Notes

INTRODUCTION

1 Cf. P. Dronke, Fabula: Explorations into the Uses of Myth in Medieval Platonism, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte, ix (Leiden, 1974), p. 13.

2 R. Wellek and A. Warren, Theory of Literature, 3 ed. (Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 39. For this reason such treatises on the art of poetry as Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria Nova and John of Garland’s Poetria Parisiana fall outside the scope of this study—they represent a tradition of ‘writing about writing’ which is different in kind from the commentary-tradition discussed here. Arts of preaching are mentioned only to the extent that some of them contain literary theory derived from commentary-tradition.

3 Dronke, Fabula, p. 13.

4 The oft-repeated comments summarised here are conveniently brought together in the introduction to Arnulfi Aurelianensis Glosule super Lucanum,ed. B. Marti, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, xviii (Rome, 1958).

5 This particular cliché has been refuted convincingly by L. R. Lind in the introduction to his edition of The Ecclesiale of Alexander of Villa Dei (Lawrence, Kansas, 1958), p. 3.

6 Platonism, Scholastic Method, and the School of Chartres, the 1979 Stenton Lecture (University of Reading, 1979). The work of R. H. and M. A. Rouse offers a similar conclusion: see especially their ‘Florilegia and Latin Classical Authors in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Orléans’, Viator, x (1979), 131–60.

7 Latteburius in threnos leremiae (Oxford, 1482), unfol.

8 In a paper entitled ‘Chaucer and Comparative Literary Theory’ which I gave at the Second International Congress of the New Chaucer Society, I emphasised the ‘alterity’ or ‘surprising otherness’ of scholastic literary theory and advocated the comparative study of late medieval literary theory and modern literary theory. This usage of the term ‘alterity’ is derived from H. R. Jauss, who has defined the ‘alterity’ of medieval literature in terms of the essential differences between the world which it opens up and the world in which we live, the extent to which old texts make us aware of the ‘otherness’ of a departed past. See his Alterität und Modernität der mittelalterlichen Literatur (Munich, 1977), and ‘The Alterity and Modernity of Medieval Literature’, New Literary History, x(1979), 385–90. Paul Zumthor defines ‘blind modernism’ as the unthinking imposition of modern principles of literature on medieval writings: ‘Comments on H. R. Jauss’s Article’, ibid., pp. 367–76 (p. 371).

9 For a succinct account of ‘defamiliarization’, which in a literary context involves deliberate deviation from the norms of writing and of audience expectancy, see R. H. Stacy, Defamiliarization in Language and Literature (Syracuse University Press, 1977).

CHAPTER 1

1 Cit. H. F. Sebastian, William Wheteley’s commentary on the Pseudo-Boethius’ tractate De disciplina scolarium and medieval grammar school education (unpub. Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, 1970), p. 300.

2 An almost identical statement is found in the prologue to Wheteley’s commentary on the De consolatione philosophiae of Boethius: it is useful, he claims, to inquire the causes of a work, for those things which were said by ‘authentic’ men are the more firmly impressed on the mind of the hearer. Oxford, New College, MS C.264, fol. 11^v.

3 Cf. J. Porcher, ‘Le De disciplina scholarium, traité du XIIIe siècle faussement attribué à Boèce’, in Positions des thèses soutenues par les élèves de la promotion de 1921 de l’École des Chartes (Paris, 1921), pp. 91–3; also Pseudo-Boèce: De disciplina scholarium, ed. O. Weijers (Leiden, 1976), pp. 8–11.

4 The Parliament of Fowls, lines 22–5 (The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson, 2 ed. (Oxford, 1957), p. 311).

5 Cf. M.-D. Chenu, ‘Auctor, actor, autor’, Bull. du Cange, iii (1927), 81–6.

6 This information is taken from the major medieval dictionaries: Papias: De linguae latinae vocabulis (s. 1., 1476), s.v. auctor; Hugutio of Pisa, Magnae derivationes, s.v. augeo, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 376, fol. 1^r; Joannes de Janua: Catholicon, s.v. auctor (Venice, 1495), fols 73^v–74^r; Summa Britonis sive Guillelmi Britonis expositiones vocabulorum Biblie, ed. L. W. Daly and B. A. Daly, Thesaurus mundi, xv (Padua, 1975), i, 74. Hugutio begins by glossing augere as amplificare, ‘to increase’, ‘to grow’: hence auctor, written with a ‘u’ and a ‘c’, means augmentator. When autentim (‘id est autoritatem’) is signified, autor is written with a ‘u’ and without a ‘c’. Cf. the mnemonic verses found in the Graecismus of Everard of Béthune, cit. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 179, n. 1. The same verses occur in de’Balbi’s Catholicon, s.v. auctor. William Brito claimed that the senses of the term auctor have the following order of precedence: autentim first, augeo second and agere third (ed. Daly, i, 74).

7 According to Hugutio, autor, written without a ‘c’ and with a ‘u’, may mean ligator, ‘someone who ties together’.

8 Cf. Chenu, Bull. du Cange, iii, 83.

9 Cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas. pp. 130–2.

10 MS Bodley 376, fol. 1^r. This was expanded in de’Balbi’s Catholicon. s.v. auctoritas. The phrase also occurs in the Distinctiones verborum attributed to Alexander Neckam (in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 101, p. 333).

11 Catholicon, s.v. auctoritas (fol. 75^r).

12 In late-medieval scholasticism, the term ‘science’ was ‘used primarily of the intellectual disciplines, such as natural philosophy, ethics, metaphysics and theology, and only secondarily and infrequently of the technological arts’: see J. A. Weisheipl, ‘The Curriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Oxford in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Med. Stud., xxvi (1964), esp. pp. 143–4.

13 See M.-D. Chenu, ‘Authentica et magistralia’, in La Théologie au douzième siècle, 2 ed., Études de philosophie médiévale, xlv (Paris, 1966), 351–65; J. de Ghellinck, ‘Patristique et argument de tradition au bas moyen âge’, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, suppl. III. i (1935), 403–26.

14 Cf. L. J. Paetow, The Arts Course at Medieval Universities with special reference to grammar and rhetoric (Champaign, Illinois, 1910), pp. 11–32; Curtius, European Literature, pp. 452–3.

15 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 88–9.

16 See H. Denifle, Die Entstehung der Universitaten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1885), i, 684.

17 See P. Delhaye, ‘ “Grammatica” et “Ethica” au XIIe siècle’, RTAM, XXV (1958) , esp. pp. 67–78; cf. the Prae-exercitamina Prisciani grammatici, in Rhetores Latini Minores, ed. C. Halm (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 551–2. The most comprehensive treatment of medieval ethical justifications of poetry is now, of course, Allen’s Ethical Poetic.

18 See L. K. Born, ‘Ovid and Allegory’, Speculum, ix (1934), 362–79; F. Ghisalberti, ‘Arnolfo d’Orléans, un cultore di Ovidio nel s.XII’, Memorie del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, xxiv (1932), 157–234; P. Demats, Fabula: Trois études de mythographie antique et médiévale, Publications Romanes et Françaises, cxxii (Geneva, 1973), 61–177.

19 See E. Jeauneau, ‘L’Usage de la notion d’integumentum à travers les gloses de Guillaume de Conches’, AHDLMA, xxiv (1957), 35–100; W. Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century (Princeton, 1972); P. Dronke, Fabula: Explorations into the uses of Myth in Medieval Platonism (Leiden, 1974).

20 On the term authenticus, see Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 129–32; and La Théologie au douzième siècle, pp. 358–65. For the authentic pagan authors, see C. Thurot, ‘Documents relatifs à l’histoire de la grammaire au moyen âge’, Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Comptes Rendus, n.s., vi (1870), 250.

21 See, for example, the comments of St Thomas Aquinas on the Liber de causis and Liber de spiritu et anima falsely accredited to St Augustine, quoted by Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 132, n. 7; cf. G. Geenen, ‘S. Thomas d’Aquin et ses sources pseudépigraphiques’, Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses, XX (1943), 71–80.

22 See Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 106–8, 146–52, 156–9.

23 Postilla super librum Paralipomenon, prologus (pr. Hugonis postilla, i, 295^v).

24 Pr. PL, xxx, 254–61.

25 De nugis curialium, dist. iv, cap. 5 (ed. M. R. James, Anecdota Oxonien-sia, xiv (Oxford, 1914), 158; trans. F. Tupper and M. B. Ogle (London, 1924), p. 197).

26 Cf. R. J. Dean, ‘Unnoticed commentaries on the Dissuasio Valerii of Walter Map’, MARS, ii (1950), 128-50.

27 See E. Jeauneau, ‘ “Nagi gigantum humeris insidentes”: Essai d’interprétation de Bernard de Chartres’, Vivarium, v (1967), 79–99.

28 Philobiblon, cap. ix (trans. E. C. Thomas and ed. M. MacLagan (Oxford, 1960), pp. 98-9).

29 De Bury is restating stock twelfth-century views: cf. Jeauneau in Vivarium, v, 79-99; also, the statement of William of Conches cit. by Jeauneau, ‘La Lecture des auteurs classiques a l’École de Chartres durant la première moitie du XIIe siècle’, in Classical Influences on European Culture a.d. 500–1500, ed. R. R. Bolgar (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 95–6.

30 Philobiblon, cap. ix (ed. MacLagan, pp. 98–101). Other writers identified the ‘ancients’ and ‘moderns’ more precisely than de Bury. The term anti-qui could designate the ‘ancient’ writers of Greco-Latin antiquity as opposed to ‘modern’ Christians, or the ‘ancient’ Church Fathers as opposed to ‘modern’ medieval writers, or those ‘ancient’ men who lived before the advent of Christ as opposed to those ‘modern’ men who live after it. Cf. M.-D. Chenu, ‘Antiqui, Moderni’, RSPT, xvii (1928), 82-94; see, further, H. Zimmerman, Antiqui und Moderni: Traditionbewusstein und Fortschrittskewusstein im späten Mittelalter (Berlin, 1973). In the twelfth century, a more specialised sense developed, whereby antiqui referred to a previous generation of scholars, while moderni designated the scholars of one’s own generation. See L. M. de Rijk, Logica modernorum, Wijsgenge Teksten en Studies, vi, xvi (Assen, 1962-7), i, 16-7; cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 137–8.

31 Cf. Alexander Neckam’s Sacerdos ad altare, ed. C. H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (Cambridge, Mass., 1924), pp. 372–6; see, further, the summary description of the lecture (lectio) by P. Glorieux, ‘L’enseignement au moyen âge: techniques et méthodes en usage à la faculté de théologie de Paris au XIIIe siècle’, AHDLMA, xxxv (1968), 108. For the introduction of the Lombard’s Sentences as a main teaching text, see above, p. 78.

32 See H. Marrou, S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (Paris, 1938), p. 11, and Histoiredel’éducationdansl’antiquité, 6ed. (Paris, 1965), pp. 400-1.

33 See P. Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, trans. J. J. Contreni (Columbia, S. Carolina, 1976).

34 Metalogicon, i.24 (ed. C. C. I. Webb (Oxford, 1929), pp. 53-7); cf. Quintilian, Institutiooratoria, I.v.11, I.viii.8, I.viii. 13 (ed. H. E. Butler (London and New York, 1921-2), i, 82, 148-50, 152).

35 John of Salisbury described William as ‘the most accomplished grammarian since Bernard of Chartres’: Metalogicon, i.5 (ed. Webb, pp. 16-17).

36 Guillaume de Conches: Glosae super Platonem, ed. E. Jeauneau, Textes philosophiques du moyen âge, xiii (Paris, 1965), p. 57.

37 Didascalicon, iii.8 (ed. C. H. Buttimer, Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin, x (Washington, 1939), p. 58). Similarly, William of Conches distinguished between syntactical structure (continuatio), exposition of the letter (expositio litterae) and profound meaning (sententia): Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, p. 67; also, his commentaries on Priscian and Macrobius, cit. by E. Jeauneau, ‘Deux rédactions des gloses de Guillaume de Conches sur Priscien’, RTAM, xxvii (1960), 234–6. Hugutio incorporated William’s distinction in his Magnae derivationes: see G. Robert, La Renaissance du XIle siècle: les écoles et l’enseignement, Publications de l’Institut d’Études Médiévales d’Ottawa, iii (Paris and Ottawa, 1933), 55, n. 2. This was reiterated by Giovanni de’Balbi, Catholicon, s.v. commentum and glosa (fols 101^r, 153^v).

38 Glorieux, AHDLMA, xxxv, 108.

39 Cf. Marrou, Histoiredel’éducation, p. 407.

40 Metalogicon, i.24 (ed. Webb, p. 54).

41 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 2–6; E. A. Quain, ‘The Medieval Accessus ad auctores’, Traditio, iii (1945), 228–42. The term introitus was used by Peter Comestor in the prologues to his commentaries on the Psalter and St Matthew’s gospel: see the extracts printed in Stegmüller, Bibl., 6564/1 and 6575. Peter of Poitiers employed the term in his Psalter-commentary: see P. S. Moore, The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Washington, 1936), pp. 95-6, 178. The term ingressus was used, for example, by Praepositinus of Cremona in his Psalter-commentary: ibid., pp. 95–6. Cf. the prologue to an anonymous collection of distinctiones on the Psalter found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 217, described on p. 65 above, and the prologue to Hugh of St Cher’s Psalter-commentary, printed Hugonis postilla, ii, 2^r–3^v. This application of ingressus may have originated in scholarship within the trivium; see, for example, the beginning of Thierry of Chartres’ commentary on the Rhetorica ad Herennium: ‘Ingressum facit ad artem in quo captat Gaii Herenii benivolentiam’. Quoted by K. M. Fredborg, ‘The Commentary of Thierry of Chartres on Cicero’s De inventione’, CIMAGL, vii (1971), 232.

42 Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 94.

43 Vitae Vergilianae, ed. J. Brummer (Leipzig, 1912), p. 11. The introduction to the commentary on the Aeneid by Donatus’s namesake, Tiberius Claudius Donatus (fl. late fourth century), does not employ this schema: Tiberi Claudi Donati interpretationes Vergilianae, ed. H. Georgii (repr. Stuttgart, 1969), i, 1-7.

44 Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum, Harvard edition, ii (1946), 1-5. On the use of the ancient kinds or modes of speaking (genera dicendi) in lives of Virgil, see F. Quadlbauer, Die antike Theorie der genera dicendi im lateinischen Mittelalter, Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. klasse, Bd. cclxi, 2 Abk. (Wien, 1962), 23-6.

45 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 58–65.

46 Ibid., pp. 28–9.

47 See G. Przychocki, ‘Accessus Ovidiani’, Rozprawy Akademii Umiejetnosci, wydzial filologiczny, serya III, tom. iv (1911), 108.

48 Vitae Vergilianae, ed. Brummer, p. 60.

49 Ibid., p. 62.

50 Cf. C. Lutz, ‘One formula ofaccessus in Remigius’s Works’, Latomus, xix 1960), 774–80, who compares the Remigian prologue based on the circumstantiae with the discussion of the circumstantiae found in Erigena’s commentary on Martianus Capella. Elsewhere, Erigena claimed that the province of rhetoric comprises those hypotheses or finite issues determined by the seven circumstances: see PL, cxxii, 475; cf. R. McKeon, ‘Rhetoric in the Middle Ages’, in Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern, ed. R. S. Crane (Chicago, 1952), pp. 276-7.

51 For discussion, see Lutz, Latomus, xix, 774–80; also J. Brummer, ‘Zum Überlieferungegeschichte der sogenannten Donat-Vita des Vergil’, Philologus, lxxii (1913), 288; J. J. Savage, ‘The Scholia in the Virgil of Tours, Bernensis 165’, HSCP, xxxvi (1925), 163–4.

52 This is the opinion of M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène (Paris, 1933), p. 74. See further, Lutz, Latomus, xix, 774–80, who believes that Remigius was the source of the accessus to Virgil found in a Munich MS of the twelfth century, Monacensis 18059; cit. in the edition of Servius by G. Thilo and H. Hagen (Leipzig, 1881), i, pp. lxxxiv–lxxxv, and also by Przychocki, Roz. Akad. Umiejet., III.iv, 112.

53 The theory of circumstantiae may be traced back to Hermagoras, Fragmenta, ed. D. Matthes (Leipzig, 1962), pp. 13 et. seq. Cf. the treatments by Fortunatianus, Ars rhetoricae, ii. 1; Augustinus, De rhetorica, vii; Victorinus, In rhetorica Ciceronis, and the anon. Excerpta rhetorica (all in Rhetores minores, ed. Halm, pp. 103, 141, 226, 586); also, Boethius, De differentiis topicis, iv (pr. PL, lxiv, 1214); The Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne, ed. W. S. Howell (Princeton, 1941), p. 6. For applications of the circumstantiae in analyses of moral behaviour by late-medieval school-men, see J. Gründel, Die Lehre von den Umständen der menschlichen Handlung im Mittelalter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, xxxix.5 (1963).

54 Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 94. Huygens often has argued that Remigius, adapting the model provided by Servius and providing a precedent for subsequent practice, was the first person to apply the circumstantiae in literary explication. A brief note in his 1970 revised ed. of the Accessus ad auctores, etc., p. 66, makes it clear that his opinion has not altered substantially. But this view of Remigius as innovator requires considerable modification. For uses of the circumstantiae which antedate Remigius, see M. Silvestre, ‘Le Schéma “moderne” des accessus’, Latomus, xvi, (1957), 684. Especially significant are the sophisticated introductions by Sedulius Scotus, who taught at Liège from 848 and died after 858: see Sedulius Scotus in Donati artem minorem, etc., ed. B. Löfstedt, CCCM, xl^c (1977), 3; Commentum Sedulii Scotii in maiorem Donatum grammaticum, ed. D. Brearley, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, xxvii (Toronto, 1975), 31.

55 Remigii Autissiodorensis commentum in Martianum Capellam, ed. C. Lutz (Leiden, 1962), i, 65. On the debt of Remigius’s commentary to Erigena’s commentary on the same work, see C. Lutz, ‘The Commentary of Remigius of Auxerre on Martianus Capella’, Med. Stud., xix (1957), 137-56.

56 Remigii Autissiodorensis in artem Donati minorem commentum, ed. W. Fox (Leipzig, 1892), p. 6; M. Manitius, ‘Remigius von Auxerre und Mico von St Riquier’, Neues Archiv, xxxvi (1911), 46.

57 R. B. C. Huygens, ‘Remigiana’, Aevum, xxviii (1954), 331–2; A. Mancini, ‘Un commento ignoto di Remy d’Auxerre ai Disticha Catonis’, Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, ser. v, xi (1902), 179.

58 PL, lxxvi, 795; PL, xciii, 195B.

59 PL, cvi, 1264B.

60 PL, clxxv, 74B–C, 87–8, 115. See, further, the elaborate use of the headings in Hugh’s De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum, ed. W. M. Green in Speculum, xviii (1943), 484-93.

61 See the prologues to his commentaries on Baruch and Ezechiel, for locus and tempus respectively (pr. Hugonis postilla, iv, 124^v, 134^r).

62 This commentator discussed instead Virgil’s intentio, modus agendi, utilitas and ordo: Commentum quod dicitur Bernardi Silvestris super VI libros Eneidos, ed. J. W. Jones and E. F. Jones (Lincoln, Nebraska, and London, 1977), pp. 1-3. For a powerful argument against the attribution of this work to Bernard Silvester, see Christopher Baswell, ‘The Medieval Allegorization of the “Aeneid”: MS Peterhouse 158’, Traditio, xli (1985), 199-221.

63 Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 94–6. Cf. Quain, Traditio, iii, 242-52; P. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources, trans. H. E. Wedeck (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), esp. p. 286.

64 In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, ed. S. Brandt, CSEL, xlviii (1906), 4–5. Boethius was generally recognised as the instigator of the ‘type C’ prologue: see, for example, the twelfth-century accessus to Persius cit. Kris-teller, CTC, iii, 226.

65 Traditio, iii, 261–4. Quain was arguing against Przychocki’s opinion that the source of the ‘type C’ headings was the circumstantiae as expounded by ancient Greek and Latin rhetoricians. Cf. Przychocki, Roc. Akad. Umiejet., III. iv, 106-20.

66 Quain, Traditio, iii, 243–56.

67 Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, ed. L. G. Westerink (Amsterdam, 1962), pp. xxvi–xxvii; cf. William of Moerbeke’s translations of the commentaries by Ammonius and Simplicius: Ammonius: Commentaire sur le Peri hermeneias d’Aristote, traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, ed. G. Verbeke, Corpus latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem graecorum, ii (Louvain and Paris, 1961), 1-15; Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Categories d’Aristote, traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, ed. A. Pattin, CLCAG, v.i (Louvain and Paris, 1971), 10–11.

