Teacher in Faith and Virtue. Lanfranc of Bec’s Commentary on Saint Paul (Commentaria: Sacred Texts and Their Commentaries: Jewish, Christian and Islamic 1)

Teacher in Faith and Virtue

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

Founding Editors

Grover A. Zinn Michael A. Signer Editors

Frans van Liere Leslie J. Smith E. Ann Matter

VOLUME 1

Canterbury Cathedral Archives Additional Manuscript 172, fol. 17v Reproduced with permission from Canterbury Cathedral Archives

Teacher in Faith and Virtue Lanfranc of Bec’s Commentary on Saint Paul

By

Ann Collins

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper. A Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 1874-8236 ISBN 978 90 04 16347 8 Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

....................................................................

ix

...............................................................................

1

Chapter One The Monastery of Bec and the Beginning of a Career ....................................................................................

3

Chapter Two Text and Format: The Manuscripts of the Commentary ..........................................................................

35

Chapter Three Bene vivere et bene docere: The Role of the Liberal Arts in Biblical Exegesis ............................................

75

Introduction

Chapter Four The Commentary to Romans: An Introduction to Theology ................................................ 117 Chapter Five Evaluating Augustine’s Authority: Reappraisals and Reevaluations ............................................ 157 Chapter Six Bibliography Index

Conclusion

.......................................................... 195

............................................................................... 207

.......................................................................................... 215

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any study of Lanfranc must begin with the work of the late Margaret Gibson. I was very fortunate to have met Professor Gibson during her visit to the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s. Although our meeting was brief, the impact was great when Professor Gibson and my adviser, Professor E. Ann Matter, encouraged me to pursue an examination of Lanfranc’s commentary on St. Paul. Professors Gibson and Matter promoted a project that set a young scholar on her way, and now, years later, still has many lessons to teach. For this I am very grateful. I am indebted to my teachers. Professor Robert C. Gregg was my rst teacher of Church History at the Divinity School at Duke University, and his lectures and seminars were the inspiration for my continued studies. The late Father Roland Murphy, my adviser at Duke, rst listened to my interests and recommended a course of study. I am one of many students inuenced by his scholarship, faith, and compelling personality. We knew we were in the presence of a remarkable man. How fortunate we were that our lives crossed his. Father Murphy introduced me to Professor Matter, who has been the most patient of teachers and generous of friends. This study is derived from my doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. Ann Matter served as my adviser and dissertation supervisor with the perfect balance of humor, gentleness, and insistence. It is not overstating matters to recognize that the dissertation, or for that matter this book, would not have been completed without her guidance. My committee also included Professors James J. O’Donnell and Edward Peters, who guided me through my doctoral studies with kindness and encouragement. The richness and scope of medieval thought rst captured my imagination during Professor Peters’s lectures. Professor O’Donnell’s discussions on Augustine, exegesis, and St. Paul proved indispensable as I approached Lanfranc’s commentary. I have beneted greatly from the remarkable opportunity to study with teachers such as these, and can compare my good fortune to Lanfranc’s directives in his glosses: good teachers change their students’ lives. My life has been better because of the inuence of my teachers.

x

acknowledgements

I extend my sincere thanks to Professor Gary Macy who read the original dissertation and offered indispensable advice about Lanfranc and his role in the eucharistic controversy. My arguments are clearer because of his suggestions. I would also like to thank Professor Frans van Liere, who read the book for Brill Academic Publishers, and whose thorough review has contributed to a stronger presentation. Also, Marcella Mulder, of the editorial staff at Brill Academic Publishers, replied to my many questions with courtesy and generous assistance. Finally, I extend my love and gratitude to my husband, Sean, and our daughters, Emma and Genevieve, whose enthusiasm and support assisted the completion of this study (twice). I dedicate this book to them and thank them for their sacrices.

INTRODUCTION

. . . and I myself am so involved with many of this world’s great affairs that I cannot turn my attention at this time to such scholarly inquiries. If God in his goodness ever grants me release, I shall always be ready both to teach and to be taught. Lanfranc of Canterbury, Ep. 46, written c. 1073–1078

Lanfranc of Bec was born in Italy in the early eleventh century, but he lived most of his life in Normandy and England as a monk and prominent man of the church. He was known to his contemporaries as archbishop of Canterbury and adviser to popes and kings, but as a young man he hoped to make his most enduring contribution as a teacher. These are the sentiments expressed in his commentary on St. Paul, written for his rst monastic classroom at Bec. The commentary represents this moment in Lanfranc’s life, before he became known to the outside world, and before his private goals were transformed by the demands and attractions of the political and ecclesiastical realms. The commentary’s text simply expresses the values that a young teacher hoped to instill in his students’ lives. This study examines this brief moment in Lanfranc’s life and makes a small contribution to the larger biography of Lanfranc, which has already been so thoroughly considered in the biographies of Margaret Gibson and H.E.J. Cowdrey. My work is indebted to these authors’ writings and has consistently depended upon them for the larger context of Lanfranc’s life. I can only contribute to them by making Lanfranc’s earliest concerns a little clearer. This early stage was, however, an important one in Lanfranc’s life, and the monastic values he established at Bec continued to inform the larger and more public duties of his future. He believed that the values of a true monasticism could be extended into the larger world—into the work of theology, or the administration of the church, for example. Furthermore, Lanfranc’s self-identity as a teacher persisted beyond Bec, and he carried many of the values articulated in his commentary on St. Paul into his more prominent, later roles. This early and obscure work sheds light on Lanfranc’s thought and achievements, but since Lanfranc was a powerful and successful man, the commentary also provides a critical opportunity to investigate the

2

introduction

philosophies, values, and methods under evaluation in monastic curricula in the eleventh century. This book investigates the commentary as the product of Lanfranc’s experience as a young Italian convert to Bec, as an indicator of some of the larger developments of his life, and as a signicant example of eleventh-century learning in general. The commentary articulates values that Lanfranc retained throughout his life, values that inuenced important institutions of his day. Monasteries, libraries, churches, and dioceses would become the beneciaries of the philosophies and abilities rst tested in his glosses on St. Paul’s epistles. Fundamentally, the commentary’s presentation of a good teacher’s beliefs and comportment indicates Lanfranc’s expectations for himself and for his students in the cloister and in the world.

CHAPTER ONE

THE MONASTERY OF BEC AND THE BEGINNING OF A CAREER

As a recent convert to the monastic life, Lanfranc of Bec wrote: “The quiet and rule of churches is guarded in the peace among rulers. For in rulers’ wars and discords, churches’ tranquility is destroyed, and piety cools. . . .”1 This novice to religious life had rsthand experience of the tenuous relationship between secular authority and ecclesial peace. He was raised in Pavia, Italy in the early decades of the eleventh century, just as royal power was weakening and losing its hold over civil and ecclesial structures. As a young man, he traveled to France and encountered the turbulence of the French principalities, particularly the violent conditions that existed in Normandy during the minority of Duke William. Lanfranc’s meteoric rise in the hierarchy of the church was dependent upon, and ran parallel to, the rising power of Duke William. William secured the fortune of Lanfranc’s rst religious community at Bec. Impressed with Lanfranc’s abilities as prior and scholar, Duke William later appointed Lanfranc as abbot at the duke’s newly founded monastery in the ducal capital of Caen. After the conquest of England, William elevated Lanfranc to the English primacy as archbishop of Canterbury.

1 “In pace principium quies et regimen servatur aecclesiarum. Nam in bellis et discordiis earum tranquillitas dissipatur, tepescit pietas, districtio solvitur. Orandum est ergo pro eis, ne haec eveniant.” Canterbury Cathedral Archives Additional Manuscript 172, fols. 9v–161r (formerly catalogued as London, Major J.R. Abbey no. 3186, fols. 9v–161r). Gloss on I Tim. 2.2, fol. 120v. Subsequently referred to as manuscript A. Quotations from Lanfranc’s commentary will be identied by manuscript, cited by the scriptural verse that is glossed, and manuscript folio. The manuscripts’ methods of punctuation, spelling (even if inconsistent), and capitalization will be observed throughout. In a manuscript such as A, the punctus, . , is used as a pause in the middle of a sentence and at the end of a sentence before the capitalized word of the next sentence. In the transcriptions, the rst method will be reproduced as a comma and the second as a period. The punctus interrogativus will be transcribed as a question mark. See M.B. Parkes, “Punctuation, or Pause and Effect,” in James J. Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric (Berkeley: 1978), 139–40. See also the glossary in M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: 1993), 301–7.

4

chapter one

Lanfranc’s notes on I Timothy were written long before these momentous events in his life; however, his career would be an apt reection of these sentiments: secular power guarded ecclesial stability, and Lanfranc would personally benet from a close relationship between the secular and ecclesial realms. The commentary on St. Paul stands at an intersection in Lanfranc’s life when he had abandoned his original home for an unknown destination and vocation. It is improbable that Lanfranc left Italy with any precise idea of where he would eventually settle. Bec was an obscure Norman monastery, barely a few years old, and still struggling to build the basic buildings and resources necessary to a monastic foundation. Bec was unknown even locally, and the community seemingly offered little professional benet to a talented young foreigner. Somehow, this remote Norman monastery created the conditions for advancement. Lanfranc was not only prior, ducal counselor, and archbishop, but he also served as papal adviser and correspondent. He was known as the champion of eucharistic orthodoxy against the recalcitrant Berengar of Tours, and he was admired as the teacher of Anselm and other notable churchmen. He wrote several inuential works and oversaw the construction of churches at Bec, Caen, and Canterbury, establishing enduring and inuential communities at each of them. By the end of his life, he was known throughout Europe, and he was remembered far into the next century. A number of medieval sources contributes to an understanding of Lanfranc’s early career. Lanfranc’s commentary on St. Paul is one critical source for understanding both the training that Lanfranc received before arriving at Bec and his educational aspirations for the future. Lanfranc wrote his notes on St. Paul soon after his conversion at Bec when the Italian inuence on his style was pronounced, yet he was only newly acquainted with scripture and theology. The theological content of the commentary bears the marks of a beginner: Lanfranc’s use of patristic sources was tentative, and his knowledge of rudimentary Pauline tenets was weak. Nevertheless, conditions at Bec demanded his immediate service, and Lanfranc wrote his glosses with his duties as schoolmaster in mind. Despite the commentary’s aws, many of Lanfranc’s abilities are evident in its text. His thinking was disciplined. He skillfully utilized his training in the trivium arts to explicate the sacred page but also measured the implied dangers that classical methods can pose to theology. Accordingly, he set reasonable rules for

bec

5

their use. His labor to acquire and understand authoritative patristic sources, in an effort to correctly interpret the scriptures, was equally pronounced. Perhaps most importantly, his dedication to teaching and to preserving a vibrant monastic culture was ever present in his glosses. The very format of the commentary as a glossed text originated from the commentary’s use as a teaching guide and provides insight into the methods of a monastic classroom. The historian’s interest in the commentary incorporates all these facts. The commentary discloses an inuential man’s educational philosophy: what one should study and how one should present it, the appropriate stance toward the authority of the church and sacred writings, and the classical methods licitly used with these texts. Lanfranc’s commentary stood not only at the crossroads of his career, but also at an important time in the history of educated culture. Lanfranc’s determinations of these issues indicate a great deal about the values of learned churchmen in his generation and those that followed. At the same time, his work highlights the difcult conditions that existed for anyone who wished to be educated in the eleventh century. Regarding theological content, Lanfranc emerges from the pages of the commentary as an autodidact. He instructed himself in Christian scripture and doctrine with the assistance of very limited resources: with his native intelligence and his literary background intact, but without an established library or school to assist him. Ultimately, the commentary piques the interest simply because it shows the humble beginnings of a great man, including his mistakes and false steps. If the commentary is useful for understanding Lanfranc’s biography and the Bec curriculum, it can be augmented by numerous and informative sources. A number of Lanfranc’s other writings survives: fragmented notes on the liberal arts, the church fathers, and the Psalms; his monastic constitutions, written for the community at Canterbury; and the De corpore et sanguine domini. Letters and other contemporary witnesses (some of whom knew Lanfranc personally) contribute to an understanding of his background and abilities. He was a gure of continued interest to churchmen in Normandy and England, and their narratives are critical to piecing together the events of Lanfranc’s life. Most signicantly, Lanfranc was a focal point for Bec historians of the twelfth century, as a central character in the Vita Herluini of Gilbert Crispin (c. 1109–17) and in the Vita Lanfranci, attributed to Milo Crispin

6

chapter one

(c. 1140).2 The author of the Vita Lanfranci used the Vita Herluini as his primary source, along with the Vita Anselmi of Eadmer and documents of Christ Church. The Vita Lanfranci also preserved ten original anecdotes that were, perhaps, based on the oral musings of members of the Bec community.3 Both Vitae are potentially reliable sources for the details of Bec’s foundation and growth. Gilbert Crispin was a monk at Bec and later followed Lanfranc to Canterbury, eventually becoming abbot of Westminster. Gilbert’s family was prominent in Normandy and England and had close associations with Bec from the date of its foundation.4 His relative, Milo Crispin, was precentor of Bec c. 1130–50.5 Herluin was the founder of Bec and Lanfranc’s earliest mentor in Normandy. At the age of thirty-seven, Herluin was a late convert to the religious life and illiterate. He had served under Count Gilbert of Brionne in the territorial wrangling common to Norman society in the early eleventh century. After renouncing the career of a soldier and enduring disappointing experiences in existing monasteries where the monks were undisciplined, even dissolute, he built a church on his family lands. With two companions, he received the habit of a monk from the bishop of Lisieux. Soon thereafter, Herluin was consecrated as a priest by the same bishop and made abbot of the small commu-

2 The investigator of Lanfranc’s life is indebted to the work of Margaret Gibson, Lanfranc’s biographer and the author of numerous related articles. Lanfranc’s writings and medieval biographical sources are listed in Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford: 1978), 195–225, 239–44. Unless indicated, the medieval sources’ dates of composition follow Gibson’s. Also see Gibson, “History at Bec in the Twelfth Century,” in R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, eds., The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford: 1981), 167–86. The authorship and dating of these texts are also discussed by Sally N. Vaughn in The Abbey of Bec and the Anglo-Norman State 1034–1136 (Suffolk: 1981), 63–4; H.E.J. Cowdrey, Lanfranc: Scholar, Monk, and Archbishop (Oxford: 2003), 1–28. 3 Margaret Gibson, “The Image of Lanfranc,” in Giulio D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia e L’Europa del secolo xi nel ix centenario della morte (1089–1989) (Rome: 1993), 22. 4 Christopher Harper-Bill, “Herluin, Abbot of Bec and his Biographer,” Studies in Church History 15 (1978), 15–25; Anna Sapir Abulaa and G.R. Evans, eds., The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (London: 1986), xxi–xxv; J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster: A Study of the Abbey under Norman Rule (Cambridge: 1911), 1–18; Frank Barlow, “A View of Archbishop Lanfranc,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965), 164–5. 5 The attribution to Milo Crispin depends upon a note in a lost manuscript of the Vita Lanfranci, which is included in the D’Achery edition of Lanfranc material. P.L.150, 697–712. The ascription is not present in the other manuscripts. Gibson, Lanfranc, 196–8. See also the introduction to Gibson’s edition of the Vita Lanfranci in D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia, 661–6.

bec

7

nity. Eventually, more men joined the monks, and Herluin moved the community to Bec.6 It was at this point that Lanfranc encountered the monks. According to the surviving Bec profession list, Lanfranc was the thirty-fth member of the community.7 Gilbert Crispin considered Lanfranc in the most favorable terms, contrasting his talent to the poverty of Bec and to the unlearned state of its inhabitants: ultimately, Latin Christendom “was restored to its ancient position of learning by him.”8 Lanfranc had left behind an illustrious career in Pavia to travel to France with a group of scholars. Other prominent Italian churchmen settled in Normandy, including William of Volpiano and John of Ravenna at Fécamp, Suppo the abbot of Mont-St.-Michel, and Anastasius.9 The reasons for this migration are unclear. The sense of duty, ambition, and the need for teachers in northern France may have been enticing. There was work to be done in a remote area such as Normandy, and potential opportunity for talented and well-educated foreigners. The Vita Herluini framed Lanfranc’s motivation for his migration and entry to Bec in a conversion, in the call of the Gospel: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16.24). Lanfranc’s eminence in Italy was contrasted to a new humility. As he had been great, he determined to be humble by renouncing his home, career, and rights. According to the Vita Herluini, Lanfranc intended to be a teacher, to please God by pursuing a career “in letters,” but he also resolved to nd a place where he would be unknown and could avoid being the object of praise and admiration. When he found Bec, he knew that there could be no poorer place and stayed there.10 Lanfranc’s own biography, the Vita Lanfranci, framed his motivations for conversion differently and provided considerably more detail. Here Lanfranc was not only presented as a revered teacher in Pavia, but as a member of a noble family: his father was a lawyer of the city,

6 Editions of the Vita Herluini are found in Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, 87–110; Sapir Abulaa and Evans, The Works of Gilbert Crispin, 185–212. The edition of Sapir Abulaa and Evans will be cited and referred to by page number. Vita Herluini, 185–91. 7 Nomina monachorum Becci, in A.A. Porée, Histoire de l’Abbaye du Bec (Évreux: 1901), vol. 1.629. 8 Vita Herluini, 195. 9 David Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London: 1982), 218–20. 10 Vita Herluini, 195–6.

8

chapter one

and Lanfranc himself was an eminent Pavian lawyer.11 His eloquence trumped older and more experienced lawyers, and the city’s judges and ofcials heard his judgments with pleasure.12 Lanfranc’s father died when Lanfranc was young, and he departed from Pavia to study literature “because he loved to learn.” These studies were apparently conducted within Italy, for the Vita Lanfranci claimed that Lanfranc returned to Pavia fully schooled in the liberal arts, but then departed from his homeland altogether to travel to France, settling for a time as a teacher in Avranches.13 In this later text, Lanfranc’s motives were interpreted differently than in the Vita Herluini. In the Vita Lanfranci, his entry into Bec is seen as a conversion from the study of letters. While at Avranches, he determined to nd a humble place where he would not be known, but as he was traveling toward Rouen, he was attacked by thieves. They captured him, took his belongings, tied his hands, and covered his head with his hood before setting him loose in the forest. Defenseless, Lanfranc prayed: Lord, God I have spent so much time in learning and have exhausted both body and mind in the study of letters, yet I still have not learned how to pray to you or praise you. Free me from this trial, and with your aid, I will vow to correct and arrange my life so that I have the strength and knowledge to serve you.14

At dawn travelers heard him, set him free, and answering his query as to the humblest monastery in the neighborhood, they directed him to Bec. Once he became a monk at Bec, Lanfranc’s only concern was solitude and prayer, reading the scriptures, and learning the divine ofce.15 The Vita Lanfranci echoed the earlier emphasis of the Vita Herluini on Lanfranc’s shift from greatness to humility, but set Lanfranc’s choice within the context of learning. Lanfranc’s decision to enter a religious community was, in part, an abandonment of the sole pursuit of the academic life. The two were incompatible. The Vita Lanfranci highlighted a consistent theme in Lanfranc’s writings regarding the potential conict 11

A later Canterbury source (1163–c. 1200) names Lanfranc’s parents as Heribald and Roza. Gervase of Canterbury, Actus Ponticum, in William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury (London: 1880), vol. 2.363–4. 12 D’Achery’s edition of the Vita Lanfranci can be found in P.L. 150, 29–58. The recent edition of Margaret Gibson is printed in D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia, 661–715. Gibson’s edition will be cited and referred to by page number. Vita Lanfranci, 681. 13 Vita Lanfranci, 668. 14 Ibid., 669. 15 Ibid., 669–71.

bec

9

between secular learning and religious life. As early as the composition of his commentary, Lanfranc presumed the incompatibility of literary success and pastoral life. Paradoxically, both Vitae attributed Lanfranc’s ultimate success, and even the future strengths of Bec, to his intelligence and learning. They insisted that Lanfranc instantly took his new vocation to heart, living alone for three years, learning the holy ofces, and continually reading the scriptures. But his solitude could not last. The edgling community had need of such a man as an administrator and teacher. Lanfranc was simply God’s gift to the monks, and he had been directed to Bec for their benet.16 Herluin took full advantage of Lanfranc’s abilities, assigning to him the responsibility of opening and stafng a school. According to both Vitae, Lanfranc’s attempt at solitude fell apart at this point. News of his scholarship spread, and the school was quickly opened to students beyond the connes of the Bec community: “Clerics came running, the sons of dukes, the most renowned scholars of Latin learning.”17 Gifts and land were bestowed by powerful and noble laymen; the religious and literary life of the monks was elevated. The monastery’s subsequent prestige, wealth, and renown were attributed to Lanfranc’s reputation and style of teaching in both Vitae. Because of his renewed fame, Lanfranc was made counselor to Duke William, setting himself and his community in the forefront of Norman political life.18 In his biography of Lanfranc, H.E.J. Cowdrey persuasively demonstrates the importance of Lanfranc’s external students to Bec’s prospects. The fees paid by his students funded the buildings and growth of Bec, and they were the foundation for its future inuence; therefore, conditions at Bec compelled Lanfranc to continue teaching an open school and curriculum. Nevertheless, this posed a conict for Lanfranc.19 He had left public life, was devoted to monastic solitude, and had shifted his intellectual interests from classical literature to the Bible. He was suddenly caught up in administrative duties, but according to the Vitae, really only desired to be a monk. A well-attested event of the Bec years relates Lanfranc’s secret resolve to leave Bec to become a hermit. Learning of this in a vision, Herluin dissuaded Lanfranc from departing, thereby retaining

16 17 18 19

Vita Herluini, 197; Vita Lanfranci, 671. Vita Lanfranci, 671. Also Vita Herluini, 197. Vita Herluini, 197; Vita Lanfranci, 671. Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 19.

10

chapter one

his services at Bec until William appointed him to Caen in 1063, and, effectively, changed the course of Lanfranc’s life.20 To summarize, the Bec Vitae recorded that Lanfranc’s early education in the classical arts was an Italian phenomenon. He traveled as a scholar in France before his conversion and turned his attention to the Bible at Bec. The implication was that Lanfranc arrived at Bec schooled in the liberal arts, but new to biblical studies. Lanfranc had the opportunity to give himself up to monastic devotion and to study the Bible and divine ofce independently for three years before his reputation caught up with him, and then he became entangled with the requirements of an open school. Collating this chronology with the dating of Bec’s chronicle, Lanfranc entered Bec in 1042, emerged from these three years of study in about 1045, and was prepared to assume a signicant role in the leadership of the monastery.21 This conict between secular and sacred studies, monastic and external students, was attested in other medieval sources, some written during Lanfranc’s lifetime.22 Lanfranc’s contemporary Williram of Ebersberg (c. 1060) mentioned Lanfranc’s superior lectures on St. Paul and the Psalms: Lanfranc had turned his attention from dialectic to sacred studies, and “many of us have traveled to hear him.” Williram urged his German readers to study and copy Lanfranc’s methods.23 Apparently, Lanfranc encountered external pressure to return to the arts. Two popes sent Roman ofcials or relatives to study the arts under Lanfranc. Pope Nicholas (1059–61) praised Lanfranc’s skill in both the liberal arts and scripture, but he had heard that Lanfranc had abandoned the study of “dialectic and rhetoric” in favor of sacred studies. Nicholas commanded

20 Vita Lanfranci, 672–5. Lanfranc told this story to a monk of Bec, William, later abbot of Cormeilles, with the condition that William could not repeat the story during Lanfranc’s lifetime. The story is related in William’s letter to Abbot William of Bec (1093–1109). P.L. 158, 1198–1202. 21 “Anno Domini 1042, Lanfrancus, de senatorum Papiae nobili genere natus, in septem liberalibus artibus mirabiliter eruditus, Deo omnium bonorum auctore disponente, apud Beccense coenobium, magnis tunc temporis facultatibus inornatum, secundum sancti Herluini ibidem abbatis desiderium, monachalem suscepit habitum; qui quanto miraculo illuc advenisset, quantum ibidem profuisset, et quomodo primus abbas Cadomi exstitisset, et quam laudabiliter archiepiscopus Cantuariensis diu viguisset, in Vita ipsius inveniri potest.” Chronicon Beccensis abbatiae, P.L. 150, 643. 22 Again, these sources and dates are listed in Gibson, Lanfranc, 196–225. I am also indebted to the thorough account of Lanfranc’s early biography and the analysis of these sources in Cowdrey’s biography. Lanfranc, 5–24. 23 Williram of Ebersberg, The “Expositio in Cantica canticorum” of Williram, Abbot of Ebersburg: 1048–1085, Erminnie Hollis Bartelmez, ed. (Philadelphia: 1967), 1.

bec

11

Lanfranc to teach these arts to the imperial and papal chaplains whom he had sent to Bec.24 Later, Pope Alexander II made the same request (1063–70). He acknowledged that God’s grace had turned Lanfranc from worldly to sacred wisdom; however, he advised Lanfranc that both are from the Spirit. Alexander commended his nephew, who had studied some grammar, but not rhetoric, to Lanfranc’s care.25 Years later (1072–3) and as archbishop of Canterbury, when Lanfranc had his own favor to ask the pope, he recalled Alexander’s memory to this past obedience: You may well recall—it is not right that it should pass from memory—what a friendly welcome I often extended to your kinsmen and others who brought an introduction from Rome when I was still in those monasteries, and how conscientiously I instructed them, according to my ability and their intelligence, in both sacred and profane learning.26

It would seem that in the tension between worldly fame and humility, or the desire for the eremitic life and the obligation of administrative duties, Lanfranc found some balance in the Bec school—to the degree that he could restrict the curriculum to sacred subjects. These sources hint at Lanfranc’s reluctance, once he was a monk, to reengage in secular studies, but other medieval sources suggest that Lanfranc was gifted in both elds. The Norman historian William of Poitiers (1074) wrote: “It was disputed whether [Lanfranc] deserved respect and glory more for his remarkable knowledge of secular and divine learning or for his outstanding observance of the monastic rule.”27 The antipope Clement III (1088–9) praised Lanfranc for his expertise in the trivium and quadrivium and as a teacher of the Old and New Testaments.28 Sigebert of Gembloux (c. 1100–12) described Lanfranc’s combined skill with the liberal arts and scripture: Lanfranc explicated Saint Paul according to the rules of dialectic whenever it was suitable.29

24

Nicholas II, Ep. 30, P.L. 143, 1349–50. Alexander II, Ep. 70, P.L. 146, 1353. 26 Lanfranc, Ep. 1, in Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson, eds. and trans., The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford: 1979), 32–3. 27 William of Poitiers, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, R.H.C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall, eds. and trans. (Oxford: 1998), 84–5. 28 Clement III, Ep. 3, in F. Liebermann, “Lanfranc and the Antipope,” English Historical Review 16 (1901), 331–2. 29 Sigebert of Gembloux, Catalogus Sigeberti Gemblacensis monachi de viris illustribus, Robert Witte, ed. (Frankfurt: 1974), 97. Also P.L. 160, 582–3. 25

12

chapter one

Ironically, Lanfranc was often remembered for his skill with the trivium arts, the very pursuit he wished to avoid. To historians of the twelfth century, dialectic was seen as his particular strength. Another Bec historian, the author of the Miracula sancti Nicholai (c. 1140), expanded the accounts of the Bec Vitae. Lanfranc was born of Pavian nobility, studied and taught the arts in Italy, and in France studied “scientia litterarum” under Berengar of Tours. Repelled by Berengar’s unsound doctrine, Lanfranc left Tours to continue his travels in Burgundy and other parts of France before entering Bec. To the author of the Miracula, the study of “dialectic” was recovered and revived by Lanfranc, in spite of his rejection of Berengar’s extreme doctrine.30 Guitmund of Aversa claimed that Berengar formulated his outlandish eucharistic doctrine to attract students who had defected from his classroom to attend Lanfranc’s. Guitmund’s testimony added some spice to the already highly charged eucharistic interchange between Lanfranc and Berengar, detailing the animosity of a former teacher and the competitive nature of the eleventh-century classroom.31 Finally, like the author of the Miracula, William of Malmesbury (c. 1120–5) credited Lanfranc’s skill as a teacher of “dialectic” as the cause for Bec’s fame.32 Apart from the Vitae, Orderic Vitalis’s was the fullest account (c. 1115–37). He afrmed Lanfranc’s education and legal training in Italy, and compared Lanfranc’s conversion at Bec to Plato’s conversion to Philosophy. Lanfranc was likened to Herodian in grammar, to Aristotle in dialectic, and to Cicero in rhetoric. Forced out of contemplative solitude: [Lanfranc] emerged as a master in whose teaching the fundamental texts of philosophy and the Bible were displayed. In both subjects he could unravel the most knotty problems with supreme skill. It was from this master that the Normans rst learned the liberal arts, so that scholars well versed in both sacred and secular learning emerged from the school of Bec. For at an earlier period under the six dukes of Normandy scarcely any Norman spent his time in liberal studies, and no man of learning was to be found there until all-provident God sent Lanfranc to the borders of

30 Miracula sancti Nicholai episcopi et confessoris, in Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquiorum saeculo XVI qui asservantur in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi (Brussels: 1890), vol. 2.408–9. 31 Guitmund of Aversa, De corporis et sanguinis Christi veritate in eucharistia, P.L. 149, 1428. 32 William of Malmesbury, De gestis ponticum Anglorum libri quinque, N.E.S.A. Hamilton, ed. (London: 1870), 38.

bec

13

Normandy. The fame of his learning spread all over Europe, until many ocked from France, Gascony, Brittany, and Flanders to sit at his feet.33

Fundamentally, all of the sources concurred in their high praise of Lanfranc’s abilities with the arts and the Bible, the novelty of his approach at Bec, and his inuence across Normandy. But while some contemporaries alluded to a conict between the two curricula in Lanfranc’s thought and practice, other twelfth-century sources highlighted his ability with the arts, particularly dialectic. The exact meaning of “dialectic” (and other terms regarding the arts) to eleventh- and twelfth-century sensibilities is elusive. The possible alternatives range from a general description of presenting and analyzing arguments to a specic reference to technical methods derived from Aristotelian texts. The commentary is a valuable source for evaluating Lanfranc’s ability with the arts and his attitude toward their use, in that his glosses selfconsciously addressed issues of sacred authority and the trivium arts. Lanfranc’s earliest values are perceptible in his directives to the Bec students and conrm valuable information about the Bec curriculum under him. To later generations, Lanfranc was praised as the source of their scholarly opportunities. The most compelling image of Lanfranc in the Vitae was given in a vision to Herluin. Days before King William’s messengers arrived at Bec to announce Lanfranc’s transfer from Normandy to England, Herluin saw an orchard in which an enormous and fruitful apple tree grew. King William admired the tree and commanded Herluin to give it to him, but Herluin refused, saying it was his only means of sustenance. William forcibly uprooted the tree, but Herluin was not disappointed. Sprouts grew from the tree’s roots, and multiple trees ourished in Bec’s gardens. Both Vitae interpreted this vision very plainly. The abbot’s orchard was the church of Bec; the enormous tree was master Lanfranc; and the great trees that sprouted from its roots were his students. Like the tree, Lanfranc sustained Bec, the surrounding churches, and England as well.34 This view of Lanfranc was reinforced in other medieval witnesses. He was universally seen as the teacher, reformer, and defender of orthodoxy who sustained future

33 Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Marjorie Chibnall, ed. and trans. (Oxford: 1969–80), vol. 2.250–1. For Orderic’s sources, including the Vita Lanfranci, see Chibnall’s introduction to the text, vol. 2.xviii–xxi. 34 Vita Herluini, 200–1; Vita Lanfranci, 686.

14

chapter one

generations. A careful reading of his Pauline commentary defends the idea that this image originated with Lanfranc: the duty of the Christian teacher was the care of his students, and he served as their spiritual father just as St. Paul was the father of his disciples. In establishing his students in positions of leadership throughout Europe, Lanfranc was extraordinarily successful in achieving his early ideal. From the vantage point of the Bec histories, future generations of Bec monks paid tribute to Lanfranc as their progenitor in faith and scholarship. In all the medieval records, Lanfranc’s career shone as an example of scholarly advancement, monastic devotion, and political acumen. Lanfranc’s “great trees” sprouted up in positions of importance throughout Europe. Hugh the Chanter recounted that Lanfranc “had been the teacher of almost everyone in France, Germany, or Italy (including Thomas [of York]), who had any reputation at that time as a man of letters.”35 As mentioned earlier, papal letters and Williram’s commentary also noted Lanfranc’s German and Italian students. According to Orderic, Lanfranc’s students originated from France, Gascony, Brittany, and Flanders. He listed Thomas of York, Gundulf Bishop of Rochester, and Guitmund Bishop of Aversa as Lanfranc’s students.36 According to Robert of Torigny, Ivo of Chartres studied at Bec in his youth.37 Eadmer, William of Malmesbury, and the Vita Lanfranci all wrote that Anselm of Baggio, later Pope Alexander II, was Lanfranc’s student.38 Gilbert Crispin was at Bec under Lanfranc, and he recorded Anselm, Abbot William of Cormeilles, Abbot Henry of

35 Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066–1127, Charles Johnson, ed. and trans., revised by M. Brett, C.N.L. Brooke and M. Winterbottom (Oxford: 1990), 4–5. 36 Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, Chibnall, ed., vol. 2. 250, 271, 294, 296; Guitmund of Aversa, De corporis, P.L. 149, 1449–50. 37 Robert of Torigny, The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny, in Richard Howlett, ed., Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I (London: 1889), vol. 4.100–1. Regarding Ivo as a student at Bec, see Lynn K. Barker, “Ivo of Chartres and the Anglo-Norman Cultural Tradition,” Anglo-Norman Studies 13 (1991), 15–33; Bruce C. Brasington, “ ‘Non veni Corinthum’: Ivo of Chartres, Lanfranc, and 2 Corinthians 1.16–17, 23” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law n.s. 21 (1991), 1–9. Brasington identies a passage in Ivo’s Prologue to the Decretum that may be quoted from Lanfranc’s Pauline commentary: “In this exceptional instance, we also potentially have new evidence supporting medieval traditions that Ivo studied under Lanfranc at Bec.” Brasington, 7. 38 Eadmer, Historia novorum in Anglia, Martin Rule, ed. (London: 1884), 11; William of Malmesbury, The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury, Reginald R. Darlington, ed. (London: 1928), 24–5; William of Malmesbury, De gestis ponticum Anglorum, Hamilton, ed., 65; Vita Lanfranci, 697.

bec

15

Battle, Bishop Arnost of Rochester, and Gundulf as Lanfranc’s pupils.39 In reconsidering the medieval record, recent scholarship has deservedly identied Bec’s school as a central force in the formation of personnel and the development of methods of eleventh- and twelfth-century learned culture.40 This survey of biographical sources raises questions to be asked of the Pauline commentary regarding Lanfranc’s curriculum at Bec and his education in Italy and Normandy. In some scholarly discussions of Lanfranc’s works, the commentary has been eclipsed by his eucharistic treatise. This later text has been of most interest to historians as an example of eleventh-century scholars’ emerging skills in theology and logic. The Pauline commentary has been drawn into these studies as a secondary reference to the academic skills that were employed by the eucharistic disputants; however, the commentary in and of itself has received far less scholarly attention.41 An article by Margaret Gibson published in 1971 on the manuscripts of the Pauline commentary is the only critical work published to date. The earliest printed edition of the commentary is that of Luc D’Achery, transcribed from one (nowlost) manuscript in the seventeenth century. The nineteenth-century 39 Vita Herluini, 203–4. For Arnost and Gundulf, also Rodney Thomson, ed., The Life of Gundulf (Toronto: 1977), 26–31. “A search of the records for Bec students who went on to ecclesiastical careers reveals a total of sixty-one abbots, eleven bishops, six archbishops, two papal legates, one cardinal and one pope emerging from Bec to ll high ecclesiastical ofce elsewhere between 1042 and 1170. A cursory search for priors reveals eight individuals, but more could undoubtedly be found. These eighty-nine Bec students included such luminaries as Archbishop William Bonne Ame of Rouen, Archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury, the cardinal-legate Bishop John of Tusculum, the great jurist Ivo of Chartres, and Pope Alexander II. The Bec school was clearly remarkable.” Sally N. Vaughn, “Lanfranc, Anselm and the School of Bec: In Search of the Students of Bec,” in Marc Anthony Meyer, ed., The Culture of Christendom: Essays in Medieval History in Commemoration of Denis L.T. Bethel (London: 1993), 156. See also Vaughn, The Abbey of Bec, 148–9, n. 27; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 21–4. 40 This is the theme of the essays in Sally N. Vaughn and Jay Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 1000–1200 (Turnhout: 2006). “For it is a central contention of this volume that the story of the development of education must pass through the monasteries, and particularly the abbey school of Bec.” 7. 41 For example, R.W. Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours,” in R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern, eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford: 1948), 27–48; Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton: 1983), 241–325; Toivo J. Holopainen, Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century (Leiden: 1996), 45–59. See Gibson, Lanfranc, 245–8 for a list of critical works related to Lanfranc’s life and works published before 1978. Works that include discussions of Lanfranc’s years at Bec and the commentary, and have been written since 1978, will be cited in this study.

16

chapter one

edition of J.A. Giles supplemented D’Achery’s edition with two additional manuscripts. Neither D’Achery’s nor Giles’s edition takes into account the complete list of surviving manuscripts, thereby inaccurately representing the Lanfranc text.42 H.E.J. Cowdrey’s recent biography of Lanfranc includes an exceptional analysis of Lanfranc’s life and work and presents the commentary as the primary example of his work at Bec.43 In addition, the classic biographies of Lanfranc and Anselm, by Gibson and R.W. Southern, contextualize the manuscripts and text of the commentary within the events of Lanfranc’s life.44 The work published in the 1980s by Sally Vaughn reconsiders the chronology that Gibson established for Lanfranc’s early years at Bec. Vaughn’s reevaluation of Gibson’s thesis is pertinent to a discussion of the commentary, when it was written, and the facts of Lanfranc’s early education. Gibson sets the date of Lanfranc’s birth in the 1010s and his departure from Italy c. 1030. Lanfranc may have encountered Berengar at Tours c. 1035 and moved along to Avranches c. 1039. Lanfranc arrived at Bec in 1042, eight years after it was founded, and became prior in 1045. Gibson makes no mention of the insistence of both Vitae that Lanfranc spent three years in sacred studies. Fundamentally, Gibson is wary of the historical reliability of much of the twelfth-century sources’ biographical information, questioning Lanfranc’s early legal training and practice in Pavia, as well as an early date for Bec’s acceptance of external students.45 She cites Nicholas’s letter to Lanfranc, and Anselm’s entry into Bec in 1059, as the only concrete evidence for the acceptance of non-monastic students to Lanfranc’s school, and, consequently, she doubts the claim of the Vitae that the school was opened soon after Lanfranc was made prior in 1045. Instead, she sets the date of the school’s international reputation, and its attraction of foreign students, to the years 1059–63. This casts doubt upon the sources’ reliability for many of the alleged students, particularly Ivo of Chartres and the future Pope Alexander II. Most signicantly, Gibson

42

M.T. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,’ ” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 86–112; L. D’Achery, ed., Beati Lanfranci Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia (Paris, 1648); J.A. Giles, ed., Beati Lanfranci archiepiscopi Cantuariensis opera quae supersunt omnia (Oxford and Paris: 1844), vol. 2.17–146. D’Achery’s edition is reprinted in P.L. 150, 1–782. 43 Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 46–74. 44 Gibson, Lanfranc, 50–61; R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge: 1990), 14–87. 45 Gibson, Lanfranc, 7–11, 26, 34.

bec

17

connects the composition of the commentary to a late opening of the school, dating the commentary to c. 1055–60.46 In her view, Lanfranc’s early teaching at Bec was centered on points of grammar, rhetoric, and logic: “In his later years at Bec—c. 1055 onwards—Lanfranc turned his mind to the study of the Bible, making a particular name for himself in the exegesis of the Psalter and the Pauline Epistles.”47 In Gibson’s estimation, Lanfranc’s international reputation, the open school, and the biblical curriculum are set fteen to twenty years after his arrival at Bec, irrespective of the Vitae’s claims. Vaughn intends “to restore to Lanfranc’s early career some of the luster that recent scholarly investigations have chipped away.”48 In this effort, she has closely researched the claims of the twelfth-century sources, arguing their accuracy on many points, and defending the Vita Lanfranci as a carefully constructed text that used its sources meticulously. She has cross-referenced multiple testimonies regarding the Bec school and its students, and outlined the real possibility that Ivo of Chartres and Anselm of Baggio were students there in the late 1040s or early 1050s, indicating that the school could have, in fact, been opened at a very early date. Vaughn’s argument is comprehensive, combining the facts of Lanfranc’s notoriety as teacher, defensor of the eucharist, and his close associations with ducal and papal politics, to place his international reputation at a very early stage of his tenure at Bec, easily within the 1040s. Signicantly, this would extend the far-ung reputation of his school over two decades, approximately between the years c. 1045–63. However, Vaughn’s interest is the dating of Lanfranc’s school, and she does not address the commentary or issues of its date.49 A reevaluation of the sources’ reliability and the chronology of Lanfranc’s early career is closely related to questions surrounding the composition of the Pauline commentary. If Lanfranc’s school was well established by c. 1045, it seems unlikely that the commentary was

46 Ibid., 4–61. Gibson is responding to earlier scholarship, which took the twelfthcentury sources at face value, as exemplied by A.J. MacDonald, Lanfranc: A Study of his Life, Work and Writing (London: 1926), 2–32. 47 Gibson, Lanfranc, 51. 48 Sally N. Vaughn, “Lanfranc at Bec: A Reinterpretation,” Albion 17 (1985), 135. 49 Ibid., 135–48; Vaughn, The Abbey of Bec, 1–21. Without explicitly taking up the issues between Gibson and Vaughn, Cowdrey seriously considers the claims of the medieval sources and details the relevance of Lanfranc’s open school to his reputation and the development of Bec, but does not address the particulars of the commentary’s dating. Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 19–24, 50–9.

18

chapter one

written over a decade later. Indeed, Gibson’s concern to connect the commentary to the open school may not be the right approach at all. An investigation of the commentary reects an author who was concerned with his monastic context, and who relegated questions about the arts to the greater authority of sacred writings. In fact, the commentary portrays Lanfranc’s concerns and abilities much as the Bec sources portray his conversion in the 1040s, with his immediate preoccupation being monastic pursuits and a secular curriculum as a troublesome distraction. Also, as will be suggested in this study, the commentary demonstrates Lanfranc’s exegetical abilities at their earliest point of development. The claim of the Vitae that Lanfranc spent his rst three years at Bec in intensive scripture study is suggestive. If the commentary had been written this early, it may well contain valuable information about the young Lanfranc: what he studied and taught in Italy and France, his contributions to a monastic community, and, signicantly, the decits in his early education for a convert to the religious life. These questions refer beyond Lanfranc’s biography to larger educational issues of the eleventh century, to the curricula of Italy and France. The eleventh-century Italian arts curriculum reected the needs of its sophisticated government and tradition of public life. A student such as Lanfranc received a basic education in Italy in grammar, rhetoric, and logic, subjects that were useful for teaching literature and a persuasive verbal style. All of this was in preparation for a public, governmental, or legal career.50 Traditionally, modern scholarship on Lanfranc has identied Italy as the locale for a standard instruction in the classics but has viewed France as the place for intellectual novelties. In this view, Lanfranc and other Italian scholars would have traveled to France to acquire advanced training in the trivium arts, particularly dialectic. Southern interprets Lanfranc’s possible course of study under Berengar as providing an important dialectical component to Lanfranc’s educational background.51 The image presented in the medieval sources was

50

Gibson, Lanfranc, 11–5. “The most signicant of these trends is one which is noticeable from the end of the tenth century in the form of a persistent trickle of able men from Italy to Northern France. . . . They left a society, on the whole, more comfortable and more literate for one which was cruder and more aggressive, in search of a learning which was not to be found in Italy. . . . It was the desire to learn logic which brought Gerbert from Rome to Rheims; it was a desire to turn from law to grammar and logic which later drew Lanfranc from Pavia to Tours. These were the subjects in which intellectual novelties and excitements were to be found.” R.W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven: 1953), 196. For 51

bec

19

somewhat different. They universally lauded the unique characteristics of Lanfranc’s Italian training and claimed that this was the cause of his impact in France. He arrived in Normandy already well prepared to teach a novel curriculum and was successful simply because learning such as his was rare. The Miracula sancti Nicholai mentioned Lanfranc’s dialectical skills, but also claimed that he quickly rejected whatever intellectual novelties Berengar’s instruction had to offer (although the description of Berengar’s teaching in “scientia litterarum” is too indenite to determine exactly what this might have been).52 The question remains: if academic novelties were to be sought north of the Alps, what inuence did they have upon Lanfranc? This hazy image of Lanfranc’s intellectual tastes, the special attributes of his Italian training, and his disgust for academic extremes may be sharpened by reference to the commentary’s contents. There is no reason to disregard the consequence of Lanfranc’s Italian training. Modern historians regard training in rhetoric as the fundamental component of Italian literary culture. In his essay on the origins of Italian humanism, Ronald Witt denes an Italian “commitment to ancient Latin style” and traces a continuity with ancient texts and methodologies in the centuries following the diminishment of Roman institutions and preceding the emergence of a humanistic literary culture in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He contrasts the Carolingian educational enterprise of northern Europe, which enthroned grammar as the queen of the trivium, to the persistent rhetorical component in Italian curricula. A uniquely Italian “culture of the document” challenged a grammatical curriculum, utilized private schools, and elevated the image of the lawyer. Here the layman as well as the cleric was literate, entailing a widespread Latin literacy and promoting a large notarial class that functioned to draft and interpret legal documents. The texts and methods of Latin rhetoric were the primary sources for the instruction and methodology of presenting a legal case. By 1000, this literary movement had sufciently challenged the traditional school curriculum: “The demand for rhetorical-legal studies that emerged in

a critique of this view see Charles M. Radding, “The Geography of Learning in Early Eleventh-Century Europe: Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours Revisited,” Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo e archivio muratoriano 98 (1992), 145–72. 52 For differing viewpoints concerning the content of Berengar’s teaching see Radding, “The Geography of Learning,” 166–9; Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 241–325; Holopainen, Dialectic, 44–76; Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec,” 27–48.

20

chapter one

the eleventh century rode on the crest of a buoyant documentary culture eager to see its sons advance their economic and political position in an expanding world through access to the books of the law.”53 In the eleventh century, the intellectual center of this documentary culture was Pavia, Lanfranc’s birthplace, where a class of legal ofcials attached to the royal palace under the Lombards, Carolingians, and Saxons endured into Lanfranc’s youth.54 The Vita Lanfranci stated that Lanfranc’s father was “a member of the order who protected the rights and laws of the city,” and that Lanfranc himself had been trained in the Italian schools of the liberal arts and law to became an orator and lawyer of Pavia.55 Extant Italian legal documents augment this view of Lanfranc as the Pavian lawyer. One of the existing Pavese legal texts, the Expositiones of the Liber Papiensis, recorded the legal debates of “Lanfranc” with Bonlius, a Pavese jurist of c. 1014–55. This Lanfranc is mentioned three times in the Expositiones, once as “lanfrancus archiepsicopus,” and this could only refer to Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury. Although modern scholars have not considered the evidence of the Expositiones weighty enough to resolve the question of Lanfranc’s law career in Pavia, it is one component of the medieval record that uniformly accentuated the notable attributes of Lanfranc’s Italian training.56 Lawyer or not, Lanfranc would have received a rm grounding in the rhetorical curriculum available in the Pavese schools. The rhetorical texts of Cicero dominated this curriculum of eleventhcentury Italy. Other ancient texts, such as the Rhetoric of Aristotle, the Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, or even Cicero’s mature De oratore, had fallen out of use. The core textbooks were Cicero’s youthful De inventione, the Ad Herennium, which (until Erasmus’s refutation) was assumed to have been written by Cicero, and to a lesser degree, the Topica of

53 Ronald G. Witt, “Medieval Italian Culture and the Origins of Humanism as a Stylistic Idea,” in Albert Rabil, ed., Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy (Philadelphia: 1988), vol. 1.38. 54 Stephan Kuttner, “The Revival of Jurisprudence,” in Robert L. Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol D. Lanham, eds., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: 1982), 302–3; Witt, “Medieval Italian Culture,” 36–7; D.A. Bullough, “Urban Change in Early Medieval Italy: The Example of Pavia,” Papers of the British School at Rome 34 (1966), 82–130. 55 Vita Lanfranci, 668, 681. 56 For example, Gibson, Lanfranc, 4–11. See also Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 6–8. The exception is Charles Radding who argues for Lanfranc’s status as a lawyer of Pavia. Charles M. Radding, The Origins of Medieval Jurisprudence: Pavia and Bologna 850–1150 (New Haven: 1988), 87–8.

bec

21

Cicero.57 Numerous extant commentaries and anonymous glosses on the De inventione and Ad Herennium indicate the importance of these texts in classrooms from the early eleventh to the fteenth centuries. Lanfranc is numbered among “a number of scholars who certainly wrote commentaries, but whose work cannot be recognised among our extant MSS.”58 However, fragmentary notes on both texts that are attributed to Lanfranc survive and point to Lanfranc’s expertise with the core texts of the Italian rhetorical tradition.59 Further evidence for training in Ciceronian rhetoric in Lanfranc’s Pavian setting is provided by his contemporary Anselm of Besate. Anselm was born c. 1020 in Besate, located between Milan and Pavia. His aristocratic background ensured that he received an excellent education in Lanfranc’s home region. His earliest education was conducted in Milan, and then in Parma under master Drogo, and later under Sichelm in Reggio.60 Anselm’s sole surviving work, the Rhetorimachia, is an extended rhetorical debate between Anselm and his cousin Rotiland. Throughout the text of the Rhetorimachia, Anselm refuted Rotiland’s charges and presented his own case by means of rhetorical devices. In a letter addressed to Drogo, Anselm admitted that his charges were fabricated, that he had created a hypothetical debate in order to demonstrate the appropriate application of rhetorical precepts.61 His methodology was bizarre only because the debated issues involved Rotiland’s and Anselm’s ctitious accusations against one another of extreme immoral

57 Martin Camargo, “Rhetoric,” in David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages (Bloomington: 1983), 99–100; James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Tempe: 2001 reprint of original 1974 edition), 90–6; John O. Ward, “From Antiquity to the Renaissance: Glosses and Commentaries on Cicero’s Rhetorica,” in Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence, 27, 53–6. Again, scholars agree that these texts were transmitted, studied, and put to practical use in Italy: “Perhaps it would be accurate to say that in the north Cicero survived largely by reputation and in physical presence—that is, in seldom-consulted books resting on library shelves and in grammatical teaching—while south of the Alps Cicero exercised a direct inuence through constant use.” Murphy, Rhetoric, 111. See also Camargo, “Rhetoric,” 104–5. 58 Ward, “From Antiquity to the Renaissance,” 35 and n. 22. 59 Richard William Hunt, “Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies I (1943), 207–8; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 104–5, n. 5. 60 H.E.J. Cowdrey, “Anselm of Besate and some North-Italian Scholars of the Eleventh Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 23 (1972), 115–6. 61 Anselm of Besate, Epistola Anselmi peripatetici ad Drogonem phylosophum, in Karl Manitius, ed., Gunzo Epistola ad Augienses und Anselm von Besate Rhetorimachia (Weimar: 1958), 102–3.

22

chapter one

conduct, but within this guise, the rhetorical principles advocated by Anselm were mainstream and predominately Ciceronian.62 Although his work cited a number of classical and philosophical texts, including Boethius, Lucan, Ovid, Priscian, and Virgil, almost half of the treatise’s quotations were derived from the De inventione and Ad Herennium combined. A smaller number were quoted from the Topica of Cicero. An extremely small number of citations were from Christian authors (primarily Augustine, Cassian, and Gregory), but in method and citation, the rhetorical texts of Cicero predominated Anselm’s work.63 Anselm’s treatise and Lanfranc’s commentary demonstrate the authors’ exposure to a similar curriculum. The Ciceronian rhetorical texts were the primary classical sources for each. Anselm’s dependence upon the classical texts greatly exceeded his use of the Christian fathers. With Lanfranc it was the same: his knowledge of the fathers was acquired much more recently and applied more tentatively than the rhetorical books. Each author appears to have been educated in the rhetorical texts during his youth, at the expense of the Christian classics. A defense of the strengths of Lanfranc’s Italian education does not discount the possibility that he might have continued his studies after his arrival in France. It does, however, point to the centrality of rhetoric in Lanfranc’s early educational program and underlines the fact that his Italian training was novel to France. Lanfranc’s biographical sources accentuated this disconnection between his Italian education and monastic conversion by noting not only the advantages of his upbringing, but also the necessity of his intensive and lengthy study of the Bible and his new preference for sacred study. The events of Lanfranc’s early life become clearer after his admission to Bec in 1042. At the time of Lanfranc’s arrival, Normandy was emerging as a self-governed territorial entity and distancing itself

62 Anselm’s use of specic rhetorical devices is discussed in Beth S. Bennett, “The Signicance of the Rhetorimachia of Anselm de Besate to the History of Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 5 (1987), 231–50. 63 These judgments are based upon the index of authors in Manitius’s edition of the Rhetorimachia, 197–9. See also Radding, “The Geography of Learning,” 158. An eleventh-century Italian manuscript of the Rhetorimachia includes glosses in the same hand as the text that analyzed the argument and the rhetorical devices used. These glosses may be original to Anselm. Manitius, 88; Bennett, “The Signicance of the Rhetorimachia,” 248. Radding compares the content and methods of these glosses to Lanfranc’s Pauline commentary. Radding, “The Geography of Learning,” 159.

bec

23

from the authority of the French Capetian monarchy.64 Duke William was also ghting to assert his dominance over the unruly aristocratic Norman families in an effort to reverse the disintegration of ducal power that had resulted from his lengthy minority. William’s power was secured only by 1050, preceded by many years of insecurity and violent turmoil. In step with increased political stability, one of William’s primary objectives was to strengthen the ecclesiastical institutions of Normandy. This effort met with considerable success during his reign. In the turbulent years after the Scandinavian invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, Norman monasteries and bishoprics had been wiped out. Of the seven Norman diocesan sees, there is evidence only for Rouen’s persistent survival throughout the tenth century, and only the monasteries of Ouen, Jumièges, Mont-St.-Michel, St. Wandrille, and Fécamp had been reestablished in the tenth century. By 1030 the aristocracy joined the ducal effort of establishing monasteries, extending the number of monastic communities from six in 1026, to thirty-seven by 1070.65 Bec was representative of its Norman context: its development ran parallel to Normandy’s increased stability, and its obscure beginning was transformed by ducal attention. One requirement of Lanfranc’s role as prior and teacher would have been the establishment of a library at Bec. Since Herluin founded the monastery with few resources, and was himself illiterate, this responsibility was Lanfranc’s. Bec could not have owned many books. According to the Vitae, the monks were coarse and unlearned, and the monastery was poor. The only book mentioned in the Vitae was the Bible, the subject of Lanfranc’s independent studies in the early 1040s. Lanfranc would have needed to look elsewhere for books, just as other Norman foundations commonly relied upon established monasteries for their membership, liturgical implements, and books.66 Because of the importance of the Bec school, and the very fact that within thirty years of its foundation it produced a scholar such as Anselm, its early library is of considerable interest to historians. Although an eleventhcentury catalog does not exist, there are other sources available for 64 For the place of Normandy within the development of the other French principalities and the Capetian monarchy, see Elizabeth Hallam, Capetian France, 987–1328 (London: 1980), 34–43. For the early history of Normandy, see Bates, Normandy, 15; Marjorie Chibnall, The Normans (Oxford: 2000), 11–6. 65 Bates, Normandy, 189–235; Chibnall, The Normans, 23–37. 66 For book lending in Normandy see Giles E.M. Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury and his Theological Inheritance (Aldershot: 2004), 43–55.

24

chapter one

identifying Bec’s books. A surviving twelfth-century catalogue is useful for evaluating the library’s eleventh-century contents.67 This catalogue can be compared to existing catalogues of other Norman monasteries, one of them from Fécamp and dating to the eleventh century, to evaluate the types of volumes local monastic communities collected.68 Only one manuscript, Lanfranc’s collection of canon law, is known to survive from eleventh-century Bec, but the works of Lanfranc and Anselm that were written during or immediately following their tenure at Bec are valuable for their source citations.69 Copies of texts that were corrected by Lanfranc and still contain his annotations remain, as do a group of manuscripts containing marginalia attributed to Lanfranc. Finally, there are the letter collections of Lanfranc and Anselm, which reference texts and cite volumes to lend or copy. Using these sources, Southern’s evaluation of Bec’s library has been continued in Giles E.M. Gasper’s analysis of Anselm’s sources. All told, their method identies almost ninety titles that were available to Lanfranc and Anselm in their early years at Bec.70 According to this list, fully one-third of the works at Bec were by Augustine. Other expected monastic/sacred works were represented, particularly Ambrose, Bede, Gregory the Great, and Jerome. The Greek fathers, Carolingian authors, and a handful of trivium texts were also at Bec: the Categoriae and De interpretatione of Aristotle, Cicero, Boethius’s 67 Catalogus librorum abbatiae Beccensis, P.L. 150, 771–8. Another twelfth-century list records the gifts of Philip Harcourt Bishop of Bayeux. P.L. 150, 779–82. 68 Geneviève Nortier, Les bibliothèques médiévales des abbayes bénédictines de Normandie (Caen: 1966). For Bec see pp. 57–83, and for the list of works in the surviving catalogues of Norman monasteries see Appendix II. 69 This is Cambridge, Trinity College B.16.44, probably Lanfranc’s personal copy of the canon law collection used by him at Bec and Canterbury. Z.N. Brooke, The English Church and the Papacy: From the Conquest to the Reign of John (Cambridge: 1952), 57–83. Historians have debated whether Lanfranc himself was the editor of this collection. See Gibson, Lanfranc, 139–40. For the contents of the Collectio Lanfranci see Mark Philpott, “Lanfranc’s Canonical Collection and ‘the Law of the Church,’” in D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia, 131–47; Martin Brett, “The Collectio Lanfranci and its Competitors,” in Lesley Smith and Benedicta Ward, eds., Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Margaret Gibson (London: 1992), 157–74. A bibliography of secondary literature and manuscripts of the Collectio Lanfranci is found in Lotte Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (Washington DC: 1999), 239–43. 70 Southern, Saint Anselm, 35–8, 53–9 and Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury, 81–106, 206–9. See also Margaret Gibson, “Lanfranc’s Notes on Patristic Texts,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 435–50; N.R. Ker, English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford: 1960), 25–31; Z.N. Brooke, The English Church, 68–71; Richard Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c. 1066–1130) (Oxford: 1999), 9–11.

bec

25

translations, and Plato’s Timaeus. Based upon this list, some judgments about Lanfranc as a churchman can be made. A fundamental quality must have been sheer tenacity and resourcefulness. This list represents a remarkably extensive library for any eleventh-century monastery, certainly for one as new as Bec. Lanfranc selected the basic texts of Christian learning for his school, with Augustine as the central authority of the collection, followed by other expected patristic authors. The collection favored exegetical works and treatises on the sacraments and monastic life, all of which were appropriate for a monastic school. Lanfranc’s curriculum, visible in some respects in the pages of the commentary, is augmented by this list. Lanfranc was not a maverick. Texts of the liberal arts were present, but theological works predominated, and these were all of conrmed authority. Lanfranc’s biblical commentaries would have been among the books at Bec. Lanfranc glossed the Psalms as well as the epistles of St. Paul.71 The joint study of the Psalter and St. Paul would have been protable to a recent convert to the monastic life, providing, from the Psalms, a requisite instruction in the ofces of the Benedictine liturgy (signicantly, a topic of Lanfranc’s early studies in the 1040s), and, from Paul, the basics of Christian doctrine. Lanfranc’s glosses on Paul represent his earliest study of the epistles, the moment he had turned from rhetoric to theology, and his rst attempt to tackle Pauline themes such as sin, grace, and the human will. Lanfranc emerges from the pages of the commentary as a tentative exegete, uncertain of his sources, and particularly concerned with absorbing and correctly representing Augustine’s teaching. He made glaring mistakes. Despite this, Lanfranc’s glosses exhibit a keen mind and a unique approach to the logical and rhetorical dimensions of the epistles. The specic function of the Pauline text, as both theological and practical, instructive in matters of Christian doctrine and appropriate practice, made it a required topic for Lanfranc’s earliest theological studies and also applicable to his students’ education. According to his contemporaries, Lanfranc’s teaching at Bec included lectures on the

71 Although manuscripts of Lanfranc’s Psalms commentary do not survive, two of its glosses are cited in Herbert of Bosham’s edition of Peter Lombard’s commentary on the Psalms and in the commentary of Ivo of Chartres. The identical glosses appear in both commentaries and are transcribed in Beryl Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria: Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 9 (1937), 375.

26

chapter one

Psalms and St. Paul. The surviving manuscripts of the Pauline commentary attest to these lectures. This study will consider the commentary as a school text, that is, as representative of Lanfranc’s instruction in the Bec classroom. This approach is based on several points inherent to the commentary text. First, the text conrms the known circumstances of Lanfranc’s early years at Bec and his efforts to develop a curriculum and library. Second, Lanfranc’s overriding concern in the commentary was the classroom, namely, its methods, sources, and the behavior required of its participants. Third, as will be discussed, the length and scope of the glosses appear to have been designed for application in the classroom. They are Lanfranc’s personal notes, but their brevity and close attention to the text, as well as their position directly adjacent to the Bible’s text, would also have served him well in an oral presentation.72 As an expositor of St. Paul, Lanfranc stood in good company. Pauline commentators number among the notable gures of Christian history: Jerome, Augustine, Haimo of Auxerre, Hrabanus Maurus, Florus of Lyons, Sedulius Scottus, and in Lanfranc’s day, Berengar of Tours, Bruno of Chartreux, Manegold of Lautenbach, and Anselm of Laon.73 Throughout the history of western Christianity, the collection of Paul’s letters was essential to the development of Christological and Trinitarian formulations and to the articulation of doctrinal concepts such as free will, grace, and predestination. Pauline commentary recurrently provided the material for doctrinal inquiry and theological controversy, most notably and originally, in the Pelagian debate of the early fth century. Pelagius had expressed his objectionable theories on the freedom of the human will in a Pauline commentary, and Augustine’s numerous treatises written in response to Pelagian teachings were based upon

72 Regarding the relationship of glossed texts and the classroom (although of different texts, provenance, and era), the following articles are thought provoking: Michael Lapidge, “The Study of Latin Texts in late Anglo-Saxon England [I] The Evidence of Latin Glosses,” in Nicholas Brooks, ed., Latin and the Vernacular Languages in Early Medieval Britain: Papers Delivered to the Fifth Annual St. John’s House Symposium, University of St. Andrew’s, 12 May 1979 (Leicester: 1982), 99–140; Gernot R. Wieland, “The Glossed Manuscript: Classbook or Library Book?” Anglo-Saxon England 14 (1985), 153–73. 73 See Werner Affeldt, “Verzeichnis der Römerbriefkommentare der lateinischen Kirche bis zu Nikolaus von Lyra,” Traditio 13 (1957), 369–406. Useful lists of Pauline exegesis can also be found in Robert E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster: 1959), 109–15; C. Spicq, Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au moyen âge (Paris: 1944), 399–400. The most complete source for medieval commentaries is F. Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid: 1940/1950–1980).

bec

27

exegetical analysis of St. Paul. These issues did not go away. Repeatedly, generations of churchmen encountered the Pauline/Augustinian synthesis on issues of the human person and salvation, claiming Augustine’s authority in their own denitions of Pauline theology.74 As distant as the Protestant Reformation, theological controversy surrounded issues of Pauline interpretation and Augustinian authority. The medieval biblical interpretive enterprise was one of accretion and adoption. It was always desirable that the work of earlier, eminent commentators be incorporated into any new production, thereby borrowing from their conrmed authority. Lanfranc’s commentary was no different. It included quotations from patristic commentators, and was itself used and quoted by commentators of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. However, Lanfranc and his contemporaries experimented with exegetical formats and methods. Carolingian exegetes saw their role as compilers of ancient authorities, gathering together in one commentary the comments of innumerable ancient authors. Even those commentators who took on a more independent role did so in the guise of harmonizing ancient sources, while interspersing their own comments with those of others. In Carolingian commentary, length and verbosity were virtues, and most of these texts were many times the length of both earlier and later productions.75 By the eleventh century, exegetes deemphasized their role as collator. Dependence upon the church fathers’ authority was still a given—one’s own evaluation of scripture’s meaning must be made within the connes of accepted patristic interpretation, and one’s sources might be cited—but eleventh-century commentaries were largely independent works and more selective, rarely like the encyclopedic gatherings of Carolingian exegetes. Lanfranc’s Pauline commentary depended upon only two Christian sources, both of which were quoted alongside his own glosses, but the number of his own glosses far exceeded theirs. This external material is attributed to “Augustine” and “Ambrose.” As will be discussed, the Augustine material was extracted from a Carolingian collection of quotations taken from Augustine’s writings. Only in the book of Galatians was the Augustine material extracted from an original work of Augustine’s, the Ad Galatas. The Ambrose material was taken from 74 For example, David Ganz, “The Debate on Predestination,” in Margaret Gibson and Janet Nelson, eds., Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (Oxford: 1981), 353–73. 75 Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: 1964 paperback edition of the original 1952 edition), 37–46.

