Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria’ on John (Ca

PETER COMESTOR’S

Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John (ca. 1165)

An Historical Introduction with a Critical Edition

David M. Foley

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

PETER COMESTOR’S

Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John (ca. 1165)

An Historical Introduction with a Critical Edition

David M. Foley

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

2020

ABSTRACT

This thesis encompasses the first partial critical edition and specialised study of a series of lectures

from the cathedral school of Notre-Dame, Peter Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Delivered

in Paris in the mid-1160s, Comestor’s lecture course on the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on the Gospel of John

has survived in seventeen manuscript witnesses, being preserved in the form of continuous

transcripts taken in shorthand by a student-reporter (reportationes). Following a careful census of the manuscript tradition, I have selected ten of the best witnesses dating from between ca. 1175 and

1225 to produce a critical edition of the prothemata and the first chapter of Comestor’s lectures. In addition to the text of the original lectures, I provide two appendices containing subsequent accretions to the lecture materials contributed by Comestor and his students, as well as a third appendix containing an edition of the corresponding portion of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ from which

Comestor lectured.

The second part of this thesis, comprised of five chapters, represents a critical study of the historical and intellectual context of Peter Comestor’s biblical teaching. Chapter One presents an outline of

Comestor’s scholastic career and known works, a survey of the scholarship on his biblical glosses, and a general introduction to the text of the edition: its date, genre, and title. Chapter Two charts the intellectual landscape of Comestor’s lectures: namely, the tradition of biblical teaching originating at ii the School of Laon, preserved in the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ and subsequently developed in the classroom by Peter Lombard and a succession of Parisian masters. Chapter Three examines more closely the portion of the Glosae presented in this thesis, encompassing: an overview of its structure and narrative sequence, an examination of Comestor’s teaching method and scholastic setting, an outline of the sources behind the master’s biblical scholarship, and a survey of his engagement in contemporary doctrinal controversies. In Chapter Four, I provide a detailed description of the manuscripts selected for this edition together with a stemmatic analysis of their relations. Finally,

Chapter Five sets forth the editorial principles observed in the edition, its various apparatus, and the appendices.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, of blessed memory, asseverates that “thanks are the highest form of thought.” Admittedly, I am ill qualified to analyse this aphorism at the philosophical level, but G.K. would be gratified to learn that little higher thought went into the production of the present thesis than that prompting my initial act of thanksgiving towards the many benefactors and friends who

have made my doctoral work at the Centre for Medieval Studies possible.

It is not simply for the promised length of days that I am compelled to begin by observing the fifth commandment. To my parents, Gregory and Christie, I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude: for the virtue of faith, for the love of reading and intellectual adventure, and for their bewildering support throughout the years of their youngest son’s every pursuit, whether it happened to be skateboarding, medieval Latin philology, or French monasticism. Next to filial piety falls the fraternal; accordingly, my thanks turn to my brothers Gideon and James, who have always been the deserving objects of my friendship and mischief. Also, to my late grandfathers James and Ronald

(quorum animabus propitietur Deus) and to the worthy women who have survived them, Janna and Lois.

Although they are not to be held responsible for the hardened follies of their disciple, recognition is next due to the magistri sacrae paginae. From the first session of his course on Medieval Latin

Palaeography, I had identified Alexander Andrée (viz. ‘Magister noster’ ) as the destined supervisor of my doctoral research. Professor Andrée’s judicious commentary, ready counsel, and unfailing good humour all serve to demonstrate that medieval history is not merely important, but that it is fun. It is in Professor Andrée’s classroom that I was first warmly acquainted with Peter the Eater, and it is from the same that I inherited the felicitous project of editing Comestor’s lectures on St. John’s Gospel. Equally difficult to express is my debt of gratitude to Joseph Goering, who has not only been an indispensable member of my doctoral committee, but also the longsuffering Master of the House in which I have been blessed to lodge for the duration of my dissertation research. One could not have been entrusted to a wiser counsellor, a more cheerful interlocutor, or an abler sous-chef. My gratitude is also due to Greti Dinkova-Bruun, whose philological acumen and fierce commitment to her students have been an invaluable asset towards the completion of my dissertation. Any infelicities that remain are due largely to my defiance of her advice. Finally, I am deeply indebted to Professor Timothy Noone, than whom a more formidable external examiner or penetrating critic could scarcely have been hoped for.

It is upon the highest counsel (sc. Facite uobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis) that I now express my thanks to the various institutions through whose financial support my graduate studies have been made possible. For my Master’s degree and again for the final year of my doctoral studies, I enjoyed an Ontario Graduate Scholarship from the Government of Ontario. For the intervening three years, the Government of Canada generously awarded me with the Canada Graduate Scholarship through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Additionally, I have received support from numerous benefactors for research abroad, among which I must name the School of Graduate Studies for a Research Travel Grant, the Dean’s International Initiatives Fund, and the Gilson Institute for Advanced Manuscript Studies. It is under the auspices of these bodies that I was able to undertake my codicological work in situ at several medieval archives across Europe with due leisure.

The scholarly community of the Centre for Medieval Studies, magistri and condiscipuli alike, has been formative in my intellectual pursuits for the past five years. By virtue of the venerated lineage of Toronto’s medievalists, I am profoundly indebted, as a “petit-fils spirituel,” to the likes of Fr. Édouard Jeauneau, Fr. Nikolaus Häring, and Fr. Leonard Boyle, O.P., magistri magistrorum meorum. Among the Centre’s current faculty members to whom I am grateful for transmitting this traditio studii are Lawrin Armstrong, who first taught me to read medieval manuscripts, John Magee, who taught me to apply thought to textual criticism, and Giulio Silano, whose aptitude for provocation (and not infrequently of thought) knows few rivals. I must also express my warm gratitude Gilbert Dahan of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique and Mark Clark of the Catholic University of America, who have both shown me uncommon kindness during the final stages of my research.

My original Master’s cohort at the Centre was an exceptionally convivial one, and many of the friendships that began in 2014 have not ceased to enrich my life. Accordingly, I must name Mark Doerksen, a fellow Saskatchewanian, irreproachable flatmate, and worthy vicarius ad Societatem Domuscholarium Latinitatis Vivae. Robert Smith, who dwelt among us but briefly in the New World but lingers still in our hearts. Jared Johnson, who opened to the three of us the little world of pipe tobacco and hosted the weekly Palaeo-Halo-Vino evenings which would prove so formative in our study of medieval handwriting. And Anthony Fredette, a loyal friend and brilliant medievalist, whose sole intellectual fault, perhaps, is his fixation upon the pagan delicacies of the twelfth-century schools. Preceding me in the programme, but exerting no less influence over my ideal of Catholic scholarship, is Jason Brown, who has from the first been a judicious mentor and a firm friend.

