First, I Find The Center Point: Reading The Text Of Hugh Of Saint Victor's The Mystic Ark (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society)

Fig. 1. TheMystic Ark as itmight have appeared if constructed at the convent twelfth

of Hohenbourg century.

Digital

during

the abbacy

reconstruction,

of Abbess

Herrad

Clement/Han/Rudolph.

in the late

ThreeStages of theArk FirstStage

CosmicComponents

H

Fig. 4. Rudolph.

The Mystic

Ark.

Earth,

air, ether,

and

the three

Second Stage ThirdStage

stages. Clement/

srS'?r_^_!-;-^i_l'.wi'?

Fig.

5.

The Mystic

Clement/Rudolph.

Ark.

Selected

components

of

the Ark

and

earth.

Fig. 8.

The Mystic Ark. The four ascents. Clement/Rudolph.

/:W

XXX

v:.\

/

X\

// ^V

Xx

Fig. 9.

77zeMystic

Ark. Quaternary

/

harmony.

Clement/Rudolph.

{ S pera coacftobti Al

f??Axt timUcraiitum

%$>?

lotisa> occi^m i\ |o?u> \ vtmtcndfeccaban r \ rt ?uudrc-tiunutttf

tic?nuiuf ronu^' ou.i ,mth;?fif>t? *Z

bictbifo tiUw&c mcogtita ?Afta

nundfflttnt

riduit ?c rtiKcttfci

iUuft%wia??? tit? rqpdlit'

(inobw~a nicrtcttan

motuUu lu btabitoti?

dtClfqiii) cciu?pu ?idem ttntmiv

tic?feA?um ti l? k*t | ?blujuumtot a??ufr-Oi?i*ut*

j^aurtdt?*

' tit ?amu

r nn?r

cit0

lrtrttnt?n/

iut?i?imo?tmr ab t?m\ born?

Fig.

Sphera Macrobii. Lambert of Saint-Omer, Liber Floridus. Herzog Ms. 1Gud. lat. fol. 16v. Bibliothek Wolfenb?ttel,

12.

August

" # 0? M

v

M

coi Fig.

13.

The Mystic

*J?j?

Ark. The central cubit. Clement/Rudolph.

Xt?I

jf?:.

'*?mn.y0/

Fig. 14. Macro/microcosm of Saint John Baptist College

(Byrhtferth's Diagram). The President and Scholars in the University of Oxford, Ms. 17:7v.

TRANSACTIONS of the

SOCIETY AMERICANPHILOSOPHICAL Held at Philadelphia For Promoting Useful Knowledge Volume

I FIND

"FIRST, CENTER

OF

THE

POINT": THE

READING HUGH

94, Part 4

SAINT

THE MYSTIC

TEXT

VICTOR'S ARK

Conrad Rudolph

American

Philosophical

Philadelphia

OF

Society

2004

Copyright ?2006 by the American Philosophical Society for its Transactions series. All rights

ISBN:

reserved.

0-87169-944-3

US ISSN: 0065-9746

of Congress

Library

Conrad,

Rudolph,

Data

Cataloging-in-Publication 1951

: the text of Hugh of Saint Victor's point reading The mystic ark / Conrad Rudolph. ? of the American ;v. 94, (Transactions p. cm. Philosophical Society First,

I find

pt.4) Includes

the center

bibliographical

ISBN 0-87169-944-3 1. Christian

and

index.

(paper)

art and

symbolism?France?Medieval, to 1800. 3. Hugh, of Saint-Victor,

works ogy?Early 4. Hugh, ark (Painting) 5. pretation. Mysticism Saint-Victor,

references

1096??1141.

of Saint-Victor,

1096??1141?Criticism

in art. 6. Lost works De

arca Noe

500-1500. 1096?-1141.

mystica.

of art?France. II. Title.

2. Theol Mystic and inter

I. Hugh, III. Series.

of

N7850.R78 2004 704.9'484?dc22

2004054542

To the memory

of Robert Benson

1925-1996 of medieval history, colleague, and friend

professor

CONTENTS

Preface

vii 1

Introduction

CHAPTER ONE. The text of TheMystic Ark as a reportatio 9 1. First suggestions

of the text of

Ark as a reportatio 2. The occasional lack of understanding The Mystic

the reporter

of both

the concept

3. Patterns

of presentation terms"

within

The

TWO.

and the

the text

21

29

"Technical

CHAPTER

of

12

painting of TheMystic Ark 4.

10

of a continuing

supposition

change in TheMystic Ark

33

of a continuing supposition change from the original painting of The Mystic Ark to the reportatio of The Mystic Ark 34

1. The

of a continuing supposition change from the first recension of The Mystic Ark

2. The

to the second 3. The

editing THREE.

CHAPTER

44

recension

of the second The nature

recension and original

of the text of TheMystic Ark 1. The

supposition was originally

Victor, whether

function

63

that the text of The Mystic Ark to intended as an appendix

TheMoral Ark 2. Whether

57

64

Ark was painted at Saint the question of ekphrasis, and to be The Mystic Ark was meant

The Mystic

painted by others

71

to be the text of The Mystic Ark was meant as a set of 78 understood instructions

3. How

vi

CHAPTER

Notes

FOUR.

Conclusions

83

87

Bibliography 109 Index Illustrations

CONTENTS

101

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 31, 32,40,41

Color Plates for Figures

thefront of the hook

1, 4, 5, 8, 9, i2, ?3 and 14 appear

in

PREFACE

Ark,

the center

I find

"First,

and there?the

point

point

on

having

I wish

the surface where been

fixed?I

to depict

a small

draw

square

the cen

tered on it in the likeness of that cubit inwhich the Ark was brought to source the most unusual With these words begins perhaps completion." we have for the history of medieval The Mystic art, Hugh of Saint Victor's two of the seeds serious miscon Ark. Seemingly enough, straightforward ceptions

the Ark

about

are inherent

in this opening

passage

and,

indeed,

throughout the text of TheMystic Ark. These are that Hugh himself was of the text of The Mystic Ark and that this text is an ac set of instructions for the production of the painting of

the actual writer tual step-by-step

TheMystic Ark. have been with us from the beginning These misconceptions of mod ern scholarship on the Ark. In trying to come to terms with them as part on the subject, of a larger study of mine it became that there apparent were

a number

have

appeared the last dozen tion between

of other, with

views equally misleading in interest the great increase

or so years. the painting

These

address

that, for the most

part, in The Mystic Ark over such essential issues as the rela

and the text of The Mystic

Ark;

the relation

be

tween the text of TheMystic Ark and TheMoral Ark (a related treatise by a second recension of The Mystic Ark was made; the signifi Hugh); why cance of the slight differences between the two recensions; the whether to serve as a substitute text is a work of ekphrasis; whether it was meant to produce for an image that was too difficult Ark was ever painted; whether it was Mystic so on. and others;

and preserve; whether The to be painted intended by

must to have a comprehensive be asked if we want questions text of and of The the understanding image Mystic Ark. But the body our current view to them, as they now stand, have distorted responses These

of of

to have a clear sense The Mystic Ark to such a degree that it is impossible source without of this important first reexamining the textual basis of these issues. This is not an easy task. Both the text and the image of the Ark

are so

approaching

that neither complex an effective manner

can be dealt with subject in the same work. Therefore,

in anything before tak

ing up the image of TheMystic Ark in its own right, something Iwill do in a later study,

the nature

of the Ark

as a written

text must

first be examined

PREFACE

Vlll

more better

carefully. understood

In doing Ark this, I believe that, as The Mystic and better known, itwill take its place alongside

becomes Bernard as one of

of Clairvaux's

and the writings of Suger of Saint-Denis Apologia we have for stripping away the clouded varnish of history to reveal ever more of the extraordinarily vibrant artistic culture of early an was more artistic culture that active? nowhere Europe, twelfth-century the best means

in utilizing the well-educated

both

wealthy

leading

its use?than among imagery and in cautioning against and intellectually members of the often sophisticated of the monastic

houses

and coll?gial

orders.

* *

*

a

I have incurred many debts in the course of long work, this study. On the basis of time alone, thanks must be made first writing to the John Simon Guggenheim in the for their assistance Foundation is just a part; the Foundation of which this book has a overall project, ever I cannot how the moral that but sense, believe, support fully know, it is not

Though

receive from them outweighs their generous financial also go to Kurt Forster, Herb and deeply felt thanks must and the much missed Robert Benson. John Williams, its fellows

Related

support. Kessler,

The digitally produced image, which will appear in a more detailed way inmy later study of the image of theArk> has been amajor project in itself. In my complete Leo Schouest, Millen,

I am grateful to Karen Genet, Madelyn dependence, and Ben Han, who was the first dig Sohail Wassif,

to the second artist, Claire Clement, ital artist of this project. My gratitude a person of unlimited the produc and talent, knows no bounds; generosity not have been possible without tion of the image of The Mystic Ark would her

skill and dedication.

any images

at all without

Emory Elliott, Director of California, Riverside, I am deeply Foundation.

Even

have been that there would so, it is unlikely and moral the generous financial support of, first, of the Center for Ideas and Society at the University of the Samuel H. Kress and, later, Lisa Ackerman indebted

to both

of these people

and institutions.

I am equally indebted toMichelle Brown, Max Neiman, and JohnWilliams (again) for their help along these lines. I also thankMieke Bahmer, who made

painting. Gratitude critical

reconstruction of The Mystic Ark that appears those who are new that goes a long way in helping as in the two-dimensional its structure expressed

the three-dimensional

in this study, an image to the Ark understand

must

reading

to Steven Ostrow be expressed and to Dan of the manuscript,

for his much-appreciated for his invaluable

Sheerin

ix

PREFACE

advice

on the translation

study. My

sincere

of The Mystic Ark, which will appear goes as well to Julia Bloomfield, appreciation

in my later Sara Chan,

Emerick,

Forster-Hahn, John Ganim, Fran?oise Stephen Gersh, a and Marina for wide of Smyth O'Boyle, variety help and sup port related to this project, and to Paul Binski and Christian Heck, among others already mentioned, for their support in general. Finally, very spe Judson

Cornelius

are owed to Mark for their thought Jordan and Glenn Olsen as press readers. ful readings and suggestions are advised to be aware of the distinction Readers between my use of cial thanks

"the Ark,"

by which

I mean

the

iconographical

component

of the Ark

proper in the image of TheMystic Ark, and "the Ark? a shortened title use when

I sometimes Mystic This

referring

to either

the

image

or

the text of The

Ark.

professor

book

is dedicated

of medieval

to the memory

history,

colleague,

of Robert and friend.

Benson,

1925-1996,

Introduction

in medieval

nowhere

Perhaps

in Hugh

than

converge

culture

do art, science,

of Saint Victor's

and theology better a work that was

The Mystic Ark, at a moment of previously

con unrivalled coincidentally, to art time threat The and of science troversy perceived by theology. was one of enormous in and political social, intellectual, change; change a which the emerging and often contentious schools of Europe played in the crucial areas of science and the systemati central role, particularly not

conceived,

over

zation of theology. TheMystic Ark is the name of both a painting made by Hugh for the school of Saint Victor and the text that describes it, the two created

being

sometime

from

1125 to early

1130.

It was

no accident

that

itwas from within this highly charged and itself radically changing world of the education of the intellectual elite that TheMystic Ark originated. Despite the vast body of writings left by Hugh, very little is known of life in general and even less of his early life in particular. But there is a to to construct make it basic outline of his life, a possible just enough can in which his work and thought be under context, however sketchy, in the late eleventh in stood. Hugh was born sometime century, probably

his

to have been educated there by the canons regu Saxony, and is believed a 1115 he entered the abbey of Saint Victor, lar of Hamersleben. Around house of canons regular, at that time just on the eastern edge of Left Bank Paris. By 1133, he had become master of the school there, chosen for this in size and office at a time when the schools were expanding dramatically importance.

The

school

of Saint Victor

was

among The house

while under his direction. particularly in involved the reform of the secular Church deeply

the most

renowned, was

of Saint Victor in northern

France,

was

in contemporary active himself intellectual Hugh politics as a a his teacher scholar. the his and time of death position By through were was in early 1141, his teaching and writings such that he considered

and

by many to be the leading theologian inWestern Europe during themid twelfth tory,

one of the great moments century, even called alter Augustinus, being

of European his intellectual a second Augustine, by his

contemporaries.1 and text of The Mystic Ark form one of the most for an understanding of medieval visual culture most context. The painting?the complex single work

the painting Together, sources we have unusual and

its polemical

2

CENTER POINT

art from

of figurai

the entire Middle

known

Ages?is

to have

served

as

the focal point of a series of brilliant and highly political lectures under taken by the great theologian Hugh at Saint Victor (Fig. 1). The equally text provides and a quarter

exceptional forty-one

a description pages

long

image that is no less than in the modern critical edition: the of this

longest description of a single actual work of figurai art from theMiddle Ages

proper

repeated

by around

production

pages. The forty-one of the image (although

text was meant it is not

to aid in the

an actual

step-by

Fig. 1. TheMystic Ark as itmight have appeared if constructed at the convent of Hohenbourg during the abbacy of Abbess Herrad in the late twelfth

century.

Digital

reconstruction,

Clement/Han/Rudolph.

3

INTRODUCTION

step set of instructions),

in a sense, being

each production,

an

"original."

art

But the importance of The Mystic Ark for the history of medieval as an advisor

to Abbot

the Ark itself. For Hugh acted beyond on his famous art at Saint-Denis.2 And, with or without program Suger on this the direct guidance of Hugh the systematization point, particular to the in The Mystic Ark seems to have served as the impetus of imagery extends

in the west portals of Saint-Denis, the first imagery first the constructed Gothic, portals fully systematized, (Fig. 3). an elaborate of The Mystic Ark presents The painting visual summary a of the entire history of salvation?in all of human his sense, religious systematization

of

in the beginning until the end of time, pointedly tory that matters?from with all of creation, association both spiritual and physical, and under on top of this universal divine dispensation. and fully Imposed history a complex with it is of schema individual salvation that is also integrated related

to the salvation

as a whole.

of humankind

More

the painting effects its meaning the depic specifically, through tion of Christ the with the six of creation cosmos, pro embracing days from his mouth. is composed The cosmos of the three cosmic ceeding zones

on figurai dependent 2 forms found of pedagogic schemata and 4). The (Figs. zone of ether is indicated the the of Twelve representations by Signs of the Zodiac and the Twelve Months, in two concentric arranged rings. of ether,

air, and earth,

is heavily

all of which

in the traditions

In the region

are

portrayed along with a rather as the earth?fully quaternary complete harmony. Through represented a mappa mundi, for Hugh's itself a major vehicle theoretical views on the Chosen from People are shown, first wandering history of salvation?the to the Promised and then off into Land, Egypt being dragged captivity in Babylon coterminous with the earth, (Fig. 5, no. 18, 19). Symbolically an image an image

of air, the Twelve Winds

of the Ark

of Noah

that ismeant

is the focus

tinct readings as the Ark of Noah, and

the Ark

as

to be understood

of Mother

of this complex composition, four exegetically dis holding

the Ark of the Church, the Ark of

Grace.

The

of component to it is that say except are as meant to be understood three stages that projecting toward the viewer rise up sionally (Figs. 4 and 6). Ladders men and women the Ark's four corners, up which sixty sixty

Wisdom, too

involved

to be described

the Lamb of God

here,

in the central cubit in which

the Ark

is far

composed three-dimen

of

from

each of

climb

toward

the Ark culminates,

to Genesis 6:16 (Fig. 5, no. 7-10, all this, hun 1). Throughout according dreds of figures, and the creation of symbols, inscriptions operate?from to the Last Judgment?typically at an astonishingly humankind high of coordination. degree

4

CENTER POINT

_? 1:Majesty 2:Throne 3: Seraphim 4:Choirs of Angels 5: SixDays 6:Zodiac 7:Months 8:Winds 9:QuaternaryHarmony 10:Earth/mappamundi 11:Ark 12:Evangelists' symbols

Fig. 2.

T/ie Mystic

-^S^at^t

Ark,

selected major

components.

Choirs of Angels: 4 Earth/mappamundi: 10 Evangelists' symbols: 12 Majesty: 1 Months: 7 Quaternary harmony: 9 Seraphim:3 SixDays: 5 Throne: 2 Winds: 8 Zodiac: 6

Clement/Rudolph.

5

INTRODUCTION

TTV

m

: ^ZS|i#l|?

Fig. 3.

1

Saint-Denis,

west

portals

(photo

Gueiroard).

a major statement Ark constitutes a one in that ad very specific way, phrased the contemporarily issues of creation, the dresses important systematic in and the of science the education of place ology, neoplatonism, society's intellectual of the painting was to present these issues elite.3 The purpose on

Fundamentally political, the history of salvation

The Mystic

in an integrated visual format that could serve as the focal point for ex tensive discussions of the issues. The purpose of the text was to enable

6

CENTER POINT

ThreeStages of theArk FirstStage |

Fig. 4.

Rudolph.

The Mystic

Ark.

Earth,

air, ether,

and

the three

Second Stage ThirdStage

stages. Clement/

7

INTRODUCTION

Central pillar

1: Central cubit (Thecenterpoint of the centralcubit is thecenter point of theentire composition) 2: Tree of Life 3: Book of Life

Line of generation

4: Line of generation proper to the flesh 4a: According to the spirit 4b: According The extended line of generation runs from the first through the sixth day of creation 5: Twelve Patriarchs 6: Twelve Apostles

Four Ascents Cold Heat Cold 10: Heat

of of of of

the East theWest the West the East

Other Selected 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19:

Fig.

5.

The Mystic

Clement/Rudolph.

Ark.

Selected

components

Elements

Paradise / Limbus Patrum Adam micro/ macrocosm Forty-two stopping places Hebrews fleeing Egypt Exile to Babylon Lastludgment Hell Egypt Babylon_

of

the Ark

and

earth.

CENTER POINT

8

Ark proper The Mystic Ark. The two-dimensional Fig. 6. reconstruction three dimensions. Bahmer/Rudolph. Digital

scholars

outside

of Saint Victor

to undertake

similar

projected

discussions

into

them

to produce the image. necessary of number copies of The surviving manuscript large as some of the most to make it as popular popular Mystic most author the read of Bernard Clairvaux, widely arguably writings by a it seems that the text and image played of the time4), very active and selves

Given

by providing the unusually Ark (enough

novel

role

the

in the current

information

controversies

with

which

Hugh

was

concerned.

One

Chapter

THE TEXTOF THEMYSTICARK AS A REPORTATIO

In one of his fictive moral

close

the genuinely amoral and philosopher, "It is necessary that you pay wrote, of these things on Plato, not on blame the difficulty

statesman

Roman

to Lucilius,

attention?and

letters

Seneca,

could easily say the same thing about Hugh of Saint Victor with a so to to text difficult read and to understand The Mystic Ark, that regard seems to be the reason why it has previously been al its very difficulty most completely ignored by art historians.

me!"51

But

this would

can only spite what shared with modern how

to Hugh?or at least a little unfair. For, de as a horrific be described text, equal blame must be as scholars. scholars used to wonder Indeed, just

be unfair

such a disorderly such orderly

conceived

an orderly The Mystic

artworks,

as Hugh the written

thinker Ark,

The Mystic Ark. artworks Suger's

as Abbot

thinker

Suger of Saint-Denis so some of them still wonder

could

have

how

such

text as have produced such a disorderly of the expression orderly supremely image of In an earlier study, I showed how the order in some of was

could

to of Hugh's role as a principal advisor It can now also be shown that the disorderli

the result

on his art Suger program.6 ness of the text of The Mystic

Ark

to the fact that the text is not by the intellectual, visual, and oral im

is owed

per se but is a reportatio: while of The Mystic Ark are or were by Hugh, the main body of the text of ages was not actually written by Hugh himself, but by an anony The Mystic Ark mous re similar to lecture notes, although Hugh reporter as something mains its author, morally speaking. Hugh

failed to make this fundamental scholars have in observation, Having cases the difficulties of this tortuous writ many needlessly compounded to tortuous force the round pegs with explanations, equally ing hoping of the evidence into the square holes of their preconceived arguments. Twisting

and

turning

more

than

the serpentine

attribute

of a medieval

10

CENTER POINT

these arguments of Dialectic, have such potential for personification a it is confusion that them that causing only by addressing individually can text coherent view of this complex be presented and "the difficulty of these

to a minimum.

kept

things"

On the basis of both a passage in The Mystic Ark that refers to The as already written in The Moral and a number of references Ark that speak of the painting of The Mystic Ark as pr?existent, the tradi tional view has been simply that The Moral Ark was written first and that

Moral

Ark

The Mystic ark-schema composition the greater pr?existent

Ark was

then written

in order

to describe

of the the painting Ark. Although this order of scholars have ignored may be correct as far as it goes, most same references in of these The Moral Ark to the significance and the actual relation between the painting of The painting that

to in The Moral

is referred

Mystic Ark, the treatise of TheMoral Ark, and the text of TheMystic Ark, and none have seriously questioned why the text of TheMystic Ark should be so unlike

in its lack of clarity. other writings Hugh's at studies on Hugh and The Mystic times, contradictory of, canon to go further than Sicard, a regular, has attempted the origins of the painting before him in trying to articulate and

In a pair Ark, Patrice those

a to The Moral text of The Mystic Ark and their relation Ark.7 Despite two Sicard makes work, great deal of very useful and much-appreciated that fundamentally affect the vast majority basic errors of interpretation

of his extended analysis of the subject. The first is his lack of recognition that the text of The Mystic

is a reportatio.8

Ark

1. FIRST SUGGESTIONS OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO The

initial obstacle

in coming

to an understanding

of the nature

and func

tion of the text of TheMystic Ark immediately presents itself in the ab a statement statement its purpose, of any introductory it regarding no in the text begins abruptly needs. With very much preface whatsoever, a uneven in of and series voice the first person (the very Hugh) proceeds sence

of the painting of instructions for the production of seemingly practical now a sermon-like The Mystic Ark: now being very methodical, adopting an now slipping into laconic tone, toward the end irredeemably quality, in with and interest the undertaking, finally concluding losing seemingly on the function a very brief statement of the text that is something less than

illuminating. As discussed below,

it is filled with

the text

inconsistencies;

is on occasion it often

unclear

gets ahead

or even

of its own

confused;

description,

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

11

that has not yet been introduced; for granted information and it a weak knowledge name only a few of of the Bible at times?to displays the problems that arise from this work. This is entirely out of keeping with a other writings, which Hugh's display high degree of clarity, consistency, taking

logic in the order of information eral enthusiasm for the subject

introduced,

biblical

and gen knowledge, a few isolated exceptions,

at hand.9 With

the only consistent stylistic element that the text of TheMystic Ark has in common with the body of Hugh's writings is the high level of its basic or ganization,

that something and that is at times

painting when the text moves any university Mystic Ark are

away professor will

stems

from the very nature of the directly in the written presentation severely strained from the structural As logic of the painting. confirm,

in character

fully the term "reportatio"

with

all of these student

traits of the text of The

of a complex lecture. cen before the thirteenth

notes

does not appear a in tury, the practice of reporter taking notes during an oral presentation a class situation is one found throughout the Middle As described Ages.10 a is not exactly class notes, but rather some by Beryl Smalley, reportatio While

into a fuller state, sometimes put into the thing like class notes worked first person, for the use of others. Though it may be recopied typically it and to without need be corrected and may again recomposition, again to have references to literature.11 all, it has no pretensions supplied. Above

Not only did Hugh actively participate in themaking of reportationes, but

the first detailed

In the Sententie the Ark

account

de divinitate a student

comes from his very lectures. of the practice 1127 (precisely of around the same time as named

later abbot ofWest perhaps a reporta in the minster, process of making experience an tio of a series of lectures by Hugh that presents early, oral form of a por tion of the first part of Hugh's De sacramentis.12 According to Laurence, lectures),

describes

Laurence,

his own

I brought my tablets [ofworked-up Hugh once a week so that, under

notes

of the lecture] back toMaster if there were anything cut it be out, anything overlooked might be added, superfluous might anything poorly phrased might be changed.13 his direction,

that was very simple and ulti so, he put the lectures into a language his own, like lecture notes today. The same can be said for another mately the writ lectures, the Descriptio reportatio of Hugh's mappe mundi, where also has a preface ing is again in a very simple style. This piece, however, Even

written in a literary style that is in such stark contrast to the body of the as to suggest that the two were written by different persons, with the in all probability In contrast, the irreg prologue being by Hugh himself.14 text of to the of the ascribed and known ularity writing traditionally Hugh

work

12

CENTER POINT

as De

that itwas

a reportatio that was assem revised or even reviewed having

has suggested contemplatione bled by a student reporter without while

it.15 Thus,

all of these writings

Hugh are reportationes

of Hugh's

lectures,

the degree to which Hugh participated in them varied: in the first, Hugh as a moder for the sake of this study, might be described one that was limited to ate level of participation in the reportatio process, was in the second, he to the point of at least some involved emendation; followed

what,

in the third, he seems to have had no input all.16 composition; was In The Mystic Ark, it seems that Hugh's participation something else again, being less than the moderate level of participation described

actual

but more than that of the apparently by Laurence dent reportatio of De contemplatione.

completely

indepen

2. THE OCCASIONAL LACKOF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REPORTER OF BOTH THE CONCEPT AND THE PAINTING OF THEMYSTIC ARK While most point Mystic are

the evidence

of this particular process manifests reportatio a clearly in general reading of the entire body of the writing, out a few of the more pronounced indications of the origins Ark

as a reportatio without

detailing

every

single

occurrence,

itself let me of The which

many.

Perhaps the most obvious specific evidence that The Mystic Ark is a so consistent lies in a lack of clarity and even a confusion that it reportatio an that the text was directly written is all but impossible author by Hugh, of Clairvaux?never who?like Bernard lets his eye drift from the tar as an absence of true un these slips manifest themselves get.17 Sometimes structure of the fundamental the of The Mystic Ark. of derstanding logic For example, of the construction the description of the cen following

tral cubit with which TheMystic Ark begins, the Ark proper is taken up the text mentions 2, no. 11). Here, (using the present to is that that become the first stage "ought" the rectangle tive) to the biblical dimensions, according length six times its width, (Fig.

mediately have

able form": with

which

but

im

goes on to state (using the perfect indicative) that "Imyself

shortened

modification

subjunc to have a

the length is to decrease

to around

four

times."18

the size of the Ark

The

"because

of this purpose of its more suit

so that, rather than have an extreme oblong shape, the world or more is tradition the Ark is less coterminous?and which

have to be only oval, properly ally circular?would speaking (Fig. 7). This that determines is a reduction every other aspect of the size of the painting to alter not just divine proportions and that, in its willingness but the

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

13

u o in x o o CO

? OhnU O ^

^ X)

'S o

oU

V)

?-m

?

tu?

.S O

14

CENTER POINT

divine

proportions the authority

from

ther on, however,

of the basic not of Hugh, in the discussion

can come of the painting, a student reporter. A few sentences

structure

of the construction

only fur

of the second

and

now and oblivi indicative (in the present stages, the reporter notes ous to any change), two more "I construct similarly having rectangles six their of the new stages as identical to times width," conceiving lengths third

the traditional had

of six to one

and very well-known biblical proportions the reporter because altered.19 Whether

just been

that

had been working

from TheMoral Ark (which is concerned only with a discussion of bibli not

cal proportions,

the practical

details

of the image)

or from

the original

image itself (which carried an inscription describing the length of the Ark as 300 cubits, the length given in the Bible), this oversight betrays amind reverting

unwittingly ing Hugh's

to the Ark

of Genesis

original

fundamentally

rather

conception,

than fully understand like so much which,

of

Hugh's thought, is founded equally in the ideal and the practical.20 The reporter is equally unclear the relation of the structure of regarding con of its message, The Mystic Ark to the content something completely trary to the very essence of the Ark. This is true for all aspects of The Mys to the critical ascents that so of the painting define the nature of the structure of the Ark proper. On the one hand, the in that the central cubit is also to be understood reporter never specifies ticArk,

from

the crucial

center

the fact that the wanderings of Jerusalem, of part as the location despite the and the Chosen People temporal-spatial logic of the line of genera of the of The Mystic Ark? tion?both components conception important no. this On the other hand, he is 14, 4).21 rely upon understanding (Fig. 5, in articulating the logic of the or vague almost to the point of indifference of the four ascents that radiate around the central cu der of progression bit?a integrated temporally, spatially, and spiritually logic that is deeply in passing into the structure of The Mystic Ark?noting that the Heat of is "the

the East parting," dependent

last corner

for those returning and the first for those de to the necessarily later that much inter this refers revealing only from humankind's fall and salvation of humankind: departure

and return to God being the essential theme of TheMystic Ark (Fig. 8).22 The

same

indifference,

in this case

to a proper

Ark's The Mystic incredibly painstakingly related logic, is the basis of the almost total

written

of explanation system of inter

thought-out lack of indication

of where

the

only seemingly irregular (and then just slightly) set of inscriptions be longs?this

set being made

up of three

triads

rather

than

the four

triads

that is standard in theArk (headed by The Married, Those Making Use of the World, suggests

That Things to Hugh.23 its importance and The

Creep)?a

set whose

very

irregularity

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO 15

Cold of the East Swolen

Blindness

Heat of the East

Pride

Spiritual

of of

Ignorance

Heat

Cold of the West

Fervor

Concupiescenc? the Flesh of the West Convenience

Ascent

Descent

Fig. 8.

of verbai

presentation 1: Cold of the East

1:Heat

of the East

1: Cold

of the East

2: Cold

of the East

2: Heat

of the West

2: Cold

of the West

3: Heat

of the West

3: Cold

of the West

3: Heat

of theWest

4: Cold

of theWest

4: Heat

of the East

4: Heat

of the East

The Mystic

Ark. The four ascents. Clement/Rudolph.