28

chapter one

Ambrosiaster, a Latin version of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the Latin Chrysostom. This compilation of three authors circulated as one text in the middle ages and was assumed to be the work of St. Ambrose, the fourth-century bishop of Milan. There was mutual dependence between these excerpts and the independent glosses. Lanfranc’s interpretation of verses affected how and what he quoted, as much as his sources inuenced his own glosses. Lanfranc’s glosses and excerpts were extremely brief. They were generally only a sentence or two long and, as a rule, two or three glosses sufced to explicate a given biblical verse. Lanfranc’s tone was terse, even abrupt, quickly summarizing one verse and moving along to the next. These characteristics, brevity and relative independence, were common to other known eleventh-century commentaries, those of Berengar and Drogo of Paris on Paul, and of Bruno of Chartreux and Manegold of Lautenbach on the Psalms and St. Paul.76 Since eleventh-century commentaries tended to be written in glossed format, whereby the biblical and commentary texts were ruled separately and often harmonized by systems of markers on each folio page, brevity was an important attribute. Unlike a continuous commentary, glossed texts were severely limited by folio space, that is, by what could easily t alongside, or at least on the same folio page, as the biblical text. Techniques for accommodating both biblical and gloss texts were evolving in the eleventh century, and the surviving manuscripts of Lanfranc’s commentary comprise a signicant example of this development. Nine of the twelve Lanfranc manuscripts are glossed, including two eleventhcentury manuscripts. The scribe of Canterbury Cathedral Archives Additional Manuscript 172, an early and signicant testimony to the Lanfranc text, ruled the biblical text in a column near the binding, leaving a wide margin on the border of each page for the insertion of the commentary text. From the outset, the Bible had been prepared to accommodate a gloss. As the words of St. Paul are read, a series of markers directs the reader’s attention to the corresponding glosses or to briefer notes inserted above the biblical text interlineally. If this was a system similar to that used in Lanfranc’s original copy, the benecial function of this format is evident. In a classroom setting, the master had both text and interpretation available at a glance. His Bible was annotated with his

76

Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 365–400.

bec

29

own scholarly inquiries concerning the biblical text, which markedly assisted the oral reading, or lectio, of the text. As a series of brief, but informative notes, Lanfranc’s glosses would have served as an auxiliary to an elaborated lecture on the Apostle’s words. In form and content, eleventh-century commentaries such as Lanfranc’s anticipated the productions of future generations. By the twelfth century, the glossed format was universally accepted, and St. Paul and the Psalms were the most popular scriptural books studied in the northern schools.77 Historians have traced the development of the biblical gloss as a gradual, even centuries-long, process that was resolved by the emergence of the twelfth-century standardized text of the Glossa ordinaria.78 Before the acceptance of this text, a number of glosses such as Lanfranc’s were circulated in the decades intervening the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Many of these early glosses originated from the coordinated efforts of scholars at Laon, working under the direction of Anselm of Laon and his brother Ralph.79 The Laon scholars’ completion of a gloss for all the books of the Bible probably took decades, extending beyond the date of Anselm’s death in 1117. Gradually, these books were copied, circulated, and in a process elusive to modern scholars, accepted as the primary scriptural authority in the schools of northern Europe. The authoritative unity of the multiple commentaries is demonstrable in their manuscript production. By the mid-twelfth century, individual commentaries to the different books of the Bible were no longer copied and circulated one by one, but as unied, and often quite expensively, produced sets.80

77

Beryl Smalley, “The Bible in the Medieval Schools,” in G.W.H. Lampe, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation (Cambridge: 1969), vol. 2.205. 78 Guy Lobrichon, “Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible,” in Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, eds., Le Moyen Âge et la Bible (Paris: 1984), 95–114. 79 Beryl Smalley’s work is invaluable to a study of the development of the Glossa ordinaria. See “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria I” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935), 235–62; “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria II” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1936), 24–60; “Les commentaires bibliques de l’époque romane: glose ordinaire et gloses périmées,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 4 (1961), 15–22. See also Margaret T. Gibson, “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis,” in Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr., eds., Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers (Notre Dame: 1992), 6–12; Gibson, “The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible,” Studia Patristica 23 (1989), 232–44. 80 C.F.R. de Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk: 1984), 1–13; Gibson, “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria,” 19–21.

30

chapter one

The joint development of the Glossa ordinaria commentaries on Paul and Psalms is the most complex among the biblical books. After the composition of Anselm of Laon’s commentaries, his student Gilbert de la Porée made revisions to the commentaries on Psalms and St. Paul c. 1130. These texts, known eventually as the Media glosatura, were widely copied, circulated, and collected alongside Anselm’s commentary. Gilbert’s work inuenced a second revision of Psalms and St. Paul, written by Peter Lombard (d.1160) and known as the Magna glosatura. Although Peter’s commentaries were probably written for his own use and not intended to be copied, Herbert of Bosham made copies of them in the early 1170s, and they were widely circulated. Editions of the Glossa ordinaria of the 1160s and 1170s demonstrate an amalgam of texts: scribes wrote, and collectors assembled, a combination of Anselm’s, Gilbert’s, and Peter’s commentaries on Psalms and St. Paul, along with the standardized texts for the rest of the Bible. However, soon thereafter, Peter’s commentaries rapidly replaced the earlier texts in the gloss sets that were produced after the last third of the twelfth century.81 Lanfranc’s commentary on St. Paul ts into the earliest stage of the development of the glossed Bible, as an original source for later glossators. His commentary was merged into compendia and quoted by later expositors. This process is evident in some of the twelfth-century Lanfranc manuscripts that merged his commentary with patristic material and contemporary glosses attributed to Berengar and Drogo of Paris. Commentaries such as these paralleled the efforts of the Laon scholars. Lanfranc’s gloss has been cited as a signicant model for the Laon commentaries, which retained something of Lanfranc’s arrangement of gloss and page layout, quoted a number of his glosses verbatim, and modied others. As such, the Lanfranc manuscripts are an important example of developments in the production of the glossed text prior to the Glossa ordinaria. There is even evidence of Lanfranc’s inuence throughout the circuitous development of the Pauline text of the Glossa ordinaria. Two passages in Hebrews in Peter Lombard’s “great gloss”

81 de Hamel, Glossed Books, 5–9. A point of interest in the production of the gloss is the development of the format. The development of techniques for producing these books ran parallel to the transition from Anselm’s to Gilbert’s to Peter’s revisions. Each text dictated a different format. Ibid., 14–27. On Lombard, see Marcia L. Colish, “Peter Lombard as an Exegete of St. Paul,” in Jordan and Emery, Jr., eds., Ad Litteram, 71–92.

bec

31

are attributed to Lanfranc, and certain others appear to be borrowed from him and altered.82 The manuscripts of the commentary comprise a rare example of the developments that culminated in twelfth-century scholasticism, developments in exegetical method, educational institutions, and curricula. In critical scholarly works, historians have cited the commentary as an exceptional example of this era’s shift in intellectual inquiry and methods, particularly noting Lanfranc’s prociency with the arts. Nevertheless, very little critical work on the commentary has dealt with the text in its own right, with Lanfranc’s eleventh-century academic environment, sources, methods, or particular theological stance. Critical works have relied upon the only available editions, and these insufciently represent the surviving manuscripts. An investigation of the commentary in its own context entails a study of the manuscripts to establish the text and format original to Lanfranc’s composition, as well as an evaluation of Lanfranc’s use of the arts, knowledge of scripture, and familiarity with his theological heritage. A brief introduction to Lanfranc’s style and method will depict many of the commentary’s attributes and frame the issues for further analysis. In the following series of glosses from Romans 6.20–3, the scriptural verses are cited rst, followed by the scriptural catchwords to which Lanfranc’s glosses are appended, and then the glosses themselves:83 Rom. 6.20: For when you were the servants of sin, you were free from justice. cum enim servi essetis peccati liberi fuistis iustitiae.84 Lanfranc: When. . . . This is the reason they must be slaves to righteousness. It is necessary to be a slave either to righteousness or to sin. But when you are a slave to sin, righteousness is wanting, and you acquire the prot that makes you ashamed. Which is logically inconsistent. Therefore, righteousness must be served. cum enim. . . . Ratio cur servire iustitiae eos oporteat. Aut enim iustitiae servire, aut peccato necesse est. Sed cum servitur peccato abest iustitia,

82

Gibson, Lanfranc, 60; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 378. A on Rom. 6.20–3, fol. 19r. 84 B. Fischer, et al., eds., Biblia sacra: iuxta Vulgatem versionem (Stuttgart: 1969, third edition). Unless otherwise indicated, the Latin Bible will be quoted from this printed edition. In the instances where Lanfranc’s biblical text varies, the manuscripts of the commentary will be cited. English translations of the biblical text will be quoted from the Douay-Rheims version. 83

32

chapter one adquiritur fructus unde erubescitur. Quod est inconveniens. Serviendum est igitur iustitiae. free. . . . that is, deprived of liberi. . . . id est expertes. Rom. 6.21–2: What fruit, therefore, had you then in those things, of which you are now ashamed? For the end of them is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctication, and the end everlasting life. quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in quibus nunc erubescitis nam nis illorum mors est nunc vero liberati a peccato servi autem facti Deo habetis fructum vestrum in sancticationem nem vero vitam aeternam. Lanfranc: unto sanctication. . . . that is, the prot of your work is sanctication. in sancticationem. . . . id est fructus vestri operis est sancticatio. Rom. 6.23: For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, everlasting life, in Christ Jesus, our Lord. stipendia enim peccati mors gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro. Lanfranc: the wages. . . . This is the reason why they have been freed from sin, and have become slaves to God. This is the sense: sin brings forth this wage. Namely, through what is justly owed, sin brings forth death. However, the grace of God, that is, the virtue that is given through the grace of God, is eternal life. That is, grace brings forth eternal life. Stipendia. . . . Causa cur liberati sunt a peccato, et cur servi facti deo, et est sensus. Peccatum hoc stipendium. Per hanc retributionem dat mortem scilicet, gratia autem dei, id est virtus quae per gratiam dei datur, vita aeterna est, id est vitam aeternam dat. in Christ. . . . that is, in faith in Christ Jesus. In christo. . . . id est in de christi iesu.

The rst point of interest is the close connection between verse and gloss. The glosses were devised as basic study guides to each verse. Lanfranc’s logical maneuverings were so intricate and closely related to the diction and development of Paul’s argument that his glosses would be meaningless apart from a careful comparison to the original text. The benets of the glossed format are apparent. Lanfranc’s comments were commonly brief, succinct summaries of a discrete biblical verse. They seem redundant, mere reiterations of Paul’s words, but their depth and value is found in their consistent attempt to unveil the most basic logical components of each verse and to relate this to Paul’s argument as a whole. For example, in the longer gloss on 6.20,

bec

33

Lanfranc demonstrated Paul’s argument through a basic syllogistic structure (aut . . . aut . . . at . . . igitur). Referring to 6.16, Lanfranc incorporated Paul’s claim that one must be a slave to either sin or righteousness, but, according to 6.20–1, the prot of sin is logically inconsistent (inconveniens). Therefore, the Christian must be a slave to righteousness (v. 22). Not only did Lanfranc’s gloss grapple with the logical structure of verse 20, in so doing it summarized the signicant point of an entire section. The interlinear glosses pinpointed the meaning of individual words, “liberi,” “in sancticationem,” further contributing to Lanfranc’s interpretation of a particular verse. The lengthy gloss on Romans 6.23 took into account the earlier syllogistic proof and summarized the entire argument of the sixth chapter of Romans: if we are set free from sin, we must be slaves to God. It should be noted that Lanfranc’s glosses worked on two levels. To a beginning audience, Lanfranc would have worked through the methodical reasoning of Paul’s words, building his students’ basic reading comprehension of the text. But working through this structure in a more detailed fashion would have been a thought-provoking exercise for advanced students. A discussion based upon the glosses would have led to intriguing conclusions. The implications of Lanfranc’s gloss on verse 23 were quite involved: Sin has a price, death. Grace has a price, eternal life. So the human can choose shame and death, or righteousness and life. Why would one not choose life? Lanfranc forced the student into a rhetorical corner, illuminating Paul’s fundamental point, a call to action, and making any other course of action untenable. Despite their apparent simplicity, the true difculty of Lanfranc’s glosses was their intricacy. To truly get the point, a student’s time and attention were required to work through the scriptural and gloss texts in tandem. The glosses’ search for a sustained theological theme appears secondary to their disclosure of individual terms’ meanings, syntax, and sentence structure. But in this, theological themes readily emerge. As such, Lanfranc was not merely rephrasing the Apostle’s words or arbitrarily recasting them into a formal structure. He sifted through them to nd the integral components of their argument, reorganizing them and representing their most crucial theological content. In fact, the theological message was the primary motivation of Lanfranc’s glosses. He was looking for the theological truth in the muddle of Paul’s difcult Latin and argumentative structures. Lanfranc’s glosses on Romans 6 indicate his familiarity with formal classical methods. He acknowledged a syllogistic structure in Paul’s

34

chapter one

words and recurrently rephrased them to highlight their intrinsic rhetorical strength. The methods of the liberal arts were his avenue to the doctrinal content of the epistles. A study of these methods and their relationship to theological inquiry will be crucial to a study of the commentary. Similarly, the glosses from Romans 6 indicate some of the characteristics of a glossed commentary and its dependence upon easy reference to the scriptural text. A study of the commentary’s manuscripts must address the function of a glossed text and how those manuscripts that present the commentary as a continuous text might have functioned differently. The particular method of Lanfranc’s glosses inuenced his inclusion of the patristic material, and analysis must address how the three strands of material interact and form one commentary text. Finally, the commentary is a rare survival from an eleventh-century classroom, and it may assist historians’ inquiries into the nature of the monastic classroom and its curriculum. An evaluation of Lanfranc’s early education and abilities is critical to these matters. These are the important issues relating to the commentary and those to be addressed in this study.

CHAPTER TWO

TEXT AND FORMAT: THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTARY

The study of eleventh-century biblical commentary presents particular challenges. Few manuscripts of the commentaries survive, and the majority of those were produced in the twelfth century. Too frequently, twelfth-century copies do not accurately represent eleventh-century commentaries. Twelfth-century compilers tended to combine multiple commentaries into one compendium, thereby eclipsing eleventh-century material and making the establishment of these original texts difcult or impossible. The most notable example of this methodology is the commentary project of Anselm of Laon and his colleagues, who worked to produce a denitive commentary for each book of the Bible. In so doing, they merged multiple patristic and later commentary material. Because of the eventual popularity of the Laon glosses and their inuence upon the production of the Glossa ordinaria, earlier eleventh-century works were no longer in demand or copied.1 So while fragments of eleventh-century commentaries survive in later works, fewer complete copies of these earlier commentaries are extant. Lanfranc’s commentary on St. Paul was one of the more successful of the eleventh-century commentaries. A signicant number of its manuscripts remain, and the production of its manuscripts extends to a comparatively late date. Its good fortune can be compared to Lanfranc’s Psalms commentary, of which there are no extant manuscripts. Wellknown contemporaries of Lanfranc’s, such as Berengar and Drogo of Paris, also wrote Pauline commentaries, but only fragments of their work survive in twelfth-century compendia. Eleven extant manuscripts attest to the text of Lanfranc’s commentary. In addition, Luc D’Achery’s transcription of a now-lost manuscript is published in the P.L. Two of the Lanfranc manuscripts date from the eleventh century, and the others from the twelfth century. They demonstrate signicant variety 1 Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 63–5. Smalley discusses the predecessors to the Glossa ordinaria, including the extant manuscripts of Lanfranc’s commentary, in her article “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 365–400.

36

chapter two

in content and form. A number of the twelfth-century manuscripts characteristically contain varying degrees of accrued commentary material. The accrued material is of three types: spurious glosses attributed to Lanfranc, patristic and non-patristic glosses merged with (still-identiable) original Lanfranc material, and one manuscript that, like Anselm of Laon’s, incorporated Lanfranc’s text into an entirely new work.2 Although the Lanfranc manuscripts comprise a rare example of the transmission of eleventh- and twelfth-century biblical commentary, the very existence of extraneous material makes the determination of Lanfranc’s original text more challenging. More common ground is evident in the manuscripts’ form. Nine of the group, including the lost manuscript described by D’Achery, are glossed Bibles.3 In these copies, the biblical text is written in one column and the commentary material is placed in the margins and interlinear spaces of the Bible. Although the glossed manuscripts’ methods of organizing and presenting the biblical and commentary texts differ, they lend strong evidence to the supposition that Lanfranc’s original commentary was a glossed text.4 The remaining three manuscripts are written as continuous texts. Glosses are written as a series of notes and often introduced by short scriptural catchwords indicating where the gloss should be placed in the scriptural text. The intention of a glossed manuscript was to harmonize multiple texts on one page. These manuscripts represent the scribal imposition of order (the men who later produced the Glossa ordinaria were called ordinatores glosae) upon multiple texts: a primary text and at least one commentary text.5 The scribe’s efforts enhanced the erudition of the reader.

2

Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 86. P.L. 150, 13–4. 4 A group of manuscripts, antecedents to the formats utilized in the Lanfranc manuscripts, are examined in Margaret Gibson, “Carolingian Glossed Psalters,” in Richard Gameson, ed., The Early Medieval Bible: Its Production, Decoration and Use (Cambridge: 1994), 78–100. 5 For the history of the gloss see Smalley, Study of the Bible, 46–66; Gibson, “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria,” 5–27. An interesting study of the form and function of twelfth and thirteenth century manuscripts is found in Mary A. Rouse and Richard A. Rouse, “Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,” in Mary A. Rouse and Richard Rouse, eds., Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame: 1991), 191–219. The authors identify the “idea of putting into order” in glossed manuscripts produced before 1250 and in texts such as Lombard’s Sentences, Gratian’s Decretum, and Peter Abelard’s Sic et non. These texts are compared to the new “idea of searchability,” in texts produced after 1250 such as biblical distinction collections arranged alphabetically, biblical concordances, the 3

the manuscripts

37

Simply put, a glossed manuscript was seen as the easiest way for the user to comprehend multiple texts simultaneously. Form and function were unied. The Lanfranc manuscripts attest to the usefulness of a form that became extremely popular in the century after Lanfranc’s death and are signicant examples of the developments in glossed methods in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. They demonstrate the difculties inherent to the production of glossed texts, and the methods that were, consequently, either adopted or rejected prior to the emergence of the Glossa ordinaria and the formats its text dictated. The manuscripts of the Pauline commentary are the subject of Margaret Gibson’s 1971 article.6 Gibson listed eleven extant manuscripts of the commentary, including the D’Achery transcription: D D’Achery’s manuscript twelfth century now missing, transcribed in P.L. 150, 103–406 P1 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 2875, fols. 1v–24v twelfth century, France P2 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 12267, fols. 47r–112r twelfth century, France C

Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part iv, fols. 240r–352v tenth-century Bible with eleventh-century gloss, Micy

B

Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part ii, fols. 86r–156r twelfth century, France

M Milan, Ambrosiana A.88 sup., fols. 1r–109r twelfth century, Italy A

Canterbury Cathedral Archives Additional Manuscript 172, fols. 9v–161r formerly, London, Major J.R. Abbey no. 3186, fols. 9v–161r c. 1080–1100, St. Augustine, Canterbury

division of works into parts, books, and chapters, and the production of indexes. See the authors’ essay “The Development of Research Tools in the Thirteenth Century” in the same collection, 221–55. 6 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 87. Sources for the dates and provenance of the manuscripts will be specied in the discussion of the individual manuscripts.

38

chapter two

R

Manchester, John Rylands University library lat. 109, fols. 5r–126v c. 1100–20, St. Andrew Priory, Rochester

L

London, British Library, 4.B.IV, fols. 1r–89r c. 1110–30, Cathedral Priory of Blessed Virgin Mary, Worcester

V

Vatican, lat. 143, fols. 1r–184v twelfth century, Italy

G

Bamberg, Staatsbibl. 131 (A.II.34), fols. 1r–11v twelfth century, Germany

To this list can be added: I

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.89, fols. 27r–87v7 twelfth century

The Manuscripts and Their Relationships A Canterbury Cathedral Archives Additional Manuscript 172, fols. 9v –161r ( formerly London, Major J.R. Abbey no. 3186, fols. 9v –161r) The pages of this glossed manuscript are ruled to accommodate a central biblical text, and, in the outside margins, reference markers and gloss text. Biblical and gloss texts measure 147 u 110 mm.8 The manuscript was written at the abbey of St. Augustine, Canterbury in the late eleventh century.9 Margaret Gibson sets its date during abbot Scotland’s rule (1072–87).10 Richard Gameson places the date of A between 1080 and 1100.11 The commentary is bound together with the biblical texts of the Song of Songs and the Apocalypse. Its binding is

7 This manuscript is cited in Wilfried Hartmann, “Die Kanonessammlung der Handschrift Rom, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B.89,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 17 (1987), 45–64. Margaret Gibson brought this manuscript to my attention in 1990. 8 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 88. 9 M.R. James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge: 1903), 209, no. 205; N.R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A list of Surviving Books (London: 1964, second edition), with Supplement to the Second Edition, ed. A.G. Watson (London: 1987), 47. 10 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 88. 11 Richard Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England, 76, no. 189.

the manuscripts

39

contemporary with the text; the rear pastedown is borrowed from an eleventh-century liturgical book.12 Manuscript A is listed in an extant catalogue of the library of St. Augustine written c. 1491–7. This library used a distinctive method of identifying books by means of pressmarks that indicated the distinctio and gradus of each book (bookcase and shelf). The notations of manuscript A (d.3 G.2) match the record left in the fteenth-century catalogue.13 The text of Lanfranc’s Pauline commentary may have been acquired by the library at Christ Church soon after Lanfranc’s accession to the archbishopric of Canterbury. A letter written from Anselm to Lanfranc c. 1076 establishes that Lanfranc had requested a commentary on St. Paul to be sent from Bec to Christ Church. Anselm’s letter indicates that the manuscript had been sent, that it was the only copy of this text at Bec, and that Anselm wanted it to be returned.14 Margaret Gibson identies the text that was requested and sent from Bec as Lanfranc’s original copy of the commentary on St. Paul that he had written decades earlier. This is possible since there is no denitive evidence for the existence of another set of glosses written by Lanfranc.15 According to Gibson, Lanfranc wanted to retain a text that had already been useful at Bec, and which he intended to use again at Canterbury. The eventual fate of the Bec manuscript is unknown. Lanfranc’s might not have been the only eleventh-century request. The request of Abbot Durand of Chaise-Dieu to borrow “Epistolas Pauli” in the mid-1070s may also refer to the commentary.16 Our only evidence for the Bec library is the surviving twelfth-century catalogue, and by this point, the Lanfranc commentary was no longer in the Bec collection.17 Lanfranc was motivated to add to the book collection at Christ Church, at least in part, by the ravages to Canterbury caused by the

12

Ibid. James, Ancient Libraries, lx, 209, no. 205; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 88, n. 3. 14 “Epistolas beati Pauli vestro mandato libenter parentes vobis mittimus; sed quoniam quod in eodem codice de vestro opere est, alibi non habemus, satis scire potestis quid vos aliquando factum ire desideremus.” Anselm, Ep. 66, in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia, F.S. Schmitt, ed. (Edinburgh: 1946), vol. 3.186–7. 15 Two German manuscripts contain a different set of glosses that are attributed to “Lant.” These have not been identied as glosses that Lanfranc wrote. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 88; Gibson, “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria,” 14–5; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 386–9; Gibson, Lanfranc, 60, n. 1. 16 Anselm, Epp. 70, 71, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.190–2. 17 Catalogus librorum abbatiae Beccensis, P.L. 150, 779–82. 13

40

chapter two

re of 1067.18 The old cathedral and much of the monastic complex, including a large number of the library’s books, had been destroyed. Several extant sources cite Lanfranc’s efforts on Christ Church’s behalf. A twelfth-century obituary of Lanfranc records that he had given books to the library, and that some of these he had emended.19 Christ Church catalogues credit Lanfranc with the bestowal of ve books: a book of homilies, Priscian, and three copies of the Pauline epistles.20 In addition, the inscription in Christ Church’s famous book of decretals indicates that Lanfranc bought the book from Bec and gave it to Christ Church.21 Extant correspondence, such as the letter from Anselm, conrms Lanfranc’s efforts to obtain books. Scholars have also demonstrated Lanfranc’s inuence in the renewal of the library by tracing the development of a distinctive script that he introduced to Christ Church. The script was rst noted by M.R. James, who termed it the “prickly” or “Lanfrancian” script.22 Christ Church books were produced in this hand from the time of Lanfranc’s episcopate and into the twelfth cen18 See the introduction in James, The Ancient Libraries, xxix–xxxv. In this effort, Lanfranc has been interpreted as a reformer of English literary culture. The library was a reasonable place to begin a cultural upheaval. Gibson, Lanfranc, 177–82. More recently, historians have revised the traditional view of Lanfranc as anti-English. Jay Rubenstein, “Liturgy against History: The Competing Visions of Lanfranc and Eadmer of Canterbury,” Speculum 74 (1999), 279–309. 19 “Pretioso insuper ornamento librorum. aecclesiam istam apprime honestavit. quorum quamplurimos per semetipsum emendavit.” Transcribed in Gibson, Lanfranc, 228. 20 No. 1 in a twelfth century list (c. 1170); nos. 368, 369, 389, 901–3 in a list compiled during Prior Henry of Eastry’s time (1284–1331). James, The Ancient Libraries, 7, 52, 53, 88. 21 “Hunc librum dato precio emptum ego lanfrancus archiepiscopus de beccensi cenobio in anglicam terram deferri feci et ecclesiae christi dedi. Si quis eum de iure praefatae ecclesiae abstulerit, anathema sit.” Cambridge, Trinity College, B.16.44, fol. 405. Reproduced in Ker, English Manuscripts, pl. 5. James suggested this inscription is written in Lanfranc’s own hand. James, The Ancient Libraries, xxx. See also Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England, no. 162. 22 James, The Ancient Libraries, xxix–xxxi; Ker, English Manuscripts, 25–8. The Norman hand is characterized by the angular appearance of its letters, as opposed to the more rounded and upright form of pre-conquest English script. In the Christ Church script, which modied the traditionally angular Norman script, serifs are placed at an angle to vertical strokes, but are further accentuated by varying the thickness of strokes as they were drawn at different angles. Normally curved lines, such as the backs of “c” and “e” were also drawn with an angular appearance. The earliest surviving examples of this script, some written in Eadmer’s hand, date from the late 1080s. It continued to be used at Christ Church, Saint Augustine, and Rochester through the mid-twelfth century. Although manuscripts continued to be produced in the Norman and English hands as well, the Lanfrancian script was dominant at Christ Church from the 1090s–1120s. Teresa Webber, “Script and Manuscript Production at Christ Church, Canterbury, after the Norman Conquest,” in Richard Eales and Richard

the manuscripts

41

tury, and they exemplify a process, started by Lanfranc and continued after his death, to augment the Christ Church collection.23 The abbey of St. Augustine was one beneciary of Lanfranc’s efforts at Christ Church. The adoption of the Lanfrancian script at St. Augustine by the 1080s indicates the close relationship between the libraries of Christ Church and St. Augustine. Extant manuscripts produced at both communities suggest that exemplars, as well as methods of book production, were imported by the St. Augustine monks from Christ Church.24 As a product of the scriptorium at the abbey of St. Augustine, manuscript A was possibly closely related to a prototype derived from Christ Church. The production of manuscript A at St. Augustine, perhaps within a decade of the production of a Christ Church copy, commends Gibson’s theory that the manuscript sent from Bec to Canterbury was Lanfranc’s original copy of the Pauline commentary. This also entails the possible signicant relationship of manuscript A to the original Bec manuscript.25

Sharpe, eds., Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints, and Scholars 1066–1109 (London: 1995), 145–56. 23 Lanfranc’s efforts at Christ Church t into larger post-conquest patterns of library renewal and book production in England. Anne Lawrence, “Anglo-Norman Book Production,” in David Bates and Anne Curry, eds., England and Normandy in the Middle Ages (London: 1994), 79–93; Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England, 1–41. 24 This is also true of the Cathedral priory of St. Andrew at Rochester, Kent. James, The Ancient Libraries, xxx; Ker, English Manuscripts, 26–7; R.M. Thomson, “The Norman Conquest and English Libraries,” in Peter Ganz, ed., The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture: Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium, 26 September–1 October 1982 (Turnhout: 1986), vol. 2.33. For the history of the community at St. Augustine and its sometimes difcult relations with Christ Church see Richard Emms, “The Historical Traditions of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury,” in Eales and Sharpe, eds., Canterbury and the Norman Conquest, 160–1; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 167–74. 25 There is no direct evidence for a Christ Church copy of the commentary. There is the surviving twelfth-century catalogue of Christ Church, and one would hope to nd testimony to the text here. However, this catalogue is incomplete and does not include theological works. Facsimile and transcription of the catalogue is in James, The Ancient Libraries, 3–12. The next extant Christ Church catalogue is dated during the time of Henry of Eastry, prior of Christ Church from 1284–1331. The rst section of the catalogue lists books alphabetically by author, but under Lanfranc’s name it includes only the Gesta Lanfranci, with letters, and two volumes of the eucharistic treatise. Ibid., 33–4, nos. 161–3. In a later section, donors to the library and the books that were given are listed. The “Libri Lanfranci Archiepiscopi” lists a volume as “Epistole Pauli secundum Anselmum” and two others as: “Item epistole Pauli secundum Anselmum.” Ibid., 88, nos. 901–3. This may suggest that Lanfranc owned and donated three volumes of Anselm of Laon’s commentary on Paul. This is barely possible. Lanfranc died in 1089 and Anselm died in 1117. Or the catalogue may be mistaken. The format and text of Lanfranc’s and Anselm’s texts are similar. Manuscript A of the Lanfranc commentary is not titled, and the glosses are not attributed. If the Christ Church copy was

42

chapter two

Manuscript A includes the text and glosses for all of the Pauline epistles, Romans through Hebrews. The biblical text conforms, with minor exceptions, to the Editio Vulgata text of Jerome.26 Each epistle is preceded by a brief argumentum.27 A also contains the rarer Epistola ad Laodicenses, which is not glossed. The commentary text includes the complete series of Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose notes. Glosses follow the order of the biblical text, so the three strands are intermingled rather than presented individually. Very rarely, a gloss has been attributed to “Aug.” or “Amb.,” but generally, the series are anonymous, without any set system of identifying or distinguishing the authors. The unsuspecting reader would assume that this is the work of one author, not three. A sequence of reference signs, comprised of the Latin alphabet and other symbols, connects the appropriate biblical section to the marginal gloss. Shorter notes are inserted interlineally. As the biblical text is read, the reader’s attention is drawn to the interlinear text and the reference letters, both of which are written directly above the biblical text. The interlinear reference markers correspond to the series written in the narrow column to the left of the marginal gloss column. There the reader can nd the appropriate gloss note. This transcription of Romans 1.1 from A approximates its method. The marginal glosses with reference letters are indicated in the left-hand and central columns; the biblical text, interlinear glosses, and corresponding reference letters are in the right-hand column:28 B Vel ab hominibus vocatus, vel potius ad hoc vocatus, ut sit apostolus. In hoc sensu fere ubique utitur. C subaudis a ceteris apostolis. Ut est in actibus apostolorum. Segregate mihi barnabam et saulum in opus quod assumpsi eos.

B Paulus servus iesu christi vocatus C id est ad apostolus segregatus in evangelium subaudis praedicandum

dei.

the same, some confusion as to the authorship of the commentary may have arisen, particularly by the date of the Eastry catalogue when earlier glosses had been eclipsed by the Glossa ordinaria. 26 The transmission of the Latin Bible is discussed in P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge: 1970), vol. 1.510–26; Preface to the text in B. Fischer, et al., eds., Biblia sacra: iuxta Vulgatem versionem, xx–xxiv. 27 M. Samuel Berger, Les préfaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate (Paris: 1902), no. 280 (A, fol. 9r). 28 A, fol. 9v.

the manuscripts

43

Manuscript A is an excellent example of a simple, yet effective, method of ruling and spacing employed in eleventh- and early twelfthcentury biblical glosses.29 In A, the columns for the marginal gloss text and biblical text are ruled the same width, but the lines for the gloss text are spaced much more tightly, thereby permitting a greater quantity of commentary material to be written on each folio. A third narrow column to the left of the marginal gloss provides space for the reference letters. The gloss lines are ruled independently of the biblical lines. Seventeen prickings delineate seventeen lines of biblical text. Fifty-eight smaller prickings, placed nearer to the edge of the page, delineate the marginal gloss lines. The gloss prickings extend above the biblical text, permitting the upper space of each folio page to be used for gloss text. The gloss text is written in a small hand: approximately three gloss lines to one biblical line. This allows a total of fty-one gloss lines to be written alongside the seventeen biblical lines. Seven additional gloss lines remain above the biblical text, although, even on the most crowded folios, only four or ve of these lines are lled (fols. 9v, 10r). While there are no rulings for the marginal text beneath the biblical text, gloss text could be written here if the scribe misjudged and ran out of room on a folio (fol. 17r). Gibson has recommended that a critical edition of the commentary should depend upon manuscript A as the base text.30 There is much to commend A as the manuscript that most accurately represents Lanfranc’s original text, particularly its designation as a copy closely associated with Lanfranc. This assertion is based upon the provenance and early date of A, the evidence of Anselm’s letter, and the relationship of Christ Church to Saint Augustine abbey. Furthermore, A is one of two extant eleventh-century manuscripts of the commentary, and it is the only primary manuscript that is complete and that includes all of the Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose glosses. Gibson and Southern have questioned whether the Ambrose and Augustine strands are original to the Lanfranc composition. Manuscript A is the only primary manuscript that provides all three strands completely, thereby facilitating the establishment of their text and permitting a possible determination of their relationship to one another. A is also one of the few primary

29 This simple method of ruling glossed texts, represented by manuscript A, was rejected as more sophisticated methods evolved alongside the production of the Glossa ordinaria. de Hamel, Glossed Books, 14–27. 30 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 88, 95.

44

chapter two

manuscripts that has preserved the complete text of the commentary for each of the Pauline epistles. A nicely produced commentary, wellorganized, and clearly legible, this manuscript has successfully retained the complete commentary text, including all three strands of material, interlinear as well as longer glosses, and it employs a consistent and effective method of identifying the appropriate placement of glosses to scriptural text. Manuscript A stands at some distance from the text of the other manuscripts. It could not have served as the prototype for any other copy. The other manuscripts contain either the Lanfranc material alone, or the three strands attributed to each author (Lanfranc, Augustine, or Ambrose). This information could not have been derived from A, since it presents the three strands anonymously. Signicantly, these facts preclude a direct relationship between A and the two remaining English copies. In addition, a careful comparison of A’s text to the other manuscripts indicates that its text consistently disagrees at points with all of the others. All of the remaining manuscripts contain variations of glosses that can be found in A, as well as glosses in common that are not represented by A. More infrequently, A contains glosses that are not found in any other manuscript. Manuscript A stands alone as an early and unique attestation to the original Bec manuscript. C

Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part iv, fols. 240r –352v

This is a Bible of the ninth or tenth century, and the Lanfranc glosses were added later to the existing Bible’s margins and interlinear spaces.31 The glosses are irregular; the biblical text with gloss measures 128 u 133 mm. Gibson and Southern set the date of the added gloss material to the eleventh century. Gibson suggests the gloss’s place of origin to be the Benedictine abbey of Micy, due to liturgical material bound with the commentary that contains an ofce for the feast of St. Maximinus of Micy. The manuscript also contains an anathema clause that closely parallels known Micy manuscripts.32 31 Hermannus Hagen, Catalogus Codicum Bernensium (Bern: 1875), 331–2, no. 334, sec. 19. 32 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 90–1; Southern, Saint Anselm, 32–5. The abbey of Micy was located on the Loire River near Orléans. It was refounded in the early ninth century by Benedict of Aniane, at the request of Bishop Theodulf of Orléans. Maximinus was the abbey’s rst abbot (sixth century) and the abbey housed his relics. Its relationship to Bec in the eleventh century is unclear, as are the reasons

the manuscripts

45

The Bible is ruled in two columns of 22 lines. The glosses are not ruled but have been tted irregularly into the margins as space permitted. The Bible contains the complete corpus of Pauline books, Romans—Hebrews, followed by the Epistola ad Laodicenses. This epistle is not glossed. Many of the epistles are preceded by introductory material titled Capituli, Tituli, Argumentum, Prologus, Praefatio, and, in the case of Romans—II Corinthians, a list of each epistle’s quotations from the Old Testament.33 Only the Lanfranc glosses are represented; this manuscript does not contain the Augustine or Ambrose material. Large sections of the Bible are not glossed. The gloss is completed from Romans 1—I Corinthians 15.28, and from Ephesians 4.28—Hebrews 2.8. The manuscript uses a system of reference letters connecting the Bible and commentary; interlinear material is also included. The placement of interlinear and reference letters above the scriptural text is carefully executed, and for the most part, agrees with manuscript A. The reference letters follow the sequence of the biblical text, but the glosses themselves are placed randomly throughout the margins and not in the order indicated by the reference letters. So, although the reference letter system is efcient and consistent, the reader is at some pains to nd the appropriate gloss on the more densely packed folio pages. At some point, the glosses were rather haphazardly and unsystematically separated from one another by doodles and drawings. The method varies throughout the manuscript. In the early folios, individual glosses are separated by lines and ourishes; in later sections, the glosses are completely enclosed in geometric or more free-form whimsical shapes. The glosses on the last thirty folio pages do not contain any of these lines or outlines. This may indicate that these devices were later additions, intended to distinguish individual glosses and assist the reader in locating them, which, in fact, they accomplish quite effectively. Manuscript C is the earliest representative of the second group of manuscripts (subsequently titled group B). All of the later manuscripts agree with its text. Manuscripts A and C represent the two earliest extant copies of the commentary. Manuscript A is the only extant representative of its type, while the text represented in C is the earliest

for the commentary’s possible early appearance at Micy. On Micy see Thomas Head, Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orléans, 800–1200 (Cambridge: 1990), 202 ff. 33 Berger, Les préfaces, nos. 254 (fol. 240r), 258 (fol. 240v), 253 (fol. 241r), 255 (fol. 242v), 258 (fol. 243v), 278 (fol. 243v), 259 (fol. 250r), 280 (fol. 251v).

46

chapter two

extant representative for all of the remaining surviving manuscripts. Although manuscript C would not be useful as the base text for a critical edition (it is incomplete and does not contain the Ambrose and Augustine material), its early date and French provenance afrm its importance in establishing the Lanfranc text. Signicantly, a comparison of the text of A to C indicates that the briefest glosses, those commonly written in the interlinear spaces of the manuscripts, are generally Lanfranc material (not part of the Augustine and Ambrose material). Manuscript A’s interlinear text regularly agrees with C’s, and C only includes Lanfranc material. Gibson and Southern have questioned the presence of the material attributed to Augustine and Ambrose in the manuscripts. Gibson argues, based on the testimony of manuscript A and the other seven manuscripts that contain the patristic material, that Lanfranc excerpted and included all of this material as he wrote his own commentary. Southern identies the incomplete nature of manuscript C, as well as its doodles and ourishes, as possible evidence for an early stage of Lanfranc’s lectures. He suggests that this manuscript may represent a Bec student’s lecture notes, written carelessly in the columns of an existing Bible. At this early stage of Lanfranc’s lectures, according to Southern, Lanfranc followed his interests and abilities in deciphering the grammatical, logical, and rhetorical dimensions of Paul’s writings. A later version that included the patristic authorities (and is reected in most of the manuscripts) was completed when Lanfranc’s abilities would have developed enough to include a facility with patristic learning and theological issues.34 These issues cannot be resolved apart from an analysis of Lanfranc’s text. It will be suggested in this study that Lanfranc was the editor of both patristic strands. This will be based upon the manuscript evidence, Lanfranc’s source use, and the inuence of the patristic sources upon his own glosses. It sufces here to point out that the Ambrose and Augustine strands are at the heart of both groups of manuscripts. Manuscript A contains the complete series; seven of the group B manuscripts include all or part of the same series. The evidence of both groups strongly suggests that this was material included in the original Bec manuscript.

34

Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 95–102; Southern, Saint Anselm, 32–5.

the manuscripts P1

47

Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 2875, fols. 1v–24v

Manuscript P1 was produced in the twelfth century in France.35 This is not a glossed book; the Lanfranc commentary is written as a continuous text, and the individual notes are highlighted by scriptural catchwords. The text measures 200 u 126 mm. In the sixteenth century, this manuscript was in the Carmelite library at Clermont-Farrand. Gibson suggests it may originally have been copied at Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne and points to the letter from Abbot Durand of Chaise-Dieu to Anselm (c. 1075) requesting the loan of a Pauline commentary.36 Manuscript P1 contains only the Lanfranc glosses, written in one column of 34 lines. A signicant number of folio pages are missing. Folio 8r ends with the notes on Romans 12.6, and folio 9r begins with II Corinthians 1.8. A number of the Hebrews notes are missing as well. The manuscript’s contents include Romans 1—12.6; II Corinthians 1.8—Hebrews 7.5. Although written as a continuous text, the manuscript identies individual notes and their placement by prexing capitalized scriptural catchwords. For example: VOCATUS APOSTOLUS. vel ab hominibus vocatus, vel potius ad hoc vocatus ut sit apostolus, et in hoc sensu fere ubique utitur. SEGREGATUS. Subaudis a ceteris apostolis, sicud in actibus apostolorum dicit, spiritus sanctus, segregate mihi barnabam et saulum in opus quo[d] assumpsi eos. IN EVANGELIUM DEI. id est ad praedicandum.37

The relationship of glossed and continuous text manuscripts is observable in a comparison of the transcriptions of A and P1 on Romans 1.1. Manuscript A places reference letters and interlinear glosses above scriptural text. This same scriptural text is reproduced in P1 as capitalized catchwords, where catchwords and gloss material are written in one column. The ease with which the contents of a glossed manuscript could be reproduced in the continuous text format is evident. It was much quicker and more affordable to produce a continuous text rather than another glossed book, and a scribe could still indicate the appropriate placement of glosses by means of scriptural catchwords.

35 Denise Bloch, Catalogue Général des Manuscrits Latins (Paris: 1952), vol. 3.190; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 381. 36 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 90. 37 P1, fol. 1v. The catchwords, “evangelium dei,” are not capitalized in the manuscript. They are capitalized here to demonstrate the manuscript’s most common method.

48

chapter two

Therefore, Lanfranc’s text could be acquired by a library, and even read in conjunction with the biblical text, without necessitating the production of a glossed Bible. These transcriptions indicate another characteristic of the continuous text manuscripts, namely, confusion of interlinear glosses. It was not unusual for a scribe to mistake separate interlinear notes in a glossed exemplar as one gloss and reproduce them accordingly in his copy. In a glossed Bible, there was often not enough space above each verse to place all of the brief notes in their proper position. Consequently, interlinear glosses ran together, causing a copyist difculty in distinguishing discrete glosses and the section of a biblical verse to which they were appended. This confusion is observable in glossed copies as well, but it is especially evident in the continuous text manuscripts where the scribe was unable to copy or approximate the original placement of a gloss. The scribe of P1 may have encountered such a difculty in the transmission of the interlinear glosses on Rom. 1.1. The two separate glosses of A, “id est ad” and “subaudis praedicandum,” have been reproduced in P1 as “id est ad praedicandum.”38 The manuscript’s placement of glosses generally agrees with manuscripts A and C. Occasionally, the catchwords are omitted or not capitalized, and although the manuscript does include interlinear glosses, they are frequently spliced together without any markers at all. P1 agrees consistently with manuscript C, and constitutes one of the primary manuscripts of group B. R

Manchester, John Rylands University Library lat. 109, fols. 5r –126v

Manuscript R is one of three English manuscripts of the Lanfranc commentary and is a product of the scriptorium at the cathedral priory of St. Andrew at Rochester, Kent.39 Gameson dates the production

38 At this gloss, the scribe of P1 may have wished to make a correction to the text, but A’s seems to be the original reading, and is paralleled in other glossed manuscripts. For example, L, fol. 6r. 39 Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Latin Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library at Manchester (Manchester and London: 1921), vol. 1.193–4; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 382; Ker, Medieval Libraries, 163. Like St. Augustine Abbey, Rochester acquired prototypes from Christ Church and adopted the Lanfrancian script associated with the Christ Church scriptorium. Gameson, Manuscripts of Early Norman England, 16–7. My citation of this manuscript’s folios will follow the pagination infrequently indicated in the manuscript itself.

the manuscripts

49

of R to between 1100 and 1120. Lanfranc’s commentary is preceded by two gatherings of leaves written in the twelfth century that contain the account of the trial on Penenden Heath and a charter of Henry I conrming the rights of Christ Church over their land.40 This is a glossed manuscript, containing only the Lanfranc notes. Text and gloss measure 136 u 147 mm.41 This is a carefully produced manuscript, comparable to manuscript A in its method of organizing Bible and commentary texts. Each folio is ruled into three columns. The Bible is ruled in the inside column, while a slightly narrower column contains the gloss. A third and very narrow column to the left of the biblical text is ruled for the initial capitalized letters from the biblical text. There are twenty-three lines of biblical text. Neither rulings nor prickings for the gloss text are observable, and the number of gloss lines varies, averaging about forty gloss lines on the more crowded folio pages. Since R includes only the Lanfranc material, less space is required for the gloss text than in A. Manuscript R employs a consistent and effective method of indicating marginal glosses by means of a series of reference markers (Latin, Greek, and other symbols). Interlinear glosses are included. The placement of marginal and interlinear glosses agrees with A and C. The commentary includes all of the glossed Pauline epistles, although the initial and nal folios are missing, so the text begins with Romans 1.32 and ends with Hebrews 13.21. The order of the Pauline epistles is unusual: the letter to the Colossians follows I and II Thessalonians, rather than occupying its usual place after Philippians. The text of manuscript R regularly agrees with C and P1. The importance of R as the only complete manuscript of the three should be emphasized. These three manuscripts, (C, P1, and R) comprise the primary set of group B manuscripts. L London, British Library, 4.B.IV, fols. 1r–89r The third English manuscript is also a glossed text. Text and gloss measure 225 u 165 mm.42 It was produced in the twelfth century

40 Gameson, Manuscripts of Early Norman England, 125, no. 604. For the trial and charter see also James, A Descriptive Catalogue, 193. 41 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 89. 42 Ibid., 89.

50

chapter two

at the Benedictine cathedral priory of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Worcester.43 The initial folio is inscribed in a fourteenth-century hand: “liber monasterii Wygornie.”44 Gameson dates the production of L to 1110–30.45 The Bible includes prologue material before each epistle.46 Manuscript L is ruled into two columns for the biblical and gloss texts. The column for the Bible is twice as wide as the gloss column. L has utilized an efcient method of writing both texts by ruling the Bible and gloss lines simultaneously. The rulings for the biblical lines are extended into the gloss column, where they are ruled again to be half the size. Therefore, fty gloss lines are ruled alongside the twenty-ve biblical lines. There are gloss rulings above and below the biblical text, but when the scribe misjudged, rulings were frequently ignored and the gloss text was condensed. On folios such as this, up to sixty-three gloss lines are written (fols. 10v, 22v). The manuscript contains the entire Pauline corpus, Romans—Hebrews; however, only the rst three epistles have been glossed. The gloss text ends at folio 43r with II Corinthians 11.4. Manuscript L contains the Augustine strand of material alongside the Lanfranc glosses. The Ambrose glosses are not included. The manuscript’s use of reference letters is inconsistent. When markers are evident (Latin, Greek, and other symbols), placement may correspond to A and C, although the correspondence here is not as consistent as with R. Frequently, markers are omitted from their customary place above the scriptural text and, consequently, the reader is unable to discern a gloss’s proper placement. The innovation of manuscript L’s method is in the arrangement of two strands of commentary material. Originally, the scribe had attempted to present the strands in separate series, that is, rst the Lanfranc material for several verses, and then all of the Augustine glosses for the same verses. This method would have been a difcult accomplishment for the scribe who must maintain not only the relationship of glosses with the scriptural text, but also the relationship of glosses within each series. All of this material needed to t onto the appropriate 43

Ker, Medieval Libraries, 207; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 383. George F. Warner and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections (London: 1921), vol. 1.82–3, sec. 1. 45 Gameson, Manuscripts of Early Norman England, 110, no. 467, as well as p. 15 for a discussion of Worcester’s book production in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Plate 23 in Gameson’s book is a photograph of fol. 11r of manuscript L. 46 Berger, Les préfaces, nos. 262 (fol. 1r), 254 (fol. 4r), 259 (fol. 4r), 280 (fol. 5v). 44

the manuscripts

51

folio. It would have been extremely arduous to execute the ruling and spacing of glosses required for this format. Indeed, this method was only observed midway through the commentary on Romans. At folio 13r, the scribe abandoned his original method. After this point, the Lanfranc and Augustine material are no longer marked or systematically grouped together, and their order more or less follows the order of the scriptural text (not the order imposed by the series). Manuscript L agrees with R, but contains extraneous material that is not found in the three primary manuscripts of group B. Much of this material is found in manuscript L’s interlinear gloss material, none of which appears in the other Lanfranc manuscripts. I

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.89, fols. 27r–87v

This is a twelfth-century manuscript that measures 160 u 85 mm.47 It is a glossed Bible, utilizing a system of reference letters to correspond scriptural verses and marginal glosses. Markers and glosses follow the scriptural sequence. Only the Lanfranc material is represented, not the Augustine or Ambrose series. The Bible includes prologues.48 Bible and gloss are ruled into two columns but the gloss column is slightly narrower. There are 28 biblical lines, and as in L, the biblical and gloss texts were ruled simultaneously, yielding twice as many gloss lines as biblical lines. The gloss rulings are sufcient for the Lanfranc glosses alone, so notes are not written above or below the biblical text. Similarly, although the space between the biblical text and binding has been ruled to accommodate the gloss text, it has not been used. The manuscript is incomplete. Several folios of II Corinthians are missing. Folio 71v ends with II Corinthians 4.10, and folio 72r begins with II Corinthians 12.9. The text on the last folio, 87r, ends at Philippians 2.24. The contents are as follows: Romans 1—II Corinthians 4.10; II Corinthians 12.9—Philippians 2.24. Manuscript I includes a small number of short glosses and brief additions to existing Lanfranc glosses that are not attested in the other, more reliable manuscripts, but the text fundamentally follows the group B manuscripts. The usefulness of this manuscript in the production of a

47

Hartmann, “Die Kanonessammlung,” 45. Berger, Les préfaces, nos. 253 (fol. 27r), 255 (fol. 29r), 258 (fol. 29v), 254 (fol. 30v), 280 (fol. 31r). 48

52

chapter two

critical edition will be limited, however, not only by the missing material, but also by the condition of the existing folios. Large numbers of folios have been damaged by fading or staining and are barely legible. G

Bamberg, Staatsbibl. 131 (A.II.34), fols. 1r –11v

This manuscript is a continuous text with scriptural catchwords. The text measures 212 u 130 mm. The manuscript is German and was produced in the twelfth century.49 The order of the Pauline epistles is similar to manuscript R, with Colossians following II Thessalonians rather than Philippians. The continuous format of the manuscript is similar to that of P1; biblical and gloss texts are written together, although in G, each folio is ruled into two columns (not one) of fty-eight lines. Also, the catchwords in manuscript G are not capitalized and are therefore difcult to distinguish from the commentary material. Generally, individual notes are separated by an inverted “L” sign. The manuscript contains all three strands of material (Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose) and presents each author’s notes for an entire book in individual clusters. That is, all of Augustine’s glosses for Philippians were written, then all of Ambrose’s, followed by all of Lanfranc’s. The Augustine material was written rst for each of the books (imputing clear authority to his interpretation). Early folios of the manuscript are missing. The rst note on folio 1r is Ambrose’s on Ephesians 5.5. Since Augustine’s material always leads, his notes are missing for this book. However, the entire Lanfranc sequence on Ephesians is extant, beginning on folio 1r. The manuscript was produced without the commentary to I Thessalonians. The order and contents of the manuscript are as follows: Ephesians (incomplete), Philippians, II Thessalonians, Colossians, I Timothy—Hebrews. Manuscript G deviates from the text testied by the primary B group manuscripts. It includes numerous notes that are not found in the other manuscripts. Generally, these are much lengthier than the original Lanfranc notes and extracts (which are rarely longer than two or three sentences). It would be difcult to t larger notes such as these into a glossed format; however, the continuous format of G can easily

49 Friedrich Leitschuh, Katalog der Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg (Bamberg: 1895–1906), I.i.pt. 1–2, 111–2; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 91.

the manuscripts

53

accommodate them. Manuscript G omits many of the original interlinear glosses. Again, the difculty with interlinear material is noted. It might have seemed expedient to a scribe to omit the large number of Lanfranc’s briefest glosses in a continuous copy since many of the interlinear glosses were only one or two words, and copying scores of these with their scriptural catchwords may not have seemed worth the effort. However, it should be noted how crucial the interlinear notes were to Lanfranc’s original exegesis, and that a manuscript such as G imperfectly presents Lanfranc’s original text. This manuscript does not consistently use catchwords. Frequently, when a scriptural verse includes more than one note, later notes within the same verse may not follow their own scriptural catchwords. Placement of the material that is prexed by catchwords is inconsistent with A and C. Finally, this manuscript contains more scribal errors than the other manuscripts discussed to this point, another possible indication that it was hastily and imprecisely produced. Words have been incorrectly substituted, omitted, or misspelled. To a greater degree than either L or I, it demonstrates a corruption of the text testied by C, P1, and R. D

D’Achery’s manuscript

Luc D’Achery described his manuscript as a glossed Bible, with reference signs corresponding Bible to commentary.50 According to Gibson, this “description would apply to a manuscript of c. 1100 rather than to the well-planned texts of the mid-twelfth century.”51 The glosses are attributed to Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose, although these attributions are occasionally incorrect. The three strands are intermingled and presented in the sequence of the scriptural text, not in series. All the Pauline books, Romans—Hebrews, are represented. The core text of D agrees with the primary group B manuscripts, but added to this are signicant amounts of material that are unique to D. The preponderant amount of this extraneous material is attributed to Lanfranc, and it presents a dialectical and rhetorical interpretation that was not original to Lanfranc’s composition. This material is of two types: 1) revisions of original Lanfranc glosses, and 2) entirely new and

50 51

P.L. 150, 13–4. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 92–3.

54

chapter two

spurious glosses attributed to Lanfranc. For example, in this spurious gloss, Paul’s argument is proven according to Cicero’s topics: Probat mortis stimulum esse destructum. Stimulus, inquit, mortis peccatum est, hoc autem destructum est. Probat, nam per victoriam est destructum, quam dedit nobis Deus per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum (prius a pari, posterius a parte), nonne per legem destructum est peccatum? non [ f.; nam] lex fuit augmentum peccati, non destructio.52

Much of the extraneous material of manuscript D is of a similar type, attributing a bolder use of the methods of the liberal arts to Lanfranc than is testied by either manuscript A or any of the other group B manuscripts. Since this is the version of the commentary printed in the P.L., this material has greatly inuenced modern scholars’ evaluation of Lanfranc and his use of the arts. Manuscript D is intermediary to the primary group B manuscripts and the other twelfth-century manuscripts. Beginning with this manuscript, the twelfth-century tendency of adding large amounts of extraneous commentary material is evident. In her article on the manuscripts, Gibson proposes that there is not an urgent need for a critical edition of the Lanfranc commentary. She has judged manuscript A to be closer in text to R, L, C, P1, G than is actually the case.53 Consequently, she assumes that the text of D’Achery’s manuscript is also closer in nature to manuscript A. Furthermore, she has not recognized the extraneous material attributed to Lanfranc in the D’Achery version. In fact, the printed version based upon D’Achery’s transcription greatly misrepresents Lanfranc’s text, and a critical edition of Lanfranc’s commentary would contribute to a substantial reevaluation of his text and methods. M

Milan, Ambrosiana A.88 sup., fols. 1r –109r

This is a glossed manuscript, produced in Italy in the twelfth century.54 An argumentum precedes each epistle.55 The gloss contains the Lanfranc,

52

P.L. 150, 214. Gibson titles the early and reliable manuscripts the “Bec tradition,” including in this group A, R, L, P1, C, G. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 88–92. Gibson also assumes that there is a greater correspondence between A and the other English manuscripts, R and L, than is actually the case. In fact, R and L agree more with the French manuscripts. 54 Louis Jordan and Susan Wool, Inventory of Western Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Notre Dame: 1984), 42–3. 55 Berger, Les préfaces, no. 280B (fol. 20r). 53

the manuscripts

55

Augustine, and Ambrose material. The manuscript is complete, containing text and gloss for Romans—Hebrews. Each folio is ruled into two columns for Bible and gloss. There are twenty-ve biblical lines, and two gloss lines are written for every Bible line. Glosses are also tted haphazardly into the inside column between the binding and Bible, and above and below the biblical text. The appearance of the manuscript is untidy. Its method of organizing the gloss material is inconsistent, without any denitive order of arrangement. Markers are often omitted, and the placement of glosses with scriptural text is not carefully observed. Frequently, capitalized catchwords, rather than markers, precede marginal glosses. The order of the glosses does not consistently follow the sequence of the biblical text. The scribe was observably testing and rejecting various methods. In the early folios, the scribe attempted to notate the Lanfranc material with Roman letters, and the Ambrose and Augustine material with Greek letters and other symbols, or to ascribe each gloss to its individual author by label. Generally, the scribe has not followed through with this method, and markers or titles are omitted. On other folios, the lengthier Lanfranc material is written in the wide outside margin, and the patristic material is written in the narrower margin next to the binding. By the end of the I Corinthians commentary, the method is more streamlined. The earlier attempt to ascribe material to Lanfranc, Augustine, or Ambrose is discontinued. Instead, the Lanfranc material is assigned reference letters, but the Augustine and Ambrose glosses are neither marked nor assigned reference letters. This manuscript contains extraneous material. Some of it is ascribed to Jerome, Gregory, Berengar, and Armann. Other extraneous material is not ascribed to any author. Given its poor method of organizing the multiple layers of commentary material, the difculty with this manuscript is in distinguishing the original Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose material. V

Vatican, lat. 143, fols. 1r–184v

This is a carefully produced glossed Italian manuscript of the twelfth century. Bible and gloss measure 285 u 198 mm.56 Epistles are preceded

56 Marcus Vattasso and Pius Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Codices Vaticani Latini (Rome: 1902), vol. 1.119–20; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 93–4; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 384.

56

chapter two

by a brief argumentum.57 The order of the Pauline epistles parallels that of manuscripts R and G: Colossians follows II Thessalonians. The complete Pauline text, Romans—Hebrews, is glossed. The manuscript contains the Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose material. Glosses are written interlineally and marginally. The Bible and glosses are ruled into three columns: a central column for the Bible, and two gloss columns on either side of the biblical text. The gloss column near the binding is signicantly narrower than the Bible and external gloss column. There are twenty-three biblical lines, but all three columns have been ruled simultaneously. Each gloss column contains two lines per biblical line. Gloss lines are also ruled above and below the Bible, but the space is infrequently required, as the two gloss columns are generally sufcient for containing all three strands of gloss material. Manuscript V is as successful as the English manuscripts in presenting the biblical and gloss texts clearly; it surpasses them in its organization of multiple strands of commentary material. In the early folios, the scribe experimented with a system of ascribing each gloss to each of the three authors by means of a system of dots and letter reference signs. Here his system was not always consistent. The markers might shift to another author, and then the scribe labeled such glosses. Eventually, the method was perfected. In later folios, the Lanfranc series is marked: “A. B. C.” Augustine: “A: B: C:” and Ambrose “.A. .B. .C.” Each series runs through the alphabetical sequence. The letter reference signs can shift between small and capitalized script. Also, a group of one author’s glosses are titled as such in the column where the marginal glosses are written. The titles are often capitalized, facilitating the discernment and reading of one strand of material. For example, a series of marginal glosses will be referenced and titled as such: LANFRANCUS a. b. c. AUGUSTINUS A: LANFRANCUS d. e. f. g. AUGUSTINUS B: AMBROSIUS .A. AUGUSTINUS C:

As in manuscript M, the scribe of V was uncertain of the best method of harmonizing the biblical and commentary texts. Unlike M, this scribe

57

Berger, Les préfaces, no. 280 (fol. 1r).

the manuscripts

57

improved upon his earlier attempts and produced a well-organized and legible book. The manuscript contains patristic and non-patristic material that is different from that in M, and is ascribed to Origen, Jerome, Gregory, Isidore, Drogo, and Berengar. Smalley suggests the identity of “Berengar” and “Drogo” to be Berengar of Tours and his friend and correspondent Drogo, archdeacon of Paris. She dates Berengar’s glosses to early in his career, before the Council of Rome in 1050.58 An interesting point: the titles for these authors are spelled out completely, except Berengar’s, which only appears as an abbreviation, “BR.” Perhaps the scribe was wary of Berengar’s suspect authority. The manuscript also contains an interesting series of schematics demonstrating St. Paul’s theological distinctions. For example, in the margin next to Romans 7.19 (non enim quod volo bonum hoc facio) is drawn: Bonum. actio.59

voluntas.

Romans 8.35 (quis nos separabit a caritate Christi tribulatio an angustia an persecutio an fames an nuditas an periculum an gladius) is schematized as: Tribulatio. periculum.

gladius.

angustia. fames.

nuditas.60

These schematics can also be found in manuscript B, indicating the probable relationship of manuscripts V and B. Although this material is not original to Lanfranc, it suits and even imitates the style of his glosses, delineating the intrinsic rhetorical structure of the Apostle’s words.

58 59 60

Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 394–5. V, fol. 14r. V, fol. 17r.

58

chapter two

Despite the accrued material, V’s usefulness in determining Lanfranc’s text, particularly the Augustine and Ambrose material, is signicant. It is legible, the amount of accrued material is minimal, and (unlike M ) it carefully distinguishes all strands of material, making the determination of each possible. B

Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part ii, fols. 86r –156r

This is a twelfth-century glossed Bible.61 Gibson ascribed it to northern France.62 It contains the Lanfranc, Augustine, and Ambrose material. Bible and gloss are complete for Romans—Hebrews. The epistles are preceded by an argumentum.63 The manuscript is ruled into two columns for gloss and Bible. The Bible column is twice as wide as the gloss column and contains twenty-seven lines. Prickings or lines for the gloss text are not identiable; approximately three gloss lines are written for each Bible line. Glosses spill into the space above and below the Bible, and into the area between the Bible and binding. Very crowded folios can contain as many as ninety to one hundred gloss lines. The margins between the gloss and Bible columns are not observed, contributing to the manuscript’s very messy appearance. Longer glosses are also written interlineally when necessary. These tactics were probably necessary given the large amount of extraneous material and the limited space allotted in the narrowly ruled gloss column. There is not a system of reference markers, and gloss material is rarely titled. Manuscript B contains much of the same patristic and non-patristic material of manuscript V. These manuscripts also correspond in the gloss material containing the theological schematics demonstrated earlier in manuscript V.64 However, the amount of extraneous material added to manuscript B is extreme, and many of these glosses are not ascribed. Ascribed glosses are attributed to Origen, Hilary, Jerome, Gregory, Cassiodorus, Isidore, Pope Leo, Berengar, and Drogo (again, identied as Berengar of Tours and Drogo of Paris).