Following me in the programme is Simon Whidbee, to whom I am united by a keen affection for Peter the Eater, and who has graciously shared with me many of the materials that he has compiled in his preparation of a critical edition of Comestor’s Glosae super Lucam glosatum. Finally, the cordiality and patient technical support of Andrew Dunning have been a continuous source of cheer.

Many kindly families of the parish of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Saskatoon have supported me in more ways than I can name. First among these, and that which I will ever count as a second family, is the Robertsons: Charles and Heather, parents to my goddaughter Perpetua Lucia and to her vivacious (and numerous) siblings Ianua, Macarius, Philomena, Eulalia, Ignatius, † Crescentia, and Anastasia. Incidentally, it is Jordan Olver who first introduced me, not only to the Robertsons, but also to another unwearying friend and patron, St. Thomas Aquinas, and to the medieval intellectual tradition more generally; for these benefices, and many others besides, I am in his debt. An affectionate allusion is also due to a merry concatenation of Sidloski cousins – Misses Mary, Anna, Katherine, and Thérèse, and Masters Dominic, Kolya, James, and Stephen –, stupores mundi, who serve equally well as discipuli in Societate Domuscholarium Latinitatis Vivae and a fellow’s dearest friends.

It remains to express my gratitude to certain men of the cloth, without whose sensible counsel and spiritual direction I do not like to imagine what might have become of me. To Fr. Andrew Wychucki, cui perennem gratiam. Fr. Daniel Callum, C.S.B., vivax conversator necnon insignis praedicator. And Fr. Michael Eades, C.O., animarum curator peritissimus – sine quo non.

Finally, Master Peter Manducator, in whose school the study of the sacred page grows only more rewarding with the passage of time.

†

Vnicae meae B. Virgini Mariae cuique dominica sub cruce assistenti eiusque adoptionis filiorum principi Magistri dilecto Iohanni euangelistae.

DATA SASKATONIAE

in festo sancti Ioseph Opificis anno ab Incarnatione Dni MMXX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii ABBREVIATIONS ...... x

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I: THE TEXT AND ITS ORIGINS

PREAMBLE ...... 1

I. 1 ‘MAGISTRORVM PARISIENSIVM PRIMVS’ ...... 2

I. 2 PETER COMESTOR’S GLOSSED GOSPELS: STATVS QVAESTIONIS ...... 7

I. 3 PETER COMESTOR’S LECTURES ON THE JOHN GLOSS: REPORTATIO, DATATIO, TITVLATIO 1. Reportatio ...... 18 2. Datatio ...... 30 3. Titulatio ...... 33

CHAPTER II: ‘MASTER ANSELM’S SPIRITUAL SONS’: THE PATRIMONY OF THE SCHOOL OF PARIS

INTRODUCTION ...... 38

II. 1 MASTER ANSELM AND HIS SCHOOL: THE GENESIS OF THE BIBLICAL GLOSS ...... 39

II. 2 THE GLOSSED BIBLE IN THE PARISIAN CLASSROOM ...... 46

IΙ. 3 PETER COMESTOR, STUDENT AND MASTER: THE SCHOOL OF PARIS AND THE LAONNOISE TRADITION

1. ‘ Vocem iucundam Comestoris audiuimus’ ...... 55 2. ‘Sed magister preparauit ingressum’ ...... 61

3. ‘ Magistri nostri Manducatoris sequentes uestigia’ ...... 67

CHAPTER III: GLOSAE SVPER IOHANNEM GLOSATVM: THE LECTURES AND THEIR SOURCES

INTRODUCTION ...... 75

III. 1 STRUCTURE AND NARRATIVE SEQUENCE OF THE GLOSAE ...... 76

III. 2 PETER COMESTOR’S SCHOLASTIC SETTING & TEACHING METHOD 1. Oral Formulae and Signs of a Scholastic Context ...... 96 2. Comestor’s Use of the Gloss ...... 103 3. The Principles of Comestor’s Exegesis ...... 110 vii

IΙΙ. 3 THE SOURCES OF THE GLOSAE 1. The Fathers and the Doctors ...... 120 2. The ‘Modern’ Masters ...... 125 3. Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates ...... 133

CHAPTER IV: THE TEXTUAL WITNESSES

IV. 1 THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PRESENT EDITION ...... 144 1. Description of the Manuscripts ...... 147

IV. 2 ‘MAGISTRALIS ADIECTIO’ ...... 207 1. Accretions in the Present Edition ...... 213 2. Conespectus adiectionum ...... 219

IV. 3 THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS 1. The Archetype (ω) and the Constitution of the Text ...... 224

2. The Family α ( A D P T Z ) ...... 226

3. The Family γ ( M N O ) ...... 228

4. The Family β ( B I ) ...... 231 5. Stemma textuum ...... 233

CHAPTER V: EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES

V. 1 PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING THE TEXT ...... 235

V. 2 THE PRESENTATION OF THE TEXT 1. Orthography and Punctuation ...... 236 2. Critical Signs and Sections ...... 236

V. 3 THE APPARATUS 1. The apparatus criticus ...... 237 2. The apparatus glosarum ...... 238 3. The apparatus fontium et similium ...... 239

V. 4 THE APPENDICES 1. Appendix I: Adiectiones magistrales ...... 240 2. Appendix II: Additiones singulares codicum B & I ...... 242 3. Appendix III: Iohannes glosatus: Prothemata & Capitulum I ...... 243

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 245

viii

PART TWO: TEXTVS

PARS IA: GLOSAE SVPER IOHANNEM GLOSATVM ......

ABBREVIATIONES ET SIGNA ......

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM ...... I

I. PROTHEMATA ...... I

II. CAPITVLVM I ...... XVI

PARS IIA: APPENDICES ......