68 Anonymous Prolegomena, ed. Westerink, p. xxviii.

69 Ibid., p.xxix.

70 Ibid., pp. xxxiii–xli, for a summary description of the eleven headings used in the text edited by Westerink: the life of Plato, the distinctive characteristics of Platonic philosophy, the justification for Plato’s writing, the dialogue-form, the elements of each dialogue, the titles of the dialogues, the principle in accordance with which Plato’s doctrine is divided, the method of presentation, the rules for establishing his central purpose or intention, and the order of his dialogues.

71 Thus, the headings used by William of Conches in introducing Plato’s Timaeus were derived from the standard ‘types A and C’: see Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, p. 58.

72 Quoted from Rouen MS 1470 (s. x–xi) by Manitius, Neues Archiv, xxxvi, 49; cf. Silvestre, Latomus, xvi, 689. One of the ‘modern’ requirements listed here, the life of the poet, indicates the influence of a ‘type B’ prologue-heading on the ‘type C’ paradigm. Cf. the practice of including a life of Juvenal in ‘type C’ prologues to his satires, e.g. in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F.6.9 (s. XII), cit. Kristeller, CTC, i, 198.

73 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 66–7.

74 Ibid., p. 78.

75 In artem primam Donati, ed. Fox, p. 2. Remigius’s statement concerning titulus is cited by Pseudo-Aquinas (perhaps a fifteenth-century German writer) in his discussion of the title of Boethius’s Consolatio philosophiae (pr. Aquinatis opera, xxx, 3).

76 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 60; cf. Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, ed. L. Baur (Munster, 1903), p. 141.

77 Remigius, In artem primam Donati, ed. Fox, p. 1; cf. Accessus ad auctores, etc., pp. 29, 60–1.

78 Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule super Lucanum, ed. B. M. Marti, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, xviii (Rome, 1958), 3.

79 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 48.

80 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 95.

81 De divisione philosophiae, ed. Baur, p. 140.

82 Cit. N. M. Häring, ‘Thierry of Chartres and Dominicus Gundissalinus’, Med. Stud., xxvi (1964), 286.

83 Ed. H. Fitting as Summa codicis des Irnerius (Berlin, 1894), pp. 4–5. Cf. the prologue of Bulgarus (fl. mid-twelfth century) printed by H. Kantorowicz, Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 233–9. See, further, the similar treatments of Gratian and the canon law by Sicardus of Cremona and Rufinus, cited by Quain, Traditio, iii, 239–40, who provides a useful chart of the prologue-headings used by canon lawyers. The schema of Rufinus (writing 1157–9) is very elaborate, comprising the iuris intentio, iuris utilitas, canonum intentio and canonum utilitas, as well as the materia, intentio, modus tractandi, utilitas and titulus of Gratian: see the Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus, ed. H. Singer (Paderborn, 1902), pp. 3–5.

84 On the practice of ‘pious and reverent exposition’ see Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 10–4; Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 144–9; J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement théologique du Xlle síecle, 2 ed. (Bruges, 1948), pp. 233–4.

85 See the references given in notes 18 and 19 above.

86 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 26, 29, 30, 32; H. S. Sedlmayer, Prolegomena critica ad Heroides Ovidianas (Vienna, 1878), pp. 96–8; F. Ghisalberti, ‘Medieval Biographies of Ovid’, JWCI, ix (1946), 44–6; Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule super Lucanum, ed. Marti, p. 3.

87 See esp. Conrad of Hirsau, Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 119.

88 See, for example, the materia of Bulgarus, pr. Kantorowicz, Glossators of the Roman Law, pp. 233–9. The even wider concept of the ‘general’ material and intention may have been introduced by Johannes Bassianus (writing c. 1180): ibid., p. 45.

89 See Quain, Traditio, iii, 239–40.

90 Cit. from Bern, Burgerbibliothek HS 539b (s.XIII) in Die Persius-Scholien nach den Berner Handscriften, ed. E. Kurz (Burgdorf, 1875), p. viii. On the literary theory in introductions to the satirists, see Miller, ‘John Gower, Satiric Poet’, pp. 80-8.

91 London, British Library, MS Royal 15 B.III, fol. 2^r–2^v. This text represents a later recension of William’s commentary.

92 PL, cxci, 630–1; cf. Servius, In Vergilii carmina commentarii, ed. Thilo and Hagen, iii, 1.

93 Comment. sup. VI libros Eneidos, ed. Jones, pp. 1–2. ‘Natural order’ was discussed by Donatus in his life of Virgil, ed. Brummer, p. 18; the distinction between the two kinds of order was elaborated in the Scholia Vindobonensia ad Horatii artem poeticam, ed. J. Zechmeister (Wien, 1877), pp. 4–5 (on Ars poetica, lines 42–5); cf. Bernard of Utrecht in Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 64.

94 De divisione philosophiae, ed. Baur, p. 142. Arnulf of Orléans made sporadic reference to the capitula in Lucan’s Pharsalia: Glosule super Lucanum, ed. Marti, pp. 229, 242, 273, 302. A more thorough approach is manifest in the commentary on Claudian attributed to a contemporary of Arnulf’s, Geoffrey of Vitry: The commentary of Geoffrey of Vitry on Claudian de raptu Proserpinae, ed. A. K. Clarke and P. M. Giles (Leiden, 1973), pp. 29, 56.

95 MS Royal 15 B.III, fol. 3^r.

96 Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule super Lucanum, ed. Marti, p. 3.

97 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 22, 63, 84–8.

98 See the accessus pr. Kristeller, CTC, i, 192–3, 195, 198; iii, 225-7. It was a commonplace to remark that the satirists had begun their poems abruptly, thereby indicating their serious purpose: see Kristeller, CTC, i, 185; iii, 225-7.

99 Comment. sup. VI libros Eneidos, ed. Jones, p. 2. Cf. the similar statement in a fourteenth-century accessus to Juvenal pr. Kristeller, CTC, i, 197.

100 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 67. Conrad’s source is Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911), viii.6.

101 Didascalicon, ii. l (ed. Buttimer, p. 24).

102 The Didascalicon of Hugh of St Victor, trans. J. Taylor (New York and London, 1961), p. 62. See, further, Taylor’s excellent summary of Hugh’s classification of knowledge, pp. 7–11, where the opinions of William of Conches are compared and contrasted. For William’s classification of knowledge, see Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, pp. 60-2; C. Jourdain, ‘Des Commentaires inédits de Guillaume de Conches et Nicolas Traveth sur la Consolation de Boèce’, Notices et extraits de manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, xx. 2 (1862), 72–4. See, also, J. A. Weisheipl, ‘Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought’, Med. Stud., xxvii (1965), 65–8.

103 Kantorowicz, Glossators of the Roman Law, p. 51.

104 For examples, see Przychocki, Roz. Akad. Umiej., III. iv, 89; also, the two accessus printed by K. Young, ‘Chaucer’s appeal to the Platonic deity’, Speculum, xix (1944), 5, 6.

105 See the series ofarticles by P. Delhaye, ‘L’Enseignement de la philosophie morale au XIIe siècle’, Med. Stud., xi (1949), 77–99; ‘La Place de l’éthique parmi les disciplines scientifiques au XIIe siècle’, in Miscellanea moralia in honorem A. Janssen (Gembloux, 1948), 29-44; ‘ “Grammatica” et “Ethica” au XIIe siècle’, RTAM, xxv (1958), 59–110.

106 Anulfi Aurelianensis glosule super Lucanum, ed. Marti, p. 3.

107 See the references to Ovid commentaries in note 86 above; cf. Minnis, ‘Moral Gower’, pp. 54-60.

108 In Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 2904, quoted by Kristeller, CTC, i, 193-4.

109 Commentarium in cantica canticorum, prologus, in Origenes Werke, viii, ed. W. A. Baehrens, Die griechischen christlichen Schrifsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, xxx (Leipzig, 1925), 75-6.

110 For Jerome, see note 159 below; Augustine, De doctrina christiana, ii. 17, ii.28, iv.5 (ed. G. M. Green, CSEL, lxxx (1963), 53–5, 63–5, 121-3), and De civitate Dei, viii. 11 (ed. E. Hoffmann, CSEL, xl (1899–1900), i, 371–3); Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum, in Psalm. xxiii. 10 (ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL, xcvii–xcviii (1958), i, 219).

111 Comment. in cant. cant., prologus (ed. Baehrens, pp. 75–6). The Books of the Bible were not the only works to be credited with encyclopaedic and comprehensive scientific learning. At an early date, the works of Virgil had been praised in similar terms. See, for example, the Vita Vossiana printed by H. R. Upson, ‘Mediaeval Lives of Virgil’, CP, xxxviii (1943), 105, in which the Bucolics are supposed to pertain to physics (natural science), the Georgics to ethics (moral science) and the Aeneid to logic (rational science). Cf. Quadlbauer, Die antike Theorie der genera dicendi, pp. 25-7.

112 Etymologiae, ed. Lindsay, ii.24. Later medieval writers in the monastic tradition identified theoretical science with the contemplative life: see the discussions of theoria by L. Gougaud, ‘La Théorie dans la spiritualité médiévale’, RAM, (1922), 381–94; J. Leclercq, Études sur le vocabulaire monastique du moyen âge, Studia Anselmiana, xlviii (Rome, 1961), 80-2.

113 PL, cxiii, 1127; PL, clxii, 1187–8 (dubious attribution); PL, cxcvi, 409A–D; PL, cxxi, 148: PL, clii, 638B-9A (dubious attribution); PL, clxxii, 270B.

114 PL, cxxxi, 148B–C. The authenticity of this commentary has been questioned: see p. 41.

115 PL, clii, 638B (dubious attribution).

116 Cit. H. E. Allen, ‘The Manuel des pechiez and the Scholastic prologue’, The Romanic Review, viii (1917), 457, n. 60.

117 Expositio in Hierarchiam coelestem, i. 1 (pr. PL, clxxv, 927A).

118 See, especially, the ingenious adaptation by Godfrey of St Victor, who divided the tropological interpretation of Scripture into ethics, economics and politics: Fons philosophiae, ed. P. Michaud-Quentin, Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia, viii (Namur, 1956), lines 483, 485–96.

119 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 528, fol. 55^r; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 87, fol. 150^r. On these two versions of this commentary by Langton, see G. Lacombe and B. Smalley, ‘Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton’, AHDLMA, v (1931), 140–4.

120 For examples, see the prologue incorporated into the Glossa ordinaria on the Psalter, PL, cxiii, 843, and the prologue to the Psalter-commentary of Peter Lombard, PL, cxci, 58.

121 Metaphysica, i.3 (in The Works of Aristotle, vol. viii, trans. W. D. Ross (Oxford, 1908), 983a); Physica, ii.7 (ibid., vol. ii, trans. R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye (1930), 198a–b).

122 Bk. ii, lectio 5, 178 (in The Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics by St Thomas Aquinas, trans. R. J. Blackwell, R. J. Spath and W. E. Thirlkel (London, 1963), p. 87).

123 See, for example, the ‘Aristotelian prologues’ to Ovid pr. Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 50-4.

124 Topica, xiv.58–xvii.65 (in De inventione, etc., pp. 424–31); PL, lxiv, 1145–6. Moreover, writers associated with Chartres had provided elaborate analyses of divine causality in the creation of the world. William of Conches described the efficient cause as the divine essence, the formal cause as the divine wisdom, and the final cause as the divine goodness, while the material cause consisted of the four elements. Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, pp. 98 et seq. Cf. Thierry of Chartres’ Tractatus de sex dierum operibus, iii (in Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and his School, ed. N. M. Häring, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, xx (Toronto, 1971), 556–7). See, also, J. M. Parent, La Doctrine de la creation dans l’école de Chartres, Publications de l’Institut d’Études Médiévales d’Ottawa, viii (Paris and Ottawa, 1938), 34–43, 47, 56, 59–60, 66–8, 70, 91–2.

125 For examples, see Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 28, 30, 32, 33, 37.

126 Cf. Weisheipl, Med. Stud., xxvi, 147–151, 159–61, 173–6. The literature on the impact and dissemination of the ‘new’ Aristotle is vast: for basic bibliography, see Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 73–5.

127 See M. Grabmann, ‘Der Kommentar des sel. Jordanus von Sacshen († 1237) zum Priscianus minor’, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii (Munich, 1956), 232–42, esp. pp. 234–5; Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 30-43; R. A. Gauthier in RSPT, lxvi (1982), 367-73.

128 For examples, see the copious quotations given by B. Nardi, ‘Osservazioni sul medievale “accessus ad auctores” in rapporto all “Epistola a Can-grande” ’, in his Saggi e note di critica Dantesca (Milan and Naples, 1966), pp. 269–89.

129 See pp. 78–9.

130 See E. M. Sanford, ‘The Manuscripts of Lucan: Accessus and Marginalia’, in Speculum, ix (1934), 278-95; also, the prologues to humanistic commentaries on Juvenal and Persius pr. Kristeller, CTC, i, 205, 207, 211, 212, 213; iii, 248, 249, 258. See further the Prohemia poetarum attributed to Thomas Walsingham (tc. 1422) printed in Thomae Walsingham de archana deorum, ed. R. A. van Kluyve (Durham, N.C., 1968), pp. xii–xiii. The ‘type B’ or Servian prologue enjoyed something of a revival in humanistic commentaries on poets: for examples, see Kristeller, CTC, i, 208, iii, 250, 251, 272, 288-9, 306.

131 Topica, ii.8 (in De inventione, etc., pp. 386–8).

132 Comment. in De invent., i.4 (in Rhetores minores, ed. Halm, p. 170).

133 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 98.

134 Häring, Med. Stud., xxvi, 281. For the debate on the dating of this commentary, see J. O. Ward, ‘The Date of the Commentary on Cicero’s De inventione by Thierry of Chartres’, Viator, iii (1972), 219–273.

135 Cit. Häring, Med. Stud., xxvi, 281; cf. p. 286. This distinction, combined with the extrinsecus/intrinsecus distinction, was used also by Thierry’s pupil, Peter Helias, in his commentary on De inventione (but not in his Summa super Priscianum); the same combination occurs in Alan of Lille’s commentary on the Rhetorica ad Herennium: see K. M. Fredborg, ‘Petrus Helias on Rhetoric’, CIMAGL, xiii (1974), 31–3. The extrinsecus/intrinsecus distinction alone was used in the second redaction of the Priscian-commentary by William of Conches, a pupil of Thierry’s elder brother, Bernard of Chartres. Its prologue is edited by Jeauneau, RTAM, xxvii, 243–7. For the relationship between commentaries by William and Petrus Helias, see Fredborg, ‘The Dependence of Petrus Helias’ Summa super Priscianum on William of Conches’ Glose super Priscianum’, CIMAGL, xi (1973), 1–57.

136 This schematic discussion of the art of rhetoric is more or less identical with the whole section on rhetoric in Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, ed. Baur, pp. 63–9. Dr Hunt believed that Thierry was the source of Gundissalinus: ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 91–3, 98. N. M. Häring came to the opposite conclusion: see Med. Stud., xxvi, 275–80. Dr Hunt’s conclusion has been supported by Ward, Viator, iii, 245–64, and K. M. Fredborg, ‘The Commentary of Thierry of Chartres on Cicero’s De inventione’, CIMAGL, vii (1971), 6–12.

137 ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 87, 97; De inventione, I.iv.5 (p. 12); PL, lxiv, 1207A–B, cf. 1211B. See further McKeon in Critics and Criticism, ed. Crane, p. 271. The oldest known extant commentary on Aristotle’s De sophisticis elenchis provides interesting evidence regarding the precedents recognised by twelfth-century commentators and followed in their prologues. The anonymous logician begins with a reference to Boethius’s De differentiis topicis, then gives the examples of Cicero and Aristotle who, in introducing the De inventione and De sophisticis elenchis respectively, provided an outline of the extrinsic aspect relevant to each case: De Rijk, Logica modernorum, i, 265.

138 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 100–5.

139 Pr. Hunt, ibid., pp. 100–1, who compares other anonymous glosses on grammar beginning Omnia traditio and Tocius eloquentie principium. Cf. the accessus to Priscian edited by Huygens, Accessus ad auctores, etc., p. 49.

140 Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 100–5.

141 Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, ed. Baur, pp. 19–112, 115–21. For discussion of Gundissalinus’s classification of the sciences, see Weisheipl, Med. Stud., xxvii, 68–72.

142 De divisione philosophiae, pp. 140–2.

143 For discussion, see pp. 146–7, 177–80.

144 Alberti Magni opera omnia (Aschendorff, 1951– ), xiv, pt. 1, 1, 5.

145 Expositio in omnes S. Pauli Epistolas, prologus (Aquinatis opera, xiii, 1–3). On the first appearances of aspects of the ‘new’ Aristotelian learning in Scriptural commentaries, see Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 308–28.

146 Bonaventurae opera, i, 1; Roberti Kilwardby, De natura theologiae, ed. F. Stegmüller, Opuscula et textus historiam ecclesiae illustrantia, xvii (Aschendorff, 1935), 7–12.

147 Marrou, S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, pp. 9–26; on Augustine’s rhetorical training, see pp. 47–83.

148 Ibid., p. 349. For discussion and examples from other theologians, see Riché, Education and Culture, pp. 88–95.

149 Epistola xxi. 13, Epistola xxii.42, in PL, xxii, 385, 394. In the latter passage, sensus and verba are compared to bread and husks, respectively. False eloquence was often likened to the husks eaten by the swine in the parable of the prodigal son: cf. B. Blumenkranz, ‘Siliquae porcorum: l’exégèse médiévale et les sciences profanes’, in Mélanges d’histoire du moyen âge dédiés à la mémoire de L. Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 11–17.

150 Institutiones, I.xv. 7;cf. I.xv. 1, 2 and 5(ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), pp. 45, 41–3, 44); cf. Riché, Education and Culture, pp. 164–9.

151 PL, lxxv, 515–16. Gregory is allegorically interpreting Deuteronomy xvi.21, ‘you shall not plant any tree beside the altar of the Lord’.

152 Ibid., 513C. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, v.2; vi.3 (ed. Buttimer, pp. 95–6, 113–5, and Taylor’s notes to his translation, pp. 219–20, 222).

153 For Cassian, see de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, i, 190–8; O. Chadwick, John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism, 2 ed. (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 101–2. The distich has been attributed to Augustine of Dacia († 1282): see now, F. Chatillon, ‘Vocabulaire et prosodie du distique attribué Augustin de Dacie sur les quatre sens de l’écriture’, in L’Homme devant Dieu: Mélanges offerts au père Henri de Lubac (Lyon, Fourvière, 1963–4), ii, 17–28.

154 PL, clvi, 25D–26A. Trans. Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, ed. J. M. Miller, M. H. Prosser and T. W. Benson (Bloomington and London, 1973), pp. 170–1. Cf. Cassian, Conlationes, xiv.8(ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL, xiii (1886), 404–7).

155 Cf. M.-D. Chenu, ‘The Masters of the Theological “Science” ’, in his Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago and London, 1968), pp. 281–2.

156 Cf. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, i, 425–87; Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 1–26, 214–42, 292–308.

157 De doctrina Christiana, ii.6 (ed. Green, p. 37). For a summary of Augustine’s belief in the attractiveness of the difficulties in Scripture, see Marrou, S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, pp. 487–90.

158 De doctrina Christiana, iii.29; cf. iv.6 (ed. Green, pp. 103, 123–4).

159 See Jerome, Epistola xxx. 1 (pr. PL, xxii, 441–2); Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, i. 1 (ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL, lxxii (1959), 250–1). For the similar statements of Augustine and Cassiodorus, see note 110 above.

160 Jerome, Commentaria in Isaiam prophetam, prologus (pr. PL, xxiv, 18B–19B).

161 Cf. Riché, Education and Culture, p. 167; J. M. Courtes, ‘Figures et tropes dans le psautier de Cassiodore’, Revue des études latines, xlii (1964), 361–75.

162 De sacramentis christianae fidei, prologus, cap. vi (pr. PL, clxxvi, 185C); cf. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, i, 74–94, and de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement théologique, pp. 93–6.

163 Didascalicon, praefatio (ed. Buttimer, pp. 1–3). For a lively discussion of the emergence of theology as an academic discipline and medieval views on its position within the hierarchy of the sciences, see G. R. Evans, Old Arts and New Theology (Oxford, 1980).

164 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 88–90.

165 De trinitate et operibus eius, vii. 11 (pr. PL, clxvii, col. 1765).

166 Ibid. ; cf. De victoria verbi Dei, xi.2 (pr. PL, clxix, col. 1444). Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, iii.2 (ed. Buttimer, pp. 49–52), and the relevant note in Taylor’s translation, p. 210, n. 34; also, C. Lutz, ‘Remigius’ Ideas on the Origin of the Seven Liberal Arts’, Med. et Hum., x (1956), 32–49, and notes 110 and 159 above.

