1621, 16va; il cite la
source: Glossa H ieronim i; ci. Jérôme, Epist. 18, 10 (mais n ’est pas repris dans la Glossa\ [Yinlerlinearis dit seulem en t: eius] Dei no n suam, col. 87-88). Voici une autre rem arq ue linguistique,
dans le com m en taire d ’Isaïe d ’A lbert le Grand: • E m itte agnum , Domine, dom inatorem term e [Is.
16, 1], hoc est ad d o m i n a t o re m terrae, qui est rex d u a r u m trib uum . D i c u n t e n im hebraei quod
haec c o n s u etu do hebraici idiomatis, q u o d accusativus notans m o tu s t e r m in u m sine praepositione
p o n itu r et tam en c u m praepositione intelligitur», éd. Siepm ann, 221; bien q ue l'hébreu ne pos
sède pas de déclinaison elle reste intelligible (cf. M .I). Schilling, G ram m a ire h éb raïq ue élém en
taire [Paris 1943] 54); le passage offre d u reste des difficultés de com p réh en sio n . Cf. Hugues de StCher, t. 4 (Cologne 1621) 39rb: «D om inatorem , id est ad d o m i n a t o re m terrae, id est ad Ezechiam
regem. Sic h ab en t Hebraei, qui d ic u n t praepositionem saepe deficere apu d eos.»
59 Ms. Paris, BN lat. 573, fol. 44vb. A utre interprétation du m ê m e type dans le m ê m e c o m m e n
taire, fol. 41va: <-Ve fi li i désertons [Is. 30, 1]... Heb rei tam en dicun t illud esse co ntra Hela regem
Israël, qui, relicto Deo, fugit ad Sesae reg em Egipti, iiii Reg. xvii»; cf. Hugues de St-Cher, fol. 29vb.
135
c o m m e u n su r-ré cit ( p lu tô t u n e sé rie d e sur-récits) qui c o m p l è t e e t r e co u v re la n a rra
tion initiale: l’é tu d e d e ces a g a d o t à la lu m iè re des r e c h e rc h e s c o n c e r n a n t la «narratologie» reste à faire. P o u r n o t r e p ro p o s, r e t e n o n s s i m p l e m e n t c e t a s p e c t p a rticu lier de
l’e xégèse juive tra d itio n n e lle (c’e st-à-d ire r e m o n t a n t à de s so urc es orien tales, a n t é r i e u
res à l’e ssor d u ju d a ï s m e d ’O c cid e n t). La d é lim ita tio n n ’é t a n t pas faite e n tr e ces s u r - r é
cits et les e x plic ation s h isto r iq u e s, le le c te u r n o n p r é v e n u au ra t e n d a n c e à m e t t r e les
d e u x su r le m ê m e p lan et à lire les a g a d o t c o m m e des récits h isto riq u e s. C ’est ce q u e
fait le l e c te u r juif m o y e n a u X l l e o u au X I I I 1' siècle. N o u s av ons n o t é q u e la m ise de
ces a g a d o t su r le m ê m e p lan q u e l’histoire n e p e u t q u ’e n t r a î n e r le u r caractérisation
c o m m e J a b u la e - au se ns e x p o sé au d é b u t d e c ette c o m m u n i c a t i o n . C e p e n d a n t , cette
caractérisation n ’est pas t o u jo u r s faite et assez so u v e n t les a g a d o t s o n t re çu e s p o sitive
m e n t , in tr o d u ite s pa r la m e n t i o n H e b r a e i d ic u n t. A insi G u e r r ic de S a i n t - Q u e n t i n r a p
po rte-t-il l’ex p lic atio n suiva n te , p r é s e n t e é g a l e m e n t d a n s d ’a u tre s c o m m e n t a i r e s :
«Tu et q u i derelictus est [ h. 7, 3). U t d icu n t hebrei, Isaias duos filios habuit, scil. ilium Iasub et Rapsacen. Q ui cu m q u o d a m die intrasset ad regem Iuda, non ho norauit e u m rex s e c u n d u m q u o d nobilitas eius exigebat; nobilis e n im erat genere, et ideo Rapsaces iratus abiit ad reg em Assiriorum,
qui fecit e u m p rincipem exercitus sui, et ideo, scil. quia recessit iste Rapsaces dieitur alius filius
Isaie, scil. Iasub, derelictus. Derelictus enim fuit a fratre suo Rapsace.»60
D a n s so n c o m m e n t a i r e d e Z a c h a rie , A l b e r t le G r a n d r e p r o d u i t u n e i n te r p r é t a ti o n m id r a s h iq u e c o u ra n te , à p r o p o s d e ce verset o u d ’autres, qui m e t en jeu la c ro y an c e selon
laquelle u n a n g e est p ré p o s é à c h a q u e n a tio n :
. Et respondit angélus D o m ini[Z aeh. 1, 12], Iste angélus fuit, ut dicun t hebraei, Miehael, qui praefuit
synagogae. Rcsp ondit au tem o ccas ionem accipiens ex verbis aliorum ang elo rum provincialium,
quia o m n is terra habitatur et quiescit, q u o d et Iudaeorum terra deberet habitari et quiescere.»61
Un a utre e x e m p le , très significatif d e s in te r p r é t a ti o n s m id ra s h i q u e s , sera pris da n s u n
c o m m e n ta ir e d e J é r é m ie q u i a re çu diverses a ttri b u ti o n s e t p o u r r a i t être de G u e rr ic de
S a i n t- Q u e n t i n 62:
«Sepelient in Thopbet eo q u od non sit loeus \Jer. 7, 32]... T ra d u n t Heb rei q u o d in T h o p h e t est quedam fouea q ue dieitur os inferni, q ue n u n q u a m p otuit impleri et ibi m iseru n t corpora; tedio en im
multitudinis n on p o t u e r u n t facere foueas.«63
4.3.
Les m éta p h o res. - L ’e x ég èse d e s livres p r o p h é t i q u e s pose des p r o b l è m e s s u p p l é
m entaires, p u i s q u ’ils ne p e u v e n t pas être pris au sens p ro p r e . Le langage p r o p h é t i q u e
a pparaît c o m m e m é t a p h o r i q u e : le p r o p h è t e d o n n e parfois l u i - m ê m e l’in te rp ré t a ti o n
00 Ms. Paris, Mazarine 240, fol. 15va. M ê m e agada reproduite par Hugues de St-Cher, t. 4 (Co
logne 1621) 19ra; G uillaum e d ’Alton, ms. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 573, fol. 11 va. Ni J é r ô m e ni la
Glossa ne la do nnent.
61 Ed. Borgnet, p. 526. Ci. Jérôme, C C 76, 754, repris par la Glossa (col. 2123), Pierre le Chantre
(ms. cité, fol. 137va) et Hugues de St-Cher (fol. 213ra).
1,2 Voir Friedrich Stegmi'dler, R e perto riu m biblicum medii aevi, n° 2679 (Guerric de St-Quentin),
2790 (Guillaume d ’Alton), 2906 (Guillaume de Luxeuil, ofm, c. 1340) et 5767 (ps.-Nicolas de
Gorran).
63 Ms. Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 14 265, fol. 340vb. Le texte de Jérôme, In H ierem iam . Ed. Sigofredus
/?«7iT(Tumhout 1960) [CC 74] 8 4 - 8 5 , est assez différent. Sur les sources rabbiniques, voir Louis
Cinxberg, T he Legends of the Jews, t. 6 (Philadelphia 1925) 19-
136
G ilbert D ahan
de sa m é t a p h o re . Mais d a n s u n c ertain n o m b r e de cas, le d é c h i f f r e m e n t
difficultés. C ’est alors q u e l’utilisation de l’exégèse juive s e m b le la plus fé
Presente des
q u e s’a c c r o c h a n t f e r m e m e n t au tex te et refusant le sa u t d e l’in terprétati'
iree
spirituelle
(ou allégorie), l’e x égè se juive f o u rn it des r é p o n se s au n iv e a u d e la litt e r a : o n se
raP{» Il
q u e T h o m a s d ’A q u i n s’é tait livré à u n e analyse rig o u re u s e des niveau x de se ns dtextes p r o p h é t i q u e s e t avait c o n c lu p a r u n e é tu d e a d m i r a b l e d u se n s n ié ta p h o rit ^
d u s d a n s le se ns littéral64; c e tte analyse rejoignait celle d e M a ï m o n i d e dans le Ç ,
.Hit
et, plus g é n é r a l e m e n t , se trouv ait e n c o n s o n n a n c e avec l’e xégèse juive. Mais celle
,
s
,
lle-ci np
se p riv an t pas d a p p l i q u e r aussi a u x P r o p h è t e s l’a p p r o c h e m id r a s h i q u e , l’é tu d e des •
t a p h o r e s n e se tr o u v e pas facilitée. U n certain n o m b r e d ’o c c u r r e n c e s n o u s
, '
.
.
‘ Ilettront
s u r la voie.
- Albert, sur Zach. 1, 20: .E l oslendit m ichi D om inas q u a tu o r fabros, destructores maloru
constructores bonorum. Iudaei dicunt primum fabrum esse Cyrum, qui destruxit Chajcl iî,01 Ct
liberauit Iudaeos. Secundus est Esther et Mardochaeus... Tertius ludas Macchabaeus Qinrt"^
Helius Adrianus, qui templum reedificauit quod destruxerat Romanus...»66.
" U*
- T h o m a s d ’A q u in , sur Is. 6, 2: «Huius visionis significatum tripliciter accipitur. Hebreus tlic't
q u o d per XII alas in telliguntur XII reges qui prefueru nt p op u lo ab Ozia, sub q u o visio i n c
est...»67.
''
- T h o m a s d ’Aq u in , sur Is. 26, 5: Oui incuruabit habitantes. Iudei referunt ad Romano-
Le p r o b l è m e est d o n c le su iv a nt: les textes p r o p h é t i q u e s p r é s e n t e n t u n e série de méta
p h o re s, q u ’il est n é ce ssa ire d e d é cry p ter. Q u a n d le p r o p h è t e n e d o n n e pas l u i - m ê m e la
clé, o ù la t r o u v e r ? Plus p a r ti c u l i è r e m e n t , q uel t e m p s vise l’ora cle p r o p h é ti q u e ? Il cst
é v id e n t q u ’est e n jeu ici la n o t i o n m ê m e de p r o p h é ti e : le p r o p h è t e est-il la «conscience
politique» d e ses c o n t e m p o r a i n s ? Si oui, so n m es sa g e n e c o n c e r n e q u e son milieu le
fu tu r d e ses visions est u n fu tu r p r o c h e , la m é t a p h o r e est à i n te r p r é t e r dans un micro
c o s m e t e m p o r e l et spatial r é d u it (telle est l’a p p r o c h e d e s e xég è te s actuels). O u bien le
p r o p h è t e est u n vision naire , p o r t e - p a ro le d ’u n D ie u q u i t r a n s c e n d e le t e m p s et dont le
m es sa g e s ’é te n d a u -d elà de s siècles. L’e xégèse juive oscille e n tr e d e u x t e m p s de la pro
p h é tie : u n f u t u r re la ti v e m e n t p r o c h e , e n to us cas a n t é r i e u r au m o m e n t où l’exégète
écrit; u n f u tu r a te m p o re l , t e m p s e s c h a t o lo g i q u e 69. L’e xégèse c h r é t ie n n e intègre ies
64 Cf. n o t a m m e n t S u m m a theologica la, q. 1, a. 9, et Quodl. VIL, q. 6, a. 1-3. Voir notre étude
citée n. 16.
,y> Voir n o t a m m e n t l’in tro du ction du Guide. Q uelques rem arq ue s intéressantes dans l’étude de
W arren Z Harvey, citée n. 34.
66 Ed. Borgne!, t. 19, p. 529. Cf., avec de m in im es différences, lin g u es de St-Cher, t. 5 (Cologne
1621) 214rb; sa liste d o n n e (1) Zoro bab el, lesus et Esdras, (2) H e s te r et Esdras [sic], (3) Machalwei,
(4) Aelius Hadrianus.
67 Ed. Léonine, t. 28, 49. Les éditeurs ind iqu en t la source: Jérôme, Ep. 18, 10 (repris par la Glossa,
col. 88, et Hugues de St-Cher, fol. 56va).
68 Ed. Léonine, t. 28, 123. Source: Jé rô m e , C C 73, 332, et Glossa interlinearis, col. 249-230.
69 Les exégètes médiévaux em p lo ie n t alors des formules c o m m e «Les juifs réfèrent cela à leur
Messie, q u ’ils a tte n d e n t encore»; cf. Hugues de St-Cher, sur Joë l 3, 9: «C lam ate etc. Hiero. [en tait
assez différent]. Iudaei d ic u n t q u o d cm n venerit Christus e o r u m et aurea lerusalem desccnccr
de caelo...» (éd. de Co logne 1621, 182ra); A lbert le G ra n d (en plus des exem ples cités pi
su r A m os 9, 12: «Ut possideant reliquias Idumaeae, q u o d litteraliter n u n q u a m accidit,
Iudaei fabulentur q u o d hoc in aurea lerusa lem fu turu m sit» (éd. Borgne!, t. 19, 266); sur . «•
L’u til is a ti o n d e l’e xégè s e juive
137
niais elle ajou te u n e d o n n é e fo n d a m e n ta le , écarte lée e n tr e ces d e u x
^ eUX C
les p r o p h è te s n ’o n t parlé q u e d u Christ. L’i n te rp r é ta tio n d a n s u n t e m p s
t e m p s : ^ Ü<bre f d es ju ^ s a PPara ^ aôrs c o m m e u n e lecture tro p littérale (c’est-à-d ire ne
histop<ïue
dépassant
^
obvie ou le sens pro pre); leur i n te r p r é ta tio n e sc h a t o lo g i q u e ap p aCOm m e allégoriqu e, alors q u e p r é c i s é m e n t le d é c h i f f r e m e n t d e la p r o -
1,111 1,0 ¿ 0 it rester littéral (mais passer au sens figuré). Q u e l q u e s tex tes d ’A l b e r t le
Pêl!^
| us [ia u t illu stre nt c ette a ttitude . Le c o m m e n ta ir e d e P ierre d e J e a n O lieu
jj i
2 10
A s p tc ie n t in e u m q u e m I m n s J ix e r u n t no u s d o n n e r a u n e x e m p l e des
difficultés que re sse n ten t parfois les exégètes:
od qui3 ' n vcter' T estam en to oportuit propria Christi dici partim clare partim adutn'•'iotB-.jcjrco ordinavit Deus q u o d sic verbis propriissimis sepissime scribentur, q u o d tarnen triduinbrarentur. Primo scilicet ex dispersione eo ru m per varia facta, ut es sent sicut grana
pliuter
cum ulus arene dispersa et abscondita. Secundo ex con iun ctio n e e o r u m ad
âUra materias corticis litteralis veteris testamenti. Tercio ex eo q uo d verba propria p o ssu nt pleVarl,1S sunii sub significato c o m m u n io ri... U nd e iudeus hoc velamine cecatus diceret hic qu o d
runHl11
peccatis variis offende ndo, iuxta q uo d Paulus, Hebr. vii ° dicit C h r istu m recruciconhxerun
t
7
figi a baptizatis mortahter peccantibus.»
11 s’agit donc ici d ’u n e «fausse» in te r p r é t a ti o n juive, d ’u n e in te r p r é t a ti o n re c o n s t r u i te à
(a m a n iè re de l’exégèse juive; or il ne s’agit pas d ’u n e in te r p r é t a ti o n littérale, m ais
d’une tro p o lo g ie : au lieu d ’i n te r p r é t e r lit t é r a le m e n t le ve rset de Z a c h a rie c o m m e se r é
férant à la Passion d u C hrist, ils y tr o u v e n t u n e a pplication m o r a l e 71.
Bien q u ’il s’agisse d ’u n a u te u r de la fin d u X I I e siècle, n o u s c ite ro n s u n a u tre e x etn pi, dans le m ê m e sens, p o u r la clarté avec laquelle a p p a ra ît le p r o b l è m e q u e n o u s
avons évoqué; dans son c o m m e n t a i r e d u v. 21 d ’A b d ia s («Et a s c e n d e n t salvatores in
montem Sion iudicare Esau et erit D o m i n o regnutn»), Pierre le C h a n t r e p r ê te a u x juifs
une interprétation e sc h atologiq ue , alors q u e l’exégèse c h r é t ie n n e s’a tta c h e à l’histoire
{il donne en second lieu u n e i n te r p r é t i o n «mystique», m ais avec ce « d é c r o c h e m e n t» ca
ractéristique du sens spirituel):
«ludei hoc de tempore antichristi interp retan tu r et d icunt illud dici contra R o m a n u m im per iu m .
N -ub Zorobabel iam factum intelligim us a d litteram , sed mystice in ecclesia et iti regno anime
eottidie hoc impleri uidemus.»7’
A l'issue de ces considérations, est-il possible de défin ir les fo n c tio n s des i n t e r p r é t a
tions juives à l’intérieur d e l’e xégèse c h r é t ie n n e ? O n se risqu era à d e ra p id e s réflexions
I
izu n g Fußnote von Seite 136
14: ,Pasee [>o[>ulnm Imiin. Tangit hic de m o d o congregandi p op u lu m et educendi de captiuitate,
quae Iudaei referunt ad tem p us sui Messiae, et hoc d eb et fieri in aurea lerusalem» (ibid. 372). Le
commentaire des Petits P rophètes de Pierre le Ch a n tr e offre plusieurs exem ples rem arquables
des deux types d ’interprétation juive; ainsi, sur Zach. 10, 3: «Super pastores etc. Hoc iudei quidam
dicunt implendum tempor e christi sui. Alii d icu n t im p letu m tem pore m a c h a b e o r u m ...» (ms. cité,
toi. 143ra).
V
n Ms: Paris' BN l a t 507, fol. 32rb.
\ o i r également Albert le G rand (éd. Borgnet, t. 19, 596). Voir Gilbert D aban, Réflexions sur
exégèse des livres prophétiques à la fin du m o y en âge, in: Pierre Lacroix, A ndrée Renon (édd.),
7>C,wt e ’J maSe ct cor>iirmnication en Euro pe médiévale (Besançon 1993) 195-196.
• 1s. Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 16 793, fol. I téra . Cf .Jérôme, CC 7*6, 369, résum é par la Glossa, col.
-■>2, et repris par Hugues de St-Cber, fol. 191vb.
138
G ilbert D ahan
d ’e n s e m b le . I o Bien q u e l’o n c o n s ta te t o u t au long d u X I I I e siècle u n e utilisatio n de
l’e xégèse juive, o n n e p e u t m a n q u e r d e r e m a r q u e r le c ara ctè re très éparpillé d e ses
m e n t i o n s . C e rta in s c o m m e n t a i r e s n e p r é s e n t e n t q u e d e rares o c c u r r e n c e s et m ê m e
d a n s c e u x p o u r lesqu els la m o is s o n est m o i n s m a ig re o n p e u t lire d e l o n g u e s suites de
folios sans a u c u n e allusion a u x H e b r e i o u lu d e i. 2° E n d e h o r s d e c e rta in s lieux p o l é m i
q ues, il ne se m b le pas q u e l’o n puisse o b se r v e r des c o n s t a n t e s : o n a p l u t ô t l’i m p r e s s io n
q u e les c o m m e n t a t e u r s c h r é t ie n s d i s p o s e n t d ’u n assez vaste fo n d s d ’i n te r p ré t a ti o n s
juives d a n s leq uel ils p u i s e n t au gré d e leurs besoins. 3° S o us réserve d ’u n in ven ta ire
m o i n s in c o m p l e t , o n affirm era p r o v i s o i r e m e n t q u e l’e x ég èse juiv e jo u e s u r t o u t u n rôle
d e stim u l a ti o n ; c ertes (m ises à p a rt la p h i lo s o p h ie e t la p o l é m iq u e ) , les i n te r p ré t a ti o n s
explicativ es s u r le p lan d e l’histo ire o u d e l’a rch é o lo g ie s o n t r e la ti v e m e n t n o m b r e u s e s ;
m ais p lu s significatives n o u s p a r a iss e n t les in te r p r é t a ti o n s m id r a s h i q u e s : au m o m e n t
où l’o n affirm e q u e la J a b ir fa , V in te g u m e n tu m , l’in v o lttc r u m s o n t é v ac u és de l’exégèse
c h r é t ie n n e , p u i s q u e la lec tu re de la Bible est d e v e n u e scien ce, la a g a d a juive laisse o u
v erte u n e fe nêtre su r le m y t h e , é l é m e n t i n d is p e n s a b le à la le c tu re d e textes q ui o n t été
écrits e n u n m ilieu et u n t e m p s o ù le m y t h e était le p rin cip al m o y e n d ’e x p re ss io n et
d ’exégèse. D ’où, ici e n c o r e , u n e t e n s io n jam ais r e lâ ch é e e n tr e le m é p r i s e t l’attrait.
Sabine Schmolinsky
Merkmale der Exegese bei Alexander Minorita
1940 e r sc h ie n die erste A uflage vo n Beryl Sm alleys ,The S t u d y of th e Bible in the
M id d le Ages', 1952 die e rw e ite rte z w e i t e 1, zu Z e i t e n also, da Sm a lle y k a u m G e l e g e n
h e it ha tte , das e xe g e tisc h e W e r k e in e s n o r d d e u t s c h e n F ra n z is k a n e rs aus d e r M itte des
13. J a h r h u n d e r t s k e n n e n z u l e r n e n , e in e s M a n n e s, v on d e m m a n a u c h h e u te k a u m
m e h r weiß, als daß m a n ih n A l e x a n d e r M in o rita n e n n e n k a n n . S e i n e n A p o k a l y p s e n
k o m m e n t a r k o n n t e m a n z u r G ä n z e n u r in d e m p h o t o t y p i s c h e n A b d r u c k e in e r Prager
H a n d s c h r if t aus d e r M itte de s 14. J a h r h u n d e r t s le s e n 2, bis 1955 die A u s g a b e von Alois
W a c h te l bei d e n M o n u m e n t a G e r m a n i a e H isto rica e r s c h i e n 3.
A b g e s e h e n von älte re n, m e i s t an b e s t i m m t e H a n d s c h r if t e n sich a n s c h li e ß e n d e n
S t u d i e n 4 e röffn ete erst das w a c h s e n d e Intere sse an J o a c h i m vo n Fiore u n d se in e r W ir k u n g s g e s c h ic h te die m o d e r n e R e z e p ti o n des K o m m e n t a r s , J o a c h i m s b e g i n n e n d e n
Ein fluß in D e u t s c h l a n d fassen zu k ö n n e n , fü h r te M o r t o n W . B lo o m fie ld u n d M arjorie
E. R eeves zu A l e x a n d e rs W e r k als e r s t e m Z e u g e n j o a c h itis c h e r A u f f a ss u n g e n , d e n sie
n a ch d e r d a m a ls j ü n g s t e n A rb e it, W a c h te l s D iss erta tio n , e in z u s c h ä t z e n sich b e m ü h
t e n 5. E i n g e h e n d e r u n t e r s u c h t e ih n R eeves in ih r e m für die J o a c h i t i s m u s - F o r s c h u n g
b a h n b r e c h e n d e n B u c h ,The In f l u e n c e of P r o p h e c y in th e Later M id d le A g e s 1. Ih re
L ek türe w a r insofern ein e histo ris ch e , als sie n a ch fran z isk a n is c h e n Z e u g n i s s e n für
joachitisch insp irierte V o r s te l lu n g e n ü b e r die Rolle des Fran z v o n Assisi u n d se ines
1 Beryl Smalley, T he Stu dy of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 51983, repr. 1984); künftig:
Smalley, Study.
2 A n to n Frind, S crip tu m super A pocalypsim cu m imaginibus (Wenceslai Doctoris). C od e x Bibliothecac Capituli ... Metropolitani Pragensis in s o le m n e m m e m o r ia m ... edittis a V. F. Capitnlo
M etropolitana (Prag 1873).
3 A lexan d er M in o rita , Expositio in Apocalyps im , hrsg. v. A lois W achtel (M G H , Q u ellen zur G ei
stesgeschichte des Mittelalters 1, W e i m a r 1955); künftig: A lexander, Expositio. 1937 war W ach
tels Dissertation er schien en: Die weltges chichtliche Apocalypse- Ausleg ung des Min oriten A lex
ander von Bremen, in: Franziskanische S tudien 24 (1937) 2 0 1 - 2 5 9 u n d 3 0 5 - 3 6 3 (dort ältere
Aufsätze). Vgl. Beatrice Hirsch-Reich, D e r A p o k a l y p s e -K o m m e n t a r des n o r d d e u ts c h e n M inoriten
Alexander, in: R T h am 24 (1957) 3 6 1 -3 64 .
Vgl. Literaturverzeichnis in: Sabine Schmolinsky, D e r A p o k a i y p s e n k o m m e n t a r des Alex an der
Minorita. Z u r frühen Reze ption J o a c h im s von Fiore in D eu tsch lan d ( M G H , S tudien u n d Texte 3,
Hannover 1991) X-XV; künftig: Schmolinsky, A po kalyp senk om m entar.
M orton W. Bloom field, M arjorie E. Reeves, T h e Pen etration of Joa ch ism into N o r t h e rn Europe,
in: Speculum 29 (1954) 7 7 2 - 7 9 3 , hier 790. Über die E ntw ic klu ng ihrer Jo a ch im is m u s-S tud ien
berichtet Reeves in: dies., A Sixty-Year Pilgrimage with the A b b o t Jo a chim , in: Florensia 6 (1992)
7-32, hier 16.
140
S a b in e S c h t n o l i n s k y
O r d e n s in d e r G e s c h i c h t e fragte6, a b e r sie las d e n K o m m e n t a r a u c h u n h i s t o r is c h , da
sie die von W a c h t e l in d e r E i n l e it u n g u n t e r s c h i e d e n e n E n ts t e h u n g s s t u f e n des T ex tes
n i c h t b e rü ck sic h tig te.
A le x a n d e r s Rolle als m e h r o d e r w e n i g e r jo achitisch g e tö n t e r , histo ris ch die A p o k a
lypse a u s l e g e n d e r E x e g e t b r a c h t e ih n bei H e n r i de L ub ac in M iß k re d it, d e r „ h is to ri
q u e m e n t “ in d i e s e m Z u s a m m e n h a n g n u r in A n f ü h r u n g s z e i c h e n v e r w e n d e n m o c h t e
u n d A le x a n d e r an d e n A n f a n g e in e r „flot des e x é g è te s“ stellte, die sich v o m S p ä t m i t
telalter an in d e n Z w e ig e n des P r o t e s t a n t i s m u s u n d im m o d e r n e n K a t h o li z is m u s a u s
g e b r e i te t h a b e : „ - e t c’est u n e i m m e n s e littéra ture d é liran te , illustrée p a r d e très
grands n o m s
leitete e r sein z w eib ä n d ig e s W e r k ü b e r die „ p o sté rité spirituelle de
J o a c h i m d e F lo re “ e i n 7.
Beryl Sm a lle y h i n g e g e n h a tte sich in e rste r Linie d e r E r f o r s c h u n g des m itte la lte r li
c h e n U m g a n g s m it d e m h isto r is c h e n , d e m L iteralsin n v e r s c h r ie b e n , in ih rer Begrifflic h k e it: „ T h e m ed ie val s t u d y of th e literal historical s e n s e a n d th e sto ry of h o w it
c a m e in to m o r e p r o m i n e n c e . “ 8 E in A le x a n d e r M in o rita h ä tte ein M a rk ste in in ih rer
G e s c h i c h t e des B ib elv e rstän d n iss es sein k ö n n e n , w e n n sie n i c h t die jo a c h im isc h -jo a c h itisc h e K o m m e n t a r t r a d i t i o n b e w u ß t beiseite gelassen h ä tte , d a sie J o a c h i m s d u r c h a u s als subtil a n e r k a n n t e - S p e k u l a t i o n e n n i c h t für E xegese, s o n d e r n für „a n e w
wave of m y s t ic i s m “ in k i r c h l i c h e n K ri s e n z e i te n h ie l t 9. I h r Pfa d im 13. J a h r h u n d e r t
w a r „ a pplica tion of n a tu r e s t u d y to Bible s t u d y “ als ein E i n d r i n g e n des N a tu r a lis m u s
in die Bibelexegese , d e s D e ta ilin te re ss e s an d e n D i n g e n se lbst, das sich m it d e r Rolle
d e r B e tte lo r d e n in d e r L e h r e v e r b a n d u n d einerseits die b i o g r a p h i s c h e E r z ä h lu n g des
N e u e n T e s ta m e n t s , a n d e re r se its säkulare T h e m e n h e r v o rt r e te n l ie ß 10.
A n d ies er Stelle soll ein z w e ite r Pfad für das 13. J a h r h u n d e r t v o rg e sc h la g e n w e rd e n ,
d e n m a n in Sm alleys D i k t i o n „ a p plica tion of h isto ry s t u d y to Bible s t u d y “ n e n n e n
k ö n n t e : Z u r h e n n e n e u t i s c h - e x e g e t i s c h e n F ra g e stellu n g tr e t e n h isto r is c h e F ragestel
l u n g e n h i n z u ; die A n w e n d b a r k e i t h is to r is c h e r D e n k f o r m e n in d e r B i b e l d e u tu n g wird
ü b e rp rü ft, z u m a l die S c hrift selbst vielfältige A n k n ü p f u n g s p u n k t e fü r ein historisches
V e r s t ä n d n i s bietet. G a n z offen s ich tlic h gilt dies fü r die h i s to ris c h e n B ücher, u n d der
S c h r itt zu d e n p r o p h e t i s c h e n ist rasch g e ta n , d a sich die E rf ü llu n g d e r G o tte s w o r te ,
die die L eg itim itä t des P r o p h e t e n b e g r ü n d e t , im h i s to r is c h e n E reig n is zeigt. D i e
se n Z u s a m m e n h a n g : P r o p h e t i e erfüllt sich in G e s c h i c h t e , h a t A l e x a n d e r M inorita
r ü c k w ärts g e le se n : G e s c h i c h t e ist v o rh e rg e s e h e n in d e r P r o p h e t ie , u n d z u m A u s
6 M arjorie Reeves, T he Influence of P ro phecy in the Later Middle Ages. A Study in Joaehim is m
(Oxford 1969) 1 7 7 -17 8 u.ö.
7 H en ri de Lubac, SJ., La postérité spirituelle de Jo a chim de Flore. T o m e I: De Jo a c h im à Schelling (Le Sycom ore 3, Paris 1979) 13. In seinem W erk: Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de
lecrittire (künftig: Lubac, Exégèse), Bd. II 2 (Théologie 59, Paris 1964) 3 3 3 - 3 3 5 stellte Lubac
Alexanders K o m m e n t a r als „presque tout envahi de J o a c h i m “ (333) dar.
8 Smalley, Study, vii u.ö.
9 Smalley, Study, xiii, 2 8 7 - 2 9 2 , 355, Z itat 359. Alex an der m u ß te ihr als ein unm ittelb are r Nach
folger J o a ch im s er sche inen; vgl. W ilhelm K a m la h , Apokalypse un d Geschichtstheologie. Die
mittelalterliche A usle gu ng der Apokalypse vor Joa ch im von Fiore (Historische S tud ien 285, Ber
lin 1935, repr. Vaduz 1965) 119-121.
10 Smalley, Study, 371 f., Z itat 372.
M e r k m a l e d e r E x e g e s e bei A l e x a n d e r M in o r ita
141
g a n g s p u n k t se in e r E x e g e s e m e t h o d i k g e m a c h t , wie er sie im P ro lo g se ines W e r k e s d a r
legt.