I. APPENDIX I: ADIECTIONES MAGISTRALES ...... LXV

II. APPENDIX II: ADDITIONES SINGVLARES CODICVM B & I ...... LXXV

III. APPENDIX III: IOHANNES GLOSATVS: PROTHEMATA & CAPITVLVM I ...... LXXXVI

ABBREVIATIONES: APPARATVS FONTIVM ET SIMILIVM ...... CX

ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL

BnF Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France

CCCM Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis (Turnhout, 1966-)

CCSA Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum (Turnhout, 1983-)

CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-)

CPL Clauis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd ed. (Turnhout, 1961-)

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866-)

Glosae Glosae super Iohannem glosatum Magistri Petri Comestoris, edited below

MGH, SS Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Hanover, 1826-), Scriptores

PG Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, ed. Jacques-Paul MIGNE, 161 vols. (Paris, 1857-66)

PIMS Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

PL Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul MIGNE, 217 vols. (Paris, 1844-64)

RTAM Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale

STEGMÜLLER, RB Friedrich STEGMÜLLER, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1950- 80)

CHAPTER I

THE TEXT AND ITS ORIGIN

Preamble

The Glosae super Iohannem glosatum – whose prothemata and first chapter are here edited for the first time (and subsequently referred to as the Glosae) – is a course of lectures on the Gospel of John originally delivered by Peter Comestor in the cathedral school of Notre-Dame in the 1160s. Originally recorded as student transcripts (reportationes) and preserved in the form of clean-written glosses, these lectures are extant in some sixteen manuscript witnesses, from ten of which the present edition has been prepared. Apart from displaying Comestor’s peculiar genius as a magister in sacra pagina and his role in articulating a new mode of biblical scholarship, the Glosae bear witness to an oral tradition of theological teaching originating with Master Peter Lombard, recently identified as the School of Paris.1 While scholars have recognised the vital importance of Peter Comestor’s teaching in the development of theology in the twelfth-century schools, none of the master’s biblical lectures have before now been presented in an edition, critical or otherwise. Similarly, Comestor’s glosses on the glossed books of the Bible have never been dignified with an in-depth critical study, and only a handful of specialised articles have examined particular features of the lectures.2 Accordingly, the aim of this thesis is to present a substantial portion of Comestor’s lecture course on John’s Gospel in a critical edition based on a variety of the best manuscript witnesses, as well as to provide a preliminary study of the text. With this initial venture into the mare magnum of Peter Comestor’s biblical corpus, the editor hopes that the present study will contribute to the solution of a series of riddles surrounding the cathedral schools of northern France: the process of lectio and reportatio in the schools; the development of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ into a teaching tool; the relation between theology and biblical studies in the ‘nascent scholastic’ period; and, most particularly, the importance of Peter Comestor and the masters of Notre-Dame in the mouvement théologique of the twelfth century.3

1 See, e.g.: Mark J. CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris: The Making of the Twelfth- Century Scholastic Biblical Tradition,” Traditio 72 (2017), 171-274; Alexander ANDRÉE and Mark J. CLARK, The School of Paris: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-Century Classroom (Toronto: PIMS, under review). 2 For a recent overview of these studies, see: Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria’ on the Gospel of John: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-century Classroom,” Traditio 71 (2016), 203-34, at 211. 3 This evocative term derives from Joseph de GHELLINCK’s classic study of the development of theology e throughout the twelfth century: Le mouvement théologique du xii siècle (Bruges: Tempel, 1948).

In the present chapter, a cursory presentation of Peter Comestor’s career and literary output will be given, in addition to the status quaestionis of his lecture courses on the four glossed Gospels. Following this general survey of the Gospel lectures, some particular consideration will be given to

the circumstances of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum : their preservation as reportationes, the date of the lectures’ original delivery, and the selection of a title for this set of glosses. The subsequent chapters of the introduction will deal with the historical context and intellectual tradition to which the glosses belong (II), the method, sources, and theological character of the lectures presented in this edition (III), the textual witnesses of the Glosae (IV), and the principles applied in preparing the present edition (V).

I. 1 ‘MAGISTRORVM PARISIENSIVM PRIMVS’

Petrus Comestor celebris habetur in Francia, Magistrorum Parisiensium primus, uir facundissimus et in scripturis diuinis excellenter instructus, qui utriusque testamenti historias uno compingens uolumine opus edidit satis utile, satis gratum, ex diuersis historiis compilatum.4 ROBERT OF AUXERRE, Chronicon (1173)

It is largely thanks to the exuberance of contemporary accounts following the initial publication of his Historia scholastica that modern scholars have been able to chart Peter Comestor’s academic career with some precision. Here, one need only recite the principal findings developed from the historiography of the twentieth century.5 Renowned for his encyclopedic knowledge of the sacred page, which his contemporaries could best account for by his devouring books whole, Peter of Troyes came to be known as “the Eater” – that is Comestor, or alternatively Manducator.6 Born in

4 ROBERT OF AUXERRE, Chronicon, ed. Oswold Holder-Egger (MGH, SS, 26: Hanover, 1882), 240: “Peter Comestor is celebrated in France as the foremost of Parisian masters, a man most eloquent and profoundly learned in the divine scriptures, who has produced in one volume a treatise encompassing the histories of both Testaments, which, being compiled from diverse historical writings, stands as a thoroughly useful and pleasing work.” 5 A recent summary of the historiography on Peter Comestor, particularly as it bears upon the Historia scholastica, appears in Mark CLARK’s seminal monograph: The Making of the Historia scholastica, 1150-1200 (Toronto: PIMS, 2015), 1-51. 6 Saralyn R. Daly, an admirably relentless historian, has found this vivid account of Comestor’s sobriquet (to use the master’s own words) non satis authenticum. Though it makes an admittedly duller story, Daly is persuaded that “Comestor” was a family name. vide: DALY, “Peter Comestor: Master of Histories,” Speculum vol. 23, no. 1 (1957), 62-73, at 60-2. See more recently: Pierre GANDIL, “Pierre le Mangeur, doyen du chapitre cathédral de Troyes,” in