167 Cf. Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. xv. For the technical sense of sacra pagina ‘sacred page’ see J. de Ghellinck, ‘Pagina et sacra pagina: Histoire d’un mot et transformation de l’objet primitivement désigné’, Mélanges A. Pelzer (Louvain, 1947), pp. 23–59.

168 Cf. the remark by Augustine that it is not what divinely-inspired writers have in common with pagan orators and poets that gave him more pleasure in that eloquence than he could express, but rather the extent to which those writers were eloquent in a manner all of their own. See De doctrina Christiana, i.6(ed. Green, p. 11). Cf. Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum, prologus, capi xv–xvi(ed. Adriaen, i, 18–22).

169 C. Thurot, ‘Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l’histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, xxii, pt. 2(1868), 103–4.

170 See p. 73, and note 1 on p. 247.

171 Moralia in Job, praefatio (pr. PL, lxxv, 515–28).

172 Ibid., 517A–B.

173 Ibid., 517C–519A.

174 For later discussions of the ‘good pagan’, see pp. 114, 143, 165.

175 Epistola, cap.iv (pr. PL, lxxv, 514D–515A).

176 Goffredo di Auxerre, Expositio in cantica canticorum, ed. F. Gastaldelli, (Rome, 1974), i, 5. Cf. F. Gastaldelli, ‘L’esgesi biblica secondo Goffredo di Auxerre’, Salesianum, xxxvii (1975), 222–3.

177 For discussion of this method of interpreting the Song of Songs, see pp. 51–2.

178 Stegmüller, Bibl., 911; printed among the works of St Thomas Aquinas in the Parma edition, xiv, 387–426.

179 Ibid., p. 388.

180 Cf. Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 281–355.

181 Ibid., p. 297.

CHAPTER 2

1 See the useful list of Remigius’s works in Remigii commentum in Martianum, ed. Lutz, i, 11–16; also Stegmüller, Bibl., 7189–7247; Bibl. suppl., 7194–7246.

2 See B. Bischoff, ‘Living with the Satirists’, in Classical Influences on European Culture a.d. 500–1500, ed. R. R. Bolgar (Cambridge, 1971), p. 84; cf. Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 49–51.

3 However, the position of Remigius is not so crucial as Huygens has suggested: see Chapter I, n. 54 on p. 224.

4 PL, cxxxi 148; cf. M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Munich, 1911), i, 516–7; B. Smalley, ‘La Glossa ordinaria’, RTAM, ix (1937), 398: P. A. Vaccari, ‘Il genuino commento ai salmi di Remigio di Auxerre’, in his Scritti di erudizione e di filologia, i (Rome, 1952), 283–329.

5 PL, ccvii, 361C, 819D. See also the tentative use of prologue-headings in cols 735B–C.

6 PL, cxvii, 11–294, 295–358, 937–1220.

7 PL, clii, 638B–9A.

8 See A. Stoelen, ‘Les Commentaires scripturaires attribués à Bruno le Chartreux’, RTAM, xxv (1958), 177–247, and ‘Bruno le Chartreux, Jean Gratiadei et la “Lettre de S. Anselme” sur l’euchariste’, ibid., xxxiv (1967), 18–83.

9 Lottin, Psychologie et morale, v, 173–4; cf. N. Häring, ‘Two Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres’, AHDLMA, xxvii (1960), 68. Anselm seems to have provided most of the glosses to the Psalter and Pauline Epistles (see Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 60) but not the prologues which introduce these glosses in the early printed editions, as in Biblia glossata, iii, 443–8; vi, 9–12.

10 PL, clxii, 1187–9.

11 See J. Leclercq, ‘Le Commentaire du Cantique des Cantiques attribué à Anselme de Laon’, RTAM, xvi (1949), 23–39. The evidence for Anselm’s authorship is inconclusive; Miss Smalley regards the attribution as ‘doubtful, and indeed probably wrong’ (personal communication).

12 PL, cxvi, 196–7. Cf. A. Wilmart, ‘Un Commentaire des psaumes restitué à Anselme de Laon’, RTAM, viii (1936), 325–44. His suggestion was rejected by Lottin, Psychologie et morale, v, 170–5; A. Landgraf, ‘Die Zuweisung eines Psalmenkommentars an Anselm von Laon’, Biblica, xxiii (1942), 170–4; D. Van den Eynde, ‘Literary Note on the Earliest Scholastic Commentarii in psalmos’, Franciscan Studies, xiv (1954), 121–54; W. Hartmann, ‘Psalmenkommentare aus der Zeit der Reform und der Frühscholastik’, Studi Gregoriani, ix (1972), 346–54. For a recent defence of Wilmart’s opinion, see V. I. J. Flint, ‘Some Notes on the Early Twelfth Century Commentaries on the Psalms’, RTAM, xxxvii (1971), 80–5.

13 Stegmüller, Bibl., 2511–32, 6374–84, 3566–75. There are no firm grounds for believing that Abelard was the innovator responsible for introducing the ‘type C’ prologue in Scriptural exegesis, as was implied by Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 85–112; cf. N. Häring, ‘The Lectures of Thierry of Chartres on Boethius De trinitate’, AHDLMA, xxv (1959), 120–1. For the dating of Honorius’s commentary, see H. Menhardt, ‘Der Nachlass des Honorius Augustodunensis’, in Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, lxxxix(1958), 69.

14 On the blending of old and new in medieval exegesis, see, for example, Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 10–15, 72–8; H. H. Gluncz, History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Bacon (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 206–7.

15 See, especially, the principles outlined by Abelard in the prologue to his Sic et non, discussed on p. 59; cf. Spicq, Esquisse, p. 73.

16 For description of the Glossa ordinaria, see B. Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 52–64, and her series of articles in RTAM, vii (1935), 235–62; viii (1936), 24–60; ix (1937), 365–400. It must be emphasised that the text of the Glossa ordinaria did not achieve the state represented by the early printed editions until relatively late, perhaps in the early thirteenth century.

17 Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 64–5; RTAM, ix, 370–1.

18 It may be added that the stock prologue-headings were applied in expounding the prologues of Jerome incorporated in medieval Bibles. For example, Peter Comestor discussed the auctor, materia, locus, tempus and modus agendi of St John’s gospel as indicated by Jerome’s prologue: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 494, fols 1^v–2^r. In his commentary on St Matthew, Peter first gave his own views on the materia, intentio and modus agendi of his auctor and then discussed the intentio, ordo and utilitas which he supposed Jerome to have found in this gospel: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 291, fols 1^r–l^v, 2^v–3^r. St Albert the Great, explaining the intentio, materia and ordo of the prophet Zachariah, professed himself to be dependent on Jerome, just as Jerome had been dependent on others: Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xix, 518. In this way, medieval exegetes ‘read in’ their own notions of literary theory into ancient prologues.

19 G. Lacombe and B. Smalley, ‘Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton’, AHDLMA, v (1931), 83.

20 E.g. the four Psalter-prologues in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 217, fols 21^r–22^v. This MS is described by Moore, Works of Peter of Poitiers, p. 95.

21 De doctrina christiana, iii.21 (ed. Green, p. 98).

22 See, especially, the statement of Thomas of Citeaux (writing between 1175 and 1180), who distinguished between three kinds of epithalamium, the historical, philosophical and theological: PL, ccvi, 17D–18A. See, further, the Glossa ordinaria on the Song of Songs, PL, cxiii, 1127; Honorius ‘of Autun’ (writing between 1151 and 1158), PL, clxxii, 349D–350A; Philip of Harvengt († 1183), PL, cciii, 186A, 188B; St Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones super cantica canticorum, sermo i.8 (ed. J. Leclercq, et al., S. Bernardi opera (Rome, 1957– ), i, 6); William of St Thierry, quoted on p. 48; Peter the Chanter, in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 15565, fol. 52^v.

23 See, especially, the statement of Philip of Harvengt, who asserts the supremacy of the Song of Songs over the inane fables of the poets: PL, cciii, 181B, cf. 185–6A. See, further, the Glossa ordinaria, PL, cxiii, 1128B; Richard of St Victor, PL, cxcvi, 405B, 408B; Peter the Chanter, BN Lat. 15565, fol. 52^v; and the commentary on the Song of Songs ascribed to Anselm of Laon, PL, clxii, 1188B, 1189C. With this entire discussion may now be compared Jean Leclercq’s lively discussion of Solomon as ‘a Biblical master of love’, in Monks and Love in Twelfth Century France (Oxford, 1979), pp. 27–61.

24 Biblia glossata, iii, 443 (= PL, cxiii, 842A). For St Thomas’s praise of the excellence of the Psalter, see Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 245–6.

25 For Ambrose, see PL, xiv, 922B, 923C, 966D, 1039, 1087B–C; for Augustine, see De doctrina Christiana, ii. 8 (ed. Green, p. 41) and De civitate Dei, xvii. 14 (ed. Hoffmann, ii, 245–6); for Cassiodorus, see Expositio psalmorum, praefatio, cap. ii (ed. Adriaen, i, 10).

26 See Jerome’s comments on Psalms lxxiv, lxxvii, lxxx, lxxxiii, etc. (ed. Morin, pp. 48, 64–5, 78, 95–6).

27 See his Epistola cxl, Ad Cyprianum Presbyterum (pr. PL, xxii, 1169); cf. the Praefatio in librum psalmorum iuxta Hebraicam veritatem (pr. PL, xxviii, 1123–8).

28 For affirmations of the excellence of David’s prophecy, see Peter Lombard, PL, cxci, 59B; Pseudo-Haimo, PL, cxvi, 193–5; Letbert of Lille, PL, xxi, 644B; Gerhoh of Reichersberg, PL, cxciii, 627–8, 637–8; ?Bruno the Carthusian, PL, clii, 639B; Pseudo-Remigius, PL, cxxxi, 145–8; Honorius ‘of Autun’, PL, clxxii, 272C–3B.

29 Biblia glossata, iii, 443 (= PL, cxiii, 841).

30 See, for example, the glosses on Psalms xlix, lxxx, lxxxi, and lxxxiii, in Biblia glossata, iii, 797 (= PL, cxiii, 916D), 1065 (= 979B), 1075 (= 981A), 1085 (= 985B–D).

31 For Jerome, see note 26 above. Cf. Cassiodori expositio psalmorum, on Psalms lxxii, lxxiii, lxxxiii, etc. (ed. Adriaen, ii, 660, 671, 767–8); S. Augustini enarrationes in psalmos, on Psalms xxxviii, xli, xliii, xliv, xlv, etc. (ed. Dekkers and Fraipont, i, 401–2, 460–1, 481–2, 493–4, 517–8).

32 Biblia glossata, iii, 444–5 (= PL, cxiii, 848–4).

33 Cf. M. Pontet, L’Exégèse de S. Augustin prédicateur (Paris, 1946), pp. 387–91.

34 Didascalicon, v.2 (trans. Taylor, p. 121). For similar applications of the cithar metaphor, see H.J. Spitz, Die Metaphorik des geistigen Schriftsinns, Munstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, xii (Munich, 1972), 223–31; J. Fontaine, ‘Les Symbolismes de la cithare dans la poésie de Paulin de Nole’, in Romanitas et christianitas: Studia I. H. Waszink oblata, ed. W. Den Boer, et al. (Amsterdam and London, 1973), pp. 123–43.

35 For the lives of Virgil, see Vitae Vergilianae antiquae, ed. C. Hardie (Oxford, 1966); Upson, CP, xxxviii, 103–11; for the lives of Ovid, see Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 10–59.

36 The Lombard’s comment follows that of Remigius: PL, cxci, 57C—D.

37 Stegmüller, Bibl., 6637. Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 64.

38 PL, cxci, 55A.

39 Ibid., 58.

40 Cf. Cassiodorus, In psalterium praefatio, cap. 2 (ed. Adriaen, i, 9–11).

41 PL, cxci, 59B. For the various series of psalm-titles that appear in medieval manuscripts, see P. Salmon, Les ‘Tituli psalmorum’ des manuscrits latins, Collectanea biblica latina, xii (Rome, 1959).

42 Cf. the statement by Honorius at the beginning of his Expositio psalmorum (PL, clxxii, 271B). See, also, Letbert of Lille, PL, xxi, 644D; the preamble to Pseudo-Remigius on the Psalter and the commentator’s own opinion, PL, cxxxi, 137–8, 147C; Pseudo-Haimo, PL, cxvi, 195D.

43 Cf. the cursory treatment afforded this historical context by Philip of Harvengt, PL, cciii, 85C—D; Honorius, PL, clxxii, 349A, 352. Honorius systematically describes Solomon’s verses literally, allegorically, tropologically and anagogically, the literal readings being very brief. St Bernard was not interested in the literal sense of the work, spending most of his time in ‘the shadowy wood where allegories lurk unseen’: Sermo xvi. 1 (ed. Leclercq et al., i, 90–1).

44 Guillaume de St Thierry, Exposé sur le cantique des cantiques, ed. J.-M. Dechanet and M. Dumontier, Sources chrétiennes, lxxxii (Paris, 1962), 82.

45 De doctrina christiana, iv. 12 (ed. Green, pp. 137–9). Cf. Cicero, Orator, xxi.69 (in Brutus, Orator, ed. H. H. Hubbell (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1939), pp. 356–7; De oratore, II.xxvii. 115, II.xxviii.121, II.lxxvii.310(ed. H. Rackham (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1942), i, 280, 284, 434).

46 See, for example, Cicero’s Orator, xxi. 69 (ed. Hubbell, pp. 356–7); De optimo genereoratorum, i.3 (in Deinventione, etc., pp. 356–7.)

47 Cf. Cicero, De oratore, II.lxxvii. 310 (ed. Rackham, i, 434); Brutus, xxiii.89 (ed. Hubbell, pp. 82–3); also, Augustine, Contra Cresconium, I.xiii. 16 (ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL, lii (1909), 338–40). See, further, E. de Bruyne, Études d’esthétique médiévale (Brugge, 1946), i, 47–8, 58.

48 Cf. De oratore, III.lv.210–2 (ed. Rackham, ii, 166–9); Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, XII.x.69 (ed. Butler, iv, 488–9).

49 Ad Herennium, IV.viii. 11 (pp. 252–4). Cf. Chapter I, n. 44, on p. 223.

50 De doctrina christiana, iv. 7 (ed. Green, p. 143).

51 Ibid., iv.7, iv. 18 (pp. 124–5, 144–6).

52 M. Dickey, ‘Some Commentaries on the De inventione and Ad Herennium of the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries’, MARS, vi (1968), 14–15; K. M. Fredborg, ‘The Commentaries on Cicero’s De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Campeaux’, CIMAGL, xvii (1976), 31–2.

53 Gilbert the Universal (Bishop of London 1128–34) was very interested in the rhetorical qualities of Lamentations: see, for example, his discussion of Jeremiah’s use of complaint and indignation (cf. Ad Herennium, III.xiii.24, IV.xv.22), incorporated in the Glossa ordinaria: Biblia glossata, iv, 908). Gerhoh of Reichersberg’s elaborate exposition of the Psalter’s modus tractandi has already been cited, on p. 22. Even more impressive is the commentary on the Song of Songs by Philip of Harvengt, who demonstrates an extensive knowledge of classical auctores: PL, cciii, 181–490.

54 There were supposed to be four basic emotions or affectus out of which all human emotions are composed, namely, love, fear, delight and misery: cf. E. Gilson, The Mystical Theology of St Bernard, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London, 1940), p. 101. The Augustinian theory of the affectus is discussed above, p. 120.

55 See, for example, De inventione, I.ii.3, I.v.6, I.xvi.22–5 (pp. 6–7, 14–15, 44–51); De optimo genere oratorum, i. 3–ii.5 (ibid., pp. 356–9); Ad Herennium, I.iv.7—v.8 (pp. 12–16); Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, XII.x.58–60 (ed. Butler, iv, 482–5).

56 See, especially, Plato, Republic, x, 603–7 (in Ancient Literary Criticism, The Principal Texts in New Translations, ed. D. A. Russell and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1972), pp. 71–4).

57 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Hugyens, p. 67.

58 Stegmüller, Bibl., 2511. In a unique colophon in Oxford, Balliol College, MS 36, we are told that Gilbert read his glosses to Anselm ‘causa emendationis’: see the Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford, compiled by R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1963), p. 26; cf. Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 64. For Gilbert’s links with Chartres, see N. Häring, ‘Chartres and Paris Revisited’, in Essays in Honour of A. C. Pegis, ed. J. R. O’Donnell (Toronto, 1974), esp. pp. 299–313.

59 Intendit enim propheta non solum de Cristo que proponit docere, verum in docendo affectum carnalium hominum ad eandem laudem trahere (Balliol MS 36, fol. 2^r).

60 Unde et metrice scripsit et diversis loquendi generibus opus ornavit et ante archam voce et instrumentis et maxime cum psalterio ipse cum multis et coram multis cantavit.

61 For William’s theory of the affections, see M. M. Davy, Théologie et mystique de Guillaume de St Thierry, i, La Connaissance de Dieu, Études de théologie et d’histoire de la spiritualité, xiv (Paris, 1954), 146, 220–1; E. R. Elder, ‘William of St Thierry: Rational and Affective Spirituality’, in The Spirituality of Western Christendom, ed. E. R. Elder (Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1976), pp. 85–105.

62 Exposé sur le cantique, p. 74.

63 St Bernard, In cant. cant., sermo xxxvii, 1–2 (ed. Leclercq, ii, 9–10).

64 De natura et dignitate amoris, i. 1 (pr. PL, clxxxiv, 379C).

65 See esp. ibid., 381A; see further Gilson, Mystical Theology of St Bernard, pp. 200; 230–1, n. 82; 247, n. 261, and Leclercq, Monks and Love, pp. 62–85.

66 Exposé sur le cantique, pp. 76–8.

67 Ibid., pp. 88–102; cf. the argument of William’s De nat. et dig. amoris, summarised by Gilson, Mystical Theology of St Bernard, pp. 200 et seq.

68 Cristus integer caput cum menbris est materia huius libri, de qua agit propheta hoc modo. Loquitur enim aliquando [simul de toto, id est Cristo et ecclesia; aliquando] de singulis, id est Cristo vel ecclesia. De Cristo autem tribus modis: aliquando enim de divinitate ut ibi, ‘tecum principium’, aliquando de humanitate proprie ut ibi, ‘desiderium cordis eius tribuisti ei’, aliquando transsumptione, dicendo de eo quod solis convenit membris ut ibi, ‘longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum’. De ecclesia vero duobus modis: aliquando secundum perfectos, aliquando secundum inperfectos. De perditis autem aliquando interserit propter bonos. De hac autem materia et hoc modo agit hac intentione, ut perditi in Adam Cristo per quem solum peccata dimittuntur et immortalitas redditur, conformentur, id est sicut portaverunt imaginem terreni, portent imaginem celestis. Titulus libri est: incipit liber ymnorum. Ymnus est laus Dei cum cantico . . . (Balliol MS 36, fol. 2^r).

69 In Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. D.2.1, Gilbert’s headings for the Psalter as a whole are written neatly in the left-hand margins of the prologue, in coloured inks: materia, modus, intentio, titulus, genus prophetiae, nomen libri and numerus psalmorum. The names of the auctores from which the glosses are derived are placed in the right-hand margin. A similar method is followed in the presentation of individual psalms; e.g. the first psalm is accompanied by the following headings: nullus titulus, materia, intentio and partitio psalmi. See, further, plate 2, p. 53.

70 Herbert of Bosham, who corrected and edited Peter Lombard’s commentary, tells us that the Lombard undertook an expansion of Anselm’s commentary to render it less obscure: see J. de Ghellinck, ‘La Carrière de Pierre Lombard: Nouvelle précision chronologique’, RHE, xxx (1934), 98.

71 See PL, cxci, 57–9, 69, 77–8, 81–3, etc.

72 Ibid., 60.

73 PL, cxvi, 196C–D. Wilmart thought this commentary was by Anselm of Laon: see note 12 above. Its prologue has many resemblances to the prologue which introduces a Psalter-commentary recently restored to Letbert of Lille (who died in 1110, although his commentary was not published until 1125): see A. Wilmart, ‘Le Commentaire sur les psaumes imprimé sous le nom de Rufin’, Rev. bén., xxxi (1914/9), 258–76. Letbert’s prologue—if it is indeed his work—is one of the most elaborate of all twelfth-century introductions to the Psalter, comprising discussion of the Psalter’s titulus, causa inscriptionis, finis, materia, pars philosophiae, intentio and modus: see PL, xxi, 641–6.

74 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 32. The earliest extant MS of this accessus is Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 19475 (XIIs., from Tegernsee): see Huygens, pp. 2–6. With our discussion here cf. Minnis, ‘Moral Gower’, pp. 55–8.