61 62 63 64

Hagen, Catalogus, 331–2, no. 334, sec. 8; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 384–5. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 93. Berger, Les préfaces, no. 280B (fol. 98r). B, fols. 91r and 92v.

the manuscripts

59

P2 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 12267, fols. 47r–112r This is a twelfth-century French manuscript.65 Like G and P1, it is written as a continuous text. Scriptural catchwords are underlined. The text is written continuously, not in series. Like G, manuscript P2 has been ruled into two columns of fty-two lines. The manuscript contains notes for Romans—Titus. Catchwords are underlined. Infrequently, glosses are labeled. The original Lanfranc material, including the Ambrose and Augustine strands, represents a small fraction of the commentary material contained in the manuscript. Here, we are beyond discerning Lanfranc’s original text: “This is really a new work, for which the Lanfranc commentary is the major source.”66 The manuscripts’ form and contents can be summarized as follows:67 Manuscripts of Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul MS

Format

Method

Contents

A

glossed

reference letters

Rom.—Heb. Laod., unglossed Lan., Aug., Amb., anonymous

C

glossed

reference letters

Rom. 1—I Cor. 15.28; Eph. 4.28—Heb. 2.8 Laod., unglossed Lan.

P1

continuous

catchwords

Rom. 1–12.6; II Cor. 1.8— Heb. 7.5 Lan.

R

glossed

reference letters

Rom. 1.32—Heb. 13.21 Lan.

L

glossed

reference letters

Rom.—II Cor. 11.4 Lan., Aug.

65 Léopold Delisle, Inventaire des Manuscrits de Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris: 1868), 44; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 94; Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 379. 66 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 94. Smalley notes a seventeenth-century transcription of P2: Paris, Bibl. Nat. 11688. Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 378. 67 Also, the unusual biblical order of manuscripts R, G, V should be noted that places Colossians after II Thessalonians.

60

chapter two

Table (cont.) MS

Format

Method

Contents

I

glossed

reference letters

Rom.—II Cor. 4.10; II Cor. 12.9—Philippians 2.24 Lan.

G

continuous

catchwords

Eph. (incomplete for Aug., Amb.)—Heb. 13.20 Lan., Aug., Amb.

D

glossed

reference letters

Rom.—Heb. Lan., Aug., Amb., spurious Lan. material

M

glossed

some reference letters Rom.—Heb. Lan., Aug., Amb., patristic and non-patristic

V

glossed

notated reference system

Rom.—Heb. Lan., Aug., Amb., patristic and non-patristic

B

glossed

none

Rom.—Heb. Lan., Aug., Amb., patristic and non-patristic

P2

continuous

catchwords

Rom.—Titus a “new work”

The variety in form, material, and content among the manuscripts directs this study to several questions regarding: 1) the original form of Lanfranc’s commentary, 2) the possible presence of the Augustine and Ambrose material, 3) developments in methods of glossing in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and 4) the relationship of the manuscripts, that is, which manuscripts are most reliable for determining the original commentary text. First, based upon the testimony of the manuscripts, it is likely that Lanfranc’s commentary was originally written as a glossed commentary. Manuscript A and the majority of the B group manuscripts are glossed. The testimony of manuscript A is signicant. If A is based upon a Christ Church copy made from the Bec manuscript, A’s testimony would suggest a glossed format for Lanfranc’s copy. Furthermore, the manuscripts written as a continuous text indicate that they were produced as convenient and quick copies of glossed texts.

the manuscripts

61

Second, an assessment of the Augustine and Ambrose material will be addressed in an analysis of the text; however, it has been established here that the early and consistent presence of this material is well attested in the extant manuscripts. There is abundant evidence in the Lanfranc manuscripts that scribes were very willing to add to existing commentary material, but scribes could also choose to eliminate material from their copies. The manuscripts that present only the Lanfranc material (C, P1, R, I, and even L) could represent such choices.68 Third, the glossed manuscripts contain interesting data regarding the production of a glossed text in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Methods vary greatly among the manuscripts. The Bible and gloss are ruled into two or three columns, and additional columns are sometimes ruled for reference markers or capitalized letters from the biblical text. The gloss text can be ruled simultaneously or independently of the biblical text, or written without any guide lines at all. The manuscripts employ a variety of reference marker and ascription systems. This group of manuscripts represents the diversity of glossing methods that were tested and rejected in the later eleventh and early twelfth centuries, prior to the acceptance of the Glossa ordinaria and the methods it standardized for producing biblical glosses. As signicant amounts of commentary material were merged into later glossed Bibles, their manuscripts necessarily accommodated a greater proportion of glosses-to-Bible on each folio, and new methods of ruling were developed to accommodate the priority of gloss material.69 In the Lanfranc manuscripts, the Bible was still the central text on the folio; however, for those manuscripts with large amounts of extraneous material (M, B, and even P2), traditional methods were no longer adequate for containing all of the required text. Manuscripts such as these demonstrate the transition from the methods of Lanfranc’s era to those of the later twelfth century. There were numerous difculties in producing a glossed book. Glosses needed to be written on the same folio page as the biblical text to which they corresponded, requiring a great deal of planning on the scribes’ part. Furthermore, many of the manuscripts must accommodate multiple commentary material. A manuscript such as L, which

68 A parallel example can be found in extant manuscripts of Andrew of St. Victor’s commentary on Ezechiel that do not include material attributed to Jerome. See Andrew of St. Victor, Expositionem in Ezechielem, Michael Alan Signer, ed. (Turnhout: 1991), CCCM 53E. I am grateful to Professor Frans van Liere for this reference. 69 de Hamel, Glossed Books, 14–37.

62

chapter two

has abandoned its initial and more sophisticated attempt to write the Lanfranc and Augustine material in series, indicates these difculties. Other manuscripts such as M and V reveal their scribes to be experimenting with various methods of presenting all of the required material. Clearly, the continuous gloss was the easiest alternative for the scribe in recording the commentary completely and quickly. However, glossed manuscripts were produced for the convenience of the reader. In the glossed manuscripts, multiple texts were harmonized for a more comprehensive reading. The methods of the glossed books highlight their different priorities. A format such as manuscript A’s, where glosses follow the order of the biblical text, is undoubtedly the simplest to use. Other manuscripts’ methods, as in C and M, that require the reader to search for the appropriate gloss accentuate the convenience of A’s method. As the Bible is read, reference signs direct the reader to the appropriate gloss. The Bible, three strands of commentary material, and interlinear glosses are assimilated in one reading. However, the material in A is presented anonymously. The scribes of other manuscripts attempted to provide a seamless reading of multiple texts, while also ascribing the commentary material to its authors. In the attempted method of manuscript L that presents glosses in series, the reader actually has to read the biblical text twice: once for the Augustine series and a second time for the Lanfranc glosses. Then two interpretations must be compared, and interlinear glosses must also be read. This tedious and time-consuming procedure requires the reader to constantly jump back and forth between scriptural and gloss texts. A method such as manuscript V ’s combines the benets of each of these other methods. Like A, the scriptural and gloss texts can be read in one pass. Like manuscript L, the glosses are ascribed, but here they are notated by the reference signs themselves. This permits the reader to assimilate, and yet distinguish, the three strands of material in one reading. For the reader who wants to identify only one series of glosses, perhaps Augustine’s, the additional ascription in the marginal gloss text permits the reader to quickly skip over the Lanfranc and Ambrose material and read the interpretation being sought. Manuscript V is the most adaptable of the manuscripts by permitting various ways of assimilating multiple texts. As such, V moves beyond merely “ordering” the material to a simple method of making that material more “searchable.”70

70

See n. 5.

the manuscripts

63

Finally, the manuscripts are related to one another as follows: I. Manuscript A II. Group B manuscripts A. Primary manuscripts C, P1, R—consistent agreement B. Secondary manuscripts L, G, I—agree with C, P1, R with limited (unique) additional material C. Manuscripts with extraneous material D, M, V, B—only the extraneous material in V, B corresponds; spurious Lanfranc material in D is unique; patristic and non-patristic material in M is unique D. P2—a new commentary71 L, G, I demonstrate some deviance from the text of the primary group B manuscripts. Beginning with D, the tendency of twelfth-century compilers to add commentary material to an existing commentary is evident. M, V, B demonstrate successive layers of accrued material, concluding with the new production of P2. The question of how to establish the text of Lanfranc’s commentary rests on the differences between A and the other manuscripts; that is, weighing the authority and early date of A against the signicant number of group B manuscripts. The differences between the texts of A and the group B manuscripts, represented by C, are observable in a transcription of the Lanfranc glosses in Romans 1. Italicized text indicates the biblical text to which a gloss is appended; interlinear glosses are asterisked. Underlined areas denote differences between the two texts:

71 The relationship between the manuscripts’ agreement is not strongly dependent upon date or provenance. The earliest manuscripts, A and C, disagree. The provenance of the twelfth century manuscripts is as follows: French: D, P1, B, P2; English: R, L; Italian: M, V; and German: G.

647273

chapter two

Manuscript A72

Manuscript C 73

Ista epistula prima ponitur propter honorem civitatis, in qua primatum totius ecclesiae esse voluit deus.

Ista epistula prima ponitur propter honorem civitatis in qua primatum totius sanctae aecclesiae voluit deus.

1.1

vocatus. Vel ab hominibus vocatus, vel potius ad hoc vocatus, ut sit apostolus. In hoc sensu fere ubique utitur.

1.1

vocatus. vocatus. vel ab hominibus vocatus, vel potius ad hoc vocatus ut sit apostolus, in hoc enim sensu hac constructione ubique fere utitur.

1.1

segregatus. subaudis a ceteris apostolis. Ut est in actibus apostolorum. Segregate mihi barnabam et saulum in opus quod assumpsi eos.

1.1

segregatus. subaudis a ceteris apostolis, sicut in actibus apostolorum dicit spiritus sanctus, segregate michi barnabam et paulum in opus quod assumpsi eos.

1.1

* in evangelium. id est ad.

1.1

* in evangelium. id est ad.

1.1

* evangelium dei. subaudis praedicandum.

1.2

per prophetas. Ieremias dicit. Ecce 1.2 promiserat. Ieremias propheta dies veniunt dicit dominus et dicit, ecce dies veniunt dicit consummabo super domum dominus et consummabo israhel et super domum iuda super domum israhel, et super testamentum novum. Iohel. domum iuda testamentum Exultate lae sion et letamini novum. Iohel quoque, exultate domino deo vestro quia dedit liae sion et letamini in domino vobis doctorem iustitiae. Et multa deo vestro quia dedit vobis alia. doctorem iusticiae, et multa alia.

1.3

* de lio suo. subaudis prolatis.

1.3

* de lio suo. subaudis prolatis.

1.3

* qui factus est. id est ad honorem eius.

1.3

* qui factus est. id est ad honorem eius.

1.4

* qui. id est est homo christus.

1.4

* qui. subaudis homo christus.

72 A, fols. 9v–10v. The manuscripts’ variations in spelling and punctuation are observed in the transcriptions. 73 C, fols. 252r–253r.

the manuscripts

65

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C

1.4

in virtute. Ceteri homines 1.4 in virtute. Ceteri homines praedestinati sunt ut lii dei praedestinati sunt ut lii dei essent per gratiam. Homo autem essent per gratiam, homo christus, praedestinatus est ut autem christus praedestinatus lius dei esset in virtute subaudis est ut lius dei esset, in virtute, divinitatis a qua assumptus est. subaudis divinitatis a qua Quae virtus, lius dei est, id est assumptus est, quae virtus lius dei est, id est verbum patris. verbum patris.

1.4

* secundum. secundum quod placuit spiritui qui sancticat omnia, id est ipsi dei.

1.4

secundum. id est secundum quod placuit spiritui qui sancticat omnia, id est ipsi deo.

1.4

* ex resurrectione. subaudis probatus.

1.4

* ex resurrectione. subaudis probatus.

1.4

ex resurrectione. Per hoc evidentissime probatum est christum iesum verum deum, et vere dei lium esse, quia tot corpora mortuorum resurrexerunt in resurrectione eius. Nisi enim verus deus esset, tam magnum et tam inusitatum miraculum facere non posset.

1.4

ex resurrectione. per hoc evidentissime probatum est christum iesum verum deum et vere dei lium esse quia tot corpora mortuorum resurrexerunt in resurrectione eius. Nisi enim verus deus esset, tam magnum et tam inusitatum miraculum facere non potuisset.

1.4

* mortuorum. id est delium.

1.4

* mortuorum. subaudis delium.

1.5

* gratiam. id est remissionem peccatorum.

1.5

* gratiam. id est remissionem peccatorum.

1.5

* ad oboediendum. id est ut obediatur praedicationi dei.

1.5

* ad oboediendum. id est ut obediatur praedicationem dei.

1.5

* pro nomine. id est pro laude nominis eius.

1.5

* pro nomine. id est pro laude nominis eius.

1.6

* vocati. id est vocati christiani vel 1.6 * vocati. id est vocati christiani, ad hoc vocati ut sint iesu christi. vel ad hoc vocati ut sint iesu christi.

66

chapter two

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C

1.7

sanctis. Id est ad hoc vocatis ut sint sancti, et sic in ceteris huiusmodi intelligendum est, et subaudiendum, hanc epistulam mittit, vel salutem optat, vel aliquid huiusmodi.

1.7

sanctis. id est ad hoc vocati ut sint sancti, et sic in ceteris huiusmodi intelligendum est et subaudiendum est mittit hanc aepistulam, vel salutem optat, vel aliquid huiusmodi.

1.7

gratia. Remissio peccatorum. Pax observantia bonorum operum, per quam pax est inter deum et hominem.

1.7

gratia. id est remissio peccatorum. pax. id est observantia bonorum operum, per quam pax est inter deum et hominem.

1.9

testis. Exponit quomodo et quoniam gratias agat deo pro eis videlicet sine intermissione in orationibus suis.

1.7

1.8

per iesum christum. per ipsum enim gratiae sunt deo oblationes operum nostrorum, per ipsum enim omnia.

1.9

testis. Exponit quomodo et quando gratias agat deo pro eis, in orationibus videlicet, suis sine intermissione.

1.9

in spirito. In voluntate mea sicut ad corinthios, si enim volens hoc ago, mercedam habeo.

1.9

* in evangelio. id est in praedicatione evangelii.

1.9

* in evangelio. id est in praedicatione evangelii.

1.11

* gratiae. id est doctrinae.

1.11

* gratiae. id est doctrinae.

1.11

ad conrmandos. Iam enim ab aliis apostolis doctrinam evangelii ex parte acceperunt.

1.12

* simul. subaudis simul desiderio.

1.12

* id est. subaudis desidero.

the manuscripts

67

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C 1.12

* per eam. id est per doctrinam dei quam communiter habemus.

1.13

nolo. Quasi aliquis diceret. Si deum rogas ut venias, si incessanter venire desideras, cur non venis? Prohibitus sum inquit.

1.13

nolo. Quasi aliquos diceret, si deum rogas ut venias, si incessanter desideras cur non venis? Prohibitus sum inquit usque adhuc.

1.14

* sapientibus. idem repetit.

1.14

* sapientibus. idem repetit.

1.15

* ita. pro itaque subaudis debitor sum.

1.14

* ita. Pro itaque, subaudis debitor sum.

1.16

* non enim. ratio cur evangelizare 1.16 * non enim. ratio cur promptus sit. evangelizare promptus sit.

1.16

virtus. Causa cur non erubescat 1.16 virtus. Causa cur non erubescat evangelium, videlicet quia evangelium, videlicet quia virtus dei est, omni credenti virtus dei est omni credenti ipsum evangelium, per quam et ipsum evangelium, per quam peccata remittuntur, et cum res et peccata remittuntur, et cum exigit, miracula unt. res exigit, miracula unt.

1.16

* est. id est adest.

1.16

* est. id est adest.

1.16

iudaeo. Per iudeos et grecos omnes gentes intellige, a parte videlicet totum.

1.16.

* primum. subaudis credenti.

1.16

* et graeco. subaudis credenti.

1.17

iustitia. Alia causa cur non 1.17 iustitia. Alia causa cur non erubescat evangelium, scilicet erubescat evangelium, quia in eo revelatur, qualiter videlicet quia in eo revelatur deus iustos faciat credentes, ex qualiter deus iustos faciat de veteris testamenti qua unus credentes ex de veteris deus credebatur, prociente testamenti, quia unus deus in dem novi testamenti, credabatur, prociente in qua pater, et lius, et spiritus dem novi testamenti qua sanctus, unus creditur deus. pater et lius et spiritus sanctus unus et trinus deus creditur.

68

chapter two

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C

1.17

iustus. Hoc ita in abacuc 1.17 iustus. Hoc ita in abacuc repperitur. Iustus in de sua reperitur, iustus autem in de vivit. Sed hoc testimonium et sua vivit, sed hoc testimonium alia plura quae in aepistulis suis et alia plurima in contextu apostolus ponit, a translatione epistularum suarum apostolus ponit a translatione hebraicae hebraicae veritatis qua nunc veritatis qua nunc utimur utimur, ideo discordare videntur, ideo discordare videntur, quia aliquando auctoritates quod aliquando auctoritates sumit ex translatione Lxx sumit ex translatione, Lxx interpretum, aliquando non interpretum, aliquando curans verba, sensum, tamen ex non curans verba, sensum ebraica sumit veritate ex sensu. tantummodo ex hebraica veritate sumit ex sensu.

1.18

revelatur. Item alia causa, 1.18 revelatur. Item alia causa predicatores enim evangelii, predicatores enim evangelii, revelant iram dei venturam revelant iram dei venturam super omnes impios, et indeles, super omnes impios, id est et super omnes iniustos indeles, et super omnes credentes, et non facientes quae iniustos credentes, et non credunt. facientes quod credunt.

1.18

* qui. id est quod de deo vere 1.18 veritatem. quod de deo vere sentiunt, videlicet dem rectam. sentiunt videlicet dem rectam.

1.18

* in iniustitiam. id est in malis operibus.

1.18

* in iniustitiam. id est malis operibus.

1.19

quia quod. ordo, quod dei notum est, id est quod de deo cognosci potest.

1.19

in illis. id est in intelligentiis eorum vel vacat in.

the manuscripts

69

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C

1.20

invisibilia. Si vigilanter exteriora conspicimus, per ipsa eadem ad interiora revocamur. Vestigia quippe creatoris nostri sunt, in ira operis visibilis creaturae. Ipsum namque adhuc videre non possumus, sed iam ad eius visionem tendimus, si eum his quae fecit miramur. Eius ergo a vestigia creaturam dicimus, quia per haec quae ab ipso sunt sequendo imus ad ipsum.

1.20

a creatura. Exponit modum quo 1.20 invisibilia enim. Exponit modum deus manifestaverit eis, videlicet quo deus manifestaverit eis, dans eis acutissimum ingenium. videlicet dans eis acutissimum ingenium.

1.20

per ea. Per celum et terram, et quasdam alias creaturas, quas magnas, quas inmensas, perpetuas esse intellexerunt, ipsum conditorem incomparabilem, magnum, inmensum, aeternum esse mente conspexerunt.

1.20

per ea. per caelum terram et quasdam alias creaturas, quas magnas, quas inmensas ac perpetuas esse intellexerunt, ipsum conditorem incomparabiliter magnum, inmensum, aeternum esse mente conspexerunt.

1.20

* sempiterna quoque. idem repetit et est quoque expletiva coniunctio.

1.20

sempiterna quoque. et est quoque, expletiva coniunctio.

1.20

* ita ut sint. subaudis ita manifestavit.

1.20

* ita ut sint. subaudis manifestaverit.

1.21

* quia. subaudis ex hoc.

1.21

* quia cum. subaudis ex hoc.

1.21

* evanuerunt. id est putaverunt se 1.21 evanuerunt. id est putaverunt se cognitionem dei a se habere. cognitionem dei a se habere.

70

chapter two

(cont.) Manuscript A

Manuscript C 1.21

obscuratum. id est hinc factum est, ut cognitionem dei perderent.

1.22

dicentes. Exponit quid superius intellexerit evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis.

1.22

* enim. subaudis ore, vel corde.

1.22

* enim. subaudis ore et corde.

1.22

se. Se. subaudis a se ipsis et non a deo.

1.22

* sapientes. a se ipsis sine dono ___ [illegible]

1.22

sapientes. a se ipsis sine dono dei.

1.22

stulti. hoc est quod superius dixit. Obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum.

1.22

stulti. Hoc est quod superius dixit, obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum.

1.23

* gloriam. id est religionem et culturam.

1.23

* gloriam. Religionem vel culturam.

1.23

in similitudinem. Moris 1.23 in similitudinem. Moris fuit romanis ab antiquis fuit romanis ab antiquis temporibus adorare simulachra temporibus adorare simulacra hominum, ut romuli, Iovis, hominum, ut romuli iovis et et aliorum multorum, et aliorum fere innumerabilium maxime ab adventu eneae in et maxime ab adventu aneae italiam. Volucrum autem et in italiam, volucrum autem et quadrupedum et serpentium, ex quadrupedum et serpentium, quo alexandria est ab augusto ex quo alexandria ab augusto victa. victa, et romano imperio subiugata est.

1.23

* in similitudinem. id est simulacrum.

1.23

* in similitudinem. id est simulacrum.

1.23

* imaginis. id est habentem imaginem.

1.23

* imaginis. id est habentem imaginem.

1.24

* tradidit. id est permisit tradi.

1.24

* tradidit. permisit tradi.

the manuscripts

71

The preponderance of material in A and C corresponds. This comparison also demonstrates the general agreement in placement of glosses of A and the primary B group. It indicates that an interlinear gloss in one manuscript can be written marginally in another manuscript (as in 1.4, 1.18, 1.20, 1.21). Interlinear placement was determined by the scribe and by the constraints in spacing of his particular enterprise. Although not attributed in the manuscripts, it can be determined that these short glosses are primarily Lanfranc (not Augustine or Ambrose) material, because they are present in the primary group B manuscripts, which include only the Lanfranc material.74 But in the underlined material, the group B manuscripts consistently disagree with the testimony of A. Since A is the most signicant primary manuscript, and is judged to have a particular connection to Lanfranc and his school at Canterbury, these differences take on a particular importance. They are of three types: 1) Additional material in the group B glosses with parallel testimony in manuscript A (1.1, 1.13, 1.17, 1.23) 2) Glosses unique to group B manuscripts and absent from manuscript A (1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.16, 1.19, 1.21, 1.22) 3) Extremely rarely, unique material in A (1.20) that is absent from the group B manuscripts The unique group B material is attested in eleven of the twelve manuscripts, including the eleventh-century manuscript, C. How should it be considered? If A is a copy derived from a Christ Church

74 The interchangeable positioning of marginal and interlinear glosses in the Lanfranc manuscripts presents an interesting precedent to the development of the Glossa ordinaria. Until the 1920s, historians judged that the marginal gloss was written in the ninth century by Walafrid Strabo and the interlinear gloss was written in the eleventh century by Anselm of Laon. Although this theory is now rejected, Margaret Gibson noted that interlinear glossing is not found in glossed Bibles produced earlier than c. 1050. She related this development to the emergence of the Bible as “the basic educational text” of the eleventh-century schools, supplanting texts such as Virgil and Boethius, but adopting their double gloss format. Gibson, “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria,” 5–27. Therefore, it is interesting to note that some of the earliest examples of the double gloss format, the Lanfranc manuscripts, demonstrate the interchangeable placement of the interlinear and marginal glosses, i.e., they were not presented and preserved as two distinct texts. They were both written by Lanfranc and presented a unied theological analysis of the text. Therefore, whether they were placed in the margins or between the lines of the Bible mattered more to the scribe’s enterprise than to the reader’s comprehension.

72

chapter two

prototype, its testimony is considerable; i.e., the group B text is seen as a corrupt text, and A represents the only manuscript directly related to the original Bec text. Nonetheless, changes could have been made to the commentary text either at the time of manuscript A’s, or its exemplar’s production. In that case, the group B text could represent original Lanfranc material. Manuscripts A, R, L could represent three different copies made from either the original Bec manuscript or the supposed Christ Church copy, meaning the variants in A misrepresent Lanfranc’s text. Or, given the many connections between English and Norman monasticism, it is not unlikely that the text’s migration from France to England could have occurred in multiple directions. This is conjectural, but in either event, the agreement of R, L with the other group B manuscripts would identify the group B text as strongly representative of the original Bec manuscript’s text. These issues cannot be denitively resolved. However, given the universal testimony of the group B manuscripts, this material would justiably be treated as original Lanfranc material in a critical edition of the commentary. In this study, manuscript A is cited as the primary authority to the Lanfranc commentary; however, reference to the primary group B manuscripts (C, P1, R) is made to denote the testimony of each group, and glosses that are unique to either A or the group B manuscripts are cited as such in the notes. The central arguments of the study are based upon the glosses that are represented by both manuscript groups and are regarded as absolutely authentic Lanfranc material. Since many of the primary manuscripts include only the Lanfranc material, establishing the text for the Lanfranc glosses and the Augustine/Ambrose material would involve the comparison of different manuscripts: 1) The Lanfranc text. Establishing the text for the Lanfranc glosses is relatively straightforward, beginning with a comparison of manuscript A to C, P1, R. Given the fragmentary nature of C and P1, secondary reference to L, G, I and also to D, V and then to M, B is necessary. 2) The Augustine and Ambrose material. As mentioned previously, this material exists in manuscript A and in the majority of the group B manuscripts, although not in its primary group, C, P1, R. The number of manuscripts containing the material commends the Augustine and Ambrose material as original to Lanfranc’s composition, although a nal determination of this issue must await

the manuscripts

73

analysis of Lanfranc’s text and source use. Of the primary and secondary group B manuscripts, only L and G contain some of the Augustine and Ambrose material. Manuscript L contains the Augustine material, and G contains the Augustine and Ambrose material; however, both manuscripts are incomplete. Again, reference to D, V is required, and noting the difculties in discerning strands of material in M and B, to them as well. Since manuscript A presents the material anonymously, dependence upon these other manuscripts for ascription of material is necessary. Reference must also be made to the original sources for the Augustine and Ambrose material: the commentaries of Florus of Lyons, the Ambrosiaster, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and the Ad Galatas of Augustine. 3) Extraneous material. The value of the Lanfranc manuscripts extends beyond the establishment of his original text. Although this is not the subject here, the usefulness of the Lanfranc manuscripts in identifying other eleventh-century commentaries should be noted. Since the Lanfranc manuscripts are a rare source for the commentaries of his contemporaries, identifying the extraneous material, particularly the eleventh-century glosses, would be a valuable enterprise. This would entail the transcription of manuscripts M, V, B, P2; and the comparison of common material in V, B.75 The study of the Lanfranc manuscripts indicates many of the issues to be addressed in the textual analysis of the commentary. Most critically, establishing the Lanfranc text must begin with the primary manuscripts, not the D’Achery edition. In his authentic glosses, Lanfranc’s understanding of St. Paul and his own role as a teacher becomes clearer. Analysis of the manuscripts has indicated the likelihood that Lanfranc’s original format was a glossed Bible, and that including extracts from the Augustine and Ambrose commentaries might well have belonged to his original project. Further analysis will continue to address the function of the glossed text in the Bec classroom, and the inuences of the patristic source on Lanfranc’s own work.

75 Beryl Smalley has published transcriptions of the Berengar and Drogo glosses in V and B. Smalley, “La Glossa Ordinaria,” 389–94.

CHAPTER THREE

BENE VIVERE ET BENE DOCERE: THE ROLE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS IN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

The academic culture of the eleventh century has commonly been studied as the precursor to the more remarkable trends of twelfth-century scholasticism. In the twelfth century, the study of dialectic superseded the other arts of the trivium (grammar and rhetoric), and the application of dialectic to doctrine permanently changed the methods, outlook, and even the physical institutions of the theological enterprise. The eleventh century is examined as the starting point of this change. This attention to Lanfranc’s era is evident in Haskins’s classic, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, and echoed in subsequent studies. Haskins directed that inquiry into the origins of the twelfth-century’s intellectual revival needs particularly to be pushed back into the eleventh century, that obscure period of origins which holds the secret of the new movement, well before those events of crusade and conquest which fail as explanations chiey because they come too late. Meanwhile we may simplify the problem in some degree by remembering that we have to deal with an intensication of intellectual life rather than with a new creation, and that the continuity between the ninth and the twelfth centuries was never broken.1

This “obscure period of origins” has been studied for the development in its institutions of learning, the availability of specic texts, the transmission of manuscripts, and, particularly, for the evolving methods that culminated in twelfth-century scholasticism. Fundamentally, historians have looked to the eleventh century for the origins of a dialectical component to theological investigation. Lanfranc’s school at Bec is looked to as one of the more tangible examples of eleventh-century learning.2 Certainly, Lanfranc was familiar 1 C.W. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: 1955 reprint of the 1927 edition), 16. The endurance of Haskins’s thesis is evident in the title and contents of the compendium of Robert L. Benson, Giles Constable, Carol D. Lanham, eds., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: 1991 reprint of the 1982 edition). See the introduction for the continuity and challenges to Haskins’s approach. 2 This is also a theme established by Haskins, Renaissance, 27, 38–9. Surveys of western culture continue to include Lanfranc as an important example of eleventh-century

76

chapter three

with the texts of the trivium arts. For instance, an eleventh-century catalogue from the monastery of St. Aper at Toul listed a book titled Lantfrancus de dialectica, and another eleventh-century catalogue from Saxony recorded the Questiones Lantfranci in its collection.3 Neither text survives. Several notes in the eleventh-century apparatus to the Institutiones of Priscian, known as the Glosule, were attributed to Lanfranc, as were surviving notes on Cicero’s De inventione and the Ad Herennium.4 Christ Church catalogues also recorded a copy of Priscian that was given to the library by Lanfranc.5 Lanfranc was the teacher of St. Anselm, certainly the most gifted early synthesizer of the arts and theology, and Lanfranc himself was among the earliest and most noted of the combatants of Berengar of Tours in the controversy that debated not only the meaning of the eucharist, but, fundamentally, the appropriate use of the arts in the formulation of theology. Meanwhile, his contemporary reputation included his facility with the arts. Pope Nicholas entrusted his own men to be educated at Bec: “To be taught the arts of dialectic and rhetoric in which we have heard God has given you a special ability.”6 For Lanfranc’s pupil Guitmund of Aversa, God caused the liberal arts to have new warmth and life through Lanfranc.7 Scholarly consensus, both medieval and modern, has attributed to Lanfranc a specialized skill in the trivium arts. According to his contemporaries, Lanfranc’s reputation in the arts was associated with his emerging expertise as an exegete. Sigebert of Gembloux wrote:

learning and forerunner to twelfth-century learning. See Marcia L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition 400–1400 (New Haven: 1997), 166–7; Gillian R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge: 1991 paperback edition of 1984 edition), 38–40; Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 274–97. More focused discussions of Lanfranc contextualize his career within the larger movements of eleventh-century scholarly life. See Gibson, Lanfranc, 44 ff.; Southern, Saint Anselm, 39–66 and “Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours”; Holopainen, Dialectic. 3 Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, 49, 241; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 48–9. Both catalogues are transcribed in Gustavus Becker, Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui (Bonn: 1885), 138, 154. 4 Hunt, “Studies on Priscian,” 207–8; Ward, “From Antiquity to the Renaissance,” 35, n. 22; Gibson, Lanfranc, 46–8. 5 James, The Ancient Libraries, 7, 53. 6 “Hos igitur nostrae dilectionis lios imperatoris capellanos et nostros dialectica et rhetorica arte charitati vestrae mittimus edocendos. Ut sicut te Deo gratias singularem in hoc bivio audivimus. . . .” Nicholas II, Ep. 30, P.L. 143, 1349–50. 7 “. . . cumqueper ipsum D. Lanfrancum virum aeque doctissimum liberales artes Deus recalescere, atque optime reviviscere fecisset. . . .” Guitmund of Aversa, De corporis, P.L. 149, 1428.

the liberal arts

77

Lanfranc the dialectician explicated the apostle Paul, and, wherever opportune, he stated the major premises, the minor premises, and the conclusions of the argument according to the laws of dialectic.8

Sigebert’s technical terminology, “proponit, assumit, concludit,” was dependent upon the vocabulary of syllogistic reasoning, easily accessible in Cicero’s De inventione, which Lanfranc himself had glossed.9 But as argued in the rst chapter, the medieval record implied that Lanfranc was torn between his interest in sacred studies and the necessity to teach secular topics. Lanfranc made a transition from one sphere of learning to another. His contemporary Williram of Ebersberg wrote: I knew a man in France by the name of Lanfranc who was very skilled in dialectic. Now he has devoted himself to studies in the church, and by his subtle skill in the explication of the Psalter and the Pauline Epistles, many of us have ocked to hear him.10

But inuential forces dictated a different curriculum. Pope Nicholas understood that Lanfranc had become occupied with the study of scripture, but he sent his papal chaplains to Lanfranc to learn rhetoric and dialectic.11 As the only complete surviving school text from his days at Bec, the Pauline commentary is a signicant source for unraveling the question of Lanfranc’s use of the arts and their combination with sacred studies. In eleventh-century France, the availability of classical learning depended upon the most basic conditions—a school, a master with enough expertise to teach the requisite texts, and possession of the books

8 “Lanfrancus, dialecticus et Cantuariorum archiepiscopus, Paulum apostolum exposuit et, ubicumque locorum oportunitas occurrit, secundum leges dialectice proponit, assumit, concludit.” Sigebert of Gembloux, De viris illustribus, Witte, ed., 97. 9 Cicero, De inventione, H.M. Hubbell, ed. and trans. (Cambridge: 1949), I.34.57– I.41.77. The syllogism (ratiocinatio) is debatably structured in either three or ve parts: the major premise ( propositio) and its proof (approbatio), the minor premise (assumptio) and its proof (assumptionis approbatio), and the conclusion (complexio). Sigebert states the threefold structure in his analysis of Lanfranc’s method: propositio, assumptio, complexio. 10 “Unum in francia comperi. Lantfrancum nomine antea maxime ualentem in dialectica. nunc ad aecclesiastica se contulisse studia. et in aepistulis pauli et psalterio multorum sua subtilitate exacuisse ingenia. Ad quem audiendum cum multi nostratum conuant. spero quod eius exemplo etiam in nostris prouinciis ad multorum utilitatem industriae suae fructum producant.” Williram of Ebersberg, Expositio in Cantica canticorum, Bartelmez, ed., 1. 11 “Si vero divina, ut audivimus, pagina ab hujusmodi studio vos retinet, ex parte sancti Petri et nostra vobis praecipimus, et ex vera obedientia illos edocendos vobis mandamus, quos adhuc vestrae dilectioni mittimus, et vestrae charitati in omnibus subveniendos relinquimus.” Nicholas II, Ep. 30, P.L. 143, 1350.

78

chapter three

themselves. This seemingly simple combination was rarely available. In Lanfranc’s case, as his reputation grew, students traveled great distances to study under him. Until the end of the eleventh century, the number of available classical texts was small in number. An acquaintance with logic would entail familiarity with the Pseudo-Augustinian De decem categoriis, the Isagoge of Porphyry, Aristotle’s Categoriae and De interpretatione, perhaps accompanied by Boethius’s commentaries. Only this early set of dialectical books, the logica vetus, was possibly available to Lanfranc. The advanced books of Aristotelian logic (Prior Analytics, Topics, Posterior Analytics, and Sophisitici Elenchi) were not introduced into Latin scholastic culture until the early to mid-twelfth century.12 In grammatical studies, Donatus’s Ars maior and Ars minor, along with Priscian’s Institutiones, endured as the core manuals of grammatical Latin instruction into the eleventh century.13 Finally, the eleventh-century scholar might possess the basic rhetorical works of Cicero, the Topica and De inventione, and the pseudo-Ciceronian Ad Herennium.14 The similarities in theory and content of the De inventione and the spurious Ad Herennium suggest to modern scholars that they might have been written within a few years of one another, or were based upon the same lecture notes or ancient textbook. Medieval readers attributed these similarities to common authorship, and before Erasmus’s refutation of Cicero’s authorship in the sixteenth century, the Ad Herennium was referred to as the “rhetorica nova” or “rhetorica secunda” of Cicero. The De inventione was known as his “rhetorica vetus” or “rhetorica prima.”15

12 S. Ebbesen, “Ancient Scholastic Logic as the Source of Medieval Scholastic Logic,” in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100–1600 (Cambridge: 1982), 105, 121; Martin M. Tweedale, “Logic (i): From the Late Eleventh Century to the Time of Abelard,” in Peter Dronke, ed., A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (Cambridge: 1988), 196–8; Margaret Gibson, “Latin Commentaries on Logic before 1200,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 24 (1982), 59; Margaret Gibson, “The Artes in the Eleventh Century,” Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge: Actes du IVe congrès international de philosophie médiévale (Montreal: 1967), 125. 13 Suzanne Reynolds, Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric, and the Classical Text (Cambridge: 1996), 10. Also Marcia L. Colish, “Eleventh-Century Grammar in the Thought of St. Anselm,” Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge, 785–95; Margaret Gibson, “The Early Scholastic Glosule to Priscian, Institutiones Grammaticae: The Text and its Inuence,” Studi Medievali, ser. 3a, 20 (1979), 235–54; Margaret Gibson, “Milestones in the Study of Priscian, circa 800–circa 1200,” Viator 23 (1992), 28–30. 14 Camargo, “Rhetoric,” 97–100. A summary of the ancient rhetorical texts and their use in the Middle Ages is found in Murphy, Rhetoric. The Ciceronian tradition is discussed on pp. 8–21. 15 Murphy, Rhetoric, 9–10, 18–9, n. 31.

the liberal arts

79

The trivium texts that were possibly available to eleventh-century schoolmen numbered less than a dozen. Historians of Lanfranc’s career have been eager to determine which texts he knew, which texts he preferred, and his attitude regarding their application to theological investigation. Many examinations of this kind have been based upon a awed edition of the commentary text, resulting in misjudgments regarding the commentary’s use of the arts, and attributing to Lanfranc a more pronounced use of all the trivium arts than was actually the case. Other discussions of the commentary have been incorporated into lengthier examinations of the eucharistic treatise, thereby projecting the judgments and methods of this later text onto the commentary. Prior to the public events of the eucharistic controversy, Berengar and Lanfranc had encountered each other during Lanfranc’s early travels in France. According to the Miracula sancti Nicholai and Guitmund of Aversa, dissension quickly drove Lanfranc from Tours and even provoked Berengar to formulate his eucharistic doctrine. Within a decade of his arrival at Bec, by 1049 or 1050, Berengar had already criticized Lanfranc for his eucharistic doctrine.16 By 1050, Berengar’s teaching was condemned at the synod of Vercelli, and would be denitively condemned in Rome in 1059 at a council called by Pope Nicholas II. Berengar accepted a eucharistic creed, which he quickly renounced upon his return to France, and continued his public teaching on the eucharist.17 As early as 1050, Lanfranc had allied himself politically and theologically with papal authority but most publicly entered the debate with the production of his treatise in the 1060s, the De corpore et sanguine domini, which was written as a direct response to Berengar’s Scriptum contra synodum.18 Excerpts of Berengar’s Scriptum survive only in Lanfranc’s treatise. However, Berengar’s reply to Lanfranc is extant in

16

Berengar, Ep. ad Lanfrancum, P.L. 150, 63. The denitive work on the eucharistic debate is Jean de Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger: La controverse eucharistique du XIe siècle (Louvain:1971). For summaries of Lanfranc’s role in the controversy see Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 59–74; Gibson, Lanfranc, 63–97; Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec.” See also Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvic Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians, c. 1080 –c. 1220 (Oxford: 1984), 44–53; Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 274–97. 18 Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine domini, P.L. 150, 407–42. Montclos dates the treatise between 1062 (most likely 1066) and 1070, Lanfranc et Bérengar, 196–7. Gibson sets Lanfranc’s composition in 1061, Lanfranc, 71; and Southern in 1060–63, Saint Anselm, 44. See also Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 64. 17

80

chapter three

the Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum.19 Lanfranc’s De corpore and Berengar’s Rescriptum have been the primary sources for historians’ evaluation of both scholars’ attitudes toward the trivium arts. Historians have looked to the commentary as the precursor to the eucharistic treatise’s approach, and have drawn parallels between the methods used in both texts. Scholarship centers on the following topics: First, a distinction of Berengar’s and Lanfranc’s methods, evident as early as Lanfranc’s rejection of Berengar’s methods at Tours, is drawn.20 Second, the possible emergence of a technical, theological language for the eucharist, promoted by Lanfranc in the De corpore, is identied. It is debated that Lanfranc’s vocabulary was based upon the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents, and originated as early as the writing of the Pauline commentary.21 Third, Lanfranc’s dependence upon a dialectical method, described by him as “equipollency,” is highlighted as the predominant method of the De corpore and also identied as a method of the biblical commentary. Lanfranc’s precise understanding of this term is unclear, but it relates to the reconstruction or restatement of an idea into an equivalent statement, with the expressed purpose being to cloak more overt technically dialectical methods.22 In the De corpore, Lanfranc explained his method as follows: Even when the matter of dispute is such that might more clearly be explicated with the rules of this art [dialectic], as much as I can, I conceal the art [of dialectic] through the use of equipollent propositions, lest I should appear to trust more in art than on the truth and authority of the holy fathers.23

19 Berengar, Beringerius Turonensis Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum, R.B.C. Huygens, ed. (Turnhout: 1988), CCCM 84, 84A. 20 For example, Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages, 196 and Saint Anselm, 45–6; Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 301. 21 Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec,” 37–8, 40 and Saint Anselm, 47–50. Marcia Colish largely follows Southern’s thesis, Medieval Foundations, 166–7. This is refuted by Holopainen, Dialectic, 70–6. See also Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 71, n. 149. 22 Gibson, Lanfranc, 87. Southern’s analysis between his 1948 article and his book in 1990 shifted. In the later work, he is less willing to see in Lanfranc’s use of “per aequipollentias propositionum” the endorsement of any overtly technical method. Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec,” 41–3 and Saint Anselm, 52. Colish denes equipollency: “In equipollent argumentation, the debater starts with a proposition and redenes it, with his opponent’s consent to the redenition. He continues this process, with each redenition bringing the original proposition closer to the one he wants to prove, until he arrives at that conclusion.” Colish, Medieval Foundations, 167; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 58; Holopainen, Dialectic, 49–59. 23 “Etsi quando materia disputandi talis est ut [ f.per] hujus artis regulas valeat enucleatius explicari, in quantum possum, per aequipollentias propositionum tego artem,

the liberal arts

81

This method is interpreted to correspond with Lanfranc’s conservatism. His interpretation stayed within the realm of what the text was expressing, without imposing an external or articial method upon it. Fundamentally, Lanfranc’s conservatism has been identied in both texts, the commentary and the De corpore, by his use of equipollent propositions, his condemnation of his opponents’ methods, and his promotion of sacred truths and authority over methodological distortions.24 The eucharistic debate is intriguing because it indicates something about the workings of the eleventh-century classroom—the texts that were studied, the methods they evoked, and the exciting possibilities these methods presented to theological speculation. Lanfranc represents the century’s anxieties about the challenges posed to authority by individual speculation and an unguarded use of the arts. As such, Lanfranc emerges as a major player in the development of educated culture. However, the manuscripts of the commentary on St. Paul are the preferred starting point for the study of Lanfranc’s use of the arts. The previous chapter argued for the importance of the Canterbury manuscript, A, in establishing the text of Lanfranc’s commentary. A comparison of A, combined with the primary group B manuscripts, to D’Achery’s edition (manuscript D) points to the difculties associated with the printed edition. Numerous glosses that appear in D do not exist in A or the other manuscripts. Almost uniformly, this material includes technical dialectical and rhetorical methods: . . . Probat, quod non videmus speramus, quia quod videmus non speramus. Et hoc probat, quia visio nostra non est spes. Et hoc probat, quia spes quae videtur non est spes, quia nulla visio, spes est. Et hoc probat, quia quod videt quis, quid sperat? Quia nullus videns sperat. . . .25 Qui non habet uxorem, non debet quaerere ut habeat. Nam qui habent tanquam non habentes esse debent. (A simili) Qui ent tanquam non entes esse debent. Sic de reliquis posset concludare: Ergo quia habens debet esse, quasi non habens; qui non habet quaerere non debet. Hoc

ne videar magis arte quam veritate sanctorumque Patrum auctoritate condere. . . .” Lanfranc, De corpore, P.L. 150, 417. 24 On the subject of Lanfranc’s conservatism and use of the arts Cowdrey’s analysis is thoughtful and, I believe, accurate: “In so far as the ways and means of the liberal arts were to be pressed into service, they were to be used not as antecedent and freestanding disciplines but as gifts supplied by the same Holy Spirit who was the revealer of scriptural truth and who provided the means of interpreting the truth that he revealed.” Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 58–9. 25 P.L. 150, 132. Gloss on Rom. 8.23.

82

chapter three est dicere aequipollenter: ergo volo vos esse sine uxore; nam volo vos esse sine sollicitudine saeculi. Quod probat, si quis sine uxore est (causa) sine sollicitudine est, tunc cum velim vos esse sine uxore, volo vos esse sine sollicitudine saeculi; sed qui est sine uxore, est sine sollicitudine; tantum enim est sollicitus quae Domini sunt; nam est sollicitus quomodo placeat Deo.26 Coaptat similitudines, quas superius dicit de corpore, ad hoc quod dixit: Corpus unum est, et membra multa. Convenit hoc quod dicit: Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro. Ad hoc quod dixit: Nunc autem posuit Deus membra, unumquodque, sicut voluit. Convenit quod dixit: Et quosdam quidem posuit in Ecclesia: primum apostolos, secundo prophetas. . . .27 Ab Israele converso auferetur velamen; libertas enim Dei erit in eo, quia Spiritus ibi erit, qui eam dabit; et hoc probat: Spiritus est Dominus; sed ubicunque est Dominus, ibi libertas; ergo ubicunque est Spiritus, ibi libertas (a genere, assumptio et conclusio); sed in Israele converso erit, ergo in eo erit libertas.28 Item probat. Lex non dat haereditatem, quia non dat vitam, quia si lex daret vitam, daret et justitiam (a pari), sed non dat justitiam, quia omnia sunt sub peccato apud Judaeos, quia Scriptura dicit: Ergo lex non dat justitiam (a relatione). Ergo nec vitam (a pari). Ergo nec haereditatem dat lex. Ergo per dem tantum datur haereditas, vel promissio, vel benedictio, vel vita; omnibus his etenim utitur ut paribus.29 Diceret quis: Quomodo possumus esse ut tu? Respondet: Potestis, quia sicut sumus idem in substantiali essentia, possumus esse in accidentali, id est, in sanctitate.30 Praeceptum est in rhetorica ut, cum aliquis vult persuadere aliquid, in principio et in ne mentionem faciat, quod facit Apostolus dicens: nolite facere quod vobis pseudo suadent, id est, circumcidi, quia propter hoc faciunt ut placeant Judeis in carne vestra truncata, et non patiantur ab eis persecutionem in praedicatione crucis. Et est convertenda propositio ita: Quicunque volunt vos circumcidi, ideo faciunt tantum ut crucis Christi persecutionem non patiantur; neque enim faciunt, ut legem custodiant, vel propter aliud.31

Other material exists in A (and the group B manuscripts), but is augmented in D to present a dialectical dimension:

26 P.L. 150, 178. Gloss on I Cor. 7.27. For D’s repeated use of “aequipollenter” see also P.L. 150, 182, 185, 236. 27 P.L. 150, 198. Gloss on I Cor. 12.27. 28 P.L. 150, 225–6. Gloss on II Cor. 3.17. 29 P.L. 150, 273. Gloss on Gal. 3.21. 30 P.L. 150, 277. Gloss on Gal. 4.12. 31 P.L. 150, 285. Gloss on Gal. 6.12.

the liberal arts

83

A: Gentiliter vivebat, quia indiscrete edebat, cum omnibus et neminem in inmundum putabat.32 D: Gentiliter vivebat; quia indiscrete cum omnibus edebat, et neminem immundum putabat. Probat autem quia cum sit Judaeus, et tamen gentiliter vivat, non debet gentes ad judaismum cogere. Est autem in libro totus syllogismus praeter conclusionem.33 A: Ad hoc respondet, quod singulariter dixit salvatore nostro deo, inter deum et hominem pacem faciens.34 D: Ad hoc respondet quod dixit singulariter: Salvatore nostro Deo, vult omnes salvos eri, quia unus Deus omnium, et unus Mediator est causa. Vel ab effectu probat: Vult omnes salvos eri, quia seipsum dedit redemptionem pro omnibus.35

These glosses frame convoluted proofs from the Apostle’s statements; they introduce technical terms (aequipollenter, similitudines, syllogismus); they demonstrate how the Apostle’s argument is related to one of the rhetorical topics (a simili, causa, a genere, assumptio, conclusio, a relatione, a pari, ab effectu); and they incorporate the technical terminology of the logica vetus (in substantiali essentia, in accidentiali). Essentially, the extraneous D material lends an air of classical dependence that is not authentic to Lanfranc’s original text. Reliance upon this material has affected interpretation of Lanfranc’s commentary, attributing to Lanfranc a more extreme use of the topics and a broader use of classical sources.36 Analysis of the commentary’s use of “aequipollenter” has been particularly inuential in discussions relating the methods of the commentary to the De corpore. Importantly, this is a term that is entirely absent from A and the group B manuscripts. If the use of technical equipollent propositions is evident in the eucharistic treatise, there is no precedent in the commentary. Similarly, the clearest articulation of substance and accident in D on Galatians 4.12 was not original to Lanfranc’s composition. In the commentary, any overt dependence upon the texts of the logica vetus was extremely rare and limited to a brief denition of substance: “He calls faith

32

A on Gal. 2.14, fol. 81v. P.L. 150, 266. Gloss on Gal. 2.14. 34 A on I Tim. 2.5, fol. 120v–121r. Quoting verse 3. 35 P.L. 150, 350. Gloss on I Tim. 2.5. 36 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 104, n. 3, 4, 5 and 105, n. 1. The glosses cited on I Cor. 6.4, I Cor. 15.20, Heb. 2.1, I Tim. 2.5, Heb. 2.15, Col. 2.1, Eph. 3.13, I Cor. 8.8 from the P.L. edition haven’t any parallels in the other manuscripts, thereby discounting two-thirds of Lanfranc’s quotations from classical source, including citations from the Ecologues, ad Herennium, Cicero’s Topica and De inventione. 33

84

chapter three

substance, because it provides sure support as a foundation, that is, it underlies good works.”37 The other authentic denition of substance in the commentary was quoted from Augustine, possibly excerpted by Lanfranc, but not written by him. Paul’s expression “to the only wise God” was interpreted by Augustine under the category of substance: only God is said to be wise, because only he is wise according to substance, not accident. It would entirely suit Lanfranc’s philosophy and methodology with the arts to quote this terminology only from an authoritative theological source.38 In many similar instances, the printed edition of the commentary signicantly exaggerates Lanfranc’s use of dialectical and rhetorical methods. A different picture of the commentary text emerges from an analysis based upon the testimony of the primary manuscripts. Lanfranc’s fundamental purposes and methods were much simpler. His interest was historical. He accentuated that God’s message was delivered through Paul’s writings to a real people in real time. Prior to any mention of the rhetorical or dialectical dimensions of the Apostle’s

37 “Substantiam vocat dem, quia ipsa velut fundamentum bonis operibus subsistit, id est subiacet.” A on Heb. 3.14, fol. 140r. 38 “Propterea solus sapiens recte dicitur, quia solus secundum substantiam suam sapiens est, non secundum accidentem vel accedentem sapientiae participationem, sicut sapiens rationalis quaecumque creatura.” A on Rom. 16.27, fol. 36r. Augustine gloss. The source of another gloss has been debated by historians: “Per hoc quod dicit movebo, declaratur caeli et terrae translatio, et alium statum mutatio. Per hoc vero quod semel ostenditur quod postea futura sunt immobilia. Quod vero dicitur ea quae sunt subintelligendum est quasi diceret. Id quod sunt. Quicquid enim erunt sive in principalibus essentiis, sive in exterius sumptis, immobilia erunt.” A on Heb. 12.27, fol. 159r. Scholars have used this gloss as an early example of Lanfranc’s terminology in the De corpore, as a translation of the Aristotelian “protai ousai” as “principales essentiae,” and rendering the Aristotelian category of accident as “that which is taken from without.” See Southern, “Lanfranc of Bec,” 40–1 and Saint Anselm, 48–9; Gibson, Lanfranc, 103. Holopainen disagrees, citing this as a misunderstanding of Aristotle’s distinction of primary and secondary substances and postulating Lanfranc’s source for his terminology as the De Platone et eius dogmate of Apuleius. Holopainen, Dialectic, 73–5. These scholars did not know of the Augustine gloss on Romans 16.27, as it is represented by manuscript A, but is not included in the D’Achery edition (P.L.) of the commentary. Lanfranc was potentially aware of the Aristotelian vocabulary in its common Latin translation, but included it from an authoritative patristic source. The possibility that Lanfranc himself included the Augustinian abstracts will be discussed in the next chapter. The original citation of this passage is found in Trinity College B.4.5, fol. 123r, a copy of the Florus compendium on Paul. The relationship of this manuscript to Lanfranc will also be discussed in the following chapter. Another gloss not represented in D is: “eadem est substantia patris et lii.” A on Heb. 1.3, fol. 136v. Ambrose gloss. This gloss is derived from another of Lanfranc’s patristic authorities, the Latin Chrysostom, believed by Lanfranc to be St. Ambrose.

the liberal arts

85

letters, Lanfranc addressed the letters’ concrete historical and textual environment. He was very interested in identifying Paul’s audience and the circumstances that necessitated a letter to them, the location of the community, the named members of each church, or the differences in Paul’s scriptural text and his own. For example, Lanfranc speculated that the Phoebe mentioned in Romans 16.1 might have been the person who delivered the epistle to the Romans.39 Titus was the “interpres apostoli” who was more familiar with the language at Troas than the Apostle. Titus’s skill explains Paul’s departure from Troas: since Titus was not there Paul had to move on.40 Lanfranc referred to Acts 15.39 to elucidate Paul’s mention of Mark: this was the Mark who caused dissension between Paul and Barnabas, thereby necessitating Paul’s assurance to the Colossians that it was permissible for them to receive either Barnabas or Mark.41 As far as he was able, Lanfranc attempted to address Paul’s geographical remarks: “Achaia” was the province in which Corinth was located; “Asia” referred not to Asia, which constituted a third of the world, but to a province of it.42 At several points Lanfranc described the discrepancies in an Old Testament verse quoted by Paul and the Vulgate version of the same text: This verse appears in Habakkuk as ‘the just man lives by his faith.’ But this testimony and many others that the Apostle uses in his epistles seem to vary from the translation of the true Hebrew that we now use, because sometimes he adopts his authorities from the Septuagint translation, and sometimes not heeding the words, he adopts its meaning from the true sense of the Hebrew all the same.43

39 “Ditissima et nobilissima mulier fuit, quae aecclesiam dei quae apud locum quae dicitur concris erat, sua substantia sustentabat, ea tunc temporis pro quodam negotio romam profecta est. Per hanc fortasse istam misit epistolam.” A on Rom. 16.1, fol. 34v. 40 “Titus iste interpres apostoli erant [erat], et horum lingua expressius quam apostolus loqui poterat.” A on II Cor. 2.13, fol. 64v. 41 “Propter hunc marcum dissensio fuit inter paulum et barnaban. Ut legitur in actibus apostolorum, quo audito colosenses non auderent nec marcum nec barnaban recipere nisi imperatum eis fuisset ab apostolo. Ad utrumque enim referri potest de quo.” A on Col. 4.10, fol. 108v. Quoting Acts 15.39. 42 “Achaia vocabatur provincia in qua civitas corinthiis sita erat.” A on II Cor. 1.1, fol. 62v. “Non de ea asia hic agitur, quae est totius mundi pars tertia, sed de quadam provincia, quae ipsius maioris asiae pars est, eius tamen nomine nuncupati.” A on II Cor. 1.8, fol. 63r. 43 “Hoc ita in abacuc repperitur. Iustus in de sua vivit. Sed hoc testimonium et alia plura quae in aepistulis suis apostolus ponit, a translatione hebraicae veritatis qua nunc utimur, ideo discordare videntur, quia aliquando auctoritates sumit ex translatione Lxx interpretum, aliquando non curans verba, sensum, tamen ex ebraica sumit veritate ex

86

chapter three

Some of Lanfranc’s textual-historical observations were surprisingly modern. He was, for example, very interested in the causal relationship between the circumstances of Paul’s audience and Paul’s message to them. Lanfranc described the audience of Galatians as mixed, comprised of converted Jews and converted Gentiles. This community had become vulnerable to false preachers who compelled the Galatians to adopt legal requirements. Lanfranc’s glosses in Galatians were based upon this distinction of audience, demonstrating the preachers’ erroneous arguments to them and Paul’s response.44 In I Corinthians 5.9, Paul mentioned his previous correspondence to the Corinthians: “I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.” The Corinthians misunderstood this letter, assuming they must not associate with those beyond the Christian community. Therefore, Paul had to write them a second letter (I Corinthians) to explain that it was the Christian community itself that must be puried of evildoers. Consequently, Lanfranc’s glosses in I Corinthians described just how a Christian community should remain pure.45 Lanfranc referred again to this situation in his glosses on II Corinthians 7 where Paul mentioned another of his letters: “Seeing that the same epistle (although but for a time) did make you sorrowful” (vv. 8,12). Lanfranc identied this letter as I Corinthians, which had successfully moved his audience to a godly sorrow for their sins (II Corinthians 7.8–9).46 He viewed the theological sensu.” A on Rom. 1.17, fol. 10r. Quoting Hab. 2.4. Also: “Inusitata translatione ita reperitur: Si fuerit populus tuus israhel, quasi harena maris reliquiae convertuntur ex eo, consumatio adbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Consummationem enim et adbreviationem dominus deus exercituum faciet in medio omnis terrae.” A on Rom. 9.27, fol. 25r. Quoting Is. 10.22–3. “Inusitata translatione legitur. Cogitationes hominum.” A on I Cor. 3.20, fol. 40v. “In ne saeculi absorta est mors, et animae, et corporis in victoria, quia victis in carne servorum dei concupiscentiis omnibus nec ipsi, nec aliquid ultra morietur. Est autem hoc testimonium inusitata translatione oseae, sic est scriptum. Ero mors tua o mors. Quod idem signicat. Ipse enim vicit, quia delibus suis vincendi facultatem tribuit.” A on I Cor. 15.54, fol. 61r. Quoting Hos. 13.14. 44 “Galathae isti pars ex iudeis, pars ex gentibus ad dem christi ab apostolo fuerunt conversi, sed post disscessum eius venerunt pseudopraedicatores qui eos qui ex iudeis conversi fuerant, cogebant iudaizare. Eos vero qui ex gentibus ad dem venerant, elementa mundi adorare, dies et annos observare.” A on Gal. 1.6, fol. 79v. 45 “Epistulam quandam quae modo non habetur, misit illis, in qua praecepit ne participationem habeant cum fornicariis et ceteris de quibus ait. Sed quia non distinxit de quibus fornicariis dixerat, christianis scilicet an gentilibus putatum est a corinthiis de fornicariis gentilibus, eum dixisse quam eorum malam intelligentiam corrigit hic apostolus.” A on I Cor. 5.9, fol. 42v. 46 Lanfranc related Paul’s mention of this “matter” (negotio) of II Cor. 7.11 to the situation of I Cor. 5.1: “In quo vindicandum praecepit, in eum qui uxorem patris accepit.” A on II Cor. 7.11, fol. 70v. I Cor. 5.1 states that it is reported within the Corinthian church

the liberal arts

87

content of Paul’s message as intrinsically connected to the conditions of an epistle’s composition, and so the rst step in Lanfranc’s exegesis was to specify the historical circumstances and character of Paul’s audience before analyzing Paul’s message to them. The message of the epistle to the Galatians was based upon the mix of Gentiles and converted Jews in that church; Paul’s harsh words to the Corinthians originated from their impure practices and constant need for his instruction. Glosses such as these positioned the entirety of Lanfranc’s approach in a particular epistle. Since it was crucial to Lanfranc’s methods to pinpoint each epistle’s audience, he highlighted the fact that many of Paul’s epistles were either directed toward an ideological opponent or written in response to some crisis within that community. Lanfranc consistently outlined the situation and Paul’s response. The epistles were seen as a dialogue involving multiple voices: Paul’s, his audience’s, and his opponent’s. Repeatedly, Lanfranc identied the audience’s or opponent’s voice: “This is the question of the man of carnal understanding,” or the contribution “of the person of evil understanding.”47 At another point, Paul debated the skeptic who had asked: “Can God really know if I believe or not?” Lanfranc answered in Paul’s voice: “Yes, the word of God, or the word of the Father, the man Christ, is living . . . and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart.”48 In Galatians 2.17, the question “is Christ then the minister of sin?” was asked by just such a weak-minded individual. This provided Lanfranc with the opportunity to summarize the exchange between Paul and his ignorant debaters in this chapter. Paul had said that the Jews were not sinners (v. 15), yet have been justied through faith in Christ (v. 16). Paul’s point was that anyone who had been justied must also have been a sinner, the Jew included, but to the ignorant questioner this implied that Christ had rst been the minister of sin to later justify humans, the very point

“that someone hath his father’s wife.” Lanfranc was attempting to solve a textual difculty of the Corinthian letters that continues to vex modern scholars. See for example, Wayne A. Meeks, ed., The Writings of St. Paul (New York: 1972), 31, n. 2, 48, 58, n. 8, n. 9. 47 “id est hoc quaestio est hominis carnaliter intelligentis.” A on Rom. 3.5, fol. 13v. “Iterum hoc subinfert ex persona malae intelligentium.” A on Rom. 3.7, fol. 13v. 48 “Id est vivax, vivaciter et cum vigor agens. Quasi incredulus responderet, an novit deus si credo, vel non credo? Vivus est inquit sermo dei, id est verbum patris, homo christus et cetera.” A on Heb. 4.12, fol. 141v.

