No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2018
Peter Lombard's influential commentary on the Pauline Epistles, the Collectanea in omnes divi Pauli epistolas, has received little extended analysis in scholarly literature, despite its recognized importance both in its own right and as key for the development of his Sentences. This article presents a new approach to studying the Collectanea by analyzing how Lombard's commentary builds on the Glossa “Ordinaria” on the Pauline Epistles. The article argues for treating the Collectanea as a “historical act,” focusing on how Lombard engages with the biblical text and with authoritative sources within which he encounters the same biblical text embedded. The article further argues for the necessity of turning to the manuscripts of both the Collectanea and the Glossa, rather than continuing to rely on inadequate early modern printed editions or the Patrologia Latina. The article then uses Lombard's discussion of faith at Romans 1:17 as a case study, demonstrating the way in which Lombard begins from the Glossa, clarifies its ambiguities, and moves his analysis forward through his use of other auctoritates and theological quaestiones. A comparison with Lombard's treatment of faith in the Sentences highlights the close links between Lombard's biblical lectures and this later work. The article concludes by arguing that scholastic biblical exegesis and theology should be treated as primarily a classroom activity, with the glossed Bible as the central focus. Discussion of Lombard's work should draw on much recent scholarship that has begun to uncover the layers of orality within the textual history of scholastic works.
1 “Paucis annis (c. 1175) post mortem Petri Langobardi [sic], quidam anonymus abbatiae probabiliter Aquicinensis (Anchin) diocesis Atrebatensis eum aestimavit Scripturarum expositoribus illius temporis maxime praeferendum ‘eo quod ingenio sagaci et usu assiduo tanta in exponendis Scripturis luce claruerit ut pene magisterio doctoris non egeat qui glosarum ipsius lectioni animum intendere voluerit’” (Brady, Ignatius, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae; Tom. I, Pars I: Prolegomena [Grottaferrata, 1971]Google Scholar, 62*).
2 See Stegmüller, Friedrich, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1950–80)Google Scholar, 4:319–38. The title of Lombard's Pauline commentary is variously listed by Stegmüller as Glossa continua, Maiores glossae, Glossatura maior, or Magna glossatura Rom.-Hebr. He also includes the title given in PL 191, the Collectanea in omnes divi Pauli epistolas (Stegmüller, Repertorium, 4:336).
3 “HIC IACET MAGISTER PETRUS LOMBARDUS PARISIENSIS EPISCOPUS, QUI COMPOSUIT LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM, GLOSSAS PSALMORUM ET EPISTOLARUM CUIUS OBITUS DIES EST XIII KAL. AUGUSTI” (Here lies Master Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, who composed the book of Sentences [and] the glosses on the Psalms and the Epistles, the day of whose death is on the thirteenth day before the kalends of August [i.e., July 20]) (quoted in Brady, Prolegomena, 43*, translation mine).
4 For Stephen Langton's Postillae on the Pauline Epistles, see esp. Dahan, Gilbert, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, ed. Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, Bériou, Nicole, Dahan, Gilbert, and Quinto, Riccardo (Turnhout, 2010), 201–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 The most thorough recent account of Lombard's life and works is Doyle, Matthew, Peter Lombard and His Students (Toronto, 2016), 1–112Google Scholar, which builds extensively on earlier chronological and biographical work by Joseph de Ghellinck, Damien Van den Eynde, Ermenegildo Bertola, Philippe Delhaye, and especially Ignatius Brady. See Doyle's notes and bibliography for these references.
6 See Brady, Prolegomena, 46*–89*.
7 In the footnotes and indices of his edition of the Sentences, Brady meticulously documents the many places in which Lombard draws on the authorities, and frequently the actual discussions, present in his Collectanea. An example of this will occur below in my case study. This close relationship between Lombard's biblical work and his Sentences is strong evidence that the practice of theology in the twelfth century was inseparably linked to the study and teaching of the Bible.
8 For the Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles, see esp. Colish, Marcia L., Peter Lombard, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1994), 1:155–58Google Scholar, 189–225, which builds on her earlier articles: “From sacra pagina to theologia: Peter Lombard as an Exegete of Romans,” Medieval Perspectives 6 (1992): 1–19Google Scholar, and “Peter Lombard as an Exegete of St. Paul,” in Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and Their Medieval Readers, ed. Emery, Kent Jr. and Jordan, Mark D. (Notre Dame, IN, 1992), 71–92Google Scholar. See also her more recent discussion of faith in the Collectanea: “Faith in Peter Lombard's Collectanea,” in “Fides virtus”: The Virtue of Faith from the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century, ed. Forlivesi, Marco, Quinto, Riccardo, and Vecchio, Silvana (Münster, 2014), 39–51Google Scholar. For her discussion of the Collectanea on the Psalms, see Colish, Peter Lombard, 1:155–88, which builds on her earlier article, “Psalterium Scholasticorum: Peter Lombard and the Emergence of Scholastic Psalms Exegesis,” Speculum 67 (1991): 531–48Google Scholar.