Troyes, where he is likely to have received his early education and some of his subsequent training, Petrus Trecensis became dean of the city’s cathedral chapter by 1147.7 Despite his having retained this prebend until his death, scholars have amply demonstrated that Comestor’s academic career took him to at least two schools in northern France during his tenure as the dean of Troyes. First, contemporary accounts reveal that Comestor studied under John of Turonia, a master of Tours about whom very little is known apart from his having been a disciple of Anselm of Laon.8 It is in virtue of this succession that Comestor has been named “petit-fils spirituel d’Anselme,”9 the significance of which lineage will be considered at length in the following chapter. Nevertheless, the defining master-student relationship of Comestor’s life was formed during the following stage of his education. Ignatius Brady, O.F.M., has established that Comestor must have begun his theological training in Paris long before 1158, the final year of Peter Lombard’s teaching career.10 Similarly, Alexander Andrée is persuaded that Comestor was in Lombard’s classroom at least by the early 1150s.11 Significantly, in a series of quaestiones preserved as student reportations that Brady has persuasively attributed to Peter Comestor, the master reports: “M(agister) P(etrus) A(baelardus) dicebat … sic audiui illum docentem.”12 According to this evidence, some scholars suggest that Comestor had already begun to frequent the Parisian schools in the late 1130s, before Peter Abelard’s departure.13 In any event, it is certain that Comestor witnessed the Lombard’s oral teaching before succeeding him as a master of the sacred page at Notre-Dame, the cathedral school

Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 12 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 17–25. 7 DALY, “Master of Histories,” 65. 8 See: Ignatius BRADY, “Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard,”Antonianum 41 (1966), 454- 490, at 485. 9 Cédric GIRAUD and Constant J. MEWS, “Le Liber pancrisis, un florilège des Pères et des maîtres modernes du xiie siècle,” Archivium Latinitatis Medii Aevi 64 (2006), 145-91, at 154. 10 BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” passim, but e.g. 457. 11 Alexander ANDRÉE, “Sacra Pagina: Theology and the Bible from the School of Laon to the School of Paris,” in A Companion to Twelfth-Century Schools, ed. Cédric Giraud (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 272-314. 12 Ignatius Brady argues with some cogency that a series of questions, published as nn. 288-344 in Cardinal Pitra’s edition of the Quaestiones Magistri Odonis Suessionensis, are reportations of Peter Comestor’s Parisian teaching. For this collection, see: J. B. Card. PITRA, Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis altera continuatio, II (Paris-Frascati, 1888), 3-187, q. 298, at 113. BRADY treats this reference in “Peter Manducator,” 465 et sqq. 13 See, e.g.: Matthew DOYLE, Peter Lombard and his Students (Toronto: PIMS, 2016), 168-9; David LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood, (Oxford, 1985), 109-29, at 110.

of Paris.14 This succession is evident from a chronicle composed around 1233, in which Otto of Saint-Blaise names Comestor in the company of Peter Lombard as a Parisian master in 1158, the year before the latter’s elevation to the city’s bishopric.15

According to another account, related by the thirteenth-century chronicler Etienne de Bourbon, Peter Comestor nearly succeeded his master into the Parisian episcopacy as well. Being consulted by the canons of Notre-Dame whether to elect Master Maurice de Sully or Master Peter Manducator for this office, Louis VII solemnly advised: “Feruenciorem animarum regimini assumite; studiosiorem regimini scolarum reseruate.”16 Needless to say, Comestor’s zeal for the study of the sacred page secured him a long career in the schools. Following many years of teaching diuinitas at Notre-Dame, Comestor was appointed cancellarius of the cathedral school ca. 1168,17 where he also held the chair of theology before delegating it to Peter of Poitiers in 1169.18 Despite the higher functions to which Comestor acceded, our master did not cease to teach theology for the remainder of his Parisian career, as witnessed by official documents from 1171-1177 that Comestor signed, “Master Peter, chancellor.”19 After a distinguished career as a master of the sacred page, an historian, and an administrator, Comestor retired to the Abbey of Saint-Victor in 1178, where he died some

14 At this time, however, the school would have been called “Saint-Mary’s,” owing to the name of the church to which it was attached. According to Alexander ANDRÉE’s evocative description, “[t]he twelfth-century cathedral school of Paris was not attached to the Notre-Dame that now graces the city island, but to a smaller church, St Mary’s, located behind the ancient cathedral of Merovingian date dedicated to St Étienne, whose massive, dilapidated hulk must still, in the early twelfth century, have dominated the Parisian cityscape” (“Sacra Pagina,” 293). For the best description of Paris in the first decades of the twelfth century, see: Robert-Henri BAUTIER, “Paris au temps d’Abélard,” in Abélard et son temps. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 9e centenaire de la naissance de Pierre Abélard (14–19 mai 1979), ed. Jean Jolivet (Paris: 1981), 21-77. 15 OTTO OF SAINT-BLAISE, Continuatio San-Blasiana, ed. R. Wilmans (MGH, SS, 20: Hanover, 1868), 308: “Anno dominice incarnationis 1158 […] 12. His diebus Petrus Lombardus et Petrus Manducator apud Parisius magistri insignes claruerunt multaque ecclesie profutura conscripserunt.” 16 A. Lecoy DE LA MARCHE, Anecdotes historiques, légendes et apologues tirés du recueil inédit d’Étienne de Bourbon, dominicain du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1877), 228. Cf. BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” 457: “Choose him who is more zealous for the governance of souls; he who is more studious reserve for the schools.” 17 Significantly, it was the responsibility of the chancellor of Notre-Dame to confer the licentia docendi upon Parisian masters. Although Pope Alexander III issued a decretal between 1170-1172 prohibiting the reception of any fee for conferring this license, since teaching theology was a spiritual function, the pope conceded to Comestor the privilege to continue to exact a fee in 1174 – an extraordinary sign of the favour enjoyed by our master. Comestor held the office of chancellor until he left the city in 1178. See: DALY, “Master of Histories,” 66-7. 18 ibid., 65-6. 19 ibid., 67.

time later.20 As his epitaph informs us, Comestor did not cease to teach even in death, nor could his irrepressible good humour, still so lively in student reports of his oral teaching, be compelled to rest in peace:

Petrus eram, quem petra tegit, dictusque Comestor Nunc comedor. Viuus docui, nec cesso docere Mortuus, ut dicat qui me uidet incineratum: 21 ‘Quod sumus, iste fuit; erimus quandoque quod hic est.’