88

chapter three

that Paul must refute.49 Sifting through these voices, Lanfranc hoped to distill the theological impact of the epistles by discerning the challenges posed to Paul’s doctrine and the consequent answer that must be accepted by true Christian faith. Lanfranc detailed Paul’s voice through attention to the progression and structure of his argument. Any reader of St. Paul has been challenged by his digressions, shifts in tone, and modications to his theological terminology. Lanfranc’s glosses charted a path through these intricacies: “Here Paul returns to his earlier comments . . .”; “this is a proof and exposition of the earlier verse . . .”; “earlier he said . . . and here he responds . . .”; “this is a repetition of the earlier verse . . .”; “here he returns to his earlier treatise on circumcision. . . .”50 Many of Lanfranc’s glosses made valuable textual contributions. In Galatians 2.17, Lanfranc signied that the “words of the apostle to the other apostle stop at this point,” meaning that Paul’s summary of his past conversation with Peter (v. 14 ff.) stopped at this verse, and that Paul resumed his discourse with the Galatians.51 Lanfranc noted that Paul interrupted himself at Ephesians 3.1 and did not return to this thought until 3.14—an observation that modern editions of Ephesians also follow.52

49 “Ex persona inrmorum hoc sibi obicit. Dixit superius iudeos non esse peccatores, et postea subintulit, quod etiam ipsi iusticarent, ex de iesu christi. Sed omnis qui iusticatur, in peccato fuit. Videbantur ergo male intelligenti, ut christus peccata homini prius ministraret, ut per dem et gratiam suam postea iusticaret.” A on Gal. 2.17, fol. 82r. 50 “Hoc ad superiora respicit, ubi ait. Ira et cetera omnem animam hominis operantis malum, et paulo post. Gloria et cetera homini operanti bonum.” A on Rom. 2.11, fol. 12r. Quoting verses 8–10. “Sicut enim. Probatio et expositio superioris versus. Omnis enim inobedientia si tamen mala est delictum, et omnis obedientia si tamen bona est iustitia.” A on Rom. 5.19, fol. 17v. “Dixit superius, quia promissa aeternae hereditatis facta sunt iudeis, sed quia iudei magna ex parte christo non crediderunt, videbatur verbum dei non esse completum. Ad hoc respondet. Non autem excidit verbum dei. Verbum dei excidere vel excedere est non implere promissa.” A on Rom. 9.6, fol. 23v. “Repetitio superioris sententiae. Quod superius vocavit diminutionem, hic vocat amissionem.” A on Rom. 11.15, fol. 27v. “Quasi diceret. Sola caritas potest vos salvare spreta carnali observatione, et reddit causam dicens. Quia omnis lex dilectione impletur, et hac occasione breviter exponit, quae vitare et quae servare debeant christiani pro servanda caritate. Quibus expletis, ad superiorem redit tractatum de circumcisione.” A on Gal. 5.13, fol. 86r. “Redit ad superiorem tractatum de circumcisione.” A on Gal. 6.12, fol. 87v. 51 “hucusque verba apostoli ad alium apostolum.” A on Gal. 2.17, fol. 82r. 52 “Interruptio sententiae est usque ad aliam sententiam quae sic incipit, huius rei gratia ecto.” A on Eph. 3.2, fol. 90v. Quoting Eph. 3.14. See, for example, Meeks, The Writings of Paul, 127, as well as The Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version.

the liberal arts

89

Lanfranc’s glosses are difcult to grasp without the text of the epistles alongside. Most of his glosses are reiterations of Paul’s words, carefully delineating their relation to what Paul has already said, or is about to say, or has said in response to the question or comments of his opponents. Constant reference to the biblical text is necessary. This characteristic promotes the earlier supposition, based upon the manuscript evidence, that Lanfranc wrote the text as a glossed commentary. In the classroom, an oral presentation based upon his glosses would have been almost impossible without the biblical text on the same page. Each biblical verse could be read and expounded in detail with reference to a single written source. The commentary’s characteristics certainly explain why most of the existing manuscripts survive in glossed format. Reading the commentary and scriptural texts on the same page is the most effective way of assimilating Lanfranc’s comments. The majority of Lanfranc’s glosses are identiable by the repetition of one of several phrases: “Ordo”; “i.” glosses (id est); “s.” glosses (subaudis or scilicet); or “quasi (quis) diceret.”53 The “ordo” glosses are the foundation for all the other glosses. They scrutinize the structure of Paul’s arguments by rephrasing his frequently difcult diction or

53

Transcriptions are based upon two abbreviations in manuscript A, “i.” and “s.” Justifying “i.” as the abbreviation for “id est” is straightforward. “Id est” is spelled in full in many of A’s marginal glosses and in the other manuscripts. The contexts and functions of the abbreviation and full spelling are identical. Justifying “s.” as “subaudis” or “scilicet” is based upon less internal evidence. Manuscript A uses “subaud” three times in contexts identical to the abbreviation “s.” A, fols. 19v, 22r, 33r. “Scilicet” is spelled in full in several interlinear and marginal glosses. A, fols. 55r, 59r, 69r, 95r, 105r. Other uses of the verb “subaudire” point out Lanfranc’s persistent use of it: “subaudiendum est,” “potest et subaudiri,” “et subauditur.” A, fols. 9v, 37r, 47v, 57v, 84r, 88r, 147r, 156v. Group B manuscripts also indicate that both “scilicet” and some form of the verb “subaudire” are represented by the abbreviation “s.” in different glosses. Manuscript P1 uses the abbreviation “s.” consistently, but spells out “subaud” once, “subaudit[ur]” once, and “scilicet” several times. P1, fols. 1v, 10r, 10v, 16v, 18v, 20r, 24v. The most compelling evidence comes from the early witness of manuscript C. This manuscript spells both “scilicet” and “subaudis” in full in multiple glosses when other manuscripts such as A have used the abbreviation “s.” C, fols. 254r, 258v, 280v, 284r, 312v, 317r, 318r, 319r, 319v, 322v. This manuscript uses “subaudit[ur]” once in the same gloss as P1, but here A uses the abbreviation “s.”. C, fol. 326v and A, fol. 116v. Three instances of “subaudis” persist in the later English manuscript, R, fols. 116v, 123r, 124r. I interpret this evidence to indicate that Lanfranc used both “scilicet” and “subaudis” (and “subauditur” less frequently). Later copies of the commentary obscured these diverse types of glosses through the ubiquitous abbreviation, “s.”, and it is now impossible to distinguish one type of gloss from the other. I have transcribed “s.” as “subaudis” in the notes, while recognizing the imprecision of this solution. My thanks to Professor Frans van Liere for pointing out the complexity of this issue to me.

90

chapter three

word order. The verses become workable at this point, the substance for further renement and evaluation: Rom. 4.12: sed et his qui sectantur vestigia dei quae est in praeputio patris nostri Abrahae. Lanfranc: Ordo. Vestigia dei, patris nostri abrahae, quae est in praeputio, id est quam habuit in praeputio.54 I Cor. 11.25: hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. Lanfranc: Ordo. Hic calix in meo sanguine est novum testamentum, id est per meum sanguinem commendat novum testamentum, quia testamentum in mortuis conrmatur, vel quia per hoc habetis novam promissionem, plenam peccatorum remissionem.55 II Cor. 4.15: omnia enim propter vos ut gratia abundans per multos gratiarum actione abundet in gloriam Dei. Lanfranc: Ordo. Omnia propter vos instruendos patimur, ut gratia, id est gratiarum actio abundans gratiarum actione, facta per multos, abundet in gloriam dei. Quasi diceret. Ad hoc patimur, ut exemplum patientiae a nobis discatis, et deo gratias referatis, et multi alii vobiscum.56 II Cor. 5.21: eum qui non noverat peccatum pro nobis peccatum fecit ut nos efceremur iustitia Dei in ipso. Lanfranc: Ordo. Deus pater eum christum fecit peccatum, id est hostium pro peccato, ut nos efceremur iustitia, id est iusticati in ipso, id est in de iesu christi.57

Once Lanfranc established the proper “order” of Paul’s words, he often expanded their meaning by one of his other techniques, proceeding from the establishment of the text to its interpretation. Lanfranc’s glosses introduced with the phrase “id est” or “subaudis”/ “scilicet,” assisted the “ordo” glosses by further rening Paul’s text. Generally, these glosses specied the meaning of a single word or phrase and provided a possible theological interpretation.58 This device covered the vagary of much of Paul’s technical language. What was meant by righteousness, grace, law, sin, etc.? Did such terms convey the same

54 A on Rom. 4.12, fol. 15v. This is the original version of the biblical text in A. It has been corrected in the manuscript to read: “. . . vestigia quae est in praeputio dei . . .” like the Vulgate text. 55 A on I Cor. 11.25, fol. 53r. 56 A on II Cor. 4.15, fol. 66v. 57 A on II Cor. 5.21, fol. 68v. 58 Radding attributes the use of the expression “subaudis” to Lanfranc’s legal training: “[It] is found repeatedly in the Expositio to the Lombard law originating with the Pavese jurists.” Radding, “The Geography of Learning,” 157. Radding is depending upon the P.L. edition, which contains numerous instances of “subaudis.”

the liberal arts

91

meaning every time they were used? The “id est” and “subaudis”/ “scilicet” glosses answered questions such as these, often in very short interlinear notes. Manuscripts or transcriptions such as D’Achery’s, which omit the brief interlinear notes of the commentary, inaccurately reproduce Lanfranc’s interpretation of St. Paul. Many of Lanfranc’s signicant theological contributions were made via the briefest phrases or even single words. In the examples that follow, the glossed word is underlined: Rom. 1.18: those men that detain the truth of God in injustice . . . Lanfranc: That is, in evil works.59 Rom. 5.15: the grace of God . . . Lanfranc: That is, by the remission of sins.60 Rom. 6.17: unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered . . . Lanfranc: That is, in which you were taught by God on the day of your conversion.61 Gal. 2.19: with Christ I am nailed to the cross . . . Lanfranc: That is, I have been crucied with Christ, as he was in the esh, so am I in vice and concupiscence.62 II Tim. 2.13: he continueth faithful . . . Lanfranc: That is, true.63

These examples demonstrate the contribution of Lanfranc’s interlinear glosses to his overall interpretation of St. Paul. Within a short gloss, he established the meaning of Paul’s vocabulary and then incorporated this into his longer and more analytical glosses. The text of II Timothy 1.13 in A follows; Lanfranc’s interlinear notes are set in brackets after the word they amplify: Formam [id est exemplar] habens sanorum verborum quae a me audisti in de [subaudis insinuanda] et dilectione [subaudis habenda] in christo iesu.

Lanfranc’s restatement of the entire verse incorporated the new vocabulary:

59 60 61 62 63

A A A A A

on on on on on

Rom. 1.18, fol. 10r. Rom. 5.15, fol. 17r. Rom. 6.17, fol. 19r. Gal. 2.19, fol. 82r. II Tim. 2.13, fol. 128v.

92

chapter three Id est cum insinuarem tibi dem et dilectionem quam oportet haberi in de iesu christi.64

The interplay of both types of glosses, interlinear and marginal, is a central characteristic of Lanfranc’s commentary. Their interdependence emphasizes the great care that scribes needed to apply to the inclusion and placement of the interlinear glosses in the manuscripts, something with which a modern edition must also comply. The “quasi diceret” and “quasi quis diceret” glosses were Lanfranc’s methods of illuminating the element of debate that has already been noted. Once a working text was established, Lanfranc summarized the argument of Paul, his audience, or opponents. In Romans 5.20, Paul wrote: “Now the law entered in, that the sin might abound. But where sin abounded, grace hath abounded more.” Lanfranc glossed the verse as follows: It is as if he said [quasi diceret]: Oh, Jews, you suppose that Christ had more to forgive the Gentiles, but he had more to forgive those among you whom he found to be prevaricators of the law.65

This gloss tied into the larger themes of the Romans commentary concerning the law, the Jews, and their responsibilities as God’s people. Fundamentally, the “quasi quis diceret” glosses demonstrated how Paul and his opponents engaged one another in debate, the methods to be used not only against a theological opponent, but also in dialogue with a well-intentioned questioner: Paul wants to prove the law of the Jews is not to be observed by the faithful. For it was only given to the point of the advent of Christ. This is the response as if someone had said [quasi quis diceret]: Why have you said ‘in Christ Jesus’ and not ‘in the law?’66

And again: It is as if someone said: Are not those who serve God set free from vanity and corruption even in this life? To this objector the Apostle responds

64

A on II Tim. 1.13, fol. 127v. “Quasi diceret. O iudei vos putatis quod christus gentilibus plus dimiserit, sed quibusdam vestrum plus dimisit, quos praevaricatores legis invenit.” A on Rom. 5.20, fol. 17v. 66 “Probare vult quod lex iudeorum delibus non est observanda. Non est enim data nisi usque ad adventum christi et est responsio, quasi quis diceret. Cur dixisti in christo iesu et non in observantia legis?” A on Rom. 7.1, fol 19r. 65

the liberal arts

93

saying: We have hope that we are set free into eternal life, but we are not yet set free in this life.67

The “quasi (quis) diceret” gloss was the most common type in Lanfranc’s commentary, consistently framing the progression of Paul’s argument within the two poles of a hypothetical debate. Paul stated a particular doctrinal fact because someone else had asked a relevant question or had challenged Paul’s preliminary point. Lanfranc viewed the progression of Paul’s argument as a series of answers to questions, as if the reader had in his possession the written account of one-half of the dialogue between Paul and his questioners. The “quasi diceret” and “quasi quis diceret” formulae reconstructed the debate as Lanfranc deemed it must originally have stood. Textual evidence indicates that debate was an emerging method of the eleventh-century classroom. Pertinent examples are to be found in Anselm’s works. Anselm began the Proslogion with the quotation of Psalm 13(14).1: “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God. . . .” This phrase framed Anselm’s entire defense of God’s existence, stated as “a being than which none greater can be thought.”68 Anselm’s Cur Deus homo was structured as a debate between Anselm and his student Boso.69 Lanfranc’s commentary incorporated both types of debate: the defense of doctrinal truth against a misinformed opponent, as well as the cordial and instructive engagement of master and student. But Lanfranc’s application of the rules of debate to the scriptural page was unique. For him, the doctrinal wealth of the epistles escaped the reader unless debate was reconstructed and addressed in exegesis. Methodology and content became closely linked in the commentary, suggesting that Lanfranc’s glosses were useful in the instruction of Christian doctrine and reected the methods licitly utilized in his classroom. These types of glosses (the ordo, id est, subaudis/scilicet, and quasi [quis] diceret glosses) claried Paul’s words and his arguments. Other glosses went further in highlighting the progression of Paul’s argument, depicting his examples, proofs, and conclusions. Lanfranc’s technical

67 “Quasi quis diceret. Nonne qui deo serviunt, etiam in hac vita a vanitate et corruptione liberantur? Huic obiectioni respondet apostolus dicens. Spem habemus ut in aeterna vita liberemur, sed nondum in hac vita liberati sumus.” A on Rom. 8.24, fol. 22r. 68 Anselm, Proslogion, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.103. 69 Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Schmitt, ed., vol. 2.47–133. See Southern, Saint Anselm, 114–20, 129–32, 174–81, 202–5.

94

chapter three

vocabulary was consistent and frequent. He highlighted Paul’s earlier points by the use of “exponit.” Paul “explains” why he said something, or what the meaning of an earlier statement might have been.70 Lanfranc commonly tied one of Paul’s statements to an earlier verse by the use of “ratio cur” or “causa cur,” demonstrating the development of the argument and the connections of its parts: “This is the reason he earlier said. . . .”71 A series of these explanations led to Paul’s proof: “Probatio quod . . .” or “probat quod. . . .” These glosses summed up the entirety of Paul’s argument and his theological point: “He proves that the law is good. Every spiritual thing, that is, whatever nurtures the spirit, is good.”72 Finally, Paul’s proofs were concluded (concludit quod . . .): “He concludes what has already been proven. . . .”73 Virtually all of Lanfranc’s glosses were concerned with Paul’s arguments, illustrating the context, methods, and meaning of a debate. A cursory glance at the commentary can leave the impression that there was nothing more to his glosses than mere paraphrases of the Apostle’s words. This interpretation misses the point. Lanfranc’s methods illuminated the Apostle’s rhetorical and argumentative devices in order to unveil their theological impact. Southern has looked to the manuscripts 70 “Exponit de qua necessitate dicat, est enim alia necessitas, quae in rerum inmutabilitate consistit.” A on I Cor. 9.16, fol. 49r. “Exponit quod superius dixit. Sive autem tribulamur, et quod posterius. Sicut socii passionum.” A on II Cor. 1.8, fol. 63r. Quoting verses 6, 7. “Exponit qualiter intelligendum sit, quod superius dixit. Non in immensum gloriamur. Si alii ante hunc apostolum in predicatione corinthiorum laborassent, et iste se eorum apostolum vocasset, in inmensum, id est ultra modum gloriari videretur.” A on II Cor. 10.14, fol. 74r. 71 “Ratio cur evangelizare promptus sit.” A on Rom. 1.16, fol. 10r. “Causa cur non erubescat evangelium, videlicet quia virtus dei est omni credenti ipsum evangelium, per quam et peccata remittuntur, et cum res exigit, miracula unt.” A on Rom. 1.16, fol. 10r. 72 “Probatio quod bonum est. Omne enim spirituale, id est spiritum nutriens, bonum est.” A on Rom. 7.14, fol. 20r. Also: “Probat eos qui spiritu dei aguntur esse lios. Non enim inquit spiritus quem accepistis, servos vos facit. Omnes namque cultores dei in quocumque tempore aut servi fuerunt ut iudei, aut lii ut christianii. . . .” A on Rom. 8.15, fol. 21v. “Probatio quod non sint sui. Nulli enim empti sunt sui. Hi autem empti. Pretio enim magno id est sanguine christi.” A on I Cor. 6.19, fol. 44v. “Superiorem sententiam probat. Nihil minus feci, et cetera. Quasi diceret. Per hoc liquet me nihil minus fecisse aliis apostolis, quia vos nihil minus habetis, quam aliae aecclesiae quae instructae sunt ab illis. Quales autem sint magistri, probant discipuli sicut omnia quae sine se esse non possunt.” A on II Cor. 12.13, fol. 77v. Quoting verse 11. 73 “Concludit quod superius quaerebatur et probatum est legem esse bonam, si tamen bonum velit, et est ordo. Invenio legem bonum mihi volenti facere bonum, ac si diceret. Si bona ago, lex mihi bona est, si vero malam, lex michi mors est.” A on Rom. 7.21, fol. 20v. “Concludit quod superius probabatur quasi diceret. Ingrediemur igitur in requiem.” A on Heb. 4.9, fol. 141r. Quoting verse 3.

the liberal arts

95

as evidence of a two-stage composition in the commentary. Lanfranc’s glosses were supposedly written rst at a stage at Bec “when he was wholly occupied with points of grammar, logic and rhetoric.”74 The patristic extracts were added at a later date after Lanfranc’s interest had shifted from the arts to theology. This analysis does not recognize the medieval record’s insistence that Lanfranc quickly turned from the arts to scripture when he was converted to the monastic life, nor does it acknowledge the centrality of Paul’s theological meaning for Lanfranc. This was his focus. Argument and theology worked in tandem for Lanfranc for two reasons: First, he believed that Paul was self-consciously utilizing rhetorical techniques in the service of theology. Second, at the point he wrote the commentary, these were the very methods that Lanfranc knew well. The commentary on St. Paul (and perhaps the lost commentary on the Psalms) was Lanfranc’s earliest sacred writing. He looked to the sacred text for his rst instruction in Christian doctrine, but he taught Pauline doctrine to himself by means of the method he knew best—the art of argument. Lanfranc’s possible use of patristic authorities should not be disregarded either. Issues of sacred authority surrounded the events and writings of Lanfranc’s career: his corrections and collection of patristic texts, his enduring alliance with the papacy, his criticism of both Berengar’s and Anselm’s independent theological speculation. It is questionable that Lanfranc himself would write his earliest biblical commentaries without the support of some written authority. Lanfranc’s commentary was a systematic theological interpretation of the epistles made in conjunction with his patristic sources and assisted by the methods he already knew. This discussion returns to its starting point. What was Lanfranc’s attitude toward the arts, and how did he use them? His methods indicate an author who was well-schooled in the rules of debate and experienced in their practical application, but who refrained from an obviously technical approach. Lanfranc highlighted elements that he believed were intrinsic to the Apostle’s method, as a theology presented in disputation with others, while avoiding the arbitrary imposition of dialectical formulae upon the epistles. The distinction is important. He was not self-consciously imposing a dialectical interpretation, but illuminating an argumentative structure he believed to be inherent to the epistles themselves. In so doing, his approach was conservative. The

74

Southern, Saint Anselm, 35.

96

chapter three

vast majority of the glosses were of the types already discussed, none of which were overtly dependent upon the texts of the trivium arts. The philosophy behind Lanfranc’s rare technical citations of the trivium texts was explained in his general comments about the arts themselves. The majority of these comments were made in the rst and second chapters of I Corinthians where Paul contrasted his particular preaching style, based on the precepts of the Gospel, to a false eloquence that was based on the wisdom of this world (I Corinthians 1.17–22): For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them who are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God: it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Lanfranc depicted the difference between God’s wisdom and the world’s wisdom by contrasting the true Christian teacher to those teachers who misapplied the methods of the liberal arts to doctrine. He assumed that both Paul and his opponents had a working knowledge of the classical arts, but that the use of the arts had been distorted by Paul’s opponents. Paul’s terminology ( per sublimitatem sermonis aut sapientiae; in persuasibilibus sapientiae verbis) was interpreted by Lanfranc as an allusion to logic, the quadrivium, the Platonic books, and rhetoric.75 Lanfranc dened the “scribe” of I Corinthians 1.20 as the “authors of the moral and natural books and the writers of the secular arts.” The “disputers” are “those who dispute the world’s wisdom.” Either the scribe or the debater could be called by the general term, “wise.” These interpretations implicated Paul’s opponents. They were the disputers, dependent upon a worldly wisdom, who falsely represented doctrine.76

75 “Sullimitatem sermonis vocat logycam, quia ipsi de tota articiosa oratione est. Sapientiam vocat quadrivium, et maxime libros platonicos, speciem designans nominae generis.” A on I Cor. 2.1, fol. 38r. “Rethoricam tangit in qua dantur precepta, apposite loqui ad persuasionem.” A on I Cor. 2.4, fol. 38v. 76 A on I Cor. 1.20, fol. 37v.

the liberal arts

97

Lanfranc directly quoted classical texts only twice. In I Corinthians 2.6, he interpreted Paul’s critique of the “principes” of this age by reference to the Topics: Here he calls the foremost among the philosophers ‘principes,’ from whom, and through whom philosophy originated. They are even described by this name in the classical texts. As Cicero says in the Topics: ‘It seems to me that Aristotle was the ‘princeps’ of both [branches of argumentation, dialectic and topics].’77

Lanfranc contrasted Paul’s wisdom to that of the philosophers. He was as procient in the use of the liberal arts as his opponents, and at times his methods mirrored theirs. When a situation required it, Paul was even willing to use the same classical methods as his opponents; in fact, among the authors of the scriptural books, only Paul demonstrated this dependence upon the classical arts. However, Lanfranc consistently pointed out the differences between Paul’s approach and his opponents. The ultimate source of his teaching was not the agenda of the secular arts, but the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.78 Paul’s doctrine was not of this world, but of God; he was not occupied with the mere wrangling of words, but with the truth. If it was useful, even licit, for Paul to resort to the methods of the liberal arts, the reader of the epistles should not presume that they were the substance of his teaching. Lanfranc did not denitively condemn the “doctrina” of the arts; the arts might correspond to sacred texts and assist the articulation of Christian doctrine. All the same, Lanfranc warned against those

77 “Principes hic vocat egregios philosophorum a quibus et per quos philosophia inventa est. Quo nomine in saecularibus etiam litteris censetur. Ut cicero in topicis. Utriusque inquit ut mihi quid videtur aristotiles princeps fuit.” A on I Cor. 2.6, fol. 38v. See Cicero, Topica, Hubbell, ed. and trans., I.2.6. 78 “Forte propter se hoc dicit, quia solus inter alios apostolos saecularium litterarum peritus, terrenarum opum dives romanae dignitatis parentela conspicuus fuit. Ut ipse testatur in actibus apostolorum. Ego homo quidem sum iudaeus, a tarso ciliciae, non ignotae civitatis municeps. Et alibi interroganti tribuno utrum romanus esset, respondit etiam. Et tribunus. Ego multa summa civitatem hanc consecutus sum. Et paulus ait. Ego autem et natus sum. Et alias eo rationem reddente, exclamavit festus. Insanis paule. Multae te litterae, ad insaniam convertunt.” A on I Cor. 1.26, fol. 38r. Quoting Acts 21.39, 22.27–8, 26.24. “In doctis humanae sapientiae verbis se loqui abnegat, et tamen in scripturis eius tanta locorum et disputationum subtilitas, tanta et subtilis benivolentiae captatio, cum res exigit invenitur, ut tanta vel ea maior in nullo scripturarum genere reperiatur. Unde procul dubio credendum est, non eum regulas artium saecularium in scribendo vel loquendo cogitasse, sed per doctrinam sancti spiritus, a quo et per quem est omnis utilis peritia, talia et taliter dixisse, quae per singula exponerem nisi imperitorum talium doctrinarum murmur timerem.” A on I Cor. 2.13, fol. 39r.

98

chapter three

practitioners of the arts who used their abilities to distort the central truths of Christianity.79 Lanfranc designated this misappropriation of the arts as “dialectic”: He calls dialectic wisdom, through which the cross, that is Christ’s death, seems to be made empty by those who understand it simply. For example: God is immortal; however Christ is God; therefore Christ is immortal. Thus too can the virgin birth and certain of the other mysteries be misconstrued. However to those who clearly understand, dialectic, when correctly used, does not weaken the mysteries, but when the matter demands it, dialectic can even support and strengthen them.80

Lanfranc’s example of false logic was syllogistic, that is, concluding that if Christ was immortal he could not die. The doctrine of Christ’s death had been wrongly manipulated within the guise of a dialectical technique. This gloss emphasized the pitfall of mixing dialectic and theology. Dialectical arguments could easily misdirect divine truths. Although Lanfranc’s juxtaposition of those “simpliciter eam intelligentibus” and those “perspicaciter tamen intuentibus dialectica” assigned as much blame to the practitioners as to dialectic itself, the distinction illustrated the dangers inherent to dialectic. It was inconsistent, subject to the good will and ability of those who wielded its power, and could do grave harm not only to Christian doctrine, but also to the simpler members of the Christian faithful.81 Lanfranc’s glosses did not precisely forbid the use of dialectic, but they pointed to a better path for the Christian teacher. Paul was Lanfranc’s

79 “Ubi scribae sunt moralium et naturalium librorum auctores? Et artium saecularium scriptores, id est de ipsis artibus precepta dantes. Conquisitores, id est argumentores, et preceptis artium ipsarum aliquid approbantes. Sapiens generale vocabulum utriusque. Hos annihilatos esse perhibet, non quia doctrinas eorum omnifariam improbet. In multis enim sacris litteris concordant, sed quia quaedam senserunt, et scripserunt contraria christianae religioni maxime de cultura unius dei.” A on I Cor. 1.20, fol. 37v. “Ubi conquisitor huius saeculi?” is glossed as “mundanae sapientiae disputator?” A on I Cor. 1.20, fol. 37v. 80 “Sapientiam ubi dialecticam vocat, per quam crux, id est mors christi simpliciter eam intelligentibus evacuari videtur, quia deus inmortalis, christus autem deus, christus igitur inmortalis. Sic de partu virginis, et de quibusdam aliis sacramentis. Perspicaciter tamen intuentibus dialectica, sacramenta dei non impugnat, sed cum res exigit, si rectissime teneatur, astruit et conrmat.” A on I Cor. 1.17, fol. 37r. 81 Lanfranc makes the same point in Colossians: “Id est, in altitudine locorum et sillogismorum et aliorum generum disputationum. Non artem disputandi vituperat, sed perversum disputationum usum.” A on Col. 2.4, fol. 105v. A reads “per verbum” for “perversum.” “Perversum” is the correct reading established in the other primary manuscripts. R, fol. 92v.

the liberal arts

99

supreme example of the good teacher who was conrmed in authority and truthful in doctrine.82 The false teacher was depraved, deceitful, proud, and uncertain in his teaching. He asked questions that could not be answered.83 The role of Paul as teacher conformed to a widespread paradigm of Lanfranc’s commentary: the Old Testament law and the Gospel must both be received in faith and obeyed in good works. This was the teacher’s charge. From his teacher, the student must receive instruction in true doctrine, and in the teacher’s person, perceive righteous conduct: “The work of the evangelist is to live well and teach well, to instruct his students by means of behavior and words.”84 The teacher must be the student’s example in all things. Lanfranc repeatedly articulated the teacher/student relationship in terms of the father/son relationship: the teacher brought forth spiritual sons when his own faith was born in his students.85 Paul was the supreme teacher in “faith and virtue,” and Timothy was Paul’s beloved son because “I gave birth to him in faith.”86 This spiritual generation was contrasted to the “adultery”

82 “Verbum veritatis erat in eius doctrina, quia non aliud tradebat quam quod a deo acceperat.” A on II Cor. 6.7, fol. 68v. Ambrose gloss. 83 Lanfranc assigned these attributes to Paul’s opponents in numerous interlinear glosses. For example, Paul’s ministry was contrasted to his opponents: “id est exemplum pravitatis quo videntes offendere possint.” A on II Cor. 6.3, fol. 68v. Paul’s opponents and their audiences were characterized as “Leves, instabiles, nova semper audire desiderantes.” A on II Tim. 4.3, fol. 130v. The text of I Tim. 1.7 with Lanfranc’s interlinear glosses in parentheses: “volentes esse legis doctores non intellegentes neque quae loquuntur (id est quaestiones de quibus aguunt) neque de quibus (subaudis auctoritatibus scripturarum) adrmant (subaudis ipsas quaestiones).” A on I Tim 1.7, fol. 119v. “quia necit solvere ea quae proponit.” A on I Tim. 6.4, fol. 125r. 84 “Opus evangelistae est bene vivere et bene docere, moribus et verbis subiectos instruere.” A on II Tim. 4.5, fol. 130v. For a parallel emphasis on the virtue of the master in the cathedral schools see C. Stephen Jaeger, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950–1200 (Philadelphia: 1994). The old model of learning of the tenth and eleventh centuries centered upon the charismatic presence of the teacher: “In the context of cathedral school learning, the teacher is the bearer and conveyor of real presence. His person is the lesson; it communicates ‘knowledge,’ wisdom, and eloquence.” Jaegar, 7. Here the teacher’s goal was to model the students into little examples of himself. Therefore, the curriculum sought not to develop intellectual skills, but an ethical program. Through the physical bearing and comportment of the master, the student perceived the interior virtue of the master’s mind and soul, and the student adapted it to his own. 85 “Nati et parti fuerant in christo iesu de [in de christi, R, fol. 68v]. Sed quia illorum quidam hanc dem dimiserant, parturiendi iterum ab apostolo erant, quoadusque des christi formaretur in eis.” A on Gal. 4.19, fol. 85r. 86 “Per hoc inquit probatur, quia apostolus et magister vester sum, quia discipuli mei estis in de christi.” A on I Cor. 9.2, fol. 48r. “id est quem in de genui.” A on I Tim. 1.2, fol. 119v. “Ordo, doctor in de, et in virtute.” A on I Tim. 2.7, fol. 121r.

100

chapter three

of the false teachers. As an adulterer sought bodily pleasure rather than offspring, so did the false teacher preach the word of God for worldly advantage without seeking to generate spiritual sons.87 The content of the teacher’s doctrine must be those very truths that Paul’s opponents denied by their use of dialectic, namely, the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.88 Although these truths are “foolishness” to the wise men of this world, they are the true wisdom of God, so the teacher who deceived his students on these points rightly received Paul’s censure and condemnation. This teacher endangered the faith, and therefore the eternal well-being, of his students. Faith, or true doctrine, must be communicated to one’s students in order to redeem their way of life. Since, for Lanfranc, faith was meaningless apart from good works, the upright life of the student was the teacher’s ultimate goal: “The ornament of the teacher is the virtuous life of his students, reected in their actions.”89 The ordered teacher/student relationship challenged the exploitation of dialectic, which too easily devolved into contentiousness, meaningless oratorical disputation, and false doctrine.90 The learning environment that Lanfranc visualized was peaceful, exemplied by the close spiritual connection of student and teacher. His educational program promoted the monastic ideals of love, faith, and virtue, not the intellectual abilities exemplied by the emerging inuence of the secular arts.91 In critiquing 87 “Adulter non querit prolem, sed voluptatem corporis explere. Tales sunt qui pro terreno commodo verbum dei praedicant, non querentes lios spirituales generare.” A on II Cor. 2.17, fol. 65r. 88 “Tradiderunt philosophi, quos homines vocat, creatorem omnium non potuisse eri creaturam, hominem non potuisse nasci ex virgine, hominem mortuum non potuisse revivere, considerantes elementa mundi, id est has visibiles creaturas, in quibus animalia quae nascuntur ex utriusque sexus commixtione generantur, et in quibus quicquid moritur, ultra vivere inpossibile est.” A on Col. 2.8, fol. 105v. “Verba inquit et scientiam tenetis, sicut testimonium christi, id est incarnationis eius et passionis et ceterorum conrmatum est a nobis inter vos, diversis veteris testamenti auctoritatibus.” A on I Cor. 1.5, fol. 36v. “Et incarnatio et passio dei, et hominis iesu christi, quae huius mundi sapientibus stultitia videbantur, maiorem sapientiam continent, quam homines possint inquirere, et maiorem fortitudinem habent, quam homines possint habere. Per dem enim eorum et peccata remittuntur, et demones expelluntur, at alia cum res exigit miracula unt.” A on I Cor. 1.25, fol. 37v. 89 “Ornamentum doctoris, honesta vita discipulorum actionibus suis.” A on Titus 2.10, fol. 133v. 90 Paul’s opponents were characterized as “bestiales homines.” His ght against them was oratorical: “Pugna haec verborum et disputationum intelligenda est.” A on I Cor. 15.32, fol. 59v. 91 “Monastic theology is a confessio; it is an act of faith and of recognition; it involves a ‘re-cognition’ in a deep and living manner by means of prayer and the lectio divina

the liberal arts

101

Paul’s opponents, Lanfranc established the boundaries for the use of the arts in his own classroom, indeed, within Christian educated culture as a whole. Lanfranc conceded that the commentator, like Paul, must come to the sacred text acquainted with classical literature. This was one attribute of the educated and erudite reader of the scriptures, allowing him access to certain components of the text that would otherwise be closed to him. This background might also assist the Christian in discerning the methods underlying a false theology and in formulating the necessary response. But the starting point of the teacher must be faith, dened as assent to the established doctrine of the church, followed by works, visible in the personal virtue of the teacher. Both faith and works were easily communicated from the master to his students, but an extreme use of disputatious methods occluded these essential characteristics of the Christian teacher.92 of mysteries which are known in a conceptual way; explicit perhaps, but supercial. ‘To understand’ is not necessarily ‘to explain’ through causality. . . . Soliciting aid from sources which are foreign to revelation is certainly legitimate, often useful, and occasionally necessary, particularly in matters of controversy ‘against the Gentiles’; it makes it possible to defend divine Truth, demonstrate its agreement with human truth, and draw up an exposé which is satisfying to reason. The monks preferred to reduce this procedure to the minimum, and they were within their rights. Thus they sought for and obtained a type of theology ‘an understanding of the faith,’ in which the intelligence draws sustenance almost exclusively from the content of faith itself.” Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, Catherine Misrahi, trans. (New York: 1988 reprint of 1961 edition), 215. 92 Lanfranc’s attitudes corresponded to those of his contemporaries, particularly Peter Damian, Manegold of Lautenbach, and Otloh of St. Emmeram. Like Lanfranc, these scholars were procient in the arts, yet apprehensive of the application of the arts to theology. Eleventh-century responses to the arts are discussed in Irven M. Resnick, “Attitudes Towards Philosophy and Dialectic During the Gregorian Reform,” The Journal of Religious History 16 (1990), 115–25; Resnick, “‘Scientia Liberalis,’ Dialectics, and Otloh of St. Emmeram,” Revue bénédictine 97 (1987), 241–52. For the development of classical methods and attitudes in the later eleventh century, see Gillian R. Evans, Anselm and a New Generation (Oxford: 1980). And into the twelfth century, see Evans, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford: 1980), 79–90. Edward Peters traces the exegetical history of Prov. 22.28 and other scriptural passages that were used to explicate the relationship between sacred texts and the arts. He cites the new role of the Bible as a central textbook of the eleventhcentury schools as a formative cause for scholars’ attitudes toward the arts: “Central to monastic attitudes toward the new learning, and central to monastic self-awareness, was the lectio divina—the study and contemplation of scripture. Monastic discussions of the proper and improper approaches to scriptural exegesis formed the vocabulary applied by monastic critics and scholars to learning in general and to the new learning of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and to the problem of the artes liberales.” Edward M. Peters, “Transgressing the Limits set by the Fathers: Authority and Impious Exegesis in Medieval Thought,” in Scott L Waugh and Peter D. Diehl, eds., Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000–1500 (Cambridge: 1996), 348.

102

chapter three

Lanfranc was presciently aware of the potential conict between the methods of the monastery and those of the new learning, a conict that materialized in the twelfth-century clashes between scholars such as Abelard and Bernard, or William of Champeaux. Lanfranc took a protective stance in his glosses; he envisioned, and sought to safeguard, the peace and sanctity of the monastic classroom.93 His fundamental image was of the relationship between the student and master as a spiritual paternity. The student became the master’s son as the master’s own faith and virtue were born within the student. These glosses constitute an important precursor to the Bec-Canterbury letter corpus written after the 1060s when Lanfranc had been transferred to Caen and then to Canterbury. Anselm succeeded Lanfranc at Bec, and a network of Bec monks was established throughout Normandy and England. Modern historians have noted the strong language of love and friendship owing from both Lanfranc’s and Anselm’s pens, and they have questioned the source of these sentiments.94 The commentary’s glosses, written decades before this letter collection, strongly suggest that Lanfranc sought to establish spiritually familial connections early on in his classroom and in his relations with the Bec students. The letters echoed the commentary’s emphasis on spiritual relationships.

93 I understand the commentary to be a monastic text, written in the service of the cloister. For a slightly different view see Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 52–4. My arguments are based upon the early dating of the commentary, written when Lanfranc left the world and his classical training and turned to Bec, and perhaps immediately before the school was open to external students. Lanfranc’s concerns seem entirely concerned with the monastic context: his emphasis on the teacher, brotherly relations among the students, and protection of doctrine from external inuences. His reluctance to teach external students and secular topics is also taken into consideration. However, the entirety of Lanfranc’s career does promote the idea that once they were protected, monastic values and personnel could be put into the service of the king, pope, or diocese. I believe the commentary reects the rst step in that process. 94 Scholars have generally suggested this as an attribute of Anselm’s disposition and noted the difference between Lanfranc’s sincere expression of friendship and Anselm’s overt, even embarrassing romantic-sexual overtones. Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059–c. 1130 (Cambridge: 1963), 67–76 and Saint Anselm, 138–65; Brian Patrick McGuire, “Love, Friendship and Sex in the Eleventh Century: The Experience of Anselm,” Studia Theologica 28 (1974), 111–52. However, in his later book, McGuire notes the possibility of Lanfranc’s inuence: “The balancing of the phrases as well as the sentiment [of Lanfranc’s letters] recall Anselm’s style so strongly that one might ask who inuenced whom.” McGuire, Friendship and Community: The Monastic Experience, 350–1250 (Kalamazoo: 1988), 222. For the greater context of such scholarly and monastic relationships in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, see the comprehensive discussion of Mia Münster-Swendsen, “The Model of Scholastic Mastery in Northern Europe c. 970–1200,” in Vaughn and Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning, 307–42.

the liberal arts

103

Even as archbishop, Lanfranc addressed Anselm as “lord and father, brother and friend,” and claimed that he wished to obey Anselm, his father, “like God himself.”95 Anselm always addressed Lanfranc as “lord and father” and consistently made clear how much “I rely upon your paternity.”96 Lanfranc’s letters also repeated the themes of the glosses regarding discipline. The teacher was responsible for his student’s faith and good conduct, so the teacher who had his student’s best interest in mind did not spare harsh correction when that student erred. To his own nephew, Lanfranc conveyed his displeasure at some undened disobedience of the younger monk’s, which only Anselm’s intervention had healed. Even as Lanfranc forgave his nephew he enjoined: “But I warn you not to do anything like that again, for the more dearly I love a friend the greater my anger against him for even a slight misdemeanour.”97 As in the commentary, Lanfranc’s letters intensied the ties between family and monastic relationships. In commending his own nephew to Gilbert Crispin in the 1070s, Lanfranc still expressed monastic relationships in terms of paternal and lial affection: I commend to your loving care my brother’s son—your own brother—who is very dear to me, asking you (as it is right that I should), my dearest son and brother, to love him wholeheartedly and to spare no effort in training him in an exemplary way of life. I said that he was your brother because that indeed is what I desire and entreat that he should be. I am told that even your own honoured mother is gracious enough to call him her son.98

Gilbert was the nephew’s “brother,” and so by extension, Gilbert’s mother was the nephew’s “mother.” Lanfranc was the father of both monks. Here, as in so many areas, the commentary foreshadowed larger themes of Lanfranc’s life and work.99

95 “Domino patri fratri amico Ans. L. peccator perpetuam a Deo salutem.” Lanfranc, Epp. 18, 19, Clover and Gibson, eds. and trans., 96, 100. “. . . sed interveniente venerando patre domno Anselmo, cui sicut Deo oboedire desidero. . . .” 96 Anselm, Ep. 14, Schmitt, ed., vol. 3.119–20. 97 Lanfranc, Ep. 19, Clover and Gibson, eds and trans., 101. Compare to the following glosses: “Hoc dicit occasione illius sententiae, quam superius dixit. Parati ulcisci omnem in obedientiam ut inquit non existimer a vobis tamquam terrere, et opere quod minor, non implere, sciatis quod minor verbis impleturus sum factis.” A on II Cor. 10.9, fol. 74r. “Si doctor corripiendo contristat discipulum letitia illius est, si discipulus ad penitentiam contristatur.” A on II Cor. 2.2, fol. 64r. 98 Lanfranc, Ep. 20, Clover and Gibson, eds., 101. 99 Lanfranc wrote a rule for his monks at Christ Church, probably in the mid-1070s. He drew from several sources including, perhaps, the (now-missing) Bec constitutions. The dating and sources of the Decreta Lanfranci are discussed in David Knowles’s

104

chapter three

Lanfranc’s glosses reveal an author who was knowledgeable of the trivium texts and permitted limited use of technical argumentative tools, provided they did not threaten the core values of the teacher/student relationship. Which texts did Lanfranc prefer? As mentioned earlier, an estimation of Lanfranc’s possible knowledge of the logica vetus is based upon his limited references to substance.100 Lanfranc’s grammatical comments were limited to a few observations of declension and word usage.101 Lanfranc’s second quotation of a classical text elucidated Paul’s words according to classical usage: Per multos, id est inter multos, ut virgilius. Via secta per ambas, id est inter ambas, vel ita. Quae audisti a me, sunt probata per multos testes, id est per multa testimonia scripturarum.102

Lanfranc’s reliance upon technical methods was rare. Occasionally, he was willing to demonstrate Paul’s argumentative structure according to a simple syllogistic formula, as in Romans 6.20–3: For when you were the servants of sin, you were free from justice. What fruit, therefore, had you then in those things, of which you are now ashamed? For the end of them is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctication, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, everlasting life, in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

introduction to the text in Decreta Lanfranci monachis Cantuariensibus transmissa (Siegburg: 1967), xvi–xviii. It is natural to look to Lanfranc’s Decreta to derive some information of the school and curriculum at Bec. Unfortunately, the questions provoked by the commentary are not answered in the Decreta; minimal information about the Christ Church community’s educational standards are evident, apart from a passage that interpreted St. Benedict’s directives as to the annual distribution of books. Decreta Lanfranci, 21 (p. 19). However, Lanfranc’s instructions for novices, his requirements for their strict obedience to the novice master, and for the type of person the novice master must be, exactly repeated the commentary’s language: “. . . in claustro separatim sedeat cum magistro suo in loco novitiis deputato. Nullus ei loquatur aut signum faciat absque magistri sui licentia. Magister talis sit, qui exemplo vitae et verbo doctrinae possit eum de anima sua monere et ordinem docere.” Decreta Lanfranci, 103 (p. 86). 100 See above, notes 37 and 38. 101 For example: “id est per quem vel est causus mutatio. Quasi diceret. In quem id est in cuius de [in cuius dem, R, fol. 71v].” A on Eph. 1.11, fol. 88v. “. . . Potest factura ablativus esse.” A on Eph. 2.9, fol. 90r. “hoc fertur ad superiorem verbi signicationem” and “hoc ad posteriorem.” A on I Cor. 2.16, fol. 39r. “in qua” is glossed “Pro in quam, vel ad quam.” A on Col. 3.15, fol. 107v. 102 A on II Tim. 2.2, fol. 128r. A reads “vita” for “via.” The other primary manuscripts represent the original reading, “via.” R, fol. 102v. See Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 104–5. The following line from the Georgics seems to be Lanfranc’s original source: “. . . et via secta per ambas. . . .” Georgics 1.238.

the liberal arts

105

Lanfranc reproduced Paul’s argument in a brief syllogism. To summarize: It is necessary to serve either righteousness or sin; but when sin is served, shame and death are the result; therefore, righteousness must be served.103

Lanfranc employed this same structure in Galatians 3.10: The blessing is either from faith or works; but it is not from works; therefore it is from faith.104

Lanfranc criticized the use of syllogistic arguments, yet occasionally used them himself. His use of such technical methods followed the pattern of his other glosses: they necessarily conformed to the doctrinal content of the Apostle’s words and to the internal structure of the Apostle’s argument. Lanfranc designated these moments as “cum res exigit.” When the matter demanded it, the rules of the arts might support and illuminate divine truths.105 When he deemed a method to be inherent to the Apostle’s meaning, it was licit for the exegete to point it out. For example, in I Corinthians 15.44 (si est corpus animale est et spiritale), Lanfranc wrote: “The minor premise, ‘but it is a physical body,’ is missing, and this is what he proves.”106 The great majority of Lanfranc’s technical methods originated from the rhetorical texts. For example, the syllogistic structure demonstrated in these glosses was provided by Cicero in the De inventione as one possible type of syllogistic argument: Aut . . . aut . . .; at . . .; igitur. . . .107

103 “Ratio cur servire iustitiae eos oporteat. Aut enim iustitiae servire, aut peccato necesse est. Sed cum servitur peccato abest iustitia, adquiritur fructus unde erubescitur. Quod est inconveniens. Serviendum est igitur iustitiae.” A on Rom. 6.20, fol. 19r. 104 “Quasi diceret. Aut ex de est benedictio, aut ex operibus. Sed non ex operibus. Ex illis enim maledictio. Ex de igitur.” A on Gal. 3.10, fol. 82v. 105 A on I Cor. 1.17, fol. 37r; A on I Cor. 2.13, fol. 39r. 106 “Deest assumptio. Sed est corpus animale, et hanc probat.” A on I Cor. 15.44, fol. 60v. See also: “. . . Tota autem ratio sic procedit. Si lex erat permansura, et sacerdotium. Sed sacerdotium transfertur. Lex igitur necesse est transferatur.” A on Heb. 7.11, fol. 145v. 107 Cicero, De inv., I.39.72.

106

chapter three

A careful use of the methods advocated by Cicero did not invade the meaning of the Pauline text. Indeed, Lanfranc must have felt an afnity for Cicero’s approach. In the De inventione, Cicero advocated a limited use of syllogistic reasoning, while criticizing philosophers who overextended its application: I should, however, like it to be understood that I am well aware that in philosophy deductive reasoning is treated in many other forms too; in fact they are intricate and involved, and a precise system has been formulated. But they seem to me to be quite unt for oratorical practice.108

These words implicated the opponents of Paul’s doctrine and the schoolmen of Lanfranc’s era, as aptly as the philosophers of Cicero’s experience. The intentions underlying Cicero’s and Lanfranc’s compositions were parallel. As Lanfranc highlighted the false teachers’ “loftiness of speech” and “learned words,” so Cicero had demonstrated how “eloquence,” although designed to be used in service to the state, was perverted when a certain agreeableness of manner—a depraved imitation of virtue—acquired the power of eloquence unaccompanied by any consideration of moral duty, then low cunning supported by talent grew accustomed to corrupt cities and undermine the lives of men.109

Believing that the proper use of argument had been distorted, Cicero claimed to write the De inventione to restore the benets of eloquence to the state, “provided only it is accompanied by wisdom, the guide of all human affairs.”110 Cicero’s verbal attack on statesmen was parallel to Lanfranc’s accusations against false teachers. Both the statesmen and the teachers employed polemical techniques at the expense of wisdom and a community’s best interests. Within their respective contexts, the programs of Cicero and Lanfranc were identical, formulated to direct learned culture as the handmaiden of either the state or church. Thus, Lanfranc borrowed from the trivium texts solely to illuminate the rhetorical devices that Paul had used against his ideological opponents. Excluding the rare logical and grammatical comments cited above, all of these glosses were based upon the Ciceronian texts. The doctrine of topics was the central rhetorical inuence upon the commentary,

108 109 110

Ibid., I.41.77. Ibid., I.2.3. Ibid., I.4.5.

the liberal arts

107

dened by Cicero as the “sedes” or location from which arguments were drawn, and used by Lanfranc to illustrate the strategies that Paul self-consciously employed in arguments against his opponents.111 Cicero’s lengthiest and most detailed analysis of the topics is found in the Topica, which is devoted entirely to the invention of arguments. The Ad Herennium and De inventione contain briefer discussions of invention that parallel some of the topics described in the Topica.112 Although there is evidence that Lanfranc knew all three texts, the Topica was Lanfranc’s central rhetorical text and used most directly in the commentary.113

111 “. . . sic enim appellatae ab Aristotele sunt eae quasi sedes, e quibus argumenta promuntur. Itaque licet denere locum esse argumenti sedem, argumentum autem rationem quae rei dubiae faciat dem.” Top., II.7–8. 112 The Topica and parallel passages from the other texts will be cited. These passages are to be found in De inventione, I.28.41–2, and in the list of gures of speech and thought in the fourth book of Ad Herennium. [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium libri IV de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium), Harry Caplan, ed. and trans. (Cambridge: 1954). The central discussions of types of arguments found in the second books of the De inventione and Ad Herennium are juridical in nature and are rarely useful to Lanfranc’s concerns in the commentary. 113 As discussed, the De inventione’s discussion of syllogistic reasoning and the correspondence of eloquence and wisdom were inuential. Also, the Ad Herennium’s discussion of style nds independent references in the commentary. For example, the denition of “expolitio” (repeating the same thing with changes in words, delivery, or treatment in Ad Her., IV.42.54) may inuence the gloss on Rom. 11.15: “Repetitio superioris sententiae. Quod superius vocavit diminutionem, hic vocat amissionem” (A, fol. 27v). Lanfranc is comparing Romans 11.12 and 11.15: “et deminutio eorum divitiae gentium” and “si enim amissio eorum reconciliatio est mundi.” See also “exemplum” (“Exemplication is the citing of something done or said in the past, along with the denite naming of the doer or author. It is used with the same motives as a Comparison.” Ad Her., IV.49.62) and I Cor. 10.1: “Exemplum hoc ponit ne christiani propter solam dem baptismum et cetera sacramenta, nisi bene operentur, et a peccatis abstineant, salvos se esse condant” (A, fol. 49v). I Corinthians 10 discusses the spiritual food and drink of the Old Testament. See also “demonstratio” (Demonstration is “when an event is so described in words that the business seems to be enacted and the subject to pass vividly before our eyes.” Ad Her., IV.55.68) and I Cor. 4.9: “Demonstratio qualiter sine apostolis regnent” (A, fol. 41r). The biblical text is: “For I think that God hath set forth us apostles the last, as men condemned to death: because we are made a spectacle to the world, and to Angels, and to men.” Also, it is compelling to speculate that the De inventione and Ad Herennium may have inuenced Lanfranc’s treatment of Paul and his opponents, a central characteristic of the commentary. The Ad Herennium advocates contrasting the persons of the speaker and his opponents by pointing out the valor and virtue of the former, and the vices of the latter. This has been a central tactic of the commentary by contrasting the character and learning of Paul and his opponents. Both texts list types of arguments to marshal against an accused person. Many of these are pertinent to Lanfranc’s accusations against the false teachers (De inv., I.24.35–I.25.36, II.9.28—II.10.32; Ad Her., II.3.5.). Finally, the Ad Herennium’s discussion of dialogue and personication (“Dialogue consists in assigning to some person language which as

108

chapter three

Although the commentary’s use of topics was the predominant method exported from the arts, this was infrequent. Based on the evidence of A and the group B manuscripts, Lanfranc used only a dozen of the rhetorical topics. He demonstrated the Apostle’s argument by species and genus,114 by the distinction of a part from its whole,115 by adjuncts,116 from contraries,117 by similarity,118 from the comparison of set forth conforms with his character. . . .”) may be expressed in Lanfranc’s approach in the “quasi (quis) diceret glosses.” Ad Her., IV.52.65–IV.53.66. 114 “species et genus.” Top., 7.30–8.34; De inv., I.28.42. “. . . speciem designans nominae generis.” A on I Cor. 2.1, fol. 38r. “Revelatio est qua per spiritum sanctum in quocumque tempore aliquid cito indicatur. Scientia est cognitio studio et industria comparata. Prophetia est species revelationis. Doctrina genus ipsorum trium.” A on I Cor. 14.6, fol. 56v. “. . . Distat autem inter signum, prodigium, virtutem. Signum genus est prodigii. Virtus genus utriusque. . . .” A on II Cor. 12.11, fol. 77v. “Illuminati inquit hominis fructus est, omnis bonitas et iustitia et veritas, praemisso genere subiungit species et iustitiam quidem in operibus. Veritatem intelligi, vult in cogitationibus et sermonibus.” A on Eph. 5.9, fol. 94r. 115 “totum et pars.” Top., 8.33 (also “intellectio.” Ad Her., IV.33.44: “The whole is known from a small part or a part from the whole.”). “Per iudeos deles intellige, qui maxime punientur, si precepta dei non observant. Per graecos, id est gentes, id est indeles. A parte totum.” A on Rom. 2.9, fol. 12r. “Id est efcit ut deo non debeat credi qui praedixit iudeos esse credituros, totum pro parte ponens. Ieremias dicit. In diebus illis salvabitur iuda. Et alias. Ego ero illis in deum et ipsi erunt mihi in populum, et alta plurima.” A on Rom. 3.3, fol. 13r. Quoting Jer. 33.16, 31.33. “Id est per eam dem qua mortuos creditur resuscitasse, et cetera quae credenda sunt. A parte enim totum signit.” A on Rom. 3.25, fol. 14v. “Ut credentes eum resurrexisse iusticarentur, et a parte tota des designatur.” A on Rom. 4.25, fol. 16r. “Totum pro parte ponit. Non enim omnes in omnibus virtutibus erant divites. Quosdam enim in posterioribus vehementer redarguit.” A on I Cor. 1.5, fol. 36v. “Totum pro parte ponit, sicut sepe partem pro toto. . . .” A on Gal. 4.3, fol. 84r. “Per iudeos et grecos omnes gentes intellige, a parte videlicet totum.” C on Rom. 1.16, fol. 252v. Group B gloss. 116 “ab adiunctis.” Top., 4.18, 12.50–2. “Si inquit lex consummata, id est perfecta non mutanda, sed usque in nem saeculi permansura erat data per illud tempus quo institutum est, sacerdotium leviticum, cur aliud sacerdotium subrogatur? Quia enim simul et ab eodem et sub eadem sponsione utraque data sunt, quod de uno dicitur, de altero necesse est intelligatur. Tota autem ratio, sic procedit. Si lex erat permansura, et sacerdotium. Sed sacerdotium transfertur. Lex igitur necesse est transferatur.” A on Heb. 7.11, fol. 145v. 117 “e contrario.” Top., 11.47; De inv., I.28.42; Ad Her., IV.18.25. “Per ablationem unius contrarii, more suo probat alterum, quia in religione christiana immediata sunt bonum et malum. Omnis enim homo secundum religionem christianam, aut bonus aut malus.” A on Rom. 7.18, fol. 20v. “Ad superiora probanda iterum redit. Quia ex operibus legis non iusticabitur omnis caro, et contrariam partem ad inconveniens ducit.” A on Gal. 2.21, fol. 82r. Quoting verse 16. “Contrarium destruit, ut statuat alterum.” A on I Thes. 4.7, fol. 114r. 118 “similitudo.” Top., 10.41; De inv., I.28.42; Ad Her., IV.33.44, IV.45.59. “Similitudo est ad intellegendum quod superius dictum est.” A on I Cor. 10.18, fol. 50v. “Expletivum est, vel scilicet similitudinem proferat.” A on I Cor. 14.7, fol. 56v. “Quia dixit sicut christus aecclesiam, persistit docere similitudinem.” A on Eph. 5.30, fol. 95r. Ambrose gloss. “Exponit similitudinis [expositio similitudinis, R, fol. 87r], fur enim

the liberal arts

109

things that are greater or lesser,119 from etymology and conjugation,120 from cause and effect,121 by denition,122 and from opposites.123 Lanfranc’s use of the topics was less frequent and less systematic than the D’Achery edition would suggest. The version in D’Achery’s transcription is almost a parody of Lanfranc’s authentic style, drawing on every possible example of the topics’ use, demonstrating each twist and turn of an argument’s structure, and utilizing signicantly more technical material from the rhetorical and logical texts than Lanfranc himself did. It attributes a technical term, “equipollent,” to his quieter and less invasive system of restatement (ordo . . .; id est . . .; subaudis . . .; scilicet . . .), suggesting a scribe or editor who was familiar with the methods of the De corpore and used its terminology to label the commentary’s method. The D’Achery transcription has given more credence to Lanfranc’s facility with all the trivium arts than is actually merited and has contributed to historians’ view of him as the procient dialectician. A critical edition

clam supervenit.” A on I Thes. 5.3, fol. 114v. “Ne forte miraretur quia a de quidam discederent, similitudinem hanc subiungit.” A on II Tim. 2.20, fol. 129r. 119 “Comparantur igitur ea quae aut maiora aut minora aut paria dicuntur.” Top., 18.68; De inv., I.28.42. “Responsio, non ita esse, sed melchisedech non tantummodo decimas accepit, sed etiam abraham benedixit. Ac per hoc sine ulla contradictione maior eo est, quia minor a maiore semper benedicitur.”A on Heb. 7.6, fol. 145r. “Ita sunt inter se novum et vetus, sicut magnum et parvum. Quotienscumque enim duae res conferuntur, si una vocatur nova et altera vetus et contra.” A on Heb. 8.13, fol. 148r. 120 “ex notatione.” Top., 8.35–7; “ex coniugatione.” Top., 9.38. “Id est sunt actores et tutores, sed pro diversitate causarum diversa nomina sortiuntur. Tutores dicuntur, quia personam pupilli et res eius contra calumnias adversantium tuentur. Actores quia pro iniuriis pupillo vel rebus eius illatis agunt.” A on Gal. 4.2, fol. 84r. “. . . Consumamini, coniunctivum a consumor consumeris, id est pereatis. Consummamini indicativum a consummor, consummaris, id est vitam nitis. Utraque in hoc loco scriptura reperitur.” A on Gal. 3.3, fol. 82v. 121 “causa” and “qui efcitur ex causis.” Top., 15.58–18.67. “. . . Qui enim res facit esse quae sunt, ipse causa est, ut nominentur quod sunt.” A on Eph. 3.15, fol. 91v. “Id est genitus ante omnem creaturam. Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt. Causa namque praecedit effectum.” A on Col. 1.15, fol. 104r. Quoting Jn. 1.3. 122 “denitio.” Top., 4.26; Ad Her., IV.25.35. “Capitulum est brevis sententia, ab eo sic nominatum, quod capiat totius rationis summam. . . .” A on Heb. 8.1, fol. 147r. “Exemplar vocatur, et illud quod t, et illud ad cuius similitudinem aliquid t, sicut species, imago, similitudo.” A on Heb. 8.5, fol. 147v. 123 “adversa.” Top., 11.47. “Ad inconveniens ducit adversam partem. Non autem simul esse possunt, solam legis observantiam hereditatis esse causam et dem. Aut solos iudeos esse heredes et gentes.” A on Rom. 4.14, fol. 15v. “Concessio adversae partis quae tunc competenter sit, quoniam concedenti non est nociturna.” A on II Cor. 11.18, fol. 75v.

110

chapter three

of the commentary would contribute signicantly to a reevaluation of Lanfranc’s role within the educated culture of the eleventh century. The study of Lanfranc’s methods returns discussion to issues of his career in Italy and France. Identifying Lanfranc’s primary classical sources as the rhetorical treatises of Cicero leads to larger questions of Lanfranc’s early education regarding his studies in Italy and France and the curriculum at Bec. As discussed in the rst chapter, the Italian curriculum of Lanfranc’s youth was based upon the study and application of the Ciceronian texts. An examination of Lanfranc’s classical sources in the commentary conrms his mastery of these very texts and his condence regarding their suitability to textual analysis. The absence of signicant material from the logica vetus is telling. There is no direct evidence for “dialectic,” dened as methods based upon the Aristotelian texts, as a component of Lanfranc’s teaching. He may have been introduced to its method at Tours, and he may have been forced to include it in his curriculum, but if left to his own devices, Lanfranc preferred not to use dialectical method in conjunction with exegesis. Lanfranc’s denition of “dialectic” in the commentary, although inexact, was made in his distinction between the right and wrong uses of the arts, and the good and bad teacher. Dialectic as something unsanctioned and harmful was any technique that jeopardized truth and the student. Dialectic was one of several disciplines that Lanfranc warned against: logic, the quadrivium, the Platonic books, the rules of the secular arts, disputation, and excessive use of topics and syllogisms. Lanfranc used some of these very methods in the commentary, or acknowledged that Paul had used them against his opponents. Other methods he forbade altogether. Fundamentally, he criticized any method that was used immoderately. Lanfranc’s teaching was goal-oriented toward the eternal salvation of his students, and his denouncement of other teachers’ methods was aimed at their very different goals. Within Lanfranc’s self-understanding, dialectic, dened either as methods derived from the logica vetus, or, more loosely, as unreasonable forms of argument, was not a word that applied to his methods at all. Rhetoric was the only method that consistently avoided the extremes that Lanfranc assigned to the classrooms of other teachers. Lanfranc contrasted two types of argumentative styles. Logic was dened as “de tota articiosa oratione,” but rhetoric was that “in qua dantur precepta, apposite loqui ad persuasionem.”124 Lanfranc’s clear choice in the com-

124

Above, n. 75.

the liberal arts

111

mentary was for rhetoric’s method of constructing an argument. The contents of the commentary illuminate the statements of the Bec Vitae and other medieval records on Lanfranc’s contributions to educated culture in northern France. They claimed that Lanfranc’s Italian training in the arts was unique in France, and the reason students were attracted to Bec. In the commentary, Lanfranc permitted a combined methodology (albeit limited) of secular disciplines with sacred texts, but rhetoric was the sole classical method used by him. Some of the medieval sources remembered Lanfranc as a dialectician, and we possess letters that insisted students were sent to him for its study. If, out of obedience, Lanfranc included some type of dialectical instruction in the Bec curriculum, the commentary advises us that Lanfranc would have been very careful about applying this to his students’ study of doctrine and scripture. Utilization of rhetoric alone was his preferred method and contrasted to the experimental techniques of others.125 The modern investigator is also advised to evaluate the commentary within

125 Was Lanfranc, as the Vitae and Orderic claimed, a former lawyer in Pavia? If the outlines of a rhetorical curriculum can be discerned in the commentary’s methodology, we are on shakier ground in detailing any inuence from a legal career. Charles Radding makes the case for Lanfranc as a Pavese lawyer in his 1992 article. He details specic methodologies of Lanfranc’s commentary, such as its use of “subaudis,” and the way in which Paul’s words are recast by means of Cicero’s rhetorical formulae as exact parallels to the methods of the Pavese lawyers. He also relies upon the Expositio to the Liber Papiensis as reliable evidence for eleventh-century legal debates and credits the text’s reference to “lanfrancus archiepiscopus” as rm evidence for Lanfranc’s legal career. Radding’s conclusions in this article are based upon his earlier books, both of which have been criticized by other scholars. If there are aws in Radding’s general argument, it should be noted that his analysis of Lanfranc’s commentary and its methods is accurate and insightful. He has rightly established the connection between Lanfranc’s analysis of theological themes and Ciceronian precepts, the centrality of the Topica to the commentary’s methods, and the signicance of Lanfranc’s Italian education. His description of Lanfranc’s conservatism and the comparison to the antiqui of the Pavese legal texts is also compelling. For the defense of Lanfranc’s legal career, see Radding, “The Geography of Learning,” 145–72; The Origins of Medieval Jurisprudence, 87–112. For criticism of Radding’s books, A World Made by Men: Cognition and Society, 400–1200 (Chapel Hill: 1985) and The Origins of Medieval Jurisprudence, see the reviews of John J. Contreni in Speculum 63 (1988), 709–13 and Stanley Chodorow in Speculum 65 (1990), 743–5. Also, regarding Lanfranc’s legal background, Sally Vaughn’s article, “Lanfranc, Anselm and the School of Bec,” looks to the careers of Lanfranc, Anselm, and their students to depict a Bec curriculum designed to prepare its students for careers in law and administration. Vaughn’s analysis is conned to the future careers of Bec students and does not study the school’s surviving texts for information regarding its curriculum. Lanfranc’s administrative abilities are discussed in the more recent essays, Vaughn, “Anselm of Bec: The Pattern of his Teaching,” and Priscilla D. Watkins, “Lanfranc at Caen: Teaching by Example,” in Vaughn and Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning, 71–97, 99–127.