16

CENTER POINT

in his presentation of the quaternary that plays such a harmony nature of and delicate role in relating the basic soteriological significant And

The Mystic

Ark

to the current

controversy

over advanced

confuses the tightly interconnecting porter hopelessly to the individual: relate the time and space of the cosmos

the re learning, elements that cor first associating

Spring with the East (the top of the painting) and then, two paragraphs Summer with the same top (Fig. 2, no. 9; Fig. 9). This later, associating error apparently came about the reporter's consultation of a through schema from a literary source for this particular (which had component

Fig. 9.

The Mystic

Ark. Quaternary

harmony.

Clement/Rudolph.

1:East/Childhood/Air/Spring 2: South/Adolescence/Fire/Summer 3:West/Middle age/Earth/Autumn 4: North/Old age/Water/Winter

17

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

a strong literary tradition)?such in Isidore chapter on the four elements such

as

the

schema

of Seville's

De

the illustrating rerum? natura

of the painting itself as the text was 9 have done be for This he would and 10, written (cf. Figs. example).24 cause of his relative unfamiliarity with this seemingly but actu complex rather

than from

observation

direct

and be "scientific" component, ally quite simple and entirely traditional cause he knew that the schema of Isidore (among other possibilities) and was same to He oblivious the the The Mystic Ark replicated fact, concept. common or inexperience, this indifference that whether very through to agree with The that had to be made schema has a variable orientation Ark's

Mystic ponent

Fig.

10.

own

four cardinal

of the Ark. Not

only

Isidore of Seville, De Natura harmony. de France, Ms. lat. 5543:136.

Macro/microcosmic

Biblioth?que

nationale

are an important com which directions, an error indicative of an individual

is such

Rerum.

18

who

CENTER POINT

was

not very

advanced,

but

it is also

suggestive

of one who

was,

at

themost basic level, not in harmony with the logic of TheMystic Ark. The to the library to work up the details of the writ itself of turning practice as described ten text, however, is exactly that of the reportatio process by reason so the for here would have particular although doing Smalley, to mention for virtually scholar?not unnecessary any experienced effected. that the act was quite clumsily from this lack of connection with the logic of the structure of Distinct carelessness the text of description The Mystic Ark, a general pervades been

is completely clar foreign to those writings by Hugh himself, whose as one to him and have caused be described of ity, precision, organization one in For example, the first of the scholastics. the reporter calls passage, that

a triad of ladders) ascents (each ascent all-important comprising same same at the time using the for the individual word lad scalae, while the

ders

that make

up the ascents, but for the ascents?an

then

later switching muddled impossibly

to two distinctly

terms different of presentation of the concepts The Mystic Ark.25 He calls the personifications associated even in the text it elsewhere with these four ascents "Virtues," though of only one of the ascents are stated that the personifications is explicitly to be considered the rest being grouped virtues, systematically by ascent more as "emotions," this and method of "works," analytical "thoughts"; of Hugh.26 He says that is typical of the thought are at to the of the Ark, be depicted four corners Evangelists not the Evangelists but their symbols?the goes on to describe or Four Living Creatures?a lack of precision that reveals an categorization

the Four and

then

animalia

imprecise himself would have made when that Hugh hardly a no. a context in school the 12).27 Despite subject (Fig. 2, presenting for symbolic either a divi purposes pattern of noting clearly established

mind,

and

a mistake

sion or a lack of division

of the ascents and ladders, the of the inscriptions of attention that reveals a of these, a wandering

one reporter overlooks to how these important function within lack of sensitivity inscriptions would the very author of these inscriptions the schema, not something are inscriptions to indicate what be likely to do.28 He often neglects within with that

are not, a the painting and what failing that is at cross-purposes reason for existence of the text.29 He forgets to specify the the very some imagery, is to be figurai?appar such as the Twelve Months,

visual basic to the actual author of tendency ently lacking the essential as The Mystic Ark (Fig. 2, no. 7).30 His visual creation such a supremely to history is low?something that could never be said of level of attention before The reporter mentions the Babylonian himself. Captivity Hugh the liberation

from Egypt,

a small point

but

a

telling

one

that,

in its ahis

19

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

torical attitude, is contrary to the deeply historical outlook of both Hugh in a passage devoted and The Mystic Ark (Fig. 5, no. 15, 14).31 Likewise, to the six ages of the history of salvation, the reporter never describes as in with the rest of the image, these ages any way coordinated being that they were suggests though the context of the passage (Fig. II).32 He one at order of exegetical confuses the traditional levels, point giving the as and of and sequence history, allegory, tropology history, tropology, to that in its blatant inattention the spiritual ascent allegory, something in the different

inherent with

which

ceivable

coming than Bonaventure

of exegetical understanding?a is intimately concerned?is absolutely

Ark

The Mystic

as

levels

from Hugh, directly said, after identifying

less a personage individual Fathers with

about whom certain

subject incon

no

at all levels of exegetical that only he excelled interpretation, from the point of view of the basic function of them.33 Even worse of the a description text of The Mystic Ark, which is to provide for constructing comes in the highly detailed account of vari the image, this misordering the various

ous

ladders

of the ascents?a

real impediment for successful completion in his point of reference, nor the reporter wavers

and use of the Ark. And

mally describing the painting from the point of view of looking out from the image (where the term "right" means stage right, or the left as viewed), one more than it both from this point of view and but in place describing

from that of looking directly toward it (where the term "right"means the indicates the absence of right, or stage left).34 This inconsistency a firm grasp of the importance of the essential relation of the image to the as the conceives viewer. The first point of view, which of the painting from which is abandoned for emanates, subject knowledge indifferently viewer's

as the the point of subject of description: into view of the actual author, Hugh, becomes transformed unwittingly mere the point of view of the the reporter. writer, a is who scholar advocated the very careful use of color as a Hugh the second,

which

aid?a

memory

sees it simply

practice

in which

the slightest mistake renders the device in The Mystic is a very significant element an has lax attitude toward color indeed. extremely color

counterproductive?and Ark.35 Yet the reporter in his discussion For example, tions

the use of color

discusses

these

of the planks of the three periods, he men he takes up the logic of the planks but them; he then gives a actually specifying

even before

colors without

of the significance of the colors, even though partial interpretation they still have not been specified (Fig. 11). He finally gives the colors after sev eral pages of general discussion of the composition and significance of on in is the planks, whose the expression painting strongly dependent the use of these colors, but then immediately relates one of conceptually

20

CENTER POINT

Three Periods Natural

Law

E3 Written D Grace

Law

H

Three Types of People (plank system) Of nature: green (the Earth is also green) Of the law: yellow Of grace: purple (the third stage is also purple)

Six Ages 1: Adam

up to the Flood

2: The Flood up to Abraham 3: Abraham 4: David

up to David

up to the Captivity

5: The Captivity up to the coming of Christ 6: The coming of Christ until the end of all time

Fig.

11.

The Mystic Ark. Time-related

Clement/Rudolph.

components

of the Ark.

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO 21

manner to the same color else (green) in the vaguest possible in the schema this where (in the mappa mundi; Fig. 2, no. 10), although use not for of will be mentioned and the many, many pages component the reporter notes color within it is never taken up at all.36 Elsewhere, the colors

how each step on the outside of the ladders of the Cold of the East and the Cold of theWest (every one of which is inscribed with the title of one of the thirty books of Scripture) is divided into three sections to in dicate

the book's

potential

for interpretation

according

of exegetical thought, indicating only much to be achieved

levels

is

the use of symbolic colors.37 through a is the display of weak knowledge of the

compositionally: out of character

Even more

to the three

later how this division

Bible. One of the distinguishing features of the line of generation is the series

of "icons"

of the sons of Jacob, the Patriarchs "as if a kind of senate of the City

of the twelve

tribes

(Fig. 5, no. was a very pop of these men, born of different women, 5). The maternity in the Middle ular historical and exegetical subject Ages. And yet the re the mothers who were servingwomen, Bilhah porter confuses describing of Israel,

arranged

as the servant when,

it was

that a person would ture, second to none thor.38 And easily

as the servant of Rachel, Zilpah identifying reverse. This is the the sort of mistake just hardly of Scrip be likely to make who was "in knowledge one au to in the world," according twelfth-century

of Leah

in fact,

yet,

of God"

and

it is an error

into which

a student

reporter

might

quite

fall.

3. PATTERNS OF PRESENTATIONWITHIN THE TEXT text even if it had been recorded by a Ark would be a complex But itwas not. Close analysis reveals and clear individual. very disciplined sections faint traces of three successive, unintentionally slightly different were of text, sections that the result of three successive, slightly different The Mystic

approaches occasional

as the work progressed. to the reportatio process inconsistencies within inconsistencies these sections,

themselves

sometimes

significant

in understanding

There

are

that are

the reportatio

origin

of TheMystic Ark. The

first

in amore the theme the text. passage

of these unintentionally fashion from

or less even

sections slightly different the beginning of The Mystic

continues Ark until

of the four ascents

is taken up, approximately half-way through a very strong pattern of presenting first a by for the production in the of the Ark proper written

It is characterized of directions

first-person

singular,

"I," followed

by

a discussion

of its meaning

(or of

22

CENTER POINT

a particular aspect of the structure in the context of the entire construction) over and over alternation then repeated

how

from

the discussion

cosmos.

Here,

of

the four

ascents

speaking,

generally

of the Ark

is to be understood

in the third person, with section again. The second to the

up

of the

introduction

the presentation

changes

this runs

to one

of

directions in the third person (as opposed to first), followed, as before, by third-person introduction

In the third section, of meaning. from the to the end of the text, the use of first-person

interpretations of the cosmos

ex the third-person directions, displacing generally in the plural "we," appears cept that now the first person consistently as opposed to the earlier, more immediate "I." More signifi singular cease to for of formal all appear, interpretation practical cantly, passages

directions

returns,

purposes.39 Let me characterize

these

sections

a little further

to give a better under which the text of The

of the changing reportatio process with standing was Ark created. The first section begins with Mystic

a very clear and de of the central cubit, followed

in the first-person singular in the third person: its this was clearly work interpretation by thorough seen in relation to the rest of that had been carefully gone over and, when the text of The Mystic Ark, itwas clearly work that had been gone over by to one degree or another.40 The pairing of a first-person direction Hugh a a one is natural here. The ac passage with interpretation third-person tailed discussion

is not part of the of the Ark proper of the production as of will The be discussed and Ark, below, ceptual Mystic logic not have been part of the lectures; and so the reporter would would have had any rough notes on this aspect of the painting of The Mystic from the lecture. This first section of the lays out the basic structure tual process

and

involves,

without concept

of

To

it

not Ark Ark

someone

fairly complex geometry.41 not with the and connected facility truly intellectually re I have shown the in any profound way (as already it seems that actually working up the reportatio from the ex at least in regard to the of The Mystic Ark was not possible,

of Ark.

the basic

It thus seems

construction

of as a private

thought the reporter writing person

some

so

any visual of the Ark

porter to be) tant painting structure

at times,

con

that Hugh personally went with the reporter, something

lecture

everything here, whether

singular or an actual

of sorts, not down,

word

as a session for word.

a rhetorical

simply of this exchange,

over

the process that should be

of dictation

with

The use of the first

as described by a marks presentation by but not part of the original device

Smalley vestige that was part of the reportatio process Hugh that come lectures of The Mystic Ark. The interpretation passages common written the most the direction follow passages generally

after form

23

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

a form that in exegetical the third person, discussions, typi Hugh uses own to assume he used in it his and would be natural cally exegesis, of of his lectures. The vast majority this form in the oral presentation a to have that ties them these interpretation passages typically specificity

used

in the body of Hugh's writings, the image of the Ark, have no counterpart on are in all likelihood based the reporter's and original notes from the between direction and lectures. The alternation passages first-person third-person the reporter, The next

ignored.42 that either Hugh tences that come hicle was slip by.

read perfectly

undoubtedly

today. and of direction

pair same as the first, except tion of the proportions then

passages

interpretation as it does just

How

such a thing

passage is first above

come

have

the

that the reduc

of the Ark mentioned

could

is much

passages

interpretation that it is in this direction

to

well

about?

noted

and

It is unlikely in the few sen

or the reporter forgot about this change the two references. Rather, it seems

that the ve

between

a reportatio It seems that,

draft, Hugh noted first of these two

to that unwittingly allowed such mistakes process in the editing process of the no longer extant rough at the in proportions (apparently orally) the reduction

references?an

alteration

that

have

could

only to harmonize

from him?and

come

that the reporter then neglected the follow a as text text he should have done, that would have agreed perfectly ing in its dutiful well before of this revision the well-known pro recording portions himself

of Genesis.43 apparently

Thus, Hugh's never reviewed

so never

new caught the tice of the reporter.

error

revision

was

the revised

that sprang

up

duly accepted, but Hugh text for thoroughness, and through

the careless

prac

seems to account for the passage that details process to specify how this the six ages of the history of salvation but then neglects in the painting the first section's pat subject appears (Fig. 11). Breaking tern of a first-person in the its direction followed passage interpretation by The

same flawed

on the six ages appears as a third incongruously a direction nor an in the interpretation?right as a middle of a long first-person direction. Easily overlooked meaningless us it is such hidden clues that inform of the work inconsistency, precisely on the six ages, passage ing process of the reporter. For the third-person third person, the passage narrative?neither person

in the first person those passages that precede and follow it, is taken it ratione, Bede in turn having adapted directly from Bede's De temporum at from Augustine.44 Medieval and other schemata times maps incorpo rated substantial textual passages, and there would in be nothing unusual unlike

inserting complete

passages absence

from Bede

into the painting to these of any directions

of The Mystic passages

Ark. But

implies

that

the they

24

CENTER POINT

were

as an

inserted

and perhaps

afterthought

from

a written

text

rather

than from the painting itself, very possibly after Hugh had pointed out that the subject

had been

in the mass

overlooked

of images

and

inscrip

tions that occupy theArk, especially the general area of the first half of the in a non-interpreta line of generation proper. This use of the third person tion passage that seems not to have been part of the rough draft suggests, that the only other third-person it does not confirm, non-inter though in the first section is also an addition whose passage pretation original ab sence may have been noticed in a cursory review of the rough by Hugh a on this direction the beams that become the basis of draft, passage being a passage in the that, this time, comes disconcertingly a very long third-person of interpretation (again) passage.45 seems come to in the first section have about in a Another anomaly

the four

ascents,

middle

similar way. While now with uneven,

concept In fact, Mystic

a moderate

on the uneven

dependent out from

of The Mystic Ark can be very presentation amount of discussion and now less, as if

the written

notes

lecture

of the reporter, one subject stands it is articulated: the length to which

text for the great of the periods of natural law, the written the entire

is so distinct

the discussion Ark

as the original

that Sicard

presentation

by Hugh

law, and grace (Fig. 11). sees its appearance in The of a new

of his thought.46 But for a prolific author like Hugh

development

to publish such a

as an original in a text of this genre discourse presentation developed with its otherwise minimal discussions and generally careless work would inconsistent with both the evidence and be completely of Hugh's practice The reason for its pres than a little unlikely. the genre itself, and so more ence

in The Mystic

Ark

seems

to lie elsewhere.

is composed subject of the three periods of the history of salvation in the first section, the subject be of three distinct passages. As is normal The

a first-person is perfectly which direction (the first passage), to in the periods the colors used clear, except that it refers distinguishing are in the third them. These colors without actually specifying given only a is third-person pas passage, which, interpretation enough, significantly gins with

a somewhat It is, however, sage agreeing with the usual pattern. passage and one that strangely repeats some of the information in the intervening

passage,

interpretation third-person Ark, this intervening Mystic tion far greater than what the painting, understanding whatsoever.

In fact,

the error-free

second

confused

presented is also a passage, which with other parts of The

passage.47 Compared of explana second passage has an amount is sufficient for the norm of the text implies no mention it of the colors makes although

the overall

discussion

of the three periods

would

be

exactly what would be expected if ithad been limited to the first and third

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO 25

alone?a

passages

standard

direction

followed by third that they are so unclear. law, the written law, and

first-person

person

interpretation?the being only problem of of should this the natural periods Why subject from the rest of the text? grace have been treated so differently to De sacramentis, written In the preface shortly after The Mystic Hugh

Ark,

wrote,

I have book

to write by the desires of certain people of the Christian faith. I have incorporated

been compelled on the sacraments

this into

it a number

of pieces that I had randomly written (dictassem) previ even to recompose it seemed laborious, ously superfluous, If it happens that my plain words have been unable these same points. because

a semblance

to observe it very

important

of the art of writing in these, I have not thought in the same truth. since they are [all] grounded I had written does concern me: that, when these

This, however, same pieces without of a future work

sufficient

at the time?I

attention

earlier?having made indiscriminately

for copying, having thought itwas enough to become But later, when known. notes,

no

them available

for these short pieces, I was incorporating

reason demanded the body of this work, that certain or that certain things be added them be changed, removed_48 into

From

this, we

that Hugh was willing later ones and that he had been

of his

into

others.49 We

learn

also know

that the reporter

was

intention

to incorporate out handing himself

willing

even them

things

in

earlier works to

these works to incorpo

rate other writings into TheMystic Ark, having copied directly both from in the second section shows.50 Ark, as a passage was never explicitly of three the devel however, periods, Hugh's theory oped in The Moral Ark, and the reporter could not turn to it for the error that he was clearly having trouble second passage. Given free intervening Bede

and from The Moral

it seems that this intervening has this subject, passage, which describing an "insertion" as into Sicard the been figuratively described by virtually an not in text,51 is literally just that, though actually original development seems a ves in it that it all the sense that he means. is likelihood Rather, of one of those "short pieces or tige, partially adapted by the reporter, even notes" that Hugh had been accumulating, that he handed out, and even a remnant into longer works?perhaps that he eventually integrated to which of his lost letter to Bernard of Clairvaux, Bernard responded

with his De baptismo of 1127 to 1128, apologizing for its lateness.52 Indeed, the component periods

per

of color se but

from

comes its visual

on the from Hugh's thought in the painting: there expression

not

three is no

26

CENTER POINT

reference

to color

second

passage's

exact

outside

in the intervening came from language

the second passage because the Ark lectures, originally to the painting of The Mystic Ark.

reference having been made without of the type of writ This intervening second passage, then, is an example was ing mentioned by Hugh, which given by him to help the reporter over a and artless its about the integration rough spot, by the reporter brought to the color scheme from its of the original reference separation so the result of a reportatio process that many pages later, specification did not place a high value on consistency. awkward

The

of

second

the

informal,

new,

runs

sections

up to, but not construction

of the four ascents

discussion

unintentional

from

the No

the cosmos.53 including, a of is part this section,

nor

geometrically demanding as was the case in are there any difficult concepts, historical-theological seems to have had to coach the reporter the first section, where Hugh

enough ture notes

to provide

and

personally

in its own

reporter

complex clarifying written material. Though to his own lec this is a section in which reference

right, and to the painting directly for the most part. This would of

pattern

straightforward with third-person

seems

to have

for the enough for the section's generally

account

direction

third-person

Indeed,

passages.

been

passages alternating in this section?which

interpretation use of the first signs of revision by Hugh himself?the in any consistent "I" ceases to appear and mis fashion, person singular no to proliferate, takes begin the latter apparently because Hugh was the rough draft. At the same time, the use of the reading longer closely authorial plural "we" is found from time to time, but in a first-person shows

no obvious

manner

haphazard generally part of Hugh. Even other

no direct

that suggests

still occasionally feels so, the reporter than his own lecture notes and his own

on

intervention

the need uneven

the

for an authority ability at reading

at times being the painting, The most explicit example of going

forth

from

the

passage, pretation whose language, Quatuor omnem sideramus

modis

quid

iudicia

reporter

quid

sit...

quomodo sua....

borrows

directly

. . . Primus modus

eximus.

creaturam

consideramus plenda

to turn to extant writings of Hugh. compelled in the passage on the four ways of this occurs in an inter the doorway of the central pillar. Here,

sit ex se_Secundus

ex dono

utatur Quartus

creatoris....

Deus modus

from

Ark,

consideramus est, quando modus est, quando con Tertius

ministerio ...

The Moral

est,

modus

est,

creaturarum quando

...

homo...

quando

ad im .54

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

is copied

almost word

in The Mystic

for word

27

Ark:

om est, quando consideramus est quando considera quid sit ex se. Secundus modus mus omnem creaturam quid sit ex beneficio est creatoris. Tertius modus utatur Deus ministerio creaturarum ad quomodo quando consideramus Quatuor modis nem creaturam

eximus.

iudicia

implenda

Primus modus

sua. Quartus

modus

at the end of this passage,

Indeed,

... homo...

est quando

the reporter

refers

openly

,55 to

the reader

TheMoral Ark, towhich he himself had just turned. covers the last part third of the unintentionally different sections and the Majesty.56 abbreviated of The Mystic Ark: the cosmos Extremely in tone?as if the reporter came to realize that he had taken on a bigger or reason to be for another perhaps job than he had initially expected The

taken

up

later?this

rection

passages; those previously an exception ing

section

consists

almost

of third-person di at all in the sense of

entirely

there are no

passages interpretation in the text. The only passages in any way approach are a short introduction to this section and a conclusion

found

to thewhole of TheMystic Ark, both of which are in the first-person plu ral. Despite of these two passages, which will be discussed the importance soon, they are too terse to give any proof either way of having been di by Hugh.57 rectly written Ark Mystic the seasonal reference natura

there

of the reportatio nature of The over the confusion already mentioned of the quaternary caused by careless harmony

is significant in this section. I have

Nevertheless,

component to a differently oriented rerum and the impossibility

evidence

image from of ascribing

a text such as Isidore's

De

this inexcusable

fumbling even more in its own way, equally revealing and perhaps that The Mystic Ark was written by a reporter?striking striking as evidence a passage to no less in its immediate, that amounts personal quality?is

to Hugh.

than One

But,

on

a personal comment made by the reporter more of Hugh's original historical/theological

a developed east-west temporal-spatial progression a of salvation, human of the history theory history,

the painting theories was

itself. that of

of the focal point of that was rather fully

articulated in TheMoral Ark.58According to this theory, at the beginning of human history, what might be called the focal point of human activity as the extreme east on many medieval appeared no. of Eden mundi: the Garden 11). The focal point mappae (Fig. 5, soon after, to this with the great Meso shifted west theory, according the Chaldaeans, and the Medes. Mov empires of the Assyrians, potamian

was what

would

ing further west

have

with

the civilization

of Classical

Greece

and

the empire

28

CENTER POINT

of Alexander, mate

and further

westernmost

Rome

at "the

extension

the advent

with

the Roman

still with

of the centers

end

of

it reached its ulti Empire, the earth" after the fall of

of power

and

of Western

learning

Christendom. This theory is described in TheMystic Ark in the discussion of the earth as one of the three components

of the cosmos:

A map of the world in this area [i.e., the area of an ellipse, is depicted overlaid by the Ark; cf. Fig. 5] in such a way that the top of the Ark is toward the east and its bottom touches the west to the effect directed that?in

its extraordinary the sites extends downward the same beginning, of time.59

Far from

arrangement?the in sequence with

is the same as the end

and the end of the world

this dimensional

taking

geographical layout of the events of time from

of the history

phenomenon

of salva

tion a step further asHugh does in TheMoral Ark by relating the length, and height of the Ark to the exegetical of history, alle categories The the reporter of Ark completely gory, and tropology, Mystic ignores such an exegetical this aspect?though attitude is a constant undercur

width,

rent

of The Mystic

Ark?and

even

the basic historical theory "its rather poorly. Indeed, (mirabili disposi extraordinary arrangement" on the ingenuity of the painting's tione) is a comment ability to express on the theory not It is itself. reaction the of an Hugh's theory, passive explains

an experienced to the painting, not the active exposition in by It is as if the intellectually of one of his own original theories. at the painting, back, reporter were unaccomplished standing looking to praise the subject at hand; and felt that it was enough it is inconceiv observer

tellectual

able

that

That

this was

such

a statement

should

done

have

direct

visual

been

made

observation

himself. by Hugh is confirmed by the the de regarding

through directions specific and entirely unnecessary of and of the figures the Winds the of the Zodiac arrangement piction and Months, that could only be site-specific (Fig. 2, no. 8, 6, something extremely

7).60 In the end, whether

Hugh, the lending

in the form

shows

no evidence

of personal material.

revision,

of unpublished so it seems that these

And tions

this last section

of

proaches The first

text were

the

to the reportatio section?whose

three unintentionally result of three successive, process

of any close oversight personal

slightly

instruction, different

by or

sec

ap slightly different of the reporter progressed. structure of the geometric of the

as the work

component

Ark was crucial to the painting of TheMystic Ark, but which by its very

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO 29

nature

had not

lecture series and so for which part of the original no of it have taken notes?shows evidence that much

been

the reporter could based on a private

was

structure.

There

own, more this section, ary sources

to the reporter to explain this some of his gave the reporter

talk given by Hugh is also evidence that Hugh

extensive

notes

on at least one other

in subject that appeared liter resorted to related outside

and that the reporter readily text. In the second

to fill out his

section,

which

contains

no

or difficult for which the concepts seems to to the have reporter reporter Hugh, more on on his own lecture to direct reference the depended painting, on to and continued reference outside notes, texts, in this case Hugh's to make direct visual reference to The Moral Ark. The reporter continued demanding

geometric have might

constructions

had

to turn

sources in the third section, and to refer to outside written the painting absence of this section is distinguished complete by the virtually although because the of the task had passages, interpretation perhaps magnitude to make begun up further on.

itself felt or perhaps

for another

reason, which

Iwill

take

4. "TECHNICAL TERMS" the objection Finally, that "Hugh's diction

has been made

Evans, scholar, Michael by another as is and that words such odd," throughout plani fies, cingulus, zona, limbus, and cornu are not "the idiom of the practicing artist. Hugh was not artist."61 No, they are not the idiom of the practicing a practicing artist, and, so it seems, far less was the reporter; and so there is no reason at all to expect the language of the reportatio of The Mystic

to be that of a practicing artist. What Hugh was, was a master of the And what the reporter was, was a practicing student. As such, at times, employs if awkwardly The Mystic Ark understandably, the lan was so to of the schools that familiar them both. guage

Ark

schools.

Thus,

when

the first

Ark mentioned

Mystic of a private

of the unintentionally sections different of The one that seems to have been the result

above?the

on the geometric structure of sorts given by Hugh of of the reporter?opens I the Ark for the benefit find the with, "First, center point on the surface (planitie) where Iwish to depict the Ark...," is used by the reporter the word planities either because that was how lecture

of finding the center point during process con that was how the reporter himself to ceived the clearest of the geometric described process explanation a common term him by Hugh: planities in used both being geometrical in any course on geometry Practica geometriae and, presumably, Hugh's the geometric Hugh described the private lecture or because

30

CENTER POINT

the

reporter the Indeed,

may term

have

from Master

taken

at Saint

Hugh sense

Victor.62

in the geometric in the of "surface" on text Dream the Macro Commentary widely of Scipio by was referred to repeatedly in Hugh's Practica bius (Macrobius geome to by in is this also found who referred Vitruvius, triae), usage being at in his Didascalicon, the latter being a guide to study for students Hugh Saint Victor.63 read

is defined

school

and zona?which Cingulus "odd" feels "derive planities man's

outfitter"?likewise on the Dream

Commentary

the

same

author

who

the use

found

of

as a group from the of the gentle vocabulary either come or could come right out of the same way that Macrobius of Scipio.64 In the

begins his discussion of the different climatic divisions of the world em (which I translate as "belt") and later switches cingulus the reporter follows using both words interchangeably, in his discussion of the great bands that extend across

the word

ploying to zona

("band"), the same pattern the entire length and breadth

nous with

of the Ark, which

the earth on all four

is itself virtually of these bands

cotermi

as essen sides, conceiving in scope (reflecting the thought of Hugh), however awkward seem to a modern reader.65 And may just as the zonae of as and other classical writers (such Virgil, Ovid, and Pliny) dis zones of the world?the climatic the different frigid, temperate,

tially cosmic the language Macrobius tinguish

and torrid?the zonae of TheMystic Ark distinguish the Heat of the East from the Cold of the East, the Heat of theWest from the Cold of the how

so on.66 A glance the colored horizontal

have

been

West,

at aMacrobian

and

zonal map makes very plain bands of a map like this could

and diagonal to the col of the reporter (or Hugh) bands of The Mystic Ark (Fig. 12).67

in the mind

transposed ored horizontal and vertical

is a word that Honorius likewise, Augustodunensis to use in his Imago Mundi?another text addressed hesitate inmuch describe the "border" or limits of the world culture?to Limbus,

way

that

the reporter

uses

it to describe

the border

does

not

to school the same

of the central

cubit

(Fig. 13).68 As to the use o?cornu to mean "corner" (seven occurrences), it is enough cornu is a to say that although word for the corner, acceptable perfectly more common term for this meaning in The Mystic Ark is angulus (sixteen in The Moral Ark, where the same term employed occurrences), by Hugh cornu

is never

in that work

is unequivocally written The Moral is "standard." himself, Ark, the terminology by Hugh a bit more It is only in the reportatio that the language becomes perhaps as a demonstration of newly acquired Latin skills on the arcane, whether the word

part of the reporter

used.69

or because

Thus,

of the common

usage

that

o? cornu

in reference

THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK AS A REPORTATIO

to the corners

of an altar?the

ecclesiastic?which So while

in plan

most shares

use of the word

for a young

shape as the Ark.70 the particular choices

of most

or from

the reporter, the word seems to have come from the reportatio process, and planities, zona, and limbus are all from the language of the schools: not the from which Hugh of a "practicing and artist," but of the world

planities cingulus,

language the reporter came, came, and in which

from which The Mystic

the painting and Ark functioned.

text of The Mystic

Sphera Macrobii. Lambert of Saint-Omer, Liber Floridus. Herzog Ms. 1Gud. lat. fol. 16v. Bibliothek Wolfenb?ttel,

12.