9 For some brief discussions of the Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles, see, for example, Doyle, Peter Lombard, 90–94; Levy, Ian Christopher, The Letter to the Galatians, Bible in Medieval Tradition (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 2011), 52–55Google Scholar, with a translation of the PL version of the Collectanea on Galatians 2 at 185–206; Levy, , The Letter to the Romans, Bible in Medieval Tradition (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 2013), 33–34Google Scholar, with a translation of the PL version of Lombard's prologue to Romans at 59–64; Rosemann, Philipp W., Peter Lombard (Oxford, 2004), 44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two extremely useful articles to which I will refer at greater length below are Dahan, Gilbert, “Le Livre des Sentences et l'exégèse biblique,” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8–10 ottobre 2006 (Spoleto, 2007), 333–60Google Scholar, and Mark A. Zier, “Peter Lombard and the Glossa Ordinaria: A Missing Link?,” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno, 361–409. For the Collectanea on the Psalms, see Patrizia Stoppacci, “Le Glossa continuae in Psalmos di Pietro Lombardo: Status quaestionis; studi pregressi e prospettive di ricerca,” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno, 289–331.
10 Rosemann, Philipp W., “New Interest in Peter Lombard: The Current State of Research and Some Desiderata for the Future,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 72 (2005): 133–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 145.
11 The term “ordinaria” is a later term and does not in any case accurately depict the twelfth-century reality of the Glossa. See, for example, the cautionary comments made in Smith, Lesley, The “Glossa Ordinaria”: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden, 2009), 12–16Google Scholar.
12 Cf., for example, Andrée, Alexander, “Peter Comestor's Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria’ on the Gospel of John: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-Century Classroom,” Traditio 71 (2016): 203–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 205; Froehlich, Karlfried, “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament in the High Middle Ages,” in Biblical Interpretation from the Church Fathers to the Reformation, Variorum Collected Studies (Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, 2010), 504Google Scholar; Van Engen, John, “Studying Scripture in the Early University,” in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. Lerner, Robert E., Schriften des historischen Kollegs Kolloquien 32 (Munich, 1996), 17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 24–25.
13 This perspective is certainly not entirely absent from other scholarly discussions of the Collectanea — Colish's discussion of Lombard's methodology is precisely geared towards unpacking how he engaged with Paul in a more robust and attentive manner than other twelfth-century commentaries, while the statement that Lombard lectured on the Pauline Epistles is common (e.g., Brady, , Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae; Tom. II [Grottaferrata, 1981]Google Scholar, 19*; Colish, Peter Lombard, 1:24; Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 45). Nevertheless, much more detailed work is required if we are to determine exactly how the text of the Collectanea relates to Lombard's classroom lectures and what it might mean to treat the Collectanea as reflecting the oral culture of the classroom.
14 “Nam cum hec opera scriberet, nequaquam, sicut ipsomet referente didici, ipsi venit in mentem, quod in scolis publicis legerentur; solum ob id facta, ut antiquioris glosatoris, magistri videlicet anselmi laudunensis, brevitatem elucidarent obscuram” (Glunz, H. H., History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon: Being an Inquiry into the Text of Some English Manuscripts of the Vulgate Gospels [Cambridge, 1933], 343Google Scholar). It is not entirely clear whether this comment is meant to refer only to the Collectanea on the Psalms or also to that on the Pauline Epistles, although most scholars assume it refers to both. Either way, as will be shown below, it is clear that Lombard's starting point in the Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles is the Glossa on the Pauline Epistles.
15 See Brady, Prolegomena (n. 1 above), 82*–83*, including his argument for placing these works in 1168 rather than in 1142.
16 “Petrus … etiam glosaturam super psalterium et epistolas Pauli ab Anselmo per glosulas interlineales marginalesque distinctam, post a Gisleberto continuative productam, latius apertiusque explicuit” (quoted in Brady, Prolegomena, 74*).
17 “Nam cum [Lombardus] esset inter Franciae magistros opinatissimus, glossaturam epistolarum et psalterii ab Anselmo per glossulas interlineares marginalesque distinctam et post a Gilberto continuative productam latius et apertius explicuit multaque de dictis sanctorum addidit” (quoted in Brady, Prolegomena, 53* n. 1).
18 Smalley, Beryl, “A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS. Pembroke College, Cambridge 7,” Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1938): 103–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 109.
19 Glunz, Vulgate, 214–15.
20 Smalley, , “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the ‘Glossa Ordinaria,’” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935): 235–62Google Scholar [Part 1]; 8 (1936): 24–60 [Part 2], at 36. According to Smalley, Glunz retracted his thesis in his correspondence with her (Smalley, “Collection of Paris Lectures,” 109). Smalley's arguments against Glunz's hypothesis in the two articles just cited remain convincing. Glunz's argument essentially rests on a belief that it is untenable “that the Lombard had adhered to his original so faithfully as to keep the whole text word for word.” However, as Smalley points out, “the Lombard's attitude is fully explained by the veneration which the twelfth-century scholars, a free lance like Abailard [sic] excepted, felt for Master Anselm. Recent studies too are showing how widespread a practice it was to build on the text of one's predecessors” (Smalley, “Collection of Paris Lectures,” 109). One could also note that Herbert of Bosham and the other medieval witnesses quoted above explicitly state that Lombard was “explicating” the Glossa — if the text he is discussing is the Glossa, and the point is to explain it, then there is nothing odd about that text being fully incorporated into his own. Further, recent work, emphasizing the originally oral nature of twelfth-century biblical commentaries, has demonstrated even more clearly how masters built on the works of their predecessors and how masters lectured on the glossed texts. See, for example, Alexander Andrée, “Peter Comestor's Lectures”; Clark, Mark J., “Peter Comestor and Stephen Langton: Master and Student, and Co-Makers of the Historia Scholastica,” Medioevo 35 (2010):123–49Google Scholar; and Clark, , The Making of the Historia scholastica, 1150–1200 (Toronto, 2015)Google Scholar.
21 Biblica Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princepts, Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/1, introd. Froehlich, Karfried and Gibson, Margaret T., 4 vols. (Turnhout, 1992)Google Scholar; PL 191 and 192.