75 Similar vocabulary is employed in prologues to commentaries on the Pauline Epistles: see pp. 62, 242 n. 97. In his commentary on the Four Evangelists, Peter the Chanter provides a description of the communis materia, intentio and utilitas omnium: London, British Library, MS Royal 10. C. V., fol. 172^r. Cf. the descriptions of the common and special intentions of classical satires: Kristeller, CTC, i, 188, 195–6; iii, 224–5, 227. See, further, the similar vocabulary in legal materiae cited on p. 21 above.

76 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 32. This relationship between praise and censure derives from ancient rhetorical theory: see, for example, Cicero, De inventione, II.lix.177–8 (pp. 342–5); Ad Herennium, III.vi.10–viii. 15 (pp. 172–85).

77 For use of the related terms prodesse and delectare, or utilitas and delectatio, in commentaries on secular auctores, see Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 22, 26, 36, 45, 63, 84, etc.; Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 42–3, 46, 58; Kristeller, CTC, i, 197. Horace’s injunction to ‘mix grave and gay’ was well known: see, for example, the statements by Stephen Langton and Robert Holcot quoted by Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 158. See, further, Curtius, European Literature, pp. 417–35, and the extensive discussions of delectatio in Glending Olson, Literature as Recreation in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca and London, 1982), and J. Suchomski, ‘Delectatio’ und ‘Utilitas’: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis mittelalterlicher komischer Literatur (Bern, 1975).

78 Exposé sur le cantique, pp. 80–2. Cf. Philip of Harvengt’s statement about Greek comedy, PL, cciii, 186A; also, the commentary on the Song of Songs ascribed to Anselm of Laon, PL, clxii, 1189B–C. For a general survey of the limited notions of Roman drama current in the Middle Ages (which, however, ignores Scriptural exegesis), see M. H. Marshall, ‘Theatre in the Middle Ages: Evidence from Dictionaries and Glosses’, Symposium, iv(1950), 1–39.

79 De arte metrica, ed. H. Keil, Grammatici Latini, vii (Leipzig, 1880), p. 259.

80 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, p. 65.

81 Comment. in Buc., prologus (ed. Thilo and Hagen, iii, 1–2); Etymologiae, ed. Lindsay, viii.7.11; Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 32, 44.

82 Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, trans. R. P. Lawson, Ancient Christian Writers, xxvi (Westminster, Maryland, and London, 1957), 21–2.

83 See, for example, the anonymous commentary cit. Spicq, Esquisse, p. 245.

84 PL, clxxviii, 1339–49. For a useful discussion, see J. Cottiaux, ‘La Conception de la théologie d’Abélard’, RHE, xxviii (1932), 247–95, 533–51, 788–828. Abelard’s methods have been interpreted as a development of techniques used by canon lawyers in their reconciliation of discordant canons: see M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastichen Methode (Freiburg, 1909–11), i, 234–46. Abelard was by no means the only theologian to employ these techniques, and he was certainly not the first, but he was one of the most articulate: see E. Bertola, ‘I precedenti storici del metodo del Sic et non di Abelardo’, RFN, liii (1961), 255–80.

85 PL, clxxviii, 1343B.

86 Ibid., 1347C–D.

87 Petri Abaelardi opera theologica, ed. E. M. Buytaert, CCCM, xi–xii (1969), i, 44–6.

88 Cf. the material cit. Bertola, RFN, liii, 271–2.

89 Biblia glossata, vi, 12 (= PL, cxiv, 469–70); PL, cxci, 1299D–1300C. For the dating of the Lombard’s commentary on the Pauline Epistles, and his various other works, see, now, I. Brady’s prolegomena to Petri Lombardi sententiae in IV libros distinctae, i, pars 1, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, iv (Grottaferrata, 1971).

90 Abaelardi opera, ed. Buytaert, i, 47–8. Cf. quaestio 98 of the Sic et non (PL, clxxviii, 1486–8).

91 PL, cxci, 1302–3.

92 Historia calamitatum, ed. J. Monfrin, 2 ed. (Paris, 1962), p. 68; Biblia glossata, vi, 13A–B (= PL, cxiv, 469B).

93 The importance of knowing an author’s intention is, of course, one of the principles explained in the Sic et non prologue: PL, clxxviii, 1345–6.

94 See Lottin, Psychologie et morale, i. 1, 22–4; Peter Abelard’s Ethics, ed. D. E. Luscombe (Oxford, 1971), pp. xxxii–xxxiii; D. E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 19, 79, 139–40, 151–2, 174–7, etc.

95 Abaelardi opera, ed. Buytaert, i, 41. Cf. the anonymous follower of Abelard, now known as the ‘Cambridge commentator’, Commentarius Cantabrigensis in epistolas Pauli, ed. A. Landgraf, Notre-Dame University Publications in Medieval Studies, ii (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1937–45), i, 1–2.

96 De inventione, II.lvi. 168–9 (pp. 334–7).

97 Cf. the Glossa ordinaria on the Pauline Epistles, Biblia glossata, vi, 9 (not in PL, cxiv); Peter Lombard, PL, cxci, 1302B. These analyses of general and special materials and intentions parallel the representative analysis of Ovid’s Heroides quoted on pp. 55–6. It would have been logical to transfer a technique of analysis from study of a pagan collection of letters, the Heroides, to study of a sacred collection of letters, the Pauline Epistles, especially in view of the then-current interest in letter-collections, ars dictaminis and epistolary style.

98 Abaelardi opera, ed. Buytaert, i, 47. Cf. the Glossa ordinaria (Biblia glossata, vi, 9–10. Not in PL, cxiv). See, further, the similar comments on other Pauline Epistles: PL, cxiv, 551A, 587D, 601B, 609A–B, 623D, 633A. Cf. also the Comment. Cantabrig., i, 6; the beginning of Gilbert of Poitiers’ commentary on Romans, in Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 118, fol. 33^r; Peter Lombard, PL, cxci, 1302B, 1534B; PL, cxcii, 9C, 95A, 169D, 223B, 259B, 289B–C, 312C, 326C–D, 363C, 384B, 395B. In these glosses, the Ciceronian objectives of an exordium (to render an orator’s hearers attentive, docile and benevolent) are applied in describing the letter-writer’s appeal to his readers. This is a common feature of the theory of letter writing; e.g. it appears in one of the earliest treatises on the subject, written c. 1087 by Alberic of Monte Cassino: Alberici Casinensis flores rhetoricii, ed. D. M. Inguanez and H. M. Willard, Miscellanea Cassinese, xiv (Montecassino, 1938), 38. Cf. Cicero, De inventione, I. xv.20 (pp. 40–3); Ad Herennium, I.iii.5–vii. 11 (pp. 10–23). According to Alberic, the salutation (salutatio) with which a letter begins should identify both the sender and the recipient, and it must be appropriate to the recipient, the subject and the intention of the writer. Theory of this kind seems to lie behind the theologians’ descriptions of St Paul’s salutations.

99 J. W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (Princeton, 1970), i, 44.

100 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 105–6.

101 Cf. Moore, Works of Peter of Poitiers, pp. 95–6.

102 These works, together with Peter the Chanter’s Summa Abel, are the earliest extant collections of distinctiones: see Moore, p. 78; G. Lacombe, La Vie et les oeuvres de Prévostin, Bibliothéque Thomiste, ix (Le Saulchoir, 1927), 112–30.

103 Cf. R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, ‘Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century’, AHDLMA, xli (1974) esp. p. 28; also, Moore, pp. 78–82; J. B. Allen, The Friar as Critic (Vanderbilt, Nashville, 1971), pp. 102–112.

104 See the examples from Peter of Poitiers’ Summa super psalterium, pr. Moore, pp. 79–81, and Rouse, AHDLMA, xli, 28. Distinction collections were employed in the writing of sermons: ibid., p. 30; cf. the enthusiastic reaction of Peter of Aldgate to a sermon by Gilbert Foliot which employed distinctiones, cit. R. W. Hunt, ‘English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century’, in Essays in Medieval History, ed. R. W. Southern (London, 1968), p. 120.

105 Cf. B. Smalley, ‘Peter Comestor on the Gospels and his Sources’, RTAM, xlvi (1979), 109–10.

106 Ibid., p. 110. The earliest-known Paris lecture-course on a Gospel (in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lat. th.d.45) begins with a passage from the Old Testament, the description of the ark in Exodus xxv. 12–14. St Luke’s materia, intentio, causa scribendi and modus agendi are then explained. See B. Smalley, ‘An Early Paris Lecture Course on St Luke’, in Sapientiae Doctrina: Mélanges offerts à Dom H. Bascour, Réch. de théol. anc. et méd., numéro spécial, i (Leuven, 1980), 305.

107 See the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysi, ed. P. S. Moore and J. A. Corbett (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1938), p. xvii.

108 Smalley, RTAM, xlvi, 110.

109 ‘Facies michi tentorium in introitu tabernaculi quatuor preciosis coloribus contextum’. Tabernaculum quo Deus in nobis habitat, in quo nos reficit et saginat, divina pagina est. Nam sicut ingrethientibus tabernaculum duo occurrebant introitus qui per duo tentoria distinguebantur, ita accedentibus ad sacre Scripture paginam duo occurrunt principia scilicet intrinsecus et extrinsecus. Et sicut illa tentoria quatuor preciosis coloribus erant distincta, ita et hec principia in quatuor partes sunt divisa. Nam principium extrinsecus distinguitur in causam nominis et causam quantitatis et causam distinctionis et causam frequentationis. Principium intrinsecus in titulum, materiam, intentionem et ordinem (Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 48, fol. 59^r). The text from Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat.425, fol. 1^r, is pr. Moore, pp. 95–6, 178. Cf. the very similar prologue to an anonymous Psalter-commentary found in Paris, Bib. Nat., MS Lat. 455, cit. Moore, p. 178.

110 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 105–6.

111 Cf. the similar use of headings in Peter of Corbeil’s gloss on the Pauline Epistles, cit. ibid., p. 106, n. 1.

112 See Stegmüller, Bibl., 6564.1. The terms extrinsecus and intrinsecus are not used in Peter’s commentaries on the Gospels: cf. Smalley, RTAM, xlvi, 110.

113 Praepositinus seems to have produced two versions of his prologue: the first, to introduce his glosses on the first 50 psalms; the second, being a slightly modified version of the first, to introduce his distinctiones on the entire Psalter. We are concerned with the later commentary, Stegmüller, Bibl., 6987.

114 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 454, fol. 73^r.

115 Iuxta huc modum expositor psalterii duplicem facit ingressum, scilicet ingressum ad librum et ingressum in libro, et uterque quatuor continet in se quasi quatuor coloribus distinguatur. Ingressus ad librum continet causam nominis, id est, quare psalterium vel soliloquium liber iste dicatur; et causam quantitatis, id est, quare CL psalmos contineat; et causam distinctionis, id est, quare in tribus quinquagensis distinguatur; et causam frequentationis, id est, quare ab ecclesia scriptura David plusquam aliorum prophetarum frequentatur. Et dicitur iste ingressus ad librum, quia, hiis cognitis, parum vel nichil de sensu libri nobis aperitur. Secundus ingressus, qui est in libro, similiter quatuor continet, scilicet tytulum, materiam, intentionem et modum agendi. Et hoc dicitur ingressus in libro quia, hiis quatuor cognitis, ea que in libro continentur aliquatenus nobis reserantur (Ibid., fol. 73^v). A prologue bearing certain resemblances to that of Praepositinus is found in Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 7, fol. 1^r et seq. This commentary, falsely attributed to Stephen Langton (cf. Stegmüller, Bibi., 7799), is probably by Hilduin, Chancellor of Notre Dame in 1160 or 1189. See B. Smalley, ‘A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS Pembroke College, Cambridge 7’, Camb. Hist. Jour., vi (1938), 103, 113.

116 For a description of this MS, see Moore, Works of Peter of Poitiers, pp. 92–3.

117 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 217, fols 21^r–22^v.

118 Pr. Hugonis postilla, ii, 2^r–3^v; Stegmüller, Bibi., 3675.

119 These comprehensive commentaries seem to have been completed during Hugh’s first five years of teaching at St Jacques, a formidable task for one man: see Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 272–4. On the Bible-concordance produced at St Jacques see R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, ‘The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’, AFP, xliv (1974), 5–30.

120 Cf. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 107. Peter makes the same basic point at the beginning of his commentary on Genesis, when expounding Jerome’s preface: superfluous glosses are to be avoided, because Christ is the best gloss for the Old and New Testaments. London, British Library, MS Royal 2.C.VIII, fol. 1^v.

121 Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 49, fol. 4^r.

122 Here, Peter is elaborating on Isaiah xxix. 11–12.

123 Here, we are assured that the liberal arts are the seats and, as it were, the substructures, of theology: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 14892, fol. 123^r.

124 Cf. Peter of Poitiers’ elaborate allegorisation of the veiled and horned face of Moses, in All. sup. tab. Moysi, ed. Moore and Corbett, pp. 193–7.

125 This feature of the Chanter’s theology in general is stressed throughout Baldwin’s book, Masters, Princes and Merchants.

126 Smalley, RTAM, xlvi, 110.

127 Ibid.

128 Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, i, 25–6; ii, 16.

129 Oxford, Trinity College, MS 65, fol. 214^v. Stegmüller, Bibl., 7747.

130 Trinity, MS 65, fol. 86^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 7745.

131 Cf. the similar statements by Rupert of Deutz in his commentary on Genesis, cit. Spitz, Die Metaphorik, pp. 194, 196. Rupert uses the terms extrinsecus and intrinsecus to refer to literal sense and spiritual sense respectively.

132 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson, G.427, fol. 69^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 7843.

133 See the quotation from this MS by Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 106–7, n. 3.

134 Stegmüller, Bibl., 3719, 3725. Texts in Hugonis postilla, v, 82^r; vi, 151^v.

135 As in the prologues to the commentaries on Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus: ibid., iii, 62^v, 153^v. Cf. the prologue to the Song of Songs: ibid., iii, 93^v.

136 Unde more doctorum primo videndum est, quis auctor, quae sit libri materia, quis modus agendi, quis finis, quae intentio, quae utilitas, et cui parti philosophiae supponatur, quis titulus, quot libri partes, quis expositor, quis translator (ibid., iii, 153^v).

137 Ibid., i, 121^v.

138 For the relevant Langton passage, see Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, pp. 106–7, n. 3; for Hugh’s prologue, see Hugonis postilla, iv, 283^r.

139 Ibid., iv, 283^r.

140 It appears in the prologues to the commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and the Psalter: ibid., i, 2^r, 71^v, 99^v, 121^v; ii, 2^v.

141 See, for example, the prologue to Langton’s commentary on Exodus, cit. pp. 69–70. Langton also allegorises the tabernacle in the prologue to his commentary on Genesis where (as in the prologue to his Exodus-commentary) the four colours are interpreted as the four senses of Scripture: Trinity, MS 65, fol. 1^r. The tabernacle also appears in the prologue to Langton’s commentary on Leviticus: ibid., fol. 176^r.

142 See the prologues to the commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Kings: Hugonis postilla, i, 2^r, 71^v, 99^r, 121^v, 145^r, 171^r, 188^v, 207^v, 210^v. Cf. Langton’s use of intus et foris in e.g. his commentary on Deuteronomy: ‘Hic autem liber scriptus est intus et foris, intus quia addit, foris quia recapitulat, vel litteraliter et spiritualiter’ (Trinity MS 65, fol. 254^v).

143 In the prologue to Hugh’s commentary on Numbers, the terms foris and intus are used in conjunction with both the extrinsecuslintrinsecus and litteralislspiritualis distinctions: Hugonis postilla, i, 12 1^v. In the prologue to Hugh’s commentary on Leviticus, foris and intus are related to the litteralislspiritualis distinction: ibid., i, 99^r.

144 As in the prologue to Hugh’s Exodus-commentary: ibid., i, 71^v.

145 Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 274.

146 For Abelard’s classification, see pp. 61–2; for Hugh’s see Didascalicon, iv.2 (ed. Buttimer, pp. 71–2). See, further, Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 147–8.

147 Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 292–3.

CHAPTER 3

1 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 10, responsio (Blackfriars ed. (London and New York, 1964–81), i, 36–9). Cf. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, i.2, ii. 1, iii. 5ff. (ed. Green, pp. 9, 33–4, 84ff.); Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, v.3 (ed. Buttimer, pp. 96–7). Aquinas’s version of the distinction between significative words and significative things was incorporated in the first prologue to Nicholas of Lyre’s Postilla litteralis (pr. Biblia glossata, i, unfol.) and repeated in the prologue to his subsequent Postilla moralis (ibid.). From Lyre’s Post. litt. it was taken to be included in the Lollard prologue to the English Bible: see The Holy Bible made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his Followers, ed. J. Forshall and F. Madden (Oxford, 1850), i, 52–3. The whole of the present chapter may now be compared with G. R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation (Cambridge, 1985), esp. pp. 7–19 (on the divine and human authorship of holy Scripture).

2 Cf. the somewhat different formulation of this theory by Henry of Ghent, Summa quaestionum, art. 16, qu.3 (pr. Summae quaestionum ordinariarum Henrici a Gandavo (Paris, 1520), fol. 105^v). Stegmüller, Sent., 318.

3 Summa theologiae, I^a P. tract. 1, qu.5, m.4, ad 3um (Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xxxi, 28). See, further, Albert’s Bible-glosses in Opera, xxii, 312, 324, 481. Cf. Aquinas, Quodlibetum septimum, qu.6, art.2 (pr. S. Thomae Aquinatis quaestiones quodlibetales, 8 ed., ed. R. Spiazzi (Marietti, 1949), p. 155), and Nicholas of Lyre, in the prologue to his commentary on Job (Biblia glossata, iii, 12). Richard FitzRalph defined the literal sense of a Scriptural passage as ‘that sense which the human author immediately understands of the passage’: Summa Ricardi Radulphi in quaestionibus Armenorum (Paris, 1512), fol. 2^v.

4 Super epistolam ad Romanos, cap.iv, lect. 1, 331 (pr. S. Thomae Aquinatis, super epistolas S. Pauli lectura, ed. P. R. Cai (Marietti, 1953), p. 59); cf. Spicq, Esquisse, p. 251.

5 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 10, ad lum; cf. ad 3um (Blackfriars ed., i, 38, 40) Cf. Augustine, Epistola xciii.8 (pr. PL, xxxiii, 334). On the demonstrative capability of the sensus litteralis, see Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 279–81; also, Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 300–1.

6 But, of course, they were of considerable use to the preacher. The ‘spiritual’ exposition was supposed to train students of theology to preach and, in lecture-courses, it was often preserved—in full or in extracts—as an aid to sermon-making. For example, most Psalter-commentaries from the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries belong to this particular genre: see B. Smalley, ‘Robert Bacon and the Early Dominican School’, TRHS, 4 ser., xxx (1948), 1–19.

7 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 10. ad lum (Blackfriars ed., i, 38). But St Thomas was not altogether consistent: see B. Smalley, ‘William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law’, in St Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974, Commemorative Studies, ed. A. Maurer et al., Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (Toronto, 1974), ii, 11–71. Cf. the ambivalent attitude to the spiritual sense held by a pupil of St Thomas’s, Remigio dei Girolami of Florence: Contra falsos ecclesie professores, cap. xcix, ed. E. Panella, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., ix (Pistoia, 1979), pp. 173–4. I am grateful to Dr Smalley for this reference.

8 Expositio in librum B. lob, cap.i, lect.2 (Aquinatis opera, xiv, 4); cf. Spicq, Esquisse, p. 255.

9 On the notion of ‘properly speaking’ see Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 167–8. The premisses of a syllogism must be unequivocal and unambiguous; hence the logician cannot base an argument on metaphorical expression: cf. Spicq, Esquisse, p. 281; T. Gilby, Barbara celarent: A Description of Scholastic Dialectic (London, New York, and Toronto, 1949), pp. 77–95, 253–8.

10 William of Ockham: De sacramento altaris, ed. and trans. T. B. Birch, Lutheran Literary Board (Iowa, 1930), pp. 40–5.

11 W. B. Dunphy, ‘St Albert and the Five Causes’, AHDLMA, xxxiii (1967), 7–21; cf. E. Gilson, ‘Notes pour l’histoire de la cause efficiente’, AHDLMA, xxix (1962), 7–31, esp. p. 18.

12 Quoted from Leipzig University Library, MS Lat. 1291 by Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii, 234; transcription partially corrected by Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 31–2. For the dating of this commentary between 1240 and 1250, and the argument that its author cannot be identified with Jordan of Saxony, see, now, R. A. Gauthier, ‘Notes sur les débuts (1225–1240) du premier “averroïsme” ’, RSPT, lxvi (1982), 367–73.

13 Text ed. O. Lewry, Robert Kilwardby’s Writings on the Logica vetus studied with regard to their teaching and method (unpub. D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1978), p. 359.