August

the same

to say whether it is impossible terms" came from Hugh

of these "technical

Fig.

common

31

Ark

CENTER POINT

32

Fig.

13.

The Mystic Ark. The central cubit. Clement/Rudolph.

Chapter Two

THE SUPPOSITIONOF A CONTINUING CHANGE INTHEMYSTICARK

the realization that the text of The Mystic Ark is a reportatio, perhaps to terms with its nature and function in coming lies the greatest difficulty in understanding the relation between of The Mystic Ark, it, the painting that is and the treatise of The Moral Ark?a relationship quite simple and A failure to recognize the simplicity of this relationship, straightforward.

After

accompanied tutes Sicard's

for supposed by strained explanations second basic error of interpretation.

consti

complexities,

The question of whether the image referred to in TheMoral Ark is the same as that described

in The Mystic Ark is not really at issue.71 What is at The inconsistencies between issue, at least to Sicard, are the seeming Moral Ark and the text of The Mystic Ark, inconsistencies that suggest to

him that Hugh's conception of TheMystic Ark changed throughout the course

of his

lectures.

According

to Sicard,

the lost original

image

of the

lectures should be thought of as having presented only the initial stage in this change, a stage represented by that the text of The Mystic Ark, on as presenting a supposed later stage in The Moral and their expression fuller

of the Ark.

the text of The Moral the other that came Ark,

should

hand, about

a stage

Ark. He

be understood

after the Ark

that

believes

lectures a much

represents two recen identified

Furthermore, conception having of the manuscript Sicard believes that the first recension tradition, the of fuller initial this while the revi represents expression conception; more sions of the second recension indicate yet changes by Hugh himself sions

as well

as a

hopelessly of the first recension. the case.

failed None

of the careless text attempt at a simplification seems to be of these suppositions, however,

34

CENTER POINT

1. THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL PAINTING OF THEMYSTIC ARK TO THE REPORTATIO OF THEMYSTIC ARK The

first

that there had been

supposition,

a continuing

change

from

the

original painting of TheMystic Ark to the reportatio of TheMystic Ark, is related texts. As Ark

to the subject Imentioned

to The Moral

Ark

of the relative

of the Ark lectures and chronology a as a in The Mystic result both of reference earlier, as in and of the repeated indication already written

that the painting of The Mystic Ark was already extant, view has been that The Moral Ark was written first, with

Ark

The Moral traditional

the the

text of TheMystic Ark following shortly after, so that itmight provide a of the image referred to in The Moral Ark. description van den Eynde, who has has been further elaborated by Damien out basic relative and absolute chronologies of the works of Hugh.72

written This worked

Van den Eynde uses Hugh's around

which

he establishes

Sententie de divinitate as the fixed point his

relative

chronology

of the Ark

texts,

see

as and shortly before the Sententie ing The Moral Ark having been written to the intricacies of his argument The Mystic Ark as shortly after. Keeping a minimum, let me say that van den Eynde's overall structure of a num of of ber of groupings the complete works sound, appears body Hugh's the exact

though

relative

is placed

order within

seems

to need

the particular further work.

in which

group

The

Mystic Ark For example, he argues that The Moral Ark precedes the Sententie be cause the discussion in The of the works of creation and of restoration is "rambling" the Sententie presents and "scattered," while the van den Eynde fails to take into more What subject systematically.73 is that The Moral Ark is an example of a literary genre that consideration a or to evoke collatio discussion among attempts intellectual/spiritual

Moral

Ark

same

highly

educated

privileges

a more

As such, participants. or less conversational of the human

instability topic?the to its creator?over any more

heart

focused

tion, though it is fundamentally

or

it is experiential of

in feeling and its immediate

presentation and the restoration systematic

theological

of the soul presenta

informed by theology and systematic

on the other hand, is a reportatio of an of thought. The Sententie, the De sacramentis. As greatest systematic theology, early form of Hugh's is nothing less than mandatory. The basic format such, a systematized

modes

discussions

of the works

of creation

and of restoration

in the two writings

are equally true to their own genres. In a somewhat of the relation similar vein, van den Eynde's discussion between the Sententie and The Mystic Ark is based on the seeming theolog

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

35

of the concept of the periods of natural ical development law, the written above.74 In this, it suffers from a lack of aware law, and grace, mentioned ness that The Mystic Ark is a reportatio (i.e., it was not written by Hugh on the three periods in The the and that passage Mystic Ark personally) but written of having been based on a previously appearance "short piece" or "note" given to the reporter by Hugh. unpublished van den the date of Hugh's As to absolute chronology, Eynde establishes gives

every

Sententie

as 1127 or a little later. He

de divinitate

thus sees The Moral

Ark

as having been written shortly before 1127 and TheMystic Ark shortly af in 1128 or 1129.75 ter, the latter probably to van den Eynde's Sicard essentially subscribes lectures on The Mystic esizing that Hugh's original time

1125

around

to

1126.76 He

1126 to 1127, Hugh put the material the form of The Moral Ark. Following

chronologies, hypoth Ark were held some

that sometime suggests of these lectures down van den Eynde,

Sicard

later, around in writing in accepts

1128

or 1129 for the date of the text of TheMystic Ark. His argument that the conception on

over the course of time focuses Ark changed and the of the Ark: the three periods elements of the quaternary the seasonal component harmony).

of The Mystic two major

primarily cosmos (particularly More specifically, of the periods in the original

fundamental element feels that the absolutely of natural law, and grace was not present law, the written was not in The Moral Ark it because image fully discussed Sicard

time, since the text of The Mystic Ark does have a of the history of salvation, he thinks the three periods that this subject was conceptually developed by Hugh only after the orig was were But the state Ark held and The Moral inal lectures written.77

(Fig. 11). At full statement

ment

the same on

on the three periods in The Mystic Ark seems to be, as I have argued, sometime and so would have been written the reporter, by

an insertion

there is the reportatio of The Mystic Ark.78 And the fact is, whether are referred to a full discussion in The Moral Ark or not, the three periods it plain that the subject was pres in that treatise in such a way as to make

before

even though in an integral way in the original painting, reason for Hugh to take it up in The Moral Ark compelling narrower are much aims than those of The Mystic whose ing in The Moral Ark, Hugh writes about the Ark: ample, ent

there was

no

itself, a writ For ex

Ark.

cubits indicates the present age, which ex length of three hundred the period of natural law, the period of tends through three periods: of and the written law, period grace.79 The

Given that he has just introduced the painting into his discussion at this is point and is taking up the meaning of the length of the Ark?which

CENTER POINT

36

"the present at creation,

the Church, time, through which age," historical advances toward the end of time?there would

which seem

began to be no

to the three periods in the text, except for this reference explanation in the image, re it is directly related to the presence of these periods or how little attention to them was useful to Hugh gardless of how much other that

in the specific theme of TheMoral Ark, which is the instability of the hu man

heart

and

the restoration

tory of salvation.

Indeed, Hugh

to its creator

of the soul goes on

and not

in the same passage

the his

to say that

. . . the re of the world, holy Church, which began with the beginning ceived redemption the immolation the in of Lamb the through spotless ... the Church, which was from the of of time, grace period beginning was redeemed at the end of an age.80 to the same progression in The Mystic is an explicit reference depicted to the period to of natural creation the law, period of written the be law, and so to the Lamb of God in the central cubit, which marks

This Ark

from

of the period of grace. ginning Further on in The Moral Ark, Hugh the hori again explicitly mentions written of "the natural zontal progression law," "the law," and "the period to of grace," after which there is a discussion of the same triad in relation the three

two-dimensional

painting,

as the

ally,81with the (horizontal) length of the Ark being understood macrocosmic

temporal until periods

temporal time, and the (vertical) cent of the individual

a

stages of the Ark (Fig. 4). The Mystic Ark, to be understood is meant three-dimension

vertical

successive

progression its communal height being soul through

a series

of humankind return

of through to its creator at the end of

seen as the microcosmic a series

states

spiritual as in its own

of spiritual is referring in The That spiritual particular Hugh construct in the image of The Moral Ark to the same, complete found Mystic Ark is quite clear from his specific citation of this triad as "Natura" states rather than as tem "Lex scripta" and "Gratia"?that is, as spiritual to its creator.82

return

poral

three

periods?these

terms being

all but

identical

with

the inscrip

tions from the painting of TheMystic Ark83 Aside

from

this,

other components

there

are a number

of references

in The Moral

Ark

of The Mystic Ark that are integrally related to the

can three periods and that, as a whole, only have been incorporated the three periods?something the image as part of a system that included was in place at the time of the writing of The Moral that necessarily For example, associated with Adam and so with natural Paradise, however

complex

to

the

image

of Paradise

is in the Ark,

is discussed.

into

Ark. law, The

flight of the Chosen People from Egypt and their exile to Babylon are

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

referred

repeatedly The Mystic

in and Babylon relate almost exclusively of natural law and written law, respectively.

to the periods (in the form of the Twelve

Ark

The Twelve

to; Egypt

37

are mentioned, Patriarchs) the period of natural law to that

Tribes

to the transition from these pertaining law in this particular of the written context.84

is even

There

a discussion

east-west of the focal point of hu of Hugh's temporal-spatial progression man a can in this context, only have been indicated history, subject that, in conjunction the component of the three periods with a mappa through mundi.

And

are a number

there

of other

as well.85 There to the three periods the three periods was integrated into Ark

both

and vertically,

horizontally

related images and inscriptions is thus no doubt but that the idea of the image referred to in The Moral and in the most fundamental way,

just as the text of TheMystic Ark has it. is the same with the cosmos, the components of which The situation are presented text in the of The Mystic Ark under the traditional groupings of earth, air, and ether (Fig. 4). Sicard thinks the cosmos was not present

in the original painting of TheMystic Ark because neither it nor its indi are discussed in any significant way components that describes the cosmos thinks that the section

vidual He

in The Moral

Ark.86

in the text of The

of the cosmos is simply "optional," that the components "do Mystic an essential part of his teaching, not constitute in the eyes of Hugh and to them." This that he did not attach any major he says despite importance Ark

cannot

that the cosmic compo help but conclude a in the harmonious fashion but the doc complete image that their introduction achieves is a progress toward amore

the fact that he himself nents

"not only

trinal progress overall complete

vision."87

But

the vision

was

there, and itwas theory of the works

always

al

of indeed, the very nature of Hugh's ways complete; creation is fundamentally and of restoration based on such a necessarily vision. And, in fact, Hugh refers to "the structure of the cosmos" complete corpus, again and again in The Moral Ark, now calling it the universitatis now the machina now the mundi machina, universitatis?all the meaning same thing (mundus means in Latin)?just both "cosmos" and "world" as he calls it the machina in The Mystic Ark (through universitatis the re and porter), sacramentis88 in The Moral But

the universitatis He Ark,

machina

in both

De

tribus diebus

and De

refer to the general component of the cosmos to he refers its constituent parts. though rarely are not an it is not because of the they integral part

thus does even

if this is the case,

are not an of The Mystic Ark, but because painting they integral part of the specific theme of The Moral Ark, a point that will soon be taken up. are to these individual cosmic Still, references components virtually constant zone of the earth, in The Moral Ark. For example, the regarding

38

CENTER POINT

in his discussion of the length of theArk?the upon

Ark being directly imposed

in the painting of The Mystic Ark?Hugh speaks of one's to from the beginning of the world its end, something roaming

the world

thoughts

that in the context of the painting of the Ark would

suggest that the

in the form of a mappa

world, to the Ark

mundi, was present at this point.89 He refers a theme of necessar that, by definition, Hugh's

of the Church,

ilymust reach from the beginning of theworld (the mappa mundi) to the end.90 He

all of the nations

tells how

come

from

the four

corners

of the

as from the four corners of the earth, which appear to they visually in the painting of The Mystic Ark (the sixty men and sixty women of the four ascents) and which, it is no great leap of logic to assume, they did in the painting that existed at the time of the writing of The Moral Ark.91

Ark do

In a discussion with

the world

of the soul's at the bottom,

ascent God

to God,

he

at the top,

an employs "exemplum" and the soul in between,

precisely the vertical configuration of the painting of TheMystic Ark and a coincidence.92

hardly

of human

point by definition

of the focal theory of the east-west progression in which he refers to a number of specific sites, is

His

history, of the mappa based upon the spatial sequence mundi? in be very whose absence the would painting again, something original of this the logic of Sicard's argument, odd, following given the presence to in of works And he refers the the of The Moral Ark.93 sequence theory restoration

from

the beginning

of the world

to its end,

something

that

could be conveyed in the visual context of TheMystic Ark only by an im age of the world.94 on most is the seasonal that Sicard focuses The part of the cosmos in the zone of the air (Fig. 2, no. of the quaternary component harmony, was not pres that the quaternary 9; Fig. 9). He believes harmony over ent in the original painting the coordination because the confusion as recorded in the text of The Mystic Ark and component, out of agreement with the orientation have been above, would

of its seasonal discussed

as I have shown, not of the rest of the image.95 However, only is the text was a so not written of The Mystic Ark this passage (and reportatio by a was the mistake introduced the confusion but simple by Hugh himself), up his text from a literary source rather of the painting itself; there is no evidence was that this fairly straightforward whatsoever component incorrectly as in the original with the elements of the three oriented And, painting. har of the quaternary and the Earth, the seasonal component periods same to in in in the is The Moral referred Ark, fact, passage mony clearly mentioned earlier on the four ways of going forth that was copied by the as a result of working reporter than from direct observation

reporter directly from TheMoral Ark into TheMystic Ark.96 In TheMoral

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

and of restoration

of creation

the works

Ark,

of

the

soul's

constitute

39

the basis of Hugh's

to its creator.

restoration

Following Hugh's of works of creation: the ways showing through In the passage the six days of creation or through the four elements.97 just in his the four elements discussion of the mentioned, employs Hugh serve his rhetorical of creation, since they better than works purposes refers to the four seasons as well, would the six days and, in the process, com both the four elements and the four seasons constituting important presentation are two main logic, there

of the quaternary toward Furthermore,

ponents that

is more

Moral

Ark,

harmony. the end of The Moral

an overview

of The Mystic

Ark

Ark?in than

says about properly speaking?Hugh of Chalcidius and others, reminiscent

guage

a brief

it is a summary The Mystic Ark,

is portrayed might be called the structure of the cosmos of its individual components and the harmony explained.98

What

The

the universitatis

of the cosmos,"

"structure

visual

contemporary in such detail

tells us, is the same

culture

in The Mystic

Ark

synopsis of The in lan

there,

of corpus, as the evidence structure that is described

as the machina

universitatis

and whose

a harmony of the elements quaternary harmony?includes seasons and indicates, (cf. Byrhtferth's Diagram, Fig. 14).99 The evidence so zone and the of that the the air, was therefore, quaternary harmony, even in the original painting of The Mystic if it Ark, very much present was not a focus of attention in The Moral Ark. core?the

As

to the zone

sees as now

of the ether?which, oval, now circular100?the are those associated with

components vision of Isaiah in The Moral Sicard

admits

that of the air, Sicard along with most to its references pervasive the figure of Christ based on the

the description of the painting (Isaiah 6:1-3) with which in the original Ark opens, and whose presence painting it is Here said that "the whole earth is filled with (Fig. 4).101

his majesty" (based on Isaiah 6:3), "majesty" being the term used to de in The Mystic Ark?and in the lec scribe the figure of Christ presumably to tures as well?as in the word "glory," found Isaiah.102 The pas opposed on

sage goes

to say how

this figure

fills

"heaven

and

earth"

( Jeremiah

23:24); how "the heaven is [his] throne, the earth [his] footstool" (Isaiah 66:1); upon

"the cycle of time and the revolution of ages . . . return and so on. One of the most themselves"; striking things about

and how

of

the vision

of

se does

not

Isaiah

is that

the wings of the the face and the feet of the Lord represent the eternity seraphim covering of God, which extends before time and after time, as itwere.103 Given that

Hugh's

interpretation

the passage

from

Isaiah per

immediately

lend

itself

to this

40

CENTER POINT

Fig. 14. Macro/microcosm of Saint John Baptist College

(Byrhtferth's Diagram). The President and Scholars in the University of Oxford, Ms. 17:7v.

the painting of The Mystic the Lord's head and feet extending fully?with at the top and the bottom, Zodiac and Months and

interpretation,

earth" that cause

and insists

created

time

that the cosmos

there was

not more

in between?it was

would

not present discussion about

Ark

illustrates

it beauti

the cycles of the beyond with all of "heaven and be a strained

in the original it in The Moral

argument be painting Ark. Indeed,

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

41

some central object is the image of the Lord embracing iconographically, or the cosmos one that is seen many times in connection with the world with the Ark alone.104 Sicard (e.g., Fig. 15), but never, to my knowledge, in the section on the cosmos was in the would like to think that nothing

original painting except the image of the Lord; but this is precisely why the image

Fig. 15. 2655:105.

of the Lord was

Macro/microcosm.

recorded

Munich,

in The Mystic

Bayerische

Ark

in the section

Staatsbibliothek,

Ms. CLM

on

42

CENTER POINT

the cosmos mos

and not

because

elsewhere,

both

it is inseparably

related

to the cos

and

conceptually Sicard's view about

iconographically. of The Mystic Ark is, how the cosmic components than just amisunderstanding of the state of the original paint ever, more nature of the polemical less than a misunderstanding ing; it is nothing com for his view that the cosmic of The Mystic Ark. He seeks support are

ponents [Hugh's]

simply

teaching,"

that they are not "an essential part of "optional," and that Hugh "did not attach any major importance

to them" in the passage that begins the third of the unintentionally slightly different

sections

discussed

above,

which

introduces

on

the section

the

cosmos: to be enough for the construction It is possible for the foregoing Ark for those who either are not able or do not wish to do more. ever, we

have

further

given

certain

other

things

that we will

of the How briefly

relate.105

Far from tion

on

indicating the cosmos,

to the sec that Hugh did not attach any importance this passage marks where The Mystic Ark becomes

in regard to those whom Hugh would politically most delicate?not in his middle-ground but to those whom, lenge, the "new theology," no to the conservative "old theology." he had desire tion, offend, already

discussed

the "old" and the "new"

theologies

in regard

chal posi I have

to some

of

the issues taken up in TheMystic Ark more fully elsewhere.106Here, it is to say that, in this passage, Hugh?through the reporter?is mak enough a concession to monastic the sensibilities of traditional and coll?gial ing came of Ark is The The that before this passage part Mystic spirituality. based on traditional spiritu experiential exegesis and monastic primarily of it But however much be. however and may original systematized ality, a that comes after is, at least at first glance, the section on the cosmos of contemporary presentation cosmologi strikingly visually pronounced cal science the school

that forcefully relates The Mystic Ark?and the current controversies of Saint Victor?to

science the place of physical In integrating this important

Hugh's teaching at over creation and

in contemporary learning of aspect contemporary

and education.107 learning

into The

Mystic Ark, Hugh attempts to subordinate it to his theories of the history of salvation

while

at the same

time preventing

the "new as its own.

from theology" In this process,

this prestigious position exclusively claiming to address certain Ark is by necessity The Mystic aspects of compelled a to amount fair creation. Hugh?with approach "pagan philosophy's" of the "old the that certain elements of political sensitivity?recognizes ology" may

be uncomfortable

with

the cosmic

component

of The Mystic

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

43

to reproduce it for formal discussion and education even though within the monastery, it is absolutely central to the Ark lec no tures. The section on the cosmos, is thus, simple "option." Ark

and

But ences

reluctant

ismore

there

to cosmic

to it than

components

as the individual this. As important in understanding what was or was not

refer in the

original painting of TheMystic Ark isHugh's own account of how the the reportatio of The Mystic of The Moral Ark came about. Unlike writing Ark, The Moral Ark opens with a fairly clear and rather evocative descrip from the original tion of its reason for being, lectures at Saint stemming Victor,

concluding: I know

because

Now,

that, in the discussion,

points in particu to commit them to writ

certain

I especially wanted the brethren, so much because I thought they were worth recording but be ing?not cause I knew that some of them were previously unheard of in this lar pleased

context

so to speak, all the better

and were,

In the introductory

of The Moral

material

received

because

Ark, Hugh

states

of it.108 that there are

four Arks: the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Church, the Ark ofWisdom^ the Ark

and

of Mother

Grace.109

of The Mystic were

lecture

series

pleased

the brethren

Ark.

These The

four Arks were "certain

lectures

Hugh's

the subject of the that in particular

points" (or at least part

of them)

on

TheMoral Ark or Ark ofWisdom: only one of the four Arks, but consid ered by Hugh and the brethren to be the most original part of the ex tended

lectures

of the human

that "untied

the knot

Even

so, Hugh

heart.110

on the of each question" instability does not feel that this "most origi

of the broader nal part" is best understood concept of The independently cause Ark. after of the hu the of the Thus, Mystic discussing instability

man heart (love of the world) and its remedy (the building of an ark in one's

soul

extensive

in which

God may dwell), of The Mystic Ark

tention

subject to the Ark

of Wisdom

reason

for this when

he says,

Because Christ,

should

in particular.111

Hugh

himself

gives

the

this ark signifies to make

in order

the entire visible

an overview he provides of the more in general before turning his full at

and the Church is the body of the Church the exemplar clearer to you, I have depicted of Christ?that is, the head with the members?in

person form so that, when you have seen the whole you [exemplar], be able to understand more easily what is to be said afterwards

concerning

the parts.112

which The Moral Ark feels that "the parts"?of Hugh are easier to understand after one has "seen" the whole,

is one part only? he specifies

which

44

CENTER POINT

it an exemplar the (exemplar), calling the image in the concluding passage

as the painting of The Mystic Ark, same term that is used to describe

of the text of TheMystic Ark.113 Therefore, although he puts the Ark of Wisdom (the theme of TheMoral Ark) in the context of the totality of the four Arks

Ark),

{The Mystic

his

subject

is not

the more

view

complete

of

TheMystic Ark that runs from themacrocosmic Ark of the Church to the Ark

microcosmic

of Mother

And

Grace.

so he

is not

in The

concerned

Moral Ark with fully discussing those components of TheMystic Ark that pertain primarily the Church with any of the other to expect wrong

to one of the other three Arks, for example, the Ark of or its three periods, mappa mundi, quaternary harmony, of the machina Sicard is thus universitatis. components to see in each work

of Hugh's of van den (in the manner statement the breadth and depth of his revealing at the moment of writing, the fact that ignoring

a complete

Eynde114)

development theological now choose to take up one subject, now like other authors, might Hugh, is no reason at all why The Moral another. There cir Ark, an explicitly of the Ark lectures, needs to have a full presentation selection cumscribed of the complete

of subjects

range

of The Mystic

Ark

for those

subjects

to

have been in the original painting of TheMystic Ark or in the original lec tures. And

there

is no evidence

of any continuing

change

of the type de

scribed by Sicard from the original painting of TheMystic Ark to the re portatio

of The Mystic

Ark.

2. THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE FROM THE FIRST RECENSION OF THEMYSTIC ARK TO THE SECOND RECENSION Sicard has

identified

two recensions

of The Mystic

Ark. Having

never

con

sidered anything but a direct authorship by Hugh himself of TheMystic The Moral the differences between Ark misinterpreted Ark as a continuing Sicard understandably? change, same approach to terms in this coming although wrongly?continues the two recensions. with the differences between Ark

and having and The Mystic

One

is slightly longer than of the two.115 The dissemination recension

the other

and

received

the more

recen the slightly the result of an editing of the longer one and sion, shows signs of being for these reasons, Sicard feels the wider dissemination. Primarily enjoyed limited

that the slightly longer seems to be correct. The

second

recension's

it is clear that the reason

recension

other,

is the earlier

emendations, for revision

was

shorter

of the two,

and

in this he

are problematic. While however, a half-hearted to clarify attempt

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

text of the first

the careless shows

the editor

recension,

of the second

45

recension

even

less understanding of The Mystic Ark than the reporter of the Sicard believes that the second recension was also by that it was done around 1135, and that some of the rela himself,

first. Nevertheless, Hugh

tively minor of The Mystic

edits are evidence Ark

of a continuing change in the conception to the second.116 But, having the first recension

from

decided that both recensions are by Hugh himself, Sicard only magnifies recen in the second recension: since the second the problem inherent to clarify the first but in fact really does not accomplish sion was made the conclusion?ac out, one is left with this, as Sicard himself points

Hugh not only did not understand his

cording to this position?that own work incapable on

Clearly, record

majority tribute

this was

not

the case. Aside

as not

interested being of the edits of the second

little to the clarity was responsible

that Hugh logical For

example,

one

from

in revising recension

it, he was

is the fact that Hugh himself own vast his the work,117

are and con meaningless one or text of the another. But, believing way for all of these revisions, Sicard tries to find

for the more

arguments

he tried to improve

that, when

in the first place, but of doing so effectively.

practice

intrusive

ones.

of the editor

was

to shorten

most

of the

lists of names in TheMystic Ark by implying ellipses, as in the list of the the desert stopping journey places of the Hebrews' through forty-two no. 13, no. 4b).118 The reason Sicard gives and the list of popes (Fig. 5, of the first recension for this is that, between the writing and the second, similar (and, in one case, very slightly more precise) Hugh had compiled an aid to the study of history in his that has an extensive lists Chronicon, of such

collection cording

to Sicard, had

lists; the person using The Mystic Ark could then, ac turn to the Chronicon for this information, since recorded it there.119 But, one is forced to ask, what

already user of The Mystic be more likely for a potential twelfth-century or the Book of Chronicon Ark to have at hand, Hugh's recently written in which the list of the Hebrews' Numbers, stopping places appears and Hugh would

to point out, as one of the books of the Bible, was al I hesitate at available the time of the writing of the first recension? The situ ready ation is similar with the list of popes: no medieval the scribe, knowing ones at that?would ever of books?and well-edited difficulty obtaining consider it such an inevitability that the average user of The Mystic Ark

which,

would

have

such assumed

access

to Hugh's

Chronicon

as to make

the re

names in The Mystic Ark redundant. No, the point of the cording of these elimination of these lists was one of simple convenience for the copyist to Hugh's and was completely of unrelated the Chronicon. publication

46

CENTER POINT

Indeed, the general lack of understanding of TheMystic Ark found in the revisions

it plain

makes

a fundamental

shows

lack of interest was

that the editor's

with the subject that sympathy own in reducing his work rather

than in anticipating how the eventual user of TheMystic Ark would go about

the Ark.

producing

show, writings to contrary Hugh's working

Hugh's

as the Chronicon

Furthermore,

the dropping

of these

methods,

sorts

of

lists

to his pedagogical

and

other

of

is absolutely commitment,

and to his view of both history in general and the history of salvation in never have dropped For the same reasons, Hugh would these the painting itself of The Mystic Ark, as Sicard claims, contrary it may be to his own theory of the use of the Chronicon lists.120 though cue sec not recension his from the first but from the taking Apparently particular. lists from

ond, Sicard thinks that the original painting would only have had the first and

last names

should

it of lists like that of the stopping series which, places?a to be of such importance be pointed considered that he out, Hugh a treatise

to devote

planned

to it alone,

explicating

it name

by name.121

Equally indicative of the editor's fundamental lack of understanding of the painting of TheMystic Ark is his weak attempt at clarifying problems raised by the careless work porter records how, despite

six times its width, times

the re a

length

the image of the Ark should be shortened to four

be "more suitable" (cf. Fig. 7). For the rea reverts to the biblical pro the then above, however, reporter In the second of a length six times the width.122 far recension,

so that

sons noted

In the first recension, of the reporter. the fact that the Ark of Genesis had

portions from correcting

its form might

the accidental

reversion

to the biblical

proportions, on the reduction

the

of has actually deleted the very important passage an awareness of which constructed the painted Ark?without any newly in its place has uncompre indeed?and be very awkward image would of the first, something the oversight that could only restored hendingly editor

of the done by someone with a fundamental misunderstanding were altered in the first place.123 This was not that the proportions as Sicard thinks.124 his mind, changing

have been reason

Hugh Even more

illustrative

of how

false premises of revisions related

lead to false conclusions

is

to the Last Judgment and re as most of the the second Hell, changes among significant as In the first recension, in The Mystic Ark is described cension.125 having as eastern Bosom of of the world "Paradise the Abraham" the tip (Fig. 5, no. 11) while of "the the Universal the western contains tip Judgment Sicard's

forced

explanation he describes

on the the elect into "Heaven" angels receiving right corner no. in the northern and with "Hell" 5, (of Christ) 16).126 The (Fig. or to to Last recension omits the the elect second any reference Judgment

Resurrection,"

with

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

into Heaven; of Hell as being

received

being

description western tip

is now

occupied

and while

it does

refer to Hell,

in the north,

making the depiction

with

47

it deletes

the

it seem

as if the entire

of Hell

alone.