22 For instance, Beryl Smalley expresses the opinion that “Lombard is simply glossing and completing the Gloss” (Smalley, “Collection of Paris Lectures,” 109). Lesley Smith, after comparing the Glossa and the Collectanea on Rom. 3:1–3 in order to give “a sense of the proportion of Gloss to non-Gloss text” in the latter work, similarly concludes that the Collectanea is “on the whole a clarification and enlargement of the Gloss, rather than a departure from it” (Smith, Glossa Ordinaria [n. 11 above], 202, 203). Both Smalley and Smith, of course, are primarily concerned with the Glossa and its use, not with Lombard's methodology. Mark Zier very usefully compares Lombard to the twelfth-century Glossa and to Rusch in order to show how the Rusch text includes extensive material added to the Glossa from the Collectanea; his insights are invaluable pointers towards the necessity of returning to the manuscripts, but they do not contain any analysis of Lombard's use of the Glossa (Zier, “A Missing Link” [n. 10 above]).
23 Marcia Colish is the most thorough in assessing Lombard's approach to biblical exegesis, but her emphasis lies elsewhere than with Lombard's use of the Glossa; she is interested in determining how Lombard's approach improved upon other Pauline exegesis of the time and how it points forward to his approach in the Sentences. As such, while she notes a few places where Lombard's analysis begins from the Glossa, she focuses on the ways his approach moves beyond it (for example, Colish, Peter Lombard [n. 8 above], 1:197, 201; Colish, “Lombard as Exegete of St. Paul” [n. 8 above], 74). Philipp Rosemann characterizes the Collectanea as Lombard's “revision of the Gloss on the Pauline Epistles” and focuses on how many authorities Lombard adds before turning to Lombard's theological discussions and their relationship to the Sentences — again, the Glossa is something to be mentioned and left behind in assessing Lombard's approach (Rosemann, Peter Lombard [n. 9 above], 44–48). Gilbert Dahan provides an illuminating study of Lombard's exegetical approach in the Sentences, which includes a comparison of several excerpts from the Collectanea on Galatians to passages from the Sentences, arguing for a close link between “exegesis” and “theology” in Lombard, but his focus is on the connection between the Collectanea and the Sentences, not with Lombard's approach to explicating Paul (Dahan, “Livre des Sentences” [n. 10 above]).
24 For similar insights pointing to the centrality of the Bible in scholastic theology, see, for example, Andrée, “Peter Comestor's Lectures” (n. 12 above); Clark, Mark J., “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed,” Traditio 60 (2005): 85–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dahan, “Livre des Sentences”; Henri de Lubac, Exégèse médièvale: Les quatre sens de l’Écriture, 4 vols. (Paris, 1959–64), 1:59–60, 111; G. Paré, A. Brunet, and P. Tremblay, La renaissance du XIIe siècle: Les écoles et l'enseignement, Publications de l'Institut d’Études Médiévales d'Ottawa 3 (Paris and Ottawa, 1933), 213; and Saccenti, Riccardo, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum Attributed to Peter Comestor: Study of the Text and Critical Edition,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 54 (2012): 155–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Ginther, James R., “There is a Text in This Classroom: The Bible and Theology in the Medieval University,” in Essays in Medieval Philosophy and Theology in Memory of Walter H. Principe, CSB: Fortresses and Launching Pads, ed. Ginther, James R. and Still, Carl N. (Aldershot, UK, 2005), 31–51Google Scholar, at 35.
26 Ginther, “Bible and Theology,” 34.
27 Scholarly comments on the Collectanea can sometimes imply such a view of Lombard's practice, as, for example: “Early in his teaching career, Peter Lombard began making commentaries on the Psalms and Pauline Epistles, using the Gloss as a source, and incorporating all of the Gloss material into his own work” (Smith, Glossa Ordinaria, 78); “Die Quellenanalyse ergibt: Die ‘magna glossatura’ des Lombarden zu Röm. 13, 1–7 ist eine reine Kompilation. Hauptquelle ist die ‘parva glossatura’ Anselms, die Petrus Lombardus fast ganz übernimmt wobei er überwiegend wörtlich zitiert” (Affeldt, Werner, Die weltliche Gewalt in der Paulus-Exegese: Röm. 13, 1–7 in den Römerbriefkommentaren der lateinischen Kirche bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts [Göttingen, 1969], 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar); “Sicut Glossa Anselmi in Psalmos inter fontes primarios Glossae Lombardi in eosdem … sic et Glossa Anselmi in Apostolum, eius brevitate non obstante, quasi incorporatur in Glossatura Magistri et inde transit etiam in libros Sententiarum” (Brady, Prolegomena [n. 1 above], 75*).
28 Cf. Colish, Peter Lombard, 1:197, 201; Colish, “Lombard as Exegete of St. Paul,” 74.
29 These two aspects of the Collectanea have been the major focal points of most scholarly interactions with it. Colish (Peter Lombard, 1:193), for example, notes that Lombard's extensive quotation from authorities sets him apart from other Pauline commentators and, further, that Lombard goes beyond simple citation to engage critically with these authorities and to resolve apparent contradictions between them (Colish, Peter Lombard, 1:207–8).