A le x a n d e r b e g in n t m it e i n e m E x z e r p t aus d e m H i e r o n y m u s z u g e s c h r i e b e n e n A p o
k a l y p s e n p r o l o g 1 u m sogleich bei d e m Begriff „ p r o p h e t ia “ für das B uc h d e r O f f e n b a
r u n g i n n e z u h a l t e n . D ie se G a t t u n g s b e s t i m m u n g be darf e in e r e ig e n e n B e g rü n d u n g :
„ Qualis e t e n i m c o n c o r d ia est i n te r l e g e m et e v an g e liu m , talis est c o n c o r d i a istius libri
c u m v o l u m i n i b u s a n t i q u o r u m p r o p h e t a r u m “ (5, Z. 7-9). „ C o n c o r d i a “, ein Leitbegriff
des K o m m e n t a r s , w ird unauffällig als B e z e ic h n u n g d e r b ib lisc h e n T y p o l o g i e 12 e in g e
f ü h r t u n d a m Beispiel d e r vier L e b e w e s e n bei E ze chie l u n d d e r vier Pfe rde bei Z a c h a
rias e r lä u te rt (5, Z. 1 0 - 1 4 ; vgl. 74, Z . 10-25). N a c h e in e m Satz ü b e r d e n T y p d e r vo n
J o h a n n e s e r fa h re n e n Vision u n d Z i t a t e n aus e in e m Brief des H i e r o n y m u s ü b e r die
v e rschlüsselten B e d e u t u n g e n d e r A p o k a l y p s e sie h t sich d e r Leser e i n e m g e d a n k l i c h e n
N e u a n s a t z g e g e n ü b e r : „ C u m i n t e n t i o n o str a ve r sa re tu r circa g e sta Ecclesiae, si facta
eins u s q u a m p r o p h e t a t a fuissent, q u a e s iv i m u s in verbis h u i u s libri e o r u m c o n c o r d i a m ,
cuius m ate ria exsistit de p o p u l is e t g e n ti b u s et linguis et re g ibu s m u lt i s [A pc 10,11], et
n o n r e p e r i m u s “ (6, Z. 8-1 2 ). N i c h t die D e u t u n g s b e d ü r f t i g k e i t d e s b i b lis c h e n T extes,
s o n d e r n die E r k e n n t n i s d e r a u ß e r b ib lis c h e n H isto rie, g e n a u e r : ihre p r o p h e t i s c h e A n
k ü n d i g u n g , wird jetz t als Frage ge se tz t. D a A p c 10,11 „et d i c u n t m ih i o p o r t e t te iter u m p r o p h e ta r e p o p u lis et g e n t i b u s et linguis et regibus m u lt i s “ als K e n n z e i c h n u n g
de r „ m a te r ia “ zu v e r s te h e n ist, b ie te t sich die A p o k a l y p s e an, als P r o p h e t ie d e r K i r
c h e n g e s c h ic h t e im M o d u s d e r „ c o n c o r d ia “ ge le se n zu w e rd e n . A le x a n d e r s c h e ite r t je
doch, u n d d e r L eser stellt fest: U n v e r m e r k t h a t sich d e r I n h a lt des Begriffs „ c o n c o r d ia “
g e w an d e lt; a n d e r s als zu B e gin n des Prologs b e z e ic h n e t e r jetz t e in e ha lb b ib lis c h e T y
pologie.
A l e x a n d e r b e d arf e x t e r n e r H ilfe: D ie I n tu itio n , die i h m s p ä t e r w id e rfä hrt, b e
schreib t e r n a ch d e m m itte la lte r lic h v e rtr a u te n M u s te r d e r Vision (6, Z. 1 2-2 1), die er
z u d e m n a ch d e m V o rb ild d e s A p o k a l y p ti k e rs J o h a n n e s (A p c 1,10) a n e i n e m S o n n ta g
einsetze n läßt. D ie se Vision - o d e r v ielleicht A u d i t io n - w ird v o n C h r i s t u s in d e r G e
stalt des a p o k a l y p t is c h e n L a m m s in d u z ie rt, u n d sie b e fähigt A l e x a n d e r z u r „intelligentia“ des A p o k a l y p s e -B u c h e s (vgl. Z . 20), e in e m V e r stä n d n is , das n i c h t so s e h r i n h a lts
be zoge n als v i e l m e h r m e t h o d i s c h o r ie n tie r t ist, da d e m E x e g e te n sein n e u a r t ig e r E x e
g e se m o d u s „ s e c u n d u m o r d i n e m h i s t o r ia r u m “ (Z. 20) e n t h ü l l t wird. D i e e xege tisc he
Vision ist als L eh re g e k e n n z e i c h n e t („instruieret“, Z. 19; „ d o c u i t “, Z. 21) u n d e re ig n e t
sich in zwei T eilen : Z u n ä c h s t e rfä h rt A l e x a n d e r „ p a r t e m m a x i m a m libri“ als „ im pletam “ (Z. 19 f.), s p ä t e r wird i h m d e r R e st e rk lä rt („aliaque p o ste a n o s d o c u i t “, Z. 21).
D er A u t o r im Besitz d ies er p r i m ä r s t r u k t u r e l l e n E r k e n n t n i s e n t h ü l l t h i e r k e in e Details
der A u s le g u n g u n d b le ib t e ig e n s t ä n d i g d e n Stoff o r d n e n d e r E xeget. Z u d e m erw eist er
sich als be rufe n, g e ra d e z u p r ä d e s t i n i e r t zu d e m d u r c h das L a m m e r m ö g l i c h t e n W erk ,
den n se in en N a m e n , d e n e r selbst nie n e n n t , k a n n er m i t Hilfe d e s ,L ib er i n te r p re ta tionis H e b r a i c o r u m n o m in u n V des H i e r o n y m u s m it „allevans te n e b r a s “ u m s c h r e i b e n
" Alexander, Expositio, 5, Z. 1- 7; Seiten- u n d Z eile nangaben künftig im Text. Vgl. die ähn li
chen Darlegungen in d e m Gilbert de la Porree zu ges ch rieben en A p okalypsenpro log: D onatien de
Bruyne (Hrsg.), Préface de la Bible Latine (N a m u r 1920) 263.
Liibac, Exégèse I (Théologie 41, Paris 1959) 3 28 -3 3 3 , 341 -3 43 .
142
Sabine Schm olinsky
(7, Z. 18 f.), u n d E xege se gilt i h m als e in A u f h e b e n d e r „ o b sc u rita s“ d e r verrä tse lte n
a p o k a l y p t is c h e n Bilder (7, Z. 1 3 - 1 5 ) 11.
U n a b h ä n g i g v o n d e n E r k lä r u n g e n u n d L e g i t im i e ru n g e n s e in e r M e t h o d e k a n n A l e x
a n d e r d e n A n s t o ß z u r L e k t ü r e n a c h d e m „ o rd o h i s t o r ia r u m “ d e r P r o p h e t i e selbst e n t
n o m m e n h a b e n : A p c 1,19 („scribe erg o qu a e vidisti e t q u a e s u n t e t q u a e o p o r t e t fieri
p o st h a e c “) e n th ä l t e in e n S c h r e ib a u f tr a g ü b e r V e r g a n g e n h e it, G e g e n w a r t u n d Z u k u n f t ,
d e sse n G lo ss e n a u s l e g u n g in H i n s i c h t auf die z u r ü c k l ie g e n d e Passion u n d A u f e r s t e
h u n g Christi A l e x a n d e r n o c h v e rstärk t: „ Q u a e s u n t i m p i e ta “ (21, Z . 27 f.). D ie Bischöfe
d e r sie b en K i r c h e n sind als u n g e fä h r e Z e i t g e n o s s e n des A p o k a l y p ti k e rs gre ifbar:
„ Circa ilia t e m p o r a n o n in v e n i m u s m a i o r e m e p i s c o p u m E p h e s o praefuisse q u a m
sanctum T im o th e u m
(A pc 2,1; 22, Z. 1 7 -1 9 ) o d e r : „ H isto ria [ = ’H isto ria Ecclesia-
stica’] dicit C a r p u m e id e m ecclesiae pra efuisse e p is c o p u m , q u i etiarn ibi passus est“
(A pc 2,12; 29, Z. 2 1 - 2 3 ) u .
A le x a n d e r k e n n z e i c h n e t „ h isto ria “ j e d o c h n i c h t n u r als Signifikat d e r a p o k a l y p
tis ch e n P r o p h e t i e 13, s o n d e r n r e fle k tie rt sie a u c h i m R a h m e n v iere r Schriftsin ne.
D e r e n g e w o h n t e A n o r d n u n g , b e g i n n e n d m i t d e m B u c h s t a b e n s i n n als d e m leichtest
faßlichen, v e r k e h r t er, i n d e m er das h isto ris ch e V e rs t ä n d n i s an d e r sc hw ie rigste n,
tie fsten v ierten Stelle zu s t e h e n k o m m e n l ä ß t 16. E r b e w eis t die R ic h t i g k e i t d ieser
R e ih e n fo lg e an e in e m Beispiel: D ie sie b en S te r n e in d e r R e c h t e n d e sse n , d e r wie
ein M e n s c h a u ssie h t (A p c 1,16), s in d „ p r im o loco“ im B u c h s t a b e n s i n n als S te r n e zu
v e rs t e h e n ; an z w eiter u n d d r i tt e r Stelle w e r d e n sie d u r c h A u s l e g u n g bzw. E r s c h lie
ß u n g in n e rh a lb d e r A p o k a l y p s e (A p c 1,20 u n d 2,10) als E n g el u n d M e n s c h g e d eu tet.
E rst a m Z i e l p u n k t d ie s e r A b l e it u n g k a n n h istorisch rich tig e in M e n s c h e r sc h e in e n ,
n ä m l i c h Bischof Po ly c arp v o n S m y r n a , ein j ü n g e r e r Z e i t g e n o s s e d e s J o h a n n e s , de r
d ies en lange ü b e r le b te , wie A l e x a n d e r h i n z u f ü g t 17. D ie Q u e l le w e c h s e l t e n t s p r e
13 E rnst Bernheim, Das W o r m s e r K o n k o r d a t un d seine V o r u rk u n d e n hinsichtlich E ntstehung,
Form ulier ung, Re chtsgültigkeit ( U n ters uchu ng en zur D eu ts ch en Staats- u n d Rechtsgeschichte
81, Breslau 1906) 85; H elm u th H in tz, Mittelalterliche G esch ichtsansch au un g u n d Eschatologie
in einem A p o c a ly p s e n k o m m e n ta r aus d e m !3. Ja h r h u n d e r t (Scriptum su p e r Apocalypsim , cod.
Prag. ed. 1873) (Greifswald 1915) 11; M a tth ia s Thiel, Grun dlag en u n d Gestalt der Hebräisc h
ken ntniss e des frühen Mittelalters (Biblioteca degli „Studi Medievaii“ 4, S poleto 1973) 233.
14 Z u A pc 2,12 fügt Alex an der bei: „ N o ta n d u m , q u o d Johannes non se m p e r de sibi co n tem p oraneis p rophetat, sed saepissime de hts, qui post e u m futuri er an t “ (30, Z. 2 - 4 ; vgl. 34, Z. 7 f.)
13 O h n e hier darstellen zu k ö n n e n , in welchen F o rm e n K o m m e n t a t o r e n seit der Patristik die
Apokalypse im Blick auf die Kirch e als P ro phetie „de praeterito, praesenti et futuro “ verstanden,
sei auf einflußreiche A u to r en wie Beda Venerabilis („... bella et incendi a intestina Ecclesiae suae
D eus verbis figurisque revelare dignatus est
PL 93, 129) un d H a im o verwiesen: Gerade weil
dieser das Verhältnis von P rophetie un d ge schichtlic her Erfüllung erfaßt hatte, distanzierte er
sich ausdrücklich von jeglicher historischer Interpretation d er Apokalypse („In hac autem revelatione nihil historicum est accipiendum , q u o d ipsa verba, si subtiliter insp iciuntur, docer e probant u r “ PL 117, 938).
16 „In qu o loco tarn obscure latet historia, ut se proprietas eius in q u arto loco sive ostio prodat.
A lexander, Expositio, 8, Z. 15-17.
17 Die B edeutungen an zweiter u n d dritter Stelle hielt Alexand er für „m ys tice“ gesprochen, wie
aus einer Bem erk u ng am E nde seiner A usle gung von Apc 14 hervorg eht: „N o t a n d u m , qu od hie
qu aedam verba ad litteram accipiuntur, q u aed am non, sicut supra patet, ubi S m y rn a m ad litteram
143
c h e n d v o n d e r A p o k a l y p s e z u r ,H isto ria E c d e s i a s ti c a “ d e s E u s e b io s - R u fin (8, Z.
14-26).
D as Beispiel - aus d e m e r ste n Bild d e r a p o k a l y p t is c h e n Vision - h a t p a r a d i g m a t i
s c h e B e d e u t u n g für seine g e s a m t e A u s le g u n g , d e n n A l e x a n d e r ist es g e lu n g e n zu zei
g e n , d a ß h isto ris ch e Id e n ti f i k a t io n e n sich in n e r h a lb des zu k o m m e n t i e r e n d e n T extes,
also m it d e n in n e rt e x t u e ll g e g e b e n e n I n t e r p re ta t io n s h il f e n , lo gisch d e d u z i e r e n lassen,
o h n e d a ß A x i o m e b e n ö ti g t w ü r d e n . So radikal, wie er die A p o k a l y p s e d e r S t r u k t u r des
d u r c h g ä n g i g e n „o rd o h i s t o r ia r u m “ u n t e r w o rf e n hat, stellt er sich a u c h auf d e r E b e n e
d e r E in z e l i n te r p r e ta ti o n n a c h d e n S c h r if ts in n e n g e g e n die T ra d itio n , i n d e m er L iteral
s i n n u n d „sensus h is to r ic u s “ v o n e i n a n d e r tr e n n t . F ü r z eitg e n ö ss isc h e T h e o l o g e n s t a n d
die E in h e i t des b u c h s t ä b l i c h e n u n d d e s h isto r is c h e n S c h riftv e rstä n d n iss e s n i c h t in
Frage, d e n n trotz u n t e r s c h i e d l i c h g e z ä h lt e r „ se n su s“ s e tz te n sie e in e n e in f a c h e n L ite
ralsin n a n 18. A le x a n d e r v o n H a ies n a n n t e ih n „litteralis sive h is to ric u s “ ; a n d ies er E i n
heit ä n d e r t e a u ch d e r d o p p e l t e Bezug „ s e c u n d u m re m , sic ut in re b u s gestis; s e c u n d u m
sim il i tu d i n e m , sic u t in p a rab o lis“ n ich ts, z u m a l d ies er n i c h t g e s c h ic h tl i c h e I n t e r p r e t a
tio n e n betraf, s o n d e r n G l e ic h n is s e d e m L ite ralsin n s u b s u m i e r e n s o l l t e 19. E b e n s o
k e n n z e i c h n e t T h o m a s v o n A q u i n d e n „ p r i m u m s e n s u m “ als „sensus histo ric u s vel lit
teralis“20.
A le x a n d e r b e r ü h r t diese k o n z e p t i o n e l l e n U n t e r s c h i e d e n ic h t, n o c h ä u ß e r t er sich
z ur T e r m i n o lo g i e s e i n e r „ s e n s u s “ . A lle rd in g s e r w a c h s e n i h m aus d e r T r e n n u n g des h i
sto risc h en u n d des literalen V e r stä n d n is se s P r o b l e m e m it d e n b e id e n Z e u g e n in A p c
11, 3 - 6 , die e r auf d e r E b e n e d e s e x e g e tisc h g r u n d l e g e n d e n G e g e n s a t z e s von „ corp oraliter“ o d e r „ad lit t e r a m “ u n d „sp iritu a liter“ a n g e h t 21; h i n z u k o m m e n W id e r s p r ü c h e ,
die A le x a n d e r i n n e r h a lb n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e r S c h rifte n b e m e r k t (9, Z. 10-25). Im
K o m m e n t a r s in d P a p st Silverius u n d d e r P a triarch M e n a s v o n K o n s t a n t i n o p e l die b e i
den Z e u g e n (230, Z. 2 0 -2 5 ), a lle rdin gs „ spiritu a liter“ (231, Z . 7 f.), d e n n die h e r k ö m m
liche A u s le g u n g auf H e n o c h u n d Elias k a n n A l e x a n d e r n i c h t ü b e r g e h e n . I h r k ü n ftig e s
Schicksal, P r e d ig t u n d M a r t y riu m u n t e r d e m A n tic h r ist, e r e i g n e t sich „ co r p o r a lite r“
(230, Z . 25 - 231, Z . 6): „ E t u t istae e x p o s i ti o n e s n o n v i d e a n t u r n i m i s d isse ntire , ex p o n im u s h a ec d e Silverio e t M e n e sp iritu aliter, q u a e d i c u n t u r facturos e t passuro s esse
E n o c h et H e lia ad littera m s u b A n t i c h ri s t o , sicut m u lta , q u a e f e c e ru n t o lim Helias et
Helisaeus et ceteri, su b isto spirituali re g n o e x p o n i m u s sp iritu a lite r“ (231, Z. 6-11).
A ndernfalls litte die C h r o n o l o g ie :
q u ia si h a ec iam e x p o n e r e m u s d e A n tic h risto ,
quid v e lle n t sibi cetera, q u a e s e q u u n t u r in isto lib ro?“ (231, Z. 28 f.). A l e x a n d e r b e t o n t
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite ¡42
ponit angelus, sed mystice sub figura stellae et angeli episcop u m m orie t ...“ ; A le xa n d er; Expositio, 320, Z. 1-4.
18 A.J. M innis, A.B. Scott (Hrsg.), Medieval Literary Th eo ry an d Criticism c. 1100-c. 1375. The
Com m en tar y-Trad ition (Oxford 21991) 203; künftig: M in n is, Scott, Medieval Literary Theory.
19 Doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de Haies ordinis m i n o ru m S u m m a theologica ..., Bd. 1 (Ad
Claras Aqu as 1924) 12.
20 S. I h o m a e Aquinatis O p era om nia, hrsg. von Roberto Rusa, Bd. 2 (Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt
1980) 186, qu 1 ar 10.
„Quapropter, c u m veritas historiae in tarn p ro fun do lateat, difficillime intelligitur ad litteram
inter cetera q uo d d uo testes ...“ ; A lexander, Expositio, 8, Z. 2 8 - 3 0 u n d 9.
144
Sabine Schm olinsky
a u c h w e i te r h in die „ spiritu a liter“ g e d a c h te D e u t u n g d e r T e x tp a s sa g e ü b e r die b e id e n
Z e u g e n u n d g i b t e in e z u sä tz lic he B e g r ü n d u n g ty p o lo g isc h e r N a t u r : „ S c ie n d u m , q u o d
h a ec verba, q u a e de d u o b u s tes tib u s e x p o n i m u s spiritualiter, ita sig na ta su n t, ut n o n
a c c ip i a n tu r ad littera m , sicut in veteri T e s t a m e n t o d e d u o b u s tes tib u s D o m i n i p ro p rie
a c c ip ie b a n tu r, id est ab H e lia e t H e l is a e o “ (235, Z. 1 4 - 1 8 ) 22.
Mit d e r G e g e n ü b e r s t e l l u n g vo n „ c o r p o r a lite r “ bzw. „ad l it t e r a m “ u n d „ spiritua liter“
h a t A l e x a n d e r d e n anfangs ebenfalls in O p p o s it i o n z u r literalen A u s l e g u n g g e stellte n
„sen sus h is to r ic u s “ w i e d e r in d ie N ä h e d e s literalen V e r stä n d n is se s g e r ü c k t. A n g e
sichts d ies er in d e r A p o k a l y p s e n e x e g e s e u n d d e m m itt e l a lt e rl i c h e n E n d z e it s z e n a r i o so
w ic h tig e n Stelle, die n i c h t o h n e H e n o c h u n d Elias i n te r p r e t i e r t w e r d e n k o n n t e , n ä
h e r te sich A le x a n d e r u n t e r d e m A s p e k t d e r s c h w e r e n V e r s t ä n d l i c h k e i t („ita sig n a ta “ ;
237, Z. 15 f.) d e r trad itio n e lle n , i h m a u c h so n s t g e lä u f ig e n 23 ty p o lo g i s c h e n I n t e r p r e t a
tio n an. Seine A u ssa ge „ut istae e x p o sitio n e s n o n v i d e a n t u r n i m i s d i s s e n t ir e “ (231,
Z .6 f.) b leibt w ichtig, z u m a l ih n d iese G e f a h r zu g r o ß e r D i s k r e p a n z - „ n e a ceteris n i
m is v i d e a m u r d isse n tir e “ (9, Z . 26 f.) - s c h o n d a zu b e w o g e n ha tte , tro tz e in ig e r B e d e n
k e n ü b e r ihre L änge eine G l o s s e n k o m p i la t io n in se in W e r k a u f z u n e h m e n 24.
O h n e daß A l e x a n d e r sich d a zu ä u ßerte, läßt sich e r k e n n e n , d a ß er die visionäre
R e d e des J o h a n n e s als „ad l it t e r a m “ g e s p r o c h e n a u ffaßt25; se in e K o m m e n t i e r u n g im
„ o rd o h i s t o r i a r u m “ b e d arf g e r a d e z u d e r literalen Basis, d a die P r o p h e t i e auf die „veritas
h isto ria e “ (8, Z. 26, 28 f.) h in a u sg e le g t w e r d e n m u ß . D ie A p o k a l y p s e se lb st k a n n sich
j e d o c h a u c h „ spiritualiter“ a u s d r ü c k e n , w e n n e in w ö rtlic h e s V e r s t ä n d n i s u n z u tr e f f e n d
w äre: „ U n d e d i c i t u r hic sp iritua lite r: E t p o t e s ta t e m h a b e n t s u p e r a q u a s c o n v e r t e n d i
eas in s a n g u i n e m [A pc 11,6]. A q u a s a p ie n tia m significat, sic u t sc rib itu r: . .. “ (233, Z.
2 6 -2 8 ). D e r Z w e c k d e s B u c h es , d e n j e d o c h erst d e r E x e g e t e r k e n n e n u n d v e r m i t te ln
k a n n , ist L ehre, a b e r a n d e r s als bei d e n in d e r Bibel v o ra u f g e h e n d e n , le h r h a f t i n t e n
d i e r t e n u n d stets so k o m m e n t i e r t e n E van ge lie n u n d B riefe n 26 e n t s t e h t er aus d e r G e
sc h i c h t e : „ M u lta n a m q u e p o s s u n t fieri in d ie b u s m a g n i A n t i c h r i s t i aliisque te m p o r i bus, q u a e iam facta s u n t s e c u n d u m S a l o m o n e m d i c e n t e m . . . “ (9, Z. 2 9 -3 1 ) . W e n n es
d e n n s c h o n n i c h t s N e u e s u n t e r d e r S o n n e gib t (Ecl 1,10), wie sein b e ig e fü g te s Z ita t
aus d e m B u c h Ecclesiastes (Ecl 1,9) w e ite r lau te n w ü rd e , so k ö n n t e m a n w e n ig ste n s 22 Vgl. A lexa n d er, Expositio, 237, Z. 1 0-1 2: „Et sicut cetera, quae f u e m n t materialiter facta ab
Helia et Helisaeo, hic accipiuntur spiritualiter sub novo T e sta m e n to ...“.
23 Die vierundzwanzig Ältes ten in A p c 4,4 stehen in typo logischem Bezug zu den „ad litteram“
historischen „XXIV principes sanctuarii“ u n te r Davids Her rschaf t (I Par 24,5) u n d b ed eu ten „spi
ritualiter“ „sub isto spiritali regno Jesu Christi, filii David“ in halbbiblischer Typologie die „praelati Ecclesiae“ ; A lexander, Expositio, 52, Z. 2 1 - 2 4 ; vgl. 117, Z. 7 - 9 u n d im Prolog, 8, Z. 1-4.
2< Aus d em selb en G r u n d fehlt sie in W achtels Ausgabe; A le xa n d er, Expositio, 9, Z. 26-29.
25 D e n Modus d er Vision faßt A lexander m it H aim o als ein „spiritualiter“ H ö r e n u n d Sehen auf
(51, Z. 5 f. zu A p c 4,2). Er b e t o n t dies zu A p c 5,11: „Ipse spiritualem v ocem spiritualiter intelligens vidit et audivit, n on corporaliter.“ (83, Z. 22-24) un d wied erh o lt es zu A p c 8,13 (138, Z. 5 f.);
d er visionär w a h r g e n o m m e n e A dler ist J o h a n n e s selbst, „... quia prius viderat aqui lam volantem,
p er q u a m ipse significabatur“ (Z. 7 f.).
26 Besonders deutlich drückt dies Abaelard im Prolog zu se inem R ö m e r b r i e f- K o m m e n t a r aus:
„... epistolae c u m Apocalypsi loco p ro p h e t a ru m p o n u n t u r quae ad o b e d i e n d u m Euangelio coh o r t a n t u r . . Petri Abaelardi O pera theologica, hrsg. von E ligius M . R uytaert O.F.M. (CCCM 11,
T u rn h o u t 1969) 41, Z. 2 9 - 3 1 ; vgl. 42, Z. 33-35.
145
mit Salom onischer Legitimation - aus der apokalyptisch pro phezeiten Geschichte ler
nen. Die Intention des W arnens, die dem A u to r Jo h a n n es angesichts de r von ihm g e
wählten G attun g unterstellt w erden kann, m u ß Alexander nicht bedenken, d enn eine
solche F unktion des W erkes ist im Z weck seiner Exegese bereits enthalten un d als ei
genständige m ithin aufgehoben.
Die eigentlich historisch-chronologische D e u tu n g beginnt A lexander erst mit der
Ö ffnung der sieben Siegel in A pc 6. Z u Apc 5,1 hatte er in einem zweiten D urchgang
verschiedene Auslegungen der sieben Siegel g em u stert (85, Z. 17 - 86, Z. 16) und
eher beiläufig etwas m e h r als im Prolog vom Inhalt seiner Vision erk enn en lassen:
„Nos vero secu n d u m revelationem Agni signacula se cun du m ordinem ex p o n em u s de
multis regibus“ (86, Z. 16-18). Die Reihe der „reges“ setzt mit Caligula ein, de m Rei
ter auf dem weißen Pferd, das das R ömische Reich bezeichnet. A lexanders Erklärung
zu „Gaius“, wie er ihn n enn t, liefert den Schlüssel für den auffälligen Beginn der histo
rischen Exegese: „... primus im p erato r post ascensionem D om in i praesidens Romano
imperio et post m o rte m beati J o h an n is Baptistae, usque ad q u e m secu n d u m verba D o
mini om nes antiqui prophetae prophetaverunt. Sed ex tune incipit ista nova prophetia“ (91, Z. 8-12). Da d er Visionär Jo h a n n e s notw endig Christus nach der H im m e l
fahrt geschaut hat, kann als erstes Signifikat in der historischen Apokalypsenexegese
nu r ein röm ischer Kaiser „post ascensionem “ in Betracht k o m m e n ; z u d em m u ß ein
A nschluß an Jo h a n n e s den Täufer gewährleistet sein, de nn historisch-exegetisches
D en ken impliziert für A lexander auch, keine U nstim m igkeiten mit de r Reihe der zu
vor prophezeiten Personen e n tsteh en zu lassen. D er typologisch „ n e u e n “ Prophetie
hat er so ein chronologisch-logisches F u n d a m e n t gelegt.
Weitere Exegeseprinzipien verdeutlicht Alexander im Z u sa m m e n h a n g m it Nero,
dem zweiten Reiter auf d em roten Pferd (94, Z. 15 ff.): Er m öch te „secun du m historias“ bis zum Ende der Apokalypse, d.h. bis zum Jü ng sten Gericht, gelangen; er wird
„inore prophetiae Danielis“ K önige auslassen, die „tepidi“ erscheinen, „id est non
valde boni sive valde mali“, da der visionäre Auftrag in A pc 10,11 n icht gelautet habe,
über alle Völker u nd Könige zu prophezeien (95, Z. 14-24). U m g e k e h rt ist jedoch
„contra rationem “, über die Z u k u n ft zu sprechen, wenn lange Z eiträum e dazwischen
unerfüllt blieben, wie zu m Beispiel im Fall des sechsten Siegels, das konventionell auf
den Antichrist bezogen würde; „de aliis m inoribus antichristis“ g ed en k t Alexander in
solchen Fällen auszulegen (110, Z. 4-13).
Alexanders Vorgehensweise im einzelnen folgt unm ittelbar einsichtigen Prinzipien.
Engel werden stets als M enschen g e d e u te t27, allerdings in verschiedenen F un ktionen:
als „nuntii satanae“ (die vier Engel in A pc 7,1 als die Kaiser Maxentius, Licinius, Maxi
mus, Severus; 110, Z. 25 - 112, Z. 19), als „nuntius“ der „auctoritas D o m in i“ (Kaiser
Konstantin als „angelus ascendens ab ortu solis“ in Apc 7,2; 112, Z. 20 - 115, Z. 18),
als „praedicatores et sacerdotes“, besonders der asiatischen G e m e in d e n („omnes angeli“ in Apc 7,11; 118, Z. 15-20), als sechs Häretiker un d ein „nuntius D ei“ (die sechs
der sieben Engel in Apc 8,2 sind Kaiser Valens, Macedonius, Pelagius, Eutices, der
„N am sub p ersona an g elorum lo q u itu r hacc p ro p h etia de h o m in ib u s, sicut m an ifestu m est in
episcopis A siae“ (112, 2 . 21-23).
Sabine Schm olitisky
arianische K önig der Vandalen Jesericus, der G egenpapst Laurentius; 124, Z. 3 f.; 128,
Z. 5 - 148, Z. 18; der „nuntius“ ist Narces im K am pf gegen die G o te n ; 243, Z. 16-23),
als Friedensbringer für die Kirche (Kaiser Justinus in A pc 10,1, in A pc 10,9 wird sein
Nachfolger Justinianus einbezogen; 153, Z. 20 - 162, Z. 7)28. Die Beispiele lassen sich
verm ehren, insbesondere um die Päpste von G regor II. bis zu Hadrian I. im 14. K ap i
tel u nd die weltlichen u nd geistlichen Politiker von Karl de m G ro ß e n 29 u nd Papst
Leo bis zu Papst G regor VII. u n d de m byzantinischen Kaiser Alexius im 16. Kapitel.
Diese zahlreichen politisch-historischen, meist personenzentrierten Passagen bedürf
ten einer eigenen historischen U ntersuchung, u m K o n tu re n des Alexanderschen G e
schichtsverständnisses erk enn en zu können, wie es sich in Auswahl u nd W ertu ng
D am it wäre der geschichtliche Teil der Auslegung der Apokalypse beendet, wenn
A lexander nicht im Z uge der Bearbeitungen neue Ideen entwickelt hätte. Z u m einen
m achte er von seiner Regel, Jo h a n n e s habe m ehrere Personen in einer g e m e in t31, G e
brauch, um seinen heftig angewachsenen U n m u t über Friedrich II. in der Prophetie
gerechtfertigt zu finden: In einem A n h a n g interpretierte er A pc 13,2-10 über die „bestia de m are“ ein zweites Mal auf den K aiser32; zum anderen deutete er das Neue J e r u
salem auf die beiden Bettelorden: Da die Kräfte des Satans, Gog un d Magog, nach
d e m Ende des M illennium die heilige Stadt umzingeln werden (Apc 20,8), m uß te sie
zuvor erbaut worden sein - eben du rch das W irken der Franziskaner u n d D o m in ik a
ner seit der G rü n d u n g ihrer O r d e n 33. Seine Gegenwart hat den historisch interessier
ten Exegeten zu einem zeitkritisch engagierten gem acht; die historische Exegese hebt
sich auf, wenn die Vergangenheit m it der G egenwart zusammengefallen ist. Es bleibt
die Erwartung der zukünftigen E ndzeit in den M etaphern, wie sie die Apokalypse vorgibt.
146
zeigt.
Dies gilt vor allem auch für D rachen un d andere schreckenerregende Tiere, die auf
den N ahen Osten verweisen: d er D rache in A pc 12,3 wird als der Perserkönig Cosdras
identifiziert, das Tier aus dem Meer zu Beginn des 13. Kapitels als sein Sohn Syrois,
das Tier aus der Erde (Apc 13,11) als M oh am m ed , „pseudopropheta S arracenorum“
(282, Z. 15). Mit A pc 18,21 rücken das Heilige Land u nd der Sieg des K reuzfahrer
heers unter Gottfried von Bouillon ins Blickfeld; der Reiter des weißen Pferdes in Apc
19,11 ist Balduin, der K önig von Jerusalem.