Having

once decided that Hugh was personally and directly responsible for both the first

writing port

for these

According Abraham, the Garden second

recension

and editing

the second,

Sicard

tries to find

sup

in Hugh's

writings. to the Bosom the explicit reference of despite as refers to the eastern tip of the world this passage signifying treatments between of Eden alone.127 The different the first and changes to Sicard,

because tip came about, he maintains, of this aspect of The Mystic Ark, views of the subject dur conceptual development

of the western

recensions

different

views

they present entirely that are the result of Hugh's the two recensions. ing the period between

to Sicard, the first According a historical in the end of time culminating recension view, with gives its rewards and punishments with for the elect and the Last Judgment, The second recension, he believes, "maintains the damned. the historio but its expression ismuch spatial aim attested by the east-west orientation, in favor of a more weakened static representation of the universe given one case sums in it: of the elements that the it the compose position by in the other it disposes, to up the course of universal history, according their hierarchy, the 'places' that at that time constituted the cosmos."128 Sicard

believes

that what

he

sees

in the first

Paradise/world/Heaven-and-Hell ceptually elimination more

more

advanced

of Heaven

correct

schema

hierarchy in the west,

as a succession

recension

of

is replaced in the second by the con of Paradise/world/Hell because of the

a that provides something "cosmically" of the universe, of which he finds in the expression

to be written But of Hugh's after the first recension. that happened even Sicard himself is dissatisfied with this explanation, being forced to admit that the fundamental of the works of cre logic of the symmetry

works

ation

in the east and

west?one

of

the most

and the basis

thought that the two different sions

outcome

fundamental

of his

later De

conceptions are irreconcilable.129

There which

the final

of the works

of restoration

constant

and

in the

of Hugh's lost, and completely recen by the two different aspects

Sacramentis?is presented

are many not the with this interpretation, problems in this case, the best place to look for an explanation

is that,

least of of the

issues involved iswithin the image of TheMystic Ark itself, not outside of it.To begin with, the reporter did not describe theGarden of Eden in terms of the Bosom age overtly the Garden

of Abraham functions of Eden

without

in a complex, and

something

reason,

and that reason

multivalent more.

referring to both is a subject that is fully

manner, This

is that the im

CENTER POINT

48

taken up in my later study. For now, let me just say that, in the Fathers, is often used to refer to the limbus Pa the term "the Bosom of Abraham" the souls of the just who lived before the Incarna that for one, repeat place Augustine, of Abraham" and "Paradise," and that others "the Bosom

that place where the coming

trum,

tion await

edly calls both located in the Garden

of Christ?a

it appears on the line cubit because the lim

of Eden.130

Compositionally, of the central the Incarnation

of generation before was bus Patrum necessary

only before

Christ's

coming,

not after; it appears

before the beginning of human history (the sixth day) because its inhabi tants were

removed

from

that history,

from

the Bosom

time. Conceptually,

of Abraham in TheMystic Ark has to do with the polemical controversy in which tion

Hugh of the Ark

was

engaged with lectures. Although

Abelard

around

the time of the incep (and Bernard) may have exag that he claimed a spiritual supe

Hugh asserted position, they gerated over those who riority for the just of the Old Testament In giving such a visually prominent Incarnation.131 place Abelard's

logically secondary concept, Hugh emphasizing and the written those dom

the primacy

law, making came who before just of heaven." Although

is polemically

came

after

the

to such a theo

engaging Abelard by

of grace over those of natural that the latter were not able to allow

of the sacraments it plain the Incarnation

"to enter

in a state of spiritual

cluded from the vision of God?depicted

the gate of the king ex happiness, they are

in The Mystic Ark above the

cosmos

as the the sacrifice of of the painting?until component crowning sacraments in The Mystic of of the the Christ, grace, represented greatest Ark by the central cubit. in the west As to Sicard's idea that the first recension localizes heaven ern tip of the world because the saved of the Last Judgment (which takes are as is into received this described heaven, place there) being simply not case. must include the saved. Their the The Last Judgment, by definition, Ark at the terminus of the in the composition of The Mystic location of the line of generation is strictly an indication sequence of salvation and of the end of time, not of of the history as it is al is clearly described being right where locality. Heaven

chronological of the outcome Heaven's

zone men as the ethereal above understood ways being, traditionally God the nine choirs of angels perpetually tioned above, where worship no. 4). (Fig. 2, in both recensions In the end, the cosmic schema presented by Hugh in its basic structure of celestial paradise of The Mystic Ark is traditional of the Garden (in the choirs of angels, not the paradise is no development There limbus Patrum)/'world/hell.132 ception of the structure of the cosmos here.

of Eden

or the

of Hugh's

con

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

to the confusion

But back His

of the Last

elimination

is not would

the most have

caused

it, but

of the second

by the editor

important the most

recension,

It is entirely

inexplicable.

recension.

the torments

Judgment, leaving only revision of the second

49

of Hell, as Sicard to Hugh's

contrary

thinking on the history of salvation, themain lines of which consist of the works

of creation and of restoration, the latter concluding the final with at which of restoration, the elect as a commu the Last Judgment, are at to their creator, the ultimate outcome of the nity long last restored western in of the which all of this salvation.133 Furthermore, tip history to the line of gener takes place is at the end of historical time, according

work

ation of the Ark; in this regard, it should be pointed out that it is not Hell that marks

the end of time,

the Last

but

To

Judgment.

the Last

delete

Judgment from the text of The Mystic Ark is essentially to deny the structure

chronological

forms

that

core

the conceptual

and

composi

it seems

tional central axis of TheMystic Ark. Far from being by Hugh, that

this deeply ignorant lack of personal complete

came

"revision"

about

with

engagement

of the editor's

because

his subject.

In the first

recen

sion, it is said that The other

tip, which projects Resurrection with

Universal the

has the Judgment of the the elect on the right and the rejected on

corner

In the northern

left.

toward

are thrust along with

damned

of

the west, this

is Hell,

tip

the apostate

into which

the

spirits.134

a person as clearly out of touch with The Mystic Ark as the editor of the second recension be a very perplexing It is tra is, this would passage.

To

ditional for the elect to be on the right hand of Christ and the damned on his

to have Hell

left. But

of The Mystic been beyond

painting to have

as being in the north in the described specifically on Ark?that the is, right hand of Christ?seems the editor's and he reacted as he comprehension,

his revision when

did throughout him: he simply

removed

the quaternary

harmony.

he came

across

something the seasonal

it, just as he did with left with the choice Seemingly

ther the Last Judgment or Hell in his misguided

that confused

component of eliminating

of ei

attempt at increasing

the Last Judgment, clarity, he opted for removing apparently preferring to satisfy the medieval case of in this Hell antithesis, imperative opposing

to Heaven, which is quite prominently indicated by the choirs of angels on either side of the head of the Lord at the top of the painting. This also allowed north,

him

to remove

something

the

reference

to the

of Hell

that clearly

bothered

him.

Hell

locality But while

as in the is not

often

depicted as in the north (or on the right hand of Christ) in art, it is often associated

with

the north

in literature.

In The Mystic

Ark,

it is specified

CENTER POINT

50

as being in the north north with ignorance

both

because evil?the

and

of the traditional

association

north

of "the fellowship

of the devil" in TheMystic Ark?and of descent

sequence cent of the northwest

from

is the place

because it directly relates to Hugh's in the central

the redeemer

away corner

of the

cubit,

the as

into the being the final descent, descending of Ignorance, which is spiritual death (Fig. 8).135 Having elimi the Last Judgment, the editor dropped the scroll and scepter held

Blindness nated

with

the Majesty

by

well?"Come, from me, sense.136

their

all-important have been blessed

you who you who have been to Sicard's Contrary

cursed idea

..." and "Depart by my Father . . ."?since now made less they

nature of Hugh's evolving as of elements appear culminating a work in his De sacramentis, that

of

the

these very passages thought, however, of the Last Judgment his conception The Mystic Ark and stands as his final word postdates But

25 as

from Matthew

passages

on such matters.137

in the second list of uncomprehending revisions recension of the misapprehending and careless nature goes on. As if in confirmation more than of these previous reason?the any profound changes?rather the

drops the phrase et quasi in solio sedens, "as if sitting on a throne," in the second recension.138 of the Majesty the description This is an 25 passages, of the Matthew edit that, along with the deletion reduces the editor from

to one

of the Majesty description is visually the Majesty although entire

tire composition. great

subtlety

sentence

the most

Sicard would

in the second

dominant

component

recension, of the en

like to think that this was because of the

of the editor, that, having eliminated the Last Judgment, his sense was so acute that he felt compelled to drop the ref

iconographical erence to the throne

on which

if it were a throne of sits?as the Majesty no. is it visible 2). The imagery of though barely (Fig. 2, judgment?even is a fundamental the throne, however, part of the Majesty's iconographi is based on the vision of Isaiah (Isaiah 6) and which which cal conception,

plays a principal part in both TheMoral Ark and TheMystic Ark. Indeed, it is the correlation of theMajesty with the vision of Isaiah with which Hugh begins his discussion of the painting of The Mystic Ark in The Moral vision

Ark.139 Sicard, of Isaiah

contradiction in The Moral though

forced

in The Moral

to acknowledge Ark,

to extricate attempts the throne does not

by saying that while Ark, it does in the first

he repeatedly

the absolute

states throughout

recension his work

of the centrality from this himself

refer to judgment of The Mystic Ark?even that the painting

referred

to in TheMoral Ark is that of TheMystic Ark.140This distinction between the thrones

is, of course,

not

of The Mystic Ark is the case. The Majesty on the vision is and he Ark, explicitly based

of The Moral the same Majesty of Isaiah, as indicated by the two

seraphim

whose

wings

cover

his

face

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

and feet and whom

of the second

the editor

did not

recension

51

remove.141

in of the throne is the same in both, which is not judgment The meaning is the throne of the Lord, just as stated in Isaiah, as either case: heaven on the vision of Isaiah, and as in the commentaries noted implied by the "heavens"

or cosmos

in front

that the Lord holds

in The Mys to the throne is an

of himself

In fact,

reference shortly after the deleted not to it is that reference deleted, leaving the reader to wonder? this is a fully thought-out given the clear basis in the vision of Isaiah?if own on a to Hugh's of revision based contrary conception major change tic Ark.142

other

or if it is simply more thought, fully established.143 Even more

convoluted

careless

is Sicard's

in the vertical

work,

the pattern

for which

is

the use of color argument regarding have a corre stages of the Ark, which

system of the three to the horizontal of the system of planks of the three periods spondence history of salvation (Figs. 4 and 11). Earlier, I argued against Sicard's idea in the original that the imagery of the three periods was not present

painting of TheMystic Ark, with Sicard claiming that TheMoral Ark rep resents

the state of the original a later version.144 Ark describes

and that the text of The Mystic painting Sicard also thinks that there was a change

of the use of color between the first and second re conception the censions of The Mystic Ark.145 He feels that, in the first recension, one I will explain text?which the color of only stage and which specifies a moment?indicates to in first is that the be colored "red" stage fully in Hugh's

as rouge and so the highly purpureus mistranslating ignoring as to of both and sacrificial purple symbolism referring royalty charged In the second recension, he believes that a fundamental blood).146 change of conception has come about that requires all three of the vertical stages (incidentally,

(or "red," as he says). is based on a straightforward This interpretation, misunder however, in the the text of the question. When standing of language of the passage first recension the people of grace are says, "Purple should be used where to be colored

located meant

purple

it to mean Sicard misinterprets that the first stage is to be purple.147 His reason for this is that, since purple is the color within,"

of grace, which stage cension

since

is the life of the Church, this is appropriate for the first

this life "extends

the Church

and constitutes

it." This

first

re

is so unclear

on

that the editor of the second coloring his practice?simply the entire thing, saying dropped only that "The Ark is painted with the color purple and the surface of the as earth is painted with the color green."148 The reason for this change, Sicard sees it, is that Hugh had come to realize by the time of the second passage was recension?as

recension

that

such

a

thing would

be

in "greater

conformity

with

[his

CENTER POINT

52

own] Church

since purple is the color of grace, and grace and the ecclesiology"; are co-extensive, to animate this should be shown the entire

... "not just those of the first stage, but also, a fortiori, those who Church, are in the second or third stage." In support of his idea of conceptual on the part of in Hugh's Sicard cites a passage found Hugh, change that he believes

Dialogus

was written

sometime

between

sec

the first and

ond recensions and inwhich Hugh repeats his idea from TheMystic Ark from

of

there were

of grace in always people the role of grace in this pas upon every period, very slightly elaborating to to think, this passage from what Sicard would like sage.149 But, contrary no different in regard to the issues at play in is essentially the Dialogus an intellectual not in Ark does The Mystic and, any event, provide justifi that

the beginning

time

for an expansion of purple that would be both fundamentally

cation

scheme

vertical

throughout

and redundant

contrary in regard

the three stages, something to the very concept of the to the much more articu

stage late expression of the idea of people of grace in zontal plank system. Although he acknowledges and spiritual with order," he sees theological as "clearer," and as and redundancy "progress," drawing already quite In Sicard's defense,

complex." the text of the first

real problem lies not so much with of interpreting the thoughtless practice

his

of the first serious Europe. What

and those

recension

intellectual

positions

is clear about

in the hori

Hugh's "preoccupation this crude contradiction as

recension

"happily

a

simplifying

is horrendous.

But

text as with this nightmarish the of mistakes the careless reporter

of the unengaged editor of the second the greatest living theologian

of Hugh's,

the first

every period

as of

is how the color sys however, existence of the Ark is the historical

recension,

tem of the planks works. The length To express its progress from the beginning of time until of the Church. of the Ark is divided into three peri the end, the horizontal progression ods: the period of natural law, the period of the written law, and the period

is a system of three "planks" with these three periods of grace. Coordinated one of that runs the length of both sides of the Ark. Each plank represents the three different (of nature, of the law, or of grace); and types of people indicates the level of the three in any given period the particular grouping

of prominence of each type in that period. While

each period is by defini

by the people ofthat period, people of the other two types are shown to exist alongside in the period of natural them. For example, were law and of grace. But the people also people of the written law, there in the ascendancy, law were the those of the written law were of natural and those of grace the least. In the period of the second most populous, tion dominated

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

law, the latter were

written next,

the people

and

dominant,

of natural

while

the people

law the least. Continuing

53

of grace were the in this fashion,

in the period of grace, the people of grace hold the first place, the people of natural

law the second, this visually,

express

the

and the people of the written law the third. To are varied in arrangement and three planks

width in each period, with the plank of the predominant people toward the outside

of the Ark,

that of the second most

populous

people

toward

the two (being "pressed" between inside, and that of least between as the them, reporter puts it).150 is how the color system of the What is less clear in the first recension

the

to its de and I hope that the reader will pay closer attention stages works, tails than the reporter and the editor did. The three stages of the Ark cor other the basic concepts that underlie the to, among respond things, three periods: nature, hori law, and grace. Thus, there is a macrocosmic to another zontal historical from one period (the three peri progression a one spiritual microcosmic and vertical from ods), spiritual progression state these makes

to another

to integrate (the three stages). Typically, Hugh sought two components?one of the characteristics of The Mystic Ark that it so great. But Hugh, of Clairvaux?and like Bernard unlike the

reporter whatever

the editor?normally was at hand. And subject

and

considered this

the full

is where

of

ramifications

the origin

culty with the color system of the three stages lies. The reporter of the first recension says about the color

of the diffi

system

of the

stages: is painted on the surface within with various colors not to be painted to the differentiation of the stages?ought according with the color green in that part where the people of natural law are sit The Ark?which

nor with

the people of the written law are yellow where within. should be used where the people of grace are Purple, however, so that one may employ color in the same way in which located within to the people of natural the surface of the earth outside corresponds uated within,

law through the color green, within between the two.151 What

so that here

alone

a likeness

functions

the reader may be excused if he or she had a little a this piece, which is clearly by less articulate writer than

this means?and

difficulty

with

color system of the planks, that, aside from the macrocosmic Hugh?is a there should also be microcosmic color system "within" (that is, between a color problem the twin systems of planks) for the stages. However, arises because of the difficulties of reconciling the macrocosmic horizontal sys tem with In that special form of awkwardness the microcosmic vertical.

54

CENTER POINT

are in over

their heads, the reporter tries to explain he is, says not what the colors should be, gen negatively. however erally speaking, but what unclearly they should not be?aware, so as what not issue is he expresses that the much what it, they they are, cannot be. Thus the Ark "ought not to be painted with the color green reserved

for those who

this problem

That

not in that part where people of natural law (as microcosmic individuals, or cultures) are situated within"; macrocosmic nations and where they are "within" or twin system of the Ark?that "within" the between is, in the first stage, which ismarked with the inscription Nature planks?is

(Figs. 4 and 11). Nor should the Ark be painted "with yellow where the people of the written with the inscription

law are within":

in the second

stage, which in the microcosmic

ismarked

sense of (again, this ismeant or culture). reason that not a nation the individual, The most obvious are not for the first and second stages is that green and yellow appropriate continue the central cubit, toward the end of these stages visually beyond

time. Unlike

Law

the horizontal planks that indicate the different types of

such a color system in sense) in all periods, (in the macrocosmic people the vertical the clarity of the horizontal stages would compromise visually the of the period that Christian system, conception indicating seemingly

of thewritten law asserted itself beyond the coming of Christ and that the at the end of time. But there again be dominant as well, and this is that green and yellow are not appro use to the language of The Mystic Ark, each color "is in the priate in that, of the Ark, but it is not like the Ark";152 that is, individuals composition to the historical of the spiritual of levels of the stages (as opposed periods period of natural reason is another

law will

but the planks) of natural law or the written law may be in the Church, of the their spiritual level does not equate in any way with the spirituality Church.153 is a different the people of grace story. It "should be used where Purple are located within"; Grace. The reason that is, in the third stage, marked same way in which in the the color for this is "so that one may employ to the people of natural law surface of the earth outside corresponds the color green." This is an awkward way of saying through relates what it stands for the green of the system of planks in to the of natural the green of the world law) mappa mundi

that

just as

(the people in the sense

of that which is of this world and extrinsic to the Ark or Church, so the of it stands for (the people of the system of planks relates what most is to which is that which the of the third stage, grace, purple grace) to the Church. To drive home of the arrange the irregularity intrinsic a point of not ment of the color system of the stages, the reporter makes purple

ing that "here

alone

a likeness

functions

within

between

the two"?that

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

55

between is, it is only with the third stage that there is a color relationship one of the colors of the plank system and one of the colors of the stage system. a "preoccupation Hugh not only had he is on record der," as Sicard noted,

with

theological

as advocating the color system here

and spiritual or the use of color in

is very poorly de pedagogical systems.154 Though Sicard's reading of the text of the first recension scribed by the reporter, to mean for the first stage would that purple was appropriate have been to Hugh.

inconceivable

Each

of the three

stages

its is clearly marked with law, and grace. To color

of the three periods: nature, respective principle not only be to deny the the first stage, the stage of nature, purple would be to deny the principle of vertical basic meaning of that stage, it would one ascent attains the the divine toward (where spiritual spiritual highest contradict the teaching and the would level only at the top), which of Hugh. Sicard has badly confused the verti that are at the heart of The Mystic Ark. second of the first recension stages, the reporter

respectively, methodology, cal and horizontal systems As

to the first

and

are to be painted but does not specify the colors are not to be green or this leaves us (except to say that they yellow). While as ne to assume he could that they are nonsymbolic, just easily have

clearly

states

glected The

color

that

to mention

this is why

they

what

passage the editor and he

that symbolism of the first recension of the second

him, beyond simply that part of the Ark between

is.

is unquestionably recension tried to revise

a mess, it. But

and itwas

accepted purple as the only stated color for the system of planks and lamely referred to

the use of green for the earth without any further or The rest he just dropped: tionships meaning.155 to the deaf elaborate interrelation levels, spiritual

reference

to color

rela

to the system of of the horizontal and

blind

and mute the color relationship between progressions, regarding a Far and from there the subtle stage plank system. being change first and of intellectual between the second the edi recensions, conception never tor of the second recension the understood really poorly expressed color system of the first recension, and his revision is indicative only of

vertical

the third

to eliminate whatever his ready willingness closed The Moral Ark with the Hugh

he could statement,

not understand. "There

is still more

that Imight have said if Iwere not afraid of wearying you."1561wish Ihad able to say the same thing, but there is still one more I am obliged to take up in regard to Sicard's views that misinterpretation of the second it is by no means his last. As with the recension, though I have already of the three periods of the history of salvation, component the luxury

argued

of being

against

Sicard's

idea that the crucial

quaternary

harmony

was

not

56

CENTER POINT

in the original painting of The Mystic Ark (Fig. 2, no. 9, Fig. 9).157 present Sicard also thinks that Hugh?about whom itwas said by one of his con "In all of the Latin Church, there is no one to be found who temporaries, can compare to him someone of copying

in wisdom"158?having else's work

own

done

such

a miserable

job on the seasons of the into his harmony was so dull that he was unable to correct

text in the first recension, a very minor mistake of verbally the sea (simply a question reorienting sonal harmony within the quaternary turn) and harmony by a quarter to drop the passage felt compelled in the Even second.159 more, entirely to on to also felt the the Sicard, passage drop according Hugh obliged

of the qualities and dry) that immediately (hot, cold, moist, harmony follows that on the seasons. The reason Sicard gives for this additional is that the passage on the qualities is part of a discussion of the har on cosmos in is of the that based the of the seasons, mony part harmony whose and confused passage had been deleted. But, in fact, the confusing cut

was

part alone of the seasonal harmony confusing of the second recension; the main discussion dinates

them with

untouched. dundant

The

the four unclear

cardinal

passage

and not

by the editor (which coor

of the seasons

remained directions) fundamentally on the seasons re is, actually, mildly at all (unlike the deleted instruction

truly necessary the Signs of the Zodiac should be oriented in the deletion which was cut out as well160). Thus, there was no reason to drop the passage seasons, that

is, there was

removed

no

with

Aries

at the

top, of the

of the harmony on the harmony

of the

was logical to be associated it happened the unclear with pas guilt by association: was inertia and removed the it of intellectual indif sage simply through

qualities.

That

for the real motivation

reason,

ference.

There was,

therefore,

no

continuing

change

from

the original

painting

of TheMystic Ark to the reportatio of TheMystic Ark. TheMoral Ark does state of the painting, the original but rather was considered represent a series of lectures to be the most that part of the Ark lectures, original was meant no to be loose by conscious The Moral Ark is under design.161 not

obligation to recount literally the image from which its thought took its between the first impetus. Nor is there any need to explain the differences of The Mystic Ark as a continuing and second recensions change of intel an explanation when lectual conception, such especially implies direct are character of the second recension by Hugh. The revisions authorship with the subject, an unreflective ized by a lack of personal engagement an unseemly of whatever the editor did not understand, elimination de sire to reduce the amount of text that had to be copied, and an ignorance of the polemical

context

of The Mystic

Ark.

Furthermore,

it is quite

clear

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

that

the editor

The Mystic

Ark

was

oblivious

and

its almost

to the summa-like

of

comprehensiveness

complete interconnecting a part of its content in the narrow as are a part of its meaning sense. in the broader they

of which

57

are as much

both coherency, sense of the word

3. THE EDITING OF THE SECOND RECENSION to the previous section raise two interrelated questions: be of of certain the The Ark7. Mystic chronology degree so And why was the editor of the second recension personally disengaged from his work? The

conclusions

can we

To what

I gave my

Earlier,

reasons

as

for accepting

likely van den Eynde's

gen

eral grouping of works related to TheMoral Ark and TheMystic Ark while the relative order within the general method it.162Although questioning texts on the between of relative different establishing chronologies ology is certainly legitimate, basis of conceptual the specific natures development of the writings

under

in the group

consideration

to The Moral

related

Ark

and TheMystic Ark do not lend themselves well to this type of analysis. The

is simply

evidence

not

van

to support

there

den Eynde's

of

dating

TheMoral Ark to shortly before 1127 (his date for the Sententie de divini tate) or of TheMystic Ark to 1128 or 1129. There is far less evidence to support between

that there was suggestion lectures and The Moral the original

Sicard's

a gap

from

one

to two years two to four years

Ark, from the original lectures and The Mystic Ark, or from one to three The Moral Ark and The Mystic Ark.163 years between more Until further establishes sounder relative scholarship precisely and absolute all that can be said with certainty is that The chronologies, between

sometime from 1125 to early 1130. The evidence Mystic Ark was written is indirect but compelling: for an absolute the terminal entry chronology in The Mystic in the list of papal regnancies Ark is Honorius II, who reigned

from December

suggests

that the first

21,

1124

recension

must

to February date from

that 13, 1130, something 1125 to early 1130.164 The in the Abelard affair tends

of letters between Hugh and Bernard exchange as a to confirm Letter with 77?for which he apologizes Bernard's this, to a previous late response letter by Hugh, though how late we do not know?variously

dated

from

1125

to 1128.165 As

to relative

chronology,

the unusual statement recognizing its popularity with which TheMoral Ark begins nal lectures

that The Moral Ark was written suggests to that in response There popularity.166

that The Mystic

Ark was written

much

later:

soon

after

is no

reason

it refers

the origi to think

to The Moral

Ark

and quotes from it, but TheMystic Ark is in no way posterior to it in

CENTER POINT

58

sense. The fact that The Mystic a developmental im Ark is a reportatio in the original in lectures, which plies that the reporter was a participant soon after the lectures and in all likelihood turn suggests a composition after The Moral

immediately enthusiasm.

Ark,

probably

as part

of an initial burst

of

to the dating of the second recension, the failure of Sicard's textual 1135 completely renders his dating of around analysis unsupportable.167 in regard to chronology What is is of interest about the second recension As

the elimination

to a planned

of the reference of

treatise

the Hebrews'

on

the forty-two since this

the desert:

journey stopping through places at least, that raises the possibility, the deletion treatise was never written, so the second recension?took after the death of the deletion?and place

Hugh (February 11, 1141).168 It is at this point that the question of why the editor of the second re from his work ties in with that of cension was so personally disengaged a out recension. Sicard has the chronology of the second pattern pointed Itwas the first recension of usage for the first and second recensions. that new manu to two it wanted Saint Victor make itself used when copies; one from Saint Victor Ark have survived from of The itself, scripts Mystic

around 1140 to 1150 and the other from 1220 to 1255, both of them first Saint Victor maintained places with which strong relations also had first recension copies of The Mystic Ark. Bernard's was one of these; and there was a web of English Clairvaux, monastery, recension.169

Furthermore,

connections, students Laurence

probably of Saint Victor, of Westminster,

is the significance it was Clearly,

established

former canons, and teachers, through Andrew of Saint Victor, Robert of Melun,

possibly and others.170 What

Sicard

has

failed

to notice

of all this. the first

recension

that was

seen by Saint Victor itself as of the two. And itwas the first recension

the more authoritative inherently an immediate but short diffusion.171 that had

Yet

itwas

the second

recen

on less authoritative, far from being an improvement which, a real lack of personal with the subject?that the first, shows engagement How such a situation could the most widespread. have come became sion?the

was

in the thirteenth the first recension Saint Victor using of after the second after the death and recension century, Hugh long long as the more common and established did had been made prototype? Why have of the first with close ties to Saint Victor institutions copies generally about? Why

recension, while other, less closely related places generally had the second? is The reason that Sicard gives for the impetus of the second recension of The Mystic Ark, this popularity such an the great popularity suggesting improved

edition

to Hugh

because

of the carelessness

of the first.172 Sicard,

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

59

discussed finds himself however, above, which caught in the contradiction an improve even he recognizes: not in recension that the second is, fact, on the first at all. Even so, the impetus for the second recension was ment

indeed the great popularity of the first, though it was not revised by Hugh, torium

as I believe

I have

shown.

It seems

that it was

that was

responsible

both

of Saint Victor practice the first and the second recensions

from

Saint Victor,

the particular scrip for the pattern of

apparently originally stemming an aspect of production for "in the first having in consequence, the second could, be said to have an house" use, while for external consumption. aspect of production Liber ordinis of Saint Victor The twelfth-century (the book of customs) with

the duties

stipulates, regarding the scriptorium,

or librarian,

of the armarius

oversaw

who

in the community?whether inside or out the responsibility of his office to the effect

All writings that are made side [the monastery]?are

the scribes with parchment and the ought to provide are necessary for that he that and himself should writing, things hire those who write for pay.173 that he himself

other

A number

of recent

on the textual

studies

and artistic

of Saint Victor have drawn attention scriptorium to in this passage of hiring out work that could not be taken to commercial within the monastery scriptorium coll?gial side.174 Every work within from

effort

seems

of the

production to the practice

to have been made

with the coll?gial scriptorium, for the appointment himself

the abbot

to ensure

a

referred

care of by the scribes out of

standard

high

permission being of canon-scribes

necessary and with

access

to the scriptorium to limit distraction.175 As a severely restricted to devoted and Saint house learning coll?gial especially teaching, on an ambitious Victor of had embarked up its own building campaign as institutions?as At the of other fast those library?not possible.176 new

same time, it performed extensive duties for the royal chancery and even on the in of these unusual burdens for the Bishop of Paris. Itwas because ternal scriptorium that the armarius had to go outside the walls for addi

tional scribal help. It is known that commercial copyists had begun to work

in Paris

tor also worked customs the work

at just this time, for a number

of Saint Victor sent outside

and that those who of other

offer no

a few things

worked

for Saint Vic

monasteries.177

But

the

about quality control over to these commercial except copyists, for it. responsible information

the monastery

to say that the armarius was We do not know who the editor do know

Parisian

about

of the second

him. He was

personally

recension

was.

disengaged

But we from

the

60

CENTER POINT

to of The Mystic Ark, his subject. He was, in practice, indifferent concept of the text if this involved any real improvement actually understanding can only be described as ignorance it.What of the principles of the qua (or perhaps unsuc suggest that he was poorly educated is better) for someone who was a scribe. Perhaps most

ternary

harmony educated cessfully

striking of all, he displays a total lack of familiarity with the work of a scholar who a school of thought at Saint Victor established in Hugh, to elicit the sense described whose work continued Southern, by R. W. enormous was interest long after his death, and of whom his community the evidence the restoration of suggests?in immensely proud.178 And

the biblical proportions of the Ark, in the elimination of the previously the quaternary in the mistake concerning harmony, the editor of the second re system of the stages?that regarding cension had no visual access to the painting. This could have been either

mentioned

passage the color

he was

because

not

or because

taught the case, canons

allowed

the painting then suggest

itwould

into that part of the monastery where Hugh was no even extant. But if this were longer access to that the editor had no convenient

The Mystic Ark through the lectures, the actually understood or the text. All this makes it fairly inconceivable that a canon painting, as the editor of the second Victor of Saint acted recension?and regular that it was a commercial scribe to whom The Mystic Ark very probably was

who

hired

tinued

out for a new

to be shown

to deal with

recension

in it. It seems

that

it was

the great interest this new recension

that con that was

from in scribes, when requests were made copied, apparently by external stitutions other than those that had unusually strong relations with Saint as seems to have been the case with Victor: for example, Saint Albans, whose

second

bly And

Simon

twelfth-century, requested by Abbot

recension copy of Saint Albans,

of The Mystic is now held

Ark, proba in Oxford.179

that itwas the first recension that was used by the internal Saint Victor its closest for for and friends: such as scriptorium copies first recension whose Clairvaux, copy of the Ark is now twelfth-century, it appears

inTroyes.180 The evidence made

of the second

after the death

the second

recension

recension suggests I have already noted of Hugh. to a proposed of a reference

that

this

that the deletion

The Mystic the actual

was from

on the by Hugh the desert through

book

places of the Hebrews' journey stopping forty-two a tends to support this view. The Indiculum, fifteenth-century on the command of Hugh's work made of Abbot bibliography Saint Victor

revision

copy of a Gilduin of

death, does as well. In it, in the entry for shortly after Hugh's a to chapter headings, but the space for Ark, there is reference was left blank,181 themselves that suggests headings something

THE SUPPOSITION OF A CONTINUING CHANGE IN THEMYSTIC ARK

61

are absent from the which that such headings, expectations soon. Itmay be that headings were first recension, would be made fairly as to of and that the second be made the second recension part expected there were

recension

was

done

around

If this time, shortly after the death of Hugh. were never made is in perfect accord with lack done by the editor and his complete

so, the fact that these headings the consistently abysmal work of personal

engagement.