30 “By pointing to these textual influences, we must do much more than just simple source criticism, for it is here that the idea of the dispersed text is a force with which we must reckon. We need to dispense with the image of medieval exegesis as a two step process: read the text, and then read the sources. Instead, these two steps could happen simultaneously. We ought to envision in what context the expositor has experienced the text now before his exegetical eye. Is it, for example, a central text to a specific liturgical feast or function? Does the master encounter the text either in part or in whole in the patristic sources he has consulted? In what context does the Glossa ordinaria place the lemma at hand? Is the exegete quoting from a canon law collection, and in what way does that section of canon law focus his exegesis? And finally, in what ways do the guidelines for spiritual exegesis shape his interpretation? … Even if we can answer these questions in part, we may at least be able to see how and why the teaching master has employed other passages of the sacred text as a means of expounding the lemma under scrutiny. We need to have a careful look at how the interpreting portion of Scripture arrives in the mind of the exegete, for as a dispersed text a biblical citation was normally embraced as part of another text or context. Understanding the way in which a biblical lemma is received is a fundamental factor for describing medieval exegesis as a historical event” (Ginther, “Bible and Theology,” 37–38).
31 See discussion and references in my conclusion below.
32 The Glossa Ordinaria in general remains underinvestigated, with most scholarly treatments of it still basing themselves on Beryl Smalley's ground-breaking work in the first half of the twentieth century. More recently, there have been efforts to return to the manuscripts and advance our understanding of the field on a book-by-book basis and through the lens of the Glossa’s use in the classroom. See, for example, the discussion by Alexander Andrée in his “Peter Comestor's Lectures” and the scholarship he cites on the Glossa on Genesis, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Apocalypse, and the Gospels of Matthew and John. For Smalley's research, see esp. Beryl Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis” (n. 20 above); Smalley, , “La Glossa Ordinaria: Quelques prédécesseurs d'Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 9 (1937): 365–400Google Scholar; Smalley, , “Les commentaires bibliques de l’époque romane: gloses ordinaire et gloses périmées,” Cahiers de civilization medievale 4 (1961): 15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smalley, Study of the Bible. The most extensive recent treatment of the Glossa, which summarizes and builds on Smalley's scholarship, is Lesley Smith's Glossa Ordinaria (n. 11 above); for a discussion and partial critique of some of Smith's claims, see Andrée, Alexander, “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century,” Journal of Medieval Latin 22 (2012): 257–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 See Andrée, “Peter Comestor's Lectures,” 206–7 and the references found there.
34 Smalley sets out the evidence in favor of Anselm's authorship of the Pauline Glossa in the second part of her article “Gilbertus Univeralis.” Although she concludes that “we can hardly deny to Anselm the authorship of the Glossa on the Psalter and St. Paul” (34), she also admits that she was unable to find any manuscripts of the Glossa on the Pauline Epistles that attribute it to Anselm (32). Further, we cannot yet know whether what we have in the manuscripts of the Pauline Glossa is in fact Anselm's own composition, a distillation of his teaching made by his students, or an abbreviation of a continuous commentary perhaps written by Anselm. A recent monograph by Cédric Giraud has shown how the collections of sentences attributed to Anselm were not his compositions but were compiled from his teaching by his students (Giraud, Cédric, Per verba magistri: Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle [Turnhout, 2010]CrossRefGoogle Scholar); work by Alexander Andrée on the Glossa on John has shown how that text was abbreviated from an earlier continuous commentary from the school of Laon (Andrée, , “Anselm of Laon Unveiled: The Glosae super Iohannem and the Origins of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Bible,” Mediaeval Studies 73 [2011]: 217–60Google Scholar). It seems more likely that the Pauline Glossa was composed in one of these ways rather than that Anselm was its author; in any event, the exact nature of his relationship to the Pauline Glossa has not been established. Cf. Alexander Andrée, “Laon Revisited,” 274: “Thus there is no doubt that Anselm was associated with the glossing of Scripture; but jumping from that to the claim that he produced the Glossa on any particular book is quite a large leap. We just do not know in what precise way he was involved. The case seems to parallel that of the collections of sentences studied by Giraud: though these certainly transmit the teachings and memory of Anselm, the master had very little to do with their actual compilation. Judging by available evidence, it would seem that the Glossa is a similar testimony to the teachings of the Master and his school, and was thus gathered by his students rather than by the Master himself.”
35 The manuscripts in question are Reims, BM 195; Reims, BM 196; Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 125; and Oxford, Christ Church 95. See Stirnemann, Patricia, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la Glose Ordinaire dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle?,” in Le XIIe siècle: Mutations et renouveau en France dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle, ed. Gasparri, Françoise (Paris, 1994), 257–301Google Scholar, at 261–62.
36 The two manuscripts are Paris, BNF MS Lat. 14409 and Troyes, BM 512 (Stirnemann, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres,” 266–68). The latter manuscript was a part of the set of glossed books donated by “Henry, the king's son” to Clairvaux when he entered the abbey in 1146 (264–65).
37 The more specific dating is from Stirnemann, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres,” 261–68, and Martin Morard, “Principaux manuscrits de la Bible glosée des XIIe et XIIIe siècle,” Glossae.net, Gloses et Commentaires de la Bible au Moyen Âge: Portail de Ressources Numériques, last updated 12 January 2016, http://glossae.net/fr/content/manuscrits-de-la-bible-glos-e-des-xiie-et-xiiie-si-cle. The dates of the other manuscripts are those provided by the catalogues in their respective libraries.