Im 20. Kapitel allerdings b eginnen die „bestiae“, Alexander exegetische Schwierig
keiten zu bereiten. Zwar lassen sich der Engel m it de m Schlüssel zum A b g ru n d und
der Drache als Papst Calixtus II. u nd Kaiser Heinrich V. im Investiturstreit verstehen
(Apc 20,1 f.), aber A lexander kann nicht u m h in festzustellen, daß lange zuvor Papst
Silvester den Satan gefesselt hatte, „in m em bris suis, id est in exterioribus persecutoribus“ (412, Z. 16-18). Das a nzubetende Tier in Apc 20,4 scheint A lexander erst in ei
ner zweiten Arbeitsphase (um) 1242 in einer ihn befriedigenden Weise gedeutet zu
haben, indem er es als Saladin sowie sein Bild als Bild M oh am m ed s auffaßte (427, Z.
23; 429, Z. 27 f.)30; als tertium comparationis der „bestiae“ erscheint m ith in de r Islam.
In den nächsten Versen der Apokalypse erreicht d er historisierende Exeget n o tw en
dig die G renzen der A nw endbarkeit seiner Methode. Zweifelsohne regieren die Gläu
bigen mit Christus tausend Jah re (Apc 20,4), und sie tun dies „corporaliter et m ani
feste super terram“ seit K o nstantin de m Großen (431, Z. 9-16), aber das Buch, die
Apokalypse, ist fast ganz erfüllt, wie A lexander beiläufig in einer bearbeiteten Passage
zum letzten Satz von A pc 20,6 feststellt (443, Z. 1). Er m u ß dies so sehen, den n das
Futur in „et cum con su m m ati fuerint mille anni“ (Apc 20,7) zeigt an, daß das Fol
gende jenseits des in der Vision G eseh enen („vidi“) liegt u nd also auch in der Exegese
nicht auflösbare Zukunftsaussage bleiben muß.
28 D ie H an d sch rift C des K o m m en tars, die zum Teil u m fangreiche E rw eiterungen historischer
A rt o d er in T rak tatfo rm besitzt, legt A pc 10 ,1 -1 0 „salva siquidem in terp retatio n e de Ju stin o et de
Justiniano posita et p robata“ (162, Z. 21 f.) zusätzlich auf B enedikt aus (162, Z . 10 - 224, der
S chluß ist verloren). E n tsp rech en d verfährt sie bei N arces zu A pc 11,15: „... u tru m res eadem
beato G regorio, qui eidem erat te m p o rib u s, conveniat, videam us u tiq u e “ (247, Z. 4 - 6 ; 247, Z. 4 255, Z. 20; d er Schluß ist ebenfalls verloren).
29 K arl ersch ein t als K önig in d e r A uslegung von A pc 14,17 u n d 16,1, bereits in 16,4 hingegen
als K aiser; A lexander, E xpositio, 310, Z. 25; 326, Z. 29; 330, Z. 3 0 f.
10 Schmolinsky, A p o k aly p sen k o m m en tar, 34-3 6 .
147
„Application of history study to Bible Study“ - das hat A lexander so ko nsequ ent
wie niem and zuvor betrieben; die S tru ktur seines K o m m en ta rs zeigt es, un d ein Blick
in das Zitatenverzeichnis bekräftigt es. Sein B em ühen u m historische K orrekth eit und
W ahrscheinlichkeit implizierte jedoch nicht, Intentionen des m enschlichen oder des
göttlichen Autors zu reflektieren34. Er ging m it einer außerbiblischen Fragestellung zu
W erk un d b em ü h te sich, zu ihrer Beantw ortung die inspirierte, p rophetische Rede des
Jo h a n n es zu dekodieren, um sie im innerweltlichen Erfahrungsbereich verständlich
und nutzbar zu machen.
Das hatte Folgen für beide Teile, für die Chronistik wie für die Exegese. Die G e
schichte der Christenheit, die n u r in signifikanten Fragm enten vorgeführt wurde, g e
riet als Ganzes in einen R ah m en von Endzeitlichkeit, wie ihn die C hronistik - trotz
formelhafter Schlüsse über das W eitend e - nicht vorsah. Nach der P rophezeiung der
„gesta Ecclesiae“ gefragt zu haben, führte sogleich dazu, m it dem Ende der G eschichte
direkt konfrontiert zu sein, und je weiter A lexander die Erfüllung d er Prophetie in der
Geschichte vorantrieb, desto m e h r schrieb er letztere fest, verkürzte die Z u ku nft, re
duzierte deren potentielle Offenheit; für Aktualisierungen war - anders als in der G e
schichtsschreibung - kaum m e h r Platz. Die auf diesem W e g en tstandene N aherw ar
tung erscheint bedrängender als es Berechnungen, die im m e r un ter d e m Verdikt der
U nerlaubtheit standen, sein k onnten. Allerdings entwickelte auch A lexander Ausw eichm öglichkeiten: Die S truktur der Einschübe un d Nachträge, der dop pelten Auslegungen gab ihm Gelegenheit, Aktualität einen ebenfalls prophezeiten O rt zuzuwei
sen. In seiner Form des Umgangs m it Geschichte w urden W erturteile no ch gegenw är
tiger als in der Historiographie, seinen Q uellen: Alexander entschied über historische
Größe, indem er auswählte; er wertete, indem er jem anden oder etwas positiv oder n e
gativ besetzten Figuren der A pokalypse zuordnete. Seine Intention un d sein Interesse
waren allerdings unzweifelhaft an den Geschicken der K irche orientiert.
31 Alexander, E xpositio, 274, Z. 25 f.; 412, Z. 6 f.
32 Ebd. 507, Z. 3-5 1 0 .
Schmolinsky, A p o k aly p sen k o m m en tar, 36 f.
A iinm s, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 205.
148
Sabine S chm olinsky
U m g e k e h rt büßt die Apokalypse ihre klassisch-prophetische F unktion zu warnen
u nd zu m ah n en ein. A lexander behandelte sie wie ein „vaticinium ex e v e n tu “, d em er
den zweiten, vom A u to r auf die un bek ann te Z u k u n ft hin g esprochenen Teil g e n o m
m e n hatte, wie ein Rätsel, das es n u r aufzulösen galt; allerdings war eine solche D en kform einschließlich ihrer historisch-logischen W ahrscheinlichkeitsüberlegungen neu
in der Apokalypsenexegese. Vor allem aber ging die Apokalypse einiger ihrer Mythen
verlustig, da diese n u n materialisiert und vergangen waren. A ber auch die gegenwärti
gen büßten an Glanz und uto pischem Potential ein: N ichtm itgliedern der beiden Bet
telorden m u ß ein Neues Jerusalem der Franziskaner un d D o m in ik a n e r nicht u n b e
dingt als ein O rt aller H offnung u n d freudigen Ewigkeitserw artung erschienen sein.
Alexanders durchaus mittelalterliche Frage nach der prophetischen Basis von G e
schichte - u nd später auch Zeitgeschichte - geriet zu m Projekt einer Rationalisierung
und Entrnythologisierung, dem nachhaltige W irk u n g beschieden sein sollte: über P e
trus Aureoli, dessen Bibelkom m entare franziskanische Novizen begleiteten, zu N iko
laus von Lyra u nd von ih m aus in die protestantische Exegese u n d darüberhinaus.
D e n n o c h ist die m ythologische Lektüre nicht untergegangen; wie täglich aufs neue
w ah rzu n eh m e n ist, ist sie weitaus lebendiger u nd gegenwärtiger als die vergleichsweise
nü chterne Interpretation eines A lexander Minorita.
D avid Burr
Ecclesiastical Condem nation and Exegetical Theory:
The Case of Olivi’s Apocalypse Commentary
W h e n Beryl Smalley wrote what is justly considered the m ost im po rta nt book in the
English language on medieval exegesis, she set certain gro u n d rules w hich limited the
scope of her work. First, she extende d her inquiry only to around 1300. D oing so, she
explained, would allow her to stay within the “period when the C hurch had a safe m o
nopoly of learning” and thus to exclude Bible study by heretics and la y m e n 1. Second,
she deliberately avoided consideration of the Pauline letters and the Apocalypse. The
Pauline corpus played such an im po rta nt role in medieval theology and has attracted
so m u c h attention from historians of scholasticism that its inclusion “would have
m ea nt enlarging m y scope out of all prop ortion ”, she observed. O ne cannot say the
same of the Apocalypse, but Smalley noted rather enigmatically that “it would have
intruded its own special problem s”2. T hu s she paid alm ost no attention to either the
Apocalypse or the relationship between exegesis and ecclesiastical condem nations.
Those who study con dem n atio ns of apocalyptic th o ug ht have often returned the fa
vor. Petrus loannis Olivi’s com m en tary on the Apocalypse is a case in point. It was
subjected to a protracted examination beginning in 1318 and extending to its con
d em nation by Pope J o h n XXII in 1326. This process has been studied carefully by Ra
oul Manselli, Jo seph K och and Edith Pâsztor, with impressive resu lts’. Manselli made
an im portant contribution toward puttin g the co m m entary in perspective by addres
sing the question of its relation to th e two com m entaries m ost heavily cited by Olivi
himself, those by Richard of St. Victor and Joachim of Fiore. Pâsztor and K och did an
excellent job of outlining the c o nd em n a tio n process. T heir description of the relevant
documents lights the way for all historians now working in this area.
Nevertheless, however m u c h one may admire the superb scholarship dem onstrated
by Koch, Manselli and Pâsztor, there is still room for som e d o ub t concerning their
1 Beryl Smalley, T he S tudy of the Bible in the M iddle Ages (N otre D am e, Indiana 21964) xx.
Smalley, Study, xxi.
3 R aoul iManselli, La “ L ectura su p e r A p o caly p sim ” di P ietro di G iovanni Olivi (R om e 1955)', J o
seph Koch, D er Prozeß gegen die Postille O livis zur A pokalypse, in: R echerches de T heologie A n
cienne et M édiévale 5 (1933) 3 0 2 -1 5 ; E d ith Pâsztor, G iovanni X X II e il G io ach im ism o di P ietro
di Giovanni Olivi, in: B ulletino d ell’Istitu to S torico Italiano per il M edio Evo e A rchivio M uratoriano 82 (1970) 8 1 -1 1 1; Pâsztor, Le P o lem ich e sulla ‘L ectura su p e r apocalypsim ’ di P ietro di G io
vanni Olivi fino alla sua co n d an n a, in: B ulletino deU Tstituto S torico Italiano p e r il M edio Evo e
Archivio M uratoriano 70 (1958) 3 6 5 -4 2 4 .
150
D a v id B urr
interpretation of what the Olivi c o nd em n a tio n was about. Manselli and Pasztor felt
protective toward Olivi and did w hat they could to portray the attack on him as a dis
tortion of his ideas. Pasztor will serve as an example. In describing the criticisms lev
eled by various individual theologians recruited by J o h n XXII to pass ju d g m en t on
specific passages from Olivi’s Apocalypse com m entary, Pasztor tends to present the
confrontation as one between a rigid, legalistic attitude and a rich, com plex Franciscan
piety. Olivi’s judges were com pletely unprepared to understand his Apocalypse c o m
m en tary 4. It was as if som e g o v e rn m e n t bureaucrat were asked to pass ju d g m en t on
the paintings of Henri Rousseau, or an insurance executive on the poetry of Wallace
Stevens.
Here, of course, we begin to see the problem, since Rousseau was himself a gov
e rn m e n t bureaucrat and Stephens was an insurance executive. People tend to live si
multaneously in different worlds and perform well in each, so long as they do n o t
confuse the rules of one with those of another. Many of those called up on to offer
opinions on Olivi were ecclesiastical administrators, b u t they had received the same
sort of theological training experienced by Olivi himself. Conversely, Olivi was an
excellent devotional writer, b u t the Apocalypse co m m entary was n o t a devotional
tract. It was two things. First, it was clearly a piece of scholarly exegesis and d e
served to be critiqued as such. Second, it was a manifesto of sorts in what was al
ready a bitter political struggle within the Franciscan order. By the time the judges
were asked for their opinions, that struggle had widened considerably. It now inclu
ded n ot only the original contestants b ut the pope and his inquisitors on the one
h an d and a recalcitrant laity on the other.
These two elem ents, biblical exegesis and political struggle, represented the c o m
m on ground on which Olivi’s critics th o ug ht they e ncountered him. T hey rejected his
co m m en tary because they considered it to be both ecclesiastical insubordination and
exegetical nonsense. Having acknowledged this m uch, we arrive at the central ques
tions: In w hat sense was the c o nd em n a tio n a ju d g m en t on Olivi’s exegetical princi
ples, and what does the c on dem na tion tell us about the state of exegesis in Olivi’s
time? In answering these questions, I will concentrate on one consultant, the first to
be asked for an opinion. H e was given the entire com m entary, and his negative opin
ion on it led to the next stage of the process, the formation of a commission.
This ano ny m ou s reader5 has been given less attention than any of the subsequent
consultants, because his work is long, tedious, repetitious and unpublished; yet his is
in som e ways the m o st interesting opinion of all, because no succeeding jud gm ent at
tem p ted to com e to terms with Olivi’s tho ug ht as this first one did. Recognizing that
many of Olivi’s m o st inflammatory passages could be subject to varying interpretation,
he attem pted to state and evaluate each possible reading. In judging Olivi, he not only
1 See for exam ple the dism issive ju d g m e n t offered by Pasztor, P olem iche, 406 co n cern in g Fran
cesco Silvestri’s o p in io n (cited later in this paper) on O livi’s reading of A poc. 7 :2.
5 Koch, Prozeß, 304 suggests th at it was G uillelm us de L auduno, O.P., th e n m agister sacn palcitn;
y et h e offers n o evidence for his choice, and I see n o n e ex cep t th at the w riter was probably a
m en d ican t th o u g h n ot a F ranciscan, and G u illelm u s’ proxim ity w ould have m ade him a conven
ien t choice. H is re p o rt is found in MS Paris Bibi. nat. lat. 3381A.
O liv i’s A p o c a l y p s e C o m m e n t a r y
15 1
declared him erroneous but entered into debate with him. Occasionally he missed the
point, but by and large he strikes one as an intelligent, thoughtful m an who u n d e r
stood w hat he was reading.
Like all subsequent consultants, this first reader concentrates m ost of his fire on a
small constellation of ideas. These are the notion of a new age of C h u rch history
dawning in the thirteenth century; the Franciscan rule as identical with the life of
Christ and his apostles and as pattern for the emerging new age; and the belief that the
old, corrupt elem ents in the C h urch will take control, persecute adherents of the new
age, th en eventually be destroyed. Like o ther consultants, he sees these predictions in
the context of current events. H e proceeds from the assumption that Olivi identifies
the new order with the small grou p of spiritual Franciscans being disciplined in the
consultant’s own time by the pope and his inquisitors. He assumes that w hen Olivi re
fers to the Franciscan rule he means the rule as this deviant g rou p understands it. He
assumes that when Olivi speaks of a corrupt, persecuting leadership he m eans the
pope and his hierarchy. Given these assumptions, Olivi’s Apocalypse co m m en tary b e
comes a call for defiance and it is hardly surprising that papal supporters objected to it.
So far, the conversation seems to have a great deal to do with ecclesiastical politics
and little to do with exegetical theory. The situation begins to change when we look at
how the Parisian consultant phrases these issues. In alluding to th e dawning new era
he speaks of the preem inen ce of the sixth period over preceding ones, and in alluding
to the destruction of evil C h u rch leaders he refers to c o nd em na tion of the carnal
C hurch or Babylon. This places the discussion, not only within the imagery provided
by the Apocalypse, b ut also w ithin the main line of interpretation followed by those
scholars who co m m e n te d on the Apocalypse in the th irteenth century. This approach
saw the book as co m posed of seven visions dealing with seven periods of C h u rch his
tory6. W hile most scholars spoke of the first four visions as covering the entire sweep
of C hurch history and the last three as concentrating on the last two periods, Olivi ar
gued that all seven visions covered all seven periods. T h e difference betw een these two
positions is narrower than one m igh t at first imagine. The sevenfold nature of the fifth
vision in the Apocalypse, that of the seven vials, forced m o st com m en tato rs to treat it
as covering all of C hu rch history, and in dealing with the last two visions Olivi spoke
almost exclusively of the last two periods. Thus in practice Olivi and o th e r thirteenthcentury co m m entato rs tended to treat the Apocalypse as if the first five visions dealt
with all of C hurch history and the last two concentrated on the period from Antichrist
to the Last Jud gem en t. Moreover, there was substantial agreem ent in describing the
seven periods of C hu rch history. Olivi agreed with others in seeing the first four as
those of the apostles, martyrs, doctors and anchorites; in placing himself in the fifth
period; in seeing that period as one of decline in which the precursors of Antichrist
prepared the way for h im ; in identifying the sixth period with the corning of Anti-
See D a vid Burr, M en d icant R eadings of the A pocalypse, in: R.K , E m m m o n and B. M cG inn
(eds.), The A pocalypse in th e M iddle A ges (Ithaca 1992) 8 9 -1 0 2 . For th e b ackground of this a p
proach see Robert Lerner, R e fresh m en t of the Saints, in: T raditio 32 (1976) 9 7 -1 4 4 . O n O livi’s
th ought see Burr, O iivi’s P eaceable K in g d o m (Philadelphia 1993) ch.2.
152
D a v i d B urr
christ himself; and in seeing the seventh period as a time of peace and joy following
A ntichrist’s death.
In all these ways, Olivi’s approach to the Apocalypse was consistent with Franciscan
norm s. Nevertheless, in oth er ways Olivi differed sharply from the mainstream of thir
teenth-century exegesis. First, others m igh t turn their depiction of the fifth period
into an attack on co ntem porary ecclesiastical corruption, b ut Olivi explicitly predicted
a fall so precipitous that the papacy itself would attack evangelical perfection. Its as
sault would end only when R om e was struck down by an invading arm y7. Second, o t h
ers identified the sixth period with the persecution of Antichrist, and so did Olivi; but
Olivi also saw it as characterized by a renewal so great that it could be called the time
of C hrist’s second advent. Fie identified that renewal with Francis and his rule. Third,
others envisaged a seventh period in which the saints w ould finally enjoy a little peace
after being ravaged by Antichrist, b ut they tended to emphasize its brevity. T hey ex
pected a m in im u m of forty to forty-five days. Olivi anticipated a m i n im u m of seven
centuries8.
N one of these differences was minor, and they com b in e d to produce a remarkably
different view of co ntem porary history. For Olivi, the sixth period becam e a hinge on
which all of history turned, m u c h as it had turned on the oth er hinge provided in the
first century by the birth of Christ. Such an arrang em ent m ig h t rem ind one of J o a
ch im of Fiore’s three ages, and with good reason. Olivi’s view m ig ht be seen as a Franciscanized version of Jo a c h im ’s. N o o ther thirteenth-century co m m e n ta to r on the
Apocalypse was so directly influenced by the Calabrian. O thers were certainly aware of
him and many em ployed him piecemeal, bu t only Olivi based his interpretation on
both Jo a c h im ’s sevenfold and threefold patterns.
T h at in itself m ade his com m e n ta ry problematic, since the scholarly com m un ity
had been sensitized - in fact, oversensitized - to the Joachite trinitarian pattern by the
scandal of the Eternal Gospel a half-century earlier9. In fact, however, Olivi’s applica
tion of the pattern was m ade even m ore problematic by the role he assigned the hier
archy in the fifth and early sixth periods. Jo achim was hardly blind to ecclesiastical
failings, b ut he never even came close to saying, as Olivi did, th at the new age would
be established only after it had w eathered persecution from the ecclesiastical hierar
chy, including the pope himself. Thus Olivi’s dawning third age was revolutionary in
7 T h e id e a o f im m in e n t h is to ric a l ju d g m e n t th r o u g h d e v a s ta tio n b y an in v a d in g a rm y is n o t
u n iq u e to O liv i. S ee fo r e x a m p le V ita lis de Furno, E x p o s itio s u p e r a p o c a ly p s im , M S A ssisi 66,
1 3 0 ra -rb : A lulier q u a m vidisti est civitas m agna, idest reproborum universitas vel romcina civitas,
que babet regnum super reges terre. ... E t lo q u itu r pro tempore illo in quo vigebat rom ana idoLitria
vel pro tempore ju tu ro qucm dn forte ita regnabunt hereses et om nis peipidia, secundum Joachim . ...
Illo tempore oportet congregeiri reges a d p u g n a n d u m cum illo et a d percutiendeum filios babilonis.
e[ui d icu n t se f ilios C hristi et non sunt, sed su n t sinagogo sathane, et qtiidem illorum intentio, per om
n ia et in om nibus pravct erit, sed tam en inscii et neseientes facient in utroque voluntatem Dei, sive occidendo iustos quos oportet coronari m artirio, sive iu d itiis impiis, a quibus corrupta in sanguinibus
est terra.
8 Burr, O liv i’s P e a c e a b le K in g d o m , c h .7. F o r th e g e n e ra l d e v e lo p m e n t s e e Robert Lertier, H ie
M ed ie v a l R e tu rn to th e T h o u s a n d -Y e a r S a b b a th , in : R.K. Emmerson a n d B. M cG inn (eds.), The
A p o c a ly p s e in th e M id d le A g e s (Ith a c a 1992) 5 1 -7 1 .
9 O n th e sc a n d a l se e Burr, O liv i’s P e a c e a b le K in g d o m , 1 4 -2 1 .
153
two different ways. It was so inasm uch as it constituted a new dispensation, still C h ri
stian b ut radically different; and inasmuch as it was scheduled to achieve success only
after functioning as a persecuted resistance m ovem ent. T he total effect was to make
the ecclesiastical hierarchy seem a thirteenth-century edition of the first-century
priests, scribes and pharisees.
W h e n we turn from these general points of disagreem ent to the ano ny m ou s c o n
sultant’s critique of specific passages, we see a parallel. For example, he repeatedly at
tacks the idea th at Babylon or the carnal C h urch will be destroyed at the end of the
fifth period. Obviously he does so because he feels that in Olivi’s com m e n ta ry “Baby
lon ” is a code nam e for the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Thus he sees Olivi’s prediction as
subversive. Nevertheless, his attack is also related to the fact that the historical frame
work im posed on the Apocalypse by o ther thirteenth-century exegetes simply has no
place for such an event, since the vision concerning the destruction of Babylon is n o r
mally interpreted as applying to the situation after the rise of Antichrist, no t before.
Thus the fifth period, the one preceding Antichrist, is too early for it10.
The same could be said of that o th e r great target of the ano ny m ou s c onsultant’s
wrath, the preem inen ce of the sixth period over preceding ones. Again and again he
attacks this notion. H ere again he characterizes it as subversive. In fact, he sees it as a
recrudescence of Gerard of Borgo San D o n n in o ’s Eternal G o s p e l" . H e is discerning
enough to see that Olivi does n ot interpret the Joachite age of the Holy Spirit as a
post-Christian era in which the Bible and sacraments are to be replaced, bu t he does
recognize th at Olivi expects a radical change in ecclesiastical structures. The C hurch
will, in effect, embrace the Franciscan rule and surrender all the wealth accumulated
since C onstantine endow ed it. T h e consultant realizes that for Olivi this m eans a re
turn to the gospels, a return to the way of life followed by Christ, the disciples and the
apostles. The ano ny m ou s consultant is too careful a reader to believe th at Olivi is ac
cusing the C h urch of living in sin since C onstantine’s time. H e knows that according
to Olivi the C hu rch has been holding property for the last nine centuries by divine
dispensation. Nevertheless, he finds it equally easy to recognize that Olivi thinks the
dispensation is about to expire, while the papacy believes no such thing. He is also
able to see that, if Olivi is correct, the Franciscan rule enjoys an im m un ity from papal
control unshared by any previous rule; for if the Franciscan rule is no thing m ore or
less than the evangelical life itself, then the pope can no more alter it than he can alter
the go spel12.
10 M S P aris B ibi. n a t. lat. 3 3 8 1 A , 8 5 v c o n s id e rs th e p o s sib le m e a n in g s of “c a rn a l c h u r c h ” o r “ Ba
b y lo n ” a n d a rg u e s th a t n o n e o f th e m allo w s fo r a d e s tr u c tio n p rio r to A n tic h ris t.
" P a n s Bibi. n a t. lat. 3 3 8 1 A , 1r : N o ta n d u m quod hoc videtur im plicare duos errores de evangelio
intitu la lo eterno quod fu it condem pnatum in curia R o m a n a sub A le xa n d ra papa iiH ° et combus
tion publice Paris ins in stu d io generali a n n o d o m in i in ° cc ° liiii ° v el v S ee a lso 16r a n d 21 r. G e
rard is n e v e r m e n tio n e d b y n a m e .
2 Paris Bibl. n a t. lat. .3381 A , 6 8 r: S i regula beati Francisci esset vere et proprie regula evangelii tunc
non indiguisset confirm atione nec approbatione ecclesie R om ane sicut nec evangelium quod firm a t
R om anam ecclesiam non econtra, noc posset p a p a in ea dispensare, sicut nec in evangelio nec contra
cam a liq u id ordinäre nec a liq u id statuere, sicut nec contra evangelia.
154
D a v id B u rr
So far we are still in the realm of subversion, no t exegesis. Nevertheless, here again
the co m m e n ta to r’s objection is anchored in exegetical tradition. In the context of that
tradition, the sixth period is identified simply with Antichrist. T here is no room in it
for renewal, m u c h less the birth of a new a g e 13. T he difference is driven h om e in the
c o nsultant’s multiple reactions to the idea that spiritual m en will begin to convert the
Jews at this time. Here again he sees Olivi as placing before A ntichrist events which
will actually occur after him. Like others, the consultant acknowledges that there will
be a brief space after Antichrist’s death - he thinks of it as forty-five days - when that
sort of thing will occur, b ut it will be precisely A ntichrist’s fall that allows the Jews to
realize they have been misled by him and turn to C h ris t1'1.
Much the same thing can be said about Olivi’s interpretation of Saint Francis. Olivi
sees Francis as arriving at the en d of the fifth period and as ushering in the sixth. Since
the consultant follows exegetical tradition in seeing the fifth period as one of decline
and the sixth as that of Antichrist, he is understandably confused by the notion that
G od would insert an agent of major renewal in either period. He is particularly critical
of Olivi’s decision to identify Francis with the angel of the sixth seal in Apoc. 7 :2. His
exegetical tradition provides him with a solid reading of that passage. The angel is
C h ris t15.
Here we arrive at an oth er dim ension of the problem, and with it we return to Beryl
Smalley. Of her many contributions to scholarship, one of her most im po rtan t was her
success in emphasizing the m en d ic an ts’ role in focusing attention on the literal sense
of scripture. She saw Joach im and th irteenth-century Jo achism as challenges to this
general tendency, b ut felt that the threat had been neutralized through the c om bined
efforts of Aristotle, Maimonides, Albertus Magnus, T h om as A quinas and o th e r s 16.
Smalley’s reading of the situation was closely related to her assumption that Joachite
speculation on the course of history proceeded from a spiritual interpretation of the
13 Paris Bibi. n a t. lat. 3 3 8 1 A , 3 1 r-v a rg u e s th a t p e rs e c u tio n in th e s ix th p e rio d w ill re n d e r im p o s
s ib le th e s o rt o f c o n te m p la tio n a n tic ip a te d by O liv i, cam enim persecutio ct tribulatio exterior in -
quietet et perturbet pacem contemplationis. ... Verum est tam en quod post mortem A ntich risti in illo
silentio d im id ie bore idest sanctorum refrigeratio per x l v dies erit suavis silentio dim idie bore idest
sanctorum refrigeratio per x lv dies erit suavis el dulcis contemplatio. Sed non ta n ta q u a n ta f a i t in
p rim itiv a ecclesia.
1,1 P a ris Bibi. n a t. lat. 3 3 8 1 A , 1 3 r - 1 5 r says th a t a g e n e ra l c o n v e rs io n o f th e J e w s c a n n o t b e g in b e
fo re th e c o m in g o f A n tic h ris t, s in c e it w ill-h a p p e n a fte r th e arrival of E n o c h a n d E lijah . See 14v:
Visa eorum ascensione ... et m a x im e visa mortc A ntichrist, lu d ei vidcbunt se deccptos. linde ludet
tu n c videntes scripturas im pletas convertentur a d D eum aliis in errore persistentibns. ... Unde cum
conversio totalis g entium non erit a lia q u a m ilia que fit cotidie usque a d tem pus A ntichristi, quia
a n te a d ven tu m oportet evangelium om nibus predicari et de om nibus a liq u i convertentur, sed post ea
Enoch et Helie ascensio et A n tich risti interfectione paucis electis in fid e persistentibns rcliqui execab u n tu r ut m u ltitu d o ludeorum intreat. A u n iv e rs a l c o n v e rs io n a fte r A n tic h r is t’s d e a th is im p o s s i
b le q u ia HIltd tempus usque a d diem iudicii p a rvu m erit, non enim erit nisi x l v dierum . T h e sam e
p o in t is m a d e a t 2 4 v -2 5 r.
15 P aris Bibi. n a t. lat. 3 3 8 1 A , 6 9 r-v , q u o te d in n o te 35 b elow .
16 Smalley, S tu d y , 2 8 1 -3 0 8 . In h e r p re fa c e to th e th ir d e d itio n sh e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t J o a c h im
h a d n o t b e e n q u ite so effe c tiv e ly n e u tra liz e d as sh e h a d e a rlie r su g g e s te d .
155
Bible, and that such speculation had no place in exegesis17. W hatever the validity of
these assumptions w hen applied to the O ld T estam en t and gospels, they seem q u e s
tionable in connection with the Apocalypse. There the general m o v e m e n t was toward
recognition that historical speculation was a valid enterprise, since th at was what the
Apocalypse was literally about. Moreover, it is arguable that it was Olivi the arch-Joachite who made a major contribution toward defining precisely how such was the case.
He did so in a positive m a n n e r through his relentless attention to C h urch history as
the literal m eaning of the Apocalypse, and he did so negatively by formulating that
m ean ing in a way others found unacceptable, thus forcing them to reformulate it as
explicitly as he had.
W h e n we examine thirteenth-century com m entaries on the Apocalypse, we find
very little attention to the problem of how one should separate its four senses, or even
of how one should distinguish the literal sense from the spiritual. This neglect is partly
due to the fact th at prefaces normally took the form of com m entaries on the earlier
preface often attributed to G ilbert of Poitiers18. These com m entaries did po n d e r the
four causes of the b o o k 19, bu t no t its four senses. Exegetes did refer to the various sen
ses as they proceeded through the text, b ut they did so inconsistently and o p p o rt u n
istically20. They saw a strong historical dim ension in the Apocalypse, and normally
treated it as if they assumed that the seven periods of C hurch history constituted its
literal sense; yet they were remarkably uninterested in saying so. T heir assumption to
this effect was im plicit in the way they applied specific passages. In applying them to
C hurch history they simply said “signifies” or “refers to”, whereas in offering a spirit
ual sense of som e passage they were apt to say so m e th in g like “can be applied to ”.
Thus a c om m entary probably com po sed by Vital du Four, speaking of the four ani
mals in Apoc. 4 :6—8, says they refer to the order of preachers - the word used here is
in te llig itu r- bu t later suggests that the eagle “can be taken (potest snm i) as a c o m m e n
dation of blessed J o h n or of the blessed Francis, in which case three things are
touched upon: fullness of perfection, loftiness of contem plation, and prom ptness in
preaching.”21 T h e word potest speaks volumes in this context. It suggests that the spiri' ' E. g. Sm alley, S tu d y , 292.
18 F o r e x a m p le , see A.J. M inin's, M ed ie v a l T h e o ry o f A u th o r s h ip (L o n d o n 1984) 1 6 9 -7 1 . L ike
M in n is (a n d m y self), s c h o la rs te n d to re p o rt w h a t o th e rs h av e sa id ra th e r th a n d e fe n d th e a ttr ib u
tio n th e m s e lv e s .
|I> O n th e ir n a tu re a n d im p lic a tio n s see Sm alley, S tu d y , 297.
m T h u s m e n tio n o f th e b o o k in A p o c . 3:5 le a d s V ita lis de Furno, M S A ssisi 66, 3 7 rb to m e n tio n
th e fo u r se n se s o f s c r ip tu re , b u t a t 5 0 rb th e sev e n seals in 5:1 e n c o u r a g e h im to o ffe r sev e n
sen ses.