Chapter

Three

THENATUREAND ORIGINALFUNCTION OF THE TEXTOF THEMYSTICARK

While

that the editor was

the likelihood

a commercial

scribe may explain text that was meant for

with this spiritual engagement not in general was toler it does group discussion, explain why poor work a the fairly mediocre first recension ated for The Mystic Ark?either by or the second recension student of Saint Victor, appar truly inadequate were an models of their profes outside scribe, neither of whom ently by

his lack of personal

is inescapable that this was the case because The to be a literary piece. Mystic Ark was not considered As to the first recension, itwas a reportatio: the fact that itwas not per but by a student, whether internal or external, sonally written by Hugh The

sions.

conclusion

in a different

the work

certainly put ever popular

attention, category of editorial to it, since the text was never ismore

how

itwas. But there given a proper an title or, what is more, the explanatory preface.182 Regarding toward it seems to be the result of second recension, the casual attitude on the part of the editor that The Mystic Ark was a reporta the knowledge tio, and a flawed

one

with

the deference

This

attitude

was

from

1140

rium

at that; it was

not by Hugh and need not be treated to of a respected the author. normally writing not helped by an expansion of the work of the scripto to 1150 so great that fully one-third of Saint Victor's shown

collection was copied at this time (with a no manuscript twelfth-century ticeable increase in the number in 1135),183 precisely of hands beginning I suggest the second recension was made. the time during which edito again, the real reason that the text received only incidental reason that Hugh had allowed a rial attention?and the principal perhaps to in student write the reportatio the first place rather than doing it him But,

self?was piece,

that, by

properly

its very

speaking.

genre,

it was

not

considered

to be a literary

64

CENTER POINT

1. THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARKWAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AS AN APPENDIX TO THEMORAL ARK In the manuscript treatise

in a consistent

not

tion?as

whenever The Mystic Ark is found, it and the Ark virtually each other, although always accompany Sicard's second basic error of interpreta fashion.184

tradition,

of The Moral

mentioned

earlier,

his

to recognize

failure

the basically

simple

relationship between the painting of TheMystic Ark, the treatise of The Moral

and

Ark,

ther misinterpret The evidence I have

forward.

the reportatio o? The Mystic Ark?has caused him to fur the nature and original function of The Mystic Ark. not straight that the texts themselves offer is certainly the confusion caused by the absence of an already noted

preface to The Mystic Ark. This lack of clarity has been greatly in the manuscript tradition has Ark, which compounded by The Moral are no less than seven different more that than once, repeated closings explanatory

and one

an additional degree

These have been four unique closings. a number of scholars, but most by

or another

recognized

to

completely

by

Sicard.185The original closing (ending in edificatam esse leteris) is the to an overt close, that brings the writing is a proper ending of The Mystic Ark?a but which does so by referring to the painting paint to not actu in is The earlier Moral Ark but that had been referred that ing a at for this treatise and that all ally necessary understanding plays only very small part in it: fullest;

this

Iwas

going to speak briefly, but I admit that Iwas glad to have had so to say to you. And, in fact, there is still more that Imight have non timer em). said if I were not afraid of wearying you (fastidium us now our of Ark let the itself, as we have Therefore, propose exemplar

much

in order that you may learn This we have painted externally promised. so that, when you have re from without what you ought to do within a form of this exemplar in your heart, you may rejoice that produced the house of God has been built within you (edificatam esse leteris)}86

This is by far themost common of the closings, being found in 84 of the 143 complete copies of TheMoral Ark listed in Sicard's painstaking study it is the one tradition of the Ark. More of the manuscript significantly, in the copies of The Moral Ark that accompany the two surviv employed of The Mystic Ark from Saint Victor versions itself.187 ing first recension The

second most

common

there are thirty-three Ark, ending ing of The Mystic

of which

closing

(ending

examples, somewhat

drops

in fastidium

timerem), to the paint concern on Hugh's

the reference

awkwardly

non

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

65

none of which endings, no are less the first clumsy. anywhere are At the same time, although of The Ark copies Mystic virtually always is not stan found in sequence with The Moral Ark, the order of sequence

with

wearying

come

his

readers.

The

near

various

two

other

in number,

dard. While TheMystic Ark ismost commonly found immediately fol The Moral precedes lowing The Moral Ark, at other times it immediately both in the crucial copies from Ark. The latter is the case, significantly, in the Indiculum of Saint Victor.188 and in the order indicated Saint Victor

When

TheMystic Ark precedes TheMoral Ark, the distinction between

the two

is unquestioned,

with

a proper

closing

to The Mystic

Ark

and a

proper title and preface to TheMoral Ark. But when TheMystic Ark fol lows The Moral

Ark,

the relationship

lacks any

standard

principle:

now

being incorporated into TheMoral Ark, now being presented either in a and now accompanying The Moral manner, independent more two the forms Ark autonomously, the latter common.189 being distinct has shown that the two writings were originally Sicard, however, were in this and that any alterations made by later copyists, presentation distinct

but not

even if very early on. Likewise, closings other than the fullest (edificatam esse leteris) were the result of later, although also often quite early, scribal decisions and were not part of the original text; nor were these variations

prior to the text of TheMystic Ark. follow argues against the earlier idea that The Mystic Ark, when to be a chapter of The Moral considered ing The Moral Ark, was originally a he characterizes The Mystic Ark pri he refutes. Ark, Instead, theory fully Sicard

as an to The Moral Ark (in part because it has no proper "appendix" an to turn in is The which "introduction" Ark, the latter title), Mystic the original Ark because the preface-less of The Moral closing needing not is The of this Ark purpose "appendix" was Mystic self-explanatory.190 to produce to be meant The Mystic Ark, although the text was consciously marily

read for its own The Mystic

Ark

to the earlier view of sake, as Sicard sees it. In contrast as a chapter of The Moral Ark, he feels that the reason for

the sequence The Mystic Ark preceding The found at Saint Victor?with Moral Ark, and which he seems to see as a form of only secondary impor tance?was to enable the reader to form a mental of The Mystic picture it also served to aid in the pro reading The Moral Ark, though of the painting of The Mystic Ark. More he sees the generally,

Ark before duction

painting of TheMystic Ark as an illustration of TheMoral Ark (as opposed to seeing The Moral Ark as the most that original part of the discussions came out of the much broader discussions based on the painting of The

Mystic Ark); he believes that TheMystic Ark offers in figurai form what The Moral

Ark presents

in verbal

form;

and he thinks

that the verbal

form

66

CENTER POINT

in place of an actual of The Mystic Ark is given illustration because it to produce have been too difficult and preserve such a necessarily on large image parchment.191 While Sicard's technical observations the manuscript tradi regarding tion of The Mystic Ark seem sound, the conclusions he draws from these

would

are

observations

misleading.

To

accept

the more

widespread

though

less

authoritative and not original practice of placing TheMystic Ark after The a practice as the to Saint Victor, that was extrinsic primary ba Imean which sis for explaining the original nature of The Mystic Ark?by as conceived at the time of Hugh?can of at Saint Victor only further cloud the already murky waters of The Mystic Ark. How The Mystic Ark was seen after its is of interest, but in this case largely conception original a manuscript in the sense of explaining tradition that was forced to adapt

Moral

Ark,

not in any deeper way. The more of the reportatio, inadequacies evidence?the authoritative and the manuscript copies of Saint Victor in the time of Hugh, Indiculum?indicates The Mystic that, at Saint Victor to the

Ark was

The Moral Ark, and that in this form of as preceding Ark did not have a proper title, or preface, or section headings.

conceived

The Mystic

This indicates that TheMystic Ark was never originally thought of as an By the same token, The Moral Ark could not have originally "appendix." and in the time of Hugh) been conceived of as an "intro (at Saint Victor

duction" to TheMystic Ark, since itwas TheMystic Ark that preceded The in any event mentions Ark, which several times in the course of discussion.

Moral

the painting of The Mystic To describe The Moral Ark

Ark as an

to The Mystic Ark as Sicard has done is both to misunder as found in the original of the relationship stand the significance sequence as found in the later sequence. this relationship and to misrepresent introduction

Nor does TheMystic Ark offer in figurai form what TheMoral Ark pre of The Moral The Mystic Ark is not an illustration Ark, properly speaking, but rather The Moral Ark is the most original part to the painting of The Mystic Ark only of the Ark lectures, and corresponds sents

in verbal

as a subset

form;

of a much

importance greatest sis in The Moral Ark

broader

whole.

in The Mystic or are not

that are of the components an entirely different empha referred to at all: the central cubit,

Many Ark receive

even

the ascents

the and ladders, the quaternary harmony, so on. and the the Zodiac, Winds, angelic orders, Similarly, amount of time on subjects that are The Moral Ark spends an inordinate not a part of the text or painting of The Mystic Ark, such as an entire the Lamb

of God,

the Months,

chapter (out of a total of only four) on the Tree of Life?a Tree of Life that is strongly

related

to components

of The Mystic

Ark but

that

is quite

different from the Tree of Life as described in TheMystic Ark.192And at

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

least one major aspect is not discussed Grace,

of the Ark

lectures,

at all in The Moral

67

the subject of the Ark of Mother that The Ark.193 This insistence

Mystic Ark should not be thought of as a description of TheMoral Ark The Moral

because

ical fine point:

Ark

is a subset

of The Mystic

Ark

ismore

than a rhetor

were not caused by any con just mentioned as Sicard would have it, but are the result of the nature of

the differences

tinuing change, the relationship

of the two texts, as discussed

further

on.

to the idea that the text of The Mystic Ark acted as a substitute for an was to to too both that difficult and this preserve, produce image function of The is related to the very nature and original misconception As

actual

Mystic ture,

Ark. A complex issue this will be a continuing

in light of the state of the secondary litera in For of discussion this now, point study.

to say that The Mystic than a description Ark is more of an it is enough ac than the directions for creating an image. It is, more image, and more was a un to to that intended enable others curately, body of information in a relatively based on the same way, discussions independent as the Ark lectures and discussions at Saint Victor. led by Hugh

dertake, material

It did this by providing a basic understanding of the individual compo not of how it all interacted. Thus, even if some although have read The Mystic Ark rather than produce the image may and discuss it as part of a group, such a practice would have had absolutely

nents

of the Ark,

individuals

nothing to do with the original function of the text of TheMystic Ark. Once

that the purpose of the text of The Mystic Ark was to for the image of the Ark and necessary producing of its imagery so that others could conduct dis understanding

it is realized

the information

provide for a basic cussions Mystic

to those held by Hugh at Saint Victor, the relation of The to the treatise of The Moral Ark becomes much easier to under

similar Ark

as does

the original of texts at Saint Victor. The fact is, sequence an image, and as much The Moral Ark is perfectly understandable without as 40 percent of The Moral Ark appear alone, without of the manuscripts stand,

sequence being accompanied by the text of The Mystic Ark. In the original the of Saint Victor of texts as represented and the Indicu manuscripts by

lum, TheMystic Ark did not come before TheMoral Ark so that the reader could

form

unnecessary

a mental

of The Mystic Ark. Not only is such a thing picture be confusing, for The Moral Ark; it would since so much of

the imagery in TheMystic Ark has little or nothing to do with TheMoral Ark, while much of the discussion in TheMoral Ark is not directly related to the image of TheMystic Ark. TheMystic Ark originally came before The Moral

Ark because

it was

known

at Saint Victor?whether

was di Hugh in the manuscript

for the establishment of the sequence rectly responsible tradition or not?that The Moral Ark came out of The Mystic

Ark,

that The

CENTER POINT

68

Ark was

a subset

the purpose of the origi to the basis of the sequence present entire Ark lectures, the image of The Mystic Ark, in reportatio form, and saw as most then to offer what Hugh's audience the contemporary origi nal part of those lectures, The Moral Ark, as written himself. by Hugh

Moral

of texts

nal

of The Mystic at Saint Victor

Ark. Thus,

was

first

The original closing to TheMoral Ark (edificatam esse leteris) is tied in of texts. Its point was not to "introduce" the original the sequence more to It was, of The Mystic Ark, properly painting speaking. precisely, to others to undertake act as an encouragement discussions based upon

with

the image of theArk.When Hugh concludes by stating in fact, there is still more

And,

that Imight have said if Iwere not afraid let us now propose the exemplar of our Ark in order This we have painted externally

of wearying

you. Therefore, have promised. that you may learn from without itself, as we

he is not

exactly

an

"introducing"

what

...

to do within

you ought

Ark or even a writ

image of The Mystic

ten description of an image of TheMystic Ark. He is saying that TheMoral now encourages his audience is only part of a broader subject that he to enter into in its entirety: The Mystic that they must Ark, something The means of doing this, he states, is the paint undertake for themselves. Far from simply for this purpose. ing that he himself made specifically

Ark

ending

on a conventional

note,

The Moral

its readers

Ark prompts

to ini

tiate their own Ark discussions, having just had themost original part of the Ark

lectures

as an example

for these potentially and ing "by word

wide-ranging

example" of coll?gial spirituality, It is also a perfect illustration

basis

after Hugh had died, Master Hugh."195

of how

"If new

the painting discussions. This verbo

(docere as articulated of Peter things

act as the basis

is the model

of teach

et exemplo) that was the very so well by Caroline Bynum.194

of Celle's please

could

comment,

you,

look

made

not

into the writings

long of

But if TheMystic Ark is not an "illustration" of TheMoral Ark, and if The Moral

Ark

is not

an "introduction"

to The Mystic Ark, why do several of The Mystic that refer to the painting

appear in The Moral Ark passages reason for doing so?196 Although these passages Ark without any obvious come some confusion to terms scholars have caused among trying to with

the relationship for such planation

between

the two texts,

a seemingly odd conceit as Hugh. While the first and most

is a straightforward as aware from a writer

there

ex and

of these passages important disciplined a con of The Mystic Ark in its larger cosmic context, places the painting or less common text that Hugh is thereafter free to more their ignore, characteristic

is that they all take for granted

that the reader

fully under

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

69

to the painting. references unexplained reason to had expect that his They do this, quite simply, because Hugh and small but vibrant world of highly educated audience?the specialized canons know what the role of the and well-read monks?would already stands

the role of these otherwise

in The Moral Ark was. It was said of Hugh's painting of Torigny, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michele, by Robert

in general writings around thirteen

that itwas unnecessary years after his death, that they were so well known name even more to even have been the case with the them.197 This would Ark

texts

Ark

tells us more

in particular, around the time of their composition, especially But the fact of their polemical because aspect and unusual popularity. extant manuscript of known The Mystic that there are eighty-eight copies

script

copies

than

that it was text

of any medieval

extremely popular (sixty extant manu to be evidence is considered of an un

The great effort and expense of producing usually high popularity198). texts in the Middle had the attendant effect that copies of recent Ages were desired, writings were typically acquired only when they specifically their subject was already fairly well known. With most when texts, such an awareness of the subject matter have involved would knowledge only narrow sense. in the The unique of the writing characteristic of the text of The Mystic is that it is based on an image, or, more Ark, however, pre on a series of lectures that was based on an image. cisely, that it is based an awareness with it would of this Basic familiarity necessarily imply it has been said that Hugh was the most aspect. Furthermore, unique renowned

master

in Paris

after Abelard,

at Saint Victor

in town, his lectures

and

probably

that, when Abelard was not attracted more students than

those of any of the other masters.199 Given that Abelard had left Paris to become

abbot

preface

to The Moral

of Saint-Gildas Ark

around

1125 to 1127200?and

that the Ark

lectures

had

given that the created some

implies an unavoidable a seems of sensation?it conclusion that those con thing one most two most of of the teachers and the famous temporaries popular were of his day who copies of The Mystic theologian acquiring manuscript

Ark knew

that itwas

tio whose

a literary work to act as a vehicle

not

was

properly speaking, but a reporta for undertaking sim discussions

purpose ilar to Hugh's, based on the image of The Mystic Ark. Likewise, it seems that those acquiring copies of The Moral Ark early on equally knew that extant copies, this work?of which there are no less than 143 known it one of Hugh's in three most and comparable popular writings on to at the Bernard of time Clairvaux's Homilies the Canticle popularity a lecture out of a lecture series based on a painting, of Canticles201?came

making

series of which ace. This

itwas

apparent

the most

awareness

original part, as is clearly stated of the circumstances of the Ark

in its pref is lectures

CENTER POINT

70

why Hugh could refer in TheMoral Ark to a painting that he had not re that was not necessary ally explained, that he most certainly did not expect

to understand

The Moral

to know

his readers

first

Ark, from

and their

having painted it.And it iswhy, at least in the beginning, that TheMystic could be without and could proper title, preface, or section headings, still be placed before The Moral Ark without the expectation of confusion. It is unclear of and why the original arrangement exactly when, where, it seems to have been quite early. Itmay the Ark texts was altered, though

Ark

be that, once

to be disseminated the two writings began beyond of Saint influence of the less authoritative Victor, sphere

mediate

the im status

to Ark seemed aspect of the reportatio of The Mystic as to text to this the suggest popular phenomenally copyists secondary a Even The Moral Ark. the in so, so, sense, authoritative) (and general pur

and

less traditional

pose of TheMystic Ark continued to be understood, as indicated by the titles given to it by scribes. In any event, texts and the closing of The Moral Ark no longer of The Mystic Ark after The Moral Ark placement

the sequence of the Ark standard. The remained

various

and the use of a number

non timerem) (most notably fastidium appear at first closings to avoid the perceived to have been attempts awkwardness of the original esse leteris), which have given the ap certainly might closing (edificatam a some to to book of the conclusion pearance self-contradictory bringing of shorter

a painting as its basis that had already been mentioned or to his it the reader undertake her own (even though actually prompted and discussions). such an edit implies an effort at clar Although painting a certain distance more from the it also ification, indicates, significantly,

by

introducing

The Mystic Ark was this distance was one of

as found at Saint Victor, conception original and first flourished. Whether first envisioned

where

time or location

to say. Given of the is impossible the continued tradition at of Saint into Ark Victor the The Moral and sequence closing original were and closings it seems that the altered thirteenth sequence century, related to the use of outside copyists at first. But soon, it appears that many format was at hand, with no observable simply copied whatever and the various the fact that between sequence pattern closings. Although and closings shows that of sequence there are so many permutations scribes

there was

a fair amount

of dissatisfaction

with

the inadequacies

of the re

portatio of TheMystic Ark, the same basic relationship between TheMystic Ark

and The Moral

mained

Ark

in effect. And

and

the same basic

this function

was,

function

as before,

re of the reportatio to undertake through

of the broader of the reportatio discussion subject of The Mystic The Moral Ark was the more Ark, of which original part, in the coll?gial tradition of teaching by word and example (docere verbo et exemplo). the vehicle

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

71

2. WHETHER THEMYSTIC ARKWAS PAINTED AT SAINT VICTOR, THE QUESTION OF EKPHRASIS, AND WHETHER THEMYSTIC ARKWAS MEANT TO BE PAINTED BY OTHERS So far, the vast majority

of the confusion

caused

texts as dis

by the Ark

cussed here has been the result of problems inherent in the text of The Mystic ofthat

Ark. But

serious

equally

text: the painting

confusion

of The Mystic

has arisen

Ark. The

over

reason

the very subject for this is that the

painting described in the text is both so large and so detailed that some scholars

believe

it existed

only

that it never

at all, while others think that, if it did, or after the that it was rarely produced state, of the of Saint Victor, the text.202 great popularity despite existed

in a reduced

original painting At the same time,

that it must have been a thought some that itwas a illumination, manuscript wall-hanging large parchment and others still others that itwas a wall or floor painting, (like a wall map), of the readers of the text.203 that it existed as an image only in the minds some

have

authors

on the me every author who has written subject, let most it who has the is Sicard the about just say that, again, prob thought that addresses the variety of issues lem and who tries to offer a solution Without

detailing

As he sees it, The Mystic

Ark was painted by Hugh at Saint Victor, as the Ark lectures and discussions bit by bit, in front of his audience pro in He thinks that the word the of The passage planities opening gressed. involved.

Mystic painted surface

Ark

alludes

to the actual material

at Saint Victor

surface

this word

and?since

on which

often

refers

the Ark was to a horizontal

to the surface of a sheet of parchment?that and, on occasion, a a was not surface wall, but most likely large parchment wall-hanging

this or

a floor painting (though in a later study he describes it strictly as a floor He also feels, however, that this is an image that was written painting). more at Saint Victor than it was depicted, that after the original painting more as a "verbal image"?apparently it functioned because no examples of

it have

survived?and

that

the text of The Mystic

Ark was

originally

to be read as a literary work.204 It is not an easy thing to show, with

meant

a reasonable degree of certainty a set of an instructions written for anonymous general essentially in fact once existed at the time and place of writ that a painting audience, a set of instructions: it is a reportatio, ing. But The Mystic Ark is not just from

the worked-up record not confirms passages

of an eyewitness, and the phrasing of certain were made by direct observation, just that they

of its but

that the painting of TheMystic Ark did in fact exist at Saint Victor. These passages

are few

and

inadvertent,

but

they

are no

less convincing

for

72

CENTER POINT

so. To take an example, the specification that the "icons" of the being nor part of is neither and Apostles Patriarchs be half-images rhetorical no. a the content of the painting detail made 5, 6).205 It is simply (Fig. 5, reason other than that the cre for no apparent from direct observation

ator of TheMystic Ark had portrayed them thatway (although he himself and the reporter duly recorded this fact in his generally reasons) text. The reportatio dull and matter-of-fact o? The Mystic Ark shows a of of this but detail. In very specific type fairly strong pattern meaningless one place, the reporter writes that Spring be (and so the other Seasons)

had his

"from

painted

the hips

up"

(Fig. 9).206 In another,

he

specifies

that

the

be depicted "as if plunging headlong downward and as if jutting

Winds

from

forward

no. 8).207 A bit further on, he notes (Fig. 2, a double-horn, should be shown blowing with

the shoulders"

that

the principal Winds the subordinate Winds blowing

And

single horns.208

elsewhere,

that the Signs of the Zodiac be horizontal while theMonths

he states

be vertical

no. 6).209 As before, none of these details have any rhetorical qual (Fig. 2, But all indicate that the direct of observation reporter employed they ity. an as I have shown, he was not consistent in existing painting (though, was some not this as a working and of the method) aspect recounting a same In of the somewhat different the be vein, meaning image. might said

about

the personal

comment

discussed

above

regarding

the

"ex

of the east-west progres temporal-spatial arrangement" of direct observation it is an indication of an of the practice was even if that observation realized.210 painting, inconsistently in this reportatio, the general absence of a literary quality there can

traordinary sion?that extant Given

be no other

for such specific but otherwise meaningless ob explanation on the part of the reporter. Nor can the sentence "Because of Imyself have shortened its more suitable form in the painting, the length to around in any other way than as evidence four times" be understood servations

at Saint Victor.211 Ark was in fact painted was not at Saint Victor The Ark that of existed Mystic image as the lecture progressed, as Sicard maintains, bit by bit by Hugh

that The Mystic The painted

although it does seem that itwas painted by Hugh himself.212 Not only such a process have been far too time-consuming of the collationes short discussion periods during which

would

for the relatively the Ark lectures

to the have contributed such a thing would absolutely nothing content the painting of The of producing of the lectures.213 The process no way ametaphor or outline of "the practice of some ex in is Ark Mystic of the soul to its creator, which was the subject ercise" for the restoration were

held;

of the Ark

lectures

the internalization

and

texts.214 Such

of the material

a restoration

presented

could

only

in the painting,

come

from

the logic of

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

73

a sequential but not that given in the repor component, in taking up the crucial four ascents of the Ark (Fig. 5, tatio. For example, no. 7-10), so means of a the reportatio of The Mystic Ark does by of verbal presentation, that is based on the convenience rather sequence

which

does have

are the the sequences of spiritual ascent or descent, which through ones pertinent to their meaning and even their reason for being only Nor of Moral Ark support does the treatise The the idea of (cf. Fig. 8).215 than

the painting being made bit by bit during the lectures; it begins with the Majesty, although any production of TheMystic Ark must begin with the center

for simple

point

reasons?as

compositional

the reportatio

in fact

does. Additional examples from both Ark texts could be listed endlessly. of making the participants the complete pointlessness and then the painting observe the composition, the drawing, of the struc to mention ture and figures?not of the recording of the vast number

Aside

from

this,

have broken up the momentum of unquestionably a degree that they could not possibly have achieved of extant that Hugh says they had and that the large number a witness can as if Ark confirms. The Moral be used Finally,

inscriptions?would the lectures to such the success

manuscripts to this particular participants, painting was

a finished to the painting Hugh first presented that of the this "whole" stating point presenting clearly to aid the participants in understanding the "parts" of the

forthcoming

lectures.216

question,

Is it possible to deduce the medium in which The Mystic Ark was painted at Saint Victor? Sicard is not wrong in suggesting that itmight have uses his

on a depicted wall-hanging to reach this view is wrong. The been

can mean

opinion,

means

or a floor; but the he reasoning term planities, upon which he bases texts it most in medieval although

any surface, a level stretch of ground, and space in a church.217 As I have

commonly refers to an open also carries planities

a geometrical of the time and

sense

that was

in at least one

source

it

shown

above, however, common in extremely

in his Prac that Hugh uses frequently culture tica geometriae. When the text states, "First, I find the center point on the to depict Iwish surface (planitie) where the Ark ...," the tone is that of a the schoolmaster in geometry; the his way through working problem term planities here does not refer to the actual material surface on which the school

the original Ark was painted at Saint Victor

(Hugh uses the term faciem

a parchment surface elsewhere), but is simply a natural part of the technical vocabulary of the description of this geomet ric process.218 The painting of The Mystic Ark could have been painted in a number as a wall or floor at Saint Victor, of different media including

membranae

or even

to indicate

ceiling

painting,

as well

as a

wall-hanging.

74

CENTER POINT

A floor agogical it would without

or seems very however, given the ped ceiling painting, unlikely, nature of the Ark. As a floor painting, its composition is such that to conduct for Hugh have been impossible effective discussions the participants

on

standing

tant details of the Ark proper?not

the painting

itself to see the impor

something that is likely to have been

for the original that the Ark was planned image. Nor does it seem probable that would have forced the audience painted on a ceiling, an arrangement to bend their heads back for extended of time, something that periods to conversation, the regular periods hardly be conducive especially a are nature of the Ark discussions. of conversation that part of the at A parchment Saint Victor also seems wall-hanging improbable, reasons use. related to size rather than The text of The Mystic though for

would

Ark

no

the absolute size of the painting, regarding only for Ark relative the this, proper. proportions suggesting Beyond everything or else is left up to the person the image, whether medieval producing in combination modern. These proportions, with a likely mini however, gives

mum

instructions

size for the central

unit

of measurement

based

on

legibility of image and inscrip to produce the Ark?this tion, are all that are needed apparently being in I base my own produc For what had mind. the reporter example, just tion of the Ark on a central cubit that is one-half digit square, a minimal

medieval

cubit

that yields

an Ark proper

with

a

length

of

100 digits (190 cm.; 6 ft. 3 in.), just large enough to be comfortably legi ble as a pedagogical work of art.219 But my self-imposed rule of using his torical models for the various the Ark of than simply (rather components concern and that the my overriding drawing my own) general composi suitable for a wide variety of modern viewers have led me tion be visually to be far more

in regard to the overall size of the work than might have been the case at Saint Victor.220 Indeed, my studies have shown that Ark could have varied the size of The Mystic from produc significantly liberal

Even with a central cubit, Ark proper, and world tion to production. (all as same of the size of the components that carry small-scale that detail) in my arrangement, could from ap used range anywhere productions to size the the of Ebstorf somewhat Map proximately larger, depending on the treatment individual of the artist the of components remaining by for which, unlike the central cu and Majesty (components detail was not particularly and world, crucial). The Ebstorf Map

the air, ether,

bit, Ark, was the largest map to have survived into modern times (358 by 356 cm.; 11 ft. 9 in. by 11 ft. 8 in.).221 A wall-hanging this size could be prohibi For example, the cost of the late fourteenth-century tively expensive.