112

chapter three

its own context, without projecting a later, twelfth-century dialectical curriculum upon its glosses. However, while Lanfranc restricted his own methods to rhetoric, his glosses indicate knowledge of other disciplines.126 Does this vocabulary represent disciplines that Lanfranc knew of indirectly, by reputation alone? Or had he encountered teachers of other disciplines and turned away from their instruction? Lanfranc’s glosses are too brief, and his terminology too infrequent, to denitively determine the answer to this issue. But, persuasively, Lanfranc’s diatribe against the wayward teacher and his equally passionate defense of the upright teacher were too personally felt to be theoretical. He had either attended the classrooms of these bad teachers or possessed very direct information about their methods. To Lanfranc, such teachers were a genuine threat to students’ faith and moral life. Although the commentary cannot support the idea that Lanfranc became procient in the logica vetus during his early travels in France, it does, at the very least, establish that he had knowledge of masters who advocated other methods and that, if he had attended any of these classrooms, he had rejected these disciplines at an extremely early stage of his career. Lanfranc’s criticism of other masters’ methods contributes to an understanding of the competition that existed between eleventh-century scholars. Lanfranc criticized other teachers’ exploitation of new methods; he conned his methodology to rhetorical precepts. The commentary may present competing curricula of the French schools, those based on emerging methods of the classical arts, and others limited to less controversial methods, in Lanfranc’s case, to the rhetorical texts of Cicero. Remarkably, Guitmund of Aversa’s description of Berengar’s teaching style closely resembled the commentary’s description of the bad teacher. According to Guitmund, Berengar vaunted his so-called knowledge at the expense of his students’ well-being: “Simulating the dignity of a master, rather than making matters known, he buried his head deep within his hood and pretended to be deep in meditation.”127 The Miracula sancti Nicholai cited Lanfranc as an early student 126

Above, notes 75–81. “Sed cum per se attingere philosophiae altioris secreta non posset, neque enim homo ita acutus erat (sed et tunc temporis liberales artes intra Gallias obsoleverant), novis saltem verborum interpretationibus quibus etiam nunc nimirum gaudet, singularis scientiae laudem sibi arrogare, et cujusdam excellentiae gloriam venari, qualitercunque poterat, affectabat: factumque est ut pompatico incessu, sublimi prae caeteris suggestu, dignitatem magistri potius simulans quam rebus ostendens, profunda quodque inclusione 127

the liberal arts

113

of Berengar’s. Guitmund criticized Berengar for using his eucharistic teaching to lure his former students from Lanfranc’s classroom. Decades later, Berengar and Lanfranc strenuously debated the role of the liberal arts in theology in their eucharistic treatises. Lanfranc’s message in the commentary is pointed enough to merit speculation that he was responding to conditions as they existed in some schools, including Berengar’s, as early as the 1040s. The commentary not only demonstrates the value Lanfranc added to Bec, it also exhibits the decit in his early training for a convert to the monastic life. He could teach grammar and rhetoric, but required basic training in scripture and the church fathers. The Pauline commentary is an attempt to ll that decit. Rhetorical skills were second nature to Lanfranc at the time he composed the commentary, suggesting that Lanfranc had arrived at Bec with these rhetorical abilities rmly in place and that they informed his interpretation of the epistles as a theological debate. Theology was a newer discipline, and an examination of his patristic sources will detail that he was still acquainting himself with exegesis and Pauline doctrine as he wrote the commentary. Both of these points, Lanfranc’s ease with the rhetorical texts and his emerging expertise as a theologian, lead to questions of the commentary’s dating. Although a complete discussion of the date of composition must await a study of its theological themes, it can be suggested here that the commentary presents Lanfranc at the earliest stage of his theological development, reliant upon his rhetorical abilities to illuminate doctrine. This supposition brings into question the traditional ascription of the commentary’s date to between 1055 and 1060. An analysis of the commentary’s incorporation of the trivium arts also contributes to the general image of Lanfranc as procient, yet conservative, in their use. Only with sacred authority as his foundation would Lanfranc advance a more independent methodology. Even then, he scrupulously distinguished his method from the extreme and harmful methods of others. Lanfranc was both creative and cautious. The steps

inter cuculum, ac simulatione longae meditationis, et vix tandem satis desideratae diu vocis lentissimo quodam quasi plangore incautos decipiens, doctorem sese artium pene inscius proteretur. Sed postquam a D. Lanfranco in dialectica de re satis parva turpiter est confusus, cumqueper ipsum D. Lanfrancum virum aeque doctissimum liberales artes Deus recalescere, atque optime reviviscere fecisset, desertum se iste a discipulis dolens, ad eructanda impudenter divinarum Scripturarum sacramenta, ubi ille adhuc adolescens et aliis eatenus detentus studiis nondum adeo intenderat, sese convertit.” Guitmund of Aversa, De corporis, P.L. 149, 1428.

114

chapter three

he took to rene a biblical verse in preparation for theological speculation were distinctive, and his application of rhetoric to exegesis was novel to the Norman monastic context. But by segregating his methods from others, Lanfranc drew a line that he would not cross. In his view, doing so would violate sacred authority and the intended faith and virtue of his students. Certainly, the evidence of the primary manuscripts presents Lanfranc as even more wary of the use of the arts than modern scholarship has recognized. The commentary makes the next visible stage of Lanfranc’s career, the eucharistic debate, understandable. Lanfranc’s attitudes, expressed in the commentary, demonstrate a great deal about Lanfranc’s motives in entering the debate at all. Lanfranc’s criticism of Berengar paralleled his description of the false teacher in the commentary: Berengar outed the truth of Christian doctrine; he ignored the decree of Pope, creed, and council; he stirred up an international debate that endangered the faith and peacefulness of Christendom; and he raised up dialectic and human intellect over faith and assent to authority. Everything about the controversy, and Berengar’s role in it, would be repugnant to the author of the Pauline commentary.128 The tension of ecclesial duty with secular learning was a recurrent theme of Lanfranc’s career, evident as early as the composition of the commentary, and as late as his tenure as archbishop. As archbishop he replied to a request for help with a knotty logical question from Bishop Domnall of Munster: You also sent problems of profane learning for us to elucidate; but it does not bet a bishop’s manner of life to be concerned with studies of that kind. Long ago in our youth we did devote our time to these matters,

128 Lanfranc and Berengar were acutely aware that their respective starting points for doing theology were opposites. To Berengar, once a matter was proven by reason and by the use of dialectic, sacred authorities conrmed the same: “Maximi plane cordis est per omnia ad dialecticam confugere, quia confugere ad eam ad rationem est confugere, quo qui non confugit, cum secundum rationem sit factus ad imaginem dei, suum honorem reliquit nec potest renovari de die in diem ad imaginem dei.” Berengar, Rescriptum, I.1795–9, Huygens, ed., 85. For Lanfranc, authority must always be prior to human reason or dialectic. “Relictis sacris auctoritatibus, ad dialecticam confugium facis. Et quidem de mysterio dei auditurus ac responsurus quae ad rem debeant pertinere, mallem audire ac respondere sacras auctoritates quam dialecticas rationes.” Lanfranc, De corpore, P.L. 150, 416. On this see Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 296–301.

the liberal arts

115

but when we came to pastoral responsibility we decided to give them up altogether.129

Decades after the commentary’s composition, Lanfranc continued to identify the inherent inconsistencies of the arts and theology. Certainly, the commentary contributes to an analysis of Lanfranc as the conservative churchman whose abilities with the arts, and enthusiasm regarding their contribution to the theological enterprise, were eclipsed by his sense of pastoral responsibility.

129

Lanfranc, Ep. 49, Clover and Gibson, eds. and trans., 158–61.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE COMMENTARY TO ROMANS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

In his commentary, Lanfranc utilized the texts and methods of the trivium in the service of a theological agenda. Wary of excessive use of the arts, he carefully kept their function subordinate to the meaning of St. Paul’s words. The arts were useful to Lanfranc only as they enabled the reader to unravel the meaning of the Apostle’s theological argument. A new monk when he began writing the commentary, Lanfranc was more experienced in the use of the arts than in the interpretation of scripture or knowledge of the fathers. He was a beginner in these matters. Yet, even at this early stage, Lanfranc demonstrated a lifelong trait of strict adherence to the authority of the fathers. The principal difculty for Lanfranc’s rst research at Bec must have been the limited number of theological sources available. In the early years of the community’s development, Abbot Herluin had been concerned with the physical foundation of the monastery, with the construction of Bec’s church and other buildings. According to the Bec Vitae, Herluin saw in Lanfranc spectacular talent, a scholar who could be entrusted with the formation of a school and library.1 Lanfranc did not enter an established community with a ready-made library at his disposal. Rather, at the point he wrote the commentary, he was simultaneously collecting and correcting manuscripts to include in the monastery’s library. These factors are important to an evaluation of the commentary’s contents. Scholars have debated the origin of the material attributed to Augustine and Ambrose in the manuscripts of Lanfranc’s commentary. Were these sources available to Lanfranc and used by him in his initial composition of the commentary? Or did he, or another editor, add this material to the existing commentary? Since evidence based upon

1

Vita Herluini, 195 ff.; Vita Lanfranci, 670 ff.

118

chapter four

the manuscripts alone is inconclusive, an answer must be sought in the commentary’s text.2 Two preliminary comments can be made. First, as demonstrated in the preceding chapter, Lanfranc’s use of the arts was not an end in itself; he selectively used them as tools for grasping the truth of Paul’s theological message. Second, a theological exposition of St. Paul carried out independently of the authority of the fathers would be incongruous to the entirety of Lanfranc’s career, which attests to an extremely literal dependence upon traditional authority. At this early stage of his theological development, he would have been especially concerned with conning his comments on scripture to the fathers’ authority. If so, at least some of the patristic material must reect the contents of the Bec library, which Lanfranc used to the best of his ability to convey the meaning of Paul’s epistles. To determine the validity of this hypothesis, the theological content of Lanfranc’s glosses can be examined and compared to the patristic excerpts in order to ascertain any possible relationship between them. The manuscripts contain material that is attributed to two of the church fathers, Augustine and Ambrose. The Augustine material is excerpted from 1) the Collectaneum of Florus of Lyons throughout the commentary,3 2) except for Galatians, which has been excerpted from Augustine’s own Epistolae ad Galatas expositionis liber unus.4

2 See chapter 2. Gibson argues, based on the authority of the eight manuscripts that contain the patristic material, that Lanfranc excerpted and included all of this material as he wrote his own commentary, and that he based his theological speculation on Augustine. Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’ ” 95–102. Southern suggests that manuscript C, which contains only the Lanfranc material, demonstrates the earliest stage of the commentary’s evolution in which Lanfranc followed his interests and abilities in deciphering the grammatical, logical, and rhetorical dimensions of Paul’s writings. A later version that included the fathers is reected in most of the manuscripts when Lanfranc’s abilities had developed enough to include a facility with patristic learning and theological issues. Southern, Saint Anselm, 32–5. 3 Florus of Lyons, Expositio in Epistolas beati Pauli ex operibus sancti Augustini collecta, P.L. 119, 279–420. 4 Augustine, Epistolae ad Galatas expositionis liber unus, J. Divjak, ed. (Vienna: 1971), CSEL 84.

romans

119

The Ambrose source is a collection of three commentators: 1) Ambrosiaster for Romans—II Corinthians;5 2) a Latin translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia for Galatians— Philemon;6 3) a Latin translation of Chrysostom for Hebrews.7

These three commentaries, Ambrosiaster, Theodore, and Chrysostom, were combined in some manuscripts and, in the middle ages, were assumed to be the work of one author.8 This was the recension used in the Lanfranc commentary, and the compendium as a whole was attributed to the authorship of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. The editor of the Lanfranc commentary believed he had drawn upon two authoritative sources: one written by Augustine and the other by Ambrose. There is evidence for these texts’ presence in the Bec library. The twelfth-century Bec catalogue lists all of Augustine’s works in one section, including an Augustine commentary on all the epistles in two volumes: “In alio. Super epistolam ad Romanos et super primam ad Corinthios. In alio. Super epistolas ceteras Apostoli.”9 This description corresponds with Lanfranc’s Florus source. The Bec library’s version of Florus attributed authorship to Augustine and was contained in two volumes, the rst volume containing Romans and I Corinthians, and the second containing the remaining epistles. A surviving set of Florus, which will be demonstrated to have strong connections to Lanfranc, is arranged and attributed in just this manner (Cambridge, Trinity College, B.4.5 (119) and its companion volume, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 317). In the Bec catalogue, Lanfranc’s second Augustine source, the Galatians commentary, is recorded as: “Item de expositione epistole ad Galatas, lib. I.”10 Another entry is less certain: “Liber de testimoniis divinarum Scripturarum qui appellatur speculum, qui non est beati 5 Ambrosiaster, Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinus, Henry J. Vogels, ed. (Vienna: 1966–9), CSEL, 81, pt. 1–3. 6 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas b. Pauli commentari: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, H.B. Swete, ed., 2 vols. (Cambridge: 1880–2). 7 The translation of John Chrysostom: Alcuini expositio in Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos, P.L. 100, 1031–84. 8 This arrangement of three authors and manuscripts representative of this recension are discussed in Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster (Nendeln: 1967 reprint of 1905 edition), 12–6; See also Swete’s introduction to Theodore’s text, 12–6. 9 Catalogus librorum abbatiae Beccensis, P.L. 150, 772. 10 Ibid.

120

chapter four

Augustini.”11 But there is just a chance that this could refer to the Ambrose compendium.12 This set of authorities, Florus, the Ad Galatas, and “Ambrose,” must have been puzzling to a novice expositor of scripture. In Florus, Lanfranc would have found an Augustine who did not always agree with Augustine. This needed to be balanced against the authentic Augustinian Galatians commentary. In Ambrose, he found three diverse viewpoints: the Ambrosiaster, Theodore, and Chrysostom. If Lanfranc used these sources to form his own understanding of Paul, they must have lent a distinctive approach to his own glosses. In his own glosses, Romans 3.4 was central to Lanfranc’s understanding of the entire epistle to the Romans: “But God is true (est autem Deus verax): and every man a liar, as it is written: that thou mayest be justied in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.” For Lanfranc, the primary point of Romans was the demonstrated truth of God’s word in his promise. Throughout Paul’s text, Lanfranc attempted to determine exactly what God’s promise was, to whom it had been made, and how it was fullled. In so doing, he attempted to resolve a complexity of Paul’s theology: how were the Jews incorporated into the promise of God, and what was the role of the Mosaic law? The promise was extended to the Gentiles through Christ, but it was initially given to Abraham, and preserved in the law and by the Jews. Lanfranc treated this seriously. If God’s promise was true after the coming of Christ, it must have been true under the law as well. Christ was the “nis legis” (Romans 10.4); therefore, his truth must have been evident in the law itself. The meaning of God’s promise was the fundamental subject under consideration in the commentary, and other Pauline themes of grace, justication, faith, and the work of Christ were treated in relation to this one issue.

11

Ibid. This is the observation of Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury, 95–6. Gasper demonstrates the reliability of the twelfth-century catalogue for many of the works we would expect to nd at Bec in the eleventh century: the patristic works that Lanfranc corrected, his sources in the De corpore, as well as Anselm’s and Gilbert Crispin’s sources. Sally Vaughn points out the possibility that the Bec catalogue reects the order in which books were collected, beginning with the extensive list of Augustine titles and followed by other foundational theological works. The subsequent list of historical works and legal texts reects additional and later interests of the Bec community. Vaughn, “Anselm of Bec,” 117–8. 12

romans

121

Romans 3.4 was glossed as follows: “He proves that God is true for righteousness of words is truth.”13 Lanfranc connected God’s righteousness and truth again when glossing Romans 3.26. “Ut sit ipse iustus” is glossed as: “That is, true, fullling those things that he has promised.”14 Lanfranc’s point was the interrelationship between God’s righteousness, truth, and promise. Lanfranc’s comments on Romans 3.4 also had verse 3.3 in mind: “Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid.” Throughout the commentary, Lanfranc’s convoluted proofs made a simple theological point: God is faithful. Divine faithfulness is most strongly demonstrated to humans through the endurance of God’s promise. Lanfranc returned to this theme consistently in Romans. His use of the Old Testament was most commonly made to demonstrate the story of a people to whom God’s promise was entrusted, but who frequently were not faithful to it. The use of the commentary text as a teaching tool is evident. Lanfranc briey quoted a section from the Bible, to which he could refer during his lecture to nd a fuller explanation of the issue under discussion. For example, in Romans 2.24, Paul quoted Isaiah 52.5, which reminded Lanfranc of a similar passage from Ezekiel.15 Chapter 36 of Ezekiel describes the unfaithfulness of the Jews and God’s consequent action of forgiveness and salvation: “It is not for your sake that I will do this, O house of Israel, but for my holy name’s sake” (Ezekiel 36.22). Here Lanfranc equated God’s holy name with his promise.16 God will vindicate his holy name by fullling his promise. Perhaps in the classroom, Lanfranc would have continued along to Ezekiel 36.26–7 to introduce a signicant theme of the commentary: “And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your esh, and will give you a heart of esh.” Rather than nullifying the promise of God, the unfaithfulness of the Jews had been used to fulll God’s promise in Christ.

13

“Probat quod Deus verax est. Iustitia enim sermonum est veritas.” A on Rom. 3.4, fol. 13v. 14 “Id est verax, complens ea quae promisit.” A on Rom. 3.26, fol. 14v. 15 “nomen enim Dei per vos blasphematur inter gentes sicut scriptum est.” Rom. 2.24. Quoting Is. 52.5. 16 “. . . Est autem scriptum in ezechiele. Et ingressi sunt ad gentes ad quas introierunt, et polluerunt nomen sanctum meum, cum diceretur de eis. Populus domini iste est. Et paulo post. Propter nomen sanctum meum quod polluistis in gentibus.” A on Rom. 2.24, fol. 12v. Quoting Ezek. 36.20 and 22.

122

chapter four

In Romans the Jews served as Lanfranc’s central example of human response to God’s promise. The law served its purpose only until the point of the incarnation. However, both testaments conveyed the same promise, and the opportunity for human response to that promise existed in both.17 Lanfranc linked Paul’s teaching of justication by faith to his own emphasis on this promise. That the promise must be accepted through faith was best evidenced by the example of Abraham in the fourth chapter of Romans. Here Paul repeatedly stated that Abraham accepted God’s promise through faith not works of the law (vv. 13–5), that Abraham’s faith was accounted before he had received circumcision (v. 10), and that he was the father of all who followed his example of faith (vv. 11–3). The promise itself extended the inheritance of the Jews to the Gentiles by faith, not by the law (vv. 14, 16–7). The Romans commentary strongly afrmed the necessity of faith. Some of the opaqueness of Paul’s language was claried in favor of faith: “Per iustitiam dei” was glossed as “that is, which faith has conveyed to him.”18 Paul’s confusing word order in 4.12 was claried by Lanfranc to demonstrate that Abraham was the father of the faithful: “The order is: the imprint of faith of our father Abraham, which is not from circumcision, that is, which he had before he was circumcised.”19 Characteristically, Lanfranc cast Paul’s words in a dialogue with a less enlightened opponent in Romans 4.10–1. In verse 10 the unenlightened questioner asked: Was Abraham’s faith reckoned to him as righteousness before or after he was circumcised? In verse 11 Paul answered that circumcision was a “signum,” a “signaculum iustitiae dei.”20 Again, the opponent asked: Why did Abraham bother to receive circumcision if he was already righteous? Paul replied that circumcision did not make 17 “Probare vult quod lex iudeorum delibus non est observanda. Non est enim data nisi usque ad adventum christi et est responsio, quasi quis diceret. Cur dixisti in christo iesu et non in observantia legis?” A on Rom. 7.1, fol. 19r. Lanfranc was referring to Rom. 6.23: “gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro.” The implication is that the law too conveyed God’s promise before the coming of Christ, but the time of its usefulness is now past. 18 “id est quam des contulit ei.” A on Rom. 4.13, fol. 15v. 19 “Ordo. vestigia dei, patris nostri abrahae, quae est in praeputio, id est quam habuit in praeputio.” A on Rom. 4.12, fol. 15v. The text of Rom. 4.12 is “et sit pater circumcisionis non his tantum qui sunt ex circumcisione sed et his qui sectantur vestigia quae est in praeputio dei patris nostri Abrahae.” 20 “quomodo ergo reputata est in circumcisione an in praeputio non in circumcisione sed in praeputio et signum accepit circumcisionis signaculum iustitiae dei quae est in praeputio ut sit pater omnium credentium per praeputium ut reputetur et illis ad iustitiam.” Rom. 4.10–1.

romans

123

Abraham righteous; to the contrary, it demonstrated the righteousness that faith had already conveyed to him.21 Throughout the commentary, Lanfranc dened faith as it related to the promise of God. The Jews were faithful or faithless to the extent that they believed the promise that was inherent to their own scriptures. For even under the law and before the incarnation, Christ had been the meaning of God’s promise. In Romans 1.1–3, Paul stated that the Gospel concerning Christ was promised beforehand in the Old Testament prophets. Lanfranc glossed “per prophetas suos” by referring to Jeremiah and Joel who, before the incarnation, promised the giving of “a new testament” and the appearance of “a teacher of justice.”22 Paul linked Christ’s earthly ministry to the truth conrmed in the promises God has made: “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to conrm the promises made to the fathers” (Romans 15.8), and Lanfranc specied the content of God’s promises as the assurance that salvation would spring from the Jews, as the coming of Christ.23 Christ was the ancient promise made to the Jews, under the law. Recurrently, Lanfranc highlighted passages from Romans such as these that drew a close connection between the law and God’s promise in Christ. Lanfranc was particularly careful to specify Paul’s descriptions of the Jews, because the value of the law was best seen through them. Paul wrote that the “eloquia Dei” were entrusted to the Jews, and even if some of them did not believe, their disbelief could not diminish the faithfulness of God.24 According to Lanfranc, when the Apostle spoke 21 “Quasi quis diceret. Cur igitur si iusticatus erat, circumcisionem accepit? Circumcisionem inquit accepit, non qua eret sed qua ostenderetur iustus, ea iustitia quam sola des contulit ei.” A on Rom. 4.11, fol. 15r. 22 “Ieremias dicit. Ecce dies veniunt dicit dominus et consummabo super domum israhel et super domum iuda testamentum novum. Iohel. Exultate lae sion et letamini domino deo vestro quia dedit vobis doctorem iustitiae. Et multa alia.” A on Rom. 1.2, fol. 9v. Quoting Jer. 31.31 (Heb. 8.8) and Joel 2.23. Jer. 31.31 is quoted in Heb. 8.8 as “testamentum novum.” The original Vulgate text in Jeremiah is “foedus novum.” 23 “Laus iudeorum. Dicit enim iesum christum ministrari fecisse sibi circumcisionem propter veritatem dei complendam, et promissiones ad patres factas. Promissum enim fuerat quod ex iudeorum semine oriturus esset, in quo benedicerentur omnes gentes. Aliter. Ministrum circumcisionis, id est a populum iudeorum ut veritas dei et promissiones eius ad patres factae complerentur, quales sunt, dabo vobis doctorem iustitiae, et prophetam vobis deus suscitabit, et cetera.” A on Rom. 15.8, fol. 32v. Quoting Joel 2.23. 24 “. . . primum quidem quia credita sunt illis eloquia Dei quid enim si quidam illorum non crediderunt numquid incredulitas illorum dem Dei evacuabit absit.” Rom. 3.2–3.

124

chapter four

of the Jews as either “faithless” or “faithful,” the inclusive term was used only to speak of part of the people. Borrowing from Cicero’s terminology, Lanfranc described Paul’s rhetorical method as “totum pro parte ponens,” proposing the whole for a part. Paul’s inclusive term must not condemn the entire Jewish people, for God had promised that he would save his people, the Jews.25 If these believing Jews were not acknowledged, then, according to Lanfranc’s reading of St. Paul, God’s promise would appear not to have been fullled. And this would contradict God’s truth.26 Lanfranc did not interpret the Jews’ salvation to be merely a future reality; throughout the Romans commentary, Lanfranc assigned a clear importance to personal volition or individual apprehension of the truth under the law. The commentary identied God’s promise with Christ; it highlighted this promise as given before the incarnation and as persisting throughout the period of the law; and it afrmed Paul’s emphasis on faith as the proper way to accept God’s promise. These three issues coalesced to promote a strong connection between the law and faith in Christ. Lanfranc’s comments on this point must be read in conjunction with the Ambrose material that he included. At times, Lanfranc was hesitant to make certain claims apart from this authority and built upon Ambrose’s statements in his own glosses. It sufces here to merely point out that Lanfranc allowed Ambrose to make direct statements correlating faith and the law, which contributed to his own assessment of the law’s role. For Lanfranc, the law had a denite value because, as he excerpted Ambrose to say: “To believe in Christ whom the law has promised, is to fulll the law, and the work of the law that is written in hearts is faith.”27 Therefore, for Lanfranc, the giving and acceptance of the law were parallel to Abraham’s acceptance of circumcision as a sign of righteousness which was based on faith. Since the necessity of faith in Christ 25 “Id est efcit ut deo non debeat credi qui praedixit iudeos esse credituros, totum pro parte ponens. Ieremias dicit. In diebus illis salvabitur iuda. Et alias. Ego ero illis in deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in populum, et alta plurima.” A on Rom. 3.3, fol. 13r. Quoting Jer. 33.16 and 31.33. 26 See also A on Rom. 9.6, fol. 23v: “Dixit superius, quia promissa aeternae hereditatis facta sunt iudeis, sed quia iudei magna ex parte christo non crediderunt, videbatur verbum dei non esse completum. Ad hoc respondet. Non autem excidit verbum dei. Verbum dei excidere vel excedere est non implere promissa.” 27 “Credere in christum quem lex promisit, hoc est facere legem et opus legis scriptum in cordibus des est.” A on Rom. 2.13, fol. 12r. Ambrose gloss. Quoting from Ambrosiaster on Rom. 2.13, 2.15. Vogels, ed., 75–7.

romans

125

was evident in the law, fullling its commandments was the appropriate response of faith under the law. When the Apostle said that Christ is the “end of the law,” Lanfranc equated “imitatio legis” with “des christi”: “And this is the meaning: The imitation of the law, by which man might have righteousness, is Christ, that is, faith in Christ.”28 “Fides” in Christ, “iustitia,” and the proper approach to the law were integrally combined in Lanfranc’s reading of St. Paul. Again, the meaning of faith under the law is evident in Lanfranc’s portrayal of the Jewish people. For Lanfranc the theological ‘story’ of Romans was the meaning that the epoch before the appearance of Christ held for the church, the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. God’s plan spanned the time of both testaments, and his people, the Jews, were an integral part of this plan, both in their obedience and disobedience. Law and scripture, obedience and faith, were correlated. The Jews could discover Christ by faith in the scriptures and therefore fulll the law through obedience. Lanfranc’s use of the Old Testament, both in his own selection of Old Testament verses and in his interpretation of Paul’s quotations from the Hebrew scriptures, focused on the possibility of belief versus obedience, or disbelief versus disobedience, on the part of the Jews. Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 65.1–2 in Romans 10.21 was interpreted as the Jews’ rejection of Christ throughout history: “All the day long have I spread forth my hands to a people, that believeth not. . . .” Christ’s words, expressed through the prophet, can refer to the Lord’s hands stretched out upon the cross or rather to the works that he had performed among the Jewish people.29 Given the commentary’s insistence upon the unity of the Old and New Testaments, these “opera” of the Lord must refer not only to Christ’s works in his earthly ministry but also to the works that he had long performed among his people through the prophets and the law. Paul’s language and many of his images were used by Lanfranc to warn the Gentiles against a scorn of the Jews. He interpreted Paul’s repetitive formula “Iudaei primum et Graeci” of 1.16, 2.9, and 2.10 as

28 “. . . Imitatio legis, ut iustitiam habeat, homo est christus, id est deles christi.” A on Rom. 10.4, fol. 25v. Group B manuscripts read differently: “. . . Intentio legis ut iusticiam habeat homo est christus, id est des christi.” R, fol. 12v; L, fol. 14v. C reads: “. . . Intentio legis ut iusticiam habeat hominem christus, id est des christi.” C, fol. 261v. 29 “vel manus extensas in cruce dixit, vel potius opera, quae inter iudeos dominus operatus est.” A on Rom. 10.21, fol. 26v.

126

chapter four

a statement about a moment in time: the Jews were the rst to believe, the rst to do good.30 The eleventh chapter of Romans addressed the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles and was interpreted by Lanfranc to establish the priority of the Jews. The allegory of the natural and grafted branches of the olive plant (Romans 11.17–24) indicated that Christians received faith from the Jews: “That is, the Jewish people have not received faith from you, rather you have received it from them.”31 Paul said that the Jews have been made to imitate or be jealous of (aemulentur) the Gentiles so that they too might be saved. According to Lanfranc, “one may even understand this to say that the Gentiles might be jealous of the Jews, that is, that the Gentiles might believe as the Jews believed.”32 Even the disobedience of the Jews has been used by God in his plan and promise. The offense of the Jews enriched the world (Romans 11.12) because “unless they had crucied the Lord, the cross of Christ, his resurrection and ascension would not have been preached and believed throughout the world.”33 Lanfranc consistently interpreted Paul’s words as a defense of the Jews in order to protect the incorruptibility of God’s promise. Lanfranc believed that God’s promise was most evident and readily believed after the incarnation of Christ. However, even in making this point, Lanfranc referred back to the law. Belief was brought about “more easily” in the Jews who were instructed by the preachers of the New Testament, the words of the law, and the prophets than in those who knew the Old Testament alone.34 Another of Paul’s images in Romans 11 was the “delibatio” and the “massa.” Lanfranc dened “delibatio” as the rst taste of wine or food and likened it to the holiness of the Apostles, all of whom were Jews. The “whole lump” were those Jews who, if not yet holy in fact, were so in hope and divine

30

“Iudei enim primum operati sunt bonum, et postea greci.” A on Rom. 2.10, fol.

12r. 31 “Id est populus iudeorum a te dem non accepit, sed tu ab eo.” A on Rom. 11.18, fol. 27v. 32 “Hoc sepe factum est et plenius et in ne saeculi, quando iudei sequentur christianos in de christi. Potest etiam intelligi, ut gentes iudeos emulentur, id est ut credant, sicut et ipsi credebant. . . .” A on Rom. 11.12, fol. 27v. 33 “Delictum iudeorum ditavit mundum quia nisi ipsi dominum crucixissent, crux christi et resurrectio et ascensio eius praedicata, et credita in mundo non esset.” A on Rom. 11.12, fol. 27v. 34 “Quidam enim iudeorum crediderunt evangelium christi instructi a predicatoribus novi testamenti, verbis legis et prophetarum quod facilius factum est in illis, quam in eis qui veteris testamenti penitus expertes erant.” A on Rom. 3.2, fol. 13r.

romans

127

foreknowledge.35 The “delictum” of certain Jews was their carnal understanding of the law. Paul’s quotation of Psalm 68(69).23–4 in Romans 11.9–10 was understood by Lanfranc as an allegory for their misapprehension of the scriptures: Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see: and bow down their backs always.

The “table” was the scriptures they have not understood, and their backs were bowed for like the beasts they have not understood what they have read and heard.36 Many, perhaps most, of the Jews did not receive the true message of Christ in the Old Testament scriptures. Romans 16.25–6 described “the revelation of the mystery kept secret from eternity, which now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,” which Lanfranc understood to mean that Christ himself disclosed the meaning of the scriptures. He cited the Gospel of Luke wherein Christ revealed to his apostles the meaning of the law, the prophets, and the Psalms as fullled in him.37 That which was always before them had become clear. Salvation was fully understood and abundantly available after the incarnation. Yet, in denitively linking the meaning of the law to Christ, Lanfranc attributed potency to the law, and this was the distinctive characteristic of his Romans commentary. Discerning scripture’s true meaning was more difcult under the law; however, in Romans, Lanfranc never claimed that it was impossible for the law to convey this meaning, or for humans to fulll the law’s demands through faithful obedience. Since Lanfranc afrmed that humans were saved by faith apart from the law, while also correlating faith and observance of the law, he needed

35 “Ammonet gentes ne superbiant, et ne iudeos despectui habeant, dicens quia si apostoli sancti sunt, certum est etiam quia in ipso populo multi sancti sunt, et si nondum re, spe tamen et praescientia divina. Est autem delibatio, parva ex aliqua re assumptio, ut ex cibo vel potu.” A on Rom. 11.16, fol. 27v. 36 “In laqueum et in cetera quae secuntur facta est iudeis scriptura ipsorum quam male intellexerunt.” A on Rom. 11.9, fol. 27r. “id est ant quasi bruta animalia, non intelligentes quae legunt et audiunt.” A on Rom. 11.10, fol. 27r. 37 “Scripturas prophetarum revelavit dominus apostolis suis. Ut in evangelio legitur. Tunc apervit illis sensum ut intelligerent scripturas, et cetera.” A on Rom. 16.26, fol. 36r. Quoting Lk. 24.45. “Misterium vocat incarnationem iesu christi, et cetera quae aeternis temporibus erant cognita. Quamvis enim ex quadam parte antiquis patribus essent cognita, pleniter tamen a nullo fuerunt scita, quoadusque suo tempore per ipsum christum fuerunt revelata.” A on Rom. 16.26, fol. 36r.

128

chapter four

to pick his way very carefully through Pauline language. Like any other glossator of St. Paul, he had to grapple with St. Paul’s ambivalent attitude toward the law. Lanfranc’s rhetorical abilities were useful tools in his manipulation of Pauline language. As he had distinguished “a part” of the Jews from “the whole,” so he identied two approaches to the law. He employed two terms to qualify Paul’s statements about the law. Paul’s “negative” comments about the law were glossed as “carnales observationes,” as cultic observances of the law that the Jews wrongly assumed to be efcacious for salvation. Some occurrences of this term follow. In each selection, the scriptural verse is followed by its gloss, and the precise words to which the gloss is appended (in manuscript A) are underlined: Rom. 3.20: quia ex operibus legis non iusticabitur omnis caro. . . . Lanfranc: Opera legis hic vocat carnales observantias.38 Rom. 3.21: nunc autem sine lege iustitia Dei manifestata est. . . . Lanfranc: Id est observatione carnali.39 Rom. 3.27: ubi est ergo gloriatio exclusa est. . . . Lanfranc: quam in carnali observatione habes o iudeae?40 Rom. 7.6: ita ut serviamus in novitate spiritus et non in vetustate litterae. . . . Lanfranc: id est carnali observatione.41 Rom. 8.3: nam quod inpossibile erat legis. . . . Lanfranc: . . . quasi diceret. Impossibile erat legi, per carnales observationes liberare a suasione peccati et mortis. . . .42 Rom. 9.31: Israhel vero sectans legem iustitiae. . . . Lanfranc: id est carnales observationes. Quia per dem iusticatur homo.43 Rom. 10.3: ignorantes enim Dei iustitiam. . . . Lanfranc: quae est per dem iesu christi quam putant esse per carnales observationes.44

Lanfranc’s use of this term qualied any derogatory comment of St. Paul’s about the law, redirecting the force of Paul’s words away from

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

A A A A A A A

on on on on on on on

Rom. Rom. Rom. Rom. Rom. Rom. Rom.

3.20, fol. 14r. 3.21, fol. 14r. 3.27, fol. 14v. The biblical text in A reads “gloriatio tua.” 7.6, fol. 19v. 8.3, fol. 21r. 9.31, fol. 25r. 10.3, fol. 25v.

romans

129

the integrity of the law itself and toward some Jews’ misapprehension of the law: No human will be justied by the works of the law, that is, by eshly observances. The righteousness of God has been displayed apart from the law, that is, apart from eshly observances. Where is your glory? that is, which you have through eshly observances, oh Jews? What was impossible through the law, that is, impossible through eshly observances, etc. Some Jews’ misunderstanding of the law led them to an observance that could not save. In the context of the commentary, these eshly or carnal observances must be understood as simple ritualistic observances of the law that were carried out “sine de.”45 The true purpose of the law was to demonstrate God’s promise and to urge faith in Christ: He points out what the righteousness of God is, namely, to believe in Christ in whom legal observances spiritually understood [legales observationes spiritualiter intellectae] were also persuading belief. And this is the meaning: The imitation of the law, which enables you to have righteousness, Oh man, is Christ, that is, faith in Christ.46

These “legales observationes” were set in opposition to the “carnales observationes” cited above. This contrast removed any culpability of the law itself by focusing on the way in which the law was received. Further analysis of the sources will suggest that this precise vocabulary, the distinction between carnal deeds and spiritual apprehension of the law, was originally found in one of Lanfranc’s sources, the Ad Galatas. In Romans, Lanfranc appropriated Augustine’s language, set it in a new context, and made a very non-Augustinian point about the power of the law to save. For Lanfranc, the second type of observance of the law, “spiritualiter intellectae,” proceeded from an apprehension of the scriptures in faith. If the law was understood in this way, it could have had some effect against sin and convey life. When Paul declared that sin was in the world before the law was given, Lanfranc asserted that “it was even among those who accepted the law but not as strongly as before, for through

45 See also A on Rom. 3.31, fol. 14v; Rom. 4.1, fol. 14v; Rom. 4.2, fol. 15r; Rom. 4.14, fol. 15v; Rom. 4.16, fol. 15v; Rom. 7.5, fol. 19v; Rom. 8.4, fol. 21r. 46 “Exponit quae sit iustitia dei, videlicet credere in christum, in quem credere etiam legales observationes, spiritualiter intellectae suadebant. Et est sensus. Imitatio [intentio] legis, ut iustitiam habeat, homo, est christus, id est deles [ des] christi.” A on Rom. 10.4, fol. 25v. See n. 28 for variant readings of this gloss.

130

chapter four

legal observances [legales observationes] many were saved.”47 When Paul said that the law was introduced that sin might increase (Romans 5.20), Lanfranc qualied this statement rhetorically: It is the method of holy scripture to specify only one issue where there are many. That is the case here. The law was given that those who were predestined to life through legal observances [legales observationes] might be saved and that those predestined to death through prevarication of the law might be punished all the more. But of these issues he has only mentioned one here, by which he is able to humiliate those Jews who had become proud from the acceptance of the law.48

The same law could be served in two ways. While other commentators on Paul have struggled to understand his many uses of law in chapter 7, Lanfranc’s conclusions led him to a very simple interpretation of this chapter. Commentators differed as to the meaning of “legem” in Romans 7.21: “Invenio igitur legem volenti mihi facere bonum. . . .” Did this refer to the Mosaic law, to the “other law in my members,” to “the law of my mind,” or “to the law of sin” of 7.23? For Lanfranc the will, or “law of my mind,” was contrasted to the esh, the “law of my members.”49 When the will desired to do good, it conformed to the Mosaic law. In 7.21 Lanfranc utilized his accustomed formulae for establishing the text (ordo . . .) and interpreting it (ac si diceret . . .): He answers the earlier question and proves that the law is good provided that he seeks what is good. This is the order: ‘I discover a good law when I will to do good.’ It is as if he said, ‘if I do good then the law is good for me, but if I do evil the law is death to me.’50

In his interpretation of Paul’s word order, the word “good” was included twice by Lanfranc, modifying both “legem” and “mihi volenti facere” (Invenio legem bonum mihi volenti facere bonum). Thus, the law is good for 47 “Peccatum quod in his etiam qui legem acceperant fuit, sed non tantum quantum prius. Per legales enim observationes multi salvabantur.” A on Rom. 5.13, fol. 17r. 48 “Moris est divinarum scripturarum, ubi plures causae sunt unam tantum enuare, ut hic. Data est enim lex, ut praedestinati ad vitam per legales observationes salvarentur, praedestinati autem ad mortem per legis praevaricationem magis punirentur. Sed illius causae hic tantum mentionem fecit per quam iudeos ex accepta lege superbientes humiliare possit.” A on Rom. 5.20, fol. 17v. 49 “Voluntas animae est quae ideo vult facere bonum ut mala expellat quae sibi adiacent, ex vicinitate carnis.” A on Rom. 7.21, fol. 20v. 50 “Concludit quod superius querebatur et probatum est legem esse bonam, si tamen bonum velit, et est ordo. Invenio legem bonum mihi volenti facere bonum, ac si diceret. Si bona ago, lex mihi bona est, si vero malam, lex michi mors est.” A on Rom. 7.21, fol. 20v.

romans

131

me if I do good. Lanfranc interpreted this verse as the answer to the question posed in 7.13: Did the law that is good bring death to me?51 No, the law is good. Again, personal apprehension of the law, not the law itself, determines whether the law is life or death to me. The central point of Lanfranc’s argument was summed up in Romans 9.31–3: But Israel, in following after the law of justice, is not come to the law of justice. Why so? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works: for they stumbled at the stumbling-stone; As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and a rock of scandal: and whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.

The Jews stumbled over Christ, the rock of scandal, by not recognizing him in their own law. Therefore they pursued the law as if it should be fullled through works, or “carnales observationes,” and not by faith.52 Lanfranc’s preoccupation with the law and the Jews is worthy of further attention.53 Why would this be the persistent point of his exegesis? The commentary itself offers two possible answers: First, Lanfranc’s use of his patristic sources dictated the general direction of his own exposition of Paul. Second, Lanfranc’s understanding of Christianity was much like his understanding of the law. After the coming of Christ, the relationship between faith and works must be much the same as the relationship between faith and the law. In Romans 1.7 “grace” was glossed simply as “the remission of sins,” and peace as “the observance of good works by which peace is established between God and man.”54 Faith was more directly related to good works in the glosses of Romans 5.2: Paul’s “per dem” is glossed as “in good observance of

51

“quod ergo bonum est mihi factum est mors absit.” Rom. 7.13. In A “sectando [sectans] legem” is glossed: “id est carnales observationes” and “in lege [in legem] iustitiae non pervenit.” is glossed “Quia per dem iusticatur homo.” A on Rom. 9.31, fol. 25r. Also: “Causa cur non pervenerunt in legem iustitiae, et cur non credant hominem iusticari in de.” A on Rom. 9.32, fol. 25r. 53 Apart from the inuence of the Ambrosiaster, Lanfranc’s positive theological position regarding the Jews could have stemmed from his personal experience. He might have encountered Jews in both Italy and Normandy. His hometown of Pavia was an important trading center, and Lanfranc could potentially have known Jews there in his youth. Normandy also was home to numerous Jewish communities in the mid-eleventh century. Cecil Roth, ed., The Dark Ages: Jews in Christian Europe, 711–1096 (Tel-Aviv: 1966), 109–21; Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A Social and Intellectual History (New York: 1998), 3 ff., 111–7. 54 “Remissio peccatorum. Pax observantia bonorum operum, per quam pax est inter deum et hominem.” A on Rom. 1.7, fol. 9v. 52

132

chapter four

life.”55 Faith apart from good works was so inconceivable to Lanfranc that he understood Paul’s words in Romans 4.5 concerning “him who worketh not, yet believeth in him that justieth the impious” to refer to someone who, having accepted faith, immediately died, that is, did not have the time or opportunity to perform good works.56 In the Romans commentary, Lanfranc never associated grace or the work of the Holy Spirit with the Jews’ preexistent faith. Grace was not deeply explored in the Romans glosses at all as a necessity for faith or obedience.57 For the Jew or the Christian, faith led to obedience, which was demonstrated in good works. Christ was rarely mentioned in the Romans glosses. He was simply accepted with little comment as the means by which God had fullled his promise. Lanfranc’s only extended portrayal of Christ was made in several glosses on the fth chapter of Romans that compared Adam’s disobedience to Christ’s obedience. Christ’s obedience was the model for human faith and commended him as the perfect sacricial victim. So as obedience led Christ to his death, faith in his death justies.58 In Romans this was as deeply as Lanfranc delved into the mysteries of the incarnation, crucixion, and redemption. Christ’s obedience was contrasted to Adam’s transgression, to transgression of the law, and

55 In A the biblical text is: “per quem et accessum habemus per dem in gratiam istam . . .” and is glossed as “id est in bonam vitae observantiam.” A on Rom. 5.2, fol. 16v. 56 “De eo hoc intellegendum est qui post acceptam dem statim moritur.” A on Rom. 4.5, fol. 15r. 57 See A on Rom. 6.23, fol. 19r; on Rom. 8.2–3, fol. 21r; on Rom. 9.12, fol. 24r; on Rom. 12.3, fol. 29r; on Rom. 15.17, fol. 33v. An interesting gloss occurs in I Cor. 12 regarding spiritual gifts. Lanfranc applied this to the narratives of Pharaoh’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams in Genesis 41 and Daniel 1–5. Interpreters of dreams such as Joseph and Daniel receive their knowledge through God: “. . . per gratiam sancti spiritus illam scientiam habent.” A on I Cor. 12.10, fol. 54r. See also A on II Cor. 3.17, fol. 66r: “Exponit causam cur iudei libere non possint intelligere vetus testamentum, et cur praedicatores novi testamenti ipsum libere intelligant, videlicet quia illi spiritum dei non habent, hii habent.” Before the commentary on Galatians, this is Lanfranc’s closest approximation of Augustine’s teaching in the Ad Galatas. 58 “Per obedientiam christi iusti unt multi, vel obedientia hostiam commendavit, vel quia obedientia ad mortem christum duxit, des autem mortis eius iusticat.” A on Rom. 5.19, fol. 17v. Also: “Per iustitiam et obedientiam christi, vita omnium credentium iusticata est, quia inde factus est hostia acceptabilis deo pro peccatis omnium, quia iustus, inmaculatus, sine peccato, et obediens patri usque ad mortem fuit.” A on Rom. 5.18, fol. 17v.

romans

133

to faith without attendant good works. Obedience is righteousness.59 Whether Lanfranc’s view of the law inuenced his view of Christianity, or conversely, he was entirely consistent in seeing parallels between the faith that was required both under the law and after the law. Lanfranc’s exegesis of St. Paul originated from his new responsibilities at Bec. In the monastic context an “empty” faith devoid of works was intolerable. Faith must lead to virtuous conduct and provide for the consequent orderly arrangement of the monastic community. Jews, the rst Christians, and monks were all assigned the same responsibility in fullling the requirements of “law.” Specically, for Lanfranc’s students, this would have referred to the “regula” of their monastic vocation. Beyond this, the commentary served also as a history lesson, an outline of the form God’s plan had taken throughout human history, and a guide to the proper approach for reading all of scripture. Lanfranc wrote a commentary on the Psalms, which no longer survives, at the same time he wrote the commentary on Saint Paul. Throughout his explication of St. Paul, the Old Testament was interwoven with the New, demonstrating the testaments’ unied proclamation of God’s promise to humankind. Perhaps this was the overriding purpose of Lanfranc’s entire exegetical project on the Psalms and St. Paul. The commentary on St. Paul was a primer in faith, outlining the rst steps of monastic faith as obedience and good works. This was the image of faith that Lanfranc believed to be most useful to a group of novice monks: obedience to God’s law and to the precepts of their order. Lanfranc’s commentary was not a rigorously thorough exposition of Paul. His glosses are short in length and often cryptic in meaning, probably because they were intended as markers for a fuller lecture or discussion within the classroom itself. The modern reader is left with many unanswered questions. Lanfranc indisputably made the correlation between faith and the law, but the details are hazy. How attainable was faith before the incarnation? How completely could the law be fullled? How frequently did this happen? The interdependence of the Old and New Testaments was not unusual in exegesis; in fact, this was an expected component of Pauline interpretation. But the explication of this issue fell along a spectrum, ranging from a proposed degree 59 “Sicut enim. Probatio et expositio superioris versus. Omnis enim inobedientia si tamen mala est delictum, et omnis obedientia si tamen bona est iustitia.” A on Rom. 5.19, fol. 17v.

134

chapter four

of closeness between the two Testaments to their distance. Lanfranc’s extremely close association of the New and Old Testaments was unusual, as was the centrality of this point to his exegesis of Romans. It is remarkable that this was the primary focus of his reading of Paul. The work of Christ, grace, and faith were all subordinate to this one issue. Lanfranc’s emphasis was on the capacity of the law: the law contained the discernible truth of God’s promise in Christ. But Lanfranc’s denition of the law had certain implications for the meaning of the human will. The human condition was not so marred by sin as to render humans unable to fulll the law through faith. The possibility was there. Sin was in those who accepted the law, but not as strongly as before; it was easier to believe than to fulll the law, but not impossible to fulll the law.60 Combined with his emphasis upon God’s promise and the law in Romans, this supported an intense interconnection between the Old and New Testaments. There was no hiatus between the two; their aim and content were the same. Each testament, in its own time, offered the same gift to humans. This analysis of Lanfranc’s theology leads to an evaluation of his sources. The collection of Augustinian excerpts by Florus of Lyons in the ninth century was Lanfranc’s Augustine source in Romans.61 Augustine had never nished a full-length commentary on St. Paul, and centuries later the Collectaneum was compiled to ll this gap. The text is essentially a concordance of Augustinian material organized according to Paul’s words. Every time Florus encountered a section where Augustine quoted or interpreted a Pauline verse, it was copied in full under the appropriate book, chapter, and verse of St. Paul. In the book of Romans alone, Florus included sections from close to fty theological and exegetical works, as well as numerous letters and sermons. The works of Augustine from which Florus selected spanned from the time of the anti-Manichaen controversy to that of the anti-Pelagian, representing almost fty years of Augustine’s career. Florus quoted from Augustine’s exegetical works on John, the Psalms, Genesis, Galatians, the Heptateuch, and from other major theological works such as the De Trinitate, the Enchiridion, Retractationes, De civitate

60 See notes 34 and 47. “Id est imitatori dei, sive iudeo sive gentili. Omnes enim facile possunt credere, non autem omnes legem implere.” A on Rom. 4.16, fol. 15v. 61 Célestin Charlier, “La compilation augustinienne de Florus sur l’Apôtre: sources et authenticité,” Revue bénédictine 57 (1947), 132–86. For Lanfranc’s use of Florus see Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, 58–9 and “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 95–6.

romans

135

Dei, the De doctrina christiana, and the Ad Simplicianum. Florus borrowed extensively from the anti-Pelagian writings, quoting from about a dozen of these works throughout the Romans section and including several lengthy selections from them in every chapter. In the Florus commentary, Lanfranc would have found a diversity of Augustinian teachings, but one weighted by Augustine’s most severe interpretations of Pauline themes of free will and grace.62 Lanfranc’s commentary quoted a small fraction of the total number of works included in the Collectaneum. Where one chapter of Florus’s collection might include scores of excerpts, a chapter of Lanfranc’s commentary quoted six or seven. In many sections of the commentary, Augustine was not quoted at all, giving preference to the Ambrose material. Furthermore, the Lanfranc commentary drastically reduced the length of the Florus excerpts to two or three sentences in every case. A redactor of Florus is visualized who, reading through Florus’s excerpts, occasionally found material that assisted his own program of exegesis and included short sections to harmonize with the other material in the commentary. Manuscript evidence points to Lanfranc as the editor of the Augustine material. A close connection between Lanfranc and a surviving set of the Florus compendium can be drawn. A manuscript of the Florus compendium and its companion volume belonged to Christ Church, Canterbury. These are Cambridge, Trinity College, B.4.5 (119) and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 317 (SC 2708). The volumes were listed in the catalogue of Christ Church written during the priorate of Henry Eastry (1284–1331) and in a list of books from the library that were repaired in 1508.63 Richard Gameson has included the volumes 62 Augustine’s early and notorious discussion of the human will, the De libero arbitrio (the presentation of freedom of choice is particularly pointed in book I, written about 388, and several years before books II and III), was not represented in the Collectaneum. This is not a text that quotes scripture extensively, only quoting Romans three times in book III (Rom. 1.21 in De lib. III.24.72; Rom. 1.22 in III.27.72; Rom. 11.36 in III.11.33). Furthermore, an informed editor of Augustine would be conscious of Augustine’s attempt to defend the Retractions against the Pelagians’ claim that it supported their own defense of free will. Retractiones, I.9.3. Regardless of the reason for the text’s omission, Lanfranc could not have been introduced to it in the Florus compendium in Romans. 63 A fragment of an earlier Christ Church catalogue (c. 1170) also survives but does not include theological works. The Florus work is listed in the Eastry catalogue, numbers 8 and 9: “Augustinus super Epistolas Pauli, videl. ad Romanos et primam ad Corinthios” and “Augustinus super Epistolas Pauli secundam ad Corinthios, ad G(alatas), ad E(phesios), ad P(hilippenses), ad C(olossenses), ad T(imotheum i), ad

136

chapter four

in his inventory of manuscripts of early Norman England, designating them as books that were produced in Normandy as early as the eleventh century and then brought to England after the conquest.64 The Florus manuscripts include a system of marginal notations that was used by Lanfranc in his books. Z.N. Brooke rst noted these markings in the famous volume of Lanfranc’s canon law collection, and Southern has identied a larger group of manuscripts that include these same annotations as either original to Lanfranc’s collection or as later copies made from his books. In these manuscripts, the letter “.a.” or “.A.” is consistently written in the columns to highlight a section of the text.65 The signa are found in the canon law collection, a number of Canterbury books, and other English and French copies of original Lanfranc books. These books represent a method that was started by Lanfranc at Bec, continued at Canterbury, and perpetuated in later copies.66 The early date and Norman provenance of the

Thimo(theum) ii, ad T(itum), ad Phi(lemonem), ad Thes(salonicenses).” The 1508 list of W. Ingram includes the initial words on the second folio of each volume with its title. Number 118: “Flores Bede prima pars. illic positum est.” Number 119: “Secunda pars de oribus Bede. derat anima mea.” Both catalogues are transcribed in James, The Ancient Libraries, 13–4; 156. The contents of the Trinity College volume are, as the Eastry catalogue lists, Romans and I Corinthians, and as the sixteenth-century list indicates, folio 2r begins with the words “illic positum est.” The Bodleian volume includes the remaining Pauline books, as well as Hebrews. Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England, no. 660. The Trinity College volume is ascribed to Augustine. Trinity College, B.4.5., fol. 1r. A hand of the fourteenth or fteenth century has added the ascription: “Flores bede de libris augustini super epistolas pauli.” Trinity College, B.4.5., fol. 1r; Montague Rhodes James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue (Cambridge: 1900), vol. 1.142–3. This corresponds to the 1508 list of W. Ingram that ascribes the text to Bede; whereas the earlier Eastry catalogue claims Augustine’s authorship. 64 Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England, nos. 149 and 660. See also Ker, Medieval Libraries, 32, 38. Gameson dates the Bodleian book slightly later to c. 1110–1120 and the Trinity College book to the eleventh-twelfth centuries. 65 The Trinity College book also contains other signa that cannot be identied with Lanfranc’s project of annotation. These include a hand drawn with its forenger extended to a line of particular interest (fol. 47v). Frequently, a line of small dots is drawn vertically above “.a.,” “A.,” or the pointed hand to highlight an entire passage (46v, 48r). Less frequently, a pointer drawn with three converging lines (45r) or an inverted pointer (47v), or a diamond shape drawn with four dots (2r) is drawn in the columns. Brief notes have been written in the top corner of some folios summarizing the discussion on that page: “de incarnatione et redemptione” (36r), “de concupiscentia” (57r). Rarely, brief notes are written in the columns or at the bottom of the text: “de incarnatione” (3r, 11r). 66 Z.N. Brooke, The English Church, 68–71. Southern lists the Bodleian volume of Florus as one of this group. Southern, Saint Anselm, 36–8. These manuscripts include “marginal signs, .a., or .A., which help to guide the reader to passages to which

romans

137

Florus volumes, their later inclusion in the Christ Church library, and the annotated material all indicate that Lanfranc himself owned and used a copy of the Florus compendium at Bec from which the Christ Church books originated. As mentioned earlier, this original Bec set may be represented in the twelfth-century Bec catalogue, which lists a set of Florus and describes its arrangement and ascription in a way identical to the Christ Church books and catalogues. It is signicant that the Florus volumes and the Lanfranc commentary ascribe this material to Augustine. Surviving manuscripts of Florus differ in their ascription. The earliest manuscripts, many of them from Lyons, are anonymous. Rarely attributed to Florus, later manuscripts claim authorship of Bede, Peter of Tripoli, or Augustine himself.67 The Trinity College manuscript is attributed to Augustine: “Incipit expositio beati augustini epsicopi in epistola ad romanos.”68 Lanfranc manuscripts that include the patristic material attribute the Florus excerpts to Augustine. Furthermore, the compendium was edited and included in the commentary to supplement the inclusion of the original work of Augustine, the Ad Galatas. The Ad Galatas was included in the Galatians commentary; the Florus material was included in all the other epistles. The two sources combined to produce one “Augustine” authority throughout the commentary. The Trinity College volume of Florus contains the commentaries to Romans and I Corinthians in double columns of thirty-nine or forty lines. Working through each Pauline book, the biblical verse to be

Lanfranc seems to have attached special importance. These signa are also found in many other Canterbury manuscripts, and they were copied into texts made for other monasteries, chiey in England. The existence of these symbols in Lanfranc’s canon law collection, which certainly belongs to his years at Bec and in several other manuscripts also associated with Bec, suggests that this system of annotation was started by Lanfranc while he was at Bec, and thereafter transferred to Canterbury. From each of these sources copies were made which carried these annotations far and wide in northern France and England among readers who perhaps had no idea of the source, or even the meaning of this convenient symbol.” Southern, Saint Anselm, 36. 67 The difculties of the manuscripts and subsequent scholarly confusion are discussed in André Wilmart, “La collection de Bède le Vénérable sur l’Apôtre,” Revue bénédictine 38 (1926), 16–52; Wilmart, “Sommaire de l’exposition de Florus sur les épîtres,” Revue bénédictine 38 (1926), 205–16; Wilmart, “Le mythe de Pierre de Tripoli,” Revue bénédictine 43 (1941), 347–52; Charlier, “La compilation augustinienne,” 132–86. Wilmart transcribes examples of each type of manuscript title in “Sommaire de l’Exposition,” 208–10. 68 Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 1r. The original ascription is to Augustine, although a fourteenth- or fteenth-century hand has changed the attribution to Bede. See n. 63.

138

chapter four

explicated is usually quoted and then followed by multiple Augustine extracts. The Augustine selections are titled according to the original Augustinian work from which they are derived (ex libro de civitate dei, ex libro de spiritu et littera, ex libro de baptismo parvulorum). The Lanfrancian annotations run throughout the entire manuscript, although they are most numerous in the central chapters of Romans (5–9) and sparser in the Corinthians commentary. The relationship between the commentary and the Florus volume is unclear. There are far more Lanfrancian annotations in the compendium than there are extracts in the commentary. The “.a.” or “.A.” signs in the Trinity College manuscript indicate that Lanfranc read the Collectaneum carefully throughout the entire Romans and I Corinthians commentaries. Occasionally, although not always, one of the signs in the Florus volume highlights a passage that is also directly quoted in the Pauline commentary (as on fols. 4r, 5r, 17r, 24r, 26r, 50r). Instances such as these may indicate a relationship between notes Lanfranc made in his own book and quotations he included from that book in his commentary. Of the Augustinian excerpts included in the Romans commentary, ten originated from the anti-Pelagian treatises, nine from the series of sermons preached by Augustine on the seventh and eighth chapters of Romans, three from the De diversis quaestionibus, and one from the anti-Manichaen treatises. The other glosses originated from Augustine’s exegetical works, the Retractationes, the De civitate Dei, letters and sermons, and shorter treatises such as the De agone christiano. Again, it should be noted that the commentary quoted from many of Augustine’s later works that represented some issues of the Pelagian crisis. Two sections are heavily annotated in the Trinity College manuscript and are also frequently quoted in the Pauline commentary. These are lengthy selections from Augustine’s homilies on Romans (Sermons 153–156 in Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fols. 46v–54r, 63v–64r) and the De peccatorum meritis et remissione (Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fols. 33r–35v). These passages provide an almost continuous exegesis of the central chapters of Romans, as well as a thorough exposition of Augustine’s mature understanding of the law, sin, and grace. Since the sections of the Collectaneum that are also included in the Lanfranc commentary comprise the Augustinian sources that could possibly have contributed to Lanfranc’s composition in Romans, these texts provide clues for determining Lanfranc’s possible use of Augustine. By evaluating what the Lanfranc commentary included from the Florus source, and in what form, a clearer understanding of the commentary’s

romans

139

date and method of extraction is ascertained. Curiously, how and why did Lanfranc quote from an authority that differed from his own interpretation in Romans? And how did he make these extracts meld with his own glosses in the commentary itself ? Most of the selections from Florus that were included in the commentary referred to the Mosaic law. As they originally appeared in Florus, they made one of two points: an afrmation of the goodness of the law and an acknowledgment of the law’s inability to save. For the most part, the Augustine material placed the ambivalence of Paul’s attitude toward the law on the meaning of the law itself, as well as the inability of fallen human nature to fulll the law’s requirements. For example, a predominant image in the original Florus selections was of the law as “pedagogus noster,” a term that Augustine gleaned from Paul’s words in Galatians 3.24: “Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justied by faith.” Augustine likened the law as “pedagogus” to the servant who escorted a young student to his schoolmaster. The master, not the pedagogue, was the educator, and the pedagogue was no longer necessary once the student matured. This image contrasted the time of the law to the time after the incarnation: the law was an “extremely troublesome pedagogue,” which brought us to Christ but had little actual effect on our education in faith.69 All the same, humans required the law as a guide to illustrate their own need. Under the law, humans began to understand their weakness when they measured their moral abilities against its precepts and realized that they could not possibly fulll the law by their own effort. Fundamentally, the Mosaic law revealed to humans their overwhelming need for a savior. The individual “discovered himself ” in the law. The law could instruct, but it could not save, for, in Augustine’s thought, the law pointed beyond itself to Christ.70

69 “molestissimus paedagogus. . . .” Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 63v; Augustine, Sermo 156, P.L. 38, 856. The edition of Florus in P.L. 119 lists and cites the Augustinian extracts but does not include the extracts’ full texts. In this study, references to the Florus text will be quoted and cited from Trinity College, B.4.5 (119) with the parallel citation from a modern edition of the Augustinian work. 70 “Concupiscentiam terruit, non extinxit. Fecit timorem poenae, non amorem iusticiae. Quid ergo? Quid dubitamus ad hoc datam esse legem, ut inveniret se homo? Quando enim deus non prohibebat a malo, latebat se homo. Vires suas languidas non invenit, nisi quando legem prohibitionis accepit.” Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 48r; Augustine, Sermo 154, P.L. 38, 833.

140

chapter four

The meaning of the law was very much tied to the condition of the human will. Augustine’s complex evaluation of the human psychological and moral framework was beyond Lanfranc’s uncomplicated view of human nature. Lanfranc did not pursue an understanding of the consequences of sin upon the human will, and his only treatment of Adam’s sin was a plain contrast of Adam’s disobedience to the obedience of Christ.71 For Augustine, the human condition was very ‘mixed.’ We were created good, but fallen through sin; we were redeemed under grace, but still haunted by sin’s habit. In Augustine’s later writings, available to Lanfranc in the sermons on Romans, even the apostle Paul could not escape analysis along these lines.72 Augustine understood Romans 7.15–8.3 to represent the condition of any man, even the Apostle, who was under grace and still found himself struggling against sin. The Apostle’s mind, which did not consent to sin (For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man), was contrasted to the esh, which was still oppressed by sin (But I see another law in my members).73 Even after grace, man is both spiritual and carnal and is therefore fundamentally weak. An interpretation such as this was in an entirely different realm from Lanfranc’s interpretation of “law” and his optimism regarding human fulllment of the law in Romans 7: “If I do good than the law is good for me.” Lanfranc’s use of Augustine is most perplexing in the section of the De peccatorum meritis et remissione that was quoted in Florus and presented a thorough exposition of Augustine’s teaching on original sin. In this text, Augustine dened original sin and its perpetuation through human propagation in order to refute the Pelagian defense of human participation in Adam’s sin by imitation. According to Augustine, we are responsible for our individual, actual sins, and these can be said

71

A on Rom. 5.18, 5.19, fol. 17v. This evolved in Augustine’s thought. In the De diversis quaestionibus, written in the mid-360s, Augustine understood Paul’s words in Romans 7.15–23 to be written in the voice of a man still under the law and not under grace: “quod enim operor non intellego non enim quod volo hoc ago sed quod odi illud facio” (Rom. 7.15). Romans 7.24–8.3 are the words of a man under grace: “nihil ergo nunc damnationis est his qui sunt in Christo Iesu” (Rom. 8.1). Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII, 66.4–7. CCSL 44A, 155–63. For an estimation of the dating of the De diversis quaestionibus, see Paula Fredriksen, “Beyond the body/soul dichotomy: Augustine on Paul against the Manichees and the Pelagians,” Recherches augustiniennes 23 (1988), 90–2. Sermons 151–159 on Romans 7 and 8 were most likely written between 418–19. Pierre-Patrick Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de Saint Augustin (Steenbrugis: 1976), 90–2. 73 Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fols. 48r–50r; Augustine, Sermo 154, P.L. 38, 836–8. 72

romans

141

to be committed in imitation of Adam’s sin. However, to Augustine, Adam was one thing as an example and another as progenitor of sin. Augustine’s emphasis was upon the vigor of original sin and the impotence of the law. Sin existed in the world before the law was given, but the law was incapable of removing it. Sin’s reign of death continued until the point of the incarnation. In fact, sin can even be said to abound and not be diminished under the law (Romans 5.20) because humans added their own sin by willfulness in direct violation of God’s law.74 Again, Lanfranc’s exegesis of Romans 5.13 contradicted this point. Lanfranc clearly stated that the advent of the law diminished sin’s power in those who accepted the law, and many were saved through compliance with the law.75 Several quotations from the De peccatorum meritis et remissione were the commentary’s only statement regarding original sin. Signicantly, Lanfranc never mentioned original sin in his own glosses. The commentary included six quotations from Florus that compared Adam, as the progenitor of original sin, to Christ, from whom is derived the forgiveness not only of original sin, but also of the individual’s particular added sins.76 These quotations are repetitive, basically adhering to this one comparison of Christ and Adam, and while they seem incongruous to Lanfranc’s exegesis of Romans 5, they need not necessarily refute it since the commentary did not include Augustine’s assessment regarding the effects of original sin upon the human race, or the consequent limitations of the law. The term “original sin” was included without any denition or explanation, merely as a general category of sin, or sin that was preexistent to the law. Lanfranc himself stated that sin was present in the world before the law’s introduction. The reader of the commentary would need to know something of Augustine’s formulation of sin in order to distinguish Lanfranc’s view and Augustine’s. This section of the De peccatorum meritis et remissione offers one other insight into Lanfranc’s possible use of his source. In teaching that the reign of death was conquered only by God’s grace in Christ, Augustine

74 Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fols. 33r–35v; Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione, I.9.9–I.16.21. CSEL 60, 10–21. 75 See notes 47, 48. 76 “Ab adam in quo omnes peccavimus, non omnia nostra peccata, sed tantum originale transduximus. A christo vero in quo omnes iusticamur, non illius tantum originalis, sed etiam ceterorum quae ipsi addamus, peccatorum remissionem consequimur. . . .” A on Rom. 5.16, fol. 17r. The other glosses are on Rom. 5.14, 5.15, two glosses on 5.17, and 5.20. A, fols. 17r–17v.