21 M S A ssisi 6 6 , 4 8 ra -rb : per isla q u a tn o r a n im a lia intelligitur onto predieantium propter q u a d ri-
fa riae praedieationis o fficiu m in q u a tu o r partibus m undi. C o n c e rn in g a q u ila volanti: verbum
¡stud potest su m i a d eom m endationem heati loan, evangelistae, eel beati Franeiseei in quo quidem
verbo ta n g u n tu r tria, scilicet p lentitudo perfectionis, celsitudo conteinplationis, prom ptitudo predicationis. A g a in , e x p o s itin g (f. 2 9 v b -3 0 ra ) A p o c . 2 :1 7 , h e a p p lie s it to h e a v e n ly g lo ry a n d C h ris t in
th e e u c h a rist, th e n says, vel potest esse Christi prom ittentis bcato Francisco M u d singulare privilegium seraphycae a p paritionis el consignalionis. A t f. 50 v b , e x p o s itin g A p o c . 5:1, th e b o o k w ith s e
ven seals, h e says it is h o ly s c r ip tu re , th e n says, N ota quod ille liber signatus potest d i d d iv in a dispositio, sacra Christi conversatio, ecclesiei m ilium s, ecclesia trium phans, virgo beata, npocalypsis,
156
D a v id B u rr
tual application was seen as less determ ined, perhaps less precise; and it rem inds us
that, whatever else students expected to get from their teachers’ scripture c o m m e n ta
ries, they expected a little help in finding serm on topics. T h at is certainly the implica
tion of the assonant threefold application, and it is made explicit elsewhere in co n n e c
tion with the word potest. Thus in dealing with the flight into the wilderness in Apoc.
13:5-6, Vital shows how the entire passage “can be the th em e for the feast of the
Lord’s ascension”, th en d em onstrates how verse six alone “can be the th em e for” the
religious life or for the blessed Virgin Mary22.
Exegetes m ig ht assume that the literal sense of the Apocalypse was a historical
sense, but they did not infer from this that every historical sense had to be a literal
sense. A passage could have two historical senses, one literal and the oth er spiritual.
Thus Vital, dealing with the sign of the beast written on people’s hands or forehead in
Apoc. 13:13-17, says repeatedly th at it refers literally to events at the time of A n ti
christ23. That passage seems straightforward enough to him. T he seven vials of Apoc.
16 suggest a m ore com plex interpretive pattern, how ever24. Vital is true to his original
notion of four visions about the whole Church, then three about the period from A n ti
christ on. He remarks that this, the fifth vision, is literally about preaching against the
seven deadly sins to be carried o ut by all preachers in the time of Antichrist, bu t then
he suggests that it can be exposited allegorically (possumus exponere prim o alegoriee) of
preaching against the seven enem ies of the C h urch in the seven periods. H e then
works this interpretation o ut at m u c h greater length than was the case with the literal
interpretation, offering us a chronicle of preaching against a specific en em y of Chris
ten d o m in each of the seven periods of C h urch history. Finally he offers a purely m o r
al interpretation (exponam us moralitet), a lengthy description of the seven angels as all
preachers in all ages attacking the seven cardinal sins. T hu s in this passage he expli
citly refers to a literal and an allegorical meaning, both historical, and to a moral m e a n
ing which is universal.
Nevertheless, even these implicit cues som etimes convey an am biguous message.
O n e instance is found precisely in Franciscan treatm ents of Apoc. 7 :2, the angel of the
sixth seal. It was a passage that m ig ht be expected to have particular resonance for
Franciscans, since Bonaventure’s Legencla m aior had identified the angel with Francis
himself, and in 1266 the Legencla m aior had been proclaimed the sole official biogra
phy of the Poverello25. Som e Franciscan exegetes managed to deal with the passage
without ever m en tion in g Francis26, b u t after 1266 a n u m b e r of co m m en tato rs did feel
Fortsetzung Fußnote von Seite I ? 5
Christus sub saeramento, beat us Franeiseus, and proceeds to show how each sealed w ith seven
seals.
22 Assisi MS 66, 94va-95ra.
" Ibid. 101ra-va.
2< Ibid. 1 1 2 r a n d 116vb-126rb.
25 O n this and th e follow ing see D a v id Burr, F ranciscan Exegesis and Francis as A pocalyptic Fi
gure, in: M onks, N u n s and Friars in M ediaeval Society (Sewanec, T enn. 1989) 5 1 -6 2 ; Burr,
O livi’s P eaceable K in g d o m , c h .2.
26 O f these, G uilelm us de M ilito n a , E xpositio su p er apocalypsim , MSS Assisi 82 and 321, is d e
finitely earlier th an 1266, and th ree o th ers m ay be. T hese are A nonym ous, E xpositio in apoca-
O iiv i’s A p o c a l y p s e C o m m e n t a r y
157
required to acknowledge Bonaventure’s identification, referring the passage both to
Christ and to Francis. Some saw him in o th er passages as well. Nevertheless, of those
w ho identified Francis with Apoc. 7:2, n on e explicitly addressed the question of what
sense was involved. Matthew of Aquasparta came close to doing so, rem arking that the
passage referred principally to Christ b ut it could be applied to Francis and was an ex
cellent th em e in preaching about him , precisely the formula norm ally em ployed w hen
a spiritual sense was being p rop osed 27. R aym ond Rigaud came equally close. He iden
tified the angel with Christ, then said, “O r it can be applied to blessed Francis”. He
then provided what was obviously a preaching outline based on that application28. A n
o th er com m entary, probably by Vital du Four, is m ore puzzling. It m entio n s Francis
seven times, m ore than any o th e r comm entary. Two cases are little m ore than passing
allusions, and three others seem to fall comfortably within the param eters offered by
the “signifies”/ “can be applied to” formula29. The final two however go substantially
farther. In dealing with Apoc. 7:2, Vital asserts that the angel is Christ, th en says,
“Here blessed Francis is described”. T h en he offers roughly the same serm on outline
found in R aym ond R igaud30. Later, in addressing the two witnesses of Apoc. 11, Vital
says that Francis is “designated” through Elijah and offers an extended parallel be
tween th e m 31. In these two cases, use of terms like describitur and designatur seems to
suggest a literal rather than a spiritual meaning; yet the total context in each case
points in the opposite direction. In any case, whatever Vital tho ug h t he m ean t by the
identification, a little reflection should have convinced him that, however he m ean t it,
he could no t m ean it literally, if only because he placed himself (and therefore a fo r
tiori Francis) in the late fourth or early fifth period, while the angel of Apoc. 7 :2 and
Elijah both belong in the sixth, since the angel of Apoc. 7 :2 appears during the o p e n
ing of the sixth seal and Elijah arrives during the persecution of Antichrist.
This is (as I have observed elsewhere)32 one of the key ways in which Olivi agreed
with Bonaventure over against the bulk of thirteenth-century exegetical tradition. Like
Bonaventure, he placed himself within the sixth period and saw that period as one of
renewal. Thus - again like Bonaventure - he could see Francis as literally the angel of
Forlsetzung Fufinote von Suite 156
lypsim , pu b lish ed in: A q u in a s, O p era 23 (Parm a 1860-62) 5 1 2 -7 1 2 ; A nonym ous, C o m m en tarii in
apocalypsim , p u b lish ed in Bonaventure, S ancti B onaventurae ex o rdine m in o ru m S.R. E. episcopi
cardinalis A lbanensis o p e ru m o m n iu m Sixti V. P ont. Max. D. O rd . iussu ed ito ru m su p p le m e n tum 2 (T rent 1773); and Joh a n n es Gallensis, E xpositio in apocalypsim , MSS Assis 50, T odi 68,
and elsew here. O n e co m m en tary th at is definitely later, Johannes Russel, E xpositio su p e r apoca
lypsim. MS O xford M erto n 122, does n o t m e n tio n Francis. I refer only to co m m en taries prior to
O iivi’s.
11 MS Assisi Sacro C o n v e n to 51, 336v.
2S MS H ereford C athedral P.3.3 (XIV), 134rb-va.
29 I'or the last th ree, co n cern in g A poc. 2:17, 4 :6 -8 and 5:1, see n o te 21 above.
>0 MS Assisi 66, f. 6 4 rb : D escribitur hie Franciscus. R aym ond was probably teaching at Paris
when Vital was a stu d e n t there. M a tth e w of A quasparta, S erm o n es (Q uaracchi 1962) 1 uses the
word describitur tw ice in identifying Francis w ith the angel.
31 MS Assisi Sacro C o n v e n to 66, 86va-vb: D esignatur pater Franciscus. Designatus is th e word
used by Bonaventure, L egenda m aior.
Burr, O iivi’s Peaceable K in g d o m em phasizes this p o in t th ro u g h o u t.
158
D a v id B u rr
the sixth seal. O thers could not, or at least they could n ot do so and still be consistent.
If exegetes like R aym ond Rigaud and Vital du Four did make the identification, they
either m e ant it in som e oth er sense or had not reasoned through the implications of
their own chronological framework. W e will never know which, and that may be the
most im portant thing to be said about them. T hey simply did no t feel the need to ad
dress this problem explicitly.
Olivi helped to change all that. He was m ore meticulous than his predecessors
about specifying the sense in which he spoke. Normally he simplified the problem by
distinguishing betw een only two senses, the literal and the mystical33, yet he separated
these two carefully. A n d he was very careful to state th at the literal sense of the A po ca
lypse was the historical sense. Moreover, except in the case of the first vision, the his
tory in question was that of the entire C hurch from Christ to the eschaton, no t just St.
John the Divine’s im mediate situation. Prophecy was the literal m eaning of the A p o
calypse.
It was Olivi’s specificity on this issue that forced the anon y m ou s consultant to deal
with it himself. He did not do so in a general sense. O n e searches in vain for any point
at which he accepts or rejects Olivi’s notion that the seven periods are the literal
m eaning of every vision except the first and the mystical m eaning of the first.
Nevertheless, he does address the problem piecemeal. He does so at length in deal
ing with Olivi’s interpretation of Apoc. 7 :2. Here he is intelligent e no ug h to realize
that he is dealing with more than a personal w him on Olivi’s part. Even as the consult
ant wrote, he could expect th at Franciscans all over E urope were preaching sermons
on the subject34. T h us the target of his attack is n ot the identification itself b ut Olivi’s
characterization of it as the literal m eaning of the passage. He addresses the problem
twice. Both times he stresses that Olivi’s fault lies in his assertion a d litteram or sim pliciler of what can only be applied in místico or metaphorice or secundum q u id 3>.
T he consultant faces this issue, n o t only w hen he is discussing the angel of Apoc.
7:2, but elsewhere as well. For example, in rejecting Olivi’s assertion th at the earth
quake in Apoc. 6:12 refers to a series of thirteenth- century events, he suggests that it
can be applied to these events m isticebui refers literally to the time of A ntich rist36. He
33 See Burr, O liv i’s P e a ce a b le K in g d o m , 1 1 1 -1 1 2 o n th e te rm in o lo g ic a l a m b ig u itie s c re a te d by
O liv i’s u se n o f th e te rm intellectus s p ir itu a ls fo r a n e w k n o w le d g e w h ic h in c lu d e s in c re a se d in
s ig h t in to th e lite ra l m e a n in g o f s c rip tu re .
34 S ee m y c o m m e n ts in Burr, O liv i’s P e a c e a b le K in g d o m , c h . 10.
35 P aris B ibl. n a t. lat. 3 3 3 8 1 A , 6 9v c o u n te r s O liv i’s a p p e a l to a s e r m o n b y B o n a v e n tu re : Quod obi-
citur de predications Bonaventure, scriptura non est autentica nec canónica, potest negari et quod dixerit et quod ceruin dixerit vel d ix it beatnm Franciscus fuissc ilium angelum methaphorice ct sec it nd u m q u id non autem a d Iiterant nec simplicitcr, q u ia non suo imperio compescuit dentones nec
sig n a vit Ínterin; sicut Ule nec assim ila tu r illi angelo habcndo signum plagarum el oratione dentones
refrenando et m ilicie Dei homines assignando, predicando et ordinem instruendo in quo et per qucm
m u lti sa lv i f i u n t de omnibus. S ee a lso 1 1 3 r: P rim us ergo error in generali est quod illu d quod dic
tu m est de Christo a d literam a stru it dictum de ciits membro, quod in sensu místico licet in literali
non licet cum sit pervcrtere scripturant sicut solent heretici facere.
36 P a ris B ibl. n a t. lat. 3381 A , 7 9 r: Licet ¡He uterque m otus fu erit vere a principio ordinis beati Francisci, non lam en est Me terre m otus a d literam q u i sig n i/ica tu r in Apocalypsim, ita lit ab tllo possint
d i d inchoata literaliter que ibi clicuntur, licet mistice potuerit ille uterque m otus designan ibidem
159
reacts in the sam e way to Olivi’s application of the obscuring of the sun in the same
verse. Olivi applies it to the secular-m endicant controversy, and the consultant is p e r
fectly willing to accept th at identification if it is seen as the mystical sense, bu t he in
sists that the literal sense m u s t be reserved for the time of A ntichrist37. T h e same can
be said of the falling stars, rolled-up sky and hiding in caves in Apoc. 6:13—1 5 5S. In all
of these cases the an on y m ou s consultant feels th at Olivi’s literal application of the pas
sage to his own day is temerarious and erroneous, “since it is a new exposition not
consistent with the words of the fathers”. By stating the m atte r thus, the consultant af
firms his allegiance to the Augustinian reading of the A pocalypse59, b ut he does more
than that. He places himself within the general interpretive framework accepted at P a
ris during the thirteenth century. The difference between that tradition and the an o n y
m ous consultant lies in the latter’s greater specificity. H e retains the notion implicit in
th irteenth-century exegesis th at the literal m eaning of the Apocalypse is the sweep of
C h urch history, but he is m ore careful in detailing which bit of history a particular
passage has in mind.
O thers would follow suit, although their ways of formulating the m atter would dif
fer. Shortly after the a n on y m ou s consultant wrote, two oth er theologians, the C arm e
lite G uido Terreni and the D om inican Pierre de la Palu, passed negative ju d g m en t on
a Catalan work based heavily on Olivi’s Revelation com m entary. T heir ju d g m e n t states
twice th at identification of Francis as angel of the sixth seal contradicts the Bible if ta
ken literally40. The authors note that according to Haymo, Richard of Saint Victor and
other authorities, the angel is Christ. Even if the identification with Francis is not
taken literally, it is still considered problematic. If one applies the passage to Francis
because of his sanctity, stigmata or wisdom, just as one would apply it to any saintly
man, th en there is no m ore reason to apply it to him than to Paul or J o h n 41.
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite 1)8
q uia ille terre m otus q u i ibidem secundum sensum littérale predicitur est m agna /nrsecutio que crit
tempore A ntichristi. O livi had acknow ledged th a t the passage referred litteralius to the tim e of the
G reat A n tich rist’s d eath , b u t argued th at it could be applied to earlier events se cu n d u m divcrsos
respectus. H ere as elsew here th e m ain issue for O livi is th at processes to be co m p leted at a later
stage are already underw ay m uch earlier. T hus conversion of th e Jew s, to be co m p leted only after
the G reat A n tich rist’s death, is already taking place before his arrival. See Warren Lewis, P eter
Jo h n Olivi, P ro p h e t of th e Year 2000 (Diss. T u bingen 1972) 4 0 8 -4 0 9 : Utruinque autem tempus
hic indistincte ta n g itu r usitato more prophetice scripture. Lewis’ u n p u b lish ed edition is generally
so u n d , b u t a new one is b ein g prepared by Paolo Vian.
37 Paris Bibi. nat. lat. 3381A , 79v-80r: Licet sit verum quod prelati et m agistri m u lti im pugnaverunt cucingelicam paupertatem per hoc fa cti nigri ponentes lucem tenebras, tam en quod ista solis denigratio sit ilia a d literam que ibi describitur non consonat dictis sanctorum q u i ilia rcjerunt a d tem
pus Antichristi.
38 Paris Bibi. nat. lat. 3381A , 80r-81v.
39 O n this reading see Lerner, R e fresh m en t of the Saints.
E ntire ju d g m en t p u b lish ed in José Pou y M a rti, V isionarios, Beguinos y F raticellos Catalanes
(Siglos X III-X V) (Vich 1930) 4 8 3 -5 1 2 (4 9 4 f. an d 499 on A poc. 7:2). O n the date of co m position
see R a oul M anselli, Spirituali e beghini in Provenza (R om e 1959) 164-69.
' Like th e an o n y m o u s co n su lta n t (see n o te 35), the rep o rt also challenges O livi’s appeal to a vi
sion attested by B onaventure. T h e vision does n o t seem au th e n tic and, even if it were, it should
be und ersto o d n o t literally b u t th ro u g h a certain ap p ro p riatio n , just as Francis, th ro u g h n o t liter-
160
D a v id B urr
A t least five years later, during the period w hen Jo h n XXII was soliciting opinions
from individual theologians on specific passages in Olivi’s com m entary, one of these
theologians, Francesco Silvestri, th en bishop of Florence, found himself addressing the
same problem, although not directly. Silvestri had been asked to evaluate the notion
that Francis’ holiness was unequalled by that of anyone except Christ and the Virgin
Mary. H e did so with gusto, then added, “A nd if in gesta or legenda written about him
so m e similar or even greater things are found, it is pious to believe such writings, bu t
no t as if they were necessary for faith or salvation, as it is necessary for salvation or
faith to believe in the truth of those things written in sacred scripture concerning the
holy apostles.“42 T h us things like the identification of Francis with the angel of Apoc.
7 :2 are acceptable w hen found in a devotional work or sermon, b ut no t as the literal
m eaning in a Bible commentary.
Bible co m m entato rs themselves seem to have received the message. A ro un d the
same time the ano ny m ou s consultant wrote, perhaps during the school year 1318-19,
a new Paris master, the Franciscan Pierre Auriol, produced his Com pendium of the L it
eral Sense o f the E ntire Seriptur/' K It considered C h urch history to be the literal m e a n
ing of the Apocalypse, but departed from the seven-vision, seven-period framework
routinely accepted in the thirteenth century. Instead it adopted ano ther pattern seen
in the thirteenth century only in the co m m entary of A lexander Minorita, w ho claimed
to base his exegetical strategy, n o t on tradition, b ut on a personal revelation, and
whose work seems to have had little im pact on the academic c o m m u n ity in his own
tim e 44. A lexander had exposited the Apocalypse as a continuous history of the C hurch
unfolding chapter by chapter. He had seen the arrival of the m en d ican t orders as a m a
jor apocalyptic event. Like Alexander, Auriol did m en tio n St. Francis and the m e n d i
cants, but only briefly. Any m ention at all m igh t seem remarkable, bu t it is worth n o
ting that the A lexandrine co ntinuous approach had the virtue of allowing interpreters
reference to more specific events43. If Francis and D om inic were cited, so were many,
many others including Benedict. T hu s the allusion to Francis seem ed less like Minor
ite chauvinism. Nevertheless, ten years later, w hen Nicholas of Lyre p roduced his own
Apocalypse com m entary, he followed A lexander and Pierre in seeing C hu rch history
as the literal sense of the Apocalypse and in adopting the co ntinuous approach, yet
parted with the m in excising all m en tio n of Francis46.
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite I 59
ally th e angel w h o appeared to Ishaiah in Isa. 6, is n o n eth eless often d escribed and visually repre
sen ted as such.
41 R om e Vat. A rm . XXXI 42, 8 8 r: lit si in gestis eel legenda eins legantur a liq n a hiis s im ih a vel
maiore. credere talibus scripturis est pium , sed non dc necessitate fid ei vel salutis, sicut est de necessi
tate salutis et fid ei credere vera esse que leguntur in scripturis sacris de sanctis apostolis.
43 Petrus Auriolo, C o m p e n d iu m sensus literalis totius divinae scripturae (Q uaracchi 1896).
44 A le x a n d e r M in o rita, E xpositio in apocalypsim (M o n u m en ta G erm an iae H istórica Q uellen, 1,
W eim ar 1955). O n A lexander see Sabine Schmolinsky, D er A p o k aly p sen k o m m en tar des A lexan
d e r M inorita (M o n u m en ta G erm aniae H istórica, S tudien u n d T exte 3, H an n o v er 1991).
13 Petrus A u rio li, C o m p en d iu m , 4 5 4 -5 6 argues for the consecutive approach on th at basis.
46 Nicholas dc Lyra, Postilla su p e r to tam bibliam (Fran kfurt am M ain 1971, rep ro d u c tio n of
Strassburg 1492). N icholas did offer a refin em en t, a tw ofold literal reading of the A pocalypse in-
161
T h e direction followed by Pierre and Nicholas was hardly the only one acceptable
in the fourteenth century. In Nicholas’ day two o ther com m entators, Ponce Carbonnel
and H enry of Cossey, retained the old seven-vision, seven-period pattern b ut develop
ed it in radically different ways47. Both Ponce and H enry exhibit in different ways the
new caution to which exegetes were enjoined by the Olivi affair. T hat is another, larger
matter, however.
W hat, then, is the lesson to be learned from examining the anonym ous consultant?
T h e first is that sources like those from the Olivi co ndem na tion can make som e co n
tribution to our knowledge of medieval exegetical theory by sup plem enting the evi
dence derived from comm entaries. There are, after all, less than twenty extant A po ca
lypse com m entaries w hich can be dated betw een 1200 and ca. 1350. T hus s u p p le m e n
tal evidence can hardly be considered unwelcome. N o r should we scorn the value to
be derived from this sort of evidence. T em p tin g as it m ight seem to dismiss people
like the anon ym o us consultant as ecclesiastical h un tin g dogs trained to pursue unreflectively any prey toward which J o h n XXII m ight decide to point them , they were
no thin g of the kind. They were largely university-trained intellectuals whose h e rm e
neutical principles and ecclesiastical ambitions tended to m esh in what proved, for
th e m at least, a particularly happy way. It has its joys for us, too. T h ey attacked Olivi
on the basis of exegetical assumptions learned as students at Paris and elsewhere, and
to the extent that they made those assumptions explicit they are witnesses to the
reigning exegetical theory at those centers of learning.
A t the same time, sources like the an on ym ou s consultant offer striking testimony to
the way in which exegetical theory interacted with practical politics. It did so in a
n u m b e r of ways, the m ost obvious of which is that Olivi’s apocalyptic scenario became
dangerous to the degree that he and his disciples were seen as subversive. The co n n ec
tion was to som e extent extrinsic and rather bogus. O n ce Olivi’s enemies found th e m
selves engaged in battle, they used whatever they could find to discredit him , and his
apocalyptic scenario seem ed as good a stick to beat h im with as any other. The c o n
nection however was in ano ther sense intrinsic and entirely comprehensible. T he sce
nario proved an effective weapon precisely because Olivi’s apocalyptic tho ug h t seemed
discredited by the use his rebellious disciples had made of it. Obviously such a c o n
nection offered its own op portunity for distortion. Those comm issioned to judge
Olivi’s work inadvertently credited it with an even greater degree of predictive accu
racy than he himself claimed when they interpreted his tho ug ht on the future perse
cution as if it were a direct and conscious reference to the disciplinary action against
spiritual Franciscans from 1317 on. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to deny that
there actually was a connection between Olivi’s scenario and the way those influenced
by that scenario acted after Pope J o h n XXII decided against them in 1317. H ad it not
Forlstizung Fufinote von Seite 160
v°lving J o h n ’s ow n tim e on th e one hand and all of C h u rch history on the other. M oreover, his
neglect of Francis is related to his radical d ep artu re from A lexander and Pierre on how to read
the entire last part of th e book from A poc. 17 on.
O n P oncio and H enry see Burr, O livi’s Peaceable K in g d o m , 2 5 4-259.
162
D a v id B urr
been for that connection, O liv i’s co m m e n ta ry m ig h t have seem ed a good deal Iess
dangerous than it did.
It seems equally foolish to deny that the scenario itself was g ro un ded in Olivi’s exegetical principles and th at its disruptive effects were closely related to the ways in
w hich he departed from the exegetical outlook generally held by thirteenth-century
scholars. T hu s his judges, in attacking Olivi the subversive, inevitably found t h e m
selves criticizing Olivi the exegete. I am rem ind ed of Beryl Smalley’s c o m m e n t (in the
preface to the third edition of h er S tudy o f the Bible) that she had written before it was
considered “desirable to add ‘and society’ to o n e ’s title” Now, of course, it is highly
desirable, and I hope this paper gives at least som e hin t as to why it is so. In the final
analysis, however, one should probably be glad Smalley wrote before that era, since her
remarkable acco m p lishm ent dep en d ed at least partly on the clarity with which she set
limits, stayed within them , and explored the space within th e m m ore fully and more
intelligently than had any preceding author.
IV. Das Spatmittelalter
Alastair J. M innis
Fifteenth-Century Versions of Thomistic Literalism:
Girolamo Savonarola and Alfonso de Madrigal
The quaestio with w hich St T hom as A quinas begins his “S u m m a theologiae” includes
discussions of the senses of Scripture and the use of proverbs and symbolic language
in the sacred text (la 1, art. 9 and 10)’. H ere A quinas establishes a preference for the
‘literal sense’ as the bedrock of all the others, affirms the im portance of authorial in
tention as a guide to textual meaning, and concludes that parables should best be re
garded as forming a part of the literal sense. Moreover, it is quite fitting for the Bible
to employ metaphorical expressions, he declares, because we h um an beings reach the
world of intelligence through the world of sense. That thought, which Aquinas would
regard as fundamentally Aristotelian, is sup po rted by Pseudo-Dionysius, who said that
the divine rays cann ot enlighten us unless they are w rapped up in m any sacred veils2.
More practically, Aquinas continued, such language is indispensably useful in tea
ching. A n d that is why it is to be found in Christian doctrine. By contrast, in poetry
m etaphors are em ployed ‘for the sake of representation’, in which o ur hu m an natures
are disposed to take pleasure. It would seem, then, that the m etaphors in Scripture
teach, while those in poetry delight.
This account is by no m eans the most sophisticated one of its kind to have been
produced in the thirteenth century3. It is cursory and condensed, arguably a reflection
of the fact that as a theologian A quinas had little time for matters poetic and sy m b
1 St Thomas A quinas'. “S u m m a theologiae”, la 1, Ed. Thom as Gilby, vol.l of th e Blackfriars E di
tion (L ondon, New Y ork 1963) 32-4 1 .
2 “D e cael. hier.” i.2 (PG iii.132).
3 See the m aterials co llected and translated in: A.J. M in n is, A .B . Scott (Eds.), Medieval Literary
T heory and C riticism : T h e C o m m en tary T rad itio n , R evised E dition (O xford 1991) 197-276. See
fu rth er A.J. M in n is, T h e A ccessus E x ten d ed : H en ry of G h e n t on th e T ransm ission an d R ecep
tion of Theology, in : M a rk D. Jordan, K ent Emery Jr. (Eds.), A d L itteram : A uthoritative T exts and
their M edieval R eaders (N otre D am e, L ondon 1992) 2 7 5 -3 2 6 ; A.J. M in n is, M edium and M es
sage: H en ry of G h e n t on S criptural Style, in: R ichard N ew hanser.John A. A lfo r d (Eds.), L iterature
and Religion in th e L ater M iddle Ages: Philological S tudies in H o n o r of Siegfried W enzel
(B ingham ton, N ew Y ork 1994) 20 9 -3 6 .
164
A l a s t a i r J . M in n is
olic4. But what he did say about scriptural sense and style exercised a wide influence,
thanks in part to the authority which his oeuvre came to enjoy within the D om inican
O rd er and beyond, and also to the amplification of the saint’s exegetical theories by
Nicholas of Lyre in his “Postilla litteralis” The purpose of this paper is to examine the
ways in w hich Thomistic theory concerning the sensus litteralis was assimilated and
adapted by two later scholars who, w hatever their differences (and they are legion),
shared at least the brief p ro n o u n cem en ts of St T ho m as which have been sum m arized
above. Indeed, it may to some extent be read as an essay in the ‘reception history’ of
“S u m m a theologiae”, la 1, articles 9 and 10.
The texts u n d er consideration here are the “O p us perutile de divisione ordine ac
utilitate o m n iu m scientiarum” which was written in 1491 by the Italian D om inican
Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) and extracts from the Bible com m entaries of the
Spanish secular Alfonso de Madrigal, ‘El Tostado’ (c. 1410-1455). N either writer was a
stranger to controversy.In 1443 Madrigal was obliged to reassure Pope Eugenius IV. of
his orthodoxy; som e 21 of his propositions were challenged in disputation by Juan de
T orqu em ada, w ho m the pope had appointed to this task ’. T he m ost controversial is
sue was Madrigal’s questioning of the extent to which, and the way in which, popes
and priests could grant remission of sin, absolution a poena et a culpa', in addition
there were two suspect doctrines which had caused offence, namely his challenging of
the standard views on Christ’s age at the time of His passion and the date on which
H e died. However, Madrigal’s career did not suffer long on account of this, and a few
years after the controversy, in 1445, Eugenius m ade him Bishop of Avila, on King
Juan II. of Castile’s recom m endation. Savonarola was not so fortunate6. N ot content
with having predicted, and indeed having helped to bring about, the downfall in Flo
rence of the Medici dynasty (which finally collapsed before the incursions of King
Charles VIII of France, hailed by Savonarola as a great avenger), he em barked on a c ru
sade against the luxury and corruption of the papal court of A lexander VI. Despite his
excom m unication, Savonarola was quite safe while his base of power lasted: un der the
Council which governed Florence after Charles VIII’s departure the friar’s moral
teachings enjoyed an exceptional vogue. However, w hen his party fell from power he
soon found himself without friends. H e was hanged and burned at the stake on May
23rd 1498.
4 Cf. M .-D . Chenu, T ow ard U n d erstan d in g St T hom as, trans. A .-A l. L a n d ry , D . H ugh es (Chicago
1964) 1 6 9 -7 0 , 228.
5 T h ere is som e co nfusion in the relevant literature about M adrigal’s dates. H ere 1 generally fol
low those given in the “ D ictio n n aire de sp iritu alité”. E du cated at th e U niversity of Salam anca, in
1432 he attain ed the title of M aster of A rts and in 1441 th at of M aster of T heology. D u rin g his 25
years in th e university he taught poetry, m oral ph ilo so p h y and theology, and served as its c h a n
cellor. A fter the papal investigation of his o p in io n s M adrigal sp e n t a few m o n th s in the C atalon
ian C h a rterh o u se of Scala Dei, b u t left w hen Ju a n If of C astile recalled him as his advisor.
6 O n S avonarola’s life and w orks see Roberto R idolfi, Vita di G irolam o Savonarola (R om e 1952),
and Franco Cordero’s m onum ental study Savonarola (R om e, Bari 1986-88). I have specially b ene
fited from vol. 1, w hich covers the period in w hich the “O p u s p eru tile” was w ritten.
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V e rs ions of T h o m i s t i c Lite ral ism
165
‘El Tostado’ was an extraordinarily ambitious exegete and classical scholar, who per
sistently took on projects so massive that they defied even his energies. He began his
volum inous co m m entary on Genesis in 1436, and over the next twelve years or so he
worked his way through the historical books of the Old T estam en t (getting as far as II
Paralipomenon) and St Matthew ’s gospel. In 14 49 -50 he com pleted a Castilian trans
lation of J e r o m e ’s Latin version of the “Chronici canones” of Eusebius (for the first
Marquis of Santillana, patron of the arts and bibliophile). Madrigal seems to have b e
gu n a Latin com m en tary on Eusebius soon afterwards, only to abandon it (having got
no further than half-way through Eusebius’s prologue, so extensive had the exposition
become) in favour of a Castilian exposition of the sam e work. This vernacular work
g ro und to a halt after Madrigal had filled five folio volumes with elaborate c o m m e n
tary, yet hardly one-third of the text had been dealt w ith 7. The Eusebius translation
and com m entaries may be regarded as a sort of c o m p le m e n t to Madrigal’s Bible c o m
mentary, an exposition of pagan history to stand alongside his account of sacred his
tory. A m o n g his o ther works, the most curious of all is a “Tractando com o al orne es
nescesario am ar”, an Ovidian jett d ’e sprit on the pleasures and pains of love8. No one
who has confronted the many tom es which make up the oeuvre of ‘El T ostado’ could
accuse him of congenital frivolity. But his love-treatise certainly would not have pleas
ed Savonarola.