Evesham Map

(94 by 46 cm.; 3 ft. 1 in. by 1ft. 6 in.) has been estimated

as comparable

to the annual

earnings

of an agricultural

worker

or the

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

75

of a farm wagon and horse.222 A wall-hanging of The Mystic Ark the size of the Ebstorf Map (127,448 sq. cm.; 137.2 sq. ft.) approximately area times the of the Evesham would have around (4324 sq Map thirty cost

one would increase in sq. ft.), for which expect a commensurate was an important cost. Geography in medieval education of part higher The reg both its spiritual and its more narrowly applications. geographic cm.; 4.65

use of a world map as a standard part of the course of ed long-term at an institution ucation with an active school could have been seen by as the expense of even a large example. While the paint many justifying ular,

ing of TheMystic Ark is a work that brought much of this learning to it was not itself a standard part of any in a very effective manner, of learning. However the Ark was in the twelfth and suc popular

gether course

1120s,

from

a

highly

the great

that

unlikely

expense

of a

of the Ark could have been justified at Saint Victor in the

wall-hanging late

it seems

centuries,

ceeding

a time

growing

rapidly

financial

of both

insecurity

and

enormous

demands

library.

It thus seems probable that TheMystic Ark as it existed at Saint Victor took

a It is of a wall painting, medium. inexpensive relatively was to say where this wall painting located at the abbey. But of the inner school, the lectures were given only to the brethren

the form

impossible if the Ark

painting of the Ark was most main

cloister,

the church, given to nothing), whether

of

as seems

these

students

excluded, cated at some

been

other

something side the claustrum, scholars

the walls

of the parlor, lectures were also

If the building. school (about which we the location of the painting would allowed

into

the claustrum

they were excluded of The Mystic painting

in the monastery place include any suitable the church. including

have wondered

paint

on

claustral

traditional,

that might

should

also have

the outer

likely, were

the wall

then

others

other

students

or, as was more

Some

it could

though or some

to the

likely painted on one of the walls of the

The Mystic

whether Ark

accessible interior

If they were been lo

have

to both

or exterior

Hugh originally for themselves. Perhaps

next

on depend of Saint Victor

at this time. Ark would

know

groups, wall out

intended

that

the best place

to begin approaching this issue iswith the question of whether TheMystic to be read as a literary work, that is, whether it originally meant an individual own sake to meant its for be read originally primarily by of an image of The Mystic Ark. and without the production It has been suggested by Evans, for example, that the text of The Mystic

Ark was was

Ark is an extended work of "fictive painting." But TheMystic Ark is simply not

in the genre of ekphrasis, work of art.223 To begin with,

of an imaginary literary description to accept the evidence that The Mystic Ark the

CENTER POINT

76

is a reportatio

is to preclude the idea that to Baudri Homer from has,

it is ekphrasis. de Bourgueil,

aside

But,

from

a

this, ekphrasis literary quality is definition of its far that absent from The far, very genre, by something more a bare, most for is the found than part, nothing Mystic Ark, where, and at times even hurried De vanitate utilitarian, description. Hugh's

mundi is filled with instances of his ability to create verbal imagery that is same way colorful

in the

evocative,

extremely

that good

and

up captivating conjuring manor desert caravans, idyllic

life, wedding

ekphrasis images of pleasure feasts, and even

is evocative, craft

at sea,

the idealism

of learning.224Yet not a hint of this is found in TheMystic Ark. Indeed, such careless work in the first recension? the reason why Hugh tolerated so was and why made little effort toward clarity in the second?was that the text was

not meant

the oral discussions that would

thing why

its own

sake; what

mattered

were

of the Ark, some production the of the poor style by reportatio. This is of the standard of proper title, accompaniments

that followed

the visual

be unaffected

the text has none and section

preface,

to be read for

but

headings,

still remained

highly

popular.

Itwould

be a very insipid example of ekphrasis indeed that lifts passages from one

of Hugh's other works, and perhaps from Isidore?and common passages, literarily, at that. It is hardly ekphrasis typically very or that, to Hugh's mundane that makes references other writings entirely

Bede,

from

of the image, has a separate section for inscrip after giving a description not at all that announces at one point, after one tions. And it is ekphrasis and before another wholeheartedly mechani garbled passage hopelessly "In all of these, we will refrain nature of this work."225 the abbreviated

cal one,

from much

discussion

because

of

was

to be read as a lit The Mystic Ark originally primarily meant as a text primarily written for either erarily simpler form than ekphrasis, It is not a text that lends individual memorization and/or meditation.226 Nor

itself Mystic

in any way either Ark in the mind

to reading or to the creation of an image of The In one place, the of the reader with any facility. of entirely unrelated of miscellaneous elements

lists a number reporter The Mystic Ark as a group, or conceptual compositional

without

any

concern

whatsoever

for either

into the overall structure of The integration a very list of inscriptions is given that is Mystic long not the logic of the concept based on a logic of description, of The Mystic concern Ark. In another for the real-world of the pro still, practicalities Ark.

In another,

of the Ark take precedence portions to ignore such mundane realities something ally minor

that also contradicts reference

to the color

over

the unique ability of the mind in the creation of mental images? the claim of ekphrasis.227 Here, the textu segments

of the four ascents

contradicts

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

77

role in the seminar context.228 And there, prominent conceptually of creation the idea of the four different Arks nor the works and neither their

are ever explicitly their absolute central discussed, despite of The Mystic Ark?not for any rhetorical reasons, but ity to the concept an text sorts not a com because the is outline of of certain information, of restoration

as will soon be discussed. But perhaps the most obvi account, prehensive was ous argument to Ark against the idea that The Mystic primarily meant be read is that the unavoidable of internalizing information that sequence own characteriza to Hugh's the process of reading is contrary to tion of the Ark, that one should view the whole first before attempting to mention the fact that if the text were understand the parts229?not constitutes

meant

to be read, one would

it.While

expect

that Hugh

himself

would

have written

I agree with Mary Carruthers that TheMystic Ark could have

in some way, the evidence memory diagram in my have been only a secondary indicates function; was as its function described himself opinion, precisely primary by Hugh in The Moral Ark: group discussions. served

as an

"elementary" that this would

not for the for outside use?and The Mystic Ark was written Although as of the original lecture and discussion auditors group at Saint Victor, Sicard inexplicably the traditional believes, apparently misunderstanding for writing that is found in the preface to The Moral Ark230? justification to it is impossible the image of The Mystic Ark was actually say whether the text was laboriously made outside of Saint Victor. However, elsewhere, that show copied over and over again for a reason. The same passages not meant to be read that the reportatio o? The Mystic Ark was originally as a literary work serve equally to indicate that itwas originally primarily to aid others in undertaking It would intended their own painting. be re to go over all these points again, as itwould be to draw attention once more to the original of The Moral conclusion Ark that prompts own on enter to into their readers discussions based the painting. That no of a painting of The Mystic Ark survive from outside Saint Victor examples

dundant

in no way

bears

upon Hugh's

intent

in the matter.

But

the great popular

ity of the text of TheMystic Ark strongly suggests that itwas in factmade elsewhere,

and probably

often?this confirmed

is the only function of the much number of informal titles, by any

copied reportatio?something that refer to the action of painting the Ark; for example, given by copyists, the very precise title of one twelfth-century How It [the Ark] manuscript: to Be Painted.231 Ought As a pedagogical ticularly among later productions

par image intended for lecture and group discussions communities of canons and monks, it seems likely that in the same physical of The Mystic Ark were made setting

78

CENTER POINT

that Saint Victor's

was:

painting

the cloister

as the focus

of group discussions, art; it was in all likelihood

public

the not

or lecture

hall.

In either

case,

Ark was not image of The Mystic on to be dis permanent expected have been subject to the material

not necessarily play; art. It certainly in standards of large-scale could have been made public one would that the less medium of any medium, expect expensive though wall painting that was probably used at Saint Victor would be the most and

thus

it would

as well. At the same time, I suspect that there were likely choice elsewhere own Ark, which as a often sketchier versions than Hugh's he describes were were not work of versions that finished and that art, proper fully never intended a professional to be preserved. artist or someone fol Only in the tradition

lowing

of the monastic

artist,

as

Hugh

seems

himself

to

have, could have produced theArk at the level described by Hugh in The Moral have

Ark.232 And reproduced

canon

regular,

a professional the Ark without

monk,

lay artist constant

or member

of

the

could

not,

supervision as my

schools,

in all likelihood, by an educated own

at

efforts

producing theArk through the efforts of a skilled digital artist have made only too clear. Furthermore, more second recension?the would

have

been

elimination

further

the production of images on the basis of the distributed of the two recensions? widely

complicated

of the altered

ages would

have seems

had

proportions in common?the

to have

and

by that text's uncomprehending of the Ark/33 What all of these

im

at Saint Victor, which painting sort at of whatever institu images

existed, certainly seem likely?is a large-scale I say this for tions elsewhere, which format. to two reasons. First, the large size is absolutely the necessary incorporate of the Ark?something that a manuscript detail and inscriptions illumi one would

reading, could not do. its traditional function

to be part of any process of individual the large-scale format comes right out of Second, as a context was one of whose image pedagogical

communal

discussions,

whether

something

that is the subject

nation,

which

expect

by canons, monks, of the next section.

or advanced

students,

3. HOW THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARKWAS MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A SETOF INSTRUCTIONS I have shown that The Mystic Ark that the evidence allows, as a lit to not intended be read by an individual primarily originally to be produced and that it was meant of erary work, by others outside was a meant to be It is corollary of this that The Mystic Ark Saint Victor.

To

the degree

was

produced unusually

lecture and discussions. for group statement to make controversial

this may not be an an in itself, of understanding While

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

79

so is intimately bound up with the erroneous idea, assumed by set of "step-by that the text of The Mystic Ark is a detailed scholars, of the and the im instructions process drawing describing painting

this issue many

step" age of The Mystic This confusion

Ark.234 comes

about

in Ark being structured of step-by-step directions. This sem standard artistic procedure.

from

The Mystic

not the actuality, semblance, does not properly recognize In an actual step-by-step the person producing The Mystic Ark process, or she out the would first lay entirely. He general composition typically the

blance

would begin by finding (locating) the center point upon which the entire a that assumes something fairly exact sense of image is to be centered, no. 1). Then the how large the image will be when fully composed (Fig. 5, the general size of the Ark proper and so of central cubit, which determines the entire

image,

would

be

constructed

around

the center

point.

This

would be followed by the construction of the first stage (Fig. 4), which would

on the basis

be determined

of the cubit-module

of the central

cu

either inside or outside of the Ark this point, major components chose to do those inside, he or she could be laid out. If the person are dependent construct and third stages, which for the second

bit. At proper would

stage (Fig. 4). After the remaining of the Ark proper were laid out, the major compositional the earth would be drawn for its construction of (dependent

their construction ponents ponent the Ark),

followed

upon

the first

com com

upon of the qua

by the major

components compositional the earth), the air (dependent upon upon ternary harmony (dependent the quaternary and the ether the air) (Fig. 2, upon (dependent harmony), no. 9, be done for one could, in principle, Fig. 4). Although figure drawing of the next, common medieval before the construction component was to out structure of the entire composition the practice lay general com first. Thus, the next step would be the laying out of the final major the of the the and which of Ark, ponent composition Majesty seraphim, of the image (Fig. 2, no. 1, would finalize the overall size and composition be followed by figure drawing, properly 3). This would speaking, and var

major

ious detail work; painting

process. have been

might the individual

(e.g., the cross of the central cubit); and then the some the inscriptions would be added, though Finally, on the precise done earlier, depending of requirements

gilding

components.235 is not the process given in the reportatio of The Mystic The Mystic Ark simulates Ark. While the general order of a step-by-step method?center of stages, other components point, first stage, remaining the Ark, earth, air, ether, Majesty?a is not actually logical artistic process This,

followed.

however,

For example,

after finding

the center point,

the reporter

describes

CENTER POINT

80

of the central the component that immediately the production cubit, to be taken up in the center point. The first major surrounds component it as if its figure of the Lamb of God were the text, the reporter describes to be

immediately and painted.

drawn

and

as

if the

cubit were

to be

immediately He says this despite artistic practice that gilded of the general composition and the calls for the production first, despite structure fact that the rest of the entire compositional is to be constructed common

center

the cubit whose

around

continue point would and straightedge, work

for a great that would ruin the

to be used

with compass of the central cubit. Furthermore, while the reporter and painting gilding are important to the meaning mentions of symbolically only colors that as soon The Mystic Ark, the same semblance of painting each component as it is drawn to is continued the text; this, too, is contrary throughout deal

of work

artistic practice, contemporary one color at a time to the entire

in which image,

the artist would rather

than painting

normally apply each compo

nent

individually.236 Never intending

as actual should be understood reportatio an was not the reporter?who artist?instead artistic practice, clearly a to of provide component-by-component description simply attempts can. The Mystic Ark in the simplest and most This is complete way that he that

the

the original function of the text of The Mystic the key to understanding structure is an accompa this component-by-component Ark. For within of each component of interpretations; the basic meaning nying sequence dif is typically given (at least in the first two of the three unintentionally a but the relation of ferent sections discussed above), given component is not. For ex in regard to the larger image of The Mystic Ark normally ample, the discussion part unclear because

of the broader

significance

of the central

cubit

is in

on the spe certain of the interpretations dependent context of the cu of the cubit are given before the complete arises situation of the reporter's that because described?a

cific

imagery bit has been

to present structure at the and meaning an to provide actual step goal is neither a syn nor to set Ark instructions for The of Mystic give by-step producing an he is trying to do is to provide of the Ark. What thetic interpretation chosen same

of attempting time. Thus, the reporter's method

of the basic

outline own

independent relatively and without Saint Victor,

discussions certain

through amount of

occasional the original

trace of lectures

to enter into their for others necessary as had been done at lectures and discussions,

information

a structure at imposing for these this end, a the arrangement of the reportatio. Toward even the is in is the and there text, interpretation given of tone, perhaps vestiges passages with a sermon-like some of the reporter's personal notes, possibly by way any attempt

ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE TEXT OF THEMYSTIC ARK

81

this presentation is irregular and the by Hugh.237 But, ultimately, must and articulated be, to whatever degree, synthesized by the with intention the original person leading the discussions, undoubtedly revised

whole

that the participants should fully join in, both of these factors being add a dimension that would something of communal Ark. It is in this context the origin painting

to The Mystic of varied meaning discussions that Hugh describes and how he presents the role of the

of The Mystic Ark lectures, of the Ark within those lectures.238

Chapter

Four

CONCLUSIONS

a text traditionally to Hugh ascribed for his clarity and order, could be so itwas not actually written and disorderly: because unclear by Hugh him self but by an anonymous student very much reporter, although Hugh a Not remains its author, morally reportatio of speaking. finely polished see why The Mystic Ark, a scholar renowned of Saint Victor,

And

so we

em the reportatio process ofWestminster, by Laurence was lim flawed, with Hugh's participation ployed by the reporter being ited and irregular. The result was a very careless text, one that is at times the sort described

unclear,

confused,

himself,

displays lack of connection

and

inconsistent.

a weak

Its writer,

on occasion,

of the Bible,

exhibits

gets ahead of a fundamental

knowledge the basic logic of the structure of The Mystic Ark, sources and turns to outside and even incorrectly (sometimes unclearly a lack of full understand used), as well as to writings by Hugh, because of ing of his

with

subject.

of The Mystic Ark did not change in any significant conception course of the Ark lectures. The Moral Ark does not repre the way during sent the original state of the painting of The Mystic Ark, nor does the text Hugh's

of The Mystic Ark embody a later, more of The Mystic complete conception in The Moral Ark. The Moral Ark is a subset of the Ark than that found broader most

Ark

as the the part that was seen by contemporaries no a in view of those lectures or way presents complete of The Mystic Ark. Along these lines, the crucial com

lectures,

and original, even of the concept of the three periods ponents

and

the cosmos

were

present

in the original

painting. there was no change of conception between the first and sec Similarly, was made ond recensions of The Mystic and neither recension Ark, by seems that the more It authoritative first Hugh personally. inherently recension, reporter, was retained by the in-house by the student scripto rium of Saint Victor for its own use and for that of very closely related

84

CENTER POINT

individuals

and

at clarification

institutions.

The

of the careless

work

is a very poor attempt to have been and appears

recension

second

of the first,

an external commercial on the scribe because of other demands by seems to have often been used when internal scriptorium. This recension for copies of The Mystic Ark were made and institu requests by people tions other than those with unusually close ties to Saint Victor.

made

more

are made, the most arguments convincing specific we can the date of the painting of The Mystic Ark, the Ark lectures, The Moral Ark, and the first recension of the reportatio of The Mystic Ark is or that they all stem sometime from 1125 to early 1130, each appearing Until

be about

rea until more place in the order just given. Likewise, compelling as now it stands suggests that the second re soning is given, the evidence cension of The Mystic Ark was probably made sometime after Hugh's taking

death

in early 1141. the text nor

Neither

the painting is The Moral

of The Mystic Ark is an "illustration" to the text or Ark an "introduction"

Ark, nor of The painting Mystic Ark. The Mystic Ark was never originally as an "appendix" to The Moral Ark. Itwas not originally meant of The Moral

to be read

as ekphrasis or in a as a literary work, whether sim rhetorically If the text of The Mystic Ark was used as amemory aid, this was

primarily

pler way. only a secondary group

intended

discussions,

its primary function was to act as the basis for as in The Moral Ark. At least in the explicitly described

function:

it could be expected that those who asked very beginning, The Mystic Ark knew that it was a reportatio for producing The Mystic

Ark

A painting

and understood of The Mystic

Ark

its relation existed

to The Moral

at Saint Victor,

for copies the image

of of

Ark. as a wall

probably

painting and probably by Hugh himself. It was not painted bit by bit, as the lecture progressed. the audience, intended Hugh originally that The Mystic Ark be painted by others, outside of Saint Victor; his con cern in the writing of the Ark texts was not primarily with the original

before

auditors of the Ark lectures. Although

the great popularity of TheMystic

to confirm that it was made it is impossible such elsewhere, suggests was was a not im it Ark public art; thing, since The Mystic pedagogical not up to the material in all likelihood age. These assumed images were or art to those of the original painting of Saint Victor, standards of public

Ark a

which The

was

a proper work text of The Mystic

of art, according Ark is not meant

step" set of instructions ing of The Mystic Ark.

to Hugh.

the artistic

to act as an actual of creating

process describing Its purpose is to aid others in undertaking, way, a series of lectures and discussions

independent atively at Saint Victor those conducted

under

Hugh,

the focus

"step-by a paint in a rel similar

of which

to

is the

85

CONCLUSIONS

an outline pedagogical image of The Mystic Ark. It does this by presenting in a component-by-component of the imagery fashion, accompanied by not most for of the all) interpretations interpretations imagery, (though

that are typically limited to the specific imagery involved and unrelated to The Mystic whole

was

Ark

as a whole.

apparently

amount

A certain

to be generated

intended

of this interpretation by the participants,

of the some

thing that would add a potential constant of anywhere from slightly to moderately And

variant

readings

so, in coming

to the conceptual

to terms with

dynamic

the previous

of The Mystic

literature

Ark.

on the painting

and reportatio of TheMystic Ark, the "difficulty of these things" has hardly so we see itmust have been for poor Lucilius long ago. But are done away with, verbal contortions the unnecessary the ori gins of the image and text are really quite simple, as is their relation to the Ark lectures and the treatise of The Moral Ark. The result is a far better been

less than

that, once

of an amazingly understanding form one of the most important and of the striking pedagogical the spiritual

and

intellectual

popular image sources we have

and

text

for medieval

that a complex image controversies of the day. role

that,

together, art history, could play in

NOTES

the origin of Hugh, see Croydon (1939); Taylor (1957); Javelet Poirel Mietke 30-32; 1998b:192). On Hugh (1972); (1998:11-12, (1960); in Bonnard Saint Victor and (1904), Ch?tillon (1952:147-162), general,

1. On

(1991), Sicard (1991), and, with special reference to reform, Bautier On (1981). Hugh's reputation during the Middle Ages, see Richard of Saint Victor, Benjamin Maior 1:4, PL 196:67, cited in H?ring (1982:192). see Anonymus a as For Hugh second Augustine, Carthusiensis, De reli

Bautier

gionum origine 24, col. 55; and Veterum scriptorum testimonia, PL 175: on the influence of Augustine in the CLXVI. For a short bibliography works of Hugh, see Zinn (1975:62, n. 5). 2. Rudolph (1990:32-47), Poirel (2001).

Gasparri

(1996:xxxiii-xxxv,

xxxviii-xxxix;

2001),

3. This will be taken up more fully inmy forthcoming book on the Ark, but is described in large part in Rudolph (1999:21-29). 4. Sicard (1991:31; 1993:96-97, 99; 2001:10*; cf. 2001:29*-62*). 5. Seneca, Ep. 58:20, v. 1:157. 6. Rudolph (1990:32-47). 7. Sicard (1991, 1993). See also Smalley (1952:95-97), Baron (1957:182-185), Van den Eynde (1960:69-83), Squire (1962), del Basso (1965), Zinn (1968,

1971),Bronder (1972),Ehlers (1972),Ohly (1972),Zinn (1972,1974,1975), Obrist (1986), Lecoq (1989), Skubiszewski (1990:265-267) (my thanks for providing me with a copy of this article), 123, 231-239, 253), McGinn (1992:42-45, (1992:v.2:376-387), Zinn (1992), Evans (1994), Carruthers Poirel (1998: (1998:243-246), and Carruthers and Weiss 129-132), Sicard (2001), (2002). An English to Professor

Skubiszewski

Carruthers

Ark by Jessica Weiss follows Carruthers and own translation with extensive commentary will appear inmy forthcoming study of The Mystic Ark. Sicard does take up the question of whether The Moral Ark is a reportatio, translation

Weiss 8.

of The Mystic

(2002). My

that it is not one (Sicard 1993: seeing in it traces of orality, but concluding 21-26). 9. On the consistency of Hugh's thought, seeMcGinn (1992:v.2:374). I take the word "reporter" from the medieval 10. Hamesse (1988:83-87). term reportator; cf. Hamesse (1988:85). 11. Smalley (1952:201-202, 205). 12. Bischoff (1935), Weisweiler (1949:256-266), (1952:202), and Piazzoni (1982:862-865). 13.

Laurence,

Ep.,

pp.

912-913.

Croydon

(1950), Smalley

88

CENTER POINT

14. Hugh, Descriptio mappe mundi, prologue, p. 133; Gautier Dalch? (1988: 54-55). On the literary style of Hugh, see Baron (1963:91-120). 15. Baron (1955:15). 16. The practice of making compilations of one kind or another of Hugh's common seems to been have among his students. Hugh's Notulae teaching were

by his students from his lectures (Pollitt 1966:8-9). His seem to be a collection of extracts made by his students from

collected

Miscellanea his biblical

commentaries (Lottin 1958:279-281). lack of clarity is a constant in Sicard's discussion of the two recensions See also Wirth of The Mystic Ark (Sicard 1993:73-99). (1999:386). 18. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 123. "Que quadratura sexies tarn longa sit quam formam in pictura usque ad lata ... Ego tarnen propter competentiorem fere breuiaui" (Gen. 6:15). quadruplam longitudinem

17. This

19. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 123, "... et ita duas alias quadraturas longas ad latitudinem suam efficio."

sexies similiter

20. Hugh, Moral Ark I:IV, I:V, 11:1,pp. 20, 23-24, 26, 34;Mystic Ark IV, p. 139. 21. Hugh, Mystic Ark IX, XI, pp. 155, 157, and cf. X, p. 156. 22. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV-VI, pp. 140-151, esp. IV, pp. 145, 146-147. 23. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, p. 140. 24. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, pp. 157-158. Cf. Isidore, De natura rerum 11:3, p. 217, where the table begins with fire, and so one might expect the rota to have in fire at the top, as it does in Paris BN 5543:136 (Fig. 10). The potential Sicard fluence of a literary source has also been commented upon by as discussed below. 85), though with different conclusions, (1993:60-63, But in this immediate regard, Sicard suggests that Hugh was looking at reference to the schema from the Bede's De temporum ratione 35, making The text of The Mystic Ark, Patrolog?a Latina edition (PL 90:461-462). with than it iswith is less well Bede's coordinated however, presentation or the schema tradition for either Isidore Bede could Isidore's. Although well have served as amodel for the reporter, this is only because the pas the schema commonly found sage from Bede was originally unillustrated, introduced Isidore from this passage typically being by copy illustrating ists (cf. Edson 1998:66), something that is the case with the PL schema, whose inscription suggests such a transference. 25. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV-VI, pp. 140-151, esp. 146:187 (scalam for ascent), 146:188 (scala for ladder), 146:190 (scala for ladder), 146:191 (scala for ladder), 146:192 (scale for ascents), 146:193 (scala for ascent), 146:194 (ascension for ascent), 151:21 (ascensus for (scala for ladder), 148:235-236 from the is This ascent). separate reporter's earlier practice of calling the same elements "beams" (tigna) when they are conceived of as components of the naval architecture

of the Ark.

26. Hugh, Mystic Ark VI, p. 151. 27. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, p. 147. Cf. the school text of the Didascalicon 4:6, p. 76, where Hugh makes the distinction between the Evangelists and their

NOTES

89

symbols as amatter of course. On The Mystic Ark as being conceived for a school context, see the comments of Green (1943:485) on the Indiculum. 28. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 142-146; the omission is from the third ladder of the Cold of the East (p. 142). Because the first two ladders of the ascent of the Cold of the East have colored divisions of three, I have assumed that the third ladder would as well inmy production. Ark, passim, but for a few of many examples, see I, (Tree of Life, Book of Life); IV, pp. 140-141 (the names of the four corners of the Ark); VII, p. 152 (Ox, and characterizations of the harmony). Ass, Noah, Ham); XI, pp. 157-158 (components

29. Hugh, Mystic pp. 125-126

30. Hugh, Mystic 31. Hugh, Mystic 32. Hugh, Mystic

Ark XI, p. 159. Ark IX, p. 155. Ark II, pp. 131-132.

33. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, p. 146. The order is correctly given inMystic Ark IV, 5:2, 6:2-6:5, pp. 96, p. 142. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:IX, p. 113; Didascalicon 113-123; De scriptures 4, PL 175:12; De tribus maximis, p. 491; De sacra mentis p.

1, prol. 4, PL 176:184-185.

Bonaventure,

De reductione atrium 5,

321.

34. Hugh, Mystic Ark, passim; for the specific passage under discussion, (1992:234 n. 39) and Sicard Mystic Ark IV, p. 139. See also Carruthers n. n. 85,60, 102). (1993:52 35. Hugh, De

tribus maximis,

p. 490. On

this passage,

see Carruthers

(1992:233-234). 36. Hugh, Mystic Ark III, XI, pp. 132-138 (esp. 137-138), 157; cf. the "princi pal" passages on the mappa mundi, Mystic Ark XI, pp. 157, 161. 37. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 142-143, 146. 38. Hugh, Mystic Ark II, p. 129. Some medieval scribes corrected this mistake, as does the PL edition. turarum

nulli

secundus

"Magister Hugo in orbe

...,"

cited by Dickinson (1950:284-285). 39. Hugh, Mystic Ark I-IV (first section),

de Sancto Victore from

Paris,

BN

IV-X (second 157-162. 140-156, 121-140, section), pp. 40. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 121-124. 41. For example, Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 123-124. 42. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 123-125, esp. p. 123.

lat.

in scientia scrip 15009:77r-77v,

section), XI (third

For another view of this problem, see Sicard (1993:76). 44. Hugh, Mystic Ark II, pp. 131-132. Sicard cites Rabanus Maurus as the source for this in the critical edition, but Rabanus was himself following the presentation in Bede, of which the Ark passage is a reduced version; cf. passim, but esp. the description of the sixth age: "Sexta etas, que nunc 43.

agitur, nulla annorum serie certa, sed ut etas decrepita ipsa morte totius seculi consumenda. Has erumpnosas planasque laboribus mundi etates quicunque felici morte uicerunt, s?ptima iam sabbati perennis etate sus cepti, octauam b?ate resurrectionis etatem, in qua cum Domino perhenniter

90

CENTER POINT

regnabunt, expectant." Bede, De temporum ratione 66, p. 464, "Sexta, que nunc agitur aetas, nulla generationum serie certa, sed ut vel temporum aetas decrepita ipsa totius saeculi morte consummanda. Has erumnosas laboribus mundi

plenasque iam

sabbati

aetate

perennis

aetates quique suscepti,

octavam

felici morte beatae

vicerunt;

s?ptima ae

resurrectionis

in qua semper cum Domino r?gnent, exspectant." Bede follows De civitate Dei 22:30, pp. 865-866. The reporter uses diluuium, Augustine, as Augustine does, instead of Bede's Noe, as followed by Hugh inMiscel tatem,

lanea 1:82, PL 177:517. Cf. also, Bede, De temporibus 16, pp. 600-601. 45. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 125-126. 46. Hugh, Mystic Ark III, pp. 132-138; Sicard (1993:64). 47. Hugh, Mystic Ark III, p. 132 (lines 1-19, first passage), 132-137 (lines 20-131, second passage), 137-138 (lines 132-161, third passage). 48. Hugh, De sacramentis, as "written,"

49.

could

pref., PL 176:173-174.

also mean

Dictassem,

which

I translate

"dictated."

For other examples see Van den Eynde

of this practice with Hugh, which iswidely recognized, (1960:75). 50. See Hugh, Mystic Ark VIII, p. 153, for passages copied from Moral Ark 11:11?111,pp. 36-38. 51. Sicard (1993:64). of Clairvaux, Ep. 77, v.7:184-200. Hugh incorporates part of Bernard's letter into his De sacramentis; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep.