Notwithstanding Peter’s sometimes ill-governed sense of mischief, it is little surprising to find Comestor numbered among the happy company of Friar Thomas in the Heaven of the Sun.22

While he earned a formidable reputation as a master in the Parisian schools, Peter Comestor’s “célébrité extraordinaire”23 would endure throughout the Middle Ages and well into the early modern period on account of the literary monument that developed out of his magisterial activity: the Historia scholastica. First ‘published’ between 1169 and 1173,24 the Historia became one of the most frequently cited works in the scholastic period, as attested by its preservation in some eight hundred manuscripts.25 Overshadowed by the enormous popularity of his textbook of biblical history, a number of other literary products from earlier in the career of the Magister historiarum have also been preserved. In the first place, a sizeable corpus of Comestor’s scholastic sermons survive, many of

20 While scholars have generally agreed that 1178 is the date of Comestor’s death, contemporary records are somewhat less unanimous. See: DALY, “Master of Histories,” 72-3. 21 ROBERT OF AUXERRE, Chronicon, 242: “Peter was I, whom this rock covers, and I who was called the Eater / am now eaten. In life I taught, nor do I cease to teach / in death, so that he who sees me reduced to ash might say: / ‘What we are now, he was; and what he is, anon we shall be.” 22 DANTE ALIGHIERI, Paradiso, 2 vols., trans. Charles S. Singleton. Bollingen Series 80 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 1: 12, 134. 23 Artur LANDGRAF, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” RTAM 3 (1931), 292-306 and 341-72, at 292. 24 The terminus post quem of the original ‘publication’ of Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica is sometime between 1168/9, when the dedicatee, William White Hands, became Archbishop of Sens, the title under which Comestor addresses his patron. The terminus ante quem is 1173, as Robert of Auxerre’s Chronicle for this year establishes that the Historia was already in circulation. See: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 5-6. Nevertheless, Clark argues that the Historia underwent decades of revision in the scholastic setting, both at the hand of Comestor and subsequent masters teaching from the biblical textbook, most notably Stephen Langton. See: ibid., 157-212. 25 Agneta SYLWAN notes that there are over 800 Latin manuscripts preserved of the Historia Scholastica, not to mention the numerous translations into vernacular languages: “Petrus Comestor, Historia scholastica: Une nouvelle édition,” Sacris erudiri 39 (2000), 345-82, at 351-3.

which were probably delivered before the canons of Notre-Dame.26 Additionally, a brief treatise on the sacraments – resounding with doctrines articulated elsewhere in the master’s known writings – has been identified as the authentic work of Comestor. Largely a digest of the Lombard’s magisterial treatment of the sacraments in his Sentences, while exhibiting the original thought of a maturing theologian, the De sacramentis was likely produced in the mid-1160s.27 Also suggestive of Comestor’s commitment to promoting the teaching of his master is a fragment surviving under the title “Materia super librum Sententiarum,” an accessus which enjoyed profound influence over the early commentary tradition on the Sentences.28 This prologue represents the first extant gloss on the Lombard’s masterpiece, and is thought to be the introduction to an original set of glosses, or a lecture course, on the Sentences (now lost). Finally, Ignatius Brady has persuasively argued that a body of disputed questions preserved as reportationes, which both report the Lombard’s oral teaching and contain important observations about the early textual tradition of his Sentences, should be attributed to Peter Comestor.29

As a renowned theologian in an age of anonymi, our master has inevitably attracted a considerable number of dubious attributions, both medieval and modern. Among the most promising of these is an unpublished commentary on Peter Lombard’s Magna glosatura on the Psalms, bearing a medieval attribution to Peter Comestor.30 Although this set of glosses has received little scholarly attention, Gilbert Dahan is inclined to accept this attribution, owing to the similar modus glosandi that he

26 An excellent survey of the literature on Comestor’s sermons appears in LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” 118-9, n. 26. 27 Raymond M. MARTIN, “Introduction,” in Maitre Simon et son groupe: De sacramentis, ed. Henri Weisweiler (Louvain, 1937), 3-105, at XXVIII*. 28 Riccardo SACCENTI traces the influence of Comestor’s accessus in the commentary tradition of the Sentences, while providing a lucid account of twentieth-century historiography on this question, in “The Materia super libros Sententiarum Attributed to Peter Comestor: Study of the Text and Critical Edition,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 54 (2012), 155-215. Saccenti’s conclusion is well expressed at ibid., 187: “[Peter Comestor’s] accessus to Peter Lombard’s text immediately became a ‘classic’ among contemporaries, who considered it to be an essential instrument for reading and using the Sentences.” 29 BRADY, “Peter Manducator.” See more recently: Francesco SIRI, “Le Quaestiones attribuite a Pietro Comestor,” in Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 12 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 191-223. 30 This commentary is transmitted in the manuscript TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes 770, in which the thirteenth-century titulus provided on the front endpaper reads: “Glosule super psalterium. Postille [magistri Petri Comestoris] super glosas psalterii.” Curiously, the bracketed text was subsequently expunged from the title.

observes between this text and Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels.31 Beyond these, the famous Liber pancrisis, which preserves the sententiae of the Laonnoise masters alongside those of the Church Fathers, was attributed to Comestor in a thirteenth-century chronicle.32 Nevertheless, this attribution has recently been refuted on the basis of the sentence collection’s date and content.33 David Luscombe carefully recounts a number of other questionable attributions made by twentieth- century scholars to Comestor, most notably a set of Allegoriae on the Old and New Testaments and a collection of Quaestiones super epistolas Pauli.34 While the authorship of these texts had generated some debate, Luscombe shows that the attribution of each of the works to Comestor has ultimately been rejected.

Excepting the abovementioned writings associated, whether or not justifiably, with our master, the only remaining works known to originate with Peter Comestor are the student reports of his lecture courses on the four Gospels, the Glosae super euangelia glosata.

I. 2 COMESTOR’S GLOSSED GOSPELS: STATVS QVAESTIONIS

“The extent to which Peter Comestor’s school teaching was reported and discussed,” writes David Luscombe, “is astonishingly great.”35 This assertion is readily supported by Artur Landgraf’s 1931 “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” in which Landgraf was able to identify references to Comestor’s oral teaching in some fourteen unpublished works by authors such as Praepositinus, Peter the Chanter, Peter of Capua, Stephen Langton, Geoffrey of Poitiers, Gerald of Wales, and Guy of Orchelles.36 Despite the prominent place held for centuries by the “Master of Histories” in the theological education of schoolmen all throughout Europe, Peter Comestor’s writings have been done little justice in the historiography of the past century. This negligence can be accounted for in large part by the dearth of printed editions making the master’s works available to scholars. Of the

31 Gilbert DAHAN, “Les exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” in Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maitrê du XIIe siècle, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 12 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 49-87, at 50. 32 ALBERIC OF TROIS FONTAINES, Chronicon, ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst (MGH, SS 23: Hanover, 1874), 631-950, at 853: “Cuius etiam Manducatoris habetur liber qui dicitur Pancrisis…” 33 GIRAUD and MEWS, “Le Liber pancrisis,” 153-8. 34 LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” 121-6. 35 ibid., 127. 36 Artur LANDGRAF, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” 293-306.