Savonarola’s reputation, in sharp contrast with Madrigal’s, was won in the areas of
preaching, prophecy and the practical reform of morals. T h e main thin g w hich co n
cerned him about Lorenzo de Medici (‘the Magnificent’) was no t his patronage of the
arts b ut the state of his soul; am ong the m any accusations which the friar levelled at
him was the charge th at he p ro m o te d art of a paganized kind. And, at the height of Sa
vonarola’s influence in Florence, many people b ro ug ht items of luxury, including pic
tures of beautiful wom en, o rnam ents and the writings of pagan and im moral poets to
San Marco, where he had been prior since 1491. These articles were publicly burned.
A lthough the “O p u s perutile” was w ritten several years before those events, it may be
said to provide a justification for them . T herein Savonarola claims th at Plato was quite
right to say that poets should be driven out of the state. Furtherm ore, he calls for a law
to be passed in o rder that those ancient books ‘w hich were published about the art of
love, about whores, ab ou t idols, and about the most foul and wicked superstition of
dem ons should be co n d e m n e d to ashes by fire. For it would be a great advantage to
society if the books of the pagans which contain the praises, the shameless morals,
7 See R o n a ld G. Keightley, A lfonso de Madrigal and the C hronici canones of E usebius, in: Jo u r
nal of M edieval and R enaissance S tudies 7 (1977) 2 2 5 -4 8 ; R o n a ld G. Keightley, H ercu les in A l
fonso de M adrigal’s “In E u seb iu m ”, in: R enaissance and G olden A ge: Essays in H o n o r of D.W.
M cPheeters, Ed. Bruno M . D a m ia n i (P otom ac 1986) 134-47. I am m ost grateful to Professors
Ronald K eightley and Ju lian W eiss for providing m e w ith inform ation ab o u t A lfonso de Madrigal.
8 O n this w ork see A .D . Deyermond, A Literary H istory of S pain: T he M iddle Ages (London,
New York 1971) 144, and Ottavio d i Camillo, El H u m an ism o C astellano del Siglo XV (Valencia
1976) 115-16.
166
a n d t h e disgra ceful c rim e s of false g o d s w e re c o n s i g n e d to t h e flam es’9. T h is c e n s o r
ious a tt i tu d e to se c u la r literature u n d e r p i n s his d isc u ssio n of scriptura l se n se a n d style,
as w e will see.
I.
The distinction which A quinas made (in art.10) betw een unique Biblical discourse and
that c o m m o n to all the o th er branches of knowledge is amplified substantially by Sa
vonarola in the fourth book of the “O p us perutile”. His main target is certain ‘poets’
w ho ‘presum e to p ut their art on an equal footing with the Holy Scripture - to say
no thin g of giving it priority’10. These writers are n o t identified, but he could have had
in m in d one of several Italian defenders of poetry, including Petrarch, Boccaccio and
A lbertino M ussato1!. N one of those individuals actually w ent so far as to say th at p o e t
ry was to be equated with Scripture or indeed superior to it, bu t Savonarola was no t in
the business of m aking such fine distinctions. In their effort ‘to prove that the art of
poetry is of equal w orth to Holy Scripture’, Savonarola complains, such ‘poets’ use the
arg u m ent that poetry has allegorical senses just as the Bible h a s12. Petrarch and Boc
caccio, am o ng others, certainly argued th at allegory was c o m m o n to both kinds of
writing. A n d in his “Genealogía d e o ru m gen tiliu m ” Boccaccio practised some exegesis
of the type characteristic of Bible com m entary, as for instance w hen he finds
literal/historical, moral, allegorical and anagogical senses in the fable of Perseus’s kil
ling of the Gorgon. But that is the exception rather than the rule in this treatise13.
Presumably this is the sort of herm eneutics which troubled Savonarola. T he ‘poets’
do n ot u nderstand w hat they are talking about, he declares, for no branch of learning
save the divine has both literal and allegorical meaning. His proof of this rests on the
Augustinian distinction, as reiterated by Aquinas, betw een significative words and sig
nificative things. T h ree things, Savonarola explains, are necessary for the existence of
spiritual sense14. First there m u st be a solid historical foundation, n ot fable or fiction
but a true account of actual events. Secondly, through this historical sense there
should be the signification of som e o ther event, w h e th e r past, present or future.
Thirdly, that o th e r historical event m u s t ‘have been bo th foreseen and ordained and
arranged with this signification in m in d ’: we are n ot dealing here with m ere inventions
9 S critti filosofici, ed. G iancarlo G a rfa g n in i (R om e 1 982-88) i.265. (This form s part of th e Edizione N azionale ed itio n of Savonarola’s works.) H ere the w ork is ed ited u n d er the title “A pologeticus de ratione poeticae artis”. A bove I q u o te from the translation of book iv of th e “O p u s p e ru
tile” w hich is in clu d ed in J .W . B in n s’ article Late M edieval Poetics: T h e Case of G irolam o
Savonarola, in: A n n als of th e A rchive of ‘F erran Vails 1 T a b e rn e rs Library’. E studios de literatura,
p en sam ien to , h istoria política y cu ltu ra en la edad m edia E uropea, no. 9 /1 0 (B arcelona 1991)
3 0 7 -3 9 (334).
10 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 260; trans. B inns, 330.
11 See th e discussion an d bibliography in M in n is, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 3 8 7 -9 2 .
12 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G a rfagnini, 259; trans. B in n s, 329.
13 Cf. Charles G. Osgood, Boccaccio on P oetry; Being the Preface and the F o u rte en th and Fif
teen th Books of B occaccio’s G enealogía D eo ru m G en tiliu m (P rin ceto n 21956) xviii.
u O p u s perutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 2 6 0 -6 1 ; trans. B inns, 3 3 0 -3 1 .
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V e rs ions of T h o m i s t i c Lite ral ism
167
of the apostles and o th er catholic doctors. Here Savonarola is appealing to the belief
that God, who is ultimately responsible for all the meanings of Scripture, is the only
auth or w ho can use n ot only words but also things to signify: G od alone ‘could ordain
things in their course th at such a m eaning can be derived from t h e m ’. Therefore ‘No
branch of learning except the Holy Scriptures properly and truly has a spiritual sense’.
Unfortunately, Savonarola protests, ‘som e of o ur contem poraries ... try to allegorise
the histories of the R om ans and o th e r pagans, thinking th at they contain allegories in
the same way as the Holy Scriptures do ’; this should no t be done, for ‘those histories
were by no means ordained with this meaning in m i n d ’. Thus Savonarola appeals to
the principle of actual textual intention as a m eans of establishing control over inter
pretation.
W hat, then, of the sens us litteralis itself? ‘The literal sense is th at w hich the author
in tends’, Aquinas had declared (art.10, resp.), a proposition echoed and elaborated by
Savonarola. It is no t that which is ‘formed by the words and letters’ (as poets and
gram marians suppose), ‘b u t the m eaning which the a u th o r principally intends by those
words and letters’13. Therefore, in the parables which are used in the gospels the literal
sense is no t that which is signified by the words (voces) and letters (littere) as they
would normally be understood, b ut rather what Christ intends to express by those
words. In such cases the words signify in their norm al m eaning (proprie) to som e ex
tent and figuratively {figurative) to some extent. T h e literal sense is n o t the figure it
self, b ut the object w hich is figured by it. Savonarola cites as an example Luke i.51,
where it is said of G od that he has ‘showed m ig ht in his a rm ’. This is no t to say that
G od literally has an arm, for that would be a lie. Rather it should be understood as re
ferring to his ‘operative’ power, i.e. his power of doing and making. This is a slightly
expanded version of a statem ent which Aquinas had m ade at the very end of art.10,
where he was concerned to explain that the parabolical sense of scripture is no t in it
self a distinct and discrete sense, but rather a part of the sensits litteralis. A t this point
A quinas had cited Luke’s statem ent abo ut ‘the arm of G o d ’, within a discussion which
affirms th at ‘noth ing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture’16.
T h e same solution applies to the problem of the poetic m etaphors which are used
in Scripture, Savonarola continues, for their m eaning is also literal17. H ere he moves
into territory covered by A quinas’s ninth article, on m etaphors and symbolic discourse
in Scripture. T h e first ‘contrary arg u m en t’ offered by A quinas had proposed that holy
teaching should no t use m etaphors because what is proper to a lowly type of doctrine,
poetry, appears ill-suited to the suprem e science. Aquinas m oderated this view in his
responsto, declaring that poetry employs m etaphors for the sake of representation, in
which we naturally take delight (here he echoes the Averroistic version of Aristotle’s
“Poetics”)18, bu t sacra cloctrina employs the m propter necessitatem et utilitatem . Far
15 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G arfagn'm i, 260; trans. Binns, 330.
16 Summa theologiae, ed. an d trans. Gilby, 3 8 -4 1 .
17 Opus p eru tile , Ed. Gnrfagnini, 262; trans. Binns, 331.
18 S um tna theologiae, ed. and trans. Gilby, 3 4 -3 5 . Cf. the relevant passage in A verroes’ M iddle
C o m m en tary on th e P oetics as translated in to Latin by H e rm a n n u s A llem annus in 1256; transla
ted and discussed by A iinnis, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 282, 29 3 -9 4 .
in
168
A la sta ir J. M in n is
from m oderating the contrary argument, Savonarola wishes to reinforce it. His main
target are those ‘poets’ who use the fact that m etaphors are found both in the Bible
and in poetry to support their claim that the poetic art is actually nothing oth er than
theology. H ere Savonarola could have had in mind, for example, the statem ent by
Petrarch that ‘I would almost say th at theology is poetry written ab ou t G o d ’19, or
Boccaccio’s declaration that on certain occasions ‘theology and poetry can be spoken
of as almost one and the same thing’20. However, Petrarch and Boccaccio took som e
pains to make major distinctions between poetry and theology, as for example when
they both say that there is a considerable difference in their subject matter, the form
er being about gods and m en and the latter being about G od and matters divine21.
But Savonarola is disposed to see things in black and white terms. ‘To make the lowest
branch of learning the highest, and to think that m u d is gold ’ is a great erro r22. It is
one thing to use m eta p h o r out of necessity and because of the m agnitude of the
events being described, as is the case in the Bible, and it is quite another to use them
in order to delight and on account of a weakness as far as truth is concerned, as is
the case in poetry. W h e n theologians speak of matters which surpass the h u m a n in
tellect and understanding, of course they are obliged to treat of th e m through h o m e
ly likenesses, because no one could c o m p re h e n d the m in their naked splendour. As
Pseudo-Dionysius says, ‘the divine rays cann ot enlighten us except w rapped up in
many sacred veils’23.
Here Savonarola is clearly influenced by the statem en t in Aquinas’s ninth article
that the Bible fittingly treats divine and spiritual realities u n der the guise of corporeal
likenesses. Savonarola moves far beyond Aquinas, however, in developing a contrast
betw een the mysterious, sacred veiling of the kind described by Dionysius with the
dubious kind practised by the poets.
Savonarola’s criticisms of poetry may be sum m arized thus:
1.
It treats o f uncertain particulars. T h e poetic m ode of procedure, he says, involves
single, individual things (Poetae proprium est ex particiilaribiis procedere), w hich are
subject to great variation, and therefore if the poets’ argum ents were stripped of o rn a
m en tatio n no one would listen to t h e m 24. H ere he is on shaky ground: it could be
counterargued that this feature of poetry is what makes it of special value in ethics,
wherein demonstrative certainty is n o t possible and individual cases m u st be dealt
with, as Aristotle had said and as m any schoolm en had reiterated25. (Moreover, the
19 Le F am iliari, x.4; trans. M innis, Scott, Medieval Literary T heory, 413. For the original tex t of
this letter (to P etrarch ’s b ro th er, G herardo) see Le Fam iliari vol. ii, ed. V. Rossi, E dizione nazionale delle op ere di F rancesco Petrarca XI (Florence 1934) 301 -3 .
20 T rattatelio in laude di D ante, red. I, 154, trans. D a f i d Wallace, in M innis, Scott, M edieval L it
erary T h eo ry , 498.
21 See M in n is, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 3 8 8 -9 2 .
22 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 262; trans. Binns, 331.
21 O p u s peru tile, Ed. G arfagnini, 262; trans. B inns, 332. Cf. D ionysius as used by A quinas; refer
en ce in n o te 2 above.
24 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 248; trans. B inns, .321.
23 See fo r ex am p le th e relevant discussion in G iles of R om e’s highly influential “D e R egim ine
P rin c ip u m ” (c. 1285). ‘In th e w hole field of m oral teaching’, he declares, ‘the m ode of procedure,
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V e rsio n s o f T h o m i s t i c L ite rali sm
169
accesstis a d a u c to m regularly claim th at po em s pertain to ethics, ‘ethice supponitur’26.)
2.
It is the lowest form of logic. Due to the high-medieval recovery of certain works of
Aristotle and the dissemination of the scholarship of his Arab com m entators, it was
believed that poetry was a part of logic: the “Rhetoric” and the “Poetics” were the sev
en th and eighth parts of the “O rg a n o n ” respectively, preceded hierarchically by the six
treatises on logic p ro p e r27. T heir characteristic methodologies, which were supposed
to have m u c h less certainty th an those of dem onstration, were defined in various ways;
according to Savonarola the object of rhetoric is the enth y m em e, while the example is
that of poetry. K n ow ing how to com pose verses is n o t what makes one a p o e t28, for
the true p oet has to have sufficient knowledge of logic, so that he may construct th at
type of syllogism which is called the exam ple29. Poetry should exemplify g ood behav
iour in an attractive way, and bad behaviour in such a way as to make it repugnant.
The aim (finis) of the poet is therefore ‘to lead m en to some virtuous object through
som e fitting representation’. By the same token, poetry should lead m en away from vi
cious ends, ‘in just the same way a m an abominates food if it should be represented to
him u n d er the image of so m eth ing abom inable’30. H ere Savonarola’s teaching is u t
terly traditional3*, though he may have been responding to argum ents such as Boccac
cio’s declaration th at while the p h ilosopher proceeds by syllogizing the po et conceives
his th o u g h t by co ntem p latio n and, ‘wholly w ithout the help of syllogism, veils it as
fo rlsetzu n g I'lijSnou von Scitc 168
according to “th e P h ilo so p h er”, is figurative and broad (grassus)’. Individual m atters, G iles e x
plains, are variable and h en ce uncertain in scientific term s (as A ristotle says in the “ E th ics”), and
therefore in stru ctio n in m orality is rightly co n d u c te d by m ean s of a figurative style, such a style
being u n su b tle and g en eral and hence accessible to th e en tire populace. M athem atical proofs are
the m o st exact possible, w hilst m oral arg u m en ts are broad. T h e function of g eo m etry is n ot to
persuade b u t to prove; the function of an orator and politician is n ot to prove b ut to persuade.
T hus G iles justifies th e way in w hich he will teach practical p h ilosophy in th e follow ing treatise.
Very sim ilar arg u m en ts, of course, could be m ade in defence of poetry. But Savonarola will have
n o n e of this, even th o u g h one could say th at ethics, eco n o m ics and politics, as d em arcated by
A ristotle, all pro ceed ex singularibus.
’(’ For th e access us see th e discussion and bibliography in M in n is , Scott, M edieval Literary T heory,
12-15.
11 See M in n is, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 27 9 -8 1 .
28 T he n o tio n th at b eing able to com pose verses is n o t w hat m akes o n e a poet is found in the
A verroistic “ P oetics”. See M in n is, Scott, M edieval Literary T heory, 291, and, for a m o d ern transla
tion from th e original A rabic, see Charles Butterworth, A verroes’ M iddle C o m m en tary on A ri
sto tle’s P oetics (P rin ceto n 1986) 6 4 -6 5 . T h e p o in t being m ade by A verroes is th at only a w ork
w hich co m b in es m e tre w ith po etic in ten tio n , i.e. the p u rp o se of co m p o sin g discourses w hich re
presen t objects (this b ein g th e bran ch of logic characteristic of poetry), sh o u ld truly be called a
poem . Savonarola criticises w riters for n o t carrying o ut this logical function properly, th o u g h it
sho u ld be em p h asized th at certain w orks w hich A verroes w ould regard as g en u in e, ‘tru e’, poem s
are, in Savonarola’s eyes, dangerously delightful and logically w'eak, and therefore m u st be c o n
stricted and con tro lled .
O p u s p erutile, ed. G arfa g nini, 246; trails. Binns, 320.
30 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G a rfa gnini, 248; trans. B inns, 321.
31 But cf. especially th e parallels w ith th e A verroistic P oetics: M in n is, Scott, M edieval Literary
T heory, 2 8 2 -8 4 , 2 8 5 -8 6 , 2 9 1 -9 2 .
170
A l a s t a i r J . M in o is
subtly and as skilfully as he can u nd er the outw ard sem blance of his fiction’-52. A cco r
ding to Savonarola, if the po et did no t veil and obscure his deficient subject-m atter
with similitudes its weakness would be apparent to all.
3.
Literary pleasure is debilitating. Far from making a positive response to Aristotle’s
statem en t that m ank ind naturally takes pleasure in representation (as reiterated by
Aquinas), Savonarola argues that poetic representation, however ‘fitting’ it may be, can
‘delight’ its audience in a way which is superficial and deceptive. The ‘te nder m inds of
young m e n ’ should n ot be nourished on poem s which ‘are full of lust and the m ost
foolish and wicked sexual liaisons of gods and m e n ’33; such books should certainly be
rem oved from their sight - and so Savonarola proceeds to justify their destruction. He
even criticizes certain contem porary poets, who have written ‘about religion, about
morals, and about virtue, covering the truth of faith with pagan blandishm ents and d e
ceptio n ’34. A t first sight these works may seem useful and necessary (the two criteria of
acceptability as used by Aquinas), b u t ‘to the wise m e n who perceive the things that
are G o d ‘s’ their use is very limited, i.e. by reading th e m ‘sinful young m en involved in
the charm s of the flesh’ may be ‘persuaded to abandon vice and love affairs’35. T h e r e
fore such poem s just do not go far e nough; they can no t bring their readers ‘to true re
morse and purity of heart, and Christian chastity’: for that to happen would be a m ira
cle! Clearly, very few poets, w heth er classical or contem porary, pagan or Christian, can
slip through Savonarola’s moral net, the m esh being so extraordinarily fine.
H ere, then, Thom istic theories relating to the sensus scripturae and the metaphorical
language of the Bible have been pressed into the service of an extraordinary polemical
exercise, which seeks to kill the letter and deny the spirit of poetry.
II.
The differences betw een Savonarola’s attitudes and those of Alfonso de Madrigal are
writ large in two quaestiones, as included in the Spaniard’s co m m en tary on Matthew
xiii, which interrogate St T h o m a s’s articles on the senses of Scripture and its use of
metaphorical and symbolic language (These discussions were pro m p ted by the biblical
chapter in which Christ tells the parables of the sower, the cockle, the mustard seed,
etc.). In the initial outlines of the argum ents for and against the propositions, and c o n
comitantly in the closing replies to those argum ents, the influence of A quinas is quite
obvious and verbatim. Yet the central responsiones or determ inations are very m uch A l
fonso’s own, although on occasion ideas from A quinas certainly do appear in them.
T h e first of these quaestiones (no. 28) asks: ‘an sint plures sensus eiusdem litere, et
q u o t s u n t’36. After rigorously limiting the places in w hich the four senses may be
32 G enealogia d eo ru m g en tiliu m xiv.17; trans. Osgood, Boccaccio on Poetry, 79.
35 O p u s peru tile, Ed. G arfagnini, 263; trans. B inns, 3 3 2 -3 3 .
34 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 270; trans. B inns, 338.
35 O p u s peru tile, Ed. G arfagnini, 271; trans. B inns, 338.
36 O p era o m n ia q u o tq u o t in scriptura sacra ex p o sitio n em et alia, ad h u c extare in u en ta su n t (Co
logne 1613) ix pt. 2 8 5 -8 8 . A lfonso’s exposition of M atthew xiii alone runs to 90 quaestiones.
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V e rs ions o f T h o m i s t i c Lite ral ism
171
sought in Scripture, in a m a n n e r which som etim es follows the letter of A quinas and is
generally in accord with the spirit of Nicholas of Lyre, Madrigal describes their o pera
tions in detail57. T h e literal sense may be regarded as historical, because it signifies ‘n a
ked history’ (nuda historia), here taking historici in the broad sense which includes
everything which is signified im mediately by ‘the letter’ of Scripture, but no t what the
au tho r wished to signify, as for example through parables and metaphors, because
what is signified th us in the bark or shell (cortex) of ‘the letter’ is n o t the literal sense.
For example, the passage which says that ‘the eyes of the Lord are upon the just: and
his ears unto their prayers’ (Psalm xxxiii.16) does n ot actually m ean that as such, for
the literal sense is always truthful, and it is false to say th at G od has eyes or ears. But
this passage is m e an t in a parabolic sense, the literal sense being that G od always takes
care of the good, acting in such a way as to make it seem that he is always watching
over them and listening to their prayers. From this it would seem, declares ‘El Tostado’, that som etim es one and the same passage can have two literal senses, because
the au tho r m eans to intend b oth those senses to be taken from his statement.
Later in this same quaestio Madrigal offers a m ore elaborate tr eatm ent of parabolic
signification. There, following b ut altering Aquinas, he rejects the suggestion that the
parabolic sense is a sense in its own right, distinct from the others. Aquinas had ar
gued that the parabolic sense is contained in the literal sense, because words, as in
tended by their author, can signify either ‘properly’ or figuratively. Madrigal proposes
that the parabolic sense is no t intended by an a uth or in the same way as is the regular
literal sense; neither is it applied by us. Rather it is a sort of ‘veiled literal sense’, w hich
is directed towards (ordinatur) the literal sense, either to veil or decorate it, or for other
reasons.
In Madrigal’s 29th quaestio, on parable and symbolism (based on A quinas’s ninth ar
ticle)38, a distinction is made between parable and metaphor. M etaphor consists of a
transum ption wherein we ascribe the properties of a thing to an oth er thing, inasmuch
as a similarity exists between the two things. For example, so m eon e may be said to
have been killed in the m o u th of a sword, or the tongue of fire may be said to devour a
straw. Of course, a sword does n ot have a m o u th and fire does n ot have a tongue, but
here a certain likeness is involved, namely that fire devours, i.e. consum es (consumit,
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite 1 70
Little w o n d er th a t it b ecam e a joke at the U niversity of Salam anca to say th a t som eone had w rit
ten m ore th an M adrigal - th e p o in t being th at no one had w ritten m ore than M adrigal!
37 T he sensus Scripturae are ex plained w ith the aid of th e stock exam ple of the fourfold in te rp re
tation of Jeru salem , an d th e fam ous distich beginning ‘L itera gesta docit ...’, w hich m ay have
been the w ork of A u g u stin e of D acia (who died in 1282). See F. C bdtillon, V ocabulaire et p ro so
die du d istique attrib u é à A u g ustin de D acie sur les quatre sens de l’écriture, in: L’H o m m e d e
vant D ieu: M élanges offerts au père H enri de Lubac (Paris 1963-64) ii. 17-28. N icholas of Lyre
had q u o ted th ese verses in th e G eneral Prologue to his “ Postilla L itteralis”
38 O pera ix pt.2 8 8 -8 9 .
172
A la sta ir J. M in n is
m eaning that it eats up or destroys), and a sword also ‘co n su m es’, as if it had a tongue
and its m o u th devoured something. Similarly, when it is said that G od has eyes and
ears (cf. Alfonso’s discussion of Psalm xxxiii.16, in his previous quaestio) this does n ot
m ean that he actually possesses such things, b ut rather that it seems like he does, in
view of his behaviour towards the just. Parable, by contrast, occurs when we wish to
say so m ething bu t instead of expressing it in so many words we say som ething else, by
which the first thing could not obviously be understood. In the case of the parable of
the sower Christ could n ot be understood by the seed considered materially, b ut rather
with reference to the word of G od being established in the hearts of men. In parable
there is always com parison (comparatio) and likeness (similitude)', in m etaphor, h o w
ever, we have likeness but not comparison, because comparison m ust always be made
betw een things which are separate, whereas m e ta p h o r works through likeness. M ore
over, in parable there are always two discourses (locutiones): one, in which what is to be
understood is n ot expressed as such, and the other, in which that of which we wish to
speak is plainly expressed, and this is the explanation of the parable (expositio parabo
lae). The parable of the sower, and its exposition, exemplifies this. A n d w hen the ex
position of the parable is n ot stated openly, it tacitly exists.
W hy, then, should m etap h o r and parable be used in Scripture? T h e main reason,
Alfonso says, is because of the divine sublimity. Sacred Scripture speaks of God, and if
we wish to speak of H im with reference to what is ‘p rop er’ to him, i.e. in accordance
with his properties, this is impossible, because G od is w ithout time and quality, w h ere
as h um a n language (vox) inevitably involves these things. Since G od cannot be spoken
of by us in a p ro per sense (proprie), if we wish to speak of H im this m u st be d on e in a
m a n n e r which is ‘im p ro p er’ (improprie) and figurative. As Pseudo-Dionysius says (and,
we may add, as Aquinas had reiterated), ‘the divine rays cannot enlighten us except
wrapped up in m an y sacred veils’; that is to say, we cann ot understand anything of
G o d unless u n d er certain sacred veils, these being the m etaphors used in holy Scrip
ture.
Such speech is particularly im portant as far as the uneducated (rudes) are concerned,
declares Alfonso. Since our salvation lies in holy Scripture - as J o h n v.39 says, ‘Search
the scriptures: for you think in th e m to have life everlasting’ - it is necessary that
everyone should understand it to an appropriate extent. But the rudes can learn only
through things of sense (semibilid), and they could n ot gain knowledge of G od by any
o ther means. W hile m etaphors do n ot give th e m knowledge which is open and u n
covered (apcrtus) they do provide knowledge with reference to certain qualities, and
this is sufficient for their salvation. Later in this quaestio he suggests a reason (of a
quite unD ionysian kind) as to why m etaphors drawn from lowly things are preferable,
namely because they are the more easily understood by the rudes. This diverges from
Aquinas, w ho in his corresponding discussion had praised metaphorical language for
its function as a ‘figurative disguising’ which protects what is holy from the unworthy
(this again follows Dionysius). Madrigal m en tion s this idea only briefly, being more in
terested in m e ta p h o r as a teaching aid.
But let us return to Madrigal’s 28th quaestio. Here he explains that som etim es a pas
sage which cann ot be understood as a parable may be regarded as having two literal
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V ers ions o f T h o m i s t i c L ite rali sm
173
senses'39. Exodus xii.46 says of the Paschal lamb, ‘neither shall you break a bone th ere
of’. W hile the literal m eaning of this passage, which refers to a Jewish ceremony, is o b
vious enough, it would seem to refer to Christ, as is co nfirmed by J o h n xix.36, where
we read th at ‘in order that the Scripture m ig h t be fulfilled’ Christ’s legs were not b ro
ken on the cross. The only way in which this fulfilment could take place, declares A l
fonso, is in the sense in which the passage is written, and that is the literal sense. T hen
there is the case of the statement, as made in II Kings vii. 14 and I Parlipom enon
xxii.10, ‘I will be to him a father; and he shall be to m e a so n ’. Literally, this refers to
Solomon, yet in Hebrews i.5 it is taken a d litleram as referring to Christ. If it were
m ean t allegorically, th en it could no t be cited as a proof for, as Pseudo-Dionysius says,
‘mystical theology does not prove’. However, concludes Madrigal, it is rare for a pas
sage to have two literal senses; normally it has only one.
This account of the ‘two literal senses’ is clearly indebted to Nicholas of Lyre’s d e
velo pm ent of A qu inas’s exegetical theory in the second prologue to his “Postilla litteralis” . T here Lyre suggests th at som etim es one and the same littera has a d up lex sens as
litteralis40. H e takes as his example I Parlipom enon xxii.10: literally this refers to Solo
mon, yet at Hebrews i.5 St Paul takes it as referring to Christ. T h e Apostle m ust have
taken it literally, since the littera is being adduced as proof that Christ is greater than
any angel, and proof cannot be had from a mystical sense, as A ugustine says (and as
Aquinas reiterated in art. 10, ad lum ). Lyre goes on to explain th at Solom on fulfilled
the prophecy less perfectly than Christ: he was the son of G od per g ratiam whereas
Christ is the Son of G od per n a tu ra m ''1. Similarly, Madrigal asserts th at a littera cannot
have two equally im p ortant literal senses. The m ore im portant sense is the one which
actually fulfills the Scripture, and in the case of the passage about the bones n ot being
broken th at is the sense which relates to Christ.
Discussions of this kind may be taken as a sort of high-water mark of at least the
theory of literalistic exegesis in the later Middle Ages. Of course, the practice of allegor
ical exegesis continued; the spiritual senses flourished in many contexts. Yet their sta
tus had changed, and at least som e allegorical readings did not have quite the prestige
which once they had enjoyed. T hat view is supported by the next section of Madrigal’s
28th quaestio, which is hard n ot to read as a th oro ug hg oing affirmation of the advanta>9 O p era ix pt.2 85.
40 Biblia sacra cu m glossis (Lyon 1545) i fol. 4r. See fu rth er th e related discussions in Lyre’s c o m
m entaries on II K ings vii (ii fol. 104v) and H ebrew s i.5 (vi fol. 134v). In the latter passage Lyre c i
tes A u g u stin e’s sta te m e n t that only from the literal sense can arg u m en ts be draw n, clearly influ
enced by A q u in as’s app lication of it at “S um m a theologiae” la 1, art. 10, ad lu m . T his se n tim e n t
is of considerable im p o rtan c e in M adrigal’s quaestio, 28; cf. 174 below. W ith M adrigal’s elabora
tion of Lyre o n th e ‘d o u b le literal sense’ should be co m p ared the sim ilar tre a tm e n t at the begin
ning of R ichard F itzR alp h ’s “S um m a in qu aestio n ib u s A rm e n o ru m ”, on w hich see A.J. M innis,
‘A uthorial In te n tio n ’ an d ‘L iteral S ense’ in the E xegetical T h eo ries of R ichard F itzR alph an d
Jo h n W yclif, in: Proceedings of the Royal Irish A cadem y 75 section C n o .l (D ublin 1975), esp e
cially 8 -1 0 , O n the pop ularity of Lyre in fifteen th -cen tu ry C astile see J u lia n Weiss, T h e P oet’s
A rt: Literary T h eo ry in Castile c. 1400-60, in: M edium A evum M onographs n.s. xiv (O xford
1990) 85-8 6 .
1 Cf. Biblia sacra ii 104v: ‘A lia au tem dicitu r in scriptura de S alom one u tro q u e m odo, que scili
cet verificata su n t de ipso (i.e. Solom on], licet m in u s perfecte, e t de C h risto perfectius
174
A la sta ir J. M i n n is
ges w h i c h th e literal se nse has ove r th e sp iritu al senses. F o r h e re th e sensus litteralis is
said to be th e o nly se n se of S c r ip tu r e w h i c h is at o n c e i m m e d i a t e a n d d e te r m i n a te ,
a n d c apa b le of verification, fulfilm ent, a n d affo rding p r o o f in a r g u m e n t.
O f particular interest is what Madrigal has to say about the ‘d eterm inate’ or fixed
quality of the literal sense42. It is not in our power, he argues, to give the littera w hat
ever sense we want, b ut rather we m u st accept th at which it produces. The mystical
senses, by contrast, can be changed at will: ‘Mystici autem possunt circa eandem scripturam variari iuxta volu ntatem no stram ’. For example, the death of Goliath can be al
legorically interpreted as either the destruction of the power of the devil by C hrist’s
passion, or the victory which Christ won over death through His resurrection. T h e is
sue of which of these two senses is signified here is n ot a major one. Similarly, the tro
pologies! and anagogical senses can be multiplied and varied. The reason for this is
that the literal sense is taken from (elicitus) the littera whereas the mystical sense is at
tached or added (applicitus) to it, and because such addition is in ou r power, we are
able to vary the mystical senses freely. But the littera is unitary and onefold, and th ere
fore what is elicited from it m u s t needs be a unitary sense. Moreover, this means th at
the literal sense is the only sense in which Scripture can be said to be fulfilled. For in
the case of the mystical sense, fulfilment would involve the com pletion of all the alle
gories and all the tropologies which we would wish to apply, and we could no t know
w hen this was completed, since it would always be possible to apply yet an o th e r m ys
tical sense. T hen, it m ight be said that a passage was c om pleted in one of its mystical
senses b ut no t in a n o th e r (all mystical senses being equal in status).