14 Ibid., pp. 368, 382, 392.

15 Cit. Lewry, ibid., p. 91, who proceeds to dismiss the suggestion that this was the work of Kilwardby.

16 Cit. Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii, 148. Cf. the commentary attributed to a Robert of Paris (not Kilwardby), cit. Lewry, p. 169.

17 Cf. the elaborate application of the extrinsecuslintrinsecus distinction in the prologue to Peter of Tarantasia’s commentary on II Thessalonians, 2nd redaction: ‘In quolibet opere concurrunt quatuor causae: duae extrinsecae que sunt de fieri, scilicet efficiens et finis; duae intrinsecae quae sunt de esse, scilicet materia et forma. In fieri rei, efficiens inchoat et finis consummat; in esse rei, materia inchoat et forma consummat . . .’. Pr. under the name of Nicholas Gorran, in In omnes d. Pauli epistolas elucidatio, authore Nicolao Gorrano (Antwerp, 1617), p. 498. In Peter’s commentary on the Sentences (1256–8), he distinguishes between the causae moventes ab intrinseco and the causae moventes ab extrinseco: In prolog. Lomb., divisio textus (pr. Innocentius V sententiarum commentaria (Toulouse, 1652), i, fol. 7^r). Cf. the prologue to Bonaventure’s commentary on St Luke, Prooemium commentarii in Lucam (Bonaventurae opera, vii, 3).

18 This is evident from the prologues cit. Lewry, Kilwardby’s Writings on the Logica vetus, esp. pp. 44, 222, 359, 369, 382, 408. Cf. S. Harrison Thomson, ‘Robert Kilwardby’s Commentaries In Priscianum and In Barbarismum Donati’, New Schol., xii (1958), 52–65.

19 For examples, see Lewry, pp. 135, 169, 358, 367, etc.

20 See I. Brady in Magistri Alexandri de Hales, Glossa in quattuor libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica medii aevi, xii–xv (Quaracchi ed., 1951–7), i, 102–3.

21 Ibid., i, 1–4. Stegmüller, Sent., 62.

22 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 14438, fol. 1^r. Alexander refers to the principle of ‘efficient causality’ in expounding St John’s opening statements, but the schema of the four causes does not provide the basis of Alexander’s prologue.

23 For this dating, see J. A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino (Oxford, 1975), p. 69. Stegmüller, Sent., 718.

24 R. J. Long, ‘The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: An Edition of the Prologue to his Commentary on the Sentences’, Med. Stud., xxxiv (1972), 88. For other examples of ‘Aristotelian prologues’ to Sentences commentaries, see V. Doucet, ‘Quelques commentaires sur les “Sentences” de Pierre le Lombard’, in Miscellanea Lombardiana (Novara, 1957), pp. 276, 279, 283, 288.

25 De natura theologiae, ed. Stegmüller, pp. 7–12. Stegmüller, Sent., 742.

26 Hugonis postilla, v, 82^r; cf. the prologue to Hugh’s commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ibid., vi, 252^v). For the term ‘introductory causes’ (causae introductoriae), see John of Rochelle’s principium, ed. M. Delorme, ‘Deux leçons d’ouverture de cours biblique données par Jean de la Rochelle’, La France franciscaine, xvi (1933), 351; cf. Peter of Tarantasia’s general prologue to his commentary on the Pauline Epistles (pr. In omnes d. Pauli epist., p. 1).

27 See Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 272, 296–8; also ‘A Commentary on Isaias by Guerric of St-Quentin O.P.’, Studi e testi, cxxii (1946), 383–97.

28 Pr. from Oxford, New College, MS 40, by Smalley, ibid., pp. 388–9.

29 Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xv, 5. Stegmüller, Bibl., 1023.

30 Ibid., xxxviii, 468. Stegmüller, Bibl., 1040.

31 Gorran, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 246, fol. 1^v; Stegmüller, Bibl., 5750; Lyre, In postillam super Psalterium praefatio (pr. Biblia glossata, iii, 431); Stegmüller, Bibl., 5853.

32 In epistolam ad Romanos, cap. i, lect. 1 (Aquinatis opera, xiii, 4). Stegmüller, Bibl., 8028.

33 Commentarii in lib. I sententiarum, in prologum magistri expositio (Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xxv, 6). Stegmüller, Sent., 51.

34 Commentum in lib. I sententiarum, divisio textus prologi (ed. P. Mandonnet, T. Aquinatis scriptum super libros sententiarum (Paris, 1927–47), i, 19).

35 Thome Valois et Nicolai Triveth in libros b. Augustini de civitate Dei commentaria (Toulouse, 1488), unfol.

36 Bonaventurae opera, vii, 5. Stegmüller, Bibl., 1776.

37 In acta Apostolorum et singulas Apostolorum, authore Nicolao Gorrano (Antwerp, 1620), p. 178. Stegmüller, Bibl., 5810.

38 Oxford, Merton College, MS 172, fol. 52^r. Stegmüller, Bibl. suppl., 4920. For Russel, see B. Smalley, ‘John Russel O.F.M.’, RTAM, xxiii (1956), 277–320.

39 III Sent., dist.23, dub.5, cit. J. G. Bouregol, Introduction to the Works of Bonaventure, trans. J. de Vinck (Paterson, New Jersey, 1963), p. 24.

40 Art. 9, qu. 2 (Summa quaestionum, fol. 71^v).

41 Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xviii, 355. Stegmüller, Bibl., 977.

42 Alberti opera, xxiv, 8. Stegmüller, Bibl., 1001.

43 Cit. D.E. Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century, British Society of Franciscan Studies, xvi (Oxford, 1930), 22, n. 1. For Grosseteste’s theory of causality, see A. C. Crombie, ‘Grosseteste’s position in the history of science’, in Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop: Essays in Commemoration of the Seventh Centenary of his Death, ed. D. A. Callus (Oxford, 1955), pp. 98–120, esp. pp. 106–7.

44 ‘Grosseteste is aware that Aristotle’s metaphysics is faulty, that in particular it has no systematic theory concerning the relation of the first cause to the secondary causes . . . The real problem concerning causality lies in proving that secondary causes have real, and not simply instrumental causal efficacy. Grosseteste decided that they have, because efficient causes intervening between the first cause and the last effect possess an intentio prima, which makes them agents rather than instruments’. J. McEvoy, Man and Cosmos in the Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste (unpubl. D.Phil. thesis, Louvain, 1974), p. 254.

45 Summa theologiae, I^a qu. 105, a.5, responsio (Blackfriars ed., xiv, 77).

46 ‘Appendix 13: Biblical Inspiration’, ibid., i, 145. This whole paragraph is indebted to Gilby’s discussion.

47 Summa theologiae, III^a 60, 6, and 7; 62, 1, 2 and 4 (ibid., lvi, 20–9, 50–9, 60–5).

48 Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 295–6, 303–8, 329–55.

49 Hence, St Albert the Great could say that in matters of faith and morals one should follow Augustine rather than any philosopher, when both are in disagreement. But in medical matters, he preferred to follow Galen or Hippocrates, and in natural science, Aristotle or some such expert. See Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas. p. 43.

50 Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 346–55; H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburg, 1963), pp. 103–5.

51 Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 346–7.

52 Ed. B. P. Shields, A Critical Edition of Selections from Nicholas Trevet’s Commentarius literalis in Psalterium iuxta Hebreos S. Hieronymi (Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, 1970), pp. 57–9; also pr. as an appendix by R. J. Dean, The Life and Works of Nicholas Trevet (unpub. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1948), pp. 103–5.

53 In his Psalter-commentary itself (Stegmüller, Bibl., 6038), Trevet expands on his theory of ‘literal sense’ and ‘primary intention’ by stating that, when certain psalms refer parabolically to Christ, the words are spoken of Christ according to the ‘primary intention’: see the exegesis of Psalm xix (ed. Shields, pp. 40–1, cf. pp. 36–7). This may be a conflation of two ideas of Aquinas’s: many psalms refer literally to Christ; the parabolic and metaphoric sense of Scripture is a facet of the literal sense. Aquinas’s Psalter-exegesis is discussed above, pp. 86–90.

54 Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars, pp. 137–246.

55 Prologus secundus de intentione auctoris et modo procedendi (pr. Biblia glossata, i, unfol.).

56 In psalmos Davidis expositio, prologus (Aquinatis opera, xiv, 149). Stegmüller, Bibl., 8028.

57 Ibid., pp. 149–50; cf. pp. 179, 217, 309, etc.

58 Ibid., pp. 149–50; cf. the Glossa ordinaria, in PL, cxiii, 843–4.

59 Ibid., p. 148. The Scriptural modes are discussed above, pp. 124 et seq.

60 See, especially, Trevet’s exposition of Psalm i (ed. Shields, pp. 88–9). In his list of the ‘ten things required’, Cossey included the nomen interpretatoris and the modus legendi: Cambridge, Christ’s College, MS 11, fols 5^v–6^r. Cossey’s Psalter-glosses are heavily dependent on those of Lyre and Trevet, whom he cites by name: e.g., his account of the nomen interpretatoris is a paraphrase of Trevet’s.

61 In psalm. David. exposit., prologus (Aquinatis opera, xiv, 149); cf. Comment. in Ps. xxi (ibid., p. 217). According to R. A. Greer, Theodore firmly believed that the Old Law foreshadowed Christ, but his sense of history encouraged him to reduce the amount of allegorical interpretation, to be sparing in his figural interpretation of the Psalter and other works: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exegete and Theologian (London, 1961), pp. 107–110.

62 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 149.

63 Ibid. This approach was adopted by Trevet. Citing Maimonides, he explains that, in parables, certain words are always inserted or omitted, so that we may see (as through a kind of gate) what is hidden in the parable, i.e. its Christological significance. See Shields, Selections from Trevet’s Comment. lit. in psalterium, pp. 36–7, 41.

64 E. Auerbach, ‘Figura’, Scenes from the Drama of European Literature, trans. R. Manheim and C. Garvin (New York, 1959), pp. 29, 39.

65 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 167, 167 (incorrect pagination), 170.

66 Ibid., pp. 179, 344. For full discussion of the latter historia, see above, pp. 103–9.

67 Ibid., p. 177. By contrast, Trevet provided a literal exposition: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 738, fol. 21^v.

68 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 214. For Trevet’s literal exposition, see MS Bodley 738, fol. 39^r.

69 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 300. For Trevet’s literal exposition, see MS Bodley 738, fol. 73^r.

70 PL, xcxi, 277.

71 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 241.

72 Ibid., pp. 148, 150; cf. pp. 163, 194, 260, 315 (for appeal to affectus).

73 Ibid., p. 177; cf. pp. 225, 234, 270 (for theory of persona).

74 In Ps. xxx (pr. Opera, xiv, 250); cf. In Ps. xxxix (p. 300).

75 In Ps. xxxviii (ibid., p. 295).

76 For examples, see In Ps. xli (ibid., p. 309); In Ps. xliii (p. 314); In Ps. xlv (pp. 326–7); In Ps. xlix (p. 339). Cf. the similar comments by two other Psalter-commentators, Hugh of St Cher and Nicholas Gorran, both of whom regarded David as the single auctor of the psalms. See, for example, Hugh’s glosses on Psalms xl, xli and lxi. (Hugonis postilla, ii, 96^r, 98^v, 188^v); also, Gorran’s glosses on Psalms xl, xli, xlvi, xlviii, xlix (in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 246, fols 71^r, 73^r, 82^r, 85^r, 87^r).

77 Ed. Shields, Selections from Trevet’s Comm. lit. in psalterium, p. 72.

78 MS Bodley 738, fol. 76^v.

79 Ibid., fol. 90^v.

80 In Postillam super Psalterium praefatio (pr. Biblia glossata, iii, 431–6).

81 In Post. sup. Psalt. praef. (ibid., iii, 431); cf. In Primo psalmo (449–50).

82 In Metaphysicam, i, lect. 4, C70 (trans. J. P. Rowan, St Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle (Chicago, 1961), i, 30).

83 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 148.

84 In Post. sup. Psalt. praef. (pr. Biblia glossata, iii, 432).

85 According to Aquinas, at the lowest level is the material cause, which exists as the matter receiving the effect of the action. The end, agent and form together constitute the principle or beginning of action, but in a certain order. The final cause has precedence, since it moves the agent to act. In his turn, the agent brings the formal cause into being. See Summa theologiae, I^a qu.105, art. 5, responsio (Blackfriars ed. xiv, 74–9). Applied to literary craftsmanship, the final cause or ultimate objective in writing encourages the writer actually to write; in the process, he implements the formal cause by selecting an appropriate style and by structuring his writing.

86 Biblia glossata, iii, 431–2.

87 Prooemii qu.4, conclusio (Bonaventurae opera, i, 14–5). Stegmüller, Sent., 111.

88 Prooemium commentarii in sapientiam (ibid., vii, 108). Stegmüller, Bibl., 1774.

89 In librum sapientiae, cap.i, lect.2 (pr. Roberti Holkoth Sapientiae regis Salomonis praelectiones (Basel, 1586), pp. 6–9). Stegmüller, Bibl., 7416.

90 Postilla super libros sapientiae, cap. i (Biblia Glossata, iii, 1895). Stegmüller, Bibl., 5870.

91 Postilla super Ecclesiasticum, cap.i (Biblia glossata, iii, 1081). Stegmüller, Bibl., 5871.

92 Gloss. ord. sup. sec. lib. Mac., cap.i (Biblia glossata, iv, 2415); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 149, fol. 121^v.

93 Hugonis postilla, iv, 363^r; Post. sup. sec. lib. Mac. (Biblia glossata, iv, 2415).

94 For discussion, see A. J. Minnis, ‘Late-Medieval Discussions of Compilatio and the Role of the Compilator’, PBB, ci (1979), 385–421.

95 Biblia glossata, iii, 1895; iv, 2415.

96 In Post. sup. Psalt. praef. (ibid., iii, 431); In Primo ps. (col. 449); Post. sup. lib. prov., cap.i (col. 1607); Post. sup. lib. 12 prophet., praef. (col. 1699).

97 Post. sup. lib. proverb., cap.i (ibid., iii, 1607).

98 See note 24, above.

99 De natura theologiae, qu.4 (ed. Stegmüller, pp. 32–4). The process whereby the Sentences came to be regarded as a compilatio (although the Lombard himself had not described the work as such) is discussed by Minnis in PBB, ci, 393–4, 413–6. The change of idiom is well illustrated by the contrast between the prologue to the Glose super sententias of Peter of Poitiers and the later expansion of this prologue by an anonymous theologian who, unlike Peter, referred to the compilatio and ordinatio of the Sentences. Several of the anonymous theologian’s statements are very reminiscent of Vincent of Beauvais’s apologia for his Speculum maius. For Peter’s prologue, see R. M. Martin, ‘Notes sur l’oeuvre littéraire de Pierre le Mangeur’, RTAM, iii (1931), 63–4; the later expansion is cit. Lottin, Psychologie et morale, vi, 121–2.

100 See M.-D. Chenu, La Théologie comme science au XIIIe sîecle, 3 ed. Bibliothèque Thomiste, xxiii (Paris, 1966), pp. 45–57, 71–85; U. Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, xlix (Tübingen, 1974), pp. 145–9.

101 Bonaventurae opera, i, 1–15.

102 Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, i, 357–8, 360.

103 Oxford, New College, MS 47, fol. 3^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 2905.

104 Summa Ricardi, fols 2^r–3^v. For discussion, see A. J. Minnis, ‘ “Authorial Intention” and “Literal Sense” in the Exegetical Theories of Richard FitzRalph and John Wyclif’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, lxxv, section C, i (Dublin, 1975).

105 Cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 140, n. 21; p. 143.

106 PL, clxxviii, 1339–49, esp. 1341D–2A.

107 Summa theologiae I^a qu. 77, art. 5, ad 3um (Blackfriars ed., xi, 106); cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 143.

108 Apologia totius operis, cap.ix (ed. A.-D. v. den Brincken, ‘Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Vincenz von Beauvais: Die Apologia Actoris zum Speculum maius’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, xxxiv (1978), 479; cf. Apologia, cap. viii (ibid., p. 477)).

109 The Holy Bible by Wycliffe, ed. Forshall and Madden, i, 56.

110 For this distinction between the ‘far cause’ and the ‘near cause’, see, for example, Works of Chaucer, ed. Robinson, p. 178.

111 De doctrina christiana, iii.21 (ed. Green, pp. 97–9).

112 De apologia prophetae David; Apologia David altera (ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL, xxxii, 299–408).

113 PL, cxxxi, 397–8.

114 PL, xxi, 848D.

115 PL, cxci, 483D–4A.

116 PL, xciii, 747C–D.

117 PL, clxxii, 283.

118 Postilla super primos xxxviii psalmos Davidicos Thomae Iorgii (London, 1481), pp. 1–3. Stegmüller, Bibl., 8245.

119 De legibus, cap. xvii (pr. Guilielmi Alverni Episcopi Parisiensis opera omnia (Venice, 1591), p. 47).

120 Summa quaestionum, art. 16, qu.5 (fol. 107^v).

121 MS Bodley 246, fol. 89^v.

122 Hugonis postilla, ii, 118^r.

123 Cf. Hugh of St Cher (Hugonis postilla, ii, 43^r) and Nicholas Gorran (MS Bodley 246, fol. 39^v). See, further, Trevet’s gloss on Psalm xxi, where both the Christian literal interpretation and the Jewish literal interpretation are given. According to the former, this psalm literally refers to Christ; according to the latter, it literally refers to Esther’s delivery of the people of Israel from persecution (MS Bodley 738, fol. 40^r).

124 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 344.

125 Ibid., pp. 344–5. Cf. Trevet’s gloss (ed. Shields, Selections from Trevet’s Comm. lit. in psalterium, pp. 121–31).

126 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 349.

127 PL, cxiii, 920A. Expanded by Hugh of St Cher (Hugonis postilla, ii, 120^v), and Gorran (MS Bodley 246, fol. 92^r).

128 Aquinas is followed by Trevet (ed. Shields, p. 129).

129 Biblia glossata, iii, 805–16.

130 Prologus N. de Lyra in moralitates Biblorum (ibid., i, unfol.).

131 Cf. E. A. Gosselin, The King’s Progress to Jerusalem: Some Interpretations of David during the Reformation Period and their Patristic and Medieval Background, Humana Civilitas, ii (Malibu, 1976), pp. 28–9.

132 Biblia glossata, iii, 483–90.

133 Ibid. Cf. Gosselin, The King’s Progress to Jerusalem, p. 30.

134 PL, clv, 1675–8.

135 Prooemium commentarii in Ecclesiasten, qu.4 (Bonaventurae opera, vi, 8). Stegmüller, Bibl., 1773.

136 Prooemium, qu. 3 (ibid., p. 8); cf. the Commentarius in librum Ecclesiastes, cap. i, qu. 1 (pp. 9–10). This examination was heavily influenced by Gregory the Great, Dialogorum lib. IV, iv.4, pr. PL, lxxvii, 321–5.

137 Prooemium, qu.3, solutio oppositi (ibid., p. 8).

138 In lib. Eccles., cap.i, qu. 1 (ibid., pp. 9–10).

139 Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 10–59. In this context one should also consider the production of lives of the ‘modern’ Italian poets, including Dante. Boccaccio’s life of Dante is discussed above, pp. 216–17.

140 Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1865–86), i, 10–12. Cf. the version of this story told by Jerome, Liber Hebraicarum quaestionum in Genesim, praef., in PL, xxiii 935.

141 For other so-called pagan compilers see Minnis, PBB, ci, 420–1.

142 Higden may have derived this description of compiling as gleaning from the prologue to Thomas of Ireland’s Manipulus florum (1306): for the relevant passage see R. H. and M. A. Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the Manipulus florum of Thomas of Ireland, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, xlvii (Toronto, 1979), p. 124; cf. pp. 114–7. A less precise version of the same metaphorical description is used by Chaucer, The Legend of Good Women, F Prologue, lines 73–7; cf. G Prologue, lines 61–5 (Works of Chaucer, ed. Robinson, p. 484).

143 See Weisheipl, Med. Stud., xxvii, 72–90; Chenu, La Théologie comme science, pp. 71–80; Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 37–44; the introduction to Aquinas: Division and Methods of the Sciences, trans. A. Maurer, 3 ed. (Toronto, 1963); M. Riquet, ‘St Thomas et les auctoritates en philosophie’, Archives de philosophie, iii.2 (1925), 117–55; M.-D. Chenu, ‘Les “philosophes” dans la philosophie chrétienne médiévale’, RSPT, xxvi (1937), 27–40; D. A. Callus, ‘The Function of the Philosopher in Thirteenth-Century Oxford’, Miscellanea mediaevalia, iii (Berlin, 1964), 153–62. See, further, D. E. Sharp, ‘The De ortu scientiarum of Robert Kilwardby’, New Schol., viii (1934), 1–30, esp. pp. 5–6; Robert Kilwardby, De ortu scientiarum, ed. A. G. Judy, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, iv (Oxford, 1976), pp. 9–14.