52. Bernard

77:11-15,

v.7:193-196, which

and Hugh, De sacramentis 1:10:6-7 (passim), PL deals with the question of salvation before the period

176:335-341, of grace, a subject directly related to Hugh's theme of the three periods of the history of salvation. On this subject, see esp. Feiss (1994) and, more and Luscombe (1969:186). broadly, Chenu (1968:172-173) 53. Hugh, Mystic Ark W-X, pp. 140-156. 54. Hugh, Moral Ark 11:11?111,pp. 36-38. on The Moral 55. Hugh, Mystic Ark VIII, p. 153. A second direct dependency cf. Hugh, Ark appears in the discussion of the lesser stages (mansiunculae); 20 and Moral Ark 1:1 V, p. intrinsecus), Mystic Ark IX, (integro permanente p. 154 (intrinsecus integro permanente). 56. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, pp. 157-162. 57. The closing, "May God be blessed through all eternity," is a common, stan dard closing?one, however, that is not characteristic of Hugh's writings, properly speaking, though this type of closing is found from time to time in attributed to Hugh, sermons whose actual authorship is still out. Cf. Van den Eynde (1960:33-34) worked and Schneyer (1964). being 58. Hugh, Moral Ark IX, pp. 111-113. Cf. Schneider (1933:90-101), Ehlers 22), and Sicard (1991:136). (1973:120-135), Lecoq (1989:19-20, the sermons

59. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 157. 60. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, pp. 158-159; below, pp. 73-74.

this is discussed

at greater

length

NOTES

91

61. Evans

(1994:76-77). 62. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 121. Cf. Hugh, Practica geometriae 7, 10, 15, 21, 22, 36, 37, pp. 22, 25, 30, 34, 35, 47, 48. 63. Macrobius, Commentarii 1:5:9, cf. 1:6:35, pp. 16, 24. Hugh, Practica 41, 45, 48, 57, 40, pp. 51, 53, 56, 60, 64. Vitruvius, De architec geometriae tura 1:6:12, v. 1:39. Hugh, Didascalicon 3:2, p. 50. 64. Macrobius, Commentarii 2:5:7-16, 2:7:9, pp. 111-112, 65. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, II, pp. 123-125, 127, 130.

118-119.

66. Macrobius

(Commentarii 2:5-2:6, pp. 110-117) discusses Virgil (Georgics 1, lines 233-239, p. xxvi [sic]). Cf. also the following, all widely read: Ovid, 1:46-51, v. 1:20-21; Pliny, Naturalis historiae 2:68, v. 1:192; Metamorphoses Capeila, De nuptiis 6:602, p. 211; Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 13:6 and De natura rerum 10, pp. 209-213 3:44, (no pagination), (where he misunderstands, though cites, Virgil); and Bede, De temporum ratione 34, pp. 386-387.

Martianus

67. On

the belt of the zodiac as a zona, as seen in Fig. 12, see Vitruvius,

architectura

9:1:3,

De

v.9:10.

De imagine mundi 1:39, PL 172:133, "Oceanus Augustodunensis, enim zonas dicitur, quasi ocior annis, vel quasi zonarum limbus. Quinqu? inmodum limbi ambit." Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 121, 123, 124. mundi 69. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 138-139. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark II:VI, p. 42. 68. Honorius

70. For two widely read biblical references, cf. Ex. 27:2 and Lev. 4:7. 71. Only Squire (1962:63 n. 3) and Evans (1994:79) think that The Moral Ark refers to an image other than that described in The Mystic Ark. All other scholars are agreed that the two writings of Squire's position, explicit discussions Sicard (1993:37). 72. Van den Eynde

(1960); for the discussion

refer to the same image. For (1972:322, n. 14) and

see Zinn

here, see esp. pp. 69-83,

132-137.

73. Van den Eynde 74. Van den Eynde

(1960:72).

(1960:80-83). 75. Van den Eynde (1960:80). 76. Sicard (1993:119-138). 77. Sicard 78.

See

For the discussion

above,

see pp. 24-26.

(1993:64-65).

above,

pp.

24-26.

79. Hugh, Moral Ark I:V, p. 23: "Trecentorum cubitorum longitudo presens seculum d?sign?t, quod tribus temporibus decurrit (id est tempore natu ralis legis, tempore scripte legis, tempore gratie)." 80. Hugh, Moral Ark I:V, pp. 24-26: "... sancta Ecclesia, que ab initio mundi cepit, in tempore gratie per immolationem Agni immaculati redemptionem Ecclesia, que ab initio seculi fuit, in fine seculi redempta est." accepit... exe in the context of Augustine's This passage ismore easily understood on a it the which Contra cf. Faustum Ark, presupposes; gesis knowledge of 12:18, pp. 346-347.

92 CENTER POINT

81. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 124-125. 82. This is a simplification; these elements will be taken up in greater detail my forthcoming study of the image of the Ark. 83. Hugh, Moral "prima

Ark IV:IX, p. 114 (horizontal); est natura,

mansio

secunda

IV:IX, p. 115 (vertical): est

mansio

in

lex

scripta,

tertia

mansio

est gratia"; cf.Mystic Ark IV, p. 139 (vertical): "in capite ascribo 'nature'; interiori autem superpono Tegis'; medie uero 'gratie'." 84. Hugh sees observance of the written law as beginning with Abraham, not 1:12:1-3, PL 176:347-351. 85. Hugh, Moral Ark II:XV, p. 53 (Paradise); IV:IV, IV:IX, pp. 95, 112 (journey of the Chosen People); II:VII, p. 44 (Twelve Tribes); IV:IX, pp. 111-112 (east-west progression). 86. Sicard (1991:29-30; 1993:57-67; 2001:9*). Moses;

De sacramentis

87. Sicard (1991:29-30; 1993:62, 67). 88. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:I, IV:VII, pp. 87, 102;Mystic Ark XI, p. 160; De tribus diebus 4, p. 60; De sacramentis 1:1:24, PL 176:202. On this term asmeaning the

structure

of

89. Hugh, Moral 90. Hugh, Moral 91. Hugh, Moral 92. Hugh, Moral

the

see below,

cosmos,

p.

94,

n.

98.

Ark 11:1,p. 34. Ark 1:11,1:V, pp. 17, 23-32. Ark ILVI-VII, p. 42.

Ark IV:II, pp. 90-91. 93. Hugh,Mora/ArHV:IX,pp. 112-113. 94. Hugh, Moral ArkW:lX, pp. 115-116. 95. Sicard (1993:60-62, 67, 85). For the discussion above, see pp. 16-18. 96. Hugh, Moral Ark II:II?III, pp. 36-38; cf.Mystic Ark VIII, p. 153. Discussed above,

pp.

26-27.

97. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:V, p. 101 (six days); I:V, II:III, pp. 29-30, 37-38 (four elements). On the relation of the six days and the four elements, cf. Hugh, Adnotationes in Pentateuchon 4-6, PL 175:33-35; Dialogus, PL 176:17, 20; (as in p. 491 (the preface to the Chronicon); Chronicon 1 BnF De lat. Green sacramentis 1943, plate A); 15009:3v, Paris, prol. 2, 187-192, 202-203, 204. 1:1:1-6, 1:1:24-25, 1:1:29, PL 176:183-184, 98. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:IX, p. 116: "Ibi quoddam uniuersitatis corpus effingi De

tur,

tribus maximis,

et concordia

explicatur."

singulorum

On

uniuersitatis

corpus

as mean

Timaeus ing the structure of the cosmos, cf. Plato (trans. Chalcidius), 32A, p. 24 (corpus universae). On concordia singulorum, note the similarity of language in Ambrose, Hexameron 3:18, pp. 71-72; and Isidore of Seville, De

natura

rerum

11:2-3,

pp.

215-217.

99. Hugh, Mystic ArkXl, p. 160 (machina uniuersitatis); XI, pp. 157-158. book, I discuss why I believe the four elements were my forthcoming

In a

structure of the cosmos is part of the quaternary harmony. Byrhtferth's to of identical that The Mystic Ark, except for its nonstandard virtually seasons and elements (for an excellent color illustra arrangement of the tion, see Gage (1993:ill.54)). 100. Cf. Sicard (1991:29-30; 1993:62-63).

NOTES

101.

93

Sicard

(1993:62). 102. Hugh, Moral Ark l:lll, pp. 10-12 ("Plena est omnis terra maiestate eius"); 160 161 Isaiah 6:3 ArkXl, ("Maiestatis"). ("Maiestas"), p. ("plena Mystic est omnis terra gloria eius"). 103. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:111,pp. 14-16. For a discussion of the traditional exe gesis on the passage from Isaiah, see Zinn (1992). 104. On the Lord embracing the world or cosmos, see Esmeijer (1978:97-100). On the iconography of Noah's Ark and related imagery, see Allen (1949), Rahner

Cohn (1996), and Besseyre (1998) (which, how (1964:504-547), and ever, I have been unable to obtain). See also Dani?lou (1964:58-70)

Boblitz(1972). 105. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 157: "Hec ad constructionem arche his, qui plura tarnen facer? aut non ualent aut nolunt, sufficere possunt. Adiecimus quedam

que

breuiter

commemorabimus."

106. Rudolph 107. Rudolph

(1999, esp. pp. 21-29). This is taken up further inmy forthcoming (1999:23-29). study. 108. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:1,p. 3: "In qua collatione, quia quedam specialiter stilo commendare uolui, non tan placuisse fratribus scio, ea potissimum tum ideo quod ea digna scribi existimem, quam iccirco quod quibusdam prius inaudita et ob hoc quodammodo magis grata esse cognoui." 109. Hugh,Mora/AritI:III,p. 17. 110. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:111,11:1, IILXVII, IV:I, pp. 17, 33, 85, 88. 111. Hugh, Moral Ark LIII-V, pp. 10-32. 112. Hugh, Moral Ark I:III, p. 10: "Et quia hec archa Ecclesiam significat, Ecclesia autem corpus Christi est, ut euidentius exemplar tibi fiat, totam in. forma uisibili depinxi, personam Christi (id est caput cum membris) ut cum totum [refers to the neuter exemplar, not to the feminine persona] uideris que deinde de parte dicuntur facilius intelligere possis." 113. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 162: "... hoc interim exemplari affectum suum prouocet."

114. Poirel 115. 116.

also questions the trustworthiness (1998:15-16; 2002:132-135) the method of van den Eynde. Sicard (1991:30; 1993:76-99; 2001:148*-149*, 192*-195*). Sicard (1993:91-99, 126-131, 133-138; 2001:9*-10*, 251*).

of

117. Hugh, De sacramentis, pref., PL 176:173-174. 118. Hugh, Mystic Ark II,X, pp. 130-131, 156. Sicard (1993:86-88, 2001:10*). 119. There is no full edition of the Chronicon at this time; for partial editions, see Hugh, De

Chronicon

(ed. (ed. Baron); Chronicon Chronicon (ed. Pertz); and Chronicon (ed.Waitz). For further Mortensen); discussion of the Chronicon, see Baron (1967) and Zinn (1977). 120. Sicard (1993:65). tribus maximis;

121. Hugh, Mystic Ark X, p. 156. 122. See above, pp. 12-14. 123. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 123. 124.

Sicard

(1993:76).

94

CENTER POINT

125.

Sicard (1993:77-80, 2001:9*-10*). 126. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, pp. 157, 160. 127. Sicard (1993:77-80, 265-266). 128.

Sicard

(1993:77; cf. also pp. 77-80,

129.

Sicard

(1993:79-80).

126-127).

130. Augustine, Ep. 164:7-8, 187:6, v.2:526-528, v.3:85-86. Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 5, 33-34, pp. 237-239, 428-432. See also Delumeau 1995:29-38 and, more broadly, Baschet 2000. The basic scriptural source for the limbus Patrum

is Luke

16:19-31;

on which

see Bernstein

(1993:73-74). 131. As mentioned

above, p. 25, Hugh's original letter on the subject is lost. Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 77, v.7:184-200; esp. 77:11-15, pp. 192-196. Cf. PL De sacramentis in part, quotes 1:10:6, 176:336-337, which, Hugh, non et and cf. Sic 106:2, 106:5, p. 342. Bernard, Ep. 77:11-15; Abelard,

structure is discussed in greater detail inmy forthcoming study. 133. Hugh, De sacramentis 2:17, PL 176:597-610. 134. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 157: "Conus alter, qui prominet ad occidentem, resurrectionis habet uniuersalis iudicium: in dextera electos, in sinistra In cuius coni reprobos. ?ngulo aquilonari est infernus, ubi dampnandi 132. This

cum apostatibus spiritibus detrudentur." 135. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 146-147. See Hugh, De sacramentis 1:8:1, PL 176:305, where, following Augustine, he notes that the first guilt of humanity was pride, and that concupiscence ments for this.

and ignorance

are punish

136. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 160. Cf. Sicard (1993:80). 137. Hugh, De sacramentis 2:17:7-8, PL 176:599-600. 138. Hugh, Mystic Ark IX, p. 160. 139. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:111,pp. 10-11. On Hugh's (1992). 140. Sicard (1993:80-81). 141. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 161. 142. Is. 66:1; cf. Jerome, In Esaiam 143. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 161.

reference

to Isaiah, see Zinn

3:1, p. 84.

144.

See above, pp. 24-26. Sicard (1993:81-84). 146. Color terminology is notoriously 145.

difficult, but the Latin word ispurpureus, on its root; and Sicard's French rendering is from rubeus, not pourpre, which derives from pur

not ruber or some variation rouge, which

derives

pura. Also, see plates 7 and 8 in Sicard (1993), where two different shades of pink are used to indicate the planks and the stage or stages, contrary to figura IV in Sicard to the text of The Mystic Ark; plate 8 is comparable now one in the is there latter shade of pink. (2001), though only Elsewhere, Sicard (200 lb: 129) claims that the colors of the Ark are the same as those that Augustine gives for the buildings (?difices) of the City

NOTES

95

de in De civitate Dei 22:24, p. 851. This is not the case. Augustine scribes the colors of the sea (maris), not the buildings of the City of God, as changing from green to purple to blue ("... aliquando viride atque hoc

of God

multis modis, aliquando purpureum, aliquando caeruleum est"). The are and colors of the Ark green, yellow, purple ("uiridis, croceus, pur 137. Ark III, p. pureus"); Hugh, Mystic 147. Hugh, Mystic purpureum

Ark III, p. 137, "Sed ubi homines

gratie interius ponuntur,

oportet...."

148. Hugh, Mystic Ark III (second recension), p. 137: "Archa enim purpureo colore uestita est et terre superficies uiridi colore obducta." Sicard (1993:83-84), citing Hugh, Dialogus, PL 176:32. 150. Hugh, Mystic Ark II, III, pp. 127-128, 132-138 (esp. pp. 132, 137-138). 151. Hugh, Mystic Ark III, p. 137: "Archa enim, que in superficie intrinsecus uariis coloribus uestita est, in ea secundum diuersitatem mansionum 149.

tarnen parte, ubi homines naturalis legis interius collocantur, uiridi col ore obduci non d?bet, ?eque croceo ubi homines scripte legis intrinsecus sunt. Sed ubi homines gratie interius ponuntur, purpureum oportet ut quatenus hie solum similitudo utrunque respondeat in naturalis legis superficies terre per hominibus terius, quemadmodum

habeat

colorem,

colorem

uiridem

similis

non

extrinsecus."

concordat

Ark III, p. 137: "... qui in compositione

152. Hugh, Mystic

arche est, sed arche

est..."

153. Cf. Hugh, De sacramentis 1:10:6, 1:10:8, PL 176:339, 341, among other places, where Hugh strongly makes the point that there were saved in all periods. 154. Hugh, De tribus maximis, p. 490. On Hugh and color, see Carruthers (1992:233-234). 155. Hugh, Mystic Ark III (second recension), p. 137, quoted above, p. 53. 156. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:IX, p. 117. 157.

See

above,

pp.

40-45.

158. Necrologium S. Victoris Sicard 1993:85.

(February

11), p. 541.

159.

160. Hugh, Mystic Ark XI, p. 159. 161. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:IX, p. 117, where Hugh that could have been said.

states that there ismore

162. See above, pp. 36-37. 163. Sicard (1993:132-133).

In a later study (2001b:130), Sicard gets even more that The Moral Ark was made first, with The Mystic Ark specific, stating later. following eighteen months 164. Hugh, Mystic Ark II, p. 131. the dating of Bernard's letter, see the note regarding this subject in the critical edition, Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 77, v.7:184; and Luscombe 1969:26 n. 6.

165. On

166. Hugh, Moral

Ark 1:1,p. 3.

96 CENTER POINT

167.

Sicard (1993:133-137). 168. Hugh, Mystic Ark X, p. 156. This papal regnancy list of the second

suggestion is not contradicted by the recension, which is truncated after the second pope; Mystic Ark II, p. 130. On the death of Hugh, see Croydon (1939:248), who makes a convincing argument for the year being 1141

and not

1142 (cf. Squire 1962:13). are Paris, 169. Sicard (1993:97-99; 2001:79*, 81*, 152*). The manuscripts 717 (Sicard 2001:43*) and Paris, BnF lat. 14506 (Sicard Bib. Mazarine 170.

2001:45*-46*). Sicard (1993:97-98;

171.

Sicard

2001:79*,

81*).

(2001:192*).

172.

Sicard (1993:96-97). 173. Liber ordinis S. Victoris

19, p. 79: "Omnes scripturae, quae in ecclesia siue intus siue foris fiunt, ad eius officium pertinent, ut ipse scriptoribus pargamena et cetera, quae ad scribendum necessaria sunt, prouideat, et eos qui pro precio scribunt, ipse conducat." On the armarius at Saint Victor, see Jocqu? (1991:74-79). 174. Stirnemann (1990, esp. pp. 60, 72), Gasparri (1991), Jocqu? (1991:74-79), Stirnemann (1991), Kaufmann (1997) (my thanks to Virginia of this article), Rouse (2000:v. 1:26-27). 175. Liber ordinis S. Victoris 19, pp. 79-81. 176. Gasparri (1991). 177. Stirnemann (1990, esp. pp. 60, 72), Gasparri Kaufmann (1997). 178.

for a copy

(1991), Stirnemann

(1991),

(1970) and esp. Southern (1982:113). For the view of Hugh the community of Saint Victor, see the liturgical commemoration S. Victoris (Febru of him on the anniversary of his death inNecrologium more a unusual for less but formal ary 11), p. 541; testimony, see the Southern

within

Indiculum, briefly discussed below; on the Indiculum, see de Ghellinck (1910) and Bischoff (1935). Outside the abbey, the sources are too nu merous to cite; but Robert of Torigny might be thought of as being repre sentative, noting that Hugh's writings are too widely known have to bother citing them; De Immutatione 5, PL 202:1313. 179. Oxford,

Bodleian

Library, Laud. Misc.

to have to

370 (Sicard 2001:41*);

cited by

Squire (1962:19). 180. Troyes, Bib. mun. 301 (Sicard 2001:48*). 181. Indiculum, pp. 278-279: "Et sunt capitula ." Cf. de Ghellinck (1910:276). On the headings in The Mystic Ark, see Sicard (2001:258*-269*). 182. On the absence of a title to the The Mystic Ark, see Sicard (2001:255*-258*). 183. Gasparri (1991:127-128). 184. Of eighty-eight complete,

of The Mystic

185.

of the previous

extant manuscripts three stand alone; Sicard (2001:61*-62*). Sicard (1993:105-112), including a discussion on this. See also Goy

(1976:212-237).

Ark, only literature

NOTES

97

186. Hugh, Moral Ark IV:IX, p. 117: "Breuiter dicturus eram, sed fateor uobis multa me loqui delectat. Et erat adhuc fortassis quod dicerem, si uestrum fastidium non timerem. Nunc igitur ipsius arche nostre exemplar pro ut foris discas sicut promisimus, ponamus, quod exterius depingimus, intus agere debeas, ut cum huius exemplaris formam in corde tuo expresseris domum Dei in te edificatam, esse leteris." 187. Paris, BnF lat. 14506 (Sicard 2001:45*-46*); 717 Paris, Bib. Mazarine quid

(Sicard 2001:43*); Sicard (1993:50-51). 188. Indiculum, pp. 278-279. 189. This is fully analyzed by Sicard (1993:102-112). 190. Sicard

1993:35, 37, 39, 45, 49-52, 55-59, 64, 101-104, 106, 112; 255*-258*, 271*-277*; 2001b:127, 130). This is apparently the as and taken Carruthers Weiss, position by suggested by the beginning The of the translation of Mystic Ark by Weiss; cf. Carruthers and Weiss (1991:29;

2001:27*,

(2002:45). 56, 58). The idea that The Mystic Ark is a 37,40-41, of the discussion found in The Moral Ark is followed by representation Carruthers and Weiss (2002:41). 192. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark III, pp. 55-85 and Mystic Ark I, pp. 125-126. 191.

Sicard

(1993:35,

193. Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark I:III, I:V, pp. 17, 31-32. 194. Bynum (1982:25-58, esp. 36-40). 195. Peter of Celle, Ep. 167, PL 202:610. 196. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:111, I.TV, ILVIII, IV.TX, pp. 10, 15, 23, 46, 117. 197. Robert of Torigny, De Immutatione 5, PL 202:1313. 198. Guen?e (1980:255); cited by Sicard (1993:96, n. 56). 199. Ferruolo

(1985:22).

200.

Clanchy (1997:69). Sicard (1993:96, n. 56). 202. Never existed at all: Carruthers 201.

(1992:231-233, 239); Evans (1994), passim, but esp. p. 74; Carruthers Carruthers and Weiss (1998:243-246); (2002: a n. in state: Existed reduced Ehlers 41-42). 43). Rarely (1972:183, only Sicard

(1993:40-41).

or may not have existed: Zinn

(1968: (1986:36). Lecoq (1989:10), Skubiszewski (1990), Wirth (1999:392). Made, but no longer exists: Ohly (1972:100), Zinn (1972:320), Zinn (1992). produced: 136-137),

May

Obrist

203. Manuscript illumination: Ehlers (1972:183, n. 43)

Oudin

(1772:1111), Haur?au (1886:91), a (in reduced state), Friedman (1985:174) 1990:267, n. 11 (who sees this as one possibil (probable), Skubiszewski and cf. Evans (1994:75. n. 14), where he (quite rightly) chastises me ity), and others for thinking of the Ark as amanuscript illumination (cf. my

earlier work, Rudolph 1990:36, n. 24). Manuscript illumination, wall or if it ever existed: Lecoq (1989:10, 21). Wall or floor floor painting, (1988:17). Wall painting or wall-hanging: painting: Gautier Dalch? Zinn

(1992:99,

n. 2). Wall-hanging:

Ohly

(1972:100), Wirth

(1999:386)

98 CENTER POINT

or floor painting: Sicard (1993:46, n. 72, (if it ever existed). Wall-hanging 55). Floor painting: Kupfer (1994:269) (my thanks to Dr. Kupfer for me a of this with article), Sicard (2001b:127). Lost draw copy providing McGinn Existed, but format not discussed: Zinn (1992:v.2:378). ing: (1978:108, (1972:188, 208), Zinn (1972), Esmeijer (1968:137), Bronder n. 51), Sicard (1991:29). Existed only mentally: Carruthers (1992:231-233, and Weiss Carruthers (1998:243-246), 239), Evans (1994), Carruthers sees n. cf. also Skubiszewski this as (1990:267, 11) (who (2002:41-42); 204.

one possibility). Painted in front of audience:

Sicard

1993, passim, but esp. floor painting: Sicard wall-hanging,

(1991:29;

40-50; 2001:8*). Planities, (1993:46, n. 72, 55). Floor painting: (2001b:127). Verbal image: Sicard (1991:29; 1993,passim, but esp. pp. 40-42, 50-51, 54-59, 63, n. Ill;

pp. 34-35,

2001b:129). 205. Hugh, Mystic 206. Hugh, Mystic 207. Hugh, Mystic 208. Hugh, Mystic 209. Hugh, Mystic 210. Hugh, Mystic

Ark II, p. 129. Ark XI, p. 158. Ark XI, p. 158. Ark XI, p. 159.

Ark XI, p. 159. Ark XI, p. 157. Discussed above, pp. 27-28. n. 196 above, which cites largely nonrhetorical references in Moral Ark. The of The Mystic Ark

See also p. 99, to the painting

211. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 123. 212. That Hugh painted the Ark is clear from such repeated statements in The Moral Ark as, "I have depicted" (depinxi), "We ourselves have depicted ... nos "To better show what we this form" (hancformam depinximus), have

said,

we

(ut meliuspateant

have

depicted que

... We

dicimus...

have

also

put

depinximus...

on

the

same

in eodem

side

..."

latere...

);Moral Ark I:III, I:IV, ILVIII, pp. 10, 23, 46. This posuimus. be taken up further inmy forthcoming study of the Ark.

dis

subject will

On the question of what time in the canons' daily schedule the Ark lectures took place, see Sicard (1991:28; 1993:14-20). 214. Hugh, Moral Ark, passim, but most succinctly stated at the outset (Moral Ark 1:1, p. 3).

213.

215.

Convenience: Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 140-146, 146. Descent: Mystic Ark IV, pp. 146-147. Ascent: Mystic Ark IV, V-VI, pp. 140-141, 147, 148-150, 151.

216. Hugh, Moral Ark I:III, p. 10. Discussed above, pp. 45-46. 217. Lehmann-Brockhaus 1955:v.5:321, "planities," esp. no. 805. 218. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, p. 121. Discussed above, pp. 29-30. Faciem mem branae: Hugh, De tribus maximis, refer to any flat surface except...

p. 490. For the view that planities "can the support for a painting," see Evans

(1994:76). 219.

For the use of the digit as a unit of measurement with the Ark, seeMoral Ark I:IV, pp. 21-22.

by Hugh

in association

NOTES

99

220. My own production of the Ark is around 555.5 cm. (18 ft. 2 in.) high: around the height of the contemporary windows of Suger at Saint-Denis, Iwill discuss the issue which were meant for individual contemplation. of size more

book. fully inmy forthcoming For size estimates by other scholars, see Ehlers (1972:183, n. 43), who estimates the Ark proper only, using a central cubit of 1 cm. This yields an Ark proper of 2 m in length, something he feels would have been too small for the inscriptions. While this might be true for awork of public art, it is case a not the for pedagogical work of art designed for a seminar context. Sicard (1993:55, n. 92) believes that the "Ark" would have been around in height by 1.5m in width, though he does not specify whether he is referring to the Ark proper or to the entire painting of the Ark.

2m

221. Destroyed 1943. Hahn-Woernle 222. Barber (1995:21).

(1993).

(1994). Bronder (1972:188, n. 2) rejects the idea of ekphrasis, such a rejection being implied by Lecoq (1989:10). 224. Hugh, De vanitate 1, pp. 29-36. For a recent study of ekphrasis, to which The Mystic Ark bears no relation but these passages from De vanitate do, see Putnam (1998, passim, but esp. pp. 2-3) for a discussion of the nature

223.

225.

Evans

of ekphrasis. Lifted passages: Bede, De temporum ratione 66, p. 464; Hugh, Moral Ark II:II?III, pp. 36-38; and possibly Isidore, De natura rerum 11, pp. 213-217; cf. Hugh, Mystic Ark II, VIII, XI, pp. 131-132, 153, 157-158. Mundane references to Hugh's other works: Mystic Ark IV, p. 143 (De tribus diebus); VIII, p. 153 (Moral Ark); X, p. 156 (a projected work on the stopping places). Separate section for inscriptions: Mystic Ark IV, pp. 139-140. nature: Mystic Ark XI, p. 158. Abbreviated

226. As a literarily simpler form than ekphrasis: Sicard (1991:29; 1993, passim, but esp. pp. 40-42, 50-51, 54-59, 63 n. Ill; 2001b:129). Skubiszewski n. a one that is mental 11) suggests (1990:267, picture option of the text. Cf. also Zinn

Carruthers (1992:123, 231-239, (1968:137). Memorization: and Carruthers andWeiss (2002:41). On the esp. 233, 234; 1998:243-246) see also Zinn (1974b:229), Lecoq (1989:19), Sicard Ark and memory, 60, n. 102) (where he disagrees with Carruthers that the Ark (1993:27-28, is "purely mental"), Evans (1994:75) (who criticizes Carruthers' thesis that the Ark is based on Ciceronian (2001b:128), 227. Miscellaneous

mnemonic

technique),

Sicard

and cf. Ehlers

(1972:184). elements: Hugh, Mystic Ark VII, pp. 151-152. Inscriptions: Mystic Ark IV, pp. 139-146. Proportions: Mystic Ark I, p. 123. 228. Hugh, Mystic Ark IV, pp. 141-146, passim. 229. Hugh,Mora/ArH:III,p. 10. 230.

Sicard

231.

Quomodopingi see also Sicard

(1993:23,

informal

titles.

54, 96). Cf. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:1,p. 3. debeat, Bruxelles, Bib. roy. 4399-4402 (Sicard 2001:30*); a for of other, similar (2001:256*) partial listing only

100 CENTER POINT

Ark I:III, p. 10, where

232.

See Hugh, Moral

233.

proper work of art. See above, pp. 12-14.

234.

235.

he describes

The Mystic

Ark as a

the text of The Mystic Ark as a "step-by-step" set of instructions: Describing Ehlers (1972:171), Zinn (1972:321), Obrist (1986:36), Sicard (1991:157, n. 219), Sicard (1993:53, n. 86, 55, 57, 58, 66), Evans (1994:74) (although he believes the painting never existed), Kupfer (1994:269), Sicard (2001b: 127). The same basic procedure described in Alexander for man (1992:40-42) to wall would have been the illumination applied uscript painting of The nature of the painting, it seems unlikely Mystic Ark. Given the pedagogical that a fresco technique would have been used. (1999:393) notes that the incorrect artistic (1992:40-41). Wirth text in the of The Mystic Ark suggests that it is not practice described craftsman. described by a professional

236. Alexander

Cf. Hugh, Mystic Ark I, pp. 122-123 (central cubit), 238. Hugh, Moral Ark 1:1,1:III, pp. 3, 10.