The same principles underlie Madrigal’s amplification of A quinas’s statem ent that
argum ents may be drawn only from the literal sense of Scripture (art.10, resp.). Proof
alw'ays proceeds from what is known. Since mystical senses are uncertain because it is
n ot evident w h eth er this is the mystical sense of a passage rather th an that, it follows
that they cannot be used in the process of proof43. Indeed, a single passage can have
disparate and opposing mystical senses, and therefore one and the same passage could
be cited in proving contradictory things, which would be quite unfitting.
It w ould seem that Madrigal is rendering the mystical sense red u n d an t in many
ways. Savonarola, I am sure, would n o t have approved; in his view Madrigal’s argu
m e n t would have com e perilously close to the error of T heodore of Mopsuestia, who is
attacked by Savonarola for believing th at allegories about Christ and the C h urch were
made u p after Christianity had established itself. Madrigal could have replied that
m u c h significance of this kind is firmly and fully established by those many passages
in the New T estam en t which explain the Christian implications of various events
which occurred u n d er the Old Law. His utter respect for those explanations is m ani
fest. O ver and over again ‘El T ostado’ places great emphasis on what the littera d eter
m ines: here is utter security, a rem edy for confusion, a m eans of attaining certainty
about mystical meaning. But, one may wonder, what about those allegories which ap
pear no t to be sup po rted by any literal sense of Scripture?
42 O p era ix pt.2 8 6 -8 7 .
33 O p era ix pt.2 87; ‘sensus m ystici nihil p ro b an t ...’.
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V ers ion s of T h o m i s t i c L ite rali sm
175
Madrigal’s opinion on that issue may be inferred from remarks made in the course
of his exposition of J e r o m e ’s letter to Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, which forms part of
the Bible c o m m e n ta ry ’s prolegomena'1'5. Je r o m e had com plained about the n u m b e r of
people who, supposing themselves to be experts on the Bible, force passages to suit
their own meaning, and misrepresent the au th o r’s views. Madrigal fully endorses, and
elaborates, these sen tim en ts45. Since the divine truth is invariably the most certain, our
ju d g m en t m u s t be ruled by it; the divine law should n ot be b ent to our intellect46.
Scripture cann ot be understood through distortions. Since the wishes of m en are
many, if everyone wished to twist scripture to his own purpose no certainty could ever
be had. H ence the im portance of respecting specific authorial intentions in exegesis.
This statem en t is very m uc h in keeping with Madrigal’s distinction (in quaestio 28)
betw een the ‘elicited’, safe and single sensus littcm lis, which is the expression of the
auth or’s intention, and the conflicting and various ‘applied’ mystical senses which may
be attached to the text. O ne may infer that ‘El T ostado’ believed that at least some of
those mystical senses were the result of gratuitous, perhaps even misplaced, h um a n in
genuity. After all, before him Nicholas of Lyre had com plained about certain earlier
exegetes w ho had ‘so multiplied the n u m b e r of mystical senses that the literal sense is
in som e part cut off and suffocated am ong so m any mystical senses’47.
W hat, th en, of Madrigal’s views on that m atte r which so obsessed Savanarola, the
crucial difference between Scripture and ars poetica in respect of symbolic discourse?
Madrigal poses the question thus: should Scripture share the practice of using m e ta
phors with the art of poetry, an art which concerns things which have little dignity
unless they are su rrounded with decorations - just like a w om an whose ugly face is
covered with paints48? Holy Scripture, he replies, does no t seek dignity through things
which are added to her or placed all around her, b ut rather her dignity c omes from her
subject, which could no t be grasped by us unless there was som e means whereby it
descended to ou r infirm earthly situation, and this entails the use of metaphor, thanks
to which we learn som ething of heaven. Both the least of things, poetry, and the great
est of things, theology, use metaphors. Poetry uses th em for purposes of o rn a m en ta
tion; Scripture, in order th at its doctrine may be understood.
Poetica ergo m etap h o ris u titur, quia est om nia m in im a: sacra au tem S criptura u titu r illis, quia est
o m n iu m m axim a. P oetica etiam u titu r illis, u t o rn e tu r: sacra au tem S cripture, ut intelligatur49.
'H Since this letter em p h asized the difficulties of theology in o rd er to elevate it above the su b o r
dinate arts and sciences it provided co m m en tato rs w ith an occasion for the expression of th eir
views on the ordo scientiarum ; h en ce M adrigal’s position th ereo n affords an excellent point of
com parison w ith th e o p in io n s of Savonarola as o u tlin ed in his “O pus p eru tile”. T he Spaniard a p
plies his very co n sid erab le know ledge of secular literature; of special in terest is his extensive q u o
tation of A lan of Lille’s “A nticlau d ian u s”.
43 O p era i 28.
46 ‘Sacra au tem S crip tu ra veritas diuina est, ideo indicium n o stru m d eb em u s regulate per illam
applicando ad earn, n o n au tem applicare legem Dei ad intellectu m n o stru m ...’.
47 Postilla litteralis, P rologus secundus, in Biblia sacra i fol. 3v; trans. M in n is, Scott, Medieval L it
erary T heory, 269.
18 In Matt, xiii quaest. 29; O p era ix pt.2 88.
49 O pera ix pt.2 8 8 -8 9 .
176
A ctually, Madrigal is m a k i n g an a p p a r e n tl y h i g h e r claim for p o e tic langu age in Seri
ture t h a n t h e o n e w h i c h h a d b e e n a d v a n c e d by A q u i n a s in th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage... poetica u titu r m ctap h o ris p ro p ter reprsesentationem , reprsescntatio cn im natnra!iter h o m ' '
d electabilis est. Sed sacra doctrina u titu r m ctap h o ris p ro p te r necessitatem et utilitatem
( la 1 o
ad lu m )50
’
F o r in place of A q u i n a s ’s curtly e x p r e ss e d n o t io n of ‘in d is p e n s a b le u se fu ln es s’ Madri
gal offers t h e (D io nysian) idea th a t w i t h o u t m e t a p h o r n o n e of us - n o t just th e r u d e s w o u ld find S c rip tu r e c o m p r e h e n s ib l e . ‘P e r istas in te llig im u s a liq u o d de exeelsis qua?
forte n o n i n te llig e re m u s si sine m e t a p h o r i s d i c e r e n t u r ’. A c c o r d i n g to th e S p a n ia r d ’s
a c c o u n t, t h e n , parable a n d m e t a p h o r in S c rip tu r e have g re at efficacy in te a c h in g parti
cularly for the b e n e fit of tho se w ith little learning, b u t also for m a n k i n d in ge nera l b e
cause all of us n e e d su c h m e a n s to h e lp us u n d e r s t a n d a little of w h a t is u ltim ate ly i n
c o m p r e h e n s i b l e by th e h u m a n intellect.
M o re generally, M adrigal’s lively ve rsio n of the T h o m i s t i c d i s tin c tio n b e tw e e n sc r ip
tural a n d p o e tic m e t a p h o r s s h o u l d be se e n as an utte rly c o n v e n t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t of
priorities, a n d c ertainly n o t as e v id e n c e th at M adrigal s h a r e d Sav ona ro la ’s de e p -se a te d
d istru st of o r n a m e n t a t i o n in every sense of t h e t erm . F o r th e Italian t e n d e d to l u m p
t o g e t h e r fem ale a d o r n m e n t s a n d th e c o lou rs of r h e to ri c w ith in a b ro a d category w hich
also i n c l u d e d th e e lo q u e n c e cultivated by did a c tic p o e ts of his o w n day - a n d p e rh a p s
e ven t h a t fo u n d in th e w ritings of s o m e of th e m o s t u n i m p e a c h a b l e of th e c a t h o l i c
doctors. O n e of th e m o s t i n tr ig u in g aspects of th e “O p u s p e r u ti l e ” is th e e x te n t to
w h ic h it t h r e a te n s to b re ak w ith w h a t m i g h t b e called th e A u g u s ti n i a n tradition of ac
c o m m o d a t i n g e lo q u e n c e in th eo lo g y a n d in th e Bible itself, as e x p r e ss e d in “D e D o c
trina C h r i s t ia n a ” a n d e n d o r s e d by a h o s t of la te -m e d ie va l s c h o o l m e n , i n c lu d in g A q u i
nas. A t o n e p o i n t S a vonarola do e s briefly refer to t h e “ D e D o c t r i n a ” as hav ing proved
th a t th e H o l y S c r ip tu r e s w ere ‘m o s t e lo q u e n t , sinc e th e y w e r e w r itte n by G o d ’51. Yet
his s u s p ic io n of e l o q u e n c e e m e rg e s n e a r th e e n d of th e treatise, w h e r e we find h i m ar
g u i n g th a t G o d carefully p r o t e c te d his sc r ip tu re s from t h e tain t of pa gan e lo que n ce ,
physically p u n i s h i n g th o se w h o ‘w ish e d to a d o r n t h e H o l y S c rip tu re s with oratorical
a n d poetical d y e ’52. Similarly, w h e n c o n f r o n t e d by th e fact th at t h e p r o p h e t s s o m e
tim e s e m p l o y e d verse, Savonarola avers t h a t ‘t h e y did this to e n tic e th e feeble m inds
50 S u m m a theologiae, ed. and trails. Gilhy, 34.
’‘ O p u s p erutile, Ed. G urfagnini, 255; trans. Binns, 326.
52 O p u s p erutile, Ed. G a rfagnini, 269; trans. B inns, 337. E arlier in the treatise, Savonarola had
p ro tested th at he was n ot attacking elo q u en ce and high expression as such b ut rather the m ost
vain p rid e w h ich poets take in such things, b ut since his stan d ard s are so high it w ould seem that
precious few w riters could com e anyw here near m eetin g them . ‘I will n o t co n d em n those who
are e lo q u e n t and wise in the ways of this w orld, if they im itate in all things, Je ro m e and A ugu
stin e ... Live as th ey lived, poets and orators and p hilosophers, and consecrate your w isdom and
th e sp le n d o u r of yo ur language to C hrist the Lord, and I will place m y fingers on m y lips’ (trans.
B inns 328). O n e m ig h t retort th at there are certain passages in th e w ritings of A ugustine and J e
rom e w hich w ould hardly m eet Savonarola’s strin g e n t criteria. A n d the fact that, in the final ana
lysis, he has to appeal to the lives w hich those w riters led, m ay be taken as indicative of this fail
ure to segregate th e different kinds of w riting at th e level of style, m ode, discourse. G odly living
has b eco m e th e only yardstick of good w riting.
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V e rs ions of T h o m i s t i c Li te rali sm
177
0f men, using it as an in stru m e nt or h a n d m a id e n ’53. A nd, although he cannot deny
that St Paul occasionally quoted from pagan poets, he attempts to limit the damage, as
he would see it, by arguing that the Apostle did this rarely and with the briefest of
quotations5'1.
These attitudes are very far away from Madrigal’s. O u r view of the Spaniard’s posi
tion on classical literature is confirmed by the sheer am o u n t of time and energy which
he spent in ex po un din g the fables of the poets, an excellent example being the elabo
rate treatm ents of the Labours of Hercules which are included in both versions (Latin
and Spanish) of his exposition of the “Chronici canones”. This is heavily indebted to a
w o rk with which Savonarola was utterly out of sympathy, Boccaccio’s “Genealogia
deorum gentilium ”. Here Madrigal ‘applies’ a quite extraordinary n u m b e r of ‘addition
al meanings’ (to employ the idiom of the Matthew comm entary) to the text of E use
bius. But even here the principle of authorial intention surfaces, as when (in the Casti
lian version) Madrigal follows a citation of Fulgentius’ moralization of A ntaeus with
the remark, ‘this is the moral sense, with which we are not concerned, because we
know that the creators of this fable had no such intention in their fiction; we shall fol
low the literal sense, as intended by th e m ’53. Typically, Madrigal’s main interest is in
establishing which Hercules is being described here, and the date of his e ncounte r
with Antaeus. Indeed, the investigation of authorial intention may be described as one
of the do m in an t characteristics of Madrigal’s scholarship, an analytical technique
which he applied to interpretative cruxes w herever they appeared, w h ether in sacred
or secular literature.
Of course, we have seen Savonarola appealing to the same principle of auctoris intentio in his account of the literal sense of Scripture. But he did no t extend it in a posi
tive way to the cm poetica, and was extraordinarily reluctant to concede that there was
any substantial g ro un d c o m m o n to the two kinds of writing. The area of stylistic over
lap which he does allow is m inute, and policed by a host of caveats. W h e n Savonarola
applies the principle of authorial intention in denying that pagan histories have a true
allegorical sense he is seeking to expose pagan ignorance and the inferiority of pagan
literature. In sharp contrast, w hen ‘El Tostado’ argues (in his exposition of J e r o m e ’s
Letter to Paulinus) that Virgil did not pro phesy concerning Christ, this is done with
scholarly respect for what the poet actually had in tend ed by his words, th at meaning
being allowed its own validity36. T he fourth Eclogue is read as offering consolation to
5-' O pus perutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 253; trans. Binns, 325.
5< O pus p erutile, Ed. G arfagnini, 258; trans. Binns, 329.
55 Cf. the sim ilar c o m m e n t in the Latin version: ‘seel cu m co n stet de litterali sensui, no n est n o
bis moralis necessarius v olentibus reru m veritatem inq u irere, cum no n sit ¡He quem in ten d it fabule fictor’. C ited by Keightley, H ercules in A lfonso de M adrigal’s “In E u seb iu m ”, 138. 1 am
grateful to Professor K eightley for providing m e w ith th e C astilian parallel.
36 O pera i 2 9 -3 0 . M adrigal also discusses the A eneid i.664 (‘Hail, only Son, m y m ight and m ajes
ty ), and ii.650 (‘S uch w ords he spake and th ere transfixed rem ain ed ’), w hich had been cited by J e
rom e w ithin th e a rg u m e n t th at Virgil ca n n o t be called a C hristian on th e stre n g th of such sta te
m ents. T hose w h o read the poet, ‘El T o stad o ’ declares, know full well th a t he did n o t seek to
confirm our faith, because Virgil’s intentio does n o t square w ith th at proposition. T he specific in
tentions of Biblical au th o rs sh o u ld sim ilarly be resp ected ; here is a m eans of testing in terp reta-
178
A la sta irJ. M in n is
the Consul Pollio, whose son had just been born, by suggesting th at this offspring’s
lifetime would be an age of justice and peace57. The virgin Astrea (i.e. Justice), who had
fled the earth on account of many evils, would return, thus ushering in a new golden
age and m arking the reinstatem ent of Saturn’s benign rule. Classical literature, then,
does n o t n eed allegorical exposition to valorise it. But as o u r remarks o n Madrigal’s ac
cou n t of the Labours of Hercules indicate, in such a context the Spaniard was certainly
n ot averse to practising that kind of herm eneutics. Savanarola’s “O pu s perutile” would,
of course, deny all this as being vain or dangerously misleading.
Despite the Thom istic inheritance which they share, therefore, our two schoolm en
maintain exegetical theories and practices which are fundamentally irreconcilable.
III.
A m o n g the retractationes included in the preface to the third edition of Beryl S m a l
ley’s “Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages” is an expression of regret for h er prefer
ence for the literal sense of Scripture over the mystical senses, to som e extent a result
of h er concentration, in respect of the late-medieval period, on the exegesis of certain
secular scholars and scholastics rather than th at produced by the monastic c o m m u n i
ties. A nd she certainly had a blind-spot concerning Jo ac h im of Fiore. This redressing
of the balance is of course right and proper, bu t it seems to m e that, in the history of
ideas which cluster around the notion of the sensiis litteralis, h er controversial heading
‘The Spiritual Exposition in D ecline’ still has life in it. If, to qu ote Smalley’s last word
on A qu inas’s exegetical stance, the saint was a ‘conservative’ (albeit an ‘en ligh ten ed’
one) rather than a ‘radical’ on the m atter of the four senses58, it may be said th at many
schoolmen, a m on g w h o m the unfortunately neglected Alfonso de Madrigal should oc
cupy a p ro m in e n t position, produced more radical versions of th at literalism. O n the
o ther hand, ultra-conservative versions of the same basic T homistic ideas could also be
produced, as I trust has been amply d em onstrated by o ur consideration of Girolamo
Savonarola’s “O p u s perutile”, a work which is concerned to em phasise the special sta
tus which the Bible enjoys over and above all o th er books, the results of merely h u
m an authorship, and hence identifies allegorical sense as one of the qualities which
make sacred Scripture unique.
In considering such evidence, however, it should always be rem em b ered that exegetes like Lyre and Madrigal, who did so m u c h for the cause of literalistic exegesis and
offered such substantial critiques of the multiplication of mystical senses, were e m i
nently capable of producing allegorical interpretations themselves, d ep en d in g on their
Fortsetzung F ußnote von Seite 1 77
tions an d establishing the truth. Madrigal proceeds to criticise the use of passages from Virgil and
Ovid in s u p p o r t of the belief th at the Virgin Mary was im m aculately conceived (30).
57 Madrigal’s identification of the w onder-c hild has been su p p o r ted by several m o d e r n scholars,
tho u g h ther e are powerful rival candidates, nam ely the sons of Octavian an d A n t o n y respectively.
58 Beryl Sm alley, T h e Stu dy of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford ’ 1983) xvi.
F i f t e e n t h - C e n t u r y V ers ions of T h o m i s t i c Lite ral ism
179
intentions in writing, the perceived needs of a particular audience, considerations of
genre and m odus scribendi, and the like. As a s u p p lem en t to his m o n u m e n ta l “Postilla
litteralis” Lyre wrote a m u ch shorter (but for ou r purposes highly significant) “Postilla
moralis”. Madrigal had p lanned to com pose a moral exposition of the Bible. A nd the
fact that he could firmly pursue a literalising inquiry into authorial intention on one
occasion certainly did no t preclude his practice of allegorical interpretation on a n o th
er, w heth er the text before him was secular or scriptural.
All this should warn us of the vanity of broad generalisations about the late-medie
val history of the four senses. Clearly we need many m ore substantial studies of indi
vidual Bible com m entators, of the type which Beryl Smalley wrote so well; too many
substantial tom es of exegesis remain little know n and less studied. In the fifteenth
century in particular, an intim idating a m o u n t of work remains to be done. It may be
h op ed that the reception-history of at least the T h o m ist tradition of herm eneutics may
be followed in the future. For the m o m e n t, we may w onder at the fact that the wings
of ‘the angelic d oc tor’ were able to stretch so far, to loom over thinkers so markedly
different as G irolamo Savonarola and Alfonso de Madrigal.
APPENDIX
I wish to offer a m ino r b u t significant em en datio n to th e text of Aquinas’s “S um m a
theologiae”, la, 1, art.9 as edited by T hom as Gilby in the Blackfriars edition.
It would seem that in this passage Gilby has m isp un ctu ated and mistranslated the
Latin:
Si igitur aliqua' ex creaturis tra n su m e r e n tu r a D eu tn tu n c op o rtet talem tran su m p tio n em maxime fiere ex sublim ioribus creaturis et n on ex infimis; q u o d tam en in Scripturis frequente r inven itu r59.
If then the pr operties of creatures are to be read into God, then at least they should be chiefly of
the m ore excellent not the baser sort; an d this is the way frequently taken by the Scriptures.
As here edited, the text apparently says that m etaphors drawn from the m ore excellent
sort of creature are often found in the Bible. But this hardly works as a contrary state
m en t which challenges the initial proposition, ‘should holy teaching employ m e ta
phorical or symbolical language?’. It would be m ore appropriate as an arg um ent in fa
vour oj rather th an against the use of m etaphors in Scripture. Surely Aquinas’s point is
rather that Scripture often employs m etaphors derived from the lowest creatures, a
practice which could well be criticised. Certainly that is how Alfonso de Madrigal read
this passage, and I am in agreem ent with him. Therefore I would substitute a full stop
for the sem i-colon in the edition of the Latin, and have ‘Q u o d tam en in Scripturis fre
quenter invenitur’ printed as a separate sentence. This would produce the following
translation:
11 Summa theologiae, ed. and trans. Gilby, 32-33.
180
A la sta ir J. M i n n is
So, if any of these creatures were metaphorically to be applied to God, then such a metap horical
application should be drawn from the superior rather than the lowest sort of creatures. But such
exam ples [i.e. from the lowest sort of creatures] are often found in the Scriptures. [A nd therefore
sacred writing should not use m e ta p h o r s60.]
60 Cf. the translation in Minnis, Scott, Medieval Literary Theory, 239-
Afterword
I never m e t Beryl Smalley, b u t I w en t to school w ith her. Perhaps one m igh t even say
I took refuge with her. My graduate studies in medieval history at Princeton from
1960 until 1962 were heavily oriented toward governm ental institutions. A little eco
nom ic and social history found its way into the curriculum, mostly in the work of Pirenn e and Bloch; in addition we were expected to know about religious issues su r
rounding the Investiture Controversy and the Crusades. O therw ise it was possible to
advance to candidacy quite inn ocen t of intellectual and cultural history. Those who
took their examinations in the medieval field were likely to be bristling with informa
tion about the baronial Provisions of Oxford of 1258 yet to know virtually nothing
about what was h app enin g at the University of Oxford at the same time. Fortunately
my doctoral father, Jo sep h Strayer, was latitudinarian. So long as I understood the
world-historical significance of the Assise of Novel Disseisin (and Strayer indeed co n
vinced m e that H enry IPs legal innovations were a m o n g the m ost im po rtan t episodes
in the history of civilization), I was free to read m o re in areas of m y own choice.
A n d so I came to Smalley’s S tudy o f the Bible in the M id d le Ages' . At the time this
was one of the few books in English that addressed an evidently central cultural-his
torical subject in a m a n n e r know n to be rigorous, coherent, and lucid. Of course I was
no t disappointed. T he book n ot only lived up to its reputation for rigorousness and lu
cidity, but it introduced a th ro n g of lively new sources, often unpublished, letting
th em speak to their liveliest effect. Blessedly, too, for a stu d en t slogging through
sake and soke, Smalley dared to be witty2, and she conveyed excitem ent as the result
of u n d erm in in g several received assumptions of the day. As J o h n Van Engen so well
1 1 will be referring to the seco nd edition of 1952, as well as to the new preface written for the
third edition of 1982 (otherwise u n c h a n g e d from th e second). Smalley enunciates the differences
between the seco nd edition an d th e first edition of 1941 in the preface to th e former. It has never
been n o te d that the em p hasis o n fruitful contacts b etw een Christians an d Je w s that characterized
Smalley’s work of the late thirties m u s t have d e m a n d e d so m e courage in view of the swell of h a
treds at that tim e a n d the fact th at Smalley lacked any p e r m a n e n t job. Sir Richard S o uth ern r e
ports that Smalley m ade the Chr istian Hebraist, A n drew of St. Victor, the focus of h er research
011 the eve of th e Seco nd W o rld W a r - th at A n d rew “replaced A ns elm of Laon as the central and
m o st substantial figure in the b o ok w hich began to take shape in the A u t u m n of 1937, grew to its
full dim en sio ns in the course of 1938, a nd finally appeared in 1941". See S o u th e r n ’s evocative
reminiscence of the w o m an with a t e m p e r a m e n t “at once fragile, tough, an d d e t e r m i n e d ” ; R,\V.
Southern, Beryl Smalley an d the Place of the Bible in Medieval Studies, 192 7 -84 , in: K atherine
Walsh, D ia n a W o o d (eds.), T h e Bible in the Medieval W o rld : Essays in M e m ory of Beryl Smalley
(Oxford 1985) 1-16, here 10, 3.
2 T wo exam ples m ay suffice, both from the same page (Study of the Bible, 368): “L an g ton ’s lec
ture is so diffuse a n d swollen as to re m i n d us of so m e an im al ab ou t to bear a litter, her young ail
formed an d alive inside her. In the nex t century the y o un g are b orn an d go th eir separate ways”;
“The Paris mas ters are no t wholly consisten t in avoiding irrelevance, as, heaven knows, would be
true of lecturers in any period.”
182
R o b e r t E. L e r n e r
explains: “Smalley ... challenged an English tradition th at said only politics made
history, a Protestant tradition that berated the medieval study of Scripture, a Catholic
tradition that favored philosophical expressions of theology, and a Christian tradition
th at ignored Jewish interlocutors.”3 Finally Smalley offered a “grand narrative” c o m
parable to others I was th en learning, for she told a story b o th of the growth of schol
arship and of the rise of naturalism - “a stage in the secularization of medieval
t h o u g h t”'*.
Thirty years after m y first e n cou nte r with Smalley’s work I th o u g h t it warranted to
organize a conference dedicated to asking where we have c om e in the study of the m e
dieval study of the Bible. H ad Miss Smalley been alive she m ig ht have been the h o s t
ess - and th at m ore than ex officio since she unflinchingly pursued the question of the
staying pow er of her own book in the preface she wrote for the third edition in 1982.
The self-criticism here som etim es seems excessive, especially the remark that “my
book can therefore be read as a period piece” (vii). A “period piece” would hardly go
into a third edition. Moreover, recent scholars are m ore generous in their estimate
than Smalley was herself: Marcia Colish has referred to her “seminal work” on the
gloss, and Philippe Buc has stated th at her S tu d y of ihe Bible “remains the starting
po int of any inquiry in the world of the c o m m en tato rs”3.
Nevertheless Smalley was clear-sighted in reviewing what she left ou t and where she
w ent wrong. Regarding her omissions, she acknowledged her lack of attention to “m o
nastic c om m en taries after the rise of the secular schools” (viii). She conceded too that
she “buried” Joachism too quickly (xiii), paid insufficient attention to “St. Bonaventure’s meta-historical approach to Scripture” (xiv), and unfortunately om itted “the
challenging figure of Peter J o h n Olivi” (xvi). Taken together these omissions were n ot
just gaps, b u t aspects of her main fault: viewing “the spiritual exposition from the o u t
side and o verlooking] its central place in the medieval concept of Scripture and c o n
sequently of medieval faith” (viii). In 1953 Smalley was defiant in resisting the parti
sans of the spiritual: “Conditions today are giving rise to a certain sym pathy with the
allegorists. W e have a spate of studies on medieval ‘spirituality’. T he scholars who tried
to counteract its effect on exegesis are still too little appreciated” (360). But in 1982
she granted th at Father de Lubac’s argum ents in favor of the vitality of spiritual exege
3 V a n Engen, “Studying Scr iptu re” (in the p resent volume), p. 17.
4 Smalley, Stu dy of the Bible, 372. She co ntinues: “W e have evidence for th e rise of this kin d of
naturalism in the t h irtee nth -centu ry schools from m any o th e r sources; b u t its setting in postills
on Scripture, the last place w here o n e wou ld exp ect to find it, m akes it particularly significant.”
Smalley’s periodization was c o n g r u e n t with Strayer’s periodization for “the medieval origins of
the m o d e r n state” since b o th saw the years aro u n d 1300 as m arkin g the b eginning of a late-m e
dieval reaction. See Stu dy of the Bible, 359: “ Per haps the general crisis of the later m id d le ages ...
b r o u g h t biblical scholarship into disfavour again, m akin g it se em frivolous an d irrelevant.”
5 M arcia L. Colish, Psalterium Scho iasticor um: Peter L o m ba rd an d the E m ergence a n d Scholas
tic Psalms Exegesis, in: S pecu lum 67 (1992) 53 1 -5 4 8 , h ere 534, n. 8; Philippe Buc, D av id ’s A d u l
tery with Bath sheb a an d the Healing Power of the Capetian Kings, in: Viator 24 (1993) 101-20,
here 101, n. 2. Even the cens orious N o r m a n C a n to r has so m e th in g positive to offer: “A disor
ganized a n d underre search ed bu t brilliant b o o k ” ; see N o rm a n Cantor, Inven ting the Middle Ages
(New York 1991) 3 45 -46 . (C an tor’s standards for “disorganization” an d “underresearch ” seem
baffling.)
A fterw ord
183
sis even through the th irteenth century were “justified” (viii)6. C h astenened by de Lubac and others, she conceded that “the spiritual senses were too integral to the faith
and too useful in homiletics to be d rop ped or even pushed far into the margin; [c]ertainly too I underrated their place in the doctrine of St T hom as A quinas” (xiv).
Did Smalley com e to consider her life’s work a failure? This I doubt. Evidently she
could have prevented the appearance of a third edition of The S tudy o f the Bible in the
M id d le Ages had she wished, but, despite the “period piece” remark, she was still ready
to present her book to a new generation of readers as an account of “the medieval
study of the literal historical sense and the story of how it came into m ore p ro m i
n en ce” (vii). In this context she rem ained able to display enthusiasm for St. T hom as’s
“brilliant exposition of Jo b a d litteram ” (xiv). (In 1962 she had written th at T ho m as’s
co m m en tary on Jo b “[is] to m e the most exciting book that the thirteenth century p ro
duced, which is saying a lot”7.)
Perhaps even more telling is the fact that Smalley’s last article addresses “literal vs.
spiritual” from the vantage of: “The Use of the ‘Spiritual’ Senses of Scripture in P er
suasion and A rg u m e n t by Scholars in the Middle Ages.”8T h e conclusion drawn is that
there was indeed a trend toward the literal in citing Scripture for theological debate.
William of St. A m o u r inveighed against the friars primarily on the grounds of literal
arguments; Bonaventure responded less by preferring spiritual ones than by “grading
his authorities instead of quoting th em all on the same level”; and T hom as weighed in
with a crucial maxim : “figurative senses have no weight in theological arg u m en t”
[“simbólica theologia non est argumentativa”]. In conclusion Smalley asks w hether
T hom as made “a clean sw eep” and responds: “That question is outside m y c o m p e
tence to answer. I can only say th at m y impression is that Aquinas provided rational
grounds for an already existing reluctance to rely on texts quoted in oth er than the lit
eral sense, and th at he speeded it up. Theologians came to prefer the literal sense
when they q uo ted authority.” Since she probably knew this was her last article, these
may have been her intentionally chosen last w ords9.
The goal of the conference held in Munich in 1993 was to take stock of what is cur
rently being accom plished in the field of medieval exegesis studies by exemplification,
and, where possible, by explicit reference to Smalley. By posting guidelines I a tte m p t
ed to avoid the gallimaufry of papers that often results from such occasions. (Smalley
herself, we are told, despised the usual “academic jum ble sale” 10.) It is no t m y in ten
tion to sum marize the specific contributions to knowledge that have resulted. Rather,
I would like to reflect on how th e papers may show “where we now stand”. I will
6 Smalley was referring to the m agnum opus of H enri de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre
sens de l’écriture, 2 volum es in 4 (Paris 1959-64).
7 Smalley, P ro blem s of Exegesis in the Fo urteenth Centu ry, in: Miscellanea Medievalia, Veröf
fentlichungen des T h om a s-In stitu ts an der Universität K öln, ed. P aul W ilpert, in: A n tik e u n d
Orient im Mittelalter (Berlin 1962) 2 6 6 - 7 7 , here 273. I owe the reference to Richa rd Kieckhefer.
In: Recherches de théologie an cien ne et médiévale 52 (1985) 44-6 3.
Southern, Beryl Smalley (as n. 1), 2, explains th at the nature of Smalley’s ter minal illness
allowed her to know the length of tim e th at she had left to live. Smalley told S o u th ern: “Thanks
to my surgeon’s honesty, it’s b een possible to tailor m y work to the tim e left to me.”
Katherine Walsh, D ia n a Wood, Preface to T h e Bible in the Medieval W o r ld (as n. 1), v.
184
group th e m u n d e r the rubrics of “supp lem en ts to Smalley”, “co m p lem en ts to Sm al
ley”, and “engagem ents with Smalley”. Evidently no value jud gm ents are implied.