38 Cf. Smith, Glossa Ordinaria, 15. This has not been sufficiently noted in scholarship, with some scholars stating that the Rusch edition contains the early version of the Glossa. See, for example, Margaret T. Gibson, “The Glossed Bible,” in Biblia Latina, 1:ix n. 32; and Smith, Lesley, “The Glossed Bible,” in New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, From 600 to 1450, ed. Marsden, Richard and Matter, E. Ann (Cambridge, 2012), 363–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 370. Zier's analysis, cited below, has demonstrated that this is not the case. Nevertheless Rusch is still frequently used as a witness to the twelfth-century text, including in comparisons between Lombard and the Glossa — for example, in Smith, Glossa Ordinaria, 202–3; and Woodward, Michael Scott, trans., The Glossa Ordinaria on Romans (Kalamazoo, 2011), xvii–xxGoogle Scholar.
39 Mark A. Zier, “A Missing Link” (n. 10 above). In comparing the text of the Glossa, Lombard, and Rusch on Rom. 1:1–7, Zier found not only that the Rusch text “is several times the length of the text as it is found in the 12th and 13th century manuscripts,” but that Lombard's Collectanea contains both the text of the Gloss from the manuscripts and “virtually all of the additional text as it appears in the Rusch edition” (Zier, “Missing Link,” 363–64). Hence, “with respect to the manuscripts of the Gloss, Peter seems to have incorporated virtually all of the material found there, either glossing the Gloss or expanding citations that had been abbreviated in the Gloss. But it seems most likely that Peter's text, in turn, became a principal source for the additional text found in the Rusch edition of the Gloss.” How this occurred is not at all clear, since there is “an apparent lack of manuscript witnesses to the full text of the Rusch edition” (Zier, “Missing Link,” 380–81).
40 Brady, Prolegomena (n. 1 above), 65*. Looking at manuscripts in Paris and in the Vatican, Brady identified four that appeared to represent the versio primitiva and fifteen of the textus receptus. For descriptions of these manuscripts, see Brady, Prolegomena, 66*–71*.
41 The differences between the two versions are generally minor; however, he did identify a few brief treatises on theological topics that are present in the versio primitiva but not in the textus receptus — they had been removed and instead utilized in the Sentences (see Brady, Prolegomena, 86*–88*). In particular, Brady identified three such treatises in Romans — a lengthy treatise on the incarnation of the Word at 1:3, a treatise on the Trinity and the sin against the Holy Spirit at 1:20, and a treatise on the procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit at 11:36. Using several manuscripts not consulted by Brady, I divided these into versio primitiva or textus receptus based on the presence or absence of these three treatises. Brady provides transcriptions of the treatise De processione Filii et Spiritus Sancti in the Prolegomena to his first volume of the Sentences (90*–93*), and of De incarnatione in the Prolegomena to his second volume (54*–77*); the treatises on the Trinity and on the sin against the Holy Spirit at Romans 1:20 are provided in footnotes to the two places in the Sentences where Lombard draws on them (1.34.4 and 2.43.11, respectively).
42 Non enim erubesco evangelium. Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Iudaeo primum et Graeco. Iusticia enim Dei in eo reuelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est: “Iustus ex fide uiuit.”
43 Critical text and apparatus here includes CC, 2r; L1, 1v; L2, 6v; L3, 3r; L4, 2v; Re1, 7r; Tr1, 5r–5v; Tr2, 8v; Tr3, 2r; Vg1, 2v–3r.
44 est] om. L3
45 in] om. L1 L2
46 iusticiam] iustitia L3
47 est] om. Tr2
48 non ex lege] om. CC
49 ex fide … ex lege] ex fide est iusticia et ita salus, sicut abacuc dicit: “Iustus est ex fide,” et ita uiuit uita aeterna CC ex fide est iusticia et ita salus, sicut abacuc dicit Tr1 ex fide est iusticia et ita salus, sicut abacuc dicit L4
50 iustus est … vita] “Iustus est ex fide,” et ita uiuit aeterna uita non ex lege Tr1 “Iustus est ex fide,” et ita uiuit aeterna uita L4 non ex lege add. in alia manu L4
51 qua] quae CC Tr1 qua corr. ad quae L3 Tr3 qua uel quae L2
52 quam2] quem L1
53 qui credit ei] credentis CC Tr1
54 ex fidei … credit ei] part of gloss 2 CC separate gloss Tr1
55 fidem] fide L4 Vg1
56 redditionis] redemptionis L1 Tr2 redemptionis corr. ad reditionis Tr1 reditionis corr. ad redemptionis L2
57 predicatorum] predicantium Re1
58 ei] eius Re1
59 in fidem rerum] in fide rerum L1
60 qua] quam CC
61 creduntur quae] creduntur ea quae Vg1
62 credimus] om. Tr1
63 quae non uidemus] quod non uidemus L2 L3 Re1 Tr3 Vg1
64 fides est … obtinebimus] om. L1
65 Ambrosiaster, In Epist. ad Rom. 1:17, recension ƴ, sec. 1–3 (CSEL 81:37–39).
66 Phil. 3:9.
67 Critical text here includes A1, 11ra–11va; A2, 6vb–7ra; P1, 14va–15rb; P2, 7r–7v; R1, 6v–7r; TC1, 10va–11rb; TC2, 7va–8ra; TC3, 15rb–15vb; TC4, 10ra–10rb; TC5, 8r–8v; V1, 11rb–vb; and V2, 6vb–7rb.