144 For a convenient summary of the philosophers’ supposed errors, see Giles of Rome, De erroribus philosophorum (ed. J. Koch (Milwaukee, 1944)). In 1270 and again in 1277, Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, condemned the views on necessity held by such ‘Latin Averroists’ as Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia. The influence of Aristotle, as interpreted by his Arabian commentators, had encouraged opinions which, according to the intellectual establishment, denied freedom of choice to both God and man. See P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, Les philosophes Belges, vi–vii (Louvain, 1908–11), vi, 15–221. For the corresponding condemnations in England, see ibid., pp. 233–44, and D. L. Douie, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952), 272–310.

145 Cit. M. Grabmann, ‘I divieti ecclesiastici di Aristotele sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio IX’, in Miscellanea historiae pontificae, v.7 (Rome, 1941); cf. G. Leff, Paris and Oxford Universities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (New York and London, 1968), pp. 198–9. For refs. to similar statements, see B. Baudoux, ‘Philosophia “Ancilla theologiae” ’, Antonianum, xii (1937), 293–326.

146 See M. Cuervo, ‘La Teologia como ciencia y la sistematización teologica según S. Alberto Magno’, Ciencia tomista, xlvi (1932), 173–99; Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 5 (Blackfriars ed., i, 16–19); also ‘Appendix 6: Theology as Science’ (ibid., pp. 67–87). See, further, Chenu, La Théologie comme science, pp. 71–85; Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 145–9.

147 Cit. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 138–9.

148 Ibid., p. 139, n.19.

149 See D. Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages, trans. E. F. M. Benecke (London, 1895), esp. pp. 219–31.

150 For the ‘good pagan’ Trajan, supposed to be the most virtuous of the Roman emperors, see John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, v.8 (ed. C. C. J. Webb (Oxford, 1909), i, 318); also, R. W. Chambers, ‘Long Will, Dante, and the Righteous Heathen’, Essays and Studies, ix (1923), 50–69; for the virtuous centurion Cornelius, see Holcot, In lib. sap., lect. 155 (Basel ed., p. 516). Cf. John of Wales’s attitude to righteous heathen, as described by W. A. Pantin, ‘John of Wales and Medieval Humanism’, in Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961), pp. 297–319.

151 For a clear statement of the late-medieval ‘hierarchy of authorities’, see Vincent of Beauvais, Apologia totius operis, esp. capi xi–xii (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 482–5). Cf. Polychronicon Ranulphi, i, 16–20.

152 See Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books III’, pp. 267–8; Chenu, in RSPT, xxvi, 28–31; Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 138. In the early fourteenth century, discussion of pagan reason revolved around the thorny issue of what could be known ex puris naturalibus (i.e. in purely natural conditions, without the aid of divine grace). Nominalist theologians, like Ockham and Holcot, argued that the virtuous pagan who exploited his natural capacities and ‘did what was in him’ would be saved in the normal course of events (de potentia Dei ordinata): see H. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Michigan, 1967), pp. 132–4, 243–8; G. Leff, William of Ockham (Manchester, 1975), pp. 493–5.

153 Cf. Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books I’, pp. 329–37; ‘Sapiential Books III’, pp. 267–9; ‘Sapiential Books IV’, p. 115; also, H. Oberman, ‘ “Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam”: Robert Holcot and the Beginnings of Luther’s Theology’, Harvard Theological Review, lv (1962), 317–42, esp. pp. 317–21.

154 Cf. Chenu, in RSPT, xxvi, 28–31, 37.

155 Cf. Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books III’, pp. 267–8. For William of Auvergne’s use of pagan experts in natural science, see Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books I’, pp. 329–37. For politics and ethics as philosophical disciplines, see Chenu, RSPT, xxvi, 32–3. For Bonaventure’s use of pagan experts in ethics, see Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books II’, p. 46; ‘Sapiential Books III’, pp. 268–9. The ‘coming together’ of pagan and Christian experts on common subjects is discussed by Miss Smalley throughout her English Friars and Antiquity.

156 See Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books III’, pp. 267–8; ‘Sapiential Books IV’, pp. 103, 114.

157 See notes 152, 154 and 155 above. The practice of citing pagan poetae in commentaries on Sapiential Books was well established by the early fourteenth century: for examples, see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 152, 156, 159, 189, 226–7, etc.

158 Smalley, ‘Sapiential Books IV’, p. 116.

159 See note 154 above.

160 For the concept of ‘spoliation’, see Quain in Traditio, iii, 223–4; de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement théologique, pp. 10–16; J. Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, trans. C. Misrahi (Fordham, 1961), pp. 55–6.

161 Ed. Delorme, La France franciscaine, xvi, 356–7.

162 In Postillam super Ecclesiasticum, prologus (Hugonis postilla, iii, 153^r).

163 See, for example, Nicholas of Lyre’s general prologue to his commentary on the Four Evangelists (Biblia glossata, v, unfol.).

164 See, for example, the prologues to Holcot’s commentary on Wisdom, discussed above, pp. 178–9.

CHAPTER 4

1 Expositio in cantica canticorum, prologus (PL, clxxii, 331C).

2 See, for example, Aquinas, In Metaphysicam, v, lect.2, C764 (trans. Rowan, i, 305).

3 Tractatus introductorius, quaestio 1 de doctrina theologiae (Alexandri de Hales Summa theologica (Quaracchi, 1924–48), i, 1–13). For recent assessments of the importance of this investigation, see Chenu, La Théologie comme science, p. 40; Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 261–75. The Summa ascribed to Alexander is, in fact, a compilation of the work of many theologians, including Alexander’s pupil, John of Rochelle, St Bonaventure and William of Middleton: see V. Doucet’s prolegomena in the Quaracchi ed. of the Summa, iv, pp. xiii–cclxx; also Lottin in Psychologie et morale, vi, 207–23. With the entire discussion of forma tractandi which follows may now be compared Allen, Ethical Poetic, 67–116.

4 Chenu, La Théologie comme science, p. 40, n. 1.

5 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, pp. 27–9).

6 Ibid., pp. 8, 29, 34; also Kilwardby’s De ortu scientiarum, cap. xxxv (ed. Judy, pp. 123–4). For Fishacre, see Long’s edition of the prologue to his Sentences commentary in Med. Stud., xxxiv, 96. Fishacre and Kilwardby were probably influenced by Grosseteste’s practice. See D. A. Callus, ‘Robert Grosseteste as Scholar’, in Grosseteste: Commemorative Essays, ed. Callus, pp. 21–2.

7 Soliloquia, i.6 (PL, xxxii, 875–6).

8 De spiritu et anima, cap.i (PL, xl, 781–2).

9 For examples, see Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 198–205; de Bruyne, Étud. d’esthét. méd., iii, 78–82.

10 Callus, Grosseteste: Commemorative Essays, p. 21.

11 Ibid., p. 16.

12 Lottin, Psychologie et morale, i, 483–4; cf. de Bruyne, Étud. d’esthét. méd., iii, 78–9, 91.

13 Lottin, Psychologie et morale, i, 487.

14 Debonoetmalo, cap.xii (ed. J. R. O’Donnell, Med. Stud., viii (1946), 274–7); Lottin, Psychologie et morale, i, 491, 493.

15 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art. 1 (Summa Alexandri, i, 7–9).

16 Tract. introduct., qu.l, cap.iv, art.2 (ibid., pp. 9–10).

17 See Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 279, n.3; also Callus, Grosseteste: Commemorative Essays, p. 22.

18 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, p. 29).

19 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art. 1 (Summa Alexandri, i, 8).

20 For a recent account, see Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 160–86.

21 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, p. 28). Cf. Kilwardby in De ortu scientiarum, cap.liv (ed. Judy, pp. 179–81); also, the summary of this account by Sharp, New Schol., viii, 24–5.

22 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, p. 28). Cf. the useful general explanation of the concepts involved by Gilby, Barbara celarent, pp. 152–70.

23 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, p. 28); cf. Gilby, Barbara celarent, p. 177.

24 De natura theologiae, qu.3 (ed. Stegmüller, p. 28); cf. Gilby, Barbara celarent, pp. 179–80, 203–6. See, further, M.-D. Chenu, ‘Notes de lexicographie philosophie médiévale: collectio, collatio’, RSPT, xvi (1927), 435–46.

25 Cit. from Munich, Clm 4603, by Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 37–8.

26 Cit. from Leipzig University Library, MS Lat. 1291, by Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii, 234.

27 Cit. from Vatican Chigi, MS v.159, by S. Harrison Thomson, New Schol., xii, 63.

28 Cit. Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, p. 38.

29 Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 154, fol. l^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 8101.

30 Principium de commendatione et partitione sacrae Scripturae, ii. 1 (St Thomae Aquinatis opuscula omnia, vi, ed. P. Mandonnet (Paris, 1927), 487–8).

31 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art.3 (Summa Alexandri, i, 10).

32 Cit. B. Pergamo, ‘De quaestionibus ineditis Fr Odonis Rigaldi, Fr Gulielmi de Melitonia et codicis Vat. Lat. 782 circa naturam theologiae deque earum relatione ad Summam theologicam Fr Alexandri Halensis’, AFH, xxix (1937), 42.

33 Chenu, La Théologie comme science, p. 40.

34 For a possible basis for the modus narrativus, see Cicero’s De inventione, I.xix.27 (p. 55); for a possible basis for the modus laudis, see Ad Herennium, III.vi. 10 (pp. 172–5); for a possible basis for the modus exemplorum suppositivus, see ibid., IV.xlix.62 (pp. 383–5).

35 For the provinces of demonstrative rhetoric and deliberative rhetoric, respectively, see De inventione, I.v.7 (p. 16); II.iii. 12 (p. 176); Ad Herennium, III.i–v (pp. 157–73); III.vi. 10–viii. 15 (pp. 172–85); Cassiodorus, Institutiones, ii.2 (trans. L. W. Jones, An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings by Cassiodorus (New York, 1946), pp. 149–50).

36 For discussion of the subordinate position of rhetoric, see McKeon in Critics andCriticism, ed. Crane, pp. 267–71.

37 Cit. Brother S. Robert, ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic: According to the First Latin Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle’, New Schol., xxxi (1957), p. 488.

38 Ibid., pp. 488–98. See, further, G. Bruni, ‘The “De differentiae rhetoricae, ethicae et politicae” of Aegidius Romanus’, New Schol., vi (1932), 1–18.

39 See P. W. Nash, ‘Giles of Rome and the Subject of Theology’, Med. Stud., xviii (1956), 66–7.

40 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art.3 (Alexandri Summa, i, 10–11).

41 Prologus S. Bonaventurae in Breviloquium, v: de modo procedendi ipsius sacrae Scripturae (Bonaventurae opera, v, 206–7).

42 Dronke, Fabula, p. 3, n. 1.

43 See E. Gilson, The Elements of Christian Philosophy (New York, 1963), pp. 30–7; F. C. Copleston, Aquinas (Harmondsworth, 1955), pp. 73–80.

44 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 1–2, 148; cf. S. Thomae Aquinatis opuscula omnia, vi, ed. Mandonnet, p. 488.

45 See Nash in Med. Stud., xviii, 67–8; cf. E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), pp. 447–52, 759–62.

46 Summa quaestionum, art. 9, qu.2 (fols 71^r–72^r).

47 Cf. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy, pp. 450–2.

48 Summa quaestionum, art. 14, de modo tradendi theologiam (fols 99^v–101^v).

49 See Nash in Med. Stud., xviii, 66–7. For the disagreement between Giles of Rome and Henry of Ghent concerning the nature of theology, see ibid., pp. 67–8. The relevant differences between Giles and his former teacher, St Thomas Aquinas, are well summarised in the Incerti auctoris impugnationes contra Aegidium Romanum contradicentem Thomae super primum sententiarum, ed. G. Bruni, Bibliotheca Augustiana medii aevi, ser. 1, Textus theol. et phil., i (Rome, 1942), 6–15. Subsequently, Harvey of Nedellec (who read the Sentences 1302–3) criticised Giles’s view of theology as affective, claiming that it is basically speculative: cf. Hervei Natalis in quatuor libris sententiarum commentaria (Paris, 1647), pp. 10–13. However, Giles had a staunch defender in a later member of his order, Thomas of Strassburg (who read the Sentences 1335–7): see the prologue to Thomae ab Argentina commentaria in IV libros sententiarum (Venice, 1564).

50 Pr. among the works of Aquinas in the Parma ed., Aquinatis opera, xiv, 388. Cf. the discussion in Allen, Ethical Poetic, pp. 91–2.

51 Pr. among the works of St Bonaventure in, e.g., Opera omnia (Venice, 1751–6), v, 937–8. Stegmüller, Bibl., 4847.

52 Aquinatis opera, xiv, 668. Stegmüller, Bibl., 8041.

53 Latteburius in threnos leremiae (Oxford, 1482), fol. 19^v. Stegmüller, Bibl., 4762.

54 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art.3 (Alexandri Summa, i, 10–11).

55 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 10, ad 3um (Blackfriars ed., i, 41).

56 In Ps. xvi.9–10 (cit. Shields, Selections from Trevet’s Comment. lit. in Psalterium, p. 36); cf. In Ps. xix (cit. ibid., p. 41). Shields discusses a few aspects of St Thomas’s influence on Trevet on pp. 28–31.

57 Attributed to Robert Holcot or Thomas Waleys, In proverbia Salomonis (Paris, 1515), fol. 3^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 8172.

58 Expositio in librum B. lob, prologus (Aquinatis opera, xiv, 1–2).

59 In Isaiam prophetam expositio, prooemium S. Thomae (ibid., p. 427).

60 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 160, fols 1^r–4^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 2942–53.

61 Aquinatis opera, xiii, 2–3, 157, 299, 382, 443, 505, 530, 556, 573, 585, 621, 644, 661, 666–7; for Docking, see Magdalen College, MS 154, fol. 1^r. For Peter of Tarantasia, see the commentaries falsely attributed to Nicholas Gorran, In omnes D. Pauli ep. elucid., pp. 1–9, 140, 235, 250, 368, 412, 443, 472, 498–9, 515, 548–9, 573, 587, 592.

62 Postilla super libros Salomonis, praefatio (Biblia glossata, iii, 1606).

63 Commentarius in librum Ecclesiastes, cap.i, qu. 1–5 (Bonaventurae opera, vi, 9–10). Stegmüller, Bibl., 1773.

64 Prologus in Apocalypsim B. Joannis Apostoli (pr. Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xxxviii, 469). Stegmüller, Bibl., 1040.

65 Praefatio in threnos Jeremiae (Alberti opera, xviii, 244). The commentator is elaborating on Gilbert the Universal’s gloss: see above, pp. 238–9, n. 53.

66 Shields, Selections from Trevet’s Comment. lit. in Psalterium, pp. 71, 77.

67 Ibid., pp. 68–9, 74.

68 Pr. among the works of Aquinas in the Parma ed., Aquinatis opera, xiv, 387.

69 Didascalicon, iv.2 (ed. Buttimer, pp. 71–2); Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 147–8.

70 For general discussion of these lectures, see Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 71–2, 99–104; also B. Smalley, ‘Wyclif’s Postilla on the Old Testament and his Principium’, Oxford Studies presented to D. Callus, Oxford Historical Society, New Series, xvi (Oxford, 1964), 253–96.

71 Ed. Delorme, La France franciscaine, xvi, 351–60.

72 Principium de commendatione et partitione sacrae Scripturae, ii. 1 (pr. Aquinatis opuscula, vi, 487–8).

73 Cf. Smalley in Oxford Studies presented to D. Callus, p. 253.

74 Petri Aurioli compendium Biblie totius (unloc., 1514), pars iii, unfol. Stegmüller, Bibl., 6422.

75 Accessus ad auctores, etc., ed. Huygens, pp. 62–3.

76 T. Aquinatis opera omnia, ed. S. E. Frette, apud L. Vivès (Paris, 1871–80), xxxi, 196. Cf. Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 245–9.

77 Moralia in Job, praefatio (PL, lxxv, 513).

78 Forma praedicandi, prologus (ed. Th.-M. Charland, Artes praedicandi, Publications de l’Institut d’Études Médiévales d’Ottawa, vii (Paris and Ottawa, 1936), 235; trans. L. Krul in Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, ed. J. J. Murphy (Berkeley, 1971), p. 116).

79 Cap. i (Krul, p. 120).

80 Cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 39–50, 58–69; W. A. Hinnebusch, The History of the Dominican Order (New York, 1966–73), ii, 231–80.

81 For discussion of the way in which scholastic training prepared preachers for their evangelical mission, see Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 254–7; Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons, pp. 43–90; R. H. Rouse, ‘Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page’, forthcoming in The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, ed. R. Benson and G. Constable; D. d’Avray, The Transformation of the Medieval Sermon (unpub. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1976), pp. 77–80, and also his recent book The Preaching of the Friars (Oxford, 1985), esp. pp. 132–203.

82 Trans. G. R. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1926), p. 333; Latin text in Charland, Artes praedicandi, p. 365. See further the entire chapter in which this passage occurs (ibid., pp. 357–68), in which Waleys discusses the modus narrativus and the modus argumentativus as used in sermons, and stresses that the end of preaching is not only to inform the intellectus but also to move the affectus. Hence, the preacher should avoid syllogistic argument, because this is a scholastic and scientific mode of procedure. Cf. the Ars concionandi printed among the works of St Bonaventure, where the preacher is warned against using technical syllogistic argument in sermons which must appeal to a wide audience, including simple people: Ars concionandi, pars iii (Bonaventurae opera, ix, 18). Cf. also Basevorn’s remark that in Christ’s preaching no necessary subtlety or appeal to the emotions was lacking: Forma praedicandi, cap.viii (trans. Krul, p. 129). See further the medieval introductions to exempla-collections, in which the affective appeal and mnemonic power of exempla are identified as the bases of their usefulness in preaching: e.g., the prologues to the Alphabetum narrationum and Speculum exemplorum, both cit. T. F. Crane, The Exempla or illustrative stories from the Sermones vulgares of Jacques de Vitry, Folk-Lore Society (London, 1890), pp. xx–xxi.

83 Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art.3 (Alexandri Summa, i, 11). On the ad status genre of sermons, see Crane, Exempla of de Vitry, pp. xi–xlvi, lxxiv, xc; Owst, Preaching in Medieval England, pp. 247–65, 304; d’Avray, The Medieval Sermon, pp. 134–211.

84 This general principle of suiting the style to the capacities of one’s audience, which may be traced back to Ciceronian rhetoric, was fully articulated in the section on preaching in Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, iv. 7, 12, 17 (ed. Green, pp. 124–33, 137–8, 143). It became a commonplace of artes praedicandi and exempla-collections: see, for example, Waleys’s De modo componendi sermones, cap.i (ed. Charland, pp. 337–8); the prologue to the Alphabetum narrationum, cit. Crane, Exempla of de Vitry, p. xx.

85 Forma praedicandi, cap.viii (trans. Krul, pp. 128–9); cf. Basevorn’s description of St Paul’s preaching-technique, cap.ix (ibid., pp. 129–30).

86 In I P. Summae theologiae, tract. 1, qu.5, mem.2 (Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xxxi, 23–4).

87 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 9, ad lum(Blackfriars ed., i, 34–5).

88 I, tr.2, cap.ix de multis specialibus modis theologie (ed. J. Daguillon, Ulrich de Strasbourg O.P., La Summa de bono, livre i, Bibliothèque Thomiste, xii (Paris, 1930), pp. 36–7).

89 I, tr.2, cap.ix de multis specialibus modis theologie (ibid., pp. 51–5).

90 My revised translation here is indebted to Peter Dronke, Dante and Medieval Latin Traditions (Cambridge, 1986), p. 127 n. Cf. the discussions of Aquinas, Petrarch, and Boccaccio cit. on p. 217 above.

91 Lib.I, tract.2, cap.ix (ed. Daguillon, p. 52).

92 Cf. Albert’s commentaries on the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, ed. Borgnet, Alberti opera, xiv. See, further, Alexander of Hales’s citation of Pseudo-Dionysius, Tract. introduct., qu. 1, cap.iv, art. 1 (Alexandri summa, p. 8); Boccaccio, De genealogie deorum gentilium libri, xiv. 18 (ed. V. Romano (Bari, 1951), p. 737); also, H. F. Dondaine, Le Corpus Dionysien de l’Université de Paris au XIIle siècle (Rome, 1953).