T h e essays of Sabine Schmolinsky and David Burr are doubtless “supp lem en ts to
Smalley” because they concentrate on authors w ho were ignored in The Study o f the
Bible in the M id d le Ages. Schm olinsky’s th irteenth-century exegete, A lexander Minorita, neither appears in Smalley’s book n or is m e n tio n e d in her reconsiderations of
1982. Most likely Smalley assumed that A lexander was one of those Joachites for
w h o m she did n ot m u c h care. A lexander was considered to be a Joachite by leading
authorities of Smalley’s generation - G ru n d m a n n , Reeves, and de Lubac, the last of
w h om b randed his Apocalypse co m m entary as “presque tout envahi de J o a c h im ” 11.
But Schmolinsky has proven elsewhere that de Lubac’s estimation can no t be sus
tained: w h e th e r or n o t Alexander Minorita was influenced by Jo achim to som e degree,
his th o u g h t was certainly n ot “tout envahi” by the A b b o t12.
Schmolinsky shows in the present volum e th at Smalley could have found m u c h in
terest in A lexander because of his conceptual originality and his interest in history.
W h e th e r she would have found him useful in developing som e of the main th em es of
her S tudy o f the Bible is difficult to determine. Perhaps she m igh t have, given th at
A lexander departed from a tradition th at interpreted the Apocalypse as a work of m o r
al exhortation, “urging us to obey the G ospel” 13. Since he set forth a very different a p
proach whereby the book was to be un derstood as a continuous account of C hu rch h i
story, Smalley m igh t have found room for this within he r terms of a thirteenth-century trend toward “treading on earth” (372). Nevertheless, Alexander surely did n ot
view himself as a literalist. Divorcing the “sensus historicus” from the ground-level lit
eral m eaning of Scripture, he viewed the historical interpretation he set forth as a
“spiritual” option. G ranting this self-conception and the fact that A lexander’s reading
strikes us today as fanciful, he could hardly serve as representing a trend toward literal
ism w itho ut en orm o us qualification. Finally, his very originality serves to correct
Smalley’s proposition that “as the spiritual exposition became m o re systematic there
was less and less possibility of original interpretation” (287). (Note th at A lexander
ab andoned Tyconius’s rule of “recapitulation” for reading the Apocalypse, a principle
invoked by every medieval c o m m e n ta to r before him , including Joach im of Fiore.)
T h at such th oro ug hg oing originality could gain a positive reception is proven by the
" Herbert G ru n d m a n n , Über den A p o k a l y p s e n -K o m m e n t a r des M inoriten Alexander, in: Z e n
tralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 45 (1928) 7 1 3 - 7 2 3 , here 721; M arjorie Reeves, T h e Influence of
P rop he cy in th e Later Middle Ages: A Study in J o a c h im is m (Oxford 1969) 177 -17 8 ; de Lubac (as
n. 7) II 2, 333.
12 Sabine Schm olinsky, D e r A p o k a l y p s e n k o m m n ta r des A lex an d er Minorita: Z u r frühen R e zep
t i o n j o a c h i m s von Fiore in D euts ch lan d ( M o n u m en ta G erm aniae historica, Stu dien u n d T exte 3,
H a n n o v e r 1991).
13 Schmolinksy, n. 26, cites the prologue to A b elard ’s c o m m e n t a r y on Paul’s Epistle to the R o
m ans; a text also discussed in the p resent vo lum e by David L uscom be; for fu rther bibliography,
see Luscom be’s n ote 62. T h e same view continues to be found in th e thirtee n th century. See sec
tion 1 of the prologue to B o n aventure ’s Breviloquium, w here the Apocalyps e is still cons idered
the N ew -T e stam en t co un terp art to the p ro ph etic books of the O ld T estam en t, b o th of whos e
m ain pu rpo ses are to urge morality.
A fterw ord
185
fact th at A l e x a n d e r ’s strate gy was a p p r o p ria te d by N ic h o la s of Lyra a n d t h e n c e b e c a m e
w idely c u r r e n t in th e later Middle Ages.
D a vid B u rr’s piece, “ Ecclesiastical C o n d e m n a t i o n a n d Exegetical T h e o r y ”, s u p p l e
m e n t s Sm alley in two ways. Burr offers in sig ht in to th e ex egetical strategies of a figure
Sm alley d id n o t treat, P e te r Olivi, and i n tr o d u c e s a c atego ry of sourc e m aterial u p o n
w h i c h Sm alley d id n o t draw, the ecclesiastical c o n d e m n a t i o n . B urr refrains fro m e n
te r in g in to deta il a b o u t Olivi’s exegetical w o r k since he has re ce n tly c o m p l e t e d a m i l e
s t o n e b o o k o n Olivi’s A pocaly pse e x e g e sis14. N e verthe le ss, h e in tr o d u c e s th e i m p o r
ta n t p o i n t th a t Olivi c o n sid e re d his historical strategy of i n te r p r e t i n g the A p o c a ly p s e Olivi re ad th e w o rk as a series of visions a b o u t the u n f o l d in g of C h u r c h h isto ry - to be
a literal reading. In this Olivi disagreed with A le x a n d e r M inorita, w h o saw his ow n
(very different) historical strategy as a “sp iritua l” o ne, p e r h a p s sh o w in g t h e w o r t h F r a n
ciscans of O livi’s b e n t placed on a d h e ri n g to th e “ letter”. (B urr r e m i n d s us as well th at
the J o a c h it e - F r a n c i s c a n Olivi believed th a t d e e p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of th e literal m e a n
ing of S c rip tu re c o u ld be an intdligeniia spiritualis.) B urr sho w s as well h o w we m ay
learn a b o u t m a i n s t r e a m exegetical a s s u m p t io n s fro m th e e v id e n c e of theological i n
d i c tm e n ts . A n a n o n y m o u s judge of Olivi was willing t o b e b r o a d - m i n d e d a b o u t w h a t
co u ld be a p p r o v e d u n d e r th e h e a d in g of “m y stic a l” re ad in g s b u t n o t a b o u t w h a t h a d to
be c o n s i d e r e d t h e b e d r o c k “ literal” r e ad in g of a S c riptura l text. T h e re sp e c t for the
literal he re is eviden t. N everthele ss, this r e a d e r’s “ lite ralism ” was h a rdly w h a t we
w o u ld n o w c u sto m a r ily u n d e r s t a n d by th a t term .
C h ristel M e ie r - S ta u b a c h ’s article se e m s b o t h to s u p p l e m e n t a n d c o m p l e m e n t S m a l
ley in sofar as it places its in te rpreta tive w e ig h t o n a u t h o r s Sm a lle y did n o t treat, R u
p e rt of D e u t z a n d H o n o r i u s A u g u s to d u n e n s i s , as well as o n e sh e a m p l y did, H u g h of
St. Victor. M e ie r- S ta u b a c h certainly offers a c o m p l e m e n t to Sm a lle y in t e r m s of h e r
m a in su b je ct a n d a r g u m e n t, for sh e c o n c e n tr a t e s o n th e re alm of th e sp iritu al e x p o s i
tion p u r s u e d by t w e lf th - c e n tu r y m o n a s ti c a u th o r s th a t S m a lle y c o n c e d e d was h e r “b ig
gest o m is sio n of all”. It is p e r h a p s n o t su rp risin g th a t e x p ertis e in this area s h o u ld
c o m e from a G e r m a n sc h o lar treating G e r m a n a u th o r s (a ssu m in g th a t H u g h of St.
Victor b e g an a n d e n d e d his life in Saxony) a n d p u r s u i n g a scho larly trad itio n (the
school of F rie d ric h O hly ) different t h a n th a t fo u n d e d by S m a lle y in th e A n g l o - A m e r i
can world. Be t h a t as it m ay, the m o s t d r a m a tic i m p a c t of M e i e r - S ta u b a c h ’s article is to
sho w th e d y n a m i s m of allegorical exegesis just w h e n Sm a lle y was a s s u m i n g (at least
before h e r s e c o n d t h o u g h ts p r o m p t e d by Fr. d e L ubac) th a t allegorical a p p ro a c h e s
were losing th e i r force.
Fr. R a in e r B e r n d t ’s c o m p l e m e n t to Sm a lle y fits similarly. H u g h of St. V ic to r was a
figure of central i m p o r t a n c e in S m a lle y ’s story. B u t w h e re a s for h e r H u g h ’s signifi
cance lay in “in c r e a s in g ] the d ig n ity of th e historical [i.e. literal] s e n s e ” (89), th e r e b y
u n d e r p in n i n g th e w o rk of h e r favorite t w e lfth -c e n tu r y sch olarly literalists, A n d r e w of
St. Victor a n d H e r b e r t of B osha m , for B e r n d t H u g h ’s m a i n in te re s t lies in his allegori
cal re adin g of S c rip tu r e a n d th e f o u n d a ti o n this p r o v i d e d for s y s te m a tic theology.
(“D e r sensus allegorkus ö ffn et also das T o r zu e in e r G e s a m t d a r s t e l l u n g ch ris tlich e r
Olivi’s Peaceable K in g d o m : A Reading of the Apocalypse C o m m e n t a r y (Philadelphia 1993).
186
Lehre ... im 12. J a h r h u n d e rt kann der senstts allegoricus som it zum A usgangspunkt systematischer Théologie w erden.”) This thesis, which does no t contradict Smalley’s
contribution but offers in co m p le m e n t so m ethin g entirely different, evidently grows
out of the work of de Lubac and that of Fr. B erndt’s teacher, Jean C h âtillo n13.
David L uscom be c om ple m en ts Smalley c oncerning the exegesis of Peter Abelard.
Here we have an author who Smalley treated only tangentially. Characteristically w hen
she did refer to Abelard she viewed him as an early schoolm an; for example, she saw
him as one w ho helped accelerate the use of questiones and dialectic within the frame
work of exegesis (73). In contrast, Luscombe, while n o t denying this aspect of A b e
lard’s exegetical activity, rem inds us that Abelard “was both a schoolm an and a m o n k ”.
From this po int of view we are led to appreciate A belard’s “ideal of the philosopher
h erm it” and his concern with ethical issues, no t least regarding the position of women.
Beryl Smalley would have been most interested to have followed the work of G il
bert D ahan because he has been pursuing one of her main areas of interest, the use of
Jewish exegesis by Christian com m entators. T he “c o m p le m en tin g ” quality in this re
gard is particularly evident because Smalley dwelled on twelfth-century foundations in
treating the relations between rabbinic learning and Christian scholarship whereas D a
han has dedicated himself more to pursuing this them e in the thirteenth century. His
essay in this volum e draws appreciably on u np ublished evidence (Peter Olivi appears
where one had no t necessarily expected to find him), yet is simultaneously a lucid
summary. A n d once m ore we find that the c o m p le m e n t highlights an aspect of in ter
pretation that contrasts with Smalley’s. A ccording to D ahan, the use of Jewish exegesis
in thirteenth-century Christian com m entaries on the O ld T estam ent prophetic books
did som etim es a m o u n t to the explication of literal details of the sort Smalley found
plentifully in the twelfth-century exegesis of A nd rew of St. Victor. But m ore n o te
worthy is the borrowing of Jewish explanations of “metaphorical” passages. As D ahan
explains, a Christian such as St. Thomas, borrowing conceptually from Maimonides,
retained metaphorical interpretations u nd er the heading of the “literal”, for they dealt
with the Hebrew authors’ literal intention and were separate from the realm of spirit
ual/allegorical readings strictly proper to Christians. T hu s one m ight gain help from
the rabbis to understand what Zechariah intended by the words “the Lord showed
him four builders” because the p ro p h et evidently was speaking metaphorically in this
passage and Christians m ight learn from Jews that the first “builder” was Cyrus. Lit
eral, no; b ut in a deep er sense, literal, yes.
The last of the contributions I would classify as “c o m p le m en ts to Smalley” is that of
Alastair Minnis, a stu d e n t of Smalley’s w ho has been active in carrying on aspects of
h er work. Evidently Minnis su pp lem en ts Smalley by moving into the fifteenth cen
tury, chronological terrain into which she did n ot venture. He co m p lem en ts her as
” See Châtillon, La Bible dans les écoles du XIIe siècle, in: Pierre Riche, Guy Lobrichon (cds.), Le
Moyen Age et la Bible (Paris 1984) 163-97, here 194: “ H ugues de Saint-Victor conservait le s o u
venir des anciennes traditions m onastiques. C ’était en co re un h o m m e de vieille culture. Sa re
ch erche de la sagesse était u n e qu ête spirituelle, désintéressée.” See also M arcia h- Colish, Peter
L om bard (Leiden 1994) 195.
A fterw ord
187
well by e x a m i n in g tw o n e g le c t e d a u t h o r s ’ u n d e r s t a n d i n g of “ literalism ” in th e wake of
A q u i n a s ’s r e c o n s id e ra tio n s of th a t term . M in n is sh o w s th a t S a vonarola a n d A lfo n so de
Madrigal b o t h a g re e d w ith T h o m a s t h a t th e e sse nce of literalism was th e i n t e n t i o n of
th e Scriptu ral a u t h o r b u t th a t they d isa gree d w ith each o t h e r re g ard in g t h e signifi
c an c e of this p rin c ip le for e s t im a ti n g n o n - S c r i p tu r a l po e try . T h is fin d in g will be of in
tere st for s t u d e n t s of la te -m e d ie va l literary th eo ry ; m o s t p e r t i n e n t re g ard in g th e m ain
t h e m e s of the exegesis c o n f e r e n c e is th a t b o th of M i n n i s ’s a u th o r s a c c o rd e d g re at re
s p e c t for literalist exegesis, a n d h e n c e , as M in n is argues, th a t S m a lle y ’s “controversial
h e ad in g , ‘th e Spiritu al E x p o sitio n in D e c l i n e ’ [may] still have m u c h life in it” .
Lesley Smith and J o h n Van Engen agree with each o th er in engaging with Smalley
on a basic issue, the place of the Glossa ordinaria in the evolution of the study of the
Bible in the schools. (These two contributors, who both cover m u c h ground, address
different topics as well.) In Smalley’s account the early twelfth-century Gloss - a gath
ering of Patristic and Carolingian explications copied into the margins and between
the lines of the Scriptural text - was the point of departure for a series of develop
ments that culm inated in the High-Scholastic exegesis of the friars. According to
Smalley, looking at “the totality of medieval exegesis” one sees an en orm ou s contrast
betw een the norm s th at predo m in ated until the beginning of the twelfth century and
the exegetical norm s of m id-thirteen th -cen tu ry Paris; where once the early-medieval
exegete strived to let the reader “focus his m in d on the eternal and infinite”, the HighScholastic exegete was “getting interested in things in them selves” (370-71). Smith
and Van Engen do n o t c o m m e n t on this proposition, b u t they place greater limits on
the extent of change by emphasizing the continued centrality of the Gloss as a teach
ing instrument. As S m ith puts it, the Gloss “petrified exegesis to som e extent by m a
king a certain group of texts norm ative”, and Van Engen concurs w hen he states “tea
ching the Bible publicly was novel in form, and perhaps in intellectual intent; yet in
practice it was more tradition-bound than historians since Smalley often maintain” .
Van E ng en’s reference to the postills of the D om inican H ugh of St. C her as an “en
hanced gloss” would seem to reaffirm this preference for emphasizing continuity rath
er than change.
Gian Luca Potesta seems as well to offer an en gagem ent with Smalley. Despite
Smalley’s concession of 1982 that her treatm ent of Jo achim of Fiore and Joachism was
“the faultiest part” of h er chapter on the friars, it can hardly be do u bted th at even then
she cared as little for Jo a ch im as “for the fifth wheel of a cart”. (With apologies to Salimbene.) Marjorie Reeves tells of having run into Beryl Smalley on Banbury Road
around the time the latter was writing her new preface: “Marjorie, I’ve changed my
mind about Joachim . I now recognize his im portance. . . . But I still d o n ’t like him .” 16
Potesta challenges Smalley’s view that Joach im was not properly an exegete, that “the
place for his type of speculation is n o t exegesis” (292) an d shows tha t such a proposi
tion would have offended the Calabrian Abbot. Far from conceiving of himself as ei
ther an historical philosopher or a prophet, Joach im attached the highest value to the
study of Scripture, considering this the most exalted of callings for a religious of his
1 have this from Miss Reeves in conversation.
188
era. A n y o n e is free to d isa p p r o v e of w h a t h e did, b u t it s e e m s a rbitrary to d e n y it a
place in th e h isto ry of th e s t u d y of th e Bible,
C a n we n o w s u m u p a n d p o i n t to fo u n d a ti o n s for a n e w sy n the sis? H ardly. O n e o b
vious c o n s t r a i n t is th a t te n essays c a n n o t be c o m p e l le d to r e p re s e n t all t h e i m p o r t a n t
c u r r e n t w o r k in t h e f i e l d 17. Insofar as s o m e re c e n t sc h o l a r s h ip differs signific antly w ith
p o sitio n s t a k e n by c o n tr i b u t o r s to this v o l u m e it is o b v iou sly in a p p r o p r i a t e to m a i n
tain th at th e o n l y “c o r re c t ” n e w d i r e c tio n s are th o s e f o u n d here.
N e v e rth e le ss , it r e m a in s clear th a t n o “g r a n d na rra tiv e ” to replace S m a lle y ’s is in
sight. All t h a t c an b e said a b o u t “w h e r e w e c u rre n t ly s t a n d ” is th a t s o m e lively basic
resea rc h is u n d e r way, a n d p e r h a p s th a t m o r e of this is b e in g c o n d u c t e d in th e A n g l o
p h o n e w o rld t h a n elsew here. I w o u ld have p re fe rre d to h ave w r itte n th a t n o narrativ e
to replace S m a lle y ’s “is yet in s i g h t ” in th e h o p e th a t so m e b old e m u l a t o r m i g h t so o n
pro vide a su s ta i n e d i n te r p r e t a ti o n th a t de fine s m a i n c u r re n t s a n d c h a n g i n g t r e n d s in
th e m ed ie v al s t u d y of th e Bible ov e r tim e. But t h e c u r r e n t scholarly a tm o s p h e r e is n o t
co n g e n ia l to g r a n d narratives. A n t o n y Black, for o n e , has re c e n tly d ism is se d t h e thesisg u i d e d a c c o u n t of m e d ie v a l political t h o u g h t w r i t te n by S m a lle y ’s c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d
B lack’s tea ch e r, W a l t e r U l l m a n n , with th e r e m a r k : “it is a m a z i n g th at th e M id d le A g e s
is still su b je c t to t h e k i n d of g e n era lisa tio n s th a t w o u l d be la u g h e d at by specialists in
o t h e r fields” 18. In th e p r e s e n t v o lu m e , A lastair M inn is, S m a lle y ’s s t u d e n t, w h o has d e
dica ted a b o o k to h e r m e m o r y , take s for g r a n te d “ th e va n ity of b ro a d g e n e r a liz a tio n s ” .
Beryl Sm a lle y w r o t e in The S tudy o f the Bible in the iM iddle Ages th a t “each p u p il e n la r
ges o n his m a s t e r ” . A l t h o u g h this d i c t u m a p p e a rs to illustrate the vanity of b ro a d g e
neralization s, I will try a n o th e r : a d o m i n a n t scholarly e n v i r o n m e n t prevails at p re s e n t
th a t o p p o s e s t h e c o n c e p t of d o m i n a n t scholarly e n v ir o n m e n t s .
17 For exam ple, M argaret T. Gibson, T h e Place of the Glossa ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis, in:
M a r k U. Jo rd a n , K ent Em ery Jr. (eds.), A d litteram: Authorita tive Texts a n d Th eir Medieval Re ad
ers (Notre D a m e 1992) 5-27, an d M a n ia L. Colisb, P eter L ombard as an Exegete of St. Paul, in:
Jordan, Emery, 7 1 -9 2 , take different views regarding the Gloss an d the d e v e lo p m e n t of twelfthcentu ry school exegesis than Sm ith and Van Engen in this volume. See also K arlfried Froeblich,
St. Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1 1 5 0 -13 00 , in: Christopher R yan (eci), The
Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals an d Realities, 1 1 5 0 - 1 3 0 0 (Toronto 1989) 3 - 4 4 , who calls
attention to the “lively interest in recent c o m m en taries” du ring the period in questio n an d e m
phasizes i m p o rt a n t changes in exegetical strategies regarding papal primacy du ring the thirtee nth
century,
18 Black, Political T h o u g h t in Europe, 1 2 5 0 -1 4 5 0 (Cam br idge 1992) 12. Black adds (13): “E u ro
pean political t h o u g h t from 1250 to 1450 was no t essentially feudal, hierocratic or authoritarian,
n o r was it essentially co m radely or civic. It is a copse containing m an y different species.”
Personenregister
bearbeitet von Deeana C o peia nd K lep p er
Soweit gebräuchlich ist die de utsche N am en s fo rm zu grun de gelegt.
Die N a m e n von m o d e r n e n Wissens chaftlern sind kursiv gesetzt.
Abaclard, Petrus s. Petrus A.
Absalon von St. Viktor 66
Ach ard von St. Viktor 65
A d a m Marsh 95n.
A d am de Perseigne 97
A d am Scotus (von Dryburg h) 5 ln .
Adelard von Bath 89
Aegidius R o m an u s 1 6 8n .- 169n.
Alan von Lille 44, 49, 51 -5 7 , 175n.
Albert der Große 3 1 ,3 3 , 127-128, 130-131,
133,
134, 135, 136, 137, 154
Albertino Mussato 166
Alexander IV., Papst 153n.
Alex an der VI., Papst 164
Alex an der von Aphrodisias 127
Alex an der von Haies 9, 33, 143
Alexander Minorita 139-148, 160, 161n.,
184- 185
Alexander N e c k h a m 6
Alfons de Madrigal 16 3-1 6 5, 170 -1 79 , 187
Alkuin 44n.
Am brosias ter 88
Am brosius 3, 28n., 115n.
Andreas von St. Viktor 31, 65, 67, 77, 121,
130n., 132, 133n., 181n., 185, 186
Anselm von Cante rbu ry 66, 7 2 - 7 3 , 124
Anselm von Laon 6, 8, 22, 26, 27, 79, 82n.,
181n.
Aristoteles 11, 33, .36, 75, 77, 126, 127, 154,
176- 170
Augustin 3, 11, 13, 14, 2 0 - 2 1 , 24n., 26n.,
28n„ 29 -3 0 , 34, 4 5 - 4 6 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 73, 82, 84,
8 5 , 8 8 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 6 , 9 8 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 115, 166,
123n., 159, 173, 176
Augustin von Dacien 1 7 ln.
Averroes 126, 127, 167, 169n.
Avicebron s. Salomo ibn Gabirol
Beda venerabilis 3, 28ti., 29, 44n., 142n.
Benedikt 102-105, 107, 108, 112, 114, 146,
160
Berchorius, Petrus s. Petrus B.
Berengar von Tours 5
B enuit, R a in er 132, 185 -1 86
Be rnhard von Clairvaux ix, 62
Be rnhard Silvestris 51 -55 , 56n.
Bischof/, B ernhard 47
Black, A n to n y 188
Bloch, M arc 181
Bloom field, M orton W. 139
Boccaccio, G iovanni 166, 168, 169, 177
Boethius 2 2 , 5 1 , 5 4
Bonaventura ix, 20 -21 , 32, 35, 36, 38, 156157, 158n., 159n., 182, 183, 184
Boyer, B. B. 81
Brady, Ig n a tiu s 34
B rin k m a n n , H enig 122
Buc, Philippe 182
Burr, D a v id 184, 185
Buytaert, E. M . 8 8 - 8 9
Calcidius 53
Carboneil, Poncio s. Poncio C.
Cassiodor 2, 20, 26n., 44n., 96
Chätillon, Jean 65, 168
Claudianus M am ertus 51
C lem ens VI., Papst 25
Colish, M a rcia 18 2
Courtenay, W illia m 20
D ahan, Gilbert 186
D ante Alighieri 96
Denifle, H einrich 20
D o m in ik u s 160
Dronkc, Peter 91, 123
Ehlers, Joachim 68
Elisabeth von S chönau 62n.
E ucherius von Lyon 43, 45, 48
Eugen IV., Papst 164
Eusebius 143, 165, 177
Francesco Silvestri 160
Franz von Assisi 139 -14 0 , 154, 155, 160
190
P ersonenregister
Eroehlich, K a rlfried 5, 27
Fulgentius 177
Gelasius L, Papst 28
G erhard von Borgo San D o n n i n o 153
Ger son, J o h a n n e s s. J o h a n n e s G.
Giard, Luce 68
Gibson, M argaret 5, 6, 8, 21, 27
Gilber t von Poitiers 6, 22, 155
Gilby, Thom as 179
Giles of R o m e s. Aegidius R om anus
Gottfried von St. Viktor 66
Goy, R udolph 68
Gratian 2 8-2 9 , 75
G regor VII., Papst 3, 22, 28n., 36, 44n., 82,
103, 110-111, 114, 11 5n.
G regor IX., Papst 25
Gross-Diaz, Theresa 6
G ru n d m a n n , Herbert 96, 184
Guer ric von S ain t-Q u en tin 1 29-130, 132,
134,
135
G u ibert von N o g e n t 129n.
G u id o von Bazoches 3 3 - 3 4
G u id o Terrena von P er pignan 159
Hadewijch 62n.
H aim o von Auxerre ln., 88, 11 5-1 16, 142n.,
14 4 n ., 159
H amei, Christophe)’ de 6
Hein rich von Cossey 161
Heinr ich von G e n t 32, 34, 38
Heinrich von Kirkested e 97n.
Heloise 8 0 , 8 5 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 1 - 9 2
Herbert von Bosham 6, 26, 30, 185
H e r m a n n von Carinthia 54
H e r m a n n u s A le m a n n u s 167n.
Herm as 57
H i ero ny m u s 2-4, 9, 10-12, 13, 14, 24n., 26,
2 8n .,8 0 , 82, 84, 86n., 88, 91, 114, 129,
130n.-131n., 132, 133, 134n., 135n., 136n.,
141, 165, 175, 176n„ 177
Hilarius 4, 130n.
Hildegard von Bingen 57 -5 8 , 62
H o no riu s A ug u sto d un e n sis 48, 185
Hrab an us Maurus 20 -2 1 , 4 3 -4 4 , 48
H ugo von St. C h e r 28, 60, 121, 130n., 131,
132, 133n„ 135n., 136n., 187
H ug o von St. Viktor 2 -4 , 5, 8, 11, 12, 13-14,
20, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35 -3 6 , 4 8 - 5 0 , 5 ln.,
52, 5 4-5 5 , 57, 58, 65, 6 7 - 7 0 , 71, 73, 74-7 7,
78, 87, 123n., 133, 134n., 185
H uguccio 23, 29
H u m b e r t von R o m ans 37
Isaak Israeli 126
Isidor von Sevilla 2, 28n., 4 3-4 4 , 45n.
J a k ob von Lausanne 127, 128
J a k ob von Viterbo 17
Jo a c h i m von Fiore ix, 38, 9 5 - 1 19, 139-140,
149, 152, 154, 178, 182, 184, 187-188
Jo h a n n e s II., Kön ig v. Kastilien 164
Jo h a n n e s XXII., Papst 149-150, 160, 161
Jo h a n n e s Gerso n 17-18, 33, 35
Jo h a n n e s von Hauteville 61
Jo h a n n e s von P agaham 6
Jo h a n n e s Rüssel 157
Jo h a n n e s von Salisbury 22
Jo h a n n e s Scotus Eriugena 49, 57n.
Jo h a n n e s von T o rq u e m a d a 164
Jo s e p h Bekhor Shor 133
Jo s e p h ben S im eon Kara 133
Karl VIII., K ö n ig v. Fra nkreich 164
Kearney, Eileen 80, 90
Koch, Joseph 149-1 5 0
K o nsta n tin , röm. Kaiser 153
L andgraf, A . /VI. 87
Larifrank von Bec 5 ,2 7
Langton, S tep h en s. S tep hen L.
Lauretus, H iero n y m u s 44
Lorenzo de Medici 165
Lottin, 0. 79
Lubac. H enri de x, 65, 140, 1 82-183, 184, 185,
186
Lucius III., Papst 98
Luscombe, D a v id 186
Macrobius 5 1 , 5 6
Madrigal, Alfons s. Alfons de M.
M aim onides s. Mose ben Maimon
M anselli, R aotil 149-15 0
Martianus Capella 5 1,5 3
M atter, E. A n n 5
Ma tthäus von Acq uas par ta 157
Maurice de Sully, Bischof v. Paris 66
AlcKeon, R. 81
M echthild von Mag deb urg 62n.
Aieier-Staubach, Christel 185
Menas von K o n s ta n tin o p e l 143
Merlinus britanicus 107, 108
A lew s.C .J, 8 1 ,8 4
Aiietbke, Jürgen 26
A l inn is, /'I lasta i r j . 3 1-3 2 , 122, 186-187, 188
Mose ben M aim on 1 26-128, 134, 136, 154,
186
Mussato, A lbertino s. Albertitio M.
Personenregister
N eckh am , A lexander s. A lexander N.
Nikolaus von ßayard 37
Nikolaus von G orra n 133
Nikolaus von Lyra 28, 30, 38, 148, 160-161,
164, 171, 173, 175, 178-179, 185
Ohly, fr ie d rieb 185
O m n e b e n e 71
Origenes 3, 4, 28n., 81, 88
O tto von Lucca 71
Ovid 52n., 53-54, 178n.
Paulinus, Bischof v. Nola 175
Päsztor, E d ith 149-15 0
Peppermüller, R olf 80, 87
Petrarca, Francesco 60, 166, 168
Petrus Abaelard ix, 14, 22, 23, 26, 28 -2 9 , 34,
5 9 , 7 1 , 7 3 , 7 5 , 7 9 , 8 0 , 8 1 - 9 3 , 124, 144n.,
184, 186
Petrus von Ailly 17
Petrus Aureoli 148, ¡ 6 0 -1 6 1
Petrus ßerchoriu s 60
Petrus C a n to r 3 1 ,7 1 , 130n., 137
Petrus C o m es to r 30, 33, 66, 71, 74n.
Petrus Jo h a n n is Olivi 130, 132, 137, 149, 182,
185, 186
Petrus L ombard 6, 8, 11, 14, 26, 3 4 - 3 5 , 66,
71,7 3 ,7 7
Petrus M and u cato r s. Petrus C o m es to r
Petrus Palude 159
Petrus von Poiters 9, 49, 5 ln .
Pirenne, H enri 181
Plato 8 3 , 8 5 , 9 0 , 165
Polykarp von Sm y rna 142
Poncio Carbonell 161
Polesld, G ian Luea 187-18 8
Prudentiu s Aurelius C lem en s 51
Pseudodionysius Areopagita 4 9 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 124,
163, 168, 172, 173
Pseu dom elito 43, 48
Pythagoras 85
Rabelais, Francois 42
Radulf von Coggeshall 97
Radulf von Laon 8
Raim u nd Rigaud 1 5 7 -1 58
Raschi s. Salomo ben Isaak
Reeves, M arjorie E. 139-140, 184, 187
Remigius von Auxerre s. H aim o von Auxerre
Richard I., König v. Engla nd 108
Richard FitzRalph 173n.
Richard von St. Viktor 49, 51n., 65, 67, 86n,,
112, 149, 159
Riehe, Pierre 21
Robert Grosseteste 95n.
191
Robert Pullen 71
Robert von Melun 2 3-2 7 , 29, 36, 87
Roger Bacon 19,35
Roland von Bologna 7 1
Roland von C r e m o n a 71
Rupert von D eu tz 20, 29, 30, 36, 38, 48,
50 -5 1, 55, 58, 62, 1 2 9 n , 185
Salomo ibn Gabirol 126
Salomo b en Isaak 124, 133
Samuel b en Meir 133
Santillana, Marquis de 165
Savonarola, G irolam o 163-170, 174, 175,
176-179, 187
Sehmolinsky, Sabine 184
Scriver, Christian 40
Silverius, Pap st 143
Smalley, Beryl ix-x, 2, 7, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26,
2 7 ,6 5 , 79, 80, 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 11- 112, 117, 121,
122, 124, 126, 132, 139, 140, 149, 154-155,
162, 178, 181 -18 8
Sm ith, Lesley 187
Socrates 85
Steph en L angton 2 8 -3 1 , 181n.
Strayer, Joseph 18 1
Szoverfjy, Joseph 90, 92
Terrena, G uid o s. G uid o T.