substantial corpus preserving Comestor’s teaching, whether oral or literary, only one complete text

has been presented in a critical edition: the De sacramentis, edited by Raymond M. Martin, O.P., in

37 1937. Additionally, a couple of other fragments have enjoyed the attentions of modern editors: the first book of Comestor’s monumental Historia scholastica, edited by Agneta Sylwan in 2005,38 and the fifty-odd line accessus to the Sentences (i.e. the “Materia super librum Sententiarum”), edited by Riccardo Saccenti in 2012.39 Fortunately, an edition of the Historia scholastica in its entirety is contained in the indispensable but famously inaccurate Patrologia Latina, which has fostered some amount of modern scholarship on Comestor’s biblical textbook.40 Until very recently, however, no part of Comestor’s glosses on the four glossed Gospels could be consulted without recourse to the original manuscripts. It is only in the last five years that transcriptions of various prefatory materials to Peter Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels have been printed, thanks to the efforts of Gilbert Dahan, Mark Clark, and Alexander Andrée.41 Despite the fact that the main prologues to the four lecture courses were not, in all likelihood, authored by Comestor at all,42 these newly accessible texts have begun to provoke scholarly interest in Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata.

Before surveying the historiography on Comestor’s lecture courses, some general remarks should be made about the textual tradition of the four sets of the Glosae on the glossed Gospels. Until now, between fifteen and twenty manuscript witnesses for each of Peter Comestor’s lecture courses on

37 Peter COMESTOR, De Sacramentis, ed. Raymond M. Martin, O.P., in Maitre Simon et son groupe: De sacramentis, ed. Henri Weisweiler (Louvain, 1937), 3-105. 38 Petri Comestoris Scholastica Historia: Liber Genesis, ed. Agneta SYLWAN (CCCM 191, Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). 39 Peter COMESTOR, Materia super libros Sententiarum, ed. Riccardo Saccenti, in “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 205-215. 40 For a recent digest of this scholarship, see again: Mark CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 1-50. 41 Gilbert DAHAN has provided transcriptions of the prologues to all four of Peter Comestor’s lecture courses on the glossed Gospels: “Les exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” 73-87. Likewise, Mark CLARK has printed a transcription and translation of the prologue to Comestor’s lecture course on the John Gloss: “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” Mediaeval Studies 76 (2014), 57-113, at 94- 7. Alexander ANDRÉE has also provided a transcription of one of Comestor’s prefatory lectures on the John Gloss: “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria,’” 230-2. 42 For the authorship of Comestor’s Johannine prologue, see the discussion below: Cap. II. 3. 2, “Sed magister preparauit ingressum.” For the probable Lombardian authorship of the prologues to all four of Peter Comestor’s lecture courses on the glossed Gospels, see my forthcoming study: David M. FOLEY, “The Prologues to Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata: Vestiges of Peter Lombard’s ‘Lost Glosses’ on the Gospels?” (forthcoming).

the four glossed Gospels have been identified.43 Although there are several extant copies in which the four Glosae super euangelia glosata were preserved as a set,44 the lecture courses more frequently appear in miscellaneous scholastic manuscripts, circulating either individually or with one or two of the other Glosae. Each set of glosses is extensive, spanning on average from fifty to ninety folia in the extant copies. Significantly, Comestor’s are the earliest known lectures to comment, not simply on the Bible, but on the biblical Gloss – that is, the sacred text as it circulated with a ‘standard’ apparatus of marginal and interlinear glosses in the mid-twelfth century.45 These lectures have been preserved in the form of reportationes, or student reports of the master’s lectiones subsequently edited for distribution. Unlike some student reports from the medieval universities, these reportations are continuous transcripts, and the manuscripts contain no indication of where one lecture ends and another begins. Nevertheless, from one of Comestor’s statements occurring in the prefatory material to the John lectures presented in this edition,46 Alexander Andrée was able to calculate that an average lecture would amount to around 1,800 words, meaning that the lecture course on John (comprising some 87,000 words) would consist of approximately forty-eight lectures.47 Nearly every copy of Comestor’s lectures on the Gospels includes a number of later glosses (or “accretions”) introduced into textual tradition through the margins, which vary significantly between the manuscript witnesses. Many of these additions are suggestive of magisterial revisions or alternate versions of the lectures, as will be considered in the following chapters.

43 Friedrich STEGMÜLLER, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1950-1980), nn. 6575-6578. 44 Until now, I have been able to identify eight manuscripts containing all four sets of Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. In addition to four of the manuscripts used to prepare the present edition (B, I, P, and T ), I can list four additional witnesses: ARRAS, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 564 (0623) (S ), CAMBRIDGE, Pembroke College, MS 75 (C ), TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 249 (R), and ROME, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B. 47 (V ). Together with my colleague Simon Whidbee, I am currently preparing an edition of Comestor’s accessus to all four glossed Gospels, for which we have selected five of these codices. 45 See e.g.: Beryl SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels and His Sources,” RTAM 46 (1979), 84-129, at 129. 46 See below: GLOSAE, PROTH. 2, V, 1-6. 47 Before beginning his lectures on two prefatory materials to the Gospel contained in the John Gloss (glosses attributed to Jerome and Augustine respectively), Comestor remarks that the Augustinian introduction should logically be read first, although by itself this would be too short for a lecture; similarly, if he read this introduction and the Hieronymian prologue in succession, the lecture would be too lengthy. Accordingly, he resolves to follow an “ordinem preposterum”: by reading the “prologus Hieronymi” first, his initial lecture will be the proper length (ca. 1,800 words). See: ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 211-4. Andrée was able to make a similar calculation based on one of Comestor’s comments in his lectures on the Matthew Gloss. See: IDEM, “Caue ne facias uim in tempore! Peter Comestor and the Truth of History,” in Felici curiositate. Studies in Latin Literature and Textual Criticism from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century in Honour of Rita Beyers, ed. G. Guldentops, C. Laes, and G. Partoens (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 515-550, at 524.