93 For Al-Farabi’s views, see J. J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 91–2. Averroes, as translated by Hermann the German, stated that ‘sermones poetici sunt ymaginativi’ and that the art of poetry seeks the level of pleasure which moves an audience to virtue through stimulation of the imagination: Averrois Corubensis commentarium medium in Aristoteles poetriam, ed. W. F. Boggess (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of N. Carolina, 1965), pp.3, 41, 43, etc. For Avicenna’s definition of poetry as ‘imaginative speech’, see Avicenna’s commentary on the poetics of Aristotle, ed. I. M. Dahiyat (Leiden, 1974), pp. 31–58, 61–4.

94 W. F. Boggess, ‘Aristotle’s Poetics in the Fourteenth Century’, SP, lxvii (1970), 278–94, esp. ‘Appendix A’, p. 284. See, further, O. B. Hardison, ‘The Place of Averroes’ Commentary on the Poetics in the History of Medieval Criticism’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies 4, ed. J. L. Lievsay (Duke Univ. Press, 1970), pp. 57–81; J. B. Allen, ‘Hermann the German’s Averroistic Aristotle and Medieval Literary Theory’, Mosaic, ix (1976), 67–81. The significance of Hermann’s translation is brought out well in Allen’s Ethical Poetic. A modern translation of the Arabic text has recently been published by Charles E. Butterworth, Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ (Princeton, 1986).

95 See Boggess, SP, lxvii, 278–94, esp. ‘Appendices C–E’ on pp. 285–90.

96 Fulgentius metaforalis, ed. H. Liebeschütz (Leipzig, 1926), pp. 65–6.

97 For examples, see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 152, 156, 159, 189, 226–7, etc.

98 Petrus Berchorius, Reductorium morale, liber xv: Ovidius moralizatus, cap.i: De formis figurisque deorum, ed. J. Engels (Utrecht, 1966), pp. 2–3. Cf. the similar use of the fable of the trees choosing a king by Boccaccio, Genealogie deorum gent., xiv.9; xv.8 (ed. Romano, pp. 707, 769).

99 Contra mendacium, xiii.28 (ed. I. Zycha, CSEL, xli (1900), 511); cf. Flores omnium pene doctorum collecti per Thomam Hibernicum, s.v. fabula (Lyon, 1555), p. 406. For discussion of this compilation, see Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons.

100 Alan of Lille had said that an authority ‘has a wax nose, which means that it can be bent into taking on different meanings’: PL, ccx, 3331; cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 144–5.

101 For an account of these commentators, and bibliography, see A. J. Minnis, ‘Aspects of the Medieval French and English Traditions of Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae’, in Boethius: His Life, Thought and Influence, ed. M. T. Gibson (Oxford, 1981), pp. 312–61.

102 See Jourdain, Not. et extr., xx.2 (1862), 40–82.

103 Cf. Allen, The Friar as Critic, pp. 5, 68–9; D. K. Bolton, Manuscripts and Commentaries on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae in England in the Middle Ages (unpub. B. Litt. thesis, Oxford, 1965), pp. 213–4, 267–8.

104 Comment. in Boet. de cons. phil., iv, met. 7, which I studied in a typescript of the (unfinished) edition of Trevet’s commentary by the late E. T. Silk, kindly supplied by Professor Silk.

105 Comment. in Boet. de cons. phil., i, pr.3 (Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii.3.21, part 2, fol. 17^r). For discussion of this story as told by William, see my article in Boethius: His Life, Thought and Influence, ed. Gibson, p. 324.

106 For discussion, see Minnis in Proc. Royal Irish Acad., lxxv, sect.C, 1, pp. 13–14, 25–7.

107 J. T. Welter, L’Exemplum dans la littérature religieuse et didactique du moyen âge (Paris and Toulouse, 1927), p. 449, n. 62; G. R. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England, pp. 80–5, 236, 241; Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England, 2 ed (Oxford, 1961), p. 207.

108 For an instance of a congregation rejecting a preacher’s use of fables see Owst, Literature and Pulpit, p. 179.

109 See B. Smalley, ‘John Baconthorpe’s Postill on St Matthew’, MARS, iv (1958), 110–14.

110 Curtius, European Literature, p. 224.

111 Dantis Alagherii epistolae, ed. P. Toynbee, 2 ed. by C. Hardie (Oxford, 1966), p. 175.

112 Cit. from a Lamentations-commentary attributed to St Albert the Great, by Spicq, Esquisse, p. 212. With the entire discussion of forma tractatus which follows may now be compared Allen, Ethical Poetic, pp. 117–78.

113 See Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons, esp. pp. 7–42, 65–90; Rouse, ‘Statim invenire’, forthcoming in The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable; Minnis, in PBB, ci, 385–421; R. H. and M. A. Rouse, ‘The Texts called Lumen anime’, AFP, xli (1971), 5–113; M. B. Parkes, ‘The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book’, Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays presented to R. W. Hunt, ed. J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson (Oxford, 1975), esp. pp. 115–35; R. Rouse, ‘La Diffusion en occident au XIIIe siècle des outils de travail facilitant l’accès aux textes autoritatifs’, Revue des études islamiques, xliv (1976), 115–47; d’Avray, The Medieval Sermon, pp. 92–110.

114 For general discussion, see Chenu, La Théologie comme science, pp. 71–85; Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie, pp. 145–9, 168–71; ‘Appendix 6: Theology as Science’, in the Blackfriars ed. of St Thomas’s Summa theologiae, i, 67–87, esp. pp. 73–4; also, the introduction by Maurer to Aquinas: The Division and Methods of the Sciences, pp. vii–xxxix.

115 Prooemium in lib. I sent., qu.2, conclusio, iv (Bonaventurae opera, i, 11).

116 Summa theologiae, I^a 1, 2 (Blackfriars ed., i, 10–13).

117 In lib. i, lect.2, 41–2 (trans. Rowan, i, 19).

118 In lib. ethicorum, lect. 1, i. 1 (trans. C. I. Litzinger, St Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics (Chicago, 1964), i, 6).

119 Cit. Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii, 24. On this use of terminology, see J. Pinborg, Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalters, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, xlii (1967), 25. For the date of this commentary, and convincing evidence that it is not the work of Jordan of Saxony, see Gauthier in RSPT, lxvi (1982), 367–73.

120 For Kilwardby’s early career, see Judy’s introduction to his ed. of De ortu scientiarum, pp. xi–xvii; also E. M. F. Sommer-Seckendorff, Studies in the Life of Robert Kilwardby, O.P., Institutum historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Dissertationes historicae, viii (1937).

121 Cit. from Vatican Chigi MS v. 159 by Thomson, New Schol., xii, 63.

122 See the extract from Kilwardby’s Notule super Priscianum minorem cit. Hunt, ‘Introductions to the Artes’, p. 107, n.2. Elias Brunetti employed similar terminology in his commentary on Aristotle’s Topica: see Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, iii, 147.

123 Cit. from Munich, Clm 14460 by Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, p. 41.

124 Cit. Rouse, ‘Statim invenire’, forthcoming in The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable.

125 Hugonis postilla, iii, 2^r.

126 Bonaventurae opera, vii, 6.

127 Ibid., vi, 242.

128 Pr. in the Parma ed. of Aquinatis opera, xiv, 388. I have supplied the correct terms from the apparatus criticus.

129 Summa quaestionum, art. 14 de modo tradendi theologiam (fol. 99^v).

130 See the prologue to his commentary on the Psalter (Biblia glossata, iii, 432), the general prologue to the Sapiential Books (ibid., 1606) and the general prologue to the commentary on the Four Evangelists (ibid., v, unfol.).

131 In Prolog. sent. divisio (Durand de St-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas Petri Lombardi (Venice, 1571), fol. 2^r); In prolog. sent. divisio (Thomae ab Argentina commentaria, fol. 5^r).

132 B. Smalley, ‘The Bible in the Medieval Schools’, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol.ii: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Cambridge, 1969), p. 210.

133 Ed. Lewry, Kilwardby’s Writings on the Logica vetus, p. 371. For other examples, see Lottin, ‘Deux commentaires sur l’Ethica vetus des environs de 1230–1240’, in Psychologie et morale, vi, 232. The formulae used by different commentators in subdividing their authoritative texts could be very distinctive: see esp. the excellent description of St Thomas’s idiom of divisio textus in A. Dondaine and L. J. Bataillon, ‘Le Commentaire de S. Thomas sur les Météores’, AFP, xxxvi(1966), 110–17.

134 Smalley, Cambridge History of the Bible, ii, 210.

135 Hugonis postilla, iii, 2^r.

136 Hugonis Cardinalis opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum (Venice, 1754), iv, fol. 2^r. Stegmüller, Bibl., 3688. Cf. the similar means of defending the Psalter employed by Letbert of Lille: ‘ut cum ordo rerum, aut ordo temporum iuxta literam non tenetur, alter ordo subtilior iuxta spiritualem intelligentiam requiratur’ (PL, xxi, 644D–5A).

137 In Isaiam prophetam expositio, prooemium (Aquinatis opera, xiv, 427).

138 In Is. prophet., cap.i (ibid., p. 430).

139 PL, clxvii, 1182.

140 PL, cxci, 56B-7A.

141 Selections from Trevet’s Comment. lit. in psalterium, ed. Shields, pp. 71–2.

142 In Ps. i (Biblia glossata, iii, 449–50).

143 Parkes, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. Alexander and Gibson, p. 115.

144 See C. Lambot, ‘Lettre inédite de S. Augustin relative au De civitate Dei’, Rev. bén., li (1939), 109–121; cf. Parkes, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. Alexander and Gibson, pp. 124–5.

145 See Rouse, AFP, xliv (1974), 5–30.

146 See I. Brady, ‘The Rubrics of Peter Lombard’s Sentences’, Pier Lombardo, vi (1962), 5–25; also I. Brady, ‘The “Distinctions” of Lombard’s Book of Sentences and Alexander of Hales’, Fran. Stud., xxv (1965), 90–116. The greater ease of reference obtained by such division is mentioned by Roland of Cremona in the prologue to his Sentences commentary: ‘In unoquoque autem volumine capitulorum distinctiones et quaestionum prolixarum, non minutarum, descripsimus, ut quid velint sine difficultate et in quo loco inveniat’. Cit. Doucet in Miscell. Lombard., p. 287. On the relatively late date of this recension of Roland’s commentary, see ibid.; also Lottin, Psychologie et morale, vi, 171–80.

147 For relevant refs. see Minnis, PBB, ci, 385–6; also, the Bibliography, under R. W. Hunt and D. A. Callus.

148 Cf. Parkes, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. Alexander and Gibson, pp. 123–4.

149 Even more vociferous was Dionysius the Carthusian (1402–71), who remarked that the manifold divisions which some commentators prefix to texts are seen to obscure rather than to elucidate the sense of the words: see Enarrationes in lib.i de consolatione philosophiae, met.i. art.3 (D. Dionysii Cartusiani opera omnia (Tournai, 1906), xxvi, 22).

150 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawl. G. 186, fol. 1^r; cf. Dean, Life and Works of Trevet, p. 212.

151 See the prologue to Waleys’s commentary, pr. Thome Valois et Nicholai Triveth in libros B. Augustini de civitate Dei commentaria (Toulouse, 1488), unfol.

152 For Trevet’s use of Kilwardby’s Intentiones, see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 62; for Waleys’s own description of his use of them, see the prologue to his commentary on De civitate Dei, pr. in the 1488 edition.

153 See D. A. Callus, ‘The “Tabula super originalia patrum” of Robert Kilwardby O. P.’, Stud. med. in hon. Martin, pp. 243–4.

154 Cit. ibid., p. 255.

155 Cf. Parkes, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. Alexander and Gibson, pp. 128–9.

156 Ibid., p. 129.

157 See the entry ‘Vincent of Beauvais’ in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2 ed., ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (Oxford, 1974), p. 1441.

158 Cf. Minnis, PBB, ci, 394–5, 398, 404.

159 De proprietatibus rerum fratris Bartholomei anglici, prohemium (Lyon, 1481), unfol.

160 Reductorium morale Petri Berchorii Pictaviensis (Venice, 1583), p. 2.

161 Li Livres dou Tresor de Brunetto Latini, ed. F. J. Carmody (Berkeley, 1948), p. 17.

162 Anecdotes historiques, légendes et apologues tirés du recueil inédit d’Étienne de Bourbon, ed. A. Lecoy de la Marche, Société de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1877), pp. 9–10.

163 Philobiblon, ed. MacLagan, p. 93.

164 Cit. Hinnebusch, History of the Dominican Order, ii, 231.

165 Supplementum, qu.96, art. 11, ad 5um (S. Thomae Aquinatis summa theologiae, Iterata editio (Madrid, 1955–8), v, 589).

166 See Rouse, ‘Statim invenire’, forth. in The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable; cf. Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 226 and n.4.

167 See J. de Ghellinck, ‘ “Originale” and “originalia” ’, Bull. du Cange, xvi (1939), 104–5; cf. Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 47, 48, 129, 131, 152. This insistence on knowledge of the total context is an extension of one of the recommendations made by Peter Abelard in the prologue to his Sic et non: PL, clxxviii, 1341–3. It is probably related to developments in grammar and in the new ‘terminist’ logic: see De Rijk, Logica modernorum, ii. 1, 113–7. Similarly, in their exegeses of Scripture, Aquinas and his contemporaries insisted on the importance of careful examination of the context, of the ‘circumstances of the letter’ (circumstantia litterae) for establishing the correct literal sense of a passage and the true intention of its auctor: Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, p. 144; Spicq, Esquisse, pp. 250–1.

168 See Brady, Pier Lombardo, vi, 11–12.

169 Gerhoch of Reichersberg: Letter to Pope Hadrian about the Novelties of the Day, ed. N. M. Häring (Toronto, 1974), p. 12.

170 See Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 73–4.

171 Apologia totius operis, cap.i (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 465–6).

172 Apologia, cap.iii (ibid., p. 468).

173 For the contrast between authorial statements and magisterial statements, see Chenu, Toward understanding St Thomas, pp. 134–7.

174 Communiloquium (Lyon, 1511), fol. 3^r, cit. Minnis, PBB, ci, 402.

175 Cf. note 153 above.

176 For Holcot’s comment, see above, p. 96; for Waleys’s, see the prologue to the 1488 ed. of T. Valois et N. Triveth in lib. Aug. de civ. Dei comment., unfol.

177 For Abelard, see above, pp. 59–60. According to twelfth-century commentators, Gratian had intended to collect together diverse laws and harmonise them: the Canon lawyers conceived of a process of exposition and reconciliation of differences between laws. This explains the original title of what came to be known as the Decretum, namely, Concordantia discordantium canonum. See Minnis, PBB, ci, 397–8.

178 Apologia totius operis, capi xi–xii (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 482–5).

179 Apologia, capi viii, ix (ibid., pp. 477–8). For discussion of the distinction between ‘asserting’ and ‘reporting’, see Minnis, PBB, ci, 389, 409–10, 419; also above, pp. 100–12, 193–6.

180 Apologia, cap.viii (ed. v. den Brincken, p. 477).

CHAPTER 5

1 Cf. Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 58–60, 88–90; cf. pp. 110–21.

2 For Trevet’s Livy-commentary, see R. J. Dean, ‘The Earliest Medieval Commentary on Livy’, Med. et hum., iii (1945), 86–98; iv (1946), 110. For refs. to modern editions of Trevet’s commentaries on Seneca’s tragedies, see the Bibliography.

3 For the auctores octo, widely used on the continent until 1500, see N. Orme, English Schools in the Middle Ages (London, 1973), pp. 103–4. See, further, G. L. Hamilton, ‘Theodulus, a Medieval Textbook’, MP, vii (1909), 1–17; R. Hazelton, ‘The Christianization of Cato’, Med. Stud., xix (1957), 157–73. For English ‘teaching collections’, see Orme, English Schools, pp. 104–6; E. Rickert, ‘Chaucer at School’, MP, xxix (1931/2), 257–74.

4 For refs. see Ghisalberti, ‘Giovanni del Virgilio espositore delle “Metamorfosi” ’, Il Giornale Dantesco, xxxiv, n.s. iv (1933), 1–110; Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 58–60; Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare.

5 Ed. Charland, Artes praedicandi, pp. 233–5. By contrast, the writers of artes poeticae, while certainly aware of the schema of the four causes, made trivial use of it or ignored it. See esp. John of Garland’s eccentric interpretation of the material cause, in The Parisiana poetria of John of Garland, ed. T. Lawlor (New Haven and London, 1974), pp. 28–31.

6 Apologia totius operis, capi i–iv, xvi–xvii (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 465–70, 490–3).

7 Lib.I, tract.i, cap.i (ed. Daguillon, pp. 5–6).

8 Reductorium morale, prologus (p. 1).

9 Pr. by P. Meyer in Romania, viii (1879), 328–332; cf. Allen in The Romanic Review, viii, 434–62.

10 The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, vol. vii: Chaucerian and other pieces, ed. W. W. Skeat (Oxford, 1897), pp. 2–3.

11 Ibid., p. 49.

12 Bokenham’s Legendys of Hooly Wummen, ed. M. S. Serjeantson, EETS (OS) ccvi (Oxford, 1938), p. 1.

13 For the information about Bokenham’s life which is found in his writings see Serjeantson’s introduction, ibid., pp. xiii–xviii.

14 But not all fifteenth-century academic prologues are pedestrian: see the very sophisticated prologues of Reginald Pecock, in Reginald Pecock’s Donet, ed. E. V. Hitchcock, EETS (OS) clvi (Oxford, 1918), 1–8; Pecock’s Folewer to the Donet, ed. E. V. Hitchcock, EETS (OS) clxiv (Oxford, 1923), 1–6; Pecock’s Reule of Cristen Religioun, ed. W. C. Greet, EETS (OS) clxxi (Oxford, 1926), 1–30, esp. pp. 9–22, 29. See further the Messenger’s introductory speech in Everyman, which includes brief statements concerning the titulus (lines 4–6), materia (lines 7, 16–20) and intentio (lines 8–15) of this morality play: Everyman, ed. A. C. Cawley (Manchester, 1961), p. 1.

15 Cf. Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 10–59. For the suggestion that the Vita Vergilii by Donatus influenced Boccaccio’s vita of Dante see G. Billanovich, Petrarca litterato, i: Lo scrittoio del Petrarca, Storia e letteratura, xvi (Rome, 1947), p. 76.

16 Guido da Pisa’s Expositions, ed. Cioffari, pp. xxi–xl.

17 Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 141–2, 214–5, 222–3.

18 On the popularity of this commentary, see Smalley, Study of the Bible, pp. 274–5; ‘Sapiential Books II’, p. 41; ‘Sapiential Books IV’.

19 K. O. Petersen has argued that Chaucer made use of homiletic material from this commentary in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale: see her Sources of the Nonnes Preestes Tale, Radcliffe College Monographs, x (Boston, 1898), pp. 109ff. R. A. Pratt believes that Holcot provided Chaunticleer and Pertelote with much of their information about dreams: ‘Some Latin Sources of the Nonnes Preest on Dreams’, Speculum, lii (1977), 538–70. W. O. Sypherd has found echoes of Holcot in the House of Fame: Studies in Chaucer’s House of Fame, Chaucer Society Publications, 2 ser., xxxix (London, 1907), 74–6.

20 For Holcot’s view of the ‘good pagan’, see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 185–93; Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, pp. 235–48. Many Middle English writers were interested in the fate of virtuous heathen: for a useful survey, see T. G. Hahn, God’s Friends: Virtuous Heathen in Later Medieval Thought and English Literature (Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1974).

21 See H. C. Mainzer, A Study of the Sources of the Confessio amantis of John Gower (unpub. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1967), esp. p. 84.

22 Hoccleve: The Minor Poems, ed. F. J. Furnivall and I. Gollancz, EETS (ES) lxi and lxxiii (Oxford, repr. 1970), 33.

23 The Poems and Fables of Robert Henryson, ed. H. H. Wood, 2 ed. (Edinburgh, 1958). Chaucer made use of Trevet’s commentary in his translation of Boethius: see K. O. Petersen, ‘Chaucer and Trevet’, PMLA, xviii (1903), 173–93; B. L. Jefferson, Chaucer and the Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius (Princeton, 1917), pp. 9–15; E. T. Silk, Cambridge Ii.3.21 and the relation of Chaucer’s Boethius to Trevet and Jean de Meung (Ph.D. thesis, Yale, 1930).

24 Cf. Boccaccio’s claim that ‘our Lord and Saviour’ spoke ‘often in parable appropriate to the style of comic poet’: Geneal. deor. gent., xiv. 18 (ed. Romano, pp. 737–8). Chaucer’s invocation of Christ in this context has no precedent in Jean de Meun’s Roman de la Rose, 15135–302 (ed. E. Langlois (Paris, 1914–24), iv, 92–8), an excursus which has many striking parallels with Chaucer’s General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

25 See, for example, Hugh of St Cher’s prologue to his commentary on St Matthew’s gospel (Hugonis postilla, v, 3^r), where the traditional symbols for the Four Evangelists are used to explain and justify the differences between their writings. Nicholas of Lyre also used the traditional symbols, in a discussion which emphasises the harmony of the gospels: see his Praefatio in quatuor Evangelistas (Biblia glossata, v, unfol.); cf. his Prooemium in Evangelicum Marci (ibid., 473–4), Prooemium super Lucam (663–4), and Prologus super Ioannem (999–1000).