142

chapter four

did make some allowance for the salvation of the saints of ancient times who, although they lived prior to Christ’s incarnation, lived in relation “to his assisting grace, not to the letter of the law.”77 This section is marked in Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 34r with one of Lanfranc’s marks, “.a.,” but is not quoted by him in the commentary. There are differences in emphasis: Lanfranc’s on faith, and Augustine’s on grace; Lanfranc’s optimism in discerning the truths of the New Testament in the Old, and Augustine’s view of the New as “hidden” in the Old. Reading Augustine, one has the feeling that God gave his grace in spite of the law, but certainly not through it. Nevertheless, this would have been an authoritative statement of an Augustinian teaching that approximated Lanfranc’s own, yet it is not quoted by him in the commentary. Clearly, Lanfranc derived his own interpretation of the connection between the law and faith from another source.78 Lanfranc’s exegesis did not deal with three fundamental points of the Augustine sections in Florus: the true meaning of the law, the impaired human will, or the human’s need for grace. Therefore, Lanfranc’s faith in the unity of the Old and the New Testaments had little in common with the testaments’ complicated relationship demonstrated in these Augustinian sections. Lanfranc’s own exegesis of Romans 5–9 differed greatly from the Augustinian material from which he quoted; furthermore, the form of the Augustine extracts in Florus and their representation in the Lanfranc commentary were quite dissimilar. The Florus commentary accurately portrayed Augustine’s teaching in lengthy chunks of text, while the Lanfranc commentary reduced the Augustinian selections to bland and brief comments that afrmed the basic goodness of the law and could support either viewpoint (Augustine’s or Lanfranc’s): Therefore when the Apostle deems that man is justied through faith and without works, he does not say this to condemn works of righteousness as opposed to perceived and professed faith, but rather to inform

77 “hoc regnum mortis sola in quolibet homine gratia destruit salvatoris, quae operata est etiam in antiquis sanctis, quicunque, antequam christus in carne veniret, ad eius tamen adiuvantem gratiam, non ad legis literam, quae iubere tantum, non adiuvare poterat, pertinebant.” Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 34r; Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione, I.11.13. CSEL 60, 14. 78 For a lengthier exposition of this aspect of Augustine’s teaching see De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II.24.28–II.27.32. CSEL 42, 186–92. This text is not included in Florus’s commentary on Romans.

romans

143

anyone that they can be justied through faith, even if works of the law have not come rst.79 Nothing different is meant, as if ‘from faith’ might be one thing and ‘through faith’ another, but only different modes of speech. In another place when he is speaking of the Gentiles, that is, of the uncircumcised, he says: ‘the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.’ And again when he was speaking of the circumcision to whom he belonged said: ‘we, Jews by nature, and not sinners from the Gentiles, knowing that man will not be justied by works of the law, except through faith in Jesus Christ, we also believe in Jesus Christ.’ So, he has said that the uncircumcised are justied from faith and the circumcised through faith.80 Not that man is not capable [to submit to God’s law], but that the thinking of the esh is not able. Vice is not capable, not the nature. Limping is not subject to walking rightly, nor is it able. The foot is capable, limping is not.81 The Apostle has wanted to include both terms [Abba and pater] because he visualized the ‘cornerstone that was rejected,’ which receives both walls coming from either direction, from one direction the circumcised, and from the other the uncircumcised. Hence, ‘abba’ and ‘father.’82 What is ‘according to the Gospel enemies for your sake,’ except that their [the Jews’] enmity whereby they killed Christ has, as we have seen, undoubtedly beneted the Gospel . . . ?83

79 “Cum ergo dicit apostolus arbitrari se iusticari hominem per dem sine operibus, non hoc ait ut percepta ac professa de, opera iustitiae contempnantur, sed ut sciat se quisque per dem posse iusticari, etiamsi legis opera non praecesserint.” A on Rom. 3.28, fol. 14v. Augustine gloss. 80 “Non ad aliquam differentiam dictum est, tamquam aliud sit ex de, aliud per dem, sed ad varietatem locutionis. Alio loco cum de gentibus diceret, hoc est de praeputio praevidens inquit scriptura quia ex de iusticat gentes deus. Itemque cum de circumcisione loqueretur, unde erat. Nos inquit natura iudei et non ex gentibus peccatores, scientes quia non iusticabitur homo ex operibus legis, nisi per dem iesu christi, et nos in christo iesu credimus. Ecce praeputium dixit iusticari ex de, et circumcisionem per dem.” A on Rom. 3.30, fol. 14v. Quoting Gal. 3.8 and 2.15–16. Augustine gloss. 81 “Non homo non potest, sed prudentia carnis non potest. Vitium non potest, non natura. Quomodo si diceres. Claudicatio recte ambulationi non est subiecta. Neque enim potest. Pes potest, claudicatio non potest.” A on Rom. 8.7, fol. 21v. Augustine gloss. 82 “Utrumque voluit apostolus dicere, quia videbat lapidem angularem quem reprobaverunt, qui recepit utrumque parietem de diverso venientem. Hinc circumcisio. Inde praeputium. Inde abba. Inde pater.” A on Rom. 8.15, fol. 22r. Augustine gloss. 83 “Quid est secundum evangelium quidem inimici propter vos nisi quod eorum inimicitia qua occiderunt christum evangelio sicut videmus sine dubitatione profecit? Et hoc ostendit ex dei dispositione venisse, qui bene novit uti etiam malis. Non ut ei prosint vasa irae, sed ut ipso illis bene utente prosint vasis misericordiae.” A on Rom. 11.28, fol. 28v. Augustine gloss.

144

chapter four

None of these quotations contradicted Lanfranc’s exegesis of St. Paul; in fact, they could be interpreted to support it. They complemented many of Lanfranc’s statements regarding justication by faith, the relationship of faith and works, the unity of the Jews and Gentiles in faith, the disobedience of the Jews enriching the Gospel, and even the relationship between the law and faith. In their new context, these quotations acquired a different meaning, as Augustine’s statements concerning the law took on the optimism of Lanfranc’s commentary. Only one Augustinian gloss conceivably contradicted the Lanfranc glosses. When Paul wrote that “sin will have no power over you for you are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6.14), the commentary quoted Augustine: “Not that the law is evil, but because it makes those under it guilty by judging and not assisting.”84 Lanfranc would have claimed that this was only true of those Jews who had not received the law in faith. Nevertheless, the commentary’s quotations of Augustine failed to reect the major tenets of Augustine’s exegesis on the law, which would have drastically contradicted the Lanfranc glosses to which they were appended.85 Ultimately, the law was interpreted extremely differently by Lanfranc and Augustine. If grace under the law was a component of Augustine’s teaching, this was tangential to his primary image of the Mosaic law, particularly in the very sections of Florus upon which the commentary apparently relied. For Augustine, the law may have foreshadowed the dispensation in Christ, but the two were not the same thing. The similarities between Lanfranc’s Romans glosses and the sections of Augustine’s works that were quoted in the Pauline commentary, or annotated in the Florus manuscript with Lanfranc’s marks, were limited. Augustine and Lanfranc both derived from St. Paul’s words a strong sense of the priority of faith and the importance of works proceeding from faith. But these Pauline truths traveled in opposite directions. 84 “Non quia lex mala est, sed quia sub illa sunt quos reos facit iubendo non adiuvando.” A on Rom. 6.14, fol. 18v. Augustine gloss. 85 Several of the Augustinian extracts refer to more general themes: “Praedestinatus est iesu, ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem lius david esset tamen in virtute lius dei, secundum spiritum sancticationis quia natus est de spiritu sancto et virgine maria.” A on Rom. 1.4, fol. 9v. Augustine gloss. “Quid est. Sicut illud, ita et hoc, nisi quemadmodum ad peccandum nullus cogebat vos timor, sed ipsius libido et voluptasque peccati, sic ad iuste vivendum, non vos supplicii metus urgeat, sed ducat delectatio iustitiae.” A on Rom. 6.19, fol. 19r. Augustine gloss. As with the Augustinian glosses regarding the law, none of these glosses that are less specic to the central themes of the Lanfranc commentary seem out of place in their new context.

romans

145

Lanfranc did not divide faith and the fulllment of the law into two chronological periods. He never dened the weakness of the human will, explained the human condition as one seriously impaired by sin, or mentioned the need for assisting grace or the Holy Spirit in receiving faith or fullling the works of the law. His assessment of the law went far beyond merely foreshadowing the dispensation in Christ. In his approach to the ambivalence of Paul’s language, Lanfranc found a method that strongly afrmed the potency of the law. In many of Augustine’s texts, the Jews were seen almost as symbols of disbelief. Lanfranc seriously considered Paul’s approach toward the Jews and reected something of Paul’s despair at their separation from Christ. Lanfranc’s composition displayed a profound interest in the Jews and respect for their status as God’s people, and this was a rare trait in ancient and medieval Pauline exegesis. Finally, Augustine characterized human existence in this life as a struggle and the law as emblematic of that struggle. The law was given that we might nd ourselves and perceive our need, without ever enabling us to overcome that need. For Lanfranc, much of human inrmity could be satised in the law itself as it contained the perceptible truth of Christ. The evidence that Lanfranc was the editor of the Augustine material is perplexing. Internally, the text of Lanfranc’s commentary differed from Florus/Augustine. At the time he wrote his glosses on Romans, Lanfranc had either not yet read the Florus commentary, not carefully assimilated its teaching, or, more improbably, had rejected Augustine as the guiding authority for the commentary. However, the Trinity College volume indicates that Lanfranc thoroughly read and took notes in the Florus commentary. Some of his notes corresponded to the very passages that were included in the commentary. The Augustinian excerpts appear to have been made specically for Lanfranc’s commentary. In length, style, and even in meaning, they blended with the Lanfranc glosses, attributing an Augustinian authority to a very non-Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul. Internally, the commentary on Romans combines three strands of material as seamlessly as possible. In fact, in manuscript A, the only manuscript that does not identify the glosses by author, Lanfranc appears to have written all the glosses. The author of the commentary, who had the greatest familiarity with the commentary’s contents, would also have been the editor most qualied to achieve this result. The Trinity College volume of Florus and the Bec catalogue provide substantial evidence that Lanfranc read this text at Bec. Considering these facts

146

chapter four

together, it is likely that the Florus/Augustine material was added by Lanfranc soon after the composition of his own glosses. The evidence for this rests on the nature of the Augustinian excerpts, which demonstrate Lanfranc as a beginner with Augustinian themes, the presence of the Florus text at Bec, and the unied nature of all the material in the Lanfranc commentary. The evidence pointing to Lanfranc as the editor of the Florus material is a reminder of Lanfranc’s early challenges at Bec. Lanfranc was accumulating texts for the Bec library as he was writing the commentary, and a manuscript of Florus’s Collectaneum may have come into his hands soon thereafter. Upon nding that there was another, different interpretation of St. Paul, Lanfranc may have decided to include the Augustine material after he had completed his own glosses. The layers of interpretation in the commentary indicate Lanfranc’s development as a biblical and theological scholar. He was learning as he wrote, becoming aware of new sources, and discovering multiple interpretations (all authoritative) of Paul’s epistles. The Romans glosses, his earliest notes on St. Paul, reect Lanfranc’s beginning as a biblical scholar. His inclusion of Augustine indicates something of his confusion: his recognition of Augustine as a signicant authority, combined with his uncertainty of what to make of him once he had established his own reading of St. Paul. As such, the commentary represents Lanfranc’s personal notes on the epistles and demonstrates the slow process of his assimilation of scriptural text and authoritative sources. Manuscript A is the earliest manuscript to include the patristic material. Manuscript A may have been based upon a Christ Church copy of the original Bec manuscript. It is easy to imagine the Bec manuscript as an untidy working copy of the commentary, as Lanfranc’s personal notes on St. Paul that he carried from his desk directly into the classroom, perhaps similar to manuscript C, an existing Bible to which an eleventh-century hand has randomly added the Lanfranc glosses. Perhaps Lanfranc’s original text reected something of the order of his reading and study, and the insertion of newly found authorities. If so, neither of the early manuscripts leaves us with any clues. C does not include the patristic material, and manuscript A is a clean copy, neatly including the glosses according to the order of the Pauline text. The likelihood that the Augustinian material was included after Lanfranc’s composition of the Romans glosses is increased by comparing its extracts to those attributed to “Ambrose” in the manuscripts. Lanfranc’s second patristic source in Romans was a Pauline commen-

romans

147

tary written in the fourth century, probably between 366–84. Modern attempts to specify this commentary’s authorship are inconclusive. To modern scholars, the author of this text is known simply as the Ambrosiaster. However, until the sixteenth century, the author of this text was universally acknowledged as Ambrose.86 Therefore, Lanfranc would have considered this text as the authoritative interpretation of the archbishop of Milan.87 A commentary written by St. Ambrose would be considered a trustworthy source and guide for Lanfranc’s rst exploration into the theological meaning of the Apostle. An analysis of the commentary’s use of the Ambrosiaster leaves little doubt that this was the source that Lanfranc read in conjunction with St. Paul on Romans. In manuscript A, the Romans commentary included less than fty excerpts from Florus and almost one hundred from the Ambrosiaster (of the longer, marginal glosses, almost two hundred and thirty are of Lanfranc’s composition). The methods of extracting from each patristic authority were also dissimilar. In the earliest quotations of Augustine, material was briey summarized and added to the commentary: Trinity College, B.4.5 (119): Rex pessimus persecutor sancti servi dei david. Et ipse si meministis, de tribu beniamin. Inde iste saulus ducto se cum tramite seviendi, sed in sevicia non permansurus. Postea si saulus a saule, paulus unde? Saulus a rege sevo cum superbia, cum seviens, cum caedes anhelans. Paulus autem unde? Paulus quia modicus. Paulus humilitatis nomen est. Paulus postea quam adductus est ad magistrum qui ait, discite quia mitis sum et humilis corde.88 Lanfranc: Erat saul rex pessimus persecutor david, de tribu beniamin. Inde iste saulus ducto se cum tramite seviendi, sed in sevitia non permansurus. Sed si saulus a saule, paulus unde? Saulus a rege sevo, cum superbia, cum seviens, cum cedes anhelans. Paulus quia modicus. Paulus humilitatis nomen. Paulus postquam adductus est ad magistrum qui ait. Discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde.89

86 Maurice F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge: 1967), 11; Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul: A Study (Oxford: 1927), 40–5; Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, 1–19. 87 M.L.W. Laistner, “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947), 20–3. 88 Trinity College, B.4.5 (119), fol. 1v. A similar method was used in the section excerpted from fol. 4r. 89 A on Rom. 1.1, fol. 9v.

148

chapter four

After Romans 1, the Florus material was no longer edited at all. This method was abandoned and, with rare exceptions, Augustine material was added quickly and uncritically in verbatim quotations from the Florus compendium. Using an entirely different method, Lanfranc very carefully selected and reproduced Ambrose’s teaching in his own commentary. Each extract was painstakingly edited: Ambrosiaster: 2.21 hoc est: tu qui gentiles arguis, quod sine lege et deo sint, teipsum accusas; difdens enim de Christo in lege promisso in eisdem quae arguis inveniris. facis enim quod praedicas eri non debere. dum enim dem Christi per malam interpretationem subripit negans Christum nostrum in lege promissum, quod praedicat non eri, facit. 2.22 adulterat autem legem, quando veritatem Christi tollit et mendacium ponit. unde in alia epistola: adulteratores, ait, verbi dei. sacrilegus est, quando Christum, quem lex et profeticus sermo deum signicat, negat.90 Lanfranc: Facis quod predicas eri non debere, dum dem christi a lege per malam interpretationem subripis, et legem adulteras, cum ablata veritate mendacium ponis, et sacrilegus es, dum christum quem propheticus sermo signicat, negas.91 Ambrosiaster: 3.25 . . . hoc est, ut promissum suum palam faceret, quo nos a peccatis liberaret, sicut ante promiserat. quod cum inplevit, iustum se ostendit. 3.26 sciens deus propositum benignitatis suae, quo censuit peccatoribus subvenire, tam his qui sunt apud superos, quam his qui in inferno tenebantur, utrosque diutissime expectavit, evacuans sententiam, qua iustum videtur omnes damnari, ut ostenderet nobis, quod olim decreverat liberare genus hominum per Christum, sicut promisit per Hieremiam pofetam dicens. . . . id est tempore nostro, quo dedit deus quod olim promiserat dandum tempore quo dedit. recte ait, quia ut sit iustus, dedit quod promisit. hoc autem promisit iusticare se credentes in Christum.92

90 This text will be cited by scripture verse and page number from the Vogels edition. Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 2.21–2, 84–5. Quoting II Cor. 2.17. 91 A on Rom. 2.21, fol. 12v. Ambrose gloss. 92 Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 3.25–6, 120–3.

romans

149

Lanfranc: Hoc est ut promissum suum palam faceret, quo nos a peccatis liberaret sicut ante promiserat quae diutissime sustentavit, ut nostro tempore ostenderet, quod olim decreverat, et sit iustus dans quod promisit iusticare se credentes in christo.93

Lanfranc carefully spliced Ambrosiaster’s comments into one statement, changing the original wording in the process. He included material from one verse into the gloss on another and thereby summarized large sections of text. He even inserted material (a lege at a different point in 2.21) and subtly changed the original text’s meaning. This method was quite unlike the commentary’s systematic and verbatim inclusion of Augustine material. By summarizing the entire comment on Ambrosiaster’s verse, and not merely quoting one small section, Ambrosiaster’s original text was more carefully considered and justly represented than Augustine’s. Lanfranc thoughtfully assimilated the Ambrose material into his own commentary and crafted it to present a careful summary of his authority’s teaching. Indeed, Lanfranc relied upon “Ambrose” for his central theological points: he was quoted to emphasize the truth of God’s promise, the content of God’s promise as contained in the law, and the equation of the law with faith. The entirety of Lanfranc’s Romans commentary was based upon these three points. A summary of Ambrosiaster’s commentary repeats many of the points already discussed in Lanfranc’s. The thematic foundation of Ambrosiaster’s commentary was the meaning of law. In Ambrosiaster’s reading of St. Paul, the Mosaic law offered to the Jews what the natural law promised to the Gentiles, namely, God’s truth.94 Fullling the law meant acknowledging God, but when this did not happen, transgression, guilt and punishment resulted. The law was given to Moses because the recognition of God, perceptible through the natural law, was fading, and the people were falling into idolatry. Idolatry was the greatest transgression of the law, natural or Mosaic, and the very sin of the Jews under their own law.95 This transgression violated the meaning of God’s promise under the Mosaic law. God had promised to Abraham that Jesus would spring from him. This promise must be accepted by faith, by Abraham’s example, by Jew or Gentile, and was perceptible 93 94 95

A on Rom. 3.25, fol. 14v. Ambrose gloss. Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 1.18 (38–9), 2.12–16 (72–81), 6.18 (204–7). Ibid., 5.14, 168–79.

150

chapter four

under the Jewish law.96 Abraham accepted circumcision as a sign of his belief in Christ, and the Jews accepted the same sign as a reminder that they were Abraham’s sons in faith and to urge them to imitate Abraham’s own belief in Christ.97 Therefore, the sin of the Jews was in not acknowledging the truth of their own scriptures.98 It was in this teaching that Ambrose distinguished the eternal law, as revealing God’s righteousness, from its cultic observances. In the rst sense, the response under law was faith, believing what God had promised and receiving God’s righteousness. Ambrosiaster’s teaching of Christ as the fulllment of the Mosaic law summed up all of these points, because in Christ, God completed the work that he had promised.99 Lanfranc’s use of his “Ambrose” source was a careful, if selective, adaptation. At each point that Lanfranc progressed further into the narrative of the Mosaic law, Ambrosiaster was quoted and then used by Lanfranc in the formation his own glosses. Ambrosiaster was cited to justify the meaning of God’s promise.100 Ambrosiaster was also excerpted to prove the endurance of God’s promise: “The faithlessness of the Jews will not deny to others who believe the eternal life that God has promised will come through faith in Christ.”101 The content of God’s promise was based on Ambrosiaster’s text: “[Abraham] believed that he would have the seed that would bless all people.”102 The connection of the law to faith was the Ambrosiaster’s most important contribution to Lanfranc’s commentary: “To believe in Christ whom the law has promised is to fulll the law, and the work of law that is written in hearts is faith.”103 And the identication of the Jews’ misunderstanding of their own scriptures was inherent to Ambrosiaster’s commentary:

96

Ibid., 3.30 (124–5), 4.10–3 (134–9). Ibid., 4.10–2, 134–7. 98 Ibid., 2.21–3, 84–7. 99 Ibid., 3.31 (124–7), 10.4 (344–5). 100 “Hoc est ut promissum suum palam faceret, quo nos a peccatis liberaret sicut ante promiserat quae diutissime sustentavit, ut nostro tempore ostenderet, quod olim decreverat, et sit iustus dans quod promisit iusticare se credentes in christo.” A on Rom. 3.25, fol. 14v. Ambrose gloss. 101 “Non inquit perdia iudeorum negabit reliquis credentibus vitam aeternam quam promisit deus futuram per dem christi.” A on Rom 3.3, fol. 13r. Ambrose gloss. 102 “Credidit se habiturum semen in quo benedicerentur gentes.” A on Rom. 4.3, fol. 15r. Ambrose gloss. Also: “Ut sit pater circumcisionis cordis, non tantum is qui sunt ex eius origine, sed eorum qui similiter credunt ex gentibus.” A on Rom. 4.12, fol. 15v. Ambrose gloss. 103 “Credere in christum quem lex promisit, hoc est facere legem, et opus legis scriptum in cordibus, des est.” A on Rom. 2.13, fol. 12r. Ambrose gloss. 97

romans

151

“You do what you preach against when you remove faith in Christ from the law through faulty interpretation. . . .”104 As was emphasis upon the potential for belief under the law: “[The Apostle] does not want it to appear extraordinary if the Jew should believe, indeed he has been instructed by the law. It is all the more perilous, however, if he should not believe for he has had the law as guide.”105 A close look at his source indicates that many of Lanfranc’s more original points were, in fact, derived from Ambrosiaster. For example, Lanfranc’s connection of God’s promise, justice, and truth had already been illuminated in the Ambrosiaster. Lanfranc’s language echoed the Ambrosiaster’s: Ambrosiaster: igitur quoniam deus verax est, dat quod promisit. . . . quia et deus iustus et verax est. . . .106 Lanfranc: Probat quod deus verax est. Iustitia enim sermonum est veritas.107 id est verax, complens ea quae promisit.108

Lanfranc’s differentiation of two senses of the law can also be traced back to the Ambrosiaster’s effort to protect the law from being understood as anything base in and of itself: It is clear that the justice of God has appeared apart from the law; but apart from the law of the Sabbath, of circumcision, of the new moon, or of retribution, but not apart from the mystery of the divinity of God. . . .109

104

“Facis quod predicas eri non debere, dum dem christi a lege per malam interpretationem subripis, et legem adulteras, cum ablata veritate mendacium ponis, et sacrilegus es, dum christum quem propheticus sermo signicat, negas.” A on Rom. 2.21, fol. 12v. Ambrose gloss. 105 “Non valde magnum vult videri si iudeus credat, quippe cum sit instructus per legem. Periculosum autem valde, si non credat. Ducem enim habet legem.” A on Rom. 2.17, fol. 12v. Ambrose gloss. 106 Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 3.4, 96–9. Southern notes the reappearance of this concept three decades after Lanfranc wrote his commentary in Anselm’s De veritate. If, as Southern suggests, this was an idea that Anselm derived from Lanfranc’s exegesis of Romans 3, its original source was the commentary of the Ambrosiaster. Southern, Saint Anselm, 41–2. 107 A on Rom. 3.4, fol. 13v. 108 A on Rom. 3.26, fol. 14v. 109 “apertum est, quia iustitia dei sine lege apparuit; sed sine lege sabbati et circumcisionis, et neomaniae, et vindictae, non tamen sine sacramento divinitatis dei, quippe cum iustitia dei de sacramento dei sit.” Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 3.21, 116–7.

152

chapter four

The law as circumcision and retribution was ineffective in removing sin. However, the law as “sacramentum mysterii dei, quod in christo est” was the truth of the law in which God’s promise in Christ was visible and to be received by faith, not ceremonial code.110 Lanfranc’s distinction of Paul’s use of “law” as either “carnales observationes” or “legales observationes” neatly paralleled the Ambrosiaster’s distinction. In fact, in quoting Ambrosiaster, Lanfranc impressed his own terminology (which, in turn, had been derived from the Ad Galatas) onto his source: Ambrosiaster: . . . quia sublatis omnibus neomeniis et sabbato et circumcisione et lege escarum et oblationibus pecorum sola des posita est ad salutem.111 Lanfranc: Quoniam sublatis omnibus carnalibus legis observantiis, sola des est posita ad salutem.112

Ambrosiaster’s description of the inefcacious works of the law was summarized by Lanfranc as “carnales observationes.” There is no clearer sign of Lanfranc’s use of Ambrosiaster than this interpretation of his source. Lanfranc’s use of Ambrosiaster was faithful, but not slavish. Lanfranc incorporated the broad strokes of Ambrosiaster’s reading of St. Paul without including every detail. For example, he did not explore Ambrosiaster’s parallel emphasis on the natural and Mosaic laws, or Ambrosiaster’s distinctive denition of human sin.113 Beginning with Ambrosiaster’s major tenets concerning the law and faith, he struck out on his own in the interpretation of many verses. His condence in the real possibility of belief and salvation under the law exceeded his source, as did his optimism concerning the relationship of the human will and fullling the law in Romans 7. Ambrosiaster was more apt to stress the ultimate and future incorporation of the Jews who believed the promise in Christ. In so doing, he pushed Ambrosiaster’s collation of the law and faith to its most extreme conclusion. Similarly, Lanfranc applied Ambrosiaster’s distinction of the law’s sacramental and ceremonial

110

Ibid., 3.20, 112–5. Ibid., 9.28, 332–3. 112 A on Rom. 9.28, fol. 25r. Ambrose gloss. 113 “in quo—id est in Adam—omnes peccaverunt. ideo dixit in quo, cum de muliere loquatur, quia non ad speciem retulit, sed ad genus. manifestum est itaque omnes in Adam peccasse quasi in massa. ipse enim per peccatum corruptus quos genuit, omnes nati sunt sub peccato. ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex ipso sumus omnes.” Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 5.12, 164–5. 111

romans

153

meanings in a far-reaching manner, proceeding from the theoretical to its actual application to specic uses of “law” in St. Paul. It has been assumed throughout this analysis that theological inuences reect source use, that themes found in Lanfranc’s patristic sources had some inuence upon his interpretation. The Romans commentary’s different approaches to the Augustine and Ambrose material substantiate this supposition. The use of the Ambrosiaster indicates something of Lanfranc’s standards for appropriate use of the fathers. Lanfranc’s own glosses and Ambrosiaster’s were intertwined and dependent upon each other for their meaning, effectively forming one unied text, and leaving little doubt that Lanfranc used his Ambrose source in the initial composition of his commentary. The commentary’s method was consistent with Lanfranc’s attitude toward the church fathers throughout his career, which demanded a faithful dependence upon authority, but which permitted independent theological exploration made within the connes of accepted interpretation. The inclusion of the Augustine material indicates that Lanfranc did not initially recognize his sole source as uninformed by Augustine or as an insufcient interpretation of St. Paul. It has been suggested in this analysis that the inclusion of Augustine indicates Lanfranc’s tentative acceptance of a second, and different, interpretation of St. Paul and the natural bewilderment any beginner would feel at the discovery of discordant authorities. In his early years at Bec, Lanfranc was beginning a voracious consumption of every available text of the church fathers. He eventually made his way through works of Augustine, Gregory, Bede, Cassian, Ambrose, Jerome, and Eusebius, emerging in the 1060s as Europe’s earliest champion of eucharistic orthodoxy.114 Lanfranc’s accomplishments seem all the more remarkable when his humble beginnings, as evident in the Romans commentary, are considered. Here Lanfranc apparently started his theological studies with nothing more than a Bible and two patristic commentaries (the Ambrosiaster and the Ad Galatas). His efforts attest to his independence as a scholar, working with extremely limited resources, and introducing Christian letters to himself within the monastic outpost at Bec. Romans is the most signicant of the Pauline commentaries from the standpoint of Lanfranc’s development as a scholar of sacred texts.

114 Gibson, “Lanfranc’s Notes on Patristic Texts,” 434–50; Southern, Saint Anselm, 35–8, 53–9.

154

chapter four

An analysis of the Romans commentary discloses Lanfranc’s abilities at the time he entered Bec and sets the stage for his later theological development. He was procient in Ciceronian rhetoric, but uncertain of scriptural teaching and patristic sources. At the point he was working on the epistles, he was capable enough to cross-reference Paul’s words and work with the Old Testament. Clearly, he had undertaken a comprehensive study of the Bible, but with minimal supporting sources. The commentary conrms the few details we have about Lanfranc’s background and the condition of Bec’s library, including the claims of the Vitae that Lanfranc arrived at Bec as a scholar of the arts but was insufciently prepared to teach in a monastery. For this reason, Lanfranc lived independently for three years to study scripture. Arguably, the Romans commentary was written at this early stage in Lanfranc’s development, soon after his entry into Bec as he anticipated his duties as prior. The signicance of the eventual acquisition of the Florus Collectaneum to Lanfranc’s education cannot be overemphasized. It provided hundreds of excerpts from scores of Augustine’s works. The Florus commentary not only introduced him to Augustinian theology, but by providing the title of each work, it established the outlines of an excellent library, and as would prove to be the case at Bec, a collection that had the works of Augustine at its core.115 This was indispensable information to someone who was forming a monastic academic program. Anselm’s letter, which conveyed the commentary to England in the 1070s and requested its return to Bec (as an indispensable text), may reect no more than the courtesy of a pupil toward his former master. By the 1070s, Anselm, indeed Lanfranc himself, must have understood that the Romans commentary did not adhere to Augustine’s teaching. Why would Lanfranc request the text for Canterbury? Perhaps he intended to revise the commentary, or perhaps there were attributes in the existing commentary, which, despite its aws, made it valuable to Lanfranc’s work in England. The question is puzzling and cannot be resolved. Evidently, the text never was revised, and, in its original form, it seems an insufcient tool for Lanfranc at Canterbury. However, the commentary did continue to be copied and used beyond Lanfranc’s and Anselm’s immediate circle. Judging by the surviving manuscripts, the commentary was seen as a useful text into the mid-twelfth century. Most of the surviving manuscripts were produced in the twelfth century

115

See pages 24–5.

romans

155

in England, Germany, Italy, and France. By the twelfth century, the authority of Lanfranc, as defender of the eucharist and archbishop of Canterbury, would have been as signicant as Ambrose’s or Augustine’s authority in recommending the commentary to future communities. Lanfranc’s commentary ties into larger questions of the textual transmission of biblical commentary. A commentary could be successful despite erroneous teaching. Even the Pauline commentary of Pelagius migrated throughout the centuries in various corrected and uncorrected versions.116 Borrowed authority assisted a awed text. The Ambrosiaster’s commentary was attributed to Ambrose; the corrected versions of Pelagius’s commentary were frequently attributed to Jerome or Priscian. The very character of line-by-line biblical commentary seemed to avoid the censure that a awed treatise such as Augustine’s De libero arbitrio brought upon itself, as the ever-present biblical text bestowed scriptural authority to the commentator’s interpretation. Finally, many scholars, such as the young Lanfranc, may not have possessed a sufciently advanced education to detect defective doctrine. Whatever the reasons, Lanfranc’s commentary endured as a successful, albeit imperfect, interpretation of St. Paul. It has been suggested that the Ambrose material was available to Lanfranc at the outset, while the commentary’s very different use of the Augustine material indicates its later inclusion. The only evidence for this is internal. The commentary’s manuscripts include either the Lanfranc material alone or all three strands of material, except for manuscript L, which omits the Ambrose material entirely and includes only the Lanfranc and Augustine material. This manuscript serves as an example that scribes could selectively omit commentary material. It is a twelfth-century English production and possibly reects an effort to reconcile Lanfranc’s authority as archbishop with the reality of the commentary’s contents. By omitting the Ambrose material, this scribe may have attempted to correct Lanfranc’s glosses by means of Augustine’s authority. The correction of suspect Pauline commentary was a practice established centuries earlier by Cassiodorus, who sought to extract heretical material from a commentary poisoned by the Pelagian taint.117 The correction of Lanfranc’s commentary would 116 Pelagius, Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Alexander Souter, ed. (Cambridge: 1922), vol. 1.34 ff. 117 Cassiodorus, Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, R.A.B. Mynors, ed. (Oxford: 1937), I.8.1, 28–9.

156

chapter four

have been a futile effort. As has been demonstrated, the Augustine material was selected to compliment the Lanfranc position on the law and reected little of Augustine’s true position. Read apart from its Ambrose authority, the Lanfranc material was incomplete but hardly Augustinian in nature. The commentary can best be appreciated as it reects Lanfranc’s development as a reader and teacher of scripture. A program for analysis of the entire commentary must continue to highlight the commentary’s use of the Augustine and Ambrose sources. Since Lanfranc’s Ambrose source included different authors, his exegesis may reect the points of difference between Ambrosiaster, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom. St. Paul explored similar theological themes in Romans and Galatians, and Lanfranc’s glosses could demonstrate his attempt to grapple with discordant sources in each epistle. Finally, Lanfranc’s Augustine material was available to him in two separate volumes. Lanfranc quoted Augustine’s vocabulary from the Ad Galatas as early as the Romans commentary. He already possessed this text as he wrote, and it is possible that the later epistles might demonstrate a more direct connection to this source and a growing understanding of Augustinian themes on Lanfranc’s part.

CHAPTER FIVE

EVALUATING AUGUSTINE’S AUTHORITY: REAPPRAISALS AND REEVALUATIONS

The study of the Romans commentary in the previous chapter has established a pattern for understanding Lanfranc’s use of sources and their inuence upon his glosses. An analysis of the text suggested that the Ambrose commentary was Lanfranc’s single direct source for Romans, but the Augustine material was extracted from the Florus Collectaneum after the commentary’s composition.1 The very distinct methods of extracting from each of the sources, Ambrose and Augustine/Florus, persist throughout the entire commentary. Lanfranc’s commentary never demonstrates the dependence upon the Florus material that is evident with the Ambrose material. Throughout the entire commentary, the amount of Ambrose material greatly exceeds the amount of Augustine/Florus material. In some of the epistles’ commentaries, there is twice, or even three times, the number of Ambrose glosses as Augustine/Florus glosses.2 At points, Lanfranc neglected to add any Florus material at all. Augustinian material was barely included in the second half of II Corinthians (there are only three Augustine glosses after the sixth chapter) or II Timothy (only 2), and not at all in the entire books of Hebrews or Philemon.3 In the commentaries to all the epistles, the

1 “Ambrose” is used as a generic term for Lanfranc’s source, which he assumed was written by St. Ambrose. The discrete authors, the Ambrosiaster, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom, which together comprise the Ambrose source, will be distinguished accordingly throughout this chapter. 2 For example (in A), in the Ephesians commentary, there are forty-four Ambrose glosses and twenty-one of Augustine’s; in I Timothy there are thirty-two Ambrose glosses and twelve of Augustine’s. 3 There is some question as to whether Lanfranc had access to Augustine/Florus material in Hebrews. The Eastry catalogue of Christ Church books (1284–1331) does not list Hebrews in the contents of the second volume of Florus’s commentary. However, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 317 (SC 2708), identied as the Christ Church copy of the Florus text and representative of Lanfranc’s text at Bec, does include Hebrews. See pages 135–6, n. 63. A study of Lanfranc’s commentary must reevaluate the conclusion that “the Augustine sequence provides the main theological discussion in Lanfranc’s commentary. It takes us back to the scholarly interests (and ultimately the library) of Carolingian Lyons.” Gibson, “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary,’” 97.

158

chapter five

Ambrose material was edited in the same painstaking manner as it was in the Romans commentary, carefully reworked and crafted to meld with the Lanfranc glosses. The Florus material, with few exceptions, was excerpted as it was in Romans and quoted verbatim.4 Consistently, throughout the entire Lanfranc commentary, the Florus compendium was added to the existing Lanfranc and Ambrose material in a uniform and efcient manner. These patterns vary only in the book of Galatians. Here Lanfranc’s Augustine source was not the Florus Collectaneum, but the commentary on Galatians written by Augustine himself. The Lanfranc commentary’s use of Augustine’s Ad Galatas was quite unlike its use of the Florus/Augustine source; indeed, it was identical to the method used with the Ambrose material. Only in the Galatians commentary were the Augustine glosses as meticulously edited as the Ambrose glosses, and only in this commentary did the amount of Augustine material exceed the Ambrose material. In manuscript A, sixty-four glosses were excerpted from the Ad Galatas, as opposed to thirty-one from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentary on Galatians. For the only time in the Lanfranc commentary, three, rather than two, strands of material potentially contributed to Lanfranc’s original exegesis of that book (Lanfranc, Ambrose, and the Ad Galatas). Lanfranc’s interpretation of the crucial issues of his commentary, faith and the law, shifted in the Galatians commentary, indicating that Lanfranc was confronted with a new and intriguing exegesis of the epistles. This transition was due to his sources. First, Lanfranc found in Augustine an authority that led to a different interpretation of St. Paul. Second, Lanfranc understood Romans as a theoretical discussion of the law in its own time, before the coming of Christ. This was no longer the case in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul was indisputably addressing a crisis within the early church as it faced judaizing forces, and Lanfranc 4 Rarely, in a handful of cases, the Florus material was edited rather than added verbatim. In these rare instances, the methodology was similar to the inclusion of the Ambrose material, again suggesting that it was Lanfranc who later included the Florus material. For example: “Pastores et doctores idem sunt. Sed ideo subiunxit doctores ut intelligant pastores ad suum ofcium pertinere doctrinam” (A on Eph. 4.11, fol. 92v) was derived from: “Pastores autem et doctores, quos maxime ut discernerem voluisti, eosdem puto esse, sicut et tibi visum est, ut non alios pastores, alios doctores intellegamus; sed ideo, cum praedixisset pastores, subiunxisse doctores, ut intellegerent pastores ad ofcium suum pertinere doctrinam.” Florus, P.L. 119, 377. Excerpted from Augustine, Ep. 149, Ad Paul., 2.11. CSEL 44, 358. This is also the case in the glosses on Eph. 3.17, Eph. 4.26, Eph. 6.17, Phil. 3.15, Col. 2.11, and II Tim. 3.1.

augustine’s authority

159

needed to account for Paul’s language and Augustine’s exegesis within this concrete situation. Lanfranc perceived that Augustine’s vocabulary referred not to the law as it was apprehended by the Jews before the incarnation, but, primarily, as the law must be understood by Christians in comparison to the greatness of grace in Christ. Third, in Galatians, Lanfranc’s “Ambrose” source was no longer the Ambrosiaster, but Theodore of Mopsuestia. Throughout the remainder of the commentary, Lanfranc would not have another source as condent in the goodness of the Old Testament law and people as the Ambrosiaster. If Lanfranc’s accustomed sensitivity to his sources’ authority was operative, we can expect his interpretation of St. Paul to shift accordingly. Despite the tremendous differences between Augustine and Theodore, they had more in common regarding issues of law, grace, and faith than either of them had with the Ambrosiaster, particularly as Augustine understood these issues when he wrote the Ad Galatas. Together they pointed to a new understanding of the law for Lanfranc. Although Lanfranc’s sole Augustine source was not indicative of Augustine’s mature theological formulations, the Ad Galatas would have pointed Lanfranc’s reading of St. Paul in a different direction, beyond his original optimism regarding the law and toward more complicated denitions of grace, free will, and human merit. Augustine wrote the commentary on Galatians, along with two commentaries on Romans (one of which remained unnished), in the mid-390s. Augustine’s thought was in transition, moving away from his earliest denitions of grace and free will in book I of the De libero arbitrio and closer to the later denitions of the Ad Simplicianum. In the Romans and Galatians commentaries, Augustine had moved closer to the issues that would eventually be articulated in the heat of the Pelagian controversy.5 A careful examination of Lanfranc’s commentary leaves little doubt that the Ad Galatas was a crucial source for Lanfranc’s initial composition. Apart from the number of glosses and their method of inclusion, this is evident in Lanfranc’s dependence upon a vocabulary originally

5 Paula Fredriksen Landes, ed. and trans., Augustine On Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unnished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Chico, California: 1982). The date and composition of the Ad Galatas is discussed in Eric Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians (Oxford: 2003), 3–121. For an analysis of the development of Augustine’s reading of St. Paul in the mid-390’s, see Fredriksen, “Beyond the body/soul dichotomy.” See pp. 92–3 for the date of the books of the De libero arbitrio. See also Malcolm E. Alatt, “The Development of the Idea of Involuntary Sin in St. Augustine,” Revue des études augustiniennes 20 (1974), 116–8, 132–4.

160

chapter five

found in the Ad Galatas. Remarkably, Lanfranc possessed and read the Ad Galatas earlier, at the time he wrote the Romans commentary. The very vocabulary of the Romans glosses of apprehending the law either through “carnales observationes” or “per legem spiritualiter intellectam” was derived from the Ad Galatas. In the Romans glosses, Lanfranc’s application of these terms paralleled Ambrosiaster’s distinction of apprehending the law appropriately (in faith) or incorrectly (through a superstitious reliance upon works). Lanfranc even inserted Augustine’s language into his paraphrase of Ambrosiaster: Augustine: . . . ut per eandem legem spiritualiter intellectam morerentur carnalibus observationibus legis.6 Ambrosiaster: . . . quia sublatis omnibus neomeniis et sabbato et circumcisione et lege escarum et oblationibus pecorum sola des posita est ad salutem.7 Lanfranc: Quoniam sublatis omnibus carnalibus legis observantiis, sola des est posita ad salutem.8

Although Lanfranc borrowed this terminology from the Ad Galatas, he relied upon Ambrosiaster as his guide for the interpretation of discrete verses in Romans and conformed his reading of Augustine to Ambrosiaster’s overriding inuence for that book. Why? Perhaps he made an early and misguided attempt to harmonize two conicting sources, or perhaps he misunderstood Augustine’s terminology in a preliminary and cursory reading of the Ad Galatas. Either way, he corrected this mistake in the Galatians commentary when, working through the Ad Galatas in conjunction with the scriptural text, Augustine’s perception of the law became clearer to Lanfranc and more accurately presented. Lanfranc’s difculties are understandable. In the Ad Galatas, Augustine distinguished moral works of the law from its “sacramenta.” Augustine’s list of these sacraments was similar to the Ambrosiaster’s: “Ad sacramenta pertinent circumcisio carnis, sabbatum temporale, neomeniae, sacricia. . . .”9 Augustine’s sacraments were useful “in intellectu,” in what they signied and by referring to the contemplation of truth. This was their purpose under the law if they were not only observed but also

6 This text will be cited by scripture verse and page number from the Divjak edition. Augustine, Ad Gal., 2.19–20, 73. 7 Ambrosiaster, In Rom., 9.28, 332–3. 8 A on Rom. 9.28, fol. 25r. Ambrose gloss. 9 Augustine, Ad Gal., 3.1, 76.

augustine’s authority

161

understood. Christians may also benet from the sacraments’ signicative function, but should not be compelled to observe them. But both under the law and after the coming of Christ these sacraments were misapplied and misunderstood, and as such, Augustine’s terminology applied to the sacraments in both times: Nam et Iudaei serviliter observant dies et menses et annos et tempora in carnali observatione sabbati et neomeniae et mense novorum et septimo quoque anno, quem vocant sabbatum sabbatorum. Quae quoniam erant umbrae futurorum, iam adveniente Christo in superstitione remanserunt, cum tamquam salutaria observarentur a nescientibus, quo referenda sint. . . .10 Cum enim per totam epistolam non ab aliis ostendat sollicitatam fuisse Galatarum dem, nisi ab eis, qui ex circumcisione erant et ad carnales observationes legis, tamquam in eis salus esset. . . .11

Furthermore, in his distinction of “works of the law” and “hearing by faith” (Galatians 3.5), Augustine indicated that spiritual understanding was possible even before Christ. The Holy Spirit was received by faith, not through works of the law such as circumcision. Abraham was Augustine’s supreme example of faith, whose faith was credited to him as righteousness even before circumcision. Lanfranc’s earlier exposition of Abraham in Romans, although misapplied, echoed Augustine as well as the Ambrosiaster here: faith not circumcision made Abraham righteous.12 For Augustine, Abraham was the preeminent example of the “very few” who were justied by faith before the coming of Christ.13 For the young Lanfranc, these points seemed to align very neatly with his interpretation of Ambrosiaster in Romans. He applied these exact points to his own exegesis of Romans: the distinction of the carnal and spiritual law, and the possibility of preexistent faith. But beginning with these two teachings, Lanfranc’s exegesis in Romans, and Augustine’s 10

Ibid., 4.10–1, 102. Ibid., 4.9, 101. 12 Ibid., 3.2–9, 79. See pages 122–3, notes 19–21. 13 “Simul etiam nos cogit intelligere omnes antiquos, qui iusticati sunt, ex ipsa de iusticatos. Quod enim nos ex parte praeteritum, id est primum adventum domini, ex parte futurum, id est secundum adventum domini credendo salvi efcimur, hoc totum illi, id est utrumque adventum futurum credebant revelante sibi spiritu sancto, ut salvi erent.” Ibid., 3.15–8, 85–6. “Sed haec iustitia dei, quia non pro merito data est hominibus, sed pro misericordia et gratia dei, non erat popularis, antequam dominus homo inter homines nasceretur. Semen autem cui promissum est, populum signicat, non illos paucissimos, qui revelationibus ea futura cernentes, quamvis per eandem dem salvi erent, populum tamen salvum facere non poterant.” Ibid., 3.19–20, 87. 11

162

chapter five

in the Ad Galatas, traveled in entirely different directions and ended with entirely opposite conclusions. In his own claims about preexistent faith, Augustine was making quite a different point about the law. The example of Abraham actually indicated that ancient faith was independent of the law. The image of Abraham refuted salvation through the law simply because Abraham’s faith was counted before the law was given. Contrary to Lanfranc’s exegesis in Romans, Augustine did not consider the individual’s perception of the law leading to faith, but the revelation of the Holy Spirit, an action that was entirely independent of the law.14 Already, by the composition of the Ad Galatas, Augustine was making a statement about the weakness of the human will. The law was in fact emblematic of the prideful individual who set up the (nonexistent) merits of his own works to God’s grace. Augustine’s points about spiritual understanding and carnal works were made in support of these ideas. Furthermore, these points were made in the context of the historical situation of the epistle to the Galatians, as a dilemma posed to the early Church: ‘But knowing that a man is not justied by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ’ [Gal. 2.16], that man might fulll the works of the law when God’s grace, not his own merit, assists his weakness, they [the Jewish Apostles] would not have demanded carnal observances of the law [carnales legis observationes] from the Gentiles, but would have known that they were able to fulll the spiritual works of the law [spiritualia opera legis] through that very grace of faith [ per ipsam gratiam dei ]. Because ‘no esh’ (that is no man, or none who perceive carnally) will be justied ‘by the works of the law’ if he attributes this to his own strength rather than to the grace of the compassionate God. And therefore when those who were still under the law believed in Christ they came to the grace of faith, not because they were righteous, but that they might become righteous.15

14

Ibid., 3.15–8, 85–6. “‘sed scientes quoniam non iusticatur homo ex operibus legis, nisi per dem Iesu Christi,’ ut impleat opera legis adiuvante inrmitatem suam non merito suo sed gratia dei, non exigerent de gentibus carnales legis observationes, sed per ipsam gratiam dei spiritualia opera legis eos implere posse cognoscerent. Quoniam ex operibus legis, cum suis viribus ea quisque tribuerit, non gratiae miserantis dei, non iusticabitur omnis caro, id est omnis homo sive omnes carnaliter sentientes. Et ideo illi, qui cum iam essent sub lege Christo crediderunt, non, quia iusti erant, sed ut iusticarentur, venerunt ad gratiam dei.” Ibid., 2.16, 71. 15

augustine’s authority

163

Augustine distinguished works of the law from the spiritual law and emphasized the possibility, even the necessity, of faith in fullling the law. Even “those who were still under the law” were described in terms of faith. A beginner could easily have misunderstood Augustine’s defense of the spiritual law and harmonized this terminology with the themes of Romans and interpretation of the Ambrosiaster. However, a thorough study of the Ad Galatas must have revealed Lanfranc’s error. For instance, this comment on Galatians 2.16 analyzed Paul’s words to Peter in Antioch outlining the Christian believer’s proper attitude toward the law. The Gentile believer was not to be forced into judaizing observances. And “those who were still under the law” and came to faith were Jewish converts to the young Christian church and contrasted to the Gentile converts. The distinction of carnal observance and spiritual understanding of the law was made in this context. The Gentile believer fullled the spiritual works of the law through faith but was not obligated to fulll carnal works of the law; the Jewish convert was not justied under the law but came to the grace of faith when he believed in Christ. Lanfranc’s application of this terminology to a systematic defense of the law was absolutely contrary to Augustine’s authentic purpose. Augustine’s emphasis was upon the human’s movement from life under the law to life in Christ, not upon the possibility of faith and salvation under the law. And despite Augustine’s professed belief in the goodness of the law, his terminology often implied a negative quality that was intrinsic to the law itself. When the contrast was made of the Gentiles’ freedom in Christ and the consequent pointlessness of submitting to the law’s bondage, the law could not help but fall short: They were freed from the servitude of their superstitions through the faith of Christ, lest, once again slaves, they should desire to be under the yoke of carnal observances, although under the law of God, nevertheless a carnal people bound servilely.16

Lanfranc had used this very vocabulary in the Romans glosses as a consistent defense of the law before the incarnation.

16 “Quid enim aliud hoc loco gentibus dicat, non invenio nisi ut prosit illis, quod a servitute superstitionis suae per dem Christi liberati sunt, ne iterum servi esse velint sub iugo observationum carnalium quamvis sub lege dei tamen carnalem populum serviliter alligantium.” Ibid., 5.1–3, 112.

164

chapter five

For Augustine, Abraham was instructive of the law’s authentic purpose: given not for the purpose of faith, but for the purpose of transgression. The Jews were proud, misunderstanding the cause of Abraham’s righteousness as circumcision: The law was imposed therefore upon a proud people so that they might be humiliated by transgression (since they could not receive the grace of charity unless they were humbled, and since without this grace they could not possibly fulll the precepts of the law), so that they might seek grace and not pridefully suppose they could be saved by their own merits, and that they might be righteous not by their own power and strength but by the hand of the mediator who justies the impious.17

The law “was not given to take away sin but to conne all under sin.” Transgression led to humility, a recognition of our own powerlessness, which in turn led to the perceived need for Christ.18 All of this directed the individual to grace, the predominant theme of the Ad Galatas. Augustine’s repeated phrase, “gratia dei,” discredited the merit of works under the law. Works only proceed from faith and grace: Christ is formed in the believer through faith, in the inner man. The believer is called into the liberty of grace to be gentle and humble of heart, not boasting about the merits of works which are nonexistent, but because of that very grace beginning to have some merit.19

These are themes that Lanfranc examined in the latter part of the commentary. Distinctly inuenced by Augustine’s emphasis on grace and more aware of his authentic teaching on the law, Lanfranc departed from exclusive consideration of the law and more thoroughly explored themes of human weakness and grace. As Lanfranc came to terms with Augustine’s vocabulary, he encountered an analysis of the relationship between the Old and New Tes17

Ibid., 3.19–20, 88. And quoted by Lanfranc, A on Gal. 3.19, fol. 83v. Ad Gal., 3.23, 90. Augustine’s analysis of how the human may fulll works entailed a complex description of the interconnection between faith, love, and grace. For instance, Ad Gal., 3.10–4 (79–82), 5.14 (118). In the mid-390s Augustine still claimed some power for free will when the individual asks God, through faith, for his grace, and in the predestined individual’s response to God’s call. Fredriksen, “Beyond the body/soul dichotomy,” 91–2. This does not affect the fundamental issues of free will found in Lanfranc’s exegesis. Beyond general comments concerning God’s gift of faith and works, he did not probe very deeply into the nuances of Augustine’s denition of the human will. In the Galatians commentary and thereafter, Lanfranc reacted to the essential points of his Romans glosses and questioned free will primarily as it related to the law: works follow faith and are assisted by God’s grace. 19 Augustine, Ad Gal., 4.19, 106–7. Also 5.14, 118. 18

augustine’s authority

165

taments articulated through allegory. For this reason, Augustine had methodological as well as theological influences upon Lanfranc’s development as an exegete. Essentially, Lanfranc’s interpretation of the Ambrosiaster promoted the spiritual value of the Old Testament, reading forward in time, as containing the full meaning of Jesus, even before the incarnation. To Augustine, the fundamental value of the Old Testament scriptures was for the Christian, reading backward, to perceive the text’s truth allegorically. In the Ad Galatas, Lanfranc read a lengthy analysis of Paul’s allegorical treatment of Hagar’s and Sarah’s sons, who represented the Old and New Testaments, respectively, and the temporal promises of the Old and the eternal promises of the New.20 Relative to Lanfranc’s earlier method, an allegorical approach such as this distanced the two testaments and challenged Lanfranc’s initial vision of the simple unity of faith, promise, and law. Other, shorter allegories in the Ad Galatas demonstrated how Old Testament passages might be collated with New Testament passages to reveal a profound truth of Christian doctrine. For example, in Galatians 3.13, Paul wrote: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.” Augustine illuminated Paul’s quotation from Deuteronomy in conjunction with Numbers 21.8–9 and John 3.14. The serpent that Moses held up in the desert gured the death of Jesus who said, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up.” Augustine depended upon these scriptures collectively to refer to the Lord’s redemption of Adam’s sin, as well as the individual’s sins of one’s “old self,” crucied together with Christ on the cross.21 Sections such as this adjusted Lanfranc’s theological denitions and had methodological inuences upon his commentary as well. A thorough analysis of the Ad Galatas is not intended here. Certain theological points are highlighted to illustrate the issues that caught Lanfranc’s interest and were adopted by him in the last half of his commentary. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Lanfranc’s second source from Galatians to Philemon, conrmed these points. Unwittingly, Lanfranc had encountered another author of suspect theological pedigree in his “Ambrose” source. This text had historically been linked to both

20 21

Ibid., 4.21–31, 108 ff. Ibid., 3.13–4, 81–4.

166

chapter five

Nestorianism and Pelagianism.22 In Theodore’s commentary, Lanfranc was introduced to a unique theological framework, one that differed substantially from Augustine’s. However, within their differing systems, Theodore and Augustine drew similar conclusions about the law and human nature that conicted with the Ambrosiaster/Lanfranc synthesis of the Romans commentary. Theodore’s understanding of the law was set within a distinctive understanding of two ages of human history. From creation, God intended a rst age as a preparatory and educational phase for humanity. Foreseeing that humans would not remain obedient to him, God planned this stage as “a necessary prelude” to the second age, or eternity.23 Human mortality and mutability are characteristic of human existence in the rst age, actually beneting human development if viewed and used correctly. The human must use the conditions of this world, particularly the natural and Mosaic laws, as pedagogical tools to recognize good and evil, and to choose good/obedience rather than their alternatives. Although Theodore’s language was unclear, stating both that the human was created mortal, yet punished with mortality as a result of sin, the concept of the human as mutable and mortal hinged on Theodore’s emphasis upon human reason and the ability to choose: thus, the suspicion of a Pelagian theology.24 Although choice was central to Theodore’s theological framework, in reality, he attributed minimal ability to the human to exercise a consistent preference for good action. Theodore related the impossibility of human conquest over sin to the human condition, and this applied to human efforts under the law.25 As a teacher, the law indicated sin,

22 Theodore’s Christological theology had less impact upon Lanfranc’s commentary since Lanfranc was not concerned with these issues until the commentary on Hebrews. The possible Pelagian leanings of Theodore’s theology were more in tune with the issues of Lanfranc’s commentary. For Theodore’s associations with Nestorianism, see Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: 1961), 31–47; Francis Aloysius Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Rome: 1956), 4–12. For the Pelagian connections, see Joanne McWilliam Dewart, The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington DC: 1971), 69–73; Richard A. Norris, Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford: 1963), 173–89. For a summary of Theodore’s exegesis of Paul on issues of law, faith, and grace, see Wiles, The Divine Apostle, 63 ff., 121 ff. 23 Norris, Manhood and Christ, 164. This discussion of Theodore’s theological system follows Dewart, The Theology of Grace, 31 ff., 49ff. 24 Dewart, The Theology of Grace, 69–73. 25 This text will be cited by scripture verse and page number from the Swete edition. Theodore, In ep. ad Gal., 3.24 (54), 3.19 (47).

augustine’s authority

167

but it primarily revealed our inrmity and inability to successfully counter sin: In as much as the law instructs humans to beware of sins, so much more knowing its depravity, we perceive our own weakness because we are not able to do what seems good to us. Therefore, from this comparison, God’s grace appears in us, which causes to occur in us easily that which we were not able to secure with the greatest labor, even when we knew that it is evil to sin.26

Human weakness, as exemplied by the law, urged the human to God’s grace, and grace was obtained only through faith, not the law. However, Theodore was optimistic about the effect grace/faith might have in correcting the conditions of an individual’s life. Once assisted by grace, the conditions of an individual’s life changed.27 Despite their different theological schemes, Theodore and Augustine described human experience as marked by moral struggle and dened the law as incapable of dealing with human sin. Therefore, Lanfranc found conrmation of the major tenets of the Ad Galatas: the law as indicator of sin and human weakness, and the necessity of grace in overcoming sin. Lanfranc’s sources were a theological stew, combining the Ambrosiaster and Theodore, Augustine, and (in Hebrews) a little Chrysostom. This was a challenging set of sources for a novice exegete. Lanfranc reacted to the tremendous differences in his Ambrose source by simply adapting his own interpretation, and, eventually, by electing Augustine as his preeminent authority; however, if he doubted the unity of his Ambrose source, this is not evident in the commentary. The accurate evaluation of Lanfranc’s development as a reader of St. Paul is found in the elements he evaluated and chose from his sources, beginning with Ambrosiaster and moving toward a more complex Augustinian/Theodoran synthesis on issues of grace and the fundamental weakness of the law. Lanfranc’s exegesis did not become perfectly “Augustinian” by the end of the commentary. He was working with only one Augustine source, and his thought was evolving, but with the accommodation of Augustine, a decisive change occurred in Lanfranc’s exegesis. In Galatians, Augustine’s interpretations became primary, and “Ambrose” was

26 Ibid., 3.22, 51. Cited in Dewart, 56. Also: “hoc autem inpossibile est humanae naturae. non peccare enim nos nullo modo possibile est. itaque etiamsi aliquis in lege benedicatur, contra legis id t decretum, divina gratia legis denitionem vincente.” Theodore, In ep. ad Gal., 3.10, 41. 27 Theodore, In ep. ad Gal., 3.22, 50.