While some of the finest medievalists of the mid-twentieth century took pains to identify Comestor’s Glosae and recognised the importance of the master’s oral teaching,48 Beryl Smalley alone undertook a concentrated study of the Gospel lectures. In her foundational article “Peter Comestor on the Gospels and His Sources,” Smalley bases her discussion of Comestor’s lecture material on certain doctrinal and exegetical questions recurring throughout the glosses.49 From her investigation, Smalley advances a number of preliminary conclusions – some of which were remarkably accurate, and others which will meet with a certain display of disapprobation – on many of the principal problems surrounding the Glosae super euangelia glosata. Smalley’s more misleading assertions, involving Comestor’s prologues, the defining interests of his biblical scholarship, and the relation between the Gospel lectures and the Historia scholastica, will be treated in the following chapters; here, however, it is worth enumerating Smalley’s positive findings. First, she identifies some of the principal sources for Comestor’s lectures. One of these is a commentary on Matthew, to which Comestor refers (mistakenly, Smalley believes) as the Glosatura of Master Geoffrey Babion.50 Although she suggests that Comestor may have drawn from a wider group of authors, such as Hugh of Saint-Victor, it is unlikely that Smalley had imagined the breadth of sources to which Comestor regularly took recourse.51 More importantly, Smalley observes that Comestor commented on the Gospel with constant reference to the apparatus of glosses transmitted with the biblical text: the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’52 Explaining Comestor’s technique as a lecturer, Smalley aptly describes the master’s “obsessive care to ‘order’ the glosses in relation to the text.”53 Smalley goes on to show that Comestor used the Gloss to present discrete interpretations of the Scriptures according to the

48 The Glosae super euangelia glosata were securely attributed to Comestor by Artur LANDGRAF, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” 366-72. Ignatius BRADY emphasised the importance of Peter Comestor’s biblical lectures, particularly as they serve as the most faithful witness to Peter Lombard’s oral teaching: Prolegomena, in Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 2 vols. (Grottaferrata: Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 4-5, 1971-1981), 2: 7*-52*, at 39*-44*. 49 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels and His Sources,” 84-129. 50 ibid., 112-3. 51 ibid., 113. For a sense of the breadth of sources behind Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, see our discussion below: Cap. III. 3, “The Sources of Comestor’s Glosae.” 52 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 112, 129. 53 ibid., 112.

various senses, while asserting the primacy that the Master of Histories placed on interpreting the Gospels according to the literal-historical sense.54

Smalley’s most important contribution to our understanding of the glosses are her observations about certain textual features proper to their preservation as reportationes. First, Smalley identifies the magisterial origin of the ‘accretions,’ or layered additions gradually introduced into the textual tradition of the glosae.55 Moreover, she accurately deciphers some of the oral formulae used throughout the lectures to signal magisterial sententiae. Critically, Smalley maintains that the use of inquit indicates the student reporter’s reference to the personal opinions of Comestor.56 Although she casually suggests here that magister dicit may represent an alternative to the inquit-formula,57 Smalley had argued elsewhere that the occurrence of magister in the lectures invariably signals Comestor’s reference to one of his own masters.58 Felicitously, Smalley traces this latter mode of citation to the teaching of Peter Lombard, to whom Comestor routinely refers as magister noster.59

Modern scholars are just beginning to advance the preliminary findings of the previous century on the Glosae super euangelia glosata. The first specialist study of Peter Comestor’s biblical lectures to appear since Smalley broke ground is Gilbert Dahan’s 2009 article, “Une leçon biblique au XIIe siècle: Le commentaire de Pierre le Mangeur sur Matthieu 26, 26-29.”60 After situating Comestor’s teaching in the theological setting of twelfth-century Paris, Dahan considers the preservation of Comestor’s lecture courses as reportationes, remarking on the difficulty of identifying where one lecture ends and another begins, owing to the continuous nature of the master’s commentary and the lack of internal divisions in the text.61 Nevertheless, the passage selected for this study (Mt. 26, 17-25) exhibits a clear transition, beginning with Comestor’s résumé of the foregoing material and a

54 ibid., 115-29. 55 ibid., 109: “I incline to accept [the accretions] as magisterial, or as emanating from the master via his pupils…” 56 ibid., 108. 57 ibid. 58 Namely, EAD., “Some Gospel Commentaries of the Early Twelfth Century,” RTAM 45 (1978), 147-80, at 154. 59 ibid., 154-7. 60 Gilbert DAHAN, “Une leçon biblique au XIIe siècle: Le commentaire de Pierre le Mangeur sur Matthieu 26, 26- 29,” in Ancienne Loi, Nouvelle Loi, ed. Jean-Pierre Bordier, Littérature et revelation au Moyen Âge 3 (Paris: 2009), 19- 38. 61 ibid., 22.

statement of the central theme of the pericope that he goes on to expound (i.e. the institution of the Eucharist), which Dahan regards as the introduction of a discrete lecture.62 Going on to discuss Comestor’s mode of expounding the Gospel, Dahan first considers the role of the biblical Gloss. First, Dahan describes the characteristic of Comestor’s exegesis as “un mouvement d’aller et retour fréquent, de l’évangile à la Glose.”63 On account of Comestor’s constant use of the Gloss and his instructions to his students to follow the text, Dahan asserts that “la Glossa est matériellement présent,”64 and that both the master and students had copies of the Matthew Gloss before them. Despite the central position of the Gloss in Comestor’s classroom, Dahan suggests a distinction between the Glosae super euangelia glosata and “vrais commentaires de la Glossa ordinaria” such as the Lombard’s Magna glosatura or, more surprisingly, Stephen Langton’s commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, asserting that, “[i]ci, la Glossa sert seulement de text de référence ou d’aide.”65 Dahan goes on to consider the particularities of Comestor’s use of the Gloss, observing the master’s predominant reference to marginal glosses and his manner of distinguishing these from interlinear glosses: “le Mangeur désigne les gloses marginales par Glossa (souvent abrégé G.) et la glose interlinéaire par interlinearis.”66 Within his discussion of the Gloss, Dahan notes that the student- reporter “a conservé les consignes très concrètes du maître à ses disciples,”67 and proceeds to reproduce some of the forms of direct address that represent the immediacy of the classroom context in the reportationes of Comestor’s lectures.68

For the remainder of this study, Dahan considers the character of Comestor’s exegesis and the doctrinal content of his lecture on Mt. 26, 26-9. First, while acknowledging the importance of the various spiritual senses in Comestor’s exposition, Dahan observes the predominance that Comestor places upon the literal sense of Scripture, which consists both of historical narrative and the