237.

126 (central pillar).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES When

dual

reference

numeration exist for primary sources, systems of traditional to the more two. is made All of the biblical references precise

are to the Vulgate. Abelard, Sic et non: ed. Blanche Boyer and Richard McKeon, Sic etNon: A Critical Edition (Chicago 1976-1977). Ambrose, Hexameron: ed. Karl Schenkl, et al., Exameron, CSEL 32:1 (Vienna 1897 f.) 1-261.

Carthusiensis,

Anonymus scriptorum

De

religionum

et monumentorum

origine: ed. Edmond Mart?ne,

ecclesiasticorum

tion v. (Paris 1724-1733) Augustine, Contra Faustum:

et

dogmaticorum

amplissima

Veterum collec

v.6:ll-94.

ed. Joseph Zycha, Contra Faustum libriXXXIII, CSEL 25:1 (Vienna 1891) 249-797. Augustine, De civitate Dei: ed. Bernhard Dombart and Alfons Kalb, Sancti Aurelii Augustini de civitate Dei, CCSL 47-48 (Turnhout 1955). Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram: ed. Joseph Zycha, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, CSEL 28:1 (Vienna 1887). Augustine, Ep.: ed. A. Goldbacher, S. Aurelii Augustini Hipponiensis Episcopi Epistu lae, CSEL 34, 44, 57, 58 (Vienna 1895-1923). Bede, De temporibus: ed. Charles W. Jones, Bedae Vernerabilis opera 6:3, CCSL 123C (Turnhout 1977) 579-611. Bede, De temporum ratione: ed. Charles W. Jones, Bedae Vernerabilis opera 6:2, CCSL 123B (Turnhout 1977). Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep.: ed. Jean Leclercq and H. M. Rochais, Sancti Bernardi opera, Bonaventure,

8 v.

(Rome De

1957-1977),

reductione

artium:

v. 7-8. ed. by

the Franciscans

of Quaracchi,

Opusculum

de reductione artium ad theologiam, Opera omnia, 10 v. (1882-1902), v.5:319-325. CCCM: Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis (Turnhout 1966 f.). CCSL: Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout 1953 f.). CSEL: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna 1866 f.). De imagine mundi: PL 172:115-188. Honorius Augustodunensis, in Pentateuchon: Adnotationes elucidatoriae Hugh [of Saint Victor], Adnotationes

in

Pentateuchon, PL 175:29-86. [of Saint Victor], Chronicon (ed. Baron): Mappa mundi, ed. Roger Baron, Hugh "Hugues de Saint-Victor lexicographe," Cultura neolatina 16 (1956) 137-145.

102 CENTER POINT

Lists of rulers, ed. Lars Boje [of Saint Victor], Chronicon (ed. Mortensen): Hugh Mortensen, "Hugh of St. Victor on Secular History: A Preliminary Edition of His Chronica ,"Cahiers de Vinstitut du moyen-?ge grec et latin 62 from Chapters (1992)3-30. [of Saint Victor], Chronicon (ed. Pertz): List of writers of history, ed. G. H. Hugh Pertz, "Hugonis de S. Victore Historia," Archiv der Gesellschaft f?r ?ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde 11 (1858) 306-308. [of Saint Victor], Chronicon (ed. Waitz): List of popes and emperors, ed. Georg Waitz, "Chronica quae dicitur Hugonis de Sancto Victore," Monumenta

Hugh

Germaniae Hist?rica, Hugh

[of Saint Victor],

Scriptores 24, 88-97. De sacramentis: De

sacramentis Christianae fidei, PL 176:

183-618.

[of Saint Victor], Descriptio moppe mundi: ed. Patrick Gautier Dalch?, La "Descriptio moppe mundi" deHugues de Saint-Victor: Texte in?dit avec introduction

Hugh

et commentaire

(Paris 1988). [of Saint Victor], De scripturis: De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, PL 175:9-28. Hugh [of Saint Victor], De tribus diebus: ed. Vincenzo Liccaro, I tregiorni delVinvis ibile luce,Vunion del corpo e dello spirito (Florence 1974) 48-157. Hugh [of Saint Victor], De tribus maximis: ed.William M. Green, "Hugo of St. Victor:

Hugh

circumstantiis gestor um ," Speculum 18 (1943) 484-493. Saint Victor], De vanitate: ed. Karl M?ller, Soliloquium de arrha animae Hugh [of und De vanitate mundi (Bonn 1913) 26-48. Hugh [of Saint Victor], Dialogus: De sacramentis legis naturalis et scriptae dialogus, PL 176:17-42. De tribus maximis

ed. Charles H. Buttimer, Hugonis de Sancto [of Saint Victor], Didascalicon: Hugh Victore Didascalicon de studio legendi, Studies inMedieval and Renaissance Latin 10 (Washington 1939). 1-2, PL 177:469-634. Hugh [ofSaint Victor], Miscellanea: Miscellanea Hugh [of Saint Victor], Moral Ark: ed. Patrice Sicard, De archa Noe. Libellus defor matione arche, CCCM 176 (Turnhout 2001) 1-117. Hugh [of Saint Victor], Mystic Ark: ed. Patrice Sicard, De archa Noe. Libellus defor matione arche, CCCM 176 (Turnhout 2001) 119-162. [An English translation of follows Carruthers and Weiss 2002. My own The Mystic Ark by Jessica Weiss translation with extensive commentary will appear in my forthcoming study of the Ark.] Practica geometriae: ed. Roger Baron, Hugonis de Sancto Victore opera propaedeutica (Notre Dame, Ind. 1966) 15-64. Indiculum: ed. Joseph de Ghellinck, "La table des mati?res de la premi?re ?dition des oeuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor," Recherches de science religieuse 1 (1910) 270

Hugh

[ofSt-Victor],

289 and 385-396. Isidore of Seville, De natura rerum: ed. Jacques Fontaine, Trait? de la nature (Bordeaux 1960). Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae: XX (Oxford 1911).

ed.W. M. Lindsay, Etymologiarum

sive Originum

libri

BIBLIOGRAPHY 103

Jerome, In Esaiam: ed. M. Adriaen 73-73A, 2 v. (Turnhout 1963). Laurence,

Ep.:

M.

ed. Ambrogio

and G. Morin,

Piazzoni,

"Ugo

Commentarii

di

San Vittore

in Esaiam, CCSL 'auctor'

delle

'Sen

" tentiae de divinitate,' Studi medievali 23 (1982) 912-913. 1955: ed. Otto Lehmann-Brockhaus, Lateinische Schriftquellen Lehmann-Brockhaus zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland vom lahre 901 bis zum Jahre 1307, 5 v.

(Munich 1955-1960). Liber ordinis S. Victoris: ed. Luc Jocqu? and Ludo Milis, Liber ordinis Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, CCSL 61 (Turnhout 1984). in somnium Scipionis Commentarii: ed. Iacobus Willis, Commentarii Macrobius, (Leipzig 1963). Martianus Capella, De nuptiis: ed. James Willis,

De nuptiis Philologiae

(Leipzig 1983). S. Victoris: Necrologium

Obituaires

ed. Auguste Molinier, v.l:531-608.

etMercurii

de la Province

de Sens

(Par?s 1902-1923) ed. Moiz Haupt et al., 2 v. (Zurich 1966). Ovid, Metamorphoses: Peter of Celle, Ep.: Petri Cellensis Epistolarum, PL 202:405-636. PL: Patrolog?a latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 v. (Paris 1844-1864). Plato (trans. Chalcidius), Timaeus: ed. J.H. Waszink, Timaeus: A Calcidio translatas commentarioque instructus (London 1962). Pliny, Naturalis historiae: ed. L. Jan and C. Mayhoff, C. Plini Secundi Naturalis histo riae (repr. Stuttgart 1967). Richard of Saint Victor, Benjamin Maior: PL: 196:63-202. Robert de Torigny, De immutatione: De immutatione ordinis monachorum, 1309-1320. Seneca,

Ep.:

ed. L. D.

Reynolds,

L. Annaei

Senecae

ad Lucilium

epistulae

(Oxford 1965). Veterum scriptorum testimonia: Veterum aliquot scriptorum de Hugone timonia, PL 175:CLXIII-CLXVIII.

PL 202:

morales,

Victorino

2 v.

tes

Virgil, Georgics: ed. R. A. B. Mynors, Georgics (Oxford 1990). Vitruvius, De architectura: ed. Philippe Fleury, De Varchitecture (Paris 1990).

SECONDARY LITERATURE 1992: Jonathan J.G. Alexander, Medieval Illuminators and Their Methods ofWork (New Haven 1992). Allen 1949: Don Cameron Allen, uThe Legend of Noah: Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science and Letters," Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 33:3-4 Alexander

(Urbana 1949). Barber 1995: Peter Barber, "The Evesham World Map: A Late Medieval English View of God and theWorld," Imago Mundi 47 (1995) 13-33. Baron 1955: Roger Baron, La contemplation et ses esp?ces (Tournai 1958 [sic]) 5-40. Baron 1957: Roger Baron, Science et sagesse chezHugues de Saint-Victor (Paris 1957). Baron

1963: Roger Baron, Etudes surHugues

de Saint-Victor

(Paris 1963).

104 CENTER POINT

Baron

1967: Roger Baron, "La Chronique tiana 12 = Collectanea Stephen Kuttner,

de Hugues de Saint-Victor," Studia Gra ed. J. Forchielli (1967) v.2:165-180. Baschet 2000: J?r?me Baschet, Le sein du p?re: Abraham et la paternit? dans VOcci dent medieval (Paris 2000). Bautier, "Paris au temps d'Ab?lard," Ab?lard en son Acts du international temps, Colloque organis? ? l'occasion du 9e centenaire de la naissance de Pierre Ab?lard (Paris 1981) 21-77.

Bautier

1981: Robert-Henri

de Bautier, "Les origines et les premiers d?veloppements in Saint-Victor de Paris," Long?re (1991:23-52). l'abbaye Bernstein 1993: Alan E. Bernstein, The Formation ofHell: Death and Retribution in theAncient and Early Christian Worlds (Ithaca 1993).

Bautier

1991: Robert-Henri

Besseyre 1998:Marianne Besseyre, "L'iconographie de l'arche de No? du Ille au XVe si?cle," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ecole des Chartes (Paris 1998). Bischoff 1935: Bernhard Bischoff, "Aus der Schule Hugos von St. Viktor," Beitr?ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie desMittelalters (Aus der Geisteswelt 1) supp 3:1 (Munich 1935) 246-250. Hartmut 1972: Boblitz, "Die Allegorese der Arche Noahs

des Mittelalters Boblitz

in der fr?hen

Bibelauslegung," Fr?hmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972) 159-170. Bonnard 1904: Fourier Bonnard, Histoire de Vabbaye royale et de Vordre des chanoines r?guliers de St-Victor de Paris, 2 v. (Paris 1904). der Bronder 1972: Barbara Bronder, "Das Bild der Sch?pfung und Neusch?pfung Welt als orbis quadratus," Fr?hmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972) 188-210. Bynum 1982: Caroline Bynum, Jesus asMother: Middle Ages (Berkeley 1982).

Studies in the Spirituality of theHigh

in 1992: Mary Carruthers, The Book ofMemory: A Study ofMemory Culture (Cambridge 1992). Carruthers 1998: Mary Carruthers, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and theMaking of Images, 400-1200 (Cambridge 1998). Carruthers

Medieval

andWeiss 2002: Mary Carruthers and JessicaWeiss, "Hugh of St. Victor, A Little Book About Constructing Noah's Ark," in ed. Mary Carruthers and JanM. Ziolkowski, The Medieval Craft ofMemory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Philadelphia 2002), 41-45. 1952: Jean Ch?tillon, ? Thomas Gallus: "De Guillaume de Champeaux Ch?tillon Carruthers

Chronique

d'histoire

litt?raire et doctrinale

moyen ?ge 8 (1952), 139-162, Chenu 1968: Marie-Dominique

de l'Ecole de Saint-Victor,"

Revue du

247-272.

Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays onNew Theological Perspectives in the Latin West (Chicago 1968). Clanchy 1997:M. T. Clancy, Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford 1997). Cohn 1996: Norman Cohn, Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought (New Haven 1996). Croydon 1939: F. E. Croydon,

"Notes on the Life of Hugh

of Theological Studies 40 (1939), 232-253. 1950: F. E. Croydon, "Abbot Laurence Croydon St. Victor," Mediaeval

and Renaissance

of St. Victor," The Journal

of Westminster

Studies 2 (1950), 169-171.

and Hugh

of

BIBLIOGRAPHY 105

1964: Jean Dani?lou, Primitive Christian Symbols (Baltimore 1964). del Basso 1965: Emma del Basso, "IlDe arca Noe moralia di Ugo di S. Vittore," Atti 14 (1965), 219-237. delVAccademia Pontaniana

Dani?lou

Delumeau

1995: Jean Delumeau, History (New York 1995).

of Paradise: The Garden of Eden inMyth

and Tradition

1950: J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and Their Intro duction into England (London 1950). Edson 1998: Evelyn Edson, Mapping Time and Space: How Medieval Mapmakers Viewed Their World (Toronto 1998).

Dickinson

Ehlers 1972: Joachim Ehlers, 'Area significat ecclesiam: Ein theologisches Weltmod ell aus der ersten H?lfte des 12. Jahrhunderts," Fr?hmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972), 171-187. Ehlers 1973: Joachim Ehlers, Hugo von St Viktor: Studien zum Geschichtsdenken zur Geschichtsschreibung des 12. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden 1973).

und

Esmeijer 1978: Anna Esmeijer, Divina Quaternitas: A Preliminary Study in theMethod and Application of Visual Exegesis (Amsterdam 1978). Evans 1994: Michael Evans, "Fictive Painting in Twelfth-Century Paris," Sight and on E. Art and Culture inHonour of H. Gombrich at 85, ed. John Insight: Essays Onians (London 1994), 73-87. Feiss 1992: Hugh Feiss, aBernardus Scholasticus: The Correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of Saint Victor on Baptism," Bernardus Magister, ed. John (1992), 349-378. 1985: Stephen C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100-1215 (Stanford 1985). Friedman 1985: John B. Friedman, "Les images mn?motechniques dans les manu Sommerfeldt

Ferruolo

scripts de l'?poque gothique," Jeux de m?moire: Aspects de lamn?motechnie m?di? vale, ed. Bruno Roy and Paul Zumthor (Montreal 1985), 169-184. Gage 1993: John Gage, Color and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction (Boston 1993). Gasparri 1991: Fran?oise Gasparri, "'Scriptorium' et bureau d'?criture de l'abbaye de Paris," in Long?re (1991:119-139). 1996: Gasparri Fran?oise Gasparri, "Introduction," Suger: Oeuvres, Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen ?ge 37 (Paris 1996). Saint-Victor

Gasparri 2001: Fran?oise Gasparri, "La pens?e et l'oeuvre de l'abb? Suger ? la lumi?re de ses ?crits," in Poirel (2001b:91-107). 1988: Patrick Gautier Dalch?, La "Descriptio moppe mundi" deHugues de Saint-Victor: Texte in?dit avec introduction et commentaire (Paris 1988). de Ghellinck 1910: Joseph de Ghellinck, "La table des mati?res de la premi?re ?di

Gautier Dalch?

tion des oeuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor," (1910) 270-289 and 385-396.

Recherches de science religieuse 1

Goy 1976: Rudolf Goy, Die ?berlieferung derWerke Hugos von St Viktor: Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte desMittelalters (Stuttgart 1976). Green 1943:William M. Green, "Hugo of St. Victor: De tribus maximis circumstan tiisgestorum,"

Speculum

18 (1943) 484-493.

106 CENTER POINT

Guen?e

et culture historique dans VOccident m?di?val

1980: Bernard Guen?e, Histoire

(Paris 1980). 1993: Birgit Hahn-Woernle, Hahn-Woernle "

Hamesse

1988:

Jacqueline

Hamesse,

fiques de la vie intellectuelle

Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte

'Collatio'

au moyen

et

Deux

'reportatio':

(Ebstorf 1993). vocables

sp?ci

?ge," Terminologie de la vie intellectuelle au

moyen ?ge (Turnhout 1988) 83-87. Renaissance H?ring 1982: Nikolaus M. H?ring, "Commentary and Hermeneutics," and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, Mass. 1982), 173-200. Haur?au 1886: B. Haur?au, Les Oeuvres

de Hugues

de Saint-Victor:

Essai critique

(Paris 1886). Javelet 1960: Robert

Javelet, "Les origins de Hugues de Saint-Victor," Revue des 34 sciences religieuses (1960), 74-83. Jocqu? 1991: Luc Jocqu?, "Les structures de la population claustrale dans l'order de " in Long?re Saint-Victor au Xlle si?cle: Un essai d'analyse du 'Liber ordinis,'

(1991:53-95). 1997: Virginia Kaufmann Parisian Book Painting

"The Halberstadt Glossed Mark, Roehrig Kaufmann, of the 1130s to the 1150s, and the Augustinian Abbey of St. Victor," K?nigtum und Kirche als Kulturtr?ger im ?stlichen Harzvorland, zu Leipzig, Philo der S?chsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Abhandlungen logisch-historische Klasse 74:2 (Berlin 1997), 144-186.

Lecoq 1989: Danielle Lecoq, "La 'Mappemonde' du De arca Noe mystica de Hugues de Saint-Victor (1128-1129)," G?ographie du monde au moyen ?ge et ? la renais sance, ed. Monique Pelletier (Paris 1989), 9-31. Lehmann-Brockhaus

1955:

See Primary

Sources.

Long?re 1991: ed. Jean Long?re, Vabbaye Parisienne de Saint-Victor au moyen ?ge, Bibliotheca Victorina 1 (Paris 1991). Lottin 1958: Odon Lottin, "Quelques recueils d'?crits attribu?s ? Hugues de Saint Victor," Recherches de th?ologie ancienne et m?di?vale 25 (1958), 248-284. 1969: D. E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence Luscombe Abelardos Thought in the Early Scholastic Period (Cambridge 1969). 1992: Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History Mysticism, 2 v. (New York 1992-1994).

McGinn

1972: J?rgen Mietke, "Zur Herkunft 54 241-265. (1972), Kulturgeschichte

Mietke

Hugos

von

of

ofWestern Christian

St. Viktor,"

Archiv f?r

1986: Barbara Obrist, "Image et Proph?tie au Xlle si?cle: Hugues de Saint Victor et Joachim de Flore," M?langes de VEcole Fran?aise de Rome 98 (1986),

Obrist

35-63.

Ohly 1972: Friedrich Ohly, "Die Kathedral als Zeitenraum: Zum Dom von Siena," Fr?hmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972) 94-158. Oudin 1772: Casimir Oudin, Commentarius de scriptoribus Ecclesiae antiquis, 3 v. (Leipzig 1772). Piazzoni 1982: Ambrogio M. Piazzoni, "Ugo di San Vittore 'auctor' delle 'Sententiae " Studi medievali ser. 3, 23 (1982), 861-911. de divinitate,'

BIBLIOGRAPHY 107

Poirel 1998: Dominique Poirel, Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris 1998). Poirel 1998b: Dominique Poirel, "L'?cole de Saint-Victor au moyen ?ge: Bilan d'un demi-si?cle historiographique," Biblioth?que de VEcole des Chartes 156 (1998), 187-205.

Poirel 2001: Dominique Poirel, "Symbolice et anagogice: L'?cole de Saint-Victor et la naissance du style gothique," in Poirel (2001b: 141-170). Poirel 2001b: ed. Dominique Poirel, L'abb? Suger, lemanifeste gothique de Saint-Denis et lapens?e victorine, Rencontres m?di?vales europ?ennes 1 (Turnhout 2001). Poirel 2002: Dominique Poirel, Livre de la nature et d?bat trinitaire au Xlle si?cle: Le "De tribus diebus" deHugues de Saint-Victor (Turnhout 2002). 1966: H. P. Pollitt, "Considerations on the Structure and Sources of Hugh of on the Octateuch," Recherches de th?ologie ancienne et m?di?vale 33 (1966), 5-38.

Pollitt

St Victor's Notes Putnam

1998: Michael C. J. Putnam, VirgiVs Epie Designs: Ekphrasis in the Aeneid (New Haven 1998). Rahner 1964: Hugo Rahner, Symbole der Kirche: Die Ekklesiologie der V?ter (Salzburg 1964). Rouse 2000: Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, Illiterati et uxorati. Manuscripts and Their Makers: Commercial Book Producers

inMedieval

Paris 1200-1500,

2 v.

(Turnhout 2000). Rudolph 1990: Conrad Rudolph, Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger's Program and the Early Twelfth-Century Controversy over Art (Princeton 1990). Rudolph 1999: Conrad Rudolph, "In the Beginning: Theories and Images of Cre ation inNorthern Europe in the Twelfth Century," Art History 22 (1999), 3-55. 1933: Wilhelm A. Schneider, Geschichte und Geschichtsphilosophie bei zur von 12. Ein St Victor: des M?nster Jahrhunderts, Hugo Beitrag Geistegeschichte sche Beitr?ge zur Geschichtsforschung 3:2 (Munich 1933).

Schneider

des 1964: J. B. Schneyer, "Erg?nzungen der Sermones und Miscellanea von aus Sankt Viktor verschiedenen Handschriften" Recherches de th?ologie Hugo ancienne et m?di?vale 31 (1964), 260-286.

Schneyer

Sicard 1991: Patrice Sicard, Hugues de Saint-Victor et son ?cole (Turnhout 1991). Sicard 1993: Patrice Sicard, Diagrammes m?di?vaux et ex?g?se visuelle: Le Libellus de formatione arche de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris 1993). Sicard 2001: Patrice Sicard, introduction to De archa Noe. Libellus de formatione arche, CCCM 176 (Turnhout 2001) 7*-287*. et ar Sicard 2001b: Patrice Sicard, "L'urbanisme de la Cit? de Dieu: Constructions la Xlle in chitectures dans si?cle," (Poirel 2001b: 109-140). pens?e th?ologique du 1990: Piotr Skubiszewski, "L'intellectuel et l'artiste face ? l'oeuvre ? Le travail au moyen ?ge: Une approche interdisciplinaire, Publi romane," l'?poque 10 (1990), 263-321. cations de l'Institut d'?tudes m?di?vales

Skubiszewski

Smalley 1952: Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in theMiddle Ages (Oxford 1952). Southern 1970: R. W. Southern, "Humanism and the School of Chartres," Medieval Humanism Southern

and Other Studies (Oxford 1970), 61-85. 1982: R. W. Southern, "The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres,"

108 CENTER POINT

in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, Mass. 1982), 113-137. Squire 1962: Aelred Squire, "Introduction," Hugh of Saint-Victor: Selected Spiritual Writings, trans, by a Religious of C.S.M.V. (London 1962), 13-42. Renaissance

and Renewal

"Fils de la vierge: L'initiale Stirnemann, parisienne, 1140-1314," Revue de l'art90 (1990), 58-73. "La production manuscrite 1991: Patricia Stirnemann, Stirnemann

Stirnemann

1990: Patricia

? filagrannes et la biblio

th?que de Saint-Victor 1140-1155," in Long?re (1991:140-141). Taylor 1957: Jerome Taylor, The Origin and Early Life ofHugh of St Victor: An Eval uation of the Tradition, Texts and Studies in the History of Mediaeval Education 5 (Notre Dame, Ind. 1957). Van den Eynde 1960: Damien Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date des 13 ?crits de Hugues de Saint-Victor, Spicilegium Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani (Rome 1960). "Die Arbeitsmethode 1949: Heinrich Weisweiler, Weisweiler Hugos von St. Viktor: Ein Beitrag zum Entstehen seines Hauptwerkes De sacramentis," Scholastik 20-24 (1949), 59-87, 232-267. Wirth 1999: JeanWirth, L'image ? l'?poque romane (Paris 1999). The Dimensions Zinn 1968: Grover Zinn, "History and Contemplation: on the Ark of Noah

of the

of St Victor,"

in Two Treatises by Hugh N.C. 1968). Duke doctoral dissertation, (Durham, University unpublished Zinn 1971: Grover Zinn, "Hugh of St. Victor and the Ark of Noah: A New Look," Church History 40 (1971), 261-272. Restoration

of Man

1972: Grover Zinn, "M?ndala Symbolism and Use in theMysticism of Hugh of 317-341. St. Victor," History of Religions 12 (1972-1973), " est': The Role of History in the 'Historia fundamentum Zinn 1974: Grover Zinn, to of St. Life Victor," Contemporary Reflections According Hugh Contemplative Zinn

on theMediaeval

Christian Traditions: Essays inHonor of Ray C. Retry (Durham, N.C. 1974), 135-158. Zinn 1974b: Grover Zinn, "Hugh of Saint Victor and the Art of Memory," Viator 5 (1974), 211-234. Zinn 1975: Grover Zinn, "De grad?bus ascensionum: The Stages of Contemplative Ascent in Two Treatises on Noah's Ark by Hugh of St. Victor," Studies inMedieval Culture 5 (1975), 61-79. 1977: Grover Zinn, "The Influence of Hugh of St. Victor's Chronicon on the Abbreviationes Chronicorum by Ralph of Diceto," Speculum 52 (1977), 38-61. Zinn 1992: Grover Zinn, "Hugh of StVictor, Isaiah's Vision, and De arca noe," Studies Zinn

in Church History

28 (1992), 99-116.

INDEX

Abelard, 48, 57, 69 Andrew of Saint Victor,

forty-two stopping places of the Hebrews, 45-46, 58 four elements, 39

58

1, 23 Augustine, Bede, 23, 25, 76 Bernard of Clairvaux, viii, 8, 25, 48, 53, 57

Garden of Eden, 27, 47-50 Hell, 46-50

19

Bonaventure,

30

closing, 64-65, 68, 70 relation to The Mystic Ark, 34-40,

qualities,

seasons,

5, 67,

stages, three

12-14,

24-26,

28, 72

Winds,

new

27-28,

symbols,

productions,

2-3

painted at Saint Victor, 71-75, 84 painted by others, 75, 77-78, 84

83

temporal-spatial

Evangelists'

19-20,

Zodiac, 28, 40, 56, 72 Isaiah, vision of, 39-40, 50-51

choirs of angels, 48

progression,

periods,

Twelve Apostles, 72 Twelve Months, 18, 28, 40, 72 Twelve Patriarchs, 21, 72

79,80 central pillar, 26-27 79,

14,36,51-55,79

34-37,44,51-53,83

19,21,38,73

37-44,

19, 23-24

tion,

components,

central cubit, 12, 14, 30, 48, 73,

east-west

56

six days of creation, 39

beams, 24, 88 n. 25 belts, bands, 30

cosmos,

39,

seraphim, 39-40, 50-51, 79 six ages of the history of salva

proportions,

18,

27,

72,79

60

51-55,

23, 46, 60, 72, 76, 78 ascents,

16-18,

harmony,

35, 38-39, 44, 49, 55-56, 60,

84-85

proper,

56

quaternary

four Arks, 43, 44, 77 function of the painting, 77-78,

37, 38,

Paradise/Jimbus patrum, 46-50 18 personifications,

exegesis, 3, 19, 21, 28 existence of, 28

iconographical

12, 27-28,

mappa mundi, 44,54

43-44,51,56,64-70,83

24-26,

79

39-42, 49, 50-51,

Majesty,

TheMystic Ark, painting, 19-20,

18

16-17,

Last Judgment, 46-50 line of generation, 14, 24, 45-46, 49

Hugh of Saint-Victor, life, 1 TheMoral Ark, vii, 10, 14, 25, 26-27, 27-28, 29, 50, 55

Ark

12-14,

inscriptions,

Chalcidius, 39 Gilduin of Saint Victor, 60 Honorius Augustodunensis,

color,

46-50

Heaven,

72

18

process

of production,

72-75,

79-80,

22,

83

71,

110

INDEX

Hugh of Saint-Victor

(continued)

of creation

works

and

of

tion, 34, 37, 38, 39, 47, 49, 77 The Mystic Ark, text, cingulus, 29, 30 cornu,

30-31

29,

84

ekphrasis question, 75-76, as a literary work simpler than ekphrasis, 65, 71, 76-77, 84 function of the text, 5-6, 67, 69, limbus, 29, 30 as a memory

aid,

of,

10, 63,

64-66,

70,76 recensions, as a

58-61,

44-61,

reportatio,

as a set of

9-31,

instructions,

63,

83-84

83

63,

67,

78-81,

84-85

supposition of as an appendix to The Moral Ark, 64-70, 84 title of, 65, 66, 70, 76 viewer's zona,

point 29,

30

of

sacramentis,

reference,

11-12

19

25,

11-12,

34,

37,

47,50 11-12

Descriptio mappe mundi, De tribus diebus, 37 De

vanitate

76

mundi,

Dialogus, 52 Didascalicon, 30 29-30,

geometriae,

Sententie de divinitate, 57

84

76-77,

71, 73

29-30, absence

preface,

De

Practica

70,77,78-81,84-85

planities,

Chronicon, 45-46 De contemplatione,

34-35, 57-58, 60-61, 84

chronology,

(other than The Mystic Ark and The Moral Ark)

writings

restora

73

11, 34-35,

Indiculum, 60-61, 65, 66, 67 Isidore of Seville, 17, 27, 76 Laurence ofWestminster, 11, 58, 83 30 Macrobius, Peter of Celle, 68 Robert of Melun, 58 Robert of Torigny, 69 Saint Victor, scriptorium, 83-84 Suger of Saint-Denis, Vitruvius, 30

59-60,

viii, 3, 9

63,