26 Biblia glossata v, unfol. Alternatively, Chaucer could have obtained these ideas from a medieval gospel-harmony like Clement of Lanthony’s Unum ex quattuor. For the Middle English translation of this work, see E. Salter, Nicholas Love’s ‘Myrrour of the Blessed Lyf of Jesu Christ’, Analecta Cartusiana, ix (1974), 76–7. Chaucer’s discussion is so general that it is impossible to identify an exact source for it.

27 Ed. T. Wright, Political Poems and Songs, Rolls Series (London, 1859–61), i, 25; cf. P. Meyvaert, ‘John Erghome and the Vaticinium Roberti Bridlington’, Speculum, xli (1966), 656–64.

28 Ed. G. C. Macaulay, The Works of John Gower (London, 1899–1902), ii, 22. All references to the Confessio amantis are to this edition. I also employ the trans. by E. W. Stockton in The Major Latin Works of John Gower (Seattle, 1962), pp. 49–288.

29 Works of Gower, ed. Macaulay, iv, 1.

30 A convenient list of the ‘Paris set’ of Bible-prologues is provided in N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries (Oxford, 1969— ), i, 96–7.

31 An English Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse Version with a Prose Commentary, ed. E. Fridner, Lund Studies in English, xxix (Lund and Copenhagen, 1961). For the Old French version, see S. Berger, La Bible française au moyen âge (Paris, 1884; repr. Geneva, 1967), pp. 87–8.

32 Praefatio Gilberti Pictaviensis in Apocalypsim Ioannis (Biblia glossata, vi, 1447–52). The ultimate source of this distinction is book xii of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram (ed. I. Zycha, CSEL, xxviii (1894), 380–9). It was very widely disseminated in the later Middle Ages: see esp. the extensive discussion in J.-P. Torrell, Théorie de la prophétie et philosophie de la conaissance aux environs 1230: La Contribution d’Hughes de Saint-Cher, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Études et documents, xl (Louvain, 1977).

33 Praefatio Gilberti (Biblia glossata, vi, 1447–8).

34 For the nomen scribentis, see prologus lib. i, lines 19–24; for the intentio and materia see lines 25–8. The first person to notice the scholastic origins of Gower’s prologues in the Vox clamantis was Maria Wickert in her Studien zu John Gower (Cologne, 1963), pp. 87–109. However, her main interest was in the rhetorical topoi found in Gower’s prologues, and in how such topoi were (in her opinion) altered, and even atrophied, by the writers of religious treatises. My discussion and conclusions are fundamentally different from hers.

35 For example, by Holcot in the prologue to his Wisdom-commentary: see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 135. For the theologians’ practice of hiding their names in the text of the opening lecture, see D. Trapp, ‘Augustinian Theology of the Fourteenth Century’, Augustinian, vi (1956), 269–72.

36 For example, by Robert of Basevorn in his Forma praedicandi: see Charland, Artes praedicandi, p. 234.

37 For the influence of medieval theory of satire (including estates satire) on Gower’s description of his literary role in the Vox clamantis, see Miller, ‘John Gower, Satiric Poet’, pp. 94–9.

38 See Vox clamantis, iii, lines 1247–52 (ibid., iv, 140).

39 Ibid., iv, 3. ‘Capitulum’ usually means ‘chapter’ but here it means ‘chapter-summary’. For the development of techniques of chapter-summary, see Callus’s discussion of Robert Kilwardby’s capitula or intentiones, in Stud. med. in hon. Martin, pp. 243–70. Cf. note 45 below.

40 For this argument, see Macaulay, Works of Gower, iv, pp. xxxi–xxxii, lxvii.

41 Liber de eruditione praedicatorum, prima pars (in B. Humberti de Romanis opera de vita regulari, ed. J. J. Berthier (Rome, 1888–9), ii, 374–5.

42 Causa efficiens duplex est, ipse Deus originaliter et ipse predicans ministraliter (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 5, fol. 1^v).

43 Causa vero efficiens movens et mota est quilibet predicator devotus et sancto spiritu inbutus ad tante dignitatis officium tam vita quam scientia aptus et ydoneus (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 571, fol. 162^v).

44 Forma praedicandi, prologus (ed. Charland, Artes praedicandi, pp. 233–5).

45 Quite impressive apparatus is found in manuscripts of Gower’s two major works. Oxford, All Souls College, MS 98—which, according to Macaulay (Works, iv, p. lxi), Gower himself supervised for presentation to Archbishop Thomas Arundel—contains a series of capitula or intentiones for the Vox clamantis, which in style and in function are similar to those which Kilwardby prepared for certain authoritative texts (cf. above p. 154). In many manuscripts of the Confessio amantis there are Latin summaries of the English text which, although written in verse and speaking in the third person, perform the same summarising function as the prose intentiones in the Vox clamantis. These verse intentiones, like the Latin commentary (discussed above, pp. 181–2, 188–90), are consistently moralistic in tone and point out the ‘lore’ in Gower’s English text. The presence of such intentiones in early manuscripts of the Confessio gives that apparatus a considerable importance: Gower probably ‘passed’ it for publication; he may even have written it. It would seem that Gower attempted to provide for his own works that apparatus which medieval readers believed to be appropriate to an auctor.

46 Generalis prologus (Biblia glossata, i, unfol.).

47 Prologus specialis de intentione auctoris et modo procedendi (ibid., i, unfol.).

48 In lib. Sap., prologus (Basel ed., pp. 1–6).

49 Ibid., lect.i (p. 6).

50 Ropertus Holcot super librum Ecclesiastici (Venice, 1509), fols 2^r–4^r.

51 Ringstead, In Prov. Sal., fols 1^r–3^r; Lathbury, In Thren.ler., 1^r–19^v. Indeed, the practice of prefacing a commentary with an extrinsic prologue did not end with the Middle Ages. B. Weinberg has explained that a Renaissance professor, beginning his series of lectures on a text or topic, almost invariably devoted the introductory lecture (then called the prolusio) to explaining the place which his subject occupied in the whole scheme of human knowledge: see A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1961), i, 7.

52 English Works, ed. Macaulay, i, 35–6.

53 From a commentary on the Heroides in Cod. Laur. 91 sup. 23, cit. Ghisalberti, JWCI, ix, 44–5. On the importance of Heroides commentaries for an understanding of Gower’s compilation of love-stories see A. J. Minnis, ‘John Gower, sapiens in ethics and politics’, Medium Aevum, xlix.2 (1980), 207–29; cf. Minnis, ‘Moral Gower’, pp. 55–66. For discussion of the types of Heroides commentary available in late-medieval England see M. C. Edwards, A Study of Six Characters in Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women with reference to medieval scholia on Ovid’s Heroides (unpub. B. Litt. thesis, Oxford, 1970).

54 Hugonis postilla, iii, 153^v.

55 For the use of Ovid made by ‘classicising friars’ see Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 102, 106, 152, 155–6, 189, 226. For a general survey see S. Viarre, La Survie d’Ovide dans la littérature scientifique de XIIe et XIIle siècles (Poitiers, 1966). Cf. pp. 11, 55–7 above.

56 See, for example, the accessus to Ovid’s Heroides discussed above, pp. 55–7; cf. the accessus transcribed and examined by Edwards, Six Characters in Chaucer’s Legend. For a fuller version of this argument see Minnis, ‘Moral Gower’, pp. 51–66.

57 For full discussion, see my article in Medium Aevum, xlix.2, 207–29, on which the following few pages are based.

58 English Works, ed. Macaulay, ii, 480.

59 From T. A. Sinclair’s introduction to Aristotle: The Politics (Harmondsworth, 1962), p. 21.

60 Cf. Macaulay, English Works, ii, 521–2.

61 C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (Oxford, 1936), p. 218.

62 English Works, ed. Macaulay, i, 37.

63 Ibid., ii, 474–5.

64 Works, ed. Robinson, p. 178.

65 English Writings of Richard Rolle, ed. H. E. Allen (Oxford, 1931), p. 7.

66 For a particularly interesting example see the Legend of Good Women, F prologue, lines 466–74; cf. G prologue, lines 456–64 (pp. 493–4): discussed by A. J. Minnis, ‘The Influence of Academic Prologues on the Prologues and Literary Attitudes of Late-Medieval English Writers’, Med. Stud., xliii (1981), 375–6.

67 See the General Prologue, I, line 727 (p. 24); the Miller’s Prologue, I, line 3175 (p. 48); Prologue to Melibee, VII, line 958 (p. 167); the Parson’s Prologue, x, line 38 (p. 228); Troilus and Criseyde, 1, line 53 (p. 390), etc.

68 Monk’s Tale, VII, line 1991 (p. 189). The most sophisticated fourteenth-century discussions of the modus tragoediae are to be found in Trevet’s commentaries on the tragedies of Seneca. However, there is no evidence that Chaucer knew any of these commentaries.

69 Troilus and Criseyde, v, line 1792 (p. 479).

70 Merchant’s Tale, iv, line 1881 (p. 121).

71 ‘Chaucer and the Hand that Fed Him’, Speculum, xli (1966), 619–42.

72 ‘Vincent of Beauvais and Dame Pertelote’s Knowledge of Medicine’, Speculum, x (1935), 281–7; ‘The Summoner’s Malady’, SP, xxxiii (1936), 40–4; ‘Vincent of Beauvais and the Green Yeoman’s Lecture on Demonology’, SP, XXXV (1938), 1–9; ‘Chaucer’s Legend of Cleopatra and the Speculum historiale’, Speculum, xiii (1938), 232–36; ‘Vincent of Beauvais and Chaucer’s Monk’s Tale’, Speculum, xvii (1942), 56–68; ‘Vincent of Beauvais and Chaucer’s Knowledge of Alchemy’, SP, Xli (1944), 371–89.

73 Apologia totius operis, cap.iv (ed. v. den Brincken, p. 470).

74 Li Livres dou Tresor, ed. Carmody, pp. 17–18.

75 Apologia totius operis, cap.vii (ed. v. den Brincken, p. 474).

76 De proprietatibus rerum, prologus (unfol.).

77 On the Properties of Things: John Trevisa’s Translation of Bartholomaeus Anglicus de proprietatibus rerum, ed. M. C. Seymour et al. (Oxford, 1975), i, 43.

78 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.69, fol. 106^v.

79 Ed. C. Horstmann, ‘Mappula angliae von Osbern Bokenham’, Englische Studien, x (1887), 34.

80 Polychronicon Ranulphi, i, 20.

81 Ibid., i, 21.

82 Ibid., i, 13.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid., i, 19.

85 Ibid., iii, 317–19.

86 For examples, see ibid., i, 363; ii, 61, 77, 83, 91, 121, 161, 189, 195, etc.

87 See T. O. Wedel, The Medieval Attitude to Astrology, particularly in England, Yale Studies in English, lx (New Haven, 1920), 11, n.2. For thirteenth-century attitudes to the ars judicialis, see ibid., pp. 64–75; for the views of Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290–1349) and John Wyclif, see ibid., pp. 124–31.

88 See, for example, the discussion by Bradwardine in his Sermo epinicius (1346), ed. H. A. Oberman and J. A. Weisheipl, AHDLMA, xxv (1958), 295–329.

89 J. A. Robson, Wyclif and the Oxford Schools, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, New Srs, viii (Cambridge, 1966), 101–3.

90 Ibid., p. 102.

91 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 714, fol. 1^r—l^v; cf. MS Bodley 369, fol. 1^r–1^v.

92 See the extract pr. in Four English Political Tracts of the Later Middle Ages, ed. J.-P. Genet, Camden Fourth Srs (London, 1968), 22–3.

93 Works, ed. Robinson, p. 546.

94 Ibid., p. 551.

95 The Romance of the Rose, trans. by H. W. Robbins and ed. C. W. Dunn (New York, 1962), p. xx.

96 Ed. Langlois, iv, 95.

97 See esp. Apologia totius operis, cap.iv (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 469–70).

98 Li Livres dou Tresor, ed. Carmody, p. 16.

99 See the gloss pr. Macaulay, English Works, i, 3–4. For the argument that Brunetto Latini influenced Gower, see ibid., ii, 522; cf. Mainzer, The Sources of the Confessio amantis, esp. pp. 38–40.

100 Polychronicon Ranulphi, i, 16.

101 Ibid., i, 17.

102 For these quotations see I, lines 798, 3169; VII, line 964; x, line 46 (cf. VII, lines 2790–817).

103 But there is some overlap: see note 72 above.

104 For the idea of ‘encapsulating’ structure cf. J. Burrow, Ricardian Poetry (London, 1971), pp. 57–68, 86, 92.

105 Apologia totius operis, cap.viii (ed. v. den Brincken, p. 477).

106 Apologia totius operis, cap. i (ibid., pp. 465–6).

107 Apologia, cap.x (ibid., pp. 479–80).

108 Decameron, introduzione (ed. C. Segre, Opere di Giovanni Boccaccio, 4 ed. (Milan, 1967), pp. 27–8; trans. C. H. McWilliam (Harmondsworth, 1972), p. 47).

109 Decameron, ed. Segre, pp. 694–7.

110 On this principle see Glending Olson, ‘The Medieval Theory of Literature for Refreshment and its Use in the Fabliau Tradition’, SP, lxxi (1974), 291–313.

111 Trans. McWilliam, p. 831.

112 Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, xviii, 358, 360.

113 Biblia glossata, iii, 432–3.

114 Polychronicon Ranulphi, i, 18.

115 Ovide moralisé, vol.i, ed. C. de Boer, Verhandelingen der Koninkijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, deel XV (Amsterdam, 1915), 61.

116 The Metamorphoses, translated by W. Caxton, 1480 (New York, 1968), i, unfol.

117 Malory: Works, ed. E. Vinaver, 2 ed. (Oxford, 1971), p. xv. Cf. the similar use of Romans xv.4 in the prologue to Caxton’s second edition of The Game and Playe of the Chesse, ed. W. J. B. Crotch, The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton, EETS (OS) clxxvi (Oxford, 1928), pp. 10–11.

118 For discussion, see A. J. Minnis, ‘A Note on Chaucer and the Ovide moralisé’, Medium Aevum, xlviii (1979), 254–7.

119 Works, ed. Robinson, p. 265. Cf. The Ellesmere Chaucer reproduced in Facsimile (Manchester, 1911), ii, unpaginated. The Hengwrt Chaucer is imperfect at the end, so we do not know if it contained the ‘retracciouns’ or not. On these two MSS, the work of a single scribe, see, now, A. I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes, ‘The Production of Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio amantis in the early fifteenth century’, Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays presented to N. R. Ker, ed. M. B. Parkes and A. G. Watson (London, 1978), pp. 163–210.

120 The Ellesmere Chaucer, ii, unpag.

121 Cf. G. L. Kittredge, ‘Chaucer’s Lollius’, HSCP, xxviii (1917), 47–133, esp. pp. 49–55. On Chaucer’s antiquarianism in Troilus, see M. W. Bloomfield, ‘Chaucer’s Sense of History’, JEGP, li (1952), 301–13, esp. p. 308, n.17. R. A. Pratt suggested that Chaucer gained ‘a sense of chronology, a sense of the past, and a sense of history’ from Nicholas Trevet’s Cronicles: see ‘Chaucer and Les Cronicles of Nicholas Trevet’, Studies in Language, Literature and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later, ed. E. B. Atwood and A. A. Hill (Austin, 1969), pp. 308–9. However, Chaucer could have acquired these senses from Vincent’s ‘Estoryal Myrour’, Higden’s Polychronicon or, indeed, from many another medieval compilation.

122 See esp. Apologia totius operis, capi i, iii—vi, viii (ed. v. den Brincken, pp. 465–6, 467–74, 475–7); Polychronicon Ranulphi, i, 2–6, 16–20. The parallels with Higden are particularly close.

123 In De vulgari eloquentia, ii.6, Dante gives examples of word-formation from ‘modern’ writers like Guido Guinicelli and Guido Cavalcanti, whom he labels as auctores: he seems deliberately to be awarding the accolade because, immediately afterwards, he lists ‘ancient’ auctores who also provide examples of word-formation (Le Opere latine di Dante Allighieri, ed. G. Giuliani (Florence, 1878–1882), i, 62–4). Cf. the Epistle to Can Grande, where Dante’s Divine Comedy is described in terms of authorial modes cit. above, pp. 144–5. The first commentators on Dante and on other great Italian writers transferred the medieval critical vocabulary—developed in the exposition of ‘ancient’ auctores—to their ‘modern’ auctores: see Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare.

124 Boccaccio’s ‘self-commentary’ is pr. in Giovanni Boccaccio: Teseida, ed. S. Battaglia (Florence, 1938).

EPILOGUE

1 Francisci Petrarcae epistolae de rebus familiaribus, ed. I. Fracassetti (Florence, 1859–63), iii, 258; trans. M. E. Cosenza, Petrarch’s Letters to Classical Authors (Chicago, 1910), p. 14.

2 This ‘affectionate veneration’ of Petrarch’s is discussed by P. de Nolhac, Pétrarque et l’humanisme (Paris, 1907), i, 216–20; cf. R. Weiss, The Spread of Italian Humanism (London, 1964), p. 26.

3 See R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship 1300–1850 (Oxford, 1976) , pp. 9–10, who emphasises that the evidence for Petrarch’s knowledge of Cicero’s Epistolae ad familiares is inconclusive.

4 In libros de reb. fam., praefatio (ed. Fracassetti, i, 25; trans. Cosenza, pp. x–xi).

5 De reb. fam., xxi. 10 (ed. Fracassetti, iii, 85–6).

6 Cf. Petrarch’s statement to this effect in De reb. fam., xxiv.2 (ed. Fracassetti, iii, 259; trans. Cosenza, p. 10).

7 De reb. fam., xxiv.3; xxiv.4 (ed. Fracassetti, iii, 262, 266).

8 De reb. fam., xxiv.3 (ibid., iii, 263).

9 De reb. fam., xxiv.4 (ibid., iii, 264).

10 De reb. fam., xxiv.2 (ibid., iii, 258–61).

11 Speculum historiale, vi, capi vi—xxxii (Speculi maioris (Venice, 1591), i, fols 59^v ff.).

12 Gualteri Burlaei liber de vita et moribus philosophorum mit einer altspanischen Übersetzung der Eskurialbibliothek, ed. H. Knust, Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, clxxvii (Tübingen, 1886), 2.

13 Lib. de vita et mor. phil., cap. xcv (ibid., p. 318).

14 Pars iv, cap.xvi (Compendiloquium, ed. L. Wadding (Rome, 1655), pp. 283–6).

15 For Aquinas’s attitude to Cicero see E. K. Rand, Cicero in the Courtroom of St Thomas Aquinas, The Aquinas Lecture 1945 (Marquette, 1946).

16 Vita di Dante, xxv (ed. D. Guerri, II Comento alla Divina Commedia e gli altri scritti intorno a Dante, i (Bari, 1918), p. 46; trans. J. R. Smith, The Earliest Lives of Dante, Yale Studies in English, x (New York, 1901; repr. 1968), p. 51).

17 Trans. Smith, pp. 58–9.

18 Ibid., p. 60.

19 See the ‘Aristotelian prologues’ to the Dante-commentaries cit. by Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare.

20 Lib.i, lect.3, 55 (trans. Rowan, i, 24).

21 De reb. fam., x. 4 (ed. Fracassetti, ii, 82–4; trans. J. H. Robinson and H. W. Rolfe, Petrarch (New York, 1968), pp. 261–5).

22 Vita di Dante. xxii (ed. Guerri, p. 42). Cf. his Geneal. deor. gent., xiv.8, xv.8 (ed. Romano, pp. 705, 769); also the Comento alla Divina Commedia. iii (ed. Guerri, p. 142).

23 Vita di Dante. xxii (ed. Guerri, p. 40; trans. Smith, p. 51).

24 Geneal. deor. gent., xiv.9 (ed. Romano, p. 707).

25 Ibid., xiv. 14 (p. 725).

26 Ibid., xiv. 17 (p. 731); cf. Vita di Dante, xxii (ed. Guerri, pp. 39–40), and esp. the Redazioni compendiose della vita di Dante. xix^bis (ibid., p. 92). For a (perhaps unduly high) estimate of Boccaccio’s ‘emancipation’ of the modus poeticus from the other modes, see F. Tateo, ‘Poesia e favola nella poetica del Boccaccio’, in his Retorica e poetica fra medioevo e rinascimento. Biblioteca di filologia romanza, v (Bari, 1960), 67–202.