168

chapter five

quoted half as often. The peculiar aspects of Theodore’s theological schema remained unexplored beyond several general comments, and these were subordinated to the primary points of the Ad Galatas. Lanfranc balanced one patristic authority against another, and while retaining his Ambrose source, he adapted the themes of the Ad Galatas into the epistles beyond Galatians.28 Therefore, Lanfranc did demonstrate a bias for Augustine, despite the likelihood that the Ad Galatas was his only Augustinian source as he composed. It is likely that this process of assimilation explains the later inclusion of the Florus Collectaneum extracts. Realizing the inadequacy of his initial approach, Lanfranc sought to include more of the church father whom he deemed as the greatest authority for his exegetical project. Once a compendium of Augustinian commentary became available, there would have been a decided symmetry in quoting both fathers, Ambrose and Augustine, in every book of the commentary. Could there be layers within the Lanfranc glosses themselves, that is, within the material he wrote (not the material he extracted)? If Lanfranc added secondary material (the Augustine/Florus material) after his commentary was written, he might have done the same within his own glosses, as his familiarity with the Ad Galatas increased, or when the Florus glosses were added. However, there is no evidence that he did so. First, the Lanfranc glosses demonstrate an internal development from his earliest interpretation to one accommodating multiple and discordant sources. Second, the most glaring inadequacies in the entire commentary are found in the Romans commentary.29 If Lanfranc intended to modify his interpretation of St. Paul, this is where he would have done so. Apparently, Lanfranc updated the commentary

28 Although the inuence of the Ad Galatas is perceptible in Lanfranc’s glosses beyond the book of Galatians, it was only excerpted in the Galatians commentary. There are extracts from the Ad Galatas in other books of the commentary, but they exactly coincide with the Florus Collectaneum. See A on I Cor. 7.10 and Florus, P.L. 119, 330; A on I Tim. 1.9 and Florus, P.L. 119, 399; A on II Tim., 4.2 and Florus, P.L. 119, 408. 29 I and II Corinthians, the other epistles that are prior in order to Galatians, did not provide Lanfranc with as much opportunity for commenting on the law. These books led him to discussions regarding the teacher, the role of the arts, and the proper order and practice of the church. However, when he did comment on the issues relevant to the Romans and Galatians commentaries, his conclusions were generally consistent with his conclusions in Romans. For instance: “Id est faciet quod promisit. Promisit enim in multis scripturarum suarum locis se deles suos non deserturum.” A on I Cor. 10.13, fol. 50v. Several of Lanfranc’s comments on II Corinthians 3 are closer to the direction he will take in Galatians. A, fols. 65v–66r.

augustine’s authority

169

by adjusting his exegesis along more Augustinian lines in Galatians and thereafter, and by the calculated redaction and inclusion of Florus throughout the commentary, while leaving his own glosses and those of Ambrose untouched. Lanfranc was constrained by the conditions of the medieval scriptorium. Although glosses could potentially be added to his original manuscript, large portions of existing material could not have been erased or corrected without discarding entire pages. If Lanfranc wrote his notes in the columns of an existing biblical manuscript, this would have meant the loss of a rare and valuable book. This fact may explain the awkward alliance of Lanfranc’s early and later glosses, and it points again to the commentary as a personal learning enterprise on Lanfranc’s part. Augustine’s inuences are evident in Lanfranc’s transformed denitions of law, sin, grace, and the human will. First, the transition from one authority to another is most evident in the commentary’s transformed presentation of the law, the earlier preoccupation of the Romans commentary. The law remained of interest to Lanfranc throughout the commentary, but as his sources increased, and as he became more familiar with other Pauline themes, his interests broadened. In the Galatians commentary, Lanfranc expressed a new appreciation for the limits of the law and never again made claims about the efcacy of the law alone for salvation. Ambrose and Augustine were both quoted to demonstrate the law’s fundamental inability to justify humans.30 Lanfranc’s interpretation was modeled upon theirs: It is as if he says, he who supposes that he can be justied in the law does not know Christ. But when I despise the righteousness derived from the law, I desire to be justied in his faith, that I might know him, namely, why he became man and died.31

30 “Liberavit nos a praesentis saeculi vita, in qua multa de illis quae non conveniebant ebant, constituit quia in spe futurae vitae quod nullo modo praestare lex valuit.” A on Gal. 1.4, fol. 79v. Ambrose gloss. This is Lanfranc’s most direct reference to Theodore’s schema of two ages. “. . . Vult autem dicere, quod secundum legem non iusticemur. Accessimus ad christum, quasi per eum iusticandi. . . .” A on Gal. 2.17, fol. 82r. Ambrose gloss. “Si ergo christus me dilexit, et tradidit semetipsum pro me, non irritam facio gratiam dei, ut dicam per legem esse iustitiam.” A on Gal. 2.21, fol. 82r. Augustine gloss. “Superbienti populo lex posita est, ut quoniam gratiam caritatis nisi humiliatus accipere non posset, transgressione humiliaretur, ut quereret [iustitiam] gratiam.” A on Gal. 3.19, fol. 83v. Augustine gloss. In A, “iustitiam” is corrected with “gratiam” which is also the correct reading from the Ad Galatas. 31 “Quasi dicat. Qui se iusticari in lege putat, non agnoscit christum. Sed ego spreta iustitia legali, in de eius iusticari volo, ut agnoscat illum, id est cur incarnatus,

170

chapter five

Second, Lanfranc considered the vitality of sin and tied the sin of Adam to individuals’ sins, which together necessitated the sacrice of Christ. Anything approximating a denition of Adam’s sin was absent from the commentary until Lanfranc’s careful incorporation of the Ad Galatas.32 Third, grace justies: “Here he begins to demonstrate grace, how the grace of faith is able to justify without the works of the law.”33 Christian believers, not those who do the works of the law, receive grace.34 Finally, a new emphasis on sin and the necessity of grace led Lanfranc to dene the limitations of the law and the limitations of the human will jointly: The law conned all under sin either because it did not free anyone perfectly from sin, or because what it decreed was so difcult, that when it was not able to be fullled, it constituted all humans as sinners.35

et mortuus sit.” A on Phil. 3.10, fol. 101r. Also: “Ad hoc christus mortuus est, ut credentes in se iusticaret, gratis ergo mortuus esset, si legalis observantia iustos facere posset.” A on Gal. 2.21, fol. 82r. “Ad superiora probanda redit. Dixit superius quod ex operibus legis non iusticabitur omnis caro, ac per hoc probat dicens se mortuum legi, sive per legem christi, ut deo vivat [dicens se mortuum legi suae per legem christi ut deo vivat, R, fol. 66r]. Frustra enim moreretur legi suae ut deo viveret, si per eam iusticari posset, cum nihil aliud sit deo vivere, quam in conspectu dei iustum esse.” A on Gal. 2.19, fol. 82. Quoting Gal. 2.16. 32 Even the fth chapter of Romans did not elicit such comments, despite Ambrosiaster’s statements regarding an inherited sin on Romans 5.12. See Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries, 40–5. Lanfranc’s tardy comments are derived from the Ad Galatas. “Decretum fuit dei de ligno quod est in medio paradisi. Ne comedas, huius decreti violati cirographam, id est memoriam delevit deus, quando peccatum primi parentis humano generi per dem sanguinis christi dimisit, et ipsius praevaricationis peccatum, quasi oblivioni tradidit.” A on Col. 2.14, fol. 106r. “Qua hora sanguis redemptionis de latere domini in cruce pendentis exivit, dimissum est peccatum adae humano generi, et pacicata sunt caelestia et terrestria, quia tunc patuit introitus in regna celorum.” A on Col. 1.20, fol. 104v. “Id est partes veteris hominis qui universitas peccati intelligitur, vel membrorum vestrorum concupiscentias.” A on Col. 3.5, fol. 107r. On this see Ad Galatas: “Ex poena quippe est et maledictione peccati primi hominis quam dominus suscepit et peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum.” Augustine, Ad Gal., 3.13, 82–3. “Quid autem pependit in ligno nisi peccatum veteris hominis, quod dominus pro nobis in ipsa carnis mortalitate suscepit?” Augustine, Ad Gal., 3.13, 82–3. 33 “Hinc incipit demonstrare gratiam, quemadmodum gratia dei, sufciat ad iusticandum, sine operibus legis.” A on Gal. 3.2, fol. 82r. Augustine gloss. 34 “Spirituales gratias acceperunt gratiam credentes, non opera legis facientes.” A on Gal. 3.2, fol. 82r. 35 “Conclusit lex omnia sub peccato, vel quia perfecte nullum liberavit a peccato, vel quia tam difcilis data est, ut cum impleri non posset, praevaricatores omnes constitueret.” A on Gal. 3.22, fol. 83v.

augustine’s authority

171

Earlier, in the seventh chapter of Romans, the moral dilemma posed to the individual was treated cursorily: the person was presented with the choice between right and wrong, and human choice was the operative force in the tension between good and evil deeds even under the law. Lanfranc had not yet addressed many complexities of the law. Can the law be death to me even if I choose well? How strong must the human will be to fulll the law? Does doing the right thing require something beyond one’s own abilities? Augustine’s authority caused him to consider such questions. Similar themes of conict are found in Romans 7 and Galatians 5, and Lanfranc’s glosses in these sections are worthy of comparison. In Galatians, the situation was desperate: the esh and the spirit were embattled and rendered one another entirely powerless to act.36 Lanfranc visualized the person who desired to make the right choice but could neither fully assent to, nor fulll, either the good or evil choice. One might only successfully accomplish the good by means of the Holy Spirit. Guided by the Spirit, and entirely free of the law, one could then act even beyond the requirements of the law.37 Glosses such as these diverged from Lanfranc’s earlier interpretation in Romans regarding the law, grace, and human nature. In such glosses, Lanfranc was visibly contending with the themes that the Ad Galatas had presented, and although his conclusions were not always consistent or textbook Augustinian, the general direction of his Pauline exegesis had been redirected. The distinction of faith under the law shifted to a juxtaposition of faith/grace to the law, as Lanfranc drifted away from his vigilant defense of the law and qualication of Paul’s language. The topics that Lanfranc omitted from his glosses are as notable as his new statements. He no longer qualied Paul’s uses of the word “law.” He no longer looked for opportunities to prove the existence of faith under the law. He no longer distinguished “part” of the Jews from the “whole.” Lanfranc’s comments concerning the Jews became less frequent altogether, and now the Jews as a whole were contrasted to Christians. Most crucially, Lanfranc’s earlier distinction of “carnales observationes” and “legales observationes,” spiritually understood, was increasingly obscured:

36 “Quasi diceret. Ideo utriusque, desideria percere non potestis, quia contraria inter se sunt, et hoc apertius repetit, subsequens, haec enim sibi invicem, et cetera.” A on Gal. 5.17, fol. 86v. 37 “Id est si spiritus sanctus moderatur vobis, legem carnaliter non observatis, vel lege non deprimini, plus facientes quam lex iubeat.” A on Gal. 5.18, fol. 86v.

172

chapter five The other apostles wanted Titus to be circumcised, to avoid scandal on the part of those from the circumcised who believed. But the apostle would not permit him to be circumcised by certain false Christians who secretly associated with the faithful, in order to put to the test the freedom of those who did not heed circumcision and other carnal observances [carnales observationes]. And they were putting [their freedom] to the test for this reason, in order to destroy that freedom by some cunning and urge legal observances [legales observationes].38

Lanfranc’s use of the same vocabulary was altered. Here “carnales observationes” and “legales observationes” were used interchangeably as the description for circumcision and other judaizing practices that were unnecessary for the Gentile believer. This approach was more consistent with the original Augustinian context but quite unlike Lanfranc’s earlier adaptation. Ultimately, Lanfranc’s reevaluation of Augustine’s exegesis modied his own. Lanfranc’s later career attests to this same dependence upon the authority of Augustine. Lanfranc’s rst major work, the De corpore, was written and disseminated for a European audience and depended almost exclusively upon the authority of Augustine.39 Lanfranc made extensive corrections to Augustinian texts while at Bec and established libraries at Bec and Canterbury that had Augustine at their core.40 In Lanfranc’s letters written as archbishop, Augustine was cited in ecclesial and doctrinal disputes.41 The disagreement that arose between Lanfranc and Anselm in the mid-1070s provides compelling evidence for the centrality of Augustine’s authority for Lanfranc. In the 1070s, Anselm sent his rst treatise to Lanfranc to request his former master’s comments and a title. We do not have Lanfranc’s reply.42 But in a later

38 “Voluerunt alii apostoli ut titus circum[ci]deretur, propter vitandum scandalum qui ex circumcisione crediderant, sed non permisit apostolus [eum, R, fol. 65r] circumcidi, propter quosdam falsos christianos qui clam conversabantur, inter deles, ut explorarent libertatem eorum qui circumcisionem et alias carnales observationes non curabant et ad hoc explorabant, ut eam libertatem aliqua calliditate destruerent, et legales observationes persuaderent.” A on Gal. 2.3, fol. 80v. Circumcision is qualied here as “circumcisionem et alias carnales observationes” but later it is described as “. . . sine circumcisione et aliis observationibus legalibus. . . .” A on Gal. 2.5, fol. 81r. See also gloss on Gal. 2.21 quoted in n. 31. 39 Southern, Saint Anselm, 57; De corpore, P.L. 150, 417. 40 Gibson, Lanfranc, 43; Gibson, “Lanfranc’s Notes on Patristic Texts”; Southern, Saint Anselm, 57–9; Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury, 206–9. 41 Lanfranc, Epp. 46, 49, Clover and Gibson, eds. and trans., 142–51, 154–61. 42 This correspondence survives in Anselm’s letters, Ep. ad Lanfrancum archiepiscopum, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.5–6; Epp. 72, 74, 77, 83, Schmitt, ed., vol. 3.193–208. On these

augustine’s authority

173

letter to Lanfranc, Anselm set forth a defense of his work by claiming it had been based entirely upon the authority of Augustine: I can nd nothing in my own work, wrote Anselm, that I cannot nd in Augustine’s.43 Presumably, Lanfranc’s criticism had provoked this response, citing Anselm’s writing as independent from the fathers, particularly Augustine, and suggesting another method for conveying the theological content of the work. Anselm ignored Lanfranc’s advice, kept the work as it was, and titled it, appropriately, Monologion. Anselm selected Lanfranc as the treatise’s rst reader, trusting him to judge and title it. Anselm’s respect for his teacher is evident, as is his surprise at Lanfranc’s criticism. Anselm plausibly based his rst theological treatise upon, and defended it according to, the authority most esteemed by his “lord and father.” The philosophies of Lanfranc and Anselm were not divided in their appreciation of Augustine, but in how they used patristic sources in combination with the arts in theological inquiry. Lanfranc’s approach was literal: patristic sources were cited, and the arts were always subordinate to them. In spite of Anselm’s defense of his own methods, Lanfranc could easily have failed to see the fathers’ inuence in Anselm’s more independent methodology where reason guided the questioner, and authorities were rarely cited.44 The Monologion and the other treatises that followed from Anselm’s pen were soon to cause a stir in the schools of northern Europe. Lanfranc characteristically saw only the dangers inherent to this new approach. In the prologue to the Monologion, Anselm defended himself against charges (probably Lanfranc’s) of being a “modernizer.”45 In the Pauline commentary, Lanfranc criticized the false teachers’ hunger for “modern” methods.46 The methodology with authoritative, theological sources that Lanfranc tested in the commentary, and was also supported in other

letters, see Southern, Saint Anselm, 71–3; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 208–11; Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury, 129–31. 43 Anselm, Ep. 77, Schmitt, ed., vol. 3.199–200. 44 Southern, Saint Anselm, 118–20; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 210; Gasper, Anselm of Canterbury, 10–2, 130. 45 “Quapropter si cui videbitur, quod in eodem opusculo aliquid protulerim, quod aut nimis novum sit aut a veritate dissentiat: rogo, ne statim me aut praesumptorem novitatum aut falsitatis assertorem exclamet, sed prius libros praefati doctoris Augustini De trinitate diligenter perspiciat, deinde secundum eos opusculum meum diiudicet.” Anselm, Monologion, Prologus, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.8. 46 “Leves, instabiles, nova semper audire desiderantes.” A on II Tim. 4.3, fol. 130v.

174

chapter five

known facts of his life, was very much tied to his attitudes regarding the arts and their use. In the commentary, Lanfranc’s reliance upon the Ad Galatas led to a reevaluation of St. Paul. Former conclusions were altered, and, consequently, new issues were explored. As Lanfranc departed from his initial preoccupation with the Old Testament law and people, his focus was redirected toward the church. He started to test the limits of human growth, post-grace, and the incorporation of the individual Christian into the corporate body of the church. “Fides et bona opera” continued as Lanfranc’s formula for how the human must live before God, in complete faith in Christ and with proper moral choices manifested in deeds.47 In Romans, this paradigm was as functional for the Jew as the Christian. In the second half of the commentary, Lanfranc became exclusively interested in the meaning of faith and its relation to works within the church. Faith and works were specied as the work of God, not the individual: This is the reason no one can boast before God because of his own works. It is as if he should say: he fashioned and created us in the faith of Jesus Christ and in good works, which he has prepared in us through his grace.48

The idea of grace as the operative force in human belief and action was unexplored earlier in the commentary, but here grace was dened as the cause of faith, and faith was plainly described as the foundation of good works. In Hebrews 3.14, “initium substantiae” was glossed as “he calls faith substance, because it provides sure support as a foundation, that is, it underlies good works.”49 While a formula such as “faith and good works” remained a constant in the commentary, Lanfranc was discovering and experimenting with different theological specications that signicantly altered familiar themes. Lanfranc now dened the Christian’s growth as necessarily assisted by grace and the Holy Spirit, and the Christian’s goal as a mature

47 “Quia inquit dem et bona opera deus dedit nobis. . . .” A on Eph. 2.11, fol. 90r. “Vel si lios in de christi religiosos nutrierit, vel per bona opera.” A on I Tim. 2.15, fol. 121v. “id est, evanescamus de et bonis operibus.” A on Heb. 2.1, fol. 137v. 48 “Ratio cur ex operibus suis nemini sit gloria [gloriandum, R, fol. 72v] dei. Quasi diceret. Ipse fecit et creavit nos in de iesu christi, et in operibus bonis, quae per gratiam suam praeparavit nobis. . . .” A on Eph. 2.9, fol. 90r. 49 “Substantiam vocat dem, quia ipsa velut fundamentum bonis operibus subsistit, id est subiacet.” A on Heb. 3.14, fol. 140r.

augustine’s authority

175

faith and attendant good works. Lanfranc extended the effects of grace even further: good works produced knowledge of God. To Lanfranc the primary indicator of human perfection or imperfection was one’s relative distance from knowledge of Christ. A theory for human knowledge was developing in the commentary that culminated in the Hebrews glosses with an extended exposition of allegory’s operation on the human intellect. Despite Lanfranc’s condence, derived from his sources, in the Christian’s growth in faith and works, perfect knowledge of Christ remained incomplete in this life. The Christian awaited ultimate perfection in all things, particularly “in agnitione dei,” until the future life.50 Although Lanfranc did not develop the themes of Theodore’s theory of the two ages, these glosses may have been inuenced by Theodore’s language of mutability and perfection from one age to another, of struggle here and peace there.51 In Philippians 3.12, the Apostle claimed that even he was not yet perfect: “Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect: but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend that in which I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus.” Lanfranc glossed “aut iam perfectus sim” as “in cognitione dei.”52 Even for Paul, perfect understanding of God was incomplete but depended upon good works.53 The Apostle, said Lanfranc, imitated Christ in good works, hoping to grasp him as he already grasped us in comprehension, or knowledge.54 After grace and faith, the accomplishment of works was a vital step toward human perfection. Despite his reevaluation of grace, Lanfranc’s exegesis of Paul continued as a fundamentally works-oriented theology. Works were the required manifestation of faith’s presence, as well as the basis for a profound and growing knowledge of God. These theological themes were informed by Lanfranc’s commitment to teaching. The teacher

50 “Quicumque inquit perfecti esse volumus, hoc sentiamus, videlicet [nos, R, fol. 82r] plenam scientiam christi non habere.” A on Phil 3.15, fol. 101v. “Id est si perfectam christi cognitionem [vos, R, fol. 82r] habere putatis, et hoc id est male vos sapere, vobis per misericordiam suam revelabit deus.” A on Phil. 3.15, fol. 101v. 51 “In hac vita intelligendum est, non posse ab homine videri deum. Nam de alia scriptum est. Videbimus eum sicuti est.” A on I Tim. 6.16, fol. 126r. Quoting I Jn. 3.2. “Id est inmutabilitatem. Omnis enim creatura mutabilis est.” Ibid. 52 A on Phil. 3.12, fol. 101r. 53 “Id est quod de christo sapimus, rmiter teneamus et opere compleamus, et subaudis in eo vivamus.” A on Phil 3.16, fol. 101v. 54 “Imitor inquit christum bonis operibus conans si aliquo modo quandoque capiam illum perfecta intellegentia, in qua ipse me cepit in hac vita. Sic alibi. Tunc cognoscam sicut cognitus sum.” A on Phil. 3.12, fol. 101r. Quoting I Cor. 3.12.

176

chapter five

was the spiritual father, and his ultimate goal was the ordered life of the student. For the student of the commentary, this process was most tangible in study, in devotion to scriptural reading. Lanfranc viewed his responsibility toward his students as greater than imparting scholarly knowledge. Knowledge must serve as an improvement to the conditions of their vocation, impelling them from the simplest introduction of faith and cursory observance, toward the “ratio” of that faith and the perfect disposition of life.55 This was the goal of scripture studies, achieved not merely through study, but through assent in faith and deed. The commentary’s objective was to assist the student in the program of Christian living: “In knowledge of God, man is renewed to the image of God . . . namely, to be rational. . . .”56 Lanfranc’s conclusions regarding the individual led to reections concerning the church: “The church of God is a pillar comprised of great men who sustain others. . . .”57 Lanfranc played with notions of the individual versus the group, and perfection versus imperfection, in his comparison of the individual and the church. Attaining the perfection of Christ was as much the true vocation of the church as of the individual. Lanfranc highlighted the image of Ephesians 4.13, “in virum perfectum.” On the judgment day, each Christian possessing the same faith and knowledge will attain the perfection of Christ, and all Christians together will become “one perfect man, or one church.”58 Lanfranc visualized the church’s unity and perfection in Paul’s language of the body.59 The church is the body of Christ but is

55 “Lac est brevis insinuatio dei et facilis observantia morum. Solidus cibus est ratio ipsius dei et perfecta institutio vitae.” A on Heb. 5.12, fol. 143r. 56 “In agnitione dei renovatur homo ad imaginem dei. Haec est imago dei, ad quam deus creavit hominem, ut videlicet rationalis esset, et caelestia semper diligeret.” A on Col. 3.10, fol. 107r. 57 “Ecclesia dei in magnis viris columna est, qui alios sustinent in eisdem etiam rmamentum veritatis, quia ipsi verbis et miraculis evangelii veritatem conrmant.” A on I Tim. 3.15, fol. 122r. 58 “Ordo. Donec omnes nos in unitate dei et agnitionis lii dei, in hoc saeculo subsistentes, occurramus in virum perfectum. Diem iudicii signicat, quo omnes qui nunc habemus unam dem et unam agnitionem lii dei, sic ex diversis mundi partibus ocurremus in invicem, ut quisque perfectus sit vir, habens eam etatem qua [quam, R, fol. 74v] christus de hoc saeculo transiit, et resurrexit. Hoc est quod dicit. In mensuram etatis plenitudinis christi, id est in qua etate christus plenitudinis [ plenitudinem, R, fol. 74v] habuit, et annorum et corporis. Potest intelligi, occursuros nos in virum perfectum, ut omnes simul simus unus vir perfectus, id est, una aeccelsia, cui nil desit, et cui nil postea sit addendum.” A on Eph. 4.13, fol. 92v. 59 “Propter hoc christus diversis diversa dedit, ut perfecte quisque exercere posset opus ministerii quod accepit. Si enim unus accepisset omnia non perfecte posset vacare,

augustine’s authority

177

awaiting its ultimate resurrection and immortality.60 Like the individual, the church here and now must build itself up in faith and works by means of those individuals whose ministries are exercised in service to the church. Lanfranc advocated the harmonious arrangement of the universal church and of his own community simultaneously. He was reecting upon his own role as teacher, placing his study of the epistles within the service due to the community of God: And he gave some indeed apostles, and some prophets, and others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edication of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4.11–2).

In the Hebrews glosses, Lanfranc taught that truth can only be perceived through allegory. Through allegorical interpretation of the scriptures, the student moved from simple to advanced knowledge. This was framed within the sacred author’s criticism of the Hebrews’ spiritual immaturity. They had become “weak to hear,” required instruction again in “rst rudiments,” and had “need of milk, and not of solid food” (Hebrews 5.11–4). Lanfranc glossed these verses by contrasting the Hebrews’ simple understanding of “literal statements” with advanced “expositions of the mysteries and allegories.”61 Elementary knowledge implied a simple recitation of the basic tenets of faith without a deeper understanding, but allegory illuminated the profundity of these very doctrines. The sacred author’s dilemma was

ad singula. Quod autem opus sit, ministerii sanctorum, quibus spirituales gratiae, a christo collectae sunt, subiungit dicens. In edicationem corporis christi. Ad hoc enim spiritualia carismata dantur eis, ut corpus christi, id est aecclesiam edicent.” A on Eph. 4.12, fol. 92v. “Exponit modum huius edicationis. Si enim pro communi utilitate quod non t nisi sola caritate operari renuit.” A on Eph. 4.16, fol. 93r. 60 “Corpus eius sumus, similitudinem naturae et participationem gratiae spiritus suscipientes, et corpus unum erimus omnes, quia communem suscipiemus resurrectionem, et inmortalitatem, in ordine vero caput nobis christus erit, ex quo omnis causa secundae regenerationis in nos derivasse videtur.” A on Eph. 1.23, fol. 89v. “[Plenitudo, R, fol. 72r] christi est aecclesia, quia in ea, et per eam adduntur membra christo, id est, deles.” A on Eph. 1.23, fol. 89v. 61 “elementa” is glossed as “litterales prolationes,” A on Heb. 5.12, fol. 142v. “Exordium sermonum dei, vocat simbolum christianae dei. Quod non solum non intelligebant, sed nec ipsam litteraturam qua profertur, memoriter sciebant.” A on Heb. 5.12 fol. 143r. “Quicunque doctor indeles convertit ad dem, hoc imprimis fundamentum menti eorum iacit, dicens oportere eos peccatorum suorum penitere, in deum credere, in remissionem peccatorum baptizari, pro accipiendis sancti spiritus donis impositione manuum episcopi conrmari, resurrectionis, et iudicii diem praestolari.” A on Heb. 6.1, fol. 143r.

178

chapter five

in addressing this audience about the meaning of Christ’s priesthood, which could only be perceived by allegory, the very method they were not prepared to receive.62 Once again, failure to understand affected not only inward perception, but external comportment. The Hebrews had even fallen away from simple doctrine and basic good behavior when they should have already achieved comprehension of their faith and innate moral attitude and behavior.63 Their potential apostasy was framed sacramentally; they would be cut off from their baptism and, most dramatically, they risked spurning God’s Word, which they had tasted in his body and blood.64 The author called the Hebrews both “to be renewed” (6.6) and “to go on” (6.1), to enter with Christ behind the veil and into the depths of God’s truth.65 The allegorical themes of Hebrews called Lanfranc to a new type of exegetical method that differed from his natural inclination and abilities. His glosses indicate a fundamental interest in the philological and logical dimensions of the scriptural text, an ability that the authentic works of St. Paul brought out naturally.66 Theology and its methods were an acquired skill, but here his sources assisted him. As discussed earlier, the Ad Galatas promoted a method for discerning Christian 62 “Si inquit vellemus vobis exponere cur christus secundum ordinem melchisedech pontifex factus est, grandis nobis sermo esset necessarius et interpretabilis id est multas habens expositiones misteriorum, et allegoriarum.” A on Heb. 5.11, fol. 142v. “Hoc inrmis praecipue congruit, ut pauca quidem et quae capere praevalent audiant sed quae eorum mentem in penitentiae dolorem conpungant. Nam si eis uno in tempore exortationis sermo fuerit multipliciter dictus, quia multa retinere non valent, simul amittunt omnia.” A on Heb. 13.22, fol. 161r. 63 “Lac est brevis insinuatio dei et facilis observantia morum. Solidus cibus est ratio ipsius dei et perfecta institutio vitae.” A on Heb. 5.12, fol. 143r. “expers est sermonis iustitiae” is glossed as “id est doctrinae perfectae vitae.” A on Heb. 5.13, fol. 143r. 64 “Rationem reddit cur non expediat primam dem relinquere et in peccata cadere. Non enim revertentes iam ultra baptizari possunt, in remissionem peccatorum sicut prius.” A on Heb. 6.4, fol. 143r. See also Ambrose gloss on Heb. 6.2, fol. 143r. “bonum Dei verbum” is glossed “id est patris, quod in perceptione corporis et sanguinis eius gustatur.” A on Heb. 6.5, fol. 143v. “In semetipsis crucigerunt lium dei, et ostentui, id est contumeliae habent, qui gratiam eius vilipendentes in peccatis iacent.” A on Heb. 6.6, fol. 143v. 65 “Spes nostra usque ad praesentiam dei incedit, quam signicabant interiora velaminis.” A on Heb. 6.19, fol. 144v. 66 Lanfranc’s use of allegorical exposition was not absent from the earlier sections of the commentary, but neither was it common. A rare allegorical statement from the Romans commentary is one of that book’s nicer moments: “Adam forma christi fuit, quia sicut ille pater omnium secundum carnem, sic christus pater delium secundum dem, et sicut ex latere adae formata est eva, sic ex latere christi prouxerunt sacramenta per quae salvatur aecclesia.” A on Rom. 5.14, fol. 17r. See also the gloss unique to manuscript A, on Rom. 1.20. Quoted on p. 69.

augustine’s authority

179

doctrine in Old Testament images. The commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia represented an articulate defense of the Antiochene point of view, which disapproved of the type of allegorical methods advocated by Augustine. For Theodore, the spiritual understanding of the Old Testament was not fundamental to the formulation of Christian theology. It was preferable, wrote Theodore, to elucidate the historical meaning of an Old Testament passage and relate it to the New Testament, as a comparison of two like things. As in the Ad Galatas, the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was the locus for Theodore’s promotion of the appropriate method for the Christian exegete: The Apostle does not destroy history, nor does he deny things that had already occurred, but he posits them as they had happened and then applies the historical facts of those things that had happened to his own use. . . .67

Theodore was underscoring that in the comparison of facts, past and present, the factuality of the past must be upheld. The Old Testament events were not merely signicative images posed as exegetical fodder for the Christian exegete. The historical value they held in their own right must be maintained. According to Theodore, this comparison of two historical events, past and future, was the true meaning of the Apostle’s use of the word “allegory.”68 Lanfranc did not quote the methodological premise of Theodore’s commentary, distinguish it from Augustine’s, or articulate one as his own.69 Theodore and Augustine were quoted indiscriminately as they sorted through the signs and meanings of St. Paul’s allegorical usage.70 Lanfranc repeatedly paused at the Apostle’s use of allegory to decipher their possible meanings in his own glosses.71 By the point of the Hebrews commentary, his glosses indicate an increased interest in the association of symbols and meaning, and a willingness to engage in this type of interpretation. Both Theodore and Augustine pointed Lanfranc in this direction by distinguishing Old Testament gures 67

Theodore, In ep. ad Gal., 4.24, 73–4. Cited in Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 108. This discussion follows Greer, 105–11. 68 Theodore, In ep. ad Gal., 4.24, 79. 69 Beyond citing a vocabulary for the allegorical approach: “Exemplar vocatur, et illud quod t, et illud ad cuius similitudinem aliquid t, sicut species, imago, similitudo.” A on Heb. 8.5, fol. 147v. 70 As for example, throughout Gal. 4.24 ff. A, fols. 85r–85v. 71 A on Eph. 3.18 ff., fol. 91r; A on Eph. 6.17–9, fol. 96v; A on Phil. 3.2, fol. 100v; A on I Thes. 5.3, fol. 114v; A on Heb. 13.11, fol. 160r.

180

chapter five

and the New Testament truths they signied, but Lanfranc’s methodological choice was Augustine’s.72 For the rst time, in the Hebrews commentary, Lanfranc sustained a theological argument based upon allegorical interpretation. Allegory assisted Christological formulation, something with which he had not yet contended. Allegory also permitted a new evaluation of the Old Testament, at once enabling him to accommodate his previous view of the Old Testament to his patristic sources, while simultaneously retaining his personal belief in the value of the Old Testament law and Jewish people. An unfamiliar and newly adopted method resolved many of the complexities raised by Lanfranc’s discordant sources. Lanfranc’s commentary was a search for the meaning of faith. Although his sources led him to adopt, and then abandon, various denitions, this was the objective of his exegetical project from the rst page of Romans. The commentary’s discussion of faith had been largely theoretical, treating in passing the content of faith. Lanfranc is seen at his best in the book of Hebrews. He had resolved the differences between Augustine and Ambrose to his satisfaction, dened those issues that most piqued his interest in St. Paul, and acquired facility with the allegorical method of exegesis and theological inquiry. Before Hebrews, Lanfranc had written few glosses that treated Christological issues, none of which moved beyond a simple restatement of creedal language and concepts. Christ was “born before every creature; indeed, ‘through him

72 Lanfranc may have taken Theodore’s admonitions to heart in considering the allegory of Ephesians 5.32–3, comparing the relationship between husband and wife to that of Christ and the church. For Lanfranc, the crux of the allegory was “the two will become one esh.” Christ and his spouse, the church, become one esh in the eucharist, which is itself the same esh that Christ assumed from the Virgin. The institution of marriage is considered “ad litteram,” as societal custom. Although marriage refers to Christ and the church, its moral and historical meaning must not be ignored. “Quod de viro et uxore dicit, ad litteram intelligendum est, secundum saeculi consuetudinem et spiritualiter de christo et aecclesia. Patrem christus relinquere visus est, quando semetipsum exinavit servi formam accipiens. Matrem, id est sinagogam, ex qua natus est, reliquit quando ipsa in sua indelitate persistente, ad praedicandum gentibus, apostolos misit, et ex eorum conversione aecclesiae congregate quasi sponsus adhesit. Cum qua unitus est in carne una, quia carnem quam de virgine sumpsit, in missarum celebritatibus cotidie aecclesia sumit.” A on Eph. 5.32, fol. 95v. “Quasi diceret. Quamvis sacramentum hoc in christo, et aecclesia spiritualiter intelligat, verumtamen vos a morali historiae intellectu nolite recedere.” A on Eph. 5.33, fol. 95v. The reading in R is: “Quamvis ego sacramentum hoc in christo et aecclesia spiritualiter intelligam. . . .” fol. 77r.

augustine’s authority

181

all things were made.’ Because the cause precedes the effect.”73 The fundamentals of the Christian religion taught that “the Creator was made a creature, made human from the virgin, and rose again from the dead.”74 In the Hebrews commentary, Lanfranc’s glosses and the excerpts taken from the Ambrose source, now the Latin translation of Chrysostom’s commentary, worked together to dene central tenets of Christian doctrine. In this source, Lanfranc found a commonsensical approach to Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. Chrysostom’s exegesis combined a skilled grammatical, historical approach with a rst-hand view of the theological climate of the fourth century, navigating a middle path between theological extremes.75 Among Lanfranc’s sources, this text would have been the most useful in lling a remaining gap in his exegetical expertise, namely, formulating a doctrine of Christ and the nature of God. In Chrysostom, Lanfranc was introduced to rudimentary Christological and Trinitarian concepts articulated in accepted terminology: “The Son is begotten from the very essence of the Father,” of one “substance” with him. God and man became “one person” in the incarnation.76 Chrysostom elucidated a number of introductory articles of faith: the impassibility of Christ’s divine nature compared to the passibility of his human nature; Christ’s likeness to us in all things except the taint or penalty of sin; the meaning of Christ’s priesthood to human salvation.77 It seems inconceivable that a commentator would make a start in the Pauline corpus without a rm grasp of a basic theological vocabulary. Nevertheless, since Lanfranc only developed these ideas in the Hebrews glosses, and only when they were echoed in the Chrysostom commentary, it would seem that Lanfranc again neglected fundamentals of exegetical inquiry until his source pointed the way. Characteristically,

73 “Id est genitus ante omnem creaturam. Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt. Causa namque praecedit effectum.” A on Col. 1.15, fol. 104r. Quoting Jn. 1.3. 74 “Veritas secundum pietatem, id est christianam religionem est creatorem creaturam factum, hominem de virgine factum, mortuum revixisse.” A on Tit. 1.1, fol. 132r. 75 Melvin E. Lawrenz, The Christology of John Chrysostom (Lewiston: 1996). 76 “. . . ex ipsa essentia Patris sit genitus. . . .” Chrysostom, Ad Heb., P.L.100, 1034. “De humanitate ejus dicit, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem; non de divinitate, quae non est facta, sed genita a Patre, unius substantiae cum eo. . . .” Ibid., P.L. 100, 1044. “Non enim angelis una dignitas donata est, ut in unam personam Dei Filius eorum naturae conjungeretur; sed hunc honorem et hanc dignitatem humanae naturae Deus Dei Filius contribuit, ut deus et homo una esset persona.” Ibid., P.L. 100, 1042. 77 Ibid., P.L. 100, 1043, 1051, 1065.

182

chapter five

Lanfranc did not risk theological speculation until he could rely upon an authority. However, the Hebrews glosses demonstrate the other component of Lanfranc’s source use that had been well established in the previous epistles’ commentaries. Once his direction was informed by a secondary source, he made uniquely independent statements. If the individual pieces of the Hebrews commentary were not speculative, simply describing the vocabulary and concepts of accepted Christological belief, Lanfranc tted them together to describe the entire theological argument of the epistle in a sophisticated manner that was unrivaled in the rest of the commentary. His purpose was to formulate a theory for the incarnation, constructed in logical steps throughout the epistle’s commentary. In the rst two chapters of Hebrews, Lanfranc began with a simple denition of Jesus as both human and divine. The Chrysostom and Lanfranc glosses united to dene the way language could or could not be used about Christ and the Trinity. For example, one might say that Jesus is both heir, according to his humanity, and creator, according to his divinity.78 Or, the members of the Trinity are rightly called “persona,” sharing the same “substantia” or “essentia.”79 This terminology established certain truths about Christ to be illuminated in the later allegorical exposition of Melchisedech. Lanfranc relied upon the obscure discussion of angels in chapters one and two to establish the purpose of the incarnation. Formerly, God had spoken to humans by the agency of angels, but now he has sent his Son. The incarnation was the fundamental difference between God’s presence then and now. God was not only present in a different way, but with a different effect. First, in contrast to the angels, God was substantially present in Christ. The Old Testament scriptures were given through angels to Moses, “but God did not speak to him through God’s own substance [ per propriam

78 “secundum quod homo est.” A on Heb. 1.2, fol. 136v. “secundum quod deus est.” A on Heb. 1.2, fol. 136v. Also: “Unctus christus et regem signicavit et sacerdotem, sed illa natura unctus christus dicitur qua natus et passus. . . .” A on Heb. 1.9, fol. 137r. Ambrose gloss. “Unus enim est deus, a quo omnia, sed aliter ille, aliter nos, ille quasi proprius lius, nos adoptivi.” A on Heb. 2.11, fol. 138v. Ambrose gloss. “In eo quod dixit. Non erubescit fratres eos vocare ostendit non naturae esse fraternitatem nostram, sed misericordiae eius, et humilitatis multae.” A on Heb. 2.11, fol. 138v. Ambrose gloss. 79 “eadem est substantia patris et lii.” A on Heb. 1.3, fol. 136v. “Merito eum splendorem dicit, qui est lux mundi, lumen de lumine. Insinuans nobis patrem. Per splendorem autem unitatem declaravit essentiae, et duas aperuit personas, et gloria, et splendore.” A on Heb. 1.3, fol. 136v. Ambrose gloss.

augustine’s authority

183

substantiam], rather angels did so on God’s behalf [in persona dei ].”80 Second, the angels could not save men, only the incarnate Christ was “the author of salvation” (Hebrews 2.10).81 Lanfranc established several fundamental points about the humanity of Christ in order to dene the role of the incarnation in salvation: First, in his humanity, Christ had to be like us in all things except in our capacity to sin: “Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of esh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same” (Hebrews 2.14).82 Second, Christ shared our conditions in order to assist us: “In the esh he suffered and was tempted, and so he is able to help those who are tempted in the esh.”83 Third, and essentially, Christ was like us, and assisted us, by sharing our capability to die:

80 “Veteris testamenti legem dicit quae per angelos data est moysi. Non enim deus per propriam substantiam loquebatur ei, sed angeli in persona dei.” A on Heb. 2.2, fol. 137v. The Ad Galatas inuenced Lanfranc here: “Per angelos autem ministrata est omnis dispensatio veteris testamenti agente in eis spiritu sancto et ipso verbo veritatis nondum incarnato, sed numquam ab aliqua veridica administratione recedente. Quia per angelos disposita est illa dispensatio legis, cum aliquando suam, aliquando dei personam. . . .” Augustine, Ad Gal., 3.19–20, 88. 81 “Adhuc persistit in eodem volens probare differentius prae angelis christum nomen habere.” A on Heb. 1.5, fol. 137r. “introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae” is glossed as “introducit, id est incarnari constituit.” A on Heb. 1.6, fol. 137r. “Incarnatum verbum adorare ammonendi erant angeli. In ipsa enim divinitate admonitionis non indigebant.” A on Heb. 1.6, fol. 137r. “Filius solus salvat. Isti saluti praedestinatorum deserviunt. Nam angelum ad mariam legimus missum pastoribus etiam et mulieribus in resurrectione angeli apparaverunt.” A on Heb. 1.14, fol. 137v. Ambrose gloss. “Propterea quia tantam curam deus habuit et habet de nobis ut et lium suum incarnari pro nobis faceret et angelos suos in ministerium nostrum cotidie mittat, abundantius oportet et cetera.” A on Heb. 2.1, fol. 137v. “Per hoc signicat quia non erat tanta salus in veteri testamento. Illa enim temporalis haec perpetua.” A on Heb. 2.3, fol. 137v. Ambrose gloss. “visitavit cum verbum caro factum est.” A on Heb. 2.6, fol. 138r. Ambrose gloss. Quoting Jn. 1.14. 82 Glossed as “id est veri homines” and “id est verus homo factus est.” A on Heb. 2.14, fol. 138v. “Benedixit paulominus quia etsi mortale corpus assumpsit tamen peccatum non habuit.” A on Heb. 2.7, fol. 138r. Ambrose gloss. “Ordo, temptatum per omnia absque peccato.” A on Heb. 4.15, fol. 141v. “Id est, secundum similitudinem videlicet secundum carnem, quia in similitudinem hominum factus est. Vel pro similitudine, id est, pro exemplo dando delibus ut et ipsi absque consensu peccati temptentur, observantes ne inducantur in temptationem. Vel ita. Pro similitudine, id est propter similitudinem propter carnem scilicet quam ingerebat. Nisi enim aliis hominibus similis esset temptare eum diabolus non auderet.” A on Heb. 4.15, fol. 141v. “Similitudinem carnis peccati habuit, quae tamen caro illius absque omni peccato fuit.” A on Heb. 4.15, fol. 141v. Ambrose gloss. 83 “In carne passus est, et temptatus, et in carne temptatis potest auxiliari.” A on Heb. 2.18, fol. 139r. “In eo id est in homine in quo passus est potest temptatos adiuvare ne vincantur, quia temptationes nostras sicut homo in seipso per experimentum cognovit.” A on Heb. 2.18, fol. 139r. Ambrose gloss.

184

chapter five He proves the earlier case that Christ was made man so he would be able to die. If he had not planned to die for human salvation, yet wanted to appear to men, he would have assumed not human but angelic form in which he would have spoken.84

Finally, the purpose for the incarnation and death of Christ were dened jointly. Christ’s humanity was intrinsic to his ability to die, and then associated with his ability to forgive sins when Lanfranc glossed “a body thou hast tted to me” as “that is, you have made me able to redeem sins.”85 Hebrews 2.16 concluded the case built in the preceding verses: “For nowhere doth he take hold of the Angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.” Christ became incarnate in contrast to the angels’ ministry and to save humans. Conrmation of this point directed inquiry to the meaning of Christ’s priesthood. The intertwined meaning of the incarnation and Christ’s ability to save is shrouded in the allegorical reference to his priesthood: “Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like to his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest with God, to expiate the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2.17). All of this directed Lanfranc’s argument toward the ultimate point of the Hebrews commentary, that is, the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of the Levites. Points made in Hebrews about the agency of angels, Moses, and the promises of the Old Testament were all interpreted allegorically to demonstrate the excellence of Christ, and, consequently, the superiority of the New Testament. The old promises were earthly and temporal; the new are celestial and eternal. The earlier promises merely signied the eternal promises of the New Testament.86 For Lanfranc, Melchisedech was the ultimate allegorical 84 “Probat superiorem causam, quia ideo homo factus est ut mori posset. Nisi enim pro humana salute mori disponeret, apparere volens hominibus non hominem sed angelum in quo loqueretur assumeret.” A on Heb. 2.16, fol. 139r. Quoting Heb. 2.14. 85 “corpus autem aptasti mihi” is glossed as “id est aptum ad redimenda peccata fecisti.” A on Heb. 10.5, fol. 151r. Also: “purgationem peccatorum” is glossed as “vel in passione vel patri exibitione carnis suae.” A on Heb. 1.3, fol. 136v. “Decebat inquit deum patrem, ut per mortem consummaret christum, auctorem salutis humanae. Cur autem decuerit multis causis praetermissis, duas paulopost dicit. Ut per mortem destrueret, et cetera.” A on Heb. 2.10, fol. 138v. Quoting Heb. 2.14–5. 86 “in requiem ipsius” is glossed as “id est in terram promissionis” and “id est in eternam requiem quam superior requies praesignabat.” A on Heb. 4.1, fol. 140v. “subaudis in novo testamento” and “subaudis in veteri” A on Heb. 4.2, fol. 140v. “Hoc est requies quae promittitur sanctis, videlicet caelestis et ineffabilis dei suavitas” and “Hoc est requies quae promissa est iudeis, id est terra promissionis.” A on Heb. 4.5, fol. 141r. “Probat duas esse requies. Unam terranam quae promissa est iudeis, alteram celestem

augustine’s authority

185

example of Christ’s excellence, directing the human understanding to the truth of Christ as both divine and human, and to his consequent ability to save humans. Since Melchisedech was an allegory for Christ, Lanfranc looked for opportunities to describe Christ’s nature in the clues provided. Priesthood in general nds its meaning in sacrice, and Christ as priest fullled this: He returns to the earlier sentence: ‘For he did this once, by offering himself up.’ It is as if he said this is the reason he offered himself up, ‘For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrices.’87

But the image of Melchisedech conducts human perception far beyond the general meaning of priesthood or the sacricial action of the Levitical order: If then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7.11).88

The meaning of Melchisedech’s priesthood referred to the incarnation, to the very points established in the earlier chapters. Melchisedech communicated the truth of Christ’s humanity and divinity: that he is quae promittitur nobis, et est responsio quasi quis diceret. Cur dixisti. Ingrediemur in requiem cum in illam promissionis terram intrare nobis non tantopere utile sit? Duae inquit res sunt.” A on Heb. 4.4, fol. 140v. “Quia quidam inquit intraturi sunt in requiem dei celestem et hi quibus in deserta annuntiatum est non introierunt quia verbis dei non crediderunt, ammonentur praesentis temporis deles ne obdurent corda sua verbis dei, sicut obduraverunt superiores increduli. Eos enim notat cum dicit. Nolite obdurare corda vestra.” A on Heb. 4.6, fol. 141r. Quoting Heb. 3.8. 87 “Ad superiorem sententiam redit. Hoc enim fecit semel se offerendo. Quasi diceret. Rationis fuit quod se obtulit, quia omnis pontifex ad offerenda, et cetera.” A on Heb. 8.3, fol. 147r. Quoting Heb. 7.27. “Ratio cur christus seipsum obtulerit. Si inquit esset super terram, quod pro peccatis totius mundi digne posset offerri, non esset sacerdos offerre dignus, et ideo mundus bene optulit mundum.” A on Heb. 8.4, fol. 147r. “Quasi diceret. Non est difdendum quin per hunc ponticem misericordiam et gratiam consequamur quia alii etiam pontices qui puri homines sunt ad haec impetranda hominibus constituti sunt.” A on Heb. 5.1, fol. 142r. “Ponit hic apostolus quaedam communia christo cum sacerdotibus quaedam vero altiora. Hoc commune est pro omnibus constituitur ut offerat pro peccatis.” A on Heb. 5.1, fol. 142r. Ambrose gloss. 88 “Ratio cur secundum ordinem melchisedech pontifex factus sit christus, non secundum ordinem leviticum videlicet quia maioris dignitatis est melchisedech.” A on Heb. 7.1, fol. 144v. “Sacricium iudeorum vocat saeculare, vel quia transitorium erat, sicut omnia quae huius saeculi sunt, vel quia in modum temporis singulis annis eadem repetebantur.” A on Heb. 9.1, fol. 148v. “Probat sacricium iudeorum fuisse saeculare.” A on Heb. 9.2, fol. 148v.

186

chapter five

without beginning or end, without father (according to his humanity), without mother (according to his divinity), and without genealogy.89 Melchisedech also signied that Christ is eternal: But he, because he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood. Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that approach to God by himself: always living to make intercession for us. For it was tting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undeled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7.24–5).90

The gure of Melchisedech referred to the true meaning of Christ’s conjoined humanity and divinity. Christ was born human, so he could die; yet, he is eternal God, so he can give eternal life.91 Lanfranc believed allegory was best suited to conduct the human intellect to such a paradox and to demonstrate that the priesthood of the incarnate Christ replaced the Levitical priesthood.92 Lanfranc demonstrated this by contrasting the priestly, sacricial function of Melchisedech, the Levites, and Christ: the temple sacrices of the Levites have given way to the eucharist, which was pregured by Melchisedech’s offering of bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14.18).93 89 “Quasi diceret. Per hoc non possumus approbare melchisedech fuisse immortalem quia decimas ab abraham accepit, quia hic etiam, id est in lege et sacerdotio levitico morientes homines decimas accipiunt. Sed ibi hoc est ubi sine patre et matre sine initio et ne dierum scriptura eum commemorat, aperte contestatur ipsa scriptura quia vivit et viventem et inmortalem signicat.” A on Heb. 7.8, fol. 145v. “Non revera sine patre et matre fuit, nec revera initio et ne dierum caruit, sed unde et quando ortus sit vel quando obierit scriptura non commemorat. Illum namque signicabat qui revera nec patrem secundum humanitatem nec matrem nec initium vel nem secundum divinitatem habiturus erat.” A on Heb. 7.3, fol. 145r. 90 “Melchisedech non mansit in perpetuum, sed sacerdotalis eius constitutio manet in perpetuum.” A on Heb. 7.3, fol. 145r. 91 “Christus non est factus sacerdos secundum legem iudeorum quae carnales observationes praecipiebat, quia non est de tribu levi, unde eligi sacerdotes lex ipsa iubebat, sed secundum quod placuit virtuti divinitatis suae, in qua et ex qua est vita insolubilis, id est aeterna quae morte interveniente non solvitur. Aliter. Non est factus sacerdos ut in sacriciis observaret vel observari praeciperet carnalia praecepta legis, sed spiritualem intelligentiam quae est virtus per quam datur vita insolubilis. Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivicat.” A on Heb. 7.16, fol. 146r. Quoting II Cor. 3.6. 92 “Probat auctoritate divina, quia secundum similitudinem melchisedech exurrexerit alius sacerdos.” A on Heb. 7.17, fol. 146r. 93 “Melchisedech panem [et vinum, R, fol. 113v] sacricari deo instituit. Quem ritum dominus iesus observavit [et] in aecclesia sua observari praecepit.” A on Heb. 5.6, fol. 142v. “Id est iuxta ordinem et ritum offerendi panem et vinum quod melchisedech primus fecisse legitur, quae tamen in christi carnem et sanguinem convertuntur.” A on Heb. 5.10, fol. 142v. “Quid igitur nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Offerimus, sed ad recordationem mortis eius et una haec est hostia non multae. Hoc autem sacricium exemplar est illius, hoc quod nos facimus in commemorationem t eius

augustine’s authority

187

The Melchisedech allegory signied salvation in Christ and the consequent obliteration of the old rites and promises. Because of the gure of Melchisedech, merely correlating the cross to a general understanding of Old Testament sacrice failed to grasp the profounder meaning that allegory illuminated. Perhaps for this reason, Lanfranc overlooked opportunities to gloss verses in Hebrews that made a strong equation between Christ’s priesthood and sacrice (such as Hebrews 2.17, 7.27, 9.11–4) that another commentator might focus upon. Lanfranc skimmed over these to highlight his preferred example, the “testamentum” analogy of Hebrews 9.15–7, which directly contrasted the temple sacrices of “goats and oxen” to “the blood of Christ.” Here the divine covenant was likened to legal and social institution: “He sets forth the reason for Christ’s death, namely, because a testament was to be established. However a testament is not established apart from the death [of the testator].”94 Christ set up the “testamentum” between God and man, which in turn necessitated Christ’s death. In dying, he bequeathed life to humans. Lanfranc’s argument is elusive, but his point seems to be that one must look beyond the act of sacrice to the Person who was sacriced. This is the Person reected in the Melchisedech allegory, not in the Levitical offerings. The Melchisedech allegory was Lanfranc’s lens for Christological doctrine, demonstrating that the divine Christ took on a body, so he could die, so he could redeem humans from sin, so they could

quod factum est. Hoc facite inquit in meam commemorationem.” A on Heb. 10.11, fol. 151v. Ambrose gloss. Quoting Lk. 22.19. “Per duplicem allegoriam unam veteris et alteram novi testamenti probat corpus christi non esse edendum ab his qui tabernaculo deserviunt. Ad hoc enim corpora animalium extra castra cremabantur et propterea christus extra portam passus est, ut nos qui corpore et sanguine eius a peccatis mundari volumus improperia et angustias passuri, tabernaculi delicias deseramus.” A on Heb. 13.11, fol. 160r. 94 “Exponit causam cur christus mortuus sit, videlicet quia testamentum conditurus erat. Testamentum autem nisi a moriente non conditur.” A on Heb. 9.16, fol. 150r. “Secundum leges saeculi loquitur, in quibus praecipitur vivente testatore testamentum non esse ratum. Est autem testamentum a quo ad divina testamenta similitudinem ducit. Ordinatio hominis praecipientis quid post mortem ipsius de rebus ipsius sit agendum.” A on Heb. 9.16, fol. 150r. Again, Lanfranc’s exegesis of Hebrews nds precedent in Augustine: “Quia cum testator mutat testamentum, non conrmatum mutat, testatoris enim morte conrmatur.” Ad Gal., 3.15–8, 85.

188

chapter five

follow him to heaven.95 Because of the incarnation, Christ saves.96 As directed by the Ad Galatas, Lanfranc found a sustained theological argument based upon an allegorical image. This method also had the effect of distancing the two testaments and their promises. As a result, the commentary substituted many of its idiosyncratic characteristics for a mainstream analysis of the relationship of the two testaments. Allegory necessarily altered Lanfranc’s view of the law, reducing the Old Testament to a shadow and copy of what is real (Hebrews 8.5, 10.1). Lanfranc’s emphasis on the imperfection of the law became pronounced. In Hebrews, guided by the sacred author, Lanfranc proved the inferiority of the old priesthood and the necessity of its transferal, and, according to the rules of logic, what was said of the priesthood must also be said of its law: “For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law” (Hebrews 7.12).97 Fundamentally, the law could not save “perfectly,” could not take sin away completely, and thus the need for a second testament existed.

95 “Sanguinem more suo vocat mortem, per quam christus de mortuis resurrexit. Nisi enim moreretur, nec ad inferos descenderet, nec ab inferis ascenderet.” A on Heb. 13.20, fol. 160v. “. . . Et consummatus, id est perfectus, vel ab hoc saeculo mortuus, factus est causa salutis humanae, omnibus obtemperantibus sibi. Per dem enim passionis et resurrectionis illius salvantur credentes.” A on Heb. 5.9, fol. 142v. “Id est perfectus et sufciens ad salutem aeternam omnium credentium.” A on Heb. 5.9, fol. 142v. Ambrose gloss. “destructionem id est peccatorum omnia enim peccata destruxit in iis qui credituri erant.” A on Heb. 9.26, fol. 150v. “Sine peccato dicit sine similitudine carnis peccati. In primo enim adventu suo, dominus talem carnem gestavit qualem et ceteri homines qui peccatores erant. In secundo vero in tanta gloria caro eius apparebit, quanta nec excogitari nec explicari ab aliquo mortalium potest. Potest etiam intelligi sine peccato, sine hostia pro peccato. Non enim tunc apparebit ut peccata purget, sed damnet.” A on Heb. 9.28, fol. 151r. 96 “Ordo. Quam viam novam, quia nullus hominum ante illum caelum ascendit. Et viventem, id est, non decientem, permanentem, quia usque in nem saeculi ascensura sunt membra eius, initiavit nobis christus, id est incepit vel dedicavit.” A on Heb. 10.20, fol. 152r. 97 “Si inquit lex consummata, id est perfecta non mutanda, sed usque in nem saeculi permansura erat data per illud tempus quo institutum est, sacerdotium leviticum, cur aliud sacerdotium subrogatur? Quia enim simul et ab eodem et sub eadem sponsione utraque data sunt, quod de uno dicitur, de altero necesse est intelligatur. Tota autem ratio, sic procedit. Si lex erat permansura et sacerdotium. Sed sacerdotium transfertur. Lex igitur necesse est transferatur.” A on Heb. 7.11, fol. 145v. “Probat auctoritate prophetica quia secundi locus inquiritur. Summa disputionis sic se habet. Si prius illud culpa vacasset secundi locus non inquireretur. Sed secundi locus inquiritur. Post vituperans enim et cetera. Prius igitur culpa non vacavit, id est hominem perfecte a culpa liberare non potuit. Sicut econtra de novo mandato dicitur. Mandatum sine macula et lex domini immaculata.” A on Heb. 8.8, fol. 147v. Quoting Heb. 8.7, I Tim. 6.14, Ps. 18(19).8.

augustine’s authority

189

The old law intended to purify its followers, but without really having the ability to do so.98 Its benets were only temporal, not eternal.99 Only the New Testament could completely purify the human in body, mind, and soul; only it could offer heaven.100 Certainly, Lanfranc was still struggling to grasp Augustine: an ‘imperfect perfection’ under the law should hardly matter for a truly Augustinian thinker. Yet, relative to his defense of the law in Romans, this was a large concession on Lanfranc’s part and reected his willingness to accommodate his thinking to his sources. Lanfranc was now absolute that the promises of the Old Testament and the New were distinct, that the New Testament saved and that the Old did not. In spite of this, Lanfranc looked for a way to protect the Old Testament that at once complied with the authority of his patristic sources and satised his earliest wish to recognize the Jews’ faith and status as God’s people. Lanfranc dened faith as: “Faith should be such that it causes the things that should be hoped for to exist in the heart of the 98 “Vetus lex inrma fuit, quia cultoribus suis perfectam iustitiam dare non poterat. Si enim cultores eius perfecti essent, post mortem statim requiem habituri caelum ascenderent. Sed erat per eius observantiam iusticatio nonnulla, peccatorum remissio aliqua, non tamen plena.” A on Heb. 7.18, fol. 146r. “Vel quia legales hostiae peccata cogitationum non purgabant, vel quia ab anima conscientiam perpetrati sceleris perfecte abstergere non poterant.” A on Heb. 9.9, fol. 149r. Interlinear glosses consistently compare the old and the new. For example: “Ad emundationem carnis” is glossed “id est ut caro emundata sit.” “emundabit conscientiam vestram” is glossed “id est animam.” “ab operibus mortuis” is glossed “id est a peccatis.” A on Heb. 9.13–4, fol. 149v. 99 “Inutile fuit post adventum Christi observare ea quae ideo ebant ut ea quae nunc sunt praedicerent esse futura.” A on Heb. 7.18, fol. 146r. “Veteres sacerdotes promittebant cultoribus legis, copiam frugum, longeuam vitam, victoriam inimicorum et cetera his similia. Iesus autem spondet spem, per quam proximamus ad deum, id est vitam aeternam, in qua videbimus deum facie ad faciem. Vel sponsor est novi testamenti, secundum divinitatem quia omnia quae pater facit, et ipse facit.” A on Heb. 7.22, fol. 146v. “Melius testamentum vocat praecepta evangelica, per quorum observantiam promittitur vera iustitia, et vita aeterna, hoc est enim quod sequitur. Quod in melioribus, et cetera.” A on Heb. 8.6, fol. 147v. Again Lanfranc echoed the Ad Galatas, 3.10–2, 78–9. 100 “melioris” is glossed “Id est novi testamenti per cuius observantiam spem habemus eundi ad deum.” A on Heb. 7.19, fol. 146r. “Ipse sanctis suis vitam aeternam ministrat. Unde. Transiens ministrabit eis.” A on Heb. 8.2, fol. 147r. “Id est aecclesiae caelestis, quam iudeorum tabernaculum signicavit.” A on Heb. 8.2, fol. 147r. “Allegoria veteris testamenti, hoc praesens tempus in quo aecclesia christi fundatur, et gratia novi testamenti praedicatur signicat.” A on Heb. 9.9, fol. 149r. “Tempus est correctionis nunc, in quo legales observationes corriguntur.” A on Heb. 9.10, fol. 149r. “Tabernaculum quod christus introiit, vocat caelum quod peramplius et perfectius est, quam illud iudeorum tabernaculum quod vocabant sancta sanctorum.” A on Heb. 9.11, fol. 149r. “Exponit quod superius vocaverit tabernaculum non factum manu, videlicet sancta sanctorum caelestia.” A on Heb. 9.12, fol. 149v.

190

chapter five

believer.”101 The ancient saints could have believed in this way. When Abraham replaced the ram for Isaac, he accepted Christ by faith “in parabolam, id est in allegoriam.” The replacement of the ram for Isaac’s life signied the two natures of the incarnate Christ: as the immolated ram signied Christ’s humanity, so Isaac signied Christ’s divinity, which could not experience death.102 Another allegorical image expressed the truth of Christ’s priesthood, but in this gloss, Lanfranc claimed that the doctrinal impact of allegory was meaningful to the ancients and credited as faith to Abraham. These glosses echoed the concerns of Lanfranc’s Romans commentary. Preceding faith caused the object of hope, Christ, to exist in the heart of the believer. Lanfranc’s attempt to correctly accommodate Augustine continued. Although these glosses did not specify the work of the Holy Spirit in faith, they appeared in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, the litany of Old Testament saints who acted “by faith” yet “did not receive what was promised.” The ancient saints could have preceding faith but could not be saved under the law. Lanfranc tied these themes to his developing emphasis on the imperfection of the law, and the salvation of the individual within the ultimate and corporate body of the church. Faith is credited to all, Christian and Jew, after the work of Christ and at the nal consummation of the saints: “And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise, God providing something better for us, that they should not be perfected without us” (Hebrews 11.39–40). Lanfranc glossed these verses to emphasize the inclusion of all believers

101 “Talis des debet esse ut sperandas res in corde credentis faciat subsistere et si alius dubitet quod sint, argumento possit esse. Quod plerique divini eloquii tractatores fecerunt, probantes resurrectiones corporum et vitam aeternam multaque alia esse vel fuisse ex eo quod patriarchas, prophetas, apostolos, martyres constat ea credidisse.” A on Heb. 11.1, fol. 154r. Lanfranc was still grappling with Augustine here: “Quod quia dicere non possunt, coguntur fateri non legis operibus iusticari hominem, sed de. Simul etiam nos cogit intelligere omnes antiquos, qui iusticati sunt, ex ipsa de iusticatos. Quod enim nos ex parte praeteritum, id est primum adventum domini, ex parte futurum, id est secundum adventum domini credendo salvi efcimur, hoc totum illi, id est utrumque adventum futurum credebant revelante sibi spiritu sancto, ut salvi erent.” Ad Gal., 3.15–8, 85–6. 102 “Aries qui inter vepres herens cornibus repertus est, et Isaac, unum christum, deum et hominem signicant. Per hoc quod aries immolatus est isaac vero morti subtractus, signicatum est, christum secundum carnem passurum, secundum divinitatem vero mortis discrimen non esse sensurum. Et hoc est quod ait. In parabolam, id est in allegoriam eum accepit. Ipsum enim prius ad moriendum dedit, sed post experimentum dei ad vivendum reperto ariete accepit, hoc sibi propter dem et oboedientiam honore collato, ut per lii vitam, divinitatis signicaretur a morte subtractio.” A on Heb. 11.19, fol. 155v.

augustine’s authority

191

in the nal consummation under Christ when perfect blessedness of body and soul awaits the entire people of God together.103 This was a safe and tidy, although incomplete, resolution to Lanfranc’s earlier efforts to dene the salvation of the Jews. These glosses brought Lanfranc full circle to his earliest questions about faith. Lanfranc’s persistence is admirable. His conclusions were anything but static, demonstrating a willingness to be instructed by his sources without abandoning the issues that fundamentally concerned him. The commentary became more complex as it progressed: the number of its sources increased, and Lanfranc’s understanding of them sharpened. Lanfranc was introduced to new methods that augmented his earlier training in the arts and contributed to his abilities as a theologian. The commentary depicts a young thinker’s development from an experienced rhetorician to a competent exegete. Lanfranc’s incorporation of the Ad Galatas was the pivotal moment in this development, introducing him to an authority that could not be disregarded and to a method that must be utilized in the work of theology. In his experimentation with the allegorical themes of Hebrews, Lanfranc’s ultimate abilities as a teacher are detected. His theological argument was not absolutely airtight. He did not, for example, clearly address his fundamental point: Why the incarnation? He indicated that the unity of eternal divinity and mortal humanity in Christ was the answer, but some supporting points remain unclear. For example: Why could Christ’s death save? Might God have accomplished human salvation in some other way? The comparison of Christ to angels was partially developed, and the juridical conditions Lanfranc posed between God and men were incompletely spelled out. In fact, Lanfranc’s exegesis provoked as many questions as it answered. But the theoretical and abstract qualities of his argument must have contributed to interesting lectures and eager questions. As Lanfranc found his exegetical strengths, he ventured into more speculative theological waters, which very likely provoked spirited

103

“Resurrectio corporum, quam sanctis suis promisit deus ideo adhuc differtur, ut simul omnes resurgamus, quatenus in communi gaudio omnium maius at singulorum.” A on 11.39, fol. 157r. “subaudis plenam beatitudine animarum recepta.” A on Heb. 11.39, fol. 157r. “Sanctorum consummatio est corporis et animae.” A on 11.40, fol. 151r. Also: “Christus mortuus est non solum ut gentes sed et iudeos tam vivos quam mortuos ad vitam aeternam praedestinatos a praevaricationibus quas ipsi sub veteri lege commiserant, redimeret.” A on Heb. 9.15, fol. 149v. Lanfranc’s only gloss in Romans regarding the Jews at the endtimes was set within their early belief and salvation under the law, with a somewhat different emphasis. See p. 126, n. 32.

192

chapter five

discussion. Also, his innate strengths in rhetoric and debate endured as a unique characteristic of the commentary. He proceeded from point to point, establishing one before moving on to the next: Christ had a body, made to die, and effecting human salvation, etc. Within his organized logical presentation were compelling theological points, as well as an exhaustive application of the epistle’s argument. Hebrews represents the type of lecture that Lanfranc became capable of delivering, and its glosses justify the reasons for his widespread reputation as an incomparable teacher. In the terse and cryptic notes that systematically built a theological case, one can imagine the appeal his method held, and even the potential it had for inspiration. Anselm’s work is one lasting monument to Lanfranc’s classroom. Lanfranc’s reputation attracted Anselm to Bec and continued to elicit his respect, even after Anselm realized that his abilities had long since eclipsed his master’s. What did Anselm nd in Lanfranc’s classroom? The commentary holds some clues. The personal nature of scriptural studies, starting with faith and yielding to the individual’s growth “in agnitione dei,” was not too distant from Anselm’s more poetic and contemplative approach in his prayers and treatises: “Chew the honeycomb of his words, suck their avor, which is sweeter than honey. . . .”104 Faith is the beginning of understanding. Anselm codied the expression, but Lanfranc could easily have applied the same formula to his commentary.105 He, too, outlined the movement from faith to study to knowledge of God. The two men chose different media for theological speculation, and they achieved far different results. Where Lanfranc’s efforts in commentary were literal and stilted, Anselm’s “in meditatio” were seemingly effortless. Yet both men started from the same foundation and were motivated by the same impulse: faith was enhanced by study. Anselm learned the delight of study from his teacher, with the goal being an increased perception of God.