T h e o d o r von Mopsuestia 174
Thierry von Chartres 5 3 ,8 9
T h om a s von A q uin ix, 28, 31, 35, 125, 130n.,
133n., 136, 143, 154, 163-164, 166-168,
170-174, 176, 178, 179-1 80 , 183, 186-187
Tyconius 184
U llm ann, W alter 188
V an E ngen,John 181-182, 187
van den Eynde, D am ien 67
Vergil 36, 51, 177-17 8
Vitalis von F urn o 152n., 1 5 5 - 1 56n., 157-158
Waehtel, A lois 139-1 4 0
Walafrid Strabo 6
W ilh elm von Alton 130, 131, 133, 134, I35n.
W ilhelm von A uvergne 3 1 -3 2
W ilhelm von C on c hes 53
W ilhelm von Laudano 150n.
W ilhelm v on Luxeuil 135n.
W ilhelm von Melitona 156n.
W ilhelm von St. A m o u r 183
W ilhelm von Tyrus 22
Zier, M a rk 6
Z inn, Grover 3
Schriften des H istorischen K ollegs: K olloquien
1 H ein rich L u t z ( Hrsg .) : D a s r ö m i s c h - d e u t s c h e R e ic h im p o l i t i s c h e n S y stem
K a r l s V., 1982, X I I , 288 S. I S B N 3-486-51371- 0
2 O tto P fla n ze ( H k %.)\ I n n e n p o l i t i s c h e P r o b l e m e d e s B i s m a r c k - R e i c h e s , 1983, X I I ,
304 S. I S B N 3-486-5 14 81 -4
3 H a n s C o n ra d P e y e r ( Hrsg .) : G a s t f r e u n d s c h a f t , T a v e r n e u n d G a s t h a u s im M i t t e l
a lter, 1983, X I V , 275 S. I S B N 3-486-51665-2
4 E b erh a rd W eis ( H rs g .): R e f o r m e n im r h e i n b ü n d i s c h e n D e u t s c h l a n d , 1984, X V I,
310 S. I S B N 3-486-5 i 671 -X
5 H e in z A n g e rm e ie r (H rsg .): S ä k u l a r e A s p e k t e d e r R e f o r m a t i o n s z e i t , 1983, X I I ,
278 S. I S B N 3-486-5 18 41 -0
6 G era ld D. F e ld m a n ( H rs g .): D ie N a c h w i r k u n g e n d e r I n f l a t i o n a u f d i e d e u t s c h e
G e s c h i c h t e 1 9 2 4 - 1 9 3 3 , 1985, X I I , 407 S.
vergriffen
7 Jü rg en K o c k a (H rs g .): A r b e i t e r u n d B ü r g e r im 19. J a h r h u n d e r t . V a r i a n t e n ihres
V e r h ä ltn iss e s i m e u r o p ä i s c h e n V erg leich, 1986, X V I , 342 S.
vergriffen
8 K o n r a d R ep g en (H rs g .): K r ie g u n d Politik 1 6 1 8 -1 6 4 8 . E u r o p ä i s c h e P r o b l e m e u n d
P e r s p e k t i v e n , 1988, X I I , 454 S. I S B N 3-486-5 3761-X
9 A n to n i M g c z a k (H rs g .): K l i e n t e l s y s t e m e im E u r o p a d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it , 1988, X,
386 S. I S B N 3-486-54021-1
10 E b erh a rd K o lb ( H rs g .): E u r o p a v o r d e m K r i e g v o n 1870. M ä c h t e k o n s t e l l a t i o n K o n f l i k t f e l d e r - K r i e g s a u s b r u c h , 1987, X I I , 2 20 S. I S B N 3-486-5 4121-8
11 H e lm u t G eorg K o e n ig sb e rg e r ( H rsg .): R e p u b l i k e n u n d R e p u b l i k a n i s m u s im
E u r o p a d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it , 1988, X I I , 323 S. I S B N 3-486-54341-5
12 W in fried S c h u tz e ( H rs g .): S t ä n d i s c h e G e s e l l s c h a f t u n d s o z ia le M o b i l i t ä t , 1988, X,
416 S. I S B N 3 -486-5 4351-2
13 J o h a n n e A u te n rie th (H rs g .): R e n a i s s a n c e - u n d H u m a n i s t e n h a n d s c h r i f t e n , 1988,
X I I , 214 S. m it A b b i l d u n g e n . I S B N 3-48 6-54511-6
14 E rn st S ch u lin (H rs g .): D e u t s c h e G e s c h i c h t s w i s s e n s c h a f t n a c h d e m Z w e i t e n W e l t
k rieg ( 1 9 4 5 -1 9 6 5 ) , 1989, X I , 303 S. I S B N 3-4 86-5 4831-X
15 W ilfried B a r n e r ( H rsg .): T r a d i t i o n , N o r m , I n n o v a t i o n . S o z ia le s u n d l itera ris ch es
T r a d i t i o n s v e r h a l t e n in d e r F r ü h z e i t d e r d e u t s c h e n A u f k l ä r u n g , 1989, X X V , 370 S.
I S B N 3-48 6-5 4771-2
16 H a r tm u t B o o c k m a n n (H rs g .): D ie A n f ä n g e d e r s t ä n d i s c h e n V e r t r e t u n g e n in
P r e u ß e n u n d s e i n e n N a c h b a r l ä n d e r n , 1992, X , 264 S. I S B N 3-486-55840-4
17 J o h n C. G. R ö h l ( H rs g .): D e r O rt K a i s e r W i l h e l m s II. in d e r d e u t s c h e n G e
s c h ich te, 1991, X I I I , 366 S. I S B N 3-486-55841-2
18 G erh a rd A . R itte r (H rsg .): D e r A u f stie g d e r d e u t s c h e n A r b e i t e r b e w e g u n g . S o z i a l
d e m o k r a t i e u n d F re ie G e w e r k s c h a f t e n im P a r t e i e n s y s t e m u n d S o z i a l m i l i e u des
K a i s e rr e i c h s , 1990, X X I , 461 S. I S B N 3 -486-5 5641-X
Schriften des H istorischen K ollegs: Kolloquien
19 R o g e r D u fra isse (H rs g .): R e v o l u t i o n u n d G e g e n r e v o l u t i o n 1789-1830. Z u r g e i
s tig en A u s e i n a n d e r s e t z u n g in F r a n k r e i c h u n d D e u t s c h l a n d , 1991, X V I I I , 274 S.
I S B N 3-486-55844- 7
20 K la u s S c h re in e r (H rs g .): L a i e n f r ö m m i g k e i t im s p ä t e n M itteialter . F o r m e n , F u n k
t i o n e n , p o li t i s c h - s o z i a l e Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e , 1992, X I I , 411 S. I S B N 3-486-55902- 8
21 Jü rg en M i e t h k e ( H rsg .) : D a s P u b l i k u m p o l i t i s c h e r T h e o r i e im 14. J a h r h u n d e r t ,
1992, IX , 301 S. I S B N 3-486-5 5898-6
22 D ieter S im o n (H rs g .): E h e r e c h t u n d F a m i l i e n g u t in A n t i k e u n d M i t t e l a l t e r , 1992,
IX , 168 S. I S B N 3-486-5 5885-4
23
V olker Prey.v(FIrsg.): A l t e r n a t i v e n z u r R e i c h s v e r f a s s u n g in d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it ?
(m it B e itr ä g e n v o n H. C a r l , FL D u c h h a r d t , G . H a u g - M o r i t z , A. G o t t h a r d , H. L a n
ger, M. L a n z i n n e r , P. M o r a w , M. M o u t , J. P a n e k , A. S c h i n d l i n g , G . S c h m i d t ,
P. S t a d l e r , D. S t i e v e r m a n n , G. V og ler) 1995, X I I , 254 S. I S B N 3-486-5 6035-2
24 K u r t R a a ß a u b (H rs g .): A n f ä n g e p o l i t i s c h e n D e n k e n s in d e r A n t i k e . G r i e c h e n l a n d
u n d die n a h ö s t l i c h e n K u l t u r e n (m it B e it r ä g e n v o n J. A s s m a n n , M. B e rn a l,
H. C a n c i k , F. C r ü s e m a n n , W. E d e r , V. F a d i n g e r , F. G s c h n i t z e r , V. H a a s ,
S. H u m p h r e y s , P. M a c h i n i s t , H. M a t t h ä u s , W. N i c o l a i , W. R öllig , H. S an cisiW e e r d e n b u r g , K. S e y b o l d / J . v. U n g e r n - S t e r n b e r g , P. S p a h n , C. W ilc k e ) 1993,
X X I V , 454 S. I S B N 3-486-55993-1
25 S h u la m it V o lkov (H rsg.): D e u t s c h e J u d e n u n d d ie M o d e r n e (m it B e itr ä g e n v o n
A. B a rk a i, H.-P. B a y e r d ö r f e r , U. F re v e rt , A. F u n k e n s t e i n , A. H erzig , M. A. K a
p l a n , R. K a t z , G . S c h r a m m , D. S o r k i n , S. V o lk o v , A. S. Z u c k e r m a n ) 1994, X X I V ,
170 S. I S B N 3-486-56029-8
26 H ein rich A . W in kler (H rs g .): Die d e u t s c h e S t a a t s k r i s e 1930-1933. H a n d l u n g s s p i e l
r ä u m e u n d A l t e r n a t i v e n , 1992, X I I I , 296 S. I S B N 3-486-5 5943-5
27 J o h a n n e s F rie d (H rsg .): D i a l e k t i k u n d R h e t o r i k im f r ü h e r e n u n d h o h e n Mittelalter . R e z e p t i o n , Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g u n d g e s e lls c h a f tlic h e W i r k u n g a n t i k e r G e l e h r s a m
keit v o r n e h m l i c h im 9. u n d 12. J a h r h u n d e r t (in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
28 P aolo P r o d i( Hrsg .) : G l a u b e u n d E id . T r e u e f o r m e l n , G l a u b e n s b e k e n n t n i s s e
u n d S o z i a l d i s z i p l i n i e r u n g z w i s c h e n M i t t e l a l t e r u n d N e u z e it (m it B e itr ä g e n von
H.-J. B e ck er, A. B lack , G. D i l c h e r , M. H e c k e i, R. M . K i n g d o n , H. G . K o e n i g s b e r g e r , H. M a i e r , J. M i e th k e , P. P ro d i , A. P ro s p e r i , D. Q u a g l i o n i , M . S c h a a b ,
P. S c h ie r a , H. S ch illing , D. W illow eit), 1993, X X X , 246 S. I S B N 3-486-5 5994-X
29 L u d w ig S c h m u g g e (H rs g .): I lle g itim ität im S p ä t m i t t e l a l t e r (m it B e it r ä g e n v o n
K. B o r c h a r d t , N. Bul st, F. R. A z n a r G il, M. H a r e n , C. H e s se , H.-J. H o f f m a n n N o w o t n y , P. L a n d a u , F. R a p p , K. S c h r e i n e r , C. S c h u c h a r d , K. S ch ulz,
B. S c h w a r z , M. M. S h e e h a n , F. T a m b u r i n i , G . W i e l a n d , D. W i l l o w e i t ) 1994,
X , 314 S. I S B N 3-486-56069-1
30 B e rn h a rd K ö lv e r(H rs g .): R e c h t , S t a a t u n d V e r w a l t u n g im k l a s s i s c h e n I n d i e n
(in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
Schriften des H istorischen K ollegs: Kolloquien
31 E lisa b eth F eh ren hach (H rs g .): A d el u n d B ü r g e r t u m in D e u t s c h l a n d 1770-1848
(m it B e iträg en v o n H. B e rg h o ff, H. B r a n d t , L. G a i l , E. K eil, D. L a n g e w i e s c h e ,
H. M ö l l e r , S. P a l e t s c h e k , T. P i e r e n k e m p e r , H. Reif, W. S i e m a n n , E. T re ic h e l,
H.-P. U l l m a n n , B. W u n d e r ) 1994, X V I , 251 S. I S B N 3-486-56027-1
32 R o b e rt E. L e r n e r ( H rsg .): N e u e R i c h t u n g e n in d e r h o c h - u n d s p ä t m i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e n
B ib elexe gese (m it B e iträg en v o n Fi. B e r n d t , D. Burr, G . D a h a n , J. V an E n g e n ,
R. E. L e rn e r , D. L u s c o m b e , C h r . M e ie r, A. J. M i n n i s , G. L. P o te stä , S. S c h m o l i n sky, L. S m ith ) 1996, ca. 200 S. I S B N 3-486-56083-2
33 K la u s H ild e b r a n d (H rs g .): D a s D e u t s c h e R e ic h im U rteil d e r G r o ß e n M ä c h t e u n d
e u r o p ä i s c h e n N a c h b a r n (1 8 7 1 -1 9 4 5 ) (m it B e iträg en v o n P. A lter, W. A ltgeld ,
H. A l t r ic h te r, J. B a riety , K. H i l d e b r a n d , E. H ö s c h , H. J a m e s , D. J u n k e r , J. Kor a l k a , H. L e m b e r g , K. P a b st, H. R u m p l e r , N. R u n e b y , P. S t a d l e r ) 1995, X . 232 S.
I S B N 3 -486-5 6084-0
34
W o lfg a n g ./. M o m m s e n ( H rs g .): K u l t u r u n d Krieg . D ie R o l l e d e r In t e l le k tu e l le n ,
K ü n s t l e r u n d S c h r i ft s te ll e r im E rs te n W e l t k r i e g (m it B e itr ä g e n v o n T h. A nz,
H. B ö r s c h - S u p a n , C h r . C o r n e l i ß e n , W. G e p h a r t , G. H ä n t z s c h e l , G . H ü b i n g e r ,
H. J o a s , E. K o e s t e r , G . K r u m e i c h , F. L eng er, C h r . L en z, St. M e i n e k e ,
W. J. M o m m s e n , P. P aret, D. S c h u b e r t , A. S c h u m a n n , J. Segal, P. W a tie r )
1995, X, 280 S. I S B N 3-48 6-5 6085-9
35 P eter K r ü g e r ( H rsg .): D a s e u r o p ä i s c h e S t a a t e n s y s t e m im W a n d e l . S t r u k t u r e l l e Be
d i n g u n g e n u n d b e w e g e n d e K r ä f t e seit d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it (in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
36 P eter B lickte (H rsg .) : T h e o r i e n k o m m u n a l e r O r d n u n g in E u r o p a (in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
37 H a n s E b erh a rd M a y e r ( H rsg.): D ie K r e u z f a h r e r s t a a t e n als m u l t i k u lt u r e l l e G e s e l l
sc haft. D ie R o l l e d e r E i n w a n d e r e r in K ir c h e , S taat, V e r w a l t u n g , W i r t s c h a f t u n d
K u l t u r (in V o r b e r e i t u n g )
38 M a n lio B ello m o ( H rs g .): D ie K u n s t d e r D i s p u t a t i o n in d e r e u r o p ä i s c h e n R e c h t s
g e s c h i c h t e ( 1 3 .- 1 4. J a h r h u n d e r t ) (in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
39 F ra n tisek S m a h e l (H rsg .): H ä r e s i e u n d v o r zeitig e R e f o r m a t i o n im S p ä t m i t t e l a l t e r
40 A lfr e d H a v e r k a m p ( H rsg .): F o r m e n d e r I n f o r m a t i o n , K o m m u n i k a t i o n . S e l b s t d a r
st e ll u n g in d e n m i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e n G e m e i n d e n D e u t s c h l a n d s u n d Ita lie n s
S o n d e rp u b lik a tio n
H o rst F u h rm a n n (H rs g .): Die K a u l b a c h - V i l l a als H a u s d es H i s t o r i s c h e n Kollegs.
R e d e n u n d w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e B e iträg e z u r E r ö f f n u n g , 1989, X I I , 232 S.
I S B N 3-486-55611-8
Schriften des H istorischen K ollegs: Vorträge
1 H ein rich L u tz : D i e d e u t s c h e N a t i o n zu B e g in n d e r N e u z e it . F r a g e n n a c h d e m
G e l i n g e n u n d S c h e i t e r n d e u t s c h e r E in h e it im 16. J a h r h u n d e r t , 1982, IV, 31 S.
vergriffen
2 O tto P fla n ze: B i s m a r c k s H e r r s c h a f t s t e c h n i k als P r o b l e m d e r g e g e n w ä r t i g e n
H i s t o r i o g r a p h i e , 1982, IV, 39 S.
vergriffen
3 H a n s C o n ra d P eyer: G a s t f r e u n d s c h a f t u n d k o m m e r z i e l l e G a s t l i c h k e i t im
M i t t e l a l t e r , 1983, IV, 24 S.
vergriffen
4 E b e rh a rd W eis: B a y e rn u n d F r a n k r e i c h in d e r Z eit d e s K o n s u l a t s u n d d e s e rsten
E m p i r e ( 1 7 9 9 - 1 8 1 5 ) , 1984, 41 S.
vergriffen
5 H e in z A n g e rm e ie r: R e i c h s r e f o r m u n d R e f o r m a t i o n , 1983, IV, 76 S.
vergriffen
6 G era ld D. F e ld m a n : B a y e r n u n d S a c h s e n in d e r H y p e r i n f l a t i o n 19 2 2 /2 3 , 1984,
IV, 41 S.
7 Erich A n g e r m a n n : A b r a h a m L in c o ln u n d d ie E r n e u e r u n g d e r n a t i o n a l e n I d e n t i tä t
d e r V e r e i n i g t e n S t a a t e n v o n A m e r i k a , 1984, IV, 33 S.
8 J ü rg en K o c k a : T r a d i t i o n s b i n d u n g u n d K l a s s e n b i l d u n g . Z u m so z i a l h is t o r i s c h e n
O r t d e r f r ü h e n d e u t s c h e n A r b e i t e r b e w e g u n g , 1987, 48 S.
9 K o n r a d R e p g en : K r i e g s l e g i t i m a t i o n e n in A l t e u r o p a . E n t w u r f e i n e r h i s t o r i s c h e n
T y p o l o g i e , 1985, 27 S.
vergriffen
10 A n to n i M a c z a k : D e r S t a a t als U n t e r n e h m e n . A d el u n d A m t s t r ä g e r in P o le n u n d
E u r o p a in d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it , 1989, 32 S.
11 E b erh a rd K o lb: D e r s c h w ie rig e W e g z u m F ri e d e n . D a s P r o b l e m d e r K r i e g s
b e e n d i g u n g 1 8 7 0 / 7 1 , 1985, 33 S.
vergriffen
12 H e lm u t G eorg K o e n ig sb erg er: F ü rs t u n d G e n e r a l s t ä n d e . M a x i m i l i a n I. in d e n
N i e d e r l a n d e n ( 1 4 7 7 -1 4 9 3 ) , 1987, 27 S.
13 W in frie d S c h u lz e : V o m G e m e i n n u t z z u m E ig e n n u tz . Ü b e r d e n N o r m e n w a n d e l
in d e r s t ä n d i s c h e n G e s e l l s c h a f t d e r F r ü h e n N e u z e it , 1987, 40 S.
vergriffen
14 J o h a n n e A u te n r ie th : „ L i t t e r a e V i r g i l i a n a e “ . V om F o r t l e b e n e i n e r r ö m is c h e n
S c h r ift, 1988, 51 S.
15 T ile m a n n G rim m : B l i c k p u n k t e a u f S ü d o s t a s i e n . H i s t o r i s c h e u n d k u l t u r a n t h r o
p o l o g i s c h e F r a g e n z u r P o litik , 1988, 37 S.
16 E rn st S c h u lin : G e s c h i c h t s w i s s e n s c h a f t in u n s e r e m J a h r h u n d e r t . P r o b l e m e u n d
U m r i s s e e i n e r G e s c h i c h t e d e r H isto r ie , 1988, 34 S.
17 H a r tm u t B o o c k m a n n : G e s c h ä f t e u n d G e s c h ä f t i g k e i t a u f d e m R e ic h s t a g im sp ä t e n
M i t t e l a l t e r , 1988, 33 S.
vergriffen
18 W ilfried B a rn er: L i t e r a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t - ein e G e s c h i c h t s w i s s e n s c h a f t ? 1990, 42 S.
19 J o h n C. G. R ö h l: K a i s e r W i l h e l m II. E in e S t u d i e ü b e r C ä s a r e n w a h n s i n n ,
1989, 36 S.
vergriffen
20 K la u s S ch rein er: M ö n c h s e i n in d e r A d e l s g e s e l l s c h a f t d e s h o h e n u n d s p ä t e n
M ittelalter s. K l ö s t e r l i c h e G e m e i n s c h a f t s b i l d u n g z w i s c h e n s p i r i t u e l l e r S e l b s t
b e h a u p t u n g u n d s o z i a l e r A n p a s s u n g , 1989, 68 S.
21 R o g er D u fra isse: D ie D e u t s c h e n u n d N a p o l e o n im 20. J a h r h u n d e r t , 1991, 43 S.
22 G erh a rd A . R itter: D i e S o z i a l d e m o k r a t i e im D e u t s c h e n K a i s e r r e i c h in s o z i a l
g e s c h i c h t l ic h e r P e r s p e k t i v e , 1989, 72 S.
23 Jü rg en M ie th k e : D i e m i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e n U n i v e r s i t ä t e n u n d d a s g e s p r o c h e n e W o r t,
1990, 48 S.
24 D ieter S im o n : L ob d e s E u n u c h e n , 1994, 27 S.
25 T h o m a s V ogtherr: D e r K ö n i g u n d d e r Heilige. H e i n r i c h IV., d e r h eilig e R e m a k l u s
u n d d i e M ö n c h e d e s D o p p e l k l o s t e r s S t a b l o - M a l m e d y , 1990, 29 S.
26 J o h a n n e s S c h illin g : G e w e s e n e M ö n c h e . L e b e n s g e s c h i c h t e n in d e r R e f o r m a t i o n ,
1990, 36 S.
27 K u rt R a a fla u b : P o litis ch es D e n k e n u n d K rise d e r Polis. A t h e n im V e r f a s s u n g s
k o n f l ik t d e s s p ä t e n 5. J a h r h u n d e r t s v . C h r . , 1992, 63 S.
28
V olker P ress: A ltes R e ic h u n d D e u t s c h e r B u n d . K o n t i n u i t ä t in d e r D i s k o n t i n u i t ä t ,
1 995,31 S.
29 S h id a m it V olkov: D ie E r f i n d u n g e i n e r T r a d i t i o n . Z u r E n t s t e h u n g d e s m o d e r n e n
J u d e n t u m s in D e u t s c h l a n d , 1992, 30 S.
30 F ranz B a u er: G e h a l t u n d G e s t a l t in d e r M o n u m e n t a l s y m b o l i k . Z u r I k o n o l o g ie
d es N a t i o n a l s t a a t s in D e u t s c h l a n d u n d I ta lie n 18 6 0-1 91 4 , 1992, 39 S.
3 I H einrich A . W in kler: M u ß t e W e i m a r s c h e i t e r n ? D a s E n d e d e r e r s t e n R e p u b li k
u n d d ie K o n t i n u i t ä t d e r d e u t s c h e n G e s c h i c h t e , 1991, 32 S.
32 J o h a n n e s F ried: K u n s t u n d K o m m e r z . Ü b e r d a s Z u s a m m e n w i r k e n v o n W i s s e n
s c h a ft u n d W i r t s c h a f t im M i t t e l a l t e r v o r n e h m l i c h a m Beispiel d e r K a u f l e u t e u n d
H a n d e l s m e s s e n , 1992, 40 S.
33 P aolo Prodi: D e r E id in d e r e u r o p ä i s c h e n V e r f a s s u n g s g e s c h i c h t e , 1992, 35 S.
34 J e a n -M a rie M o eg lin : D y n a s t i s c h e s B e w u ß t s e i n u n d G e s c h i c h t s s c h r e i b u n g .
Z u m S e l b s t v e r s t ä n d n i s d e r W i t t e l s b a c h e r , H a b s b u r g e r u n d H o h e n z o l i e r n im
S p ä t m i t te l a l te r , 1 9 9 3 ,4 7 S.
35 B e rn h a rd K ö lver: R itu a l u n d h i s t o r i s c h e r R a u m . Z u m i n d i s c h e n G e s c h i c h t s v e r
s t ä n d n i s , 1993, 65 S.
36 E lisa b eth F eh ren b a ch : A del u n d B ü r g e r t u m im d e u t s c h e n V o r m ä r z , 1994, 31 S.
37 Ludwig Schmugge: S c h l e i c h w e g e zu P f r ü n d e u n d A ltar. P ä p s t l i c h e D i s p e n s e v o m
G e b u r t s m a k e l 14 49 -1 53 3, 1994, 35 S.
38 H a n s -W e rn e r H a h n : Z w i s c h e n F o r t s c h r i tt u n d K r i s e n . D i e vierzig er J a h r e
des 19. J a h r h u n d e r t s als D u r c h b r u c h s p h a s e d e r d e u t s c h e n I n d u s t r i a l is i e r u n g ,
1995, 47 S.
39 R o b e rt E . F ern er: H i m m e l s v i s i o n o d e r S i n n e n d e l i r i u m ? F r a n z i s k a n e r u n d
P ro f e s s o r e n als T r a u m d e u t e r im P a r is d e s 13. J a h r h u n d e r t s , 1995, 35 S.
40 A n d re a s S c h u lz : W e l t b ü r g e r o d e r G e l d a r i s t o k r a t e n . H a n s e a t i s c h e s B ü r g e r t u m im
19. J a h r h u n d e r t , 1995, 38 S.
41
W o lfg a n g J. M o m m s e n : D ie H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g d e r b ü r g e r l i c h e n K u l t u r d u r c h
d ie k ü n s t l e r i s c h e A v a n t g a r d e . Z u m V e r h ä l t n i s v o n K u l t u r u n d P o litik im
W i l h e l m i n i s c h e n D e u t s c h l a n d , 1994, 30 S.
42 K la u s H ild e b ra n d : R e ic h - G r o ß m a c h t - N a t i o n . B e t r a c h t u n g e n z u r G e s c h i c h t e
d e r d e u t s c h e n A u ß e n p o l i t i k 1 871-1945, 1995, 25 S.
43 H a n s E b erh a rd M a y e r: H e r r s c h a f t u n d V e r w a l t u n g im K r e u z f a h r e r k ö n i g r e i c h
J e r u s a l e m (in V o r b e r e i t u n g )
44 P eter B lickle: R e f o r m a t i o n u n d k o m m u n a l e r G eist. D i e A n t w o r t d e r T h e o l o g e n
a u f d e n W a n d e l d e r V e r fa s s u n g im S p ä t m i t t e l a l t e r (in V o r b e r e i tu n g )
45 P eter K rü g er: W e g e u n d W i d e r s p r ü c h e d e r e u r o p ä i s c h e n I n t e g r a t i o n im 20. J a h r
h u n d e r t , 1995, 39 S.
46
W ern er G reiling: „ I n t e l l i g e n z b l ä t t e r “ u n d g e s e l l s c h a f t l i c h e r W a n d e l in T h ü r i n g e n .
A nzeigenw esen, N a c h ric h te n v e rm ittlu n g ,R ä so n n e m e n t u n d S ozialdisziplinie
r u n g , 1995, 38 S.
47 M a n lio B ello m o : G e s c h i c h t e e in e s M a n n e s : B a r t o l u s v o n S a s s o f e r r a t o u n d die
A n f ä n g e d e r m o d e r n e n e u r o p ä i s c h e n J u r i s p r u d e n z (in V o r b e r e i t u n g )
48 F ra n tise k S m a h e l: D a s v e r l o r e n e I d e a l d e r S t a d t in d e r b ö h m i s c h e n R e f o r m a t i o n
49 A lfr e d H a v e r k a m p : , , . . . a n d i e g r o ß e G l o c k e h ä n g e n “ . Ü b e r Ö f f e n t l i c h k e i t im
M i t t e l a l t e r (in V o r b e r e i t u n g )
50 H a n s -C h r is to f K r a u s: M o n t e s q u i e u , B l a c k s t o n e , D e L o l m e u n d d ie e n g l i s c h e V e r
f a s s u n g d e s 18. J a h r h u n d e r t s
Schriften des H istorischen K ollegs: D okum entationen
1 S t i ft u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o lle g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d für d i e D e u t s c h e W issen sch aftE rste V e r l e i h u n g d e s Pre ises d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n K o lleg s . A u f g a b e n Stinen
S c h r i ft e n des H i s t o r i s c h e n K o lle g s , 1984, VI, 70 S., mit A b b i l d u n g e n
“ '■uüiigtn
vergriffen
2 T h e o d o r - S c h i e d e r - G e d ä c h t n i s v o r l e s u n g : H o r s t Fuhrmann, Das Interesse '
Mittelalter in heutiger Zeit. Beobachtungen und Vermutungen - Lothar r i l l
T h e o d o r S c h i e d e r 1908 bis 1984, 1987, 65 S.
°
‘
’
vergriffen
3 L e o p o l d vo n R a n k e : V o r t r ä g e a n l ä ß l i c h se in es 100. T o d e s ta g e s . G e d e n k f e i e r d er
H i s t o r i s c h e n K o m m i s s i o n bei d e r B a y e ris c h e n A k a d e m i e d e r W i s s e n s c h a f te n u n d
d e r S t i ft u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o l l e g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d f ü r die D e u t s c h e W is sen s ch aft
a m 12. M a i 1986, 1 9 8 7 , 4 4 S.
'
'
‘
4 S t i ft u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o lle g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d für die D e u t s c h e W is sen s ch aftZ w e i t e V e r l e i h u n g d e s Pre ises d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n K o llegs. A u f g a b e n , S t i p e n d i a t e n
S c h r i ft e n d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n K ollegs, 1987, 98 S., m it A b b i l d u n g e n
5 T h e o d o r - S c h i e d e r - G e d ä c h t n i s v o r l e s u n g : T h o m a s N i p p e r d e y , R e lig io n u n d G e
se lls ch af t: D e u t s c h l a n d u m 1900, 1988, 29 S.
"
vergriffen
6 T h e o d o r - S c h i e d e r - G e d ä c h t n i s v o r l e s u n g : C h r i s t i a n M e ier, Die R olle d es Krieges
im k la s sisc h e n A t h e n , 1991, 55 S.
7 S t i ft u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o lle g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d fü r die D e u t s c h e W is se n s c h a f t:
D r i t te V e r l e i h u n g d e s P re ises d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n Kollegs. A u f g a b e n , S ti p e n d i a t e n ,
S c h r ifte n d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n K o lleg s , 1991, 122 S., m it A b b i l d u n g en
vergriffen
8 S t i ft u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o lle g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d für d ie D e u t s c h e W is se n s c h a f t:
H i sto r isc h e s K o l l e g 198 0-1990. V o r t r ä g e a n l ä ß l i c h d e s z e h n j ä h r i g e n Bestehens
u n d z u m G e d e n k e n a n A l f re d H e r r h a u s e n , 1991, 63 S.
9 T h e o d o r - S c h i e d e r - G e d ä c h t n i s v o r l e s u t i g : K arl Leyser, A m V o r a b e n d d er
e rsten e u r o p ä i s c h e n R e v o lu t i o n . D a s 11. J a h r h u n d e r t als A u f b ru c h s z e i t ,
1994, 32 S.
10 S t i f t u n g H i s t o r i s c h e s K o l l e g im S t i f t e r v e r b a n d für d ie D e u t s c h e W is se n s c h a f t:
V ierte V e r l e i h u n g d e s Pre ises d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n Kollegs . A u f g a b e n , S t i p e n d i a t e n ,
S c h r i ft e n d es H i s t o r i s c h e n K o llegs, 1993, 98 S., mit A b b i l d u n g e n
11 T h e o d o r - S c h i e d e r - G e d ä c h t n i s v o r l e s u n g : R u d o l i S m e n d , M o s e als g eschich tlic he
G e s t a l t , 1995, 23 S.
D ie V o r t r ä g e u n d D o k u m e n t a t i o n e n e r s c h e in e n n ich t im B u c h h a n d e l :
sie k ö n n e n ü b e r d ie G e s c h ä fts s te lle d e s H isto risc h e n K o lle g s ( K a u lb a c h s tr a ß e 15,
805 39 M ü n c h e n ) b e z o g e n w e r d e n .

pdf des Bandes - Historisches Kolleg

Transcription

Similar documents