68 IN EO1] om. P1
69 EX FIDE UIUIT] EX SUA FIDE UIUIT P2
70 ENIM DEI … FIDE UIUIT] om. TC1
71 EX FIDE IN FIDEM … FIDE UIUIT] om. TC3
72 Quasi dicat] IUSTITIA ENIM DEI, etc. Quasi dicat TC2 TC 4
73 credenti] omni credenti TC3 TC 4 TC 5
74 ei] om. V2
75 euangelio] scilicet euangelio A1 P1 P2
76 Iusticia] Iusticia enim P1 TC4 5
77 qua] quod TC1
78 dicit] ait P1
79 meam] illam R1 TC3
80 Phil. 3:9.
81 uelata] uelata est A1 P1 P 2 TC1
82 nouo] nouo testamento A2 TC4
83 dei] om. V1
84 faciat] facit TC2
85 Augustine, Spir. et litt. 11.18 (CSEL 60:170–71).
86 uerbo] uerbo ipso TC4
87 Matt. 16:16.
88 Cf. Haymo of Halberstat (incorrect attribution; actually Haimo of Auxerre), Expositio in divini Pauli epistolas: In epistolam ad Romanos (PL 117:361–508, at 372D): “Justitia Dei, id est justificatio qua justificat in se credentes, in Evangelio manifestatur dum dicitur. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus, id est justus, erit.”
89 Interlinear gloss (a) in chart above.
90 quia] qua TC4 V2
91 IN EO] IN EO id est in homine P1
92 credit] crediderunt A1
93 probat] probat et ueracem in promissis TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 V1
94 hic] hoc TC1 V1
95 deus] deus pater P2
96 euangelium] om. P1 R1 TC1 TC3 V1
97 scilicet] om. A1 V2
98 IUSTICIA DEI] om. V1
99 id est] om. P2
100 ueracem deum] ueracem esse deum TC4
101 deum] christum A1
102 eum] deum TC2
103 subdit] subditur V1
104 Ambrosiaster, In Epist. ad Rom. 1:17, recension ƴ, sec. 1–3 (CSEL 81:37–39).
105 alteram] aliam V2
106 hoc dicit] id est A2
107 per fidem] fide TC1
108 noui] noui testamenti P1
109 erit] est TC3
110 ut credat] ut scilicet credat V1
111 deum promisisse] deum uerum promisisse P1
112 reddidisse] redisse TC4
113 populorum] apostolorum P2
114 credat] credant A1 R1 TC1 TC 2 TC 3
115 credunt] crediderunt TC1
116 cum] quando TC1
117 prebebit ipsa] prebebit et ipsa TC1
118 Cf. Florus of Lyons, Expositiones epistolarum beati Pauli apostoli ex libris sancti Augustini doctoris eximi a quodam Floro collecte (Paris, BNF MS Lat. 11575, 3va): “Intelligitur quidem fides qua creduntur ea quae non uidentur: sed tamen est etiam fides rerum quando non uerbis sed rebus ipsis presentibus creditur. Quod futurum est: cum iam per speciem manifestam se contemplandam prebebit sanctis ipsa dei sapientia per quam facta sunt omnia.” From Augustine, Quest. ev. 2.39.2–8 (CCL 44B): “Quod dixerunt discipuli: Domine, auge nobis fidem (Luke 17:5), potest quidem intellegi hanc fidem sibi eos augeri postulasse, qua creduntur ea quae non uidentur; sed tamen dicitur etiam fides rerum, quando non uerbis sed rebus ipsis praesentibus creditur, quod futurum est, cum iam per speciem manifestam se contemplandam praebebit sanctis ipsa dei sapientia per quam facta sunt omnia.” See also Summa sententiarum septem tractatibus distincta (PL 176: 41–174, at 44D): “Idem Augustinus in libro Quaestionum Evangeliorum: Est etiam fides rerum, quando non verbis, sed rebus ipsis praesentibus creditur; cum jam per speciem manifestam se contemplandam praebebit sanctis ipsa Dei sapientia. De qua fide rerum lucisque ipsius praesentia forsitan Paulus dicit: Justitia enim Dei revelatur in eo ex fide in fidem.”
119 crederemus] credemus V1
120 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 59.8.5–7 (CCL 40).
121 obtinebimus] obtinebamus P1
122 Augustine, Quaest. ev. 2.39.15–17 (CCL 44B). Cf. Florus, Expositiones, 3va.
123 scilicet] om. TC1
124 ministratur] ministraui V1
125 Cf. Augustine, Quaest. ev. 2.39.39–43 (CCL 44B): “Quid haec pertineant ad id quod dictum est: ‘Domine, auge nobis fidem’ (Luke 17:5), difficile apparet, nisi intellegamus ex fide in fidem, id est ex fide ista qua ministratur deo in illam fidem eos significasse transferri ubi fruantur deo.” Cf. Florus, Expositiones, 3va.
126 The Summa’s authorship has been disputed, with some scholars opting for Otto of Lucca and others settling for the “Victorine Anonymous.” See Colish, Marcia L., “Otto of Lucca, Author of the Summa sententiarum?,” in Discovery and Distinction in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honor of John J. Contreni, ed. Chandler, Cullen J. and Stofferahn, Steven A. (Kalamazoo, 2013), 57–70Google Scholar. The Summa has been characterized as “a succinct compendium of Hugh [of St. Victor]’s teaching supplemented with significant patristic authorities as expounded by Anselm of Laon” that was “often critical of ideas being promoted by Peter Abelard” (Constant Mews, J. and Monagle, Clare, “Peter Lombard, Joachim of Fiore and the Fourth Lateran Council,” Medioevo 35 [2010]: 81–122Google Scholar, at 95–96).