104

Anselm, Meditatio redemptionis humanae, Schmitt, ed., vol. 3.84. “. . . de hoc ipso et de quibusdam aliis sub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad contemplandum deum et quaerentis intelligere quod credit, subditum scripsi opusculum . . . unicuique suum dedi titulum, ut prius Exemplum meditandi de ratione dei, et sequens Fides quaerens intellectum diceretur.” Anselm, Proslogion, Prooemium, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.93–4. For Lanfranc’s terminology see notes 50–6. Study of the scriptures assisted the general process of human development from faith to understanding or, “plenam scientiam christi,” “perfectam christi cognitionem,” “capiam illum perfecta intellegentia,” “in cognitione christi.” 105

augustine’s authority

193

Lanfranc’s dialectical and rhetorical interests must also have informed Anselm’s writings. The strength of Lanfranc’s approach was to isolate every element of a scriptural text and thereby uncover the logical progression of its argument. He did this in virtually every one of his glosses. Assembling the basic components of an argument was also at the foundation of Anselm’s treatises. In the Prologue to the Proslogion, he explained that the Monologion had been “constructed from a chain of many arguments.”106 He started with one premise, debated it, established its veracity, and built the next premise upon the prior. The theology was in the details. The value of Lanfranc’s methods would have been considerable to Anselm’s early development as a thinker and writer. The Hebrews glosses suggest that this could have been as true for content as method. In spite of the commentary’s simplicity and error, it demonstrates a teacher whose thinking attained theoretical and theological sophistication, and who aptly applied exegesis to doctrinal formulation. Within decades of the Hebrews commentary, Anselm became completely absorbed in the very issues that Lanfranc attempted to address in Hebrews, and he answered those questions that the commentary provoked.107 The modern reader who sees only the simplicity of Lanfranc’s exegesis is mistaken. The methods and topics of Anselm’s meditative and logical inquiries are faintly discernible in Lanfranc’s commentary, but required genius such as Anselm’s to form them into an enduring and resonant theology. In an analysis of all the commentary’s books, the development from a awed interpretation based upon minimal sources to an increasingly skilled exposition of scripture can be observed. Lanfranc is conspicuous in the commentary as a beginner, as an uncertain reader of conicting interpretations of Pauline theology. Despite this, the text also presents the intelligence of Lanfranc’s methods as they were applied in the classroom and justies the reasons for his personal success and enduring reputation. He possessed an orderly mind, the education to organize material and present it in a clear fashion, and a passionate commitment to the welfare of his students. He utilized the rhetorical methods

106

Anselm, Proslogion, Prooemium, Schmitt, ed., vol. 1.93. For example: “. . . qua scilicet ratione vel necessitate deus homo factus sit, et morte sua, sicut credimus et contemur, mundo vitam reddiderit, cum hoc aut per aliam personam, sive angelicam sive humanum, aut sola voluntate facere potuerit. De qua quaestione non solum litterati sed etiam illitterati multi quaerunt et rationem eius desiderant.” Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Schmitt, ed., vol. 2.48. 107

194

chapter five

learned in his youth, methods that were novel to the scholarly climate of northern France and were eagerly adopted and expanded by those who followed him. As the Hebrews commentary demonstrates, Lanfranc also persevered in sacred studies, working to obtain the sources that a sanctioned exegesis required, and studied to apply their lessons to his interpretation of the sacred page.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

Lanfranc’s commentary permits a rare opportunity to observe the academic development of a great man. In this text, Lanfranc, the archbishop and renowned theologian, is seen at a humble, even vulnerable moment. He was a talented beginner. While his natural intellectual abilities are evident, it is equally clear that Lanfranc’s skills in the elds of exegesis and theology were developing. He was clearly naïve about doctrine and its patristic sources. It has been argued that Lanfranc began his composition with two patristic sources, the commentary attributed to Ambrose and the Ad Galatas of Augustine, and that his reevaluations of the Ad Galatas redirected his interpretation of central Pauline themes. Lanfranc included additional Augustine material from the Florus commentary to balance his earliest exegesis with the authority he came to judge as the most signicant authority. As one reads the commentary and notes the discrepancies among Lanfranc’s sources, Lanfranc’s confusion is understandable. He tried, independently and as a beginner, to grapple with difcult theological themes, but his sources were insufcient. Despite these difculties, Lanfranc’s exegesis became perceptibly sounder by the end of the text, attesting to his persistence and commitment to arrive at an accurate exegesis, one circumscribed by the accepted perimeters of authoritative interpretation. Lanfranc’s exegesis was a search for these boundaries. The inclusion of Augustinian material within the commentary demonstrates Lanfranc’s struggle to accommodate multiple authoritative interpretations of scripture. In the commentary, one is witnessing Lanfranc’s earliest reading of Augustine. Lanfranc’s growing understanding of Augustine’s authority is perceptible in the two distinctive, perplexing characteristics of the commentary. First, his early exegesis of Romans was radically discordant with the Florus compendium of Augustinian material. Second, Lanfranc’s exegesis after the epistle to the Galatians steadily conformed with the Ad Galatas, but disagreed with his interpretation of Romans. Augustine’s authority caused signicant reappraisals of Pauline theology. Lanfranc’s accommodation of patristic sources demonstrates a developing discernment of an authoritative hierarchy: Augustine was initially

196

chapter six

misunderstood and subordinated to the Ambrosiaster’s interpretation of Romans, but, eventually, Lanfranc’s exegesis and the ranking of authoritative sources was adjusted to reect an improved understanding of Augustinian doctrine. These facts demonstrate Lanfranc’s inexperience in scriptural and doctrinal themes. The study of the commentary’s text proceeds to certain reevaluations regarding Lanfranc’s background and the dating of the commentary. Scholars have assumed a theological sophistication to the commentary that simply does not exist. Gauging Lanfranc’s abilities at the time he wrote the commentary, and comparing them to his later eucharistic treatise, indicates a progression in his knowledge of sacred literature, and assists in dating the commentary to an extremely early stage of Lanfranc’s career at Bec. On the other hand, at the time of the commentary’s composition, Lanfranc was the recipient of a thorough training in the liberal arts, specically, in rhetoric. Lanfranc’s glosses conrm the claims of the Vita Herluini, Vita Lanfranci, and other medieval sources regarding his conversion from a secular career to an ecclesial career. His rhetorical skills were his entrée into the realm of theology, enabling him to view the theological force cloaked within the argumentative structure of Paul’s epistles. Lanfranc instructed himself by means of those abilities that he already possessed, apprehending scriptural content with the aid of a classically focused education. Again, as discussed in chapter three, this conrms the medieval sources’ claims for the content of Lanfranc’s education both in Italy and France. The texts used by Lanfranc, and the methods they inspired, paralleled those taught in Italy in Lanfranc’s youth. The texts and methods favored by Lanfranc in the commentary were overwhelmingly rhetorical in nature, while his knowledge of Aristotelian logic was limited. Rhetoric was the discipline he preferred, and it must have been the predominant classical methodology to establish his career as a master of the liberal arts in northern France. Although Lanfranc did not employ the precepts of the logica vetus in conjunction with the biblical text, his more general remarks about the methods of other teachers indicate a familiarity with a competing curriculum, perhaps as a course of study that he had pursued but rejected as incompatible with theological studies. The commentary’s methods make a considerable contribution to historians’ evaluations of the academic climate of the eleventh century by presenting one curriculum, Lanfranc’s, based on rhetoric and defended as a traditional and faithful representative

conclusion

197

of Christian dogma, while attacking others as “modern” threats to true doctrine. These facts combined, Lanfranc’s personal unease with theological sources and his procient use of rhetoric, suggest that the commentary reects Lanfranc’s educational abilities as they stood when he rst entered Bec in the early 1040s. The commentary’s text conrms the ancient image of Lanfranc, as well as the reliability of the medieval sources on these points. The accepted ascription of the commentary’s composition to between 1055 and 1060 is radically inconsistent with the internal evidence of the commentary text. It is unlikely that Lanfranc’s theological inquiry would remain at this level ten to fteen years after becoming prior and teaching at Bec. Given the reliability of the Vitae, their claim that Lanfranc spent his rst three years at Bec between 1042 and 1045 in personal scripture study should be seriously considered as the date for the commentary’s composition. Its text and methods readily support an earlier chronology that sets the events of Lanfranc’s career at Bec to the 1040s. The commentary must be understood as representative of Lanfranc’s earliest reading of St. Paul and Augustine, and as his personal notes that reected his program for the Bec classroom in the 1040s. The attributes of the commentary conrm the known conditions of Lanfranc’s early life as a monk at Bec: this was an independent pursuit, one marked by mistakes and corrections. The commentary was carried out with minimal sources and cannot reect the condition of the Bec library as it developed in later years. As he was writing the commentary, Lanfranc had little exposure to Augustine’s writings. Through the Ad Galatas, he acquired his rst infusion of Augustinian thought, accommodated his earlier evaluations of Pauline themes accordingly, and added the Florus material to substantiate his new preference for a new source. Not only does this indicate that Lanfranc was very much the novice in areas of theology, it also indicates the state of the Bec library. At the time of the commentary’s composition, Lanfranc was still working to collect the basics of Christian thought. A secondary reference to these issues is provided by the events of the eucharistic controversy. Most scholars date Lanfranc’s eucharistic treatise to the early 1060s; Gibson assigns its date to 1061, only one to six years after the supposed composition of the Pauline commentary. It is possible, although highly questionable, that the level of Lanfranc’s reading and theological understanding could have advanced this quickly.

198

chapter six

It is more unlikely that Lanfranc could have so rapidly collected, copied, and assimilated the sources required for the composition of the eucharistic treatise. This treatise is highly documented and annotated with secondary patristic sources, particularly Augustine.1 It is inconceivable that Lanfranc made the leap from a rudimentary understanding of Augustine based on one source, to the sophisticated citation of Augustinian sources evident in the De corpore, within such a short time. A realistic evaluation of Lanfranc’s abilities in the commentary suggests that more time was required for his development as a theological scholar and that the commentary must have been written earlier. Furthermore, early events of the eucharistic controversy indicate that Lanfranc was party to its dialogue as early as c. 1049–50, having already taken a public stand on the issues of the debate at this early date. Three sources are instructive of Lanfranc’s early role in the controversy: a letter written from Berengar to Lanfranc in c. 1049–50, a letter written from Berengar to Ascelin c. 1050–3, and a third letter written from Berengar to Adelmann in c. 1054–9.2 Berengar’s message in the letters was repetitive, a defense of his own eucharistic teaching and a condemnation of Lanfranc’s. In all three of the letters, Berengar depicted their differences as the adherence to, in his case, the teaching of the ninth-century eucharistic treatise of Ratramnus (mistakenly identied by Berengar as John the Scot), and of Lanfranc to Paschasius Radbertus. However, Berengar’s tone changed considerably from the earliest of the letters to that of the second and third. In the early letter written directly to Lanfranc, Berengar’s tone was respectful, if dismissive of Lanfranc’s opinions and educational status.3 Berengar had learned that Lanfranc judged the teaching of John the Scot, and therefore of Berengar himself, to be heretical, preferring instead the opinions of Radbertus. If this was true, Lanfranc had reached an overly hasty opinion, one that was not based upon his innate intelligence or an experienced reection on sacred texts.4 According to Berengar, Lanfranc was not yet learned enough in sacred texts (divina

1

Southern, Saint Anselm, 57. The texts of these letters are found in P.L. 150, 63–6 and Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger, 531–9. Their dates and place within the eucharistic controversy as a whole are discussed in Gibson, Lanfranc, 66; Stock, The Implications of Literacy, 273 ff.; Montclos, 125–6; Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 38–44, 59–74. 3 Gibson, Lanfranc, 66–7. 4 This probably refers to patristic texts as much as scripture. See Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 39, n. 68. 2

conclusion

199

scriptura) as to make measured evaluations on the matter. Berengar’s objective was to meet with Lanfranc and discuss the issues inherent to the debate. Berengar closed the letter with the observation that if Lanfranc believed John the Scot was a heretic, he must feel the same about Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.5 Berengar’s cordial, if demeaning, tone devolved into open antagonism in the later letters, both of which named Lanfranc as one of the heretical party who upheld the erroneous teaching of Radbertus. Lanfranc was one of the “insanientes” who maintained that up until the point of the consecration the bread and wine remain on the altar; however, at the very instant of the consecration, the bread and wine, either through some corruption or consumption, sensibly transform themselves into a tiny portion of the body and blood of Christ.6

The content of these letters is signicant. As early as 1049 or 1050, Lanfranc was named as a participant in the increasingly hostile events of the controversy, and was assumed by Berengar to be theologically inexperienced, yet worthy as an ally to Berengar’s point of view. This seems to be the purpose of Berengar’s earliest letter, to convince Lanfranc of the validity of Ratramnus’s and Berengar’s own beliefs. By the time of the later letters, Berengar assumed a distinct intellectual and philosophical approach to the eucharist on Lanfranc’s part, and he addressed Lanfranc as an antagonist, not as a possible ally. Berengar’s defense against Radbertus was made simultaneously against Lanfranc; Berengar even believed that Lanfranc had adopted his own theology in response to Berengar’s. Once Lanfranc had denitively and publicly stated his own teaching in Rome in 1050, Berengar’s tone changed dramatically. The party lines had been decisively drawn, and Lanfranc and Berengar already stood in deep opposition to one another. Lanfranc was party to the events of the eucharistic controversy by 1049 or 1050, and he had adopted a denitive point of view by the mid-1050s. However, the commentary does not demonstrate an author capable of such pronouncements on such a highly charged issue. Only two of Lanfranc’s glosses demonstrate the direction that he would later take. In working through the allegory of Ephesians 5, Lanfranc compared marriage to Christ and the church who become “one body” in the eucharist “because the church daily assumes the esh that he 5 6

Berengar, Ep. ad Lanfrancum, P.L. 150, 63. Berengar, Ep. contra Almannum, in Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger, 534.

200

chapter six

assumed from the virgin in the celebration of the Mass.”7 Secondly, in Hebrews, Lanfranc associated Melchisedech’s offering of bread and wine with the eucharist, “which is converted into the esh and blood of Christ.”8 Lanfranc’s statements were literal, simply and directly corresponding the eucharistic elements to the historical body of Christ, and as would prove to be the case, indicate more of an afnity with Radbertus than Ratramnus. However, as a whole, Lanfranc’s commentary was not written by someone who had thought through the difcult theological dimensions of the eucharist and who needed to articulate his position carefully to avoid censure. Among the hundreds of glosses in the commentary, fewer than twenty addressed the eucharist, and only the Ephesians and Hebrews glosses approximated Lanfranc’s later judgments. The central eucharistic passages of the epistles, I Corinthians 10–1, were not heavily glossed, and Lanfranc did not approach the Corinthians text to address the specic, controversial issues elicited by these verses in the 1050s. Fundamentally, Lanfranc’s few glosses on the sacraments and the eucharist were of the same introductory character as his other theological denitions, and they were nonspecic enough to support either eucharistic philosophy, Ratramnus’s or Radbertus’s. The central theological issue at stake in the eucharistic controversy was the philosophical denition of change—how do the elements of bread and wine change into the Lord’s body and blood? The Pauline text that would elicit a denition of the eucharistic transformation, I Corinthians 11.23–6, was treated by Lanfranc in the commentary in a cursory way. He wrote few glosses in this section, and they primarily served to highlight the section’s difcult word order, by means of the customary “ordo” method: This is the order: This cup is the new testament in my blood, that is, it conveys the new testament through my blood, either because a testament

7 “Quod de viro et uxore dicit, ad litteram intelligendum est, secundum saeculi consuetudinem et spiritualiter de christo et aecclesia. Patrem christus relinquere visus est, quando semetipsum exinavit servi formam accipiens. Matrem, id est sinagogam, ex qua natus est, reliquit quando ipsa in sua indelitate persistente, ad praedicandum gentibus, apostolos misit, et ex eorum conversione aecclesiae congregate quasi sponsus adhesit. Cum qua unitus est in carne una, quia carnem quam de virgine sumpsit, in missarum celebritatibus cotidie aecclesia sumit.” A on Eph. 5.32, fol. 95v. 8 “Id est iuxta ordinem et ritum offerendi panem et vinum quod melchisedech primus fecisse legitur, quae tamen in christi carnem et sanguinem covertuntur.” A on Heb. 5.10, fol. 142v.

conclusion

201

is conrmed in a death, or because through this you have a new promise that is full of the remission of sins.9

The theological issue elucidated through the “id est” component of this gloss was the relationship between a testament and death, and the meaning this gave to Christ’s death. None of the I Corinthians glosses confronted the questions being asked by Lanfranc and others in the 1050s. Lanfranc used the terminology, “modum et causam,” in relation to the eucharist once: He explains the mode and cause how and why the cup of blessing and the bread that is broken become to those receiving them the esh and blood of Christ. Indeed through the unity of the bread and the unity of the body, charity ought to be understood. For if charity is absent he who eats, eats to his own judgment. The one bread and one body are spoken guratively of the church of Christ, because, just as the one bread is made from many grains, and the one body from many members, so is the church of Christ bound together from the faithful all connected in charity.10

Lanfranc’s terminology was not technical. The “mode and cause” of the elements was discussed in the framework of the church’s unity, not as the philosophical explanation for the elements’ transformation. Signicantly, Lanfranc’s emphasis was not on the objective power of the sacramental elements brought about at the moment of the consecration. The elements become the body and bread “to those receiving them.” More technical philosophical questions did not occur to Lanfranc. The commentary’s eucharistic theology was derived from the primary themes explored throughout Lanfranc’s glosses: the relationship between faith and works, and (in the Romans and Corinthians commentaries) the possibility of the Jews’ apprehension of faith under the

9 “Ordo. Hic calix in meo sanguine est novum testamentum, id est per meum sanguinem commendat novum testamentum, quia testamentum in mortuis conrmatur, vel quia per hoc habetis novam promissionem, plenam peccatorum remissionem.” A on I Cor. 11.25, fol. 53r. “In sacramento corporis christi, mors eius annuntiatur quia in memoriam mortis eius cotidie a delibus celebratur. Donec ad iudicium veniat, ideo dicit, quia hoc sacramentum non mutabitur, usque in nem saeculi, sicut sacramenta iudeorum mutata sunt.” A on I Cor. 11.26, fol. 53r. 10 “Exponit modum et causam, quo et qua calix benedictionis et panis qui frangitur, at accipienti caro et sanguis christi. Per unitatem enim panis, et unitatem corporis, caritatem oportet intelligi, quae si desit iudicium sibi sumunt qui sumunt. Tipice autem unus panis, et unum corpus, aecclesia dicitur christi, pro eo videlicet, quia sicut unus panis ex multis granis, et unum corpus ex multis membris componitur, sic aecclesia christi, ex multis delibus caritate conectente copulatur.” A on I Cor. 10.17, fol. 50v.

202

chapter six

law. Lanfranc was interested in the subjective meaning of the eucharist, the importance of the individual’s proper reception of the sacraments. The sacraments must not be simply accepted but must contribute to the overriding enterprise of the individual as perfected in works: “He proposes this example lest Christians assume that faith, baptism, and the other sacraments will save them without performing works and refraining from sin.”11 In his glosses on I Corinthians 10, Lanfranc compared the “sacramenta” of the Old and New Testaments. The “sacramenta” of the Old Testament, the “baptism” of Moses, and the “spiritual food and drink” of I Corinthians 10.1–5 were useful in their own time in conveying the meaning of Christ to the Jews even before the incarnation: “The manna was spiritual, that is, contained the spiritual meaning of the body of Christ.”12 This statement paralleled those in the Romans commentary regarding the efcacy of the law in conveying the meaning of Christ to the Jews. These glosses accentuate that Lanfranc’s eucharistic teaching was contextualized within his early articulation of issues of the law, faith, and obedience, not within the events of the eucharistic controversy. Lanfranc might have already formed an idea on the true presence (based upon his comments on Ephesians 5.32 and Hebrews 5.10); however, the commentary does not demonstrate a eucharistic theory pronounced enough to elicit either Berengar’s criticism or request for support in the earliest letter of 1049–50. The commentary certainly does not represent an author who was already caught up in the events and growing antagonisms of the eucharistic crisis of the mid-1050s. Again, we have evidence of the commentary as a private text, detached from the controversies of the outside world, written in Lanfranc’s early sheltered years at Bec before his reputation involved him in the events of popes, kings, and heretics.

11 “Exemplum hoc ponit ne christiani propter solam dem baptismum et cetera sacramenta, nisi bene operentur, et a peccatis abstineant, salvos se esse condant.” A on I Cor. 10.1, fol. 49v. “Quasi diceret. Sacramenta erant eadem sed vita diversa, atque ideo alii placuere et alii non.” A on I Cor. 10.5, fol. 50r. “Id est sola sacramenta, illos salvare non poterant, et qui stat, videre debet ne cadat.” A on I Cor. 10.14, fol. 50v. “Causa cur non sit escis immoderate afuendum. Cum sobrietate edendum est corpus christi, quod hic et in multis locis divinarum scripturarum altare vocatur, ideo quod in ipso, id est in de ipsius, quasi in quodam altari oblatae praeces et oblationes nostrae, acceptabiles unt deo.” A on Heb. 13.10, fol. 160r. 12 “. . . Videlicet manna. Spiritualem, id est spiritualem intellegentiam, habentem scilicet corporis domini.” A on I Cor. 10.3, fol. 50r; “Non revera petra sequebatur exercitum, sed aqua uens de petra. Spiritualem autem eam vocat quia spiritualem intellegentiam in se continebat, christum.” A on I Cor. 10.4, fol. 50r.

conclusion

203

Although the commentary text originated from Lanfranc’s individual reading, many of its characteristics reinforce the suggestion that it was also written for his school. The glossed format harmonized both texts, scriptural and gloss, and made them easily accessible at a glance and useful for a lecture format. Lanfranc’s short notes were designed for the glossed format, while also functioning as indicators of a fuller oral presentation. The recurrent thematic juxtaposition of the Christian teacher and the deceitful teacher discloses that Lanfranc’s responsibilities were keenly felt and zealously defended. The commentary also outlined an educational program for the monk, progressing from faith, to study, to knowledge of God. Lanfranc’s glosses were designed to assist in this enterprise. Finally, Lanfranc established a set of rules for the use of the classical arts. Some classical learning, but not too much, was a good thing. Repeatedly, Lanfranc advocated a restrained use of the liberal arts in the service of theological instruction, delineating the appropriate guidelines for new methodologies within a traditional monastic context. Lanfranc’s methodology was textually based and aimed to dene the rhetorical methods inherent to an authoritative text’s argument, or, conversely, to an antagonist’s erroneous argument. As such, he delineated an approved method for theological debate. The method of Lanfranc’s lectures must have been something like this: First, the Pauline text would be read verse by verse; each verse would be summarized and restated (ordo . . .); this would be the working text for theological speculation. Then analysis would go slightly further aeld from the text’s original vocabulary and syntax by means of Lanfranc’s “id est,” “scilicet”/“subaudis” and “quasi (quis) diceret” glosses. A verse could be further rened and restated several times. The goal was to eventually illuminate the verse’s primary theological truth. This new statement was then exposed for a fuller lecture or discussion. The glosses were markers to this fuller discussion, a discussion that is barely evident in the commentary itself. As discussed in the last chapter, the glosses on Hebrews best exemplify the intriguing issues that Lanfranc’s glosses represent. The glosses themselves were written as brief notes, the type any teacher might require alongside the text being analyzed, to nudge his memory toward a more complete but unscripted discussion. Dialogue was central to the commentary’s format and to Lanfranc’s method. The glossed format operated as a type of dialogue with the primary text. Two voices, Lanfranc’s and Paul’s, contributed to the reader’s (or listener’s) comprehension of the text’s meaning. But essentially, Lanfranc’s attention to the element of debate between Paul, his

204

chapter six

opponents, and his audience, indicates something about the rules and methods followed in Lanfranc’s classroom. As he systematically rened a verse and called attention to its place in a real theological debate, Lanfranc also delineated a method for disputation and instruction. According to the examples left in his glosses, Lanfranc’s lecture format was guided, but not monopolized, by the master. Students were encouraged to speak up, if they complied with certain guidelines. Some of Lanfranc’s rules are perceptible. First, the methods used by the interpreter were dictated by the text itself. Extraneous technical methods could only be applied to the text if they were intrinsic to its intent and meaning, and Cicero’s methods were the only ones that consistently qualied for Lanfranc. Secular methods were, at all times, relegated to doctrinal truths, as exemplied by Lanfranc’s very efforts to obtain the theological sources needed for his commentary and to adapt his exegesis to the fathers’ authority. Lanfranc’s goal was always the disciplined life of his students. Pure teaching led to faith, and to works, and to love of God. This was the unchanging purpose of Lanfranc’s academic program, and any method that violated it was prohibited. Secondly, Lanfranc envisioned a question/answer format in the dialogue between Paul and his opponents, and between teacher and student. Someone had asked Paul a question, which Paul answered. A text written in a question-answer format, Lanfranc’s interpretation of the Pauline epistles, could be approximated in the classroom orally. In following this dialogue within his glosses, Lanfranc and his students asked the same questions of the text and sought Paul’s answers, those required by faith and obedience. In his glosses, Lanfranc noted the answer he was aiming for, but getting there would have entailed an additional exchange between the teacher and students. This method was perpetuated by at least one of Lanfranc’s students. The central question of the Cur Deus homo, why did God become man? was, according to Anselm, a question asked by both learned and unlearned individuals among the faithful. Again, a text mirrored an oral debate. He believed the treatise’s method, a question and answer format between teacher and student, would be instructive to believers in each category, but he underscored the fact that “those issues that are investigated by means of questions and answers are clearer to many, especially to slower minds.”13 Lanfranc made the same distinction in the commentary, and

13

Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Schmitt, ed., vol. 2.48.

conclusion

205

although he was more wary of the ill effects that dialectic could have upon simpler minds, he too advocated the careful use of disputatious methods in an elementary monastic education. Like Anselm’s discourse with Boso, Lanfranc’s elucidation of Paul’s methods illustrate the development of new educational methods in the texts and classrooms of the eleventh century. Third, according to Lanfranc, the questions asked in a theological debate must be answerable, or in the case of the commentary, within the realm of what the text was addressing. This seems like an obvious requirement; however, Lanfranc must have known classrooms where the opposite was true, probably Berengar’s. He made just this point in the commentary’s distinction of the good and bad teacher. The good teacher had his student’s best interests at heart; the bad teacher was merely interested in contentious debate and in raising questions for the sake of questioning. Consequently, this teacher was unable to provide the answers that would further his students’ knowledge of divine matters. Most crucially for Lanfranc, disputatious methods must never violate the essential characteristic of a classroom, the charitable harmony between master and students. This analysis sets Lanfranc’s attitude intermediate to ancient monastic values and emerging scholastic methods. In the commentary, Lanfranc defended his approach as conservative and traditional, while also introducing a novel set of classical skills and explicating the biblical text in conjunction with them. According to contemporary sources, this combined study of the arts and theology was the draw of the Bec school, and something unique in Normandy. Lanfranc’s reputation attracted students from Italy, Germany, and other areas of France. Experimentation with classical methods, a combination of two disciplines, was also a primary characteristic of late eleventh and early twelfth-century theologians, many of whom praised Lanfranc as the originator of their methods. To the Bec Vitae and others, Lanfranc was perceived as the sole cause of the literary achievements of northern Europe. However, in the decades following Lanfranc’s death, scholarly culture promoted a dialectically driven theology, the very extremes that Lanfranc had criticized in his commentary. Lanfranc viewed his approach as less invasive to doctrinal truth. Such an approach was preliminary to the disputatious methods of the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries. Lanfranc, too, paid careful attention to the structure of a theological argument, but through the lens of rhetoric’s rules. Although a gure such as Lanfranc inuenced the analysis of theological texts by means

206

chapter six

of classical methods, the methods he permitted were quite different from those of later generations. The commentary was a simple text, even unsophisticated by the standards of the next generation, but this was also the commentary’s greatest contribution. Men of Lanfranc’s generation and sensibilities, the collectors of libraries, the builders of institutions, the investigators of new methods, provided the very tools that outmoded them. Lanfranc says the same in the commentary: “Whenever two things are compared and one is called ‘new’ and the other ‘old,’ the new is to the old, just as the great is to the small.”14 Lanfranc lived in an era of cultural rebuilding and literary progress, and despite his conservatism, he could not avoid the connotation of the “old” as the inferior. He was a man who valued ancient methods and authorities, but who remained intrigued by their modern counterparts. Although Lanfranc would have been critical of the methods utilized by later scholars, his work promoted theirs. They carried his simple synthesis of the arts and scripture to a point that he himself would not have sanctioned. Fundamentally, Lanfranc’s efforts assisted the knowledge and availability of classical sources, which were utilized in an increasingly forward-looking, progressive academic environment. Lanfranc’s commentary admonishes the modern scholar of the great differences between the learned cultures of the eleventh and the twelfth centuries. Lanfranc did not have the next generation’s sense of literary adventure. His approach was circumspect, not bold. Neither did he have their literary and methodological choices. Cicero, not Aristotle, was his classical authority. Lanfranc’s enduring contribution is best seen in the image of the good teacher in the commentary, as the spiritual father who instructed his students in Christian living and founded a harmonious community of disciples. As articulated in the commentary, this was Lanfranc’s earliest and most esteemed personal goal, and something that he lived to see in his achievements at Bec, Caen, and Canterbury, and in the establishment of a network of Bec monks in positions of ecclesial leadership throughout Normandy and England. He can truly be credited as the next generation’s “father in faith.”

14 “Ita sunt inter se novum et vetus, sicut magnum et parvum. Quotienscumque enim duae res conferuntur, si una vocatur nova et altera vetus et contra.” A on Heb. 8.13, fol. 148r.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient and Medieval Sources Alexander II, Ep. 70, P.L. 146, 1353. Ambrosiaster, Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinus, Henry J. Vogels, ed. (Vienna: 1966–9), CSEL 81, pts. 1–3. Andrew of St. Victor, Expositionem in Ezechielem, Michael Alan Signer, ed. (Turnhout: 1991), CCCM 53E. Anselm of Besate, Epistola Anselmi peripatetici ad Drogonem phylosophum, in Karl Manitius, ed., Gunzo Epistola ad Augienses und Anselm von Besate Rhetorimachia (Weimar: 1958). Anselm of Canterbury, S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia, F.S. Schmitt, ed., 6 vols. (Edinburgh: 1946–61). —— Cur Deus homo, 2.39–133. —— Epistolae, 3–5. —— Ep. ad Lanfrancum archiepiscopum, 1.5–6. —— Meditatio redemptionis humanae, 3.84–91. —— Monologion, 1.7–87. —— Proslogion, 1.93–122. Augustine, Augustine On Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unnished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Paula Fredriksen Landes, ed. and trans. (Chico, California: 1982). —— Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians, Eric Plumer, ed. and trans. (Oxford: 2003). —— De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII, Almut Mutzenbecher, ed. (Turnhout: 1975), CCSL 44A. —— De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, Karl F. Urba and Joseph Zycha, eds. (Vienna: 1902), CSEL 42. —— De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum, Karl F. Urba and Joseph Zycha, eds. (Vienna: 1913), CSEL 60. —— Epistolae ad Galatas expositio, J. Divjak, ed. (Vienna: 1971), CSEL 84. —— S. Aureli Augustini Hipponiensis episcopi Epistulae, Al. Goldbacher, ed. (Vienna: 1904), CSEL 44. —— Sermones 154–159, P.L. 38, 832–72. Becker, Gustavus, Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui (Bonn: 1885). Berengar, Beringarius in purgatoria epistola contra Almannum, in J. de Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger: La controverse eucharistique du XIe siècle (Louvain: 1971), 531–38. —— Beringerius Turonensis Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum, R.B.C. Huygens, ed. (Turnhout: 1988), CCCM 84, 84A. —— Ep. ad Ascetinum, P.L. 150, 66. —— Ep. ad Lanfrancum, P.L. 150, 63. Berger, M. Samuel, Les préfaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate (Paris: 1902). Biblia sacra: iuxta Vulgatem versionem, B. Fischer, et al., eds. (Stuttgart: 1969, third edition). Cassiodorus, Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, R.A.B. Mynors, ed. (Oxford: 1937). Catalogus librorum abbatiae Beccensis, P.L. 150, 771–8. Chronicon Beccensis abbatiae, P.L. 150, 639–90. Chrysostom, Alcuini expositio in Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos, P.L. 100, 1031–84. [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium libri IV de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium), Harry Caplan, ed. and trans. (Cambridge: 1954).

208

bibliography

Cicero, De inventione, De optime genere oratorum, Topica, H.M. Hubbell, ed. and trans. (Cambridge: 1949). Clement III, Ep. 3, in F. Liebermann, “Lanfranc and the Antipope,” English Historical Review 16 (1901), 328–32. Eadmer, Historia novorum in Anglia, Martin Rule, ed. (London: 1884). Florus of Lyons, Expositio in Epistolas beati Pauli ex operibus sancti Augustini collecta, P.L. 119, 279–420. Gervase of Canterbury, Actus Ponticum, in William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, 2 vols. (London: 1880), 2.325–41. Gilbert Crispin, Vita Herluini, in J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster: A Study of the Abbey under Norman Rule (Cambridge: 1911), 87–110. —— The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, Anna Sapir Abulaa and G.R. Evans, eds. (London: 1986). Guitmund of Aversa, De corporis et sanguinis Christi veritate in eucharistia, P.L. 149, 1427–94. Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066–1127, Charles Johnson, ed. and trans., revised by M. Brett, C.N.L. Brooke, and M. Winterbottom (Oxford: 1990). Lanfranc, Beati Lanfranci archiepiscopi Cantuariensis opera quae supersunt omnia, J.A. Giles, ed., 2 vols. (Oxford and Paris: 1844). —— Beati Lanfranci Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia, L. D’Achery, ed. (Paris: 1648). Reprinted in P.L. 150, 1–782. —— De corpore et sanguine domini, P.L. 150, 407–42. —— Decreta Lanfranci monachis Cantuariensibus transmissa, David Knowles, ed. (Siegburg: 1967). —— The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson, eds. and trans. (Oxford: 1979). The Life of Gundulf, Rodney Thomson, ed. (Toronto: 1977). [Milo Crispin], Vita Lanfranci, Margaret Gibson, ed., in Giulio D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia e L’Europa del secolo xi nel ix centenario della morte (1089–1989) (Rome: 1993), 661–715. —— Vita Lanfranci, P.L. 150, 29–58. Miracula sancti Nicholai episcopi et confessoris, in Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquiorum saeculo XVI qui asservantur in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi, 4 vols. (Brussels: 1889–93), 2.405–23. Nicholas II, Ep. 30, P.L. 143, 1349–50. Nomina monachorum Becci, in A.A. Porée, Histoire de l’Abbaye du Bec, 2 vols. (Évreux: 1901), 1.629–42. Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Marjorie Chibnall, ed. and trans., 6 vols. (Oxford: 1969–80). Pelagius, Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Alexander Souter, ed., 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1922–1931). Robert of Torigny, The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny, in Richard Howlett, ed., Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 4 vols. (London: 1884–9), 4. Sigebert of Gembloux, Catalogus Sigeberti Gemblacensis monachi de viris illustribus, Robert Witte, ed. (Frankfurt: 1974). Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas b. Pauli commentari: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, H.B. Swete, ed., 2 vols. (Cambridge: 1880–1882). William, Abbot of Cormeilles, Ep., P.L. 158, 1198–1202. William of Malmesbury, De gestis ponticum Anglorum libri quinque, N.E.S.A. Hamilton, ed. (London: 1870). —— The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury, Reginald R. Darlington, ed. (London: 1928). Williram of Ebersburg, The “Expositio in Cantica canticorum” of Williram, Abbot of Ebersberg: 1048–1085, Erminnie Hollis Bartelmez, ed. (Philadelphia: 1967).

bibliography

209

Modern Authorities Ackroyd, P.R. and C.F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge: 1970). Affeldt, Werner, “Verzeichnis der Römerbriefkommentare der lateinischen Kirche bis zu Nikolaus von Lyra,” Traditio 13 (1957), 369–406. Alatt, Malcolm E., “The Development of the Idea of Involuntary Sin in St. Augustine,” Revue des études augustiniennes 20 (1974), 113–34. Barker, Lynn K., “Ivo of Chartres and the Anglo-Norman Cultural Tradition,” AngloNorman Studies 13 (1991), 15–33. Barlow, Frank, “A View of Archbishop Lanfranc,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965), 163–77. Bates, David, Normandy before 1066 (London: 1982). Bennett, Beth S., “The Signicance of the Rhetorimachia of Anselm de Besate to the History of Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 5 (1987), 231–50. Benson, Robert L., Giles Constable, Carol D. Lanham, eds., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: 1991 reprint of the 1982 edition). Bloch, Denise, Catalogue Général des Manuscrits Latins Tome III (Paris: 1952). Brasington, Bruce C., “ ‘Non veni Corinthum’: Ivo of Chartres, Lanfranc, and 2 Corinthians 1.16–17, 23” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law n.s. 21 (1991), 1–9. Brett, Martin, “The Collectio Lanfranci and its Competitors,” in Lesley Smith and Benedicta Ward, eds., Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Margaret Gibson (London: 1992), 157–74. Brooke, Z.N., The English Church and the Papacy: From the Conquest to the Reign of John (Cambridge: 1952). Bullough, D.A., “Urban Change in Early Medieval Italy: The Example of Pavia,” Papers of the British School at Rome 34 (1966), 82–130. Camargo, Martin, “Rhetoric,” in David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages (Bloomington: 1983), 96–124. Charlier, Célestin, “La compilation augustinienne de Florus sur l’Apôtre: sources et authenticité,” Revue bénédictine 57 (1947), 132–86. Chibnall, Marjorie, The Normans (Oxford: 2000). Colish, Marcia L., “Eleventh-Century Grammar in the Thought of St. Anselm,” Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge: Actes du IV e congrès international de philosophie médiévale (Montreal: 1967), 785–95. —— Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition 400–1400 (New Haven: 1997). —— “Peter Lombard as an Exegete of St. Paul,” in Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr., eds., Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers (Notre Dame: 1992), 71–92. Cowdrey, H.E.J., “Anselm of Besate and some North-Italian Scholars of the Eleventh Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 23 (1972), 115–24. —— Lanfranc: Scholar, Monk, and Archbishop (Oxford: 2003). De Hamel, C.F.R., Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk: 1984). Delisle, Léopold, Inventaire des Manuscrits de Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris: 1868). Dewart, Joanne McWilliam, The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington DC: 1971). Ebbesen, S., “Ancient Scholastic Logic as the Source of Medieval Scholastic Logic,” in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100–1600 (Cambridge: 1982), 101–27. Emms, Richard, “The Historical Traditions of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury,” in Richard Eales and Richard Sharpe, eds., Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints, and Scholars 1066–1109 (London: 1995), 159–68.

210

bibliography

Evans, Gillian R., Anselm and a New Generation (Oxford: 1980). —— The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge: 1991 paperback edition of 1984 edition). —— Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford: 1980). Fredriksen, Paula, “Beyond the body/soul dichotomy: Augustine on Paul against the Manichees and the Pelagians,” Recherches augustiniennes 23 (1988), 87–114. Gameson, Richard, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c. 1066–1130) (Oxford: 1999). Ganz, David, “The Debate on Predestination,” in Margaret Gibson and Janet Nelson, eds., Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (Oxford: 1981), 353–73. Gasper, Giles E.M., Anselm of Canterbury and his Theological Inheritance (Aldershot: 2004). Gibson, Margaret, “The Artes in the Eleventh Century,” Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge: Actes du IV e congrès international de philosophie médiévale (Montreal: 1967), 121–6. —— “Carolingian Glossed Psalters,” in Richard Gameson, ed., The Early Medieval Bible: Its Production, Decoration and Use (Cambridge: 1994), 78–100. —— “The Early Scholastic Glosule to Priscian, Institutiones Grammaticae: The Text and its Inuence,” Studi Medievali, ser. 3a, 20 (1979), 235–54. —— “History at Bec in the Twelfth Century,” in R.H.C. Davis and J.M. WallaceHadrill, eds., The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford: 1981), 167–86. —— “The Image of Lanfranc,” in Giulio D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia e L’Europa del secolo xi nel ix centenario della morte (1089–1989) (Rome: 1993), 21–8. —— Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford: 1978). —— “Lanfranc’s ‘Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,’” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 86–112. —— “Lanfranc’s Notes on Patristic Texts,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 435–50. —— “Latin Commentaries on Logic before 1200,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 24 (1982), 54–64. —— “Milestones in the Study of Priscian, circa 800–circa 1200,” Viator 23 (1992), 17–33. —— “The Place of the Glossa ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis,” in Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr., eds., Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers (Notre Dame: 1992), 5–27. —— “The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible,” Studia Patristica 23 (1989), 232–44. Golb, Norman, The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A Social and Intellectual History (New York: 1998). Greer, Rowan A., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: 1961). Hagen, Hermannus., Catalogus Codicum Bernensium (Bern: 1875). Hallam, Elizabeth, Capetian France, 987–1328 (London: 1980). Harper-Bill, Christopher, “Herluin, Abbot of Bec and his Biographer,” Studies in Church History 15 (1978), 15–25. Hartmann, Wilfried, “Die Kanonessammlung der Handschrift Rom, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B.89,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 17 (1987), 45–64. Haskins, C.W., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: 1955 reprint of the 1927 edition). Head, Thomas, Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orléans, 800–1200 (Cambridge: 1990). Holopainen, Toivo J., Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century (Leiden: 1996). Hunt, Richard William, “Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies I (1943), 194–231. Jaeger, C. Stephen, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950–1200 (Philadelphia: 1994).

bibliography

211

James, Montague Rhodes, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge: 1903). —— A Descriptive Catalogue of the Latin Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library at Manchester, 2 vols. (Manchester and London: 1921). —— The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue, 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1900–1902). Jordan, Louis and Susan Wool, Inventory of Western Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Notre Dame: 1984). Ker, N.R., English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford: 1960). —— Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A list of Surviving Books (London: 1964, second edition), with Supplement to the Second Edition, ed. A.G. Watson (London: 1987). Kéry, Lotte, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (Washington DC: 1999). Kuttner, Stephan, “The Revival of Jurisprudence,” in Robert L. Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol D. Lanham, eds., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: 1982), 299–323. Laistner, M.L.W., “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947), 19–31. Lapidge, Michael, “The Study of Latin Texts in late Anglo-Saxon England [I] The Evidence of Latin Glosses,” in Nicholas Brooks, ed., Latin and the Vernacular Languages in Early Medieval Britain: Papers Delivered to the Fifth Annual St. John’s House Symposium, University of St. Andrew’s, 12 May 1979 (Leicester: 1982), 99–140. Lawrence, Anne, “Anglo-Norman Book Production,” in David Bates and Anne Curry, eds., England and Normandy in the Middle Ages (London: 1994), 79–93. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Lewiston: 1996). Leclercq, Jean, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, Catherine Misrahi, trans. (New York: 1988 reprint of 1961 edition). Leitschuh, Friedrich, Katalog der Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg (Bamberg: 1895–1906). Lobrichon, Guy, “Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible,” in Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, eds., Le Moyen Âge et la Bible (Paris: 1984), 95–114. MacDonald, A.J., Lanfranc: A Study of his Life, Work and Writing (London:1926). Macy, Gary, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvic Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians, c. 1080–c. 1220 (Oxford: 1984). McGuire, Brian Patrick, Friendship and Community: The Monastic Experience, 350–1250 (Kalamazoo: 1988). —— “Love, Friendship and Sex in the Eleventh Century: The Experience of Anselm,” Studia Theologica 28 (1974), 111–52. McNally, Robert E., The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster: 1959). Meeks, Wayne A., ed., The Writings of St. Paul (New York: 1972). Montclos, J. de, Lanfranc et Bérenger: La controverse eucharistique du XIe siècle (Louvain: 1971). Münster-Swendsen, Mia, “The Model of Scholastic Mastery in Northern Europe c. 970–1200,” in Sally N. Vaughn and Jay Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 1000–1200 (Turnhout: 2006), 307–42. Murphy, James J., Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Tempe: 2001 reprint of original 1974 edition). Norris, Richard A., Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford: 1963). Nortier, Geneviève, Les bibliothèques médiévales des abbayes bénédictines de Normandie (Caen: 1966). Parkes, M.B., Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: 1993). —— “Punctuation, or Pause and Effect,” in James J. Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric (Berkeley: 1978), 127–42.

212

bibliography

Peters, Edward M., “Transgressing the Limits set by the Fathers: Authority and Impious Exegesis in Medieval Thought,” in Scott L. Waugh and Peter D. Diehl, eds., Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000–1500 (Cambridge: 1996), 338–62. Philpott, Mark, “Lanfranc’s Canonical Collection and ‘the Law of the Church,’” in Giulio D’Onofrio, ed., Lanfranco di Pavia e L’Europa del secolo xi nel ix centenario della morte (1089–1989) (Rome: 1993), 131–47. Radding, Charles M., “The Geography of Learning in Early Eleventh-Century Europe: Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours Revisited,” Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo e archivio muratoriano 98 (1992), 145–72. —— The Origins of Medieval Jurisprudence: Pavia and Bologna 850–1150 (New Haven: 1988). —— A World Made by Men: Cognition and Society, 400–1200 (Chapel Hill: 1985). Resnick, Irven M., “Attitudes Towards Philosophy and Dialectic During the Gregorian Reform,” The Journal of Religious History 16 (1990), 115–25. —— “ ‘Scientia Liberalis,’ Dialectics, and Otloh of St. Emmeram,” Revue bénédictine 97 (1987), 241–52. Reynolds, Suzanne, Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric, and the Classical Text (Cambridge: 1996). Robinson, J. Armitage, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster: A Study of the Abbey under Norman Rule (Cambridge: 1911). Roth, Cecil, ed., The Dark Ages: Jews in Christian Europe, 711–1096 (Tel-Aviv: 1966). Rouse, Mary A. and Richard A. Rouse, “The Development of Research Tools in the Thirteenth Century,” in Mary A. Rouse and Richard Rouse, eds., Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame: 1991), 221–55. —— “Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,” in Mary A. Rouse and Richard Rouse, eds., Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame: 1991), 191–219. Rubenstein, Jay, “Liturgy against History: The Competing Visions of Lanfranc and Eadmer of Canterbury,” Speculum 74 (1999), 279–309. Smalley, Beryl, “The Bible in the Medieval Schools,” in Peter R. Ackroyd, et al., eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1963–1970), 2.197–220. —— “Les commentaires bibliques de l’époque romane: glose ordinaire et gloses périmées,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 4 (1961), 15–22. —— “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria I” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935), 235–62. —— “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria II” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1936), 24–60. —— “La Glossa Ordinaria: Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 9 (1937), 365–400. —— The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: 1964 paperback edition of the original 1952 edition). Souter, Alexander, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul: A Study (Oxford: 1927). —— A Study of Ambrosiaster (Nendeln: 1967 reprint of 1905 edition). Southern, R.W., “Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours,” in R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern, eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford: 1948), 27–48. —— The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven: 1953). —— Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge: 1990). —— Saint Anselm and his Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059–c. 1130 (Cambridge: 1963). Spicq, C., Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au moyen âge (Paris: 1944). Stegmüller, F., Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid: 1940/1950–1980).

bibliography

213

Stock, Brian, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton: 1983). Sullivan, Francis Aloysius, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Rome: 1956). Thomson, R.M., “The Norman Conquest and English Libraries,” in Peter Ganz, ed., The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture: Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium, 26 September–1 October 1982, 2 vols. (Turnhout: 1986), 2.27–40. Tweedale, Martin M., “Logic (i): From the Late Eleventh Century to the Time of Abelard,” in Peter Dronke, ed., A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (Cambridge: 1988), 196–226. Vattasso, Marcus and Pius Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Codices Vaticani Latini Tomus I. Codices 1–678 (Rome: 1902). Vaughn, Sally N., The Abbey of Bec and the Anglo-Norman State 1034–1136 (Suffolk: 1981). —— “Anselm of Bec: The Pattern of his Teaching,” in Sally N. Vaughn and Jay Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 1000–1200 (Turnhout: 2006), 99–127. —— “Lanfranc, Anselm and the School of Bec: In Search of the Students of Bec,” in Marc Anthony Meyer, ed., The Culture of Christendom: Essays in Medieval History in Commemoration of Denis L.T. Bethel (London: 1993), 155–75. —— “Lanfranc at Bec: A Reinterpretation,” Albion 17 (1985), 135–48. —— and Jay Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 1000–1200 (Turnhout: 2006). Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de Saint Augustin (Steenbrugis: 1976). Ward, John O., “From Antiquity to the Renaissance: Glosses and Commentaries on Cicero’s Rhetorica,” in James J. Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric (Berkeley: 1978), 25–67. Warner, George F. and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections, 4 vols. (London: 1921). Watkins, Priscilla D., “Lanfranc at Caen: Teaching by Example,” in Sally N. Vaughn and Jay Rubenstein, eds., Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 1000–1200 (Turnhout: 2006), 71–97. Webber, Teresa, “Script and Manuscript Production at Christ Church, Canterbury, after the Norman Conquest,” in Richard Eales and Richard Sharpe, eds., Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints, and Scholars 1066–1109 (London: 1995), 145–58. Wieland, Gernot R., “The Glossed Manuscript: Classbook or Library Book?” AngloSaxon England 14 (1985), 153–73. Wiles, Maurice F., The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge: 1967). Wilmart, André, “La collection de Bède le Vénérable sur l’Apôtre,” Revue bénédictine 38 (1926), 16–52. —— “Le mythe de Pierre de Tripoli,” Revue bénédictine 43 (1941), 347–52. —— “Sommaire de l’exposition de Florus sur les épîtres,” Revue bénédictine 38 (1926), 205–16. Witt, Ronald G., “Medieval Italian Culture and the Origins of Humanism as a Stylistic Idea,” in Albert Rabil, ed., Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: 1988), 1.29–70.

INDEX

Abelard, Peter, 102 Ad Herennium, 20–2, 76, 78, 107 Adelmann of Liège, 198 Alexander II, pope (Anselm of Baggio), 11, 14, 16–7 Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 24, 119, 153, 155; commentaries of Ambrosiaster; Theodore of Mopsuestia; Chrysostom, see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Ambrosiaster, see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Anastasius the Greek, 7 Anselm of Besate, 21–2 Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 4, 14, 16, 23–4, 95, 192–3 Cur Deus homo, 93, 204 Letters, 24, 39, 43, 102–3, 154, 172–3 Monologion, 172–3, 193 Proslogion, 93, 193 Anselm of Laon, 26, 29–30, 35–6, 41n Aristotle, 12–3, 20, 24, 78, 110, 206 Armann, 55 Arnost, bishop of Rochester, 15 Ascelin of Brittany, 198 Augustine, bishop of Hippo, 22, 24–7, 134, 153, 155, 159; Ad Galatas; Augustinian authority; extracts in Florus Collectaneum, see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Avranches, 8, 16 Bec, abbey, 3–4, 13, 25 catalogue, 23–4, 39, 119–20, 137, 145 foundation, 6–7, 9 see also: Lanfranc of Bec Bede, 24, 137, 153 Benedictine liturgy, 25 Berengar of Tours, 95, 112; Biblical commentary, 26, 28, 30, 35, 55, 57–8 eucharistic controversy, 4, 12, 76, 79–80, 113–4, 198–9, 202 Lanfranc’s teacher, 12, 16, 18–9, 110, 112–3, 205

Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum, 80 Scriptum contra synodum, 79 Bernard of Clairvaux, 102 Biblical commentary: Carolingian, 27 eleventh-century, 27–9, 35–6, 73 glossed commentary, 28, 36–7 Pauline, 25–7, 29–30, 40 Psalms, 25, 29–3 twelfth-century, 35–6 see also: Glossa ordinaria Blessed Virgin Mary, priory at Worcester, 38, 50 Boethius, 22, 24–5, 78 Bonlius, Pavian jurist, 20 Boso, monk and abbot of Bec, 93, 205 Brooke, Z.N., 136 Bruno of Chartreux, 26, 28 Cassian, John, 22, 153 Cassiodorus, 58, 155 Christ Church, Canterbury, 39–41, 43 catalogues, 40, 41n, 76, 135–7, 157n Chronicon Beccensis, 10 Chrysostom, John, bishop of Constantinople, see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Cicero, 12, 20–2, 24, 97, 110, 112, 124, 204, 206 De inventione, 20–2, 76–8, 105–7 Topica, 21–2, 78, 97, 107 topics, 83, 97, 106–10 Clement, III, antipope, 11 Cowdrey, H.E.J., 9, 16 D’Achery, L., see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul De decem categoriis, 78 dialectic, 10–3, 17–8, 75–8, 95, 97–8, 100, 106, 109–11, 114, 205 see also: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Domnall, bishop of Munster, 114 Donatus, grammarian, 78 Drogo, archdeacon of Paris, 28, 30, 35, 57–8

216

index

Drogo of Parma, 21 Durand, abbot of Chaise-Dieu, 39, 47 Eadmer, monk of Christ Church, 14 education in the eleventh century: in Italy, 18–22, 110–2, 196 in northern France, 7, 18–9, 75–9, 81, 110–4, 196–7, 205–6 Epistola ad Laodicenses, 42, 45 Erasmus, 20, 78 eucharistic controversy, see: Berengar of Tours; Lanfranc of Bec Eusebius, 153 Expositiones of the Liber Papiensis, 20 Fécamp, abbey and library, 7, 23–4 Florus of Lyons, 26 see also: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Gameson, R., 38, 48, 50, 135–6 Gasper, G.E.M., 24 Gibson, M., 15–8, 37–9, 41, 43–4, 46, 53–4 Gilbert, count of Brionne, 6 Gilbert Crispin, monk of Bec and abbot of Westminster, 5–7, 14, 103 Gilbert de la Porée, 30 Giles, J.A., 16 Glossa ordinaria, 29–31, 35–7, 61, 71n grammar, 11–2, 17–9, 75–6, 78, 104, 106, 113 see also: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Gregory I, Pope, 22, 24, 55, 57–8, 153 Guitmund of Aversa, 12, 14, 76, 79, 112–3 Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, 14–5 Haimo of Auxerre, 26 Haskins, C.W., 75 Henry, abbot of Battle, 14–5 Henry I, king of England, 49 Herbert of Bosham, 30 Herluin, abbot of Bec, 6–7, 9, 13, 23, 117 Herodian, 12 Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, 58 Hrabanus Maurus, 26 Hugh the Chanter, 14 Isidore, bishop of Seville, 57–8 Ivo, bishop of Chartres, 14, 16–7

James, M.R., 40 Jerome, 24, 26, 42, 55, 57–8, 153, 155 John, abbot of Fécamp, 7 John Scottus, see: Ratramnus of Corbie Jumièges, abbey, 23 Lanfranc of Bec: LIFE: abbot of Saint-Étienne at Caen, 3–4, 10, 102 adviser to William of Normandy, 9 archbishop of Canterbury, 3–4, 11, 102 Bec curriculum, 9–13, 15–7, 25–6, 77–9, 110–4 see also: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul conversion to Bec, 4, 7, 12, 16, 22 education in Italy, 7–8, 10, 15, 18–22, 110–2 eucharistic controversy, 79–81, 113–4, 153, 197–202 legal career, 8, 16, 20, 111n libraries at Bec and Canterbury, 23–5, 39–40, 117–20, 136–7, 146, 153–4, 172, 197–8 papal adviser and correspondent, 4, 11, 17 students at Bec, 9, 14–7 teacher, 7, 9, 14, 17, 102–3, 206 youth in Pavia, 3, 7–9, 12 travels in France, 3, 7–8, 12, 15–6, 110–3 WRITINGS: annotations in Bec manuscripts, 24, 136–8 canon law collection, 24, 40, 136 commentaries on the liberal arts, 5, 21, 76–7 Commentary on Psalms, 25 De corpore, 5, 15, 79–80, 109, 172, 197–8 Decreta Lanfranci (Monastic Constitutions), 5, 103n Lantfrancus de dialectica, 76 letters, 5, 24, 102–3, 172 notes on patristic texts, 5, 172 Questiones Lantfranci, 76 Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul: COMPOSITION: date, 17–8, 113, 154, 196–7, 200, 202

index glossed format, 26, 28, 32–4, 60, 73, 89, 203–4 Lanfranc as editor of patristic material, 22, 34, 46, 60, 73, 84, 95, 117–20, 135–9, 145–9, 153, 155–8, 167–9, 181–2 school text, as a, 25–6, 28–9, 33–4, 77, 89, 93, 102, 133, 191–4, 197, 203–6 MANUSCRIPTS: Bamberg, Staatsbibl., 131(A.II.34), 38, 52–3, 60, 63, 72–3 Bec copy, 39, 41, 72, 146 Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part ii, fols. 86r–156r, 37, 58, 60–1, 63, 72–3 Bern, Bürgerbibl. 334, part iv, fols. 240r–352v, 37, 44–6, 59, 61–73, 146 Canterbury Cathedral Archives, Add. 172, fols. 9v-161r, 28, 37–44, 59–60, 62–73, 81, 83, 145–6, 158 catchwords, 47, 52, 55, 59 Christ Church copy, 39–41, 71–2, 146 continuous text manuscripts, 36, 47–8, 52, 59–60, 62 D’Achery’s manuscript, 15–6, 35, 37, 53–4, 60, 63, 72–3, 81–3, 109 glossed manuscripts, 36–8, 42–3, 45, 47–51, 53–6, 58, 60 interlinear glosses, 42, 45–6, 48–9, 53, 58, 71, 92 London, British Library, 4.B.IV, fols. 1r–89r, 38, 49–51, 59, 61–3, 72–3, 155 Manchester, John Rylands University Library lat. 109, fols. 5r–126v, 38, 48–9, 59, 61, 63, 72 Milan, Ambrosiana A.88 sup., fols. 1r–109r, 37, 54–5, 60–3, 72–3 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 2875, fols. 1v–24v, 37, 47–8, 59, 61, 63, 72 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 12267, fols. 47r–112r, 37, 59–61, 63 patristic material, inclusion of, 42–7, 49–56, 58–60, 62, 71–3, 155 reference signs, 42, 45, 47, 49–51, 55, 58, 61 Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.89, fols. 27r–87v, 38, 51–2, 60–1, 63, 72 Vatican, lat. 143, fols. 1r–184v, 38, 55–8, 60, 62–3, 72–3 text types, A and group B, 43–5, 48–9, 51–4, 60, 63–73, 81–3, 114

217 METHODS: allegory, 164–5, 177–80, 182–91 Aristotelian vocabulary, 80, 82–4, 104, 110 dialogue (debate), 86–8, 92–3, 95, 110, 122–3, 202–5 equipollency, 80–3, 109 id est glosses, 89–93, 109, 201, 203 ordo glosses, 89–90, 93, 109, 200–1, 203 quasi (quis) diceret glosses, 89, 92–3, 203 quotations of classical texts, 83n, 97, 104 quotations of Old Testament, 125, 133–4, 154 rhetorical texts, use of, 22, 81–3, 97, 105–12, 124, 193–4, 196, 203–5 subaudis/scilicet glosses, 89–93, 109, 203 syllogistic arguments, 33–4, 77, 83, 98, 104–6, 110 theological interpretation and authority, centrality of, 33, 94–5, 98, 113–4, 117–8, 153, 173, 191, 194–5, 203–4 trivium arts, use of, 33–4, 53–4, 81–4, 95–115, 154, 173–4, 192, 196, 203–5 SOURCES: Ambrose compendium, 119–20, 124, 135, 146–7, 155, 157–9, 167, 195 Ambrosiaster, 28, 73, 118, 120, 124, 146–53, 156, 159, 167, 196 Augustine, Ad Galatas, 27, 73, 117–18, 120, 129, 152–3, 156, 158–65, 167–8, 171, 178–80, 188, 191, 195, 197 Augustinian authority, 84, 137, 145–6, 153–4, 158, 167–8, 172–4, 180, 189–91, 195–8 Chrysostom, 28, 73, 119–20, 156, 167, 181–2 Florus manuscripts (Cambridge, Trinity College, B.4.5 [119]; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 317 [SC 2708]), 118, 135–8, 145, 147, 157n Florus of Lyons, 27, 73, 118–20, 134–148, 154, 157–8, 168–9, 195 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 28, 73, 118, 120, 156, 158–9, 165–8, 178–80

218

index

THEMES: Christian growth and the church, 174–7, 190–1 Christology, 132–3, 180–93 eucharistic glosses, 178, 186, 199–202 faith and works, 99–101, 114, 124–5, 131–3, 144–5, 149–53, 174–8, 180, 201–2, 204 grace, 132, 138, 142, 159, 162, 164, 167, 169–71, 174–5 human will, 127, 130, 134, 139–40, 142, 145, 152, 159, 162, 164, 166–7, 169–71 Jews, 120–32, 144–5, 149–53, 163–4, 171, 174, 180, 189–91, 201–2 knowledge of God, 175–8, 192, 203 law, 120–31, 133–4, 138–42, 144–5, 149–53, 158–67, 169–72, 180, 188–90, 202 obedience, 125, 132–3, 166, 204 preexistent faith, 122–30, 142, 144–5, 149–53, 161–3, 165, 189–91, 201–2 promise of God, 120–7, 129, 134, 149–53, 165, 184, 188, 190 sin, 138, 140–1, 145, 149, 152, 164, 166–7, 169–71, 183–4 the teacher, 13–4, 73, 96–103, 106, 110, 112, 113–4, 173–4, 176–7, 203, 205 truth and righteousness of God, 120–2, 124, 129, 151 Lanfrancian script, 40–1 Laon, school of, 29–30, 35 Leo I, pope, 58 liberal arts, see: dialectic; grammar; rhetoric; trivium; Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Lisieux, 6 logic, see: dialectic logica vetus, 78, 83, 104, 110, 112, 196 Lombard, Peter, 30 Lucan, 22

Orderic Vitalis, monk of Saint-Évroult, 12, 14 Origen, 57–8 Ovid, 22

Manegold of Lautenbach, 26, 28 Micy, abbey, 44 Milo Crispin (Miles), monk of Bec, 5–6 Miracula sancti Nicholai, 12, 19, 79, 112 Mont-St.-Michel, abbey, 7, 23

Theodore of Mopsuestia, see: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Thomas I, archbishop of York, 14 trivium, 4, 10–3, 18–9, 24, 75–9, 96, 104, 106, 109, 113, 117 see also: Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul

Nicholas II, pope, 10, 16, 76, 79 Normandy, 3, 5–6, 12–3, 15, 22–3

Pavia, 3, 7, 12, 20–1 Pelagius and Pelagianism, 26, 134–5, 138, 140, 155, 159, 166 Penenden Heath, trial of, 49 Peter of Tripoli, 137 Plato, 25, 96, 110 Porphyry, 78 Priscian, 22, 40, 76, 78, 155 quadrivium, 11, 96, 110 Quintilian, 20 Radbertus of Corbie, 198–200 Ralph of Laon, 28 Ratramnus of Corbie, 198–200 rhetoric, 10–2, 18–22, 75–8, 96, 106, 109–14 see also: Cicero; Lanfranc’s Commentary on St. Paul Robert of Torigny, 14 Rome, council of 1059, 79 Rotiland, of the Rhetorimachia, 21 Rouen, 8, 23 St. Andrew, priory at Rochester, 38, 41n, 48 St. Aper, abbey at Toul, 76 St. Augustine, abbey at Canterbury, 38–9, 41, 43 catalogue, 39 St. Ouen, abbey, 23 St. Wandrille, abbey, 23 Sedulius Scottus, 26 Sichelm of Reggio, 21 Sigebert of Gembloux, 11, 76–7 Smalley, B., 57 Southern, R.W., 16, 18, 24, 43–4, 46, 94–5, 136 Suppo, abbot of Mont-St.-Michel, 7

index Vaughn, S.N., 16–7 Vercelli, synod of 1050, 79 Virgil, 22, 104 Vita Anselmi, 6 Vita Herluini, 5–10, 13, 16, 23, 111, 154, 196–7, 205 Vita Lanfranci, 5–10, 13–4, 16–7, 23, 111, 154, 196–7, 205 William, abbot of Cormeilles, 10n, 14 William II, duke of Normandy and I, King of England, 3, 13, 23

219

William of Champeaux, 102 William of Malmesbury, 12, 14 William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux, 11 William of Volpiano, abbot of Fécamp, 7 Williram, abbot of St. Ebersberg, 10, 14, 77 Witt, R.G., 19