127 “Videntur tamen quaedam auctoritates velle quod fides etiam de iis quae videntur sit, ut in Joanne Nunc autem dico vobis priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis (John 13:19)… . Idem Augustinus in libro Quaestionum Evangeliorum: Est etiam fides rerum, quando non verbis, sed rebus ipsis praesentibus creditur; cum jam per speciem manifestam se contemplandam praebebit sanctis ipsa Dei sapientia. De qua fide rerum lucisque ipsius praesentia forsitan Paulus dicit: Justitia enim Dei revelatur in eo ex fide in fidem (Rom. 1:17). Sed potest dici quod Augustinus hoc dicat, non de sacramento fidei, sed de re fidei. Est enim ipsa fides qua nunc Deum cernimus per speculum in aenigmate, sacramentum illius futurae visionis qua Deum videbimus facie ad faciem (1 Cor. 13:12)” (PL 176:44C–45A).
128 est] om. A2
129 accipiatur] dicatur A2
130 uirtus] uirtus mentis TC4
131 Cf. Summa (PL 176:44B–C): “Illud quoque sciendum est quod fides est solummodo de iis quae non videntur. Gregorius Homilia tertia: Apparentia non habent fidem, sed agnitionem. Item in Dialogo: Cum Paulus dicat: Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium (Heb. 11:1); hoc veraciter dicitur credit, quod non valet videri. Nam credi jam non potest, quod videri potest. Thomas aliud vidit, aliud credidit; hominem vidit, et Deum confessus est dicens: Deus meus et Dominus meus (John 20:28). Credimus ut cognoscamus; non cognoscimus, ut credamus. Quid est enim fides, nisi credere quod non vides? Fides ergo est quod non vides credere; veritas quod credidisti videre.”
132 et pro eo quo creditor … quod creditur] om. A2
133 et] om. TC1 TC3 TC5 V1 V2
134 demonum] demonium TC2
135 est] om. P2 V1
136 et] om. A1 R1
137 uirtutum] om. V2
138 ibi] hic P2
139 Ita et hic] Ita hic TC3 Et ita et hic A1 Et ita P1 R1 TC3
140 que] qua R1 TC1 V2
141 quasi] om. TC1
142 quod] quidem P2
143 inquiri] queri A2
144 succedat] succedit A1 TC2
145 qualitas] caritas A1 TC2 caritas corr. ad qualitas A2
146 uidetur] dicimus A2 TC4
147 autem fides] autem et fides V1
148 et] om. P2 TC1
149 Spes … futuris] add. in marg. P2
150 Cf. Summa (PL 176:44A–B): “Hoc distat inter fidem et spem, quod fides est de praeteritis, ut sunt nativitas et passio Christi; et de praesentibus, ut quod in altari est verum corpus Christi; et de futuris, ut est immortalitas. Spes autem de futuris tantum est; item fides est de bonis et malis; spes de bonis tantum adipiscendis.”
151 Cf. Summa (PL 176:44B–C): “Illud quoque sciendum est quod fides est solummodo de iis quae non videntur. Gregorius Homilia tertia: Apparentia non habent fidem, sed agnitionem. Item in Dialogo: Cum Paulus dicat: Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium (Heb. 11:1); hoc veraciter dicitur credit, quod non valet videri. Nam credi jam non potest, quod videri potest. Thomas aliud vidit, aliud credidit; hominem vidit, et Deum confessus est dicens: Deus meus et Dominus meus (John 20:28). Credimus ut cognoscamus; non cognoscimus, ut credamus. Quid est enim fides, nisi credere quod non vides? Fides ergo est quod non vides credere; veritas quod credidisti videre.”
152 Cf. Summa (PL 176:45A–B): “Solet quaeri de fide utrum sit virtus. Prosper ex dictis Augustini: Tres sunt, inquit, summae virtutes, fides, spes, charitas. Et Apostolus: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam (Gal. 3:6). Item fides habet meritum; sed nihil habet meritum nisi virtus. Quidam tamen dicunt quod non sit virtus, propter illud Apostoli: Si habuero omnem fidem, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil sum (1 Cor. 13:2), ubi innuit quod fides sine charitate possit haberi; sed nulla virtus sine charitate potest esse. Sane tamen potest dici quod fides per dilectionem operans sit virtus, sine dilectione non est virtus. Si opponatur, tunc sunt duae fides: non sunt duae, sed eadem aucta, unde illud: Adauge in nobis fidem (Luke 17:5), ut enim dicit Hieronymus: Quantum credimus, tantum diligimus; et e diverso.”
153 Cf. Summa (PL 176:44A): “Ut enim dicit Augustinus in lib. De fide et operibus: Fides quae per dilectionem operatur, fundamentum est: non fides daemonum qua ipsi credunt et contremiscunt.”
154 When discussing the same question in the Sentences, although he reiterates his claim that “utrumlibet sine periculo dici potest,” Lombard indicates that he prefers the former solution: “Mihi tamen videtur quod illa qualitas quae prius erat, remaneat, et accessu caritatis virtus fiat” (Lombard, Sent. 3.23.5 [n. 13 above]).
155 Cf. Summa (PL 176:44A–B): “Hoc distat inter fidem et spem, quod fides est de praeteritis, ut sunt nativitas et passio Christi; et de praesentibus, ut quod in altari est verum corpus Christi; et de futuris, ut est immortalitas. Spes autem de futuris tantum est; item fides est de bonis et malis; spes de bonis tantum adipiscendis.”
156 Marcia Colish (Peter Lombard, 1:195) has emphasized that Lombard's theological “excursions” arise organically and do not take him very far from the biblical text. We can see precisely this in this example; in addition, however, we also see how his attentiveness to the biblical text is attentivenesss to biblical text + Glossa and follows the Summa sententiarum, within which he would have encountered this same verse embedded within a discussion of faith.
157 “Fides est virtus qua creduntur quae non videntur” (Lombard, Sent. 3.23.2). Translations from the Sentences are from Lombard, Peter, The Sentences, trans. Silano, Giulio, 4 vols. (Toronto, 2007–10)Google Scholar.
158 Lombard, Sent. 3.23.3–5.
159 Lombard, Sent. 3.23.6.
160 Lombard, Sent. 3.23.7–8.
161 Lombard, Sent. 3.23.9.
162 Ginther, “Bible and Theology” (n. 25 above), 38.
163 Andrée, “Peter Comestor's Lectures” (n. 12 above), 205, 229.
164 Cf., e.g., Doyle, Lombard and Students (n. 5 above), 36, 107; and Rosemann, Peter Lombard (n. 9 above), 43.
165 For Brady's reasoning, see Prolegomena (n. 1 above), 83*–88*. His dating is accepted by, e.g., de Hamel, Christopher, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1984)Google Scholar, 7 n. 54; Doyle, Lombard and Students, 90; Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 225 n. 36; and Zier, Mark A., “Peter Lombard,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols. (New York, 1987), 9:516–17Google Scholar. Damien Van den Eynde dates the first recension earlier (“Essai chronologique sur l'oeuvre littéraire de Pierre Lombard,” in Miscellanea Lombardiana [Novara, 1957], 45–63, at 45, 53–55), in which he is followed by, e.g., Colish, Peter Lombard (n. 8 above), 1:23 n. 26.
166 See n. 41 above.
167 See n. 13 above.
168 Smith, Glossa Ordinaria (n. 11 above), 200.
169 For instance, “Peter warns his readers to ‘be careful that you understand in this way’ and to ‘therefore distinguish it in this way’” (Doyle, Lombard and Students, 91).
170 Constant Mews, J., “The Sententie of Peter Abelard,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 53 (1986): 130–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; repr. in Constant Mews, J., Abelard and His Legacy (Aldershot, UK, 2001)Google Scholar.
171 Mews, “Sententie,” 163. One of Hugh's students, Laurence, would take notes of Hugh's lectures, which Hugh would then correct each week; Hugh then used these corrected sententiae in composing the De sacramentis (Mews, “Sententie,” 160).
172 As suggested by Riccardo Saccenti in “Materia” (n. 24 above), 185–86, with examples.
173 “The increasing role of the reportatio as a means of literary production is certainly linked to the necessities and requirements of the students, but it is also a consequence of the progressive definition of the nature of the work of the masters. The system of the reportatio proved to be an efficient means of literary production for the preservation of a master's teaching and its diffusion” (Saccenti, “Materia,” 186).
174 Quinto, Riccardo and Bieniak, Magdalena, “General Introduction,” in Stephen Langton: Quaestiones Theologiae Liber I (Oxford, 2014), 3–66Google Scholar, at 26–30 and 37–42.
175 See the references to Clark in n. 20 above.
176 The fate of the Collectanea can be compared to that of Lombard's other biblical glosses. There is no doubt that Lombard lectured on books of the Bible other than the Psalms and Pauline Epistles. Clark, Mark J. summarizes the evidence for this assertion in “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” Medieval Studies 76 (2014): 57–113Google Scholar, at 60–76, drawing on the earlier work of Ignatius Brady and Beryl Smalley (cf. Clark, “Search,” 57 n. 2). At his death, Lombard's personal library contained “glossed books of the entire New Testament and many of the books of the Old Testament” (Doyle, Lombard and Students [n. 5 above], 42); subsequently, these books were lost. Scholars have debated whether these refer to copies of the Glossa “Ordinaria” on those books, or whether they might refer to Lombard's own glosses, representative of his teaching. Operating on the latter assumption, both Beryl Smalley and Ignatius Brady searched for extant copies of these works without success (Clark, “Search,” 76–81). Recently, Mark Clark has suggested a new method for finding Lombard's lectures, namely, through the investigation of Lombard's students’ lectures — Clark (“Search,” 81–113) has located the presence of Lombard's introduction to the Gospel of John in Peter Comestor's lectures on that Gospel, and has argued more recently that Stephen Langton's lectures on the Old Testament are based on Lombard's and thus contain parts of these lost lectures (Clark, , “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris: The Making of the Twelfth-Century Scholastic Biblical Tradition,” Traditio 72 [2017]: 171–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Unlike the Collectanea, which was edited and released for general consumption at some point, these glosses seem to have existed only as lecture notes, used by other magistri in their own lectures but not receiving the same kind of editorial work.
177 Classroom teaching as the context for the Sentences has recently been emphasized by Lombard's English translator, Giulio Silano: “It makes little sense to separate the work of teaching from the effort to identify and point out the coherence of the Christian tradition. An appreciation of the importance of teaching seems preferable to the view that the undertaking in which the masters were engaged was the elaboration of systematic theology. For one thing, the expression ‘systematic theology’ is not a twelfth-century term and would make little sense to the masters; for another, it betrays a degree of abstraction quite foreign to them and may lead us to speak too readily of their doctrine rather than of their teaching. The enterprise in which they were engaged was a deeply personal one; if it also became rational, scientific, or whatever else one may wish to call it, it was because these features of their activity were effective in making the tradition alive and relevant to their students and the larger communities whom those students would serve. It was not out of ideological presuppositions that they prized technique, rationality, or dialectic, but because, without these, they would not be offering their students what was required for the lively understanding and reduction to present normativeness of the massive inheritance they had received from earlier times” (Silano, Sentences [n. 134 above], 1:xxiv).