62 ibid., 23. 63 ibid. 64 ibid. 65 ibid. 66 ibid., 24. 67 ibid. 68 ibid., 24-6.

grammatical meaning of the biblical language.69 Dahan describes Comestor’s particular concern for the grammatical structure of the text and its word order, in addition to his identifying obscure rhetorical devices in the sacred text (e.g. hendiadys).70 Similarly, Dahan remarks on Comestor’s precise use of theological language and his engagement in twelfth-century theological developments, most notably demonstrated by his use of transubstantiatio in his discussion of the Eucharist.71 In conclusion, Dahan again emphasises the centrality of the biblical Gloss (sans cesser présente sur la table du maître), and observes that this scholastic tool, although constantly at Comestor’s fingertips, did not constrict the master’s teaching: “Le commentaire du Mangeur nous montre concrètement comment elle [scil. la Glossa] est utilisée: elle est omniprésente, mais le maître est parfaitement libre à son égard…”72

Following this initial study, Gilbert Dahan would go on to edit a volume of essays on Peter

e 73 Comestor’s biblical corpus: Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: maître du XII siècle. Apart from Dahan’s own contribution, which incorporated elements of Comestor’s Gospel lectures into a broader discussion of the master’s exegetical programme,74 one specialist study of Comestor’s lectures on the Matthew Gloss appeared: Emmanuel Bain’s “La travail du maître dans le commentaire sur l’évangile de Matthieu.”75 Bain’s investigation begins with the origin of Comestor’s “commentary” in the context of oral teaching, according to which he lists the oral formulae and pedagogical methods used throughout the lectures that establish an immediate relation between the master and his students.76 Following Dahan, Bain then discusses the twofold structure generally exhibited by Comestor’s lectures: each “chapter” consists of a narrative, historical, or theological

69 ibid., 26: “Les procédures d’analyse littérale dominent (comme le montre l’étude soigneuse des éléments narratifs et du langage même de cette péricope); l’exégèse spirituelle n’est pas absente pour autant mais harmonieusement intégrée à l’explication du texte.” 70 ibid., 28-9. 71 ibid., 31. 72 ibid., 33. 73 Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maitrê du XIIe siècle, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 12 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013). 74 Gilbert DAHAN, “Les exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” in Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes, 49-87. 75 Emmanuel BAIN, “La travail du maître dans le commentaire sur l’évangile de Matthieu,” in Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes, 89-123. 76 ibid., 90-2.

transition introduced by the biblical text, followed by a word-by-word explication of the Gloss, occasionally interrupted by questions or magisterial opinions.77 Apart from Comestor’s consistent recourse to patristic and historical writings, Bain discusses what he believes to be the three principal sources behind Comestor’s Matthew lectures: the biblical Gloss, the Matthew commentary of Geoffrey Babion, and, rather surprisingly, the Historia scholastica. The evidence that Bain adduces towards the dependence (and therefore posteriority) of Comestor’s Gospel lectures on the Historia must here be considered, as it contradicts Smalley’s findings and those of subsequent scholars. First, Bain cites several occasions in which Comestor alludes to the “euangelice historie,” and observes that these references correspond to material in the Historia euangelica.78 However, the phrase euangelica historia (“the Gospel history”) is a fixture of Comestor’s idiolect which occurs in all of Comestor’s lectures, and more often than not in a context in which no relation to the Historia scholastica could be entertained.79 Consequently, the fact that Comestor’s references throughout his lectures to the narrative history of the Gospel sometimes accord with the text of the Historia euangelica is not suggestive of the latter’s prior composition.80 Moreover, owing to the correspondence between certain accretions in the Historia scholastica and Comestor’s oral teaching recorded in the Matthew glosses, Bain is inclined to regard the Historia as having been published before the lectures.81 Nonetheless, any argument about chronology or textual dependence made from accretions must be held in suspicion. These layered marginal glosses are uncertain both in respect to date and

77 ibid., 92-3. 78 ibid., 98. 79 Even in the relatively short portion of Comestor’s lecture course presented in this edition, Comestor twice alludes to the “euangelica historia,” and on neither occasion is the master referring to his textbook of biblical history. See: GLOSAE, VI, 18 - VII, 1: “Est enim in hoc commendabile opus quia illud, quod erat magis arduum in materia euangelice historie et pro sui arduitate ab aliis sub silentio pretermissum, in hoc opere suppletur”; ibid., LIX, 11-2: “Quomodo autem uel quando fuerint uocati alii [discipuli] ex euangelica historia non habetur, scilicet Symon, Thadeus, Bartholomeus et alii.” See also the prefatory material to the Glosae super Lucam glosatum, where Comestor uses this phrase repeatedly; e.g.: Troyes, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, 1024, fol. 141rb: “Et quia Luchas peritus erat in noticia hystoriarum, erat enim mirabilis hystoriographus, uoluit tradere eis euangelicam hystoriam et errores, quos pseudo[euangeliste] seminauerant, extirpare preualuit.” 80 Indeed, it would be odd if Comestor’s references to biblical history in his glosses were not reformulated in the Historia scholastica, seeing as the express purpose of the Historia scholastica was to provide a concentrated account of biblical history: “Causa suscepti laboris fuit instans petitio sociorum. Qui cum historiam sacrae Scripturae in serie et glossis diffusam lectitarent brevem nimis et inexpositam, opus aggredi me compulerunt: ad quod pro veritate historiae consequenda recurrerent.” (Historia scholastica, “Prologus epistolaris,” PL 198, col. 1053.) 81 BAIN, “La travail du maître,” 98-9.

provenance, with many having apparently been added by student readers and subsequent masters who would have had access to Comestor’s glosses.

Within his discussion of sources, Bain identifies Comestor as a crucial witness to the evolution of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ First, Bain cites Comestor’s attribution of the Matthew Gloss to Ralph of Laon: “magister Radulfus, frater magistri Anselmi, qui hanc glosam ordinauerit…”82 By comparing a number of references that Comestor variously makes to the “glosatura magistri Anselmi” and the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ Bain concludes that the Glosatura Anselmi likely represents a primitive commentary on Matthew’s Gospel composed by Master Anselm, which served as an intermediary for Ralph’s compilation of the Matthew Gloss.83 Before concluding his study with themes of special interest occurring throughout the Matthew lectures – liturgical elements and practices of the Church, the formation of clerics, and the foundation of the literal-historical interpretation in Comestor’s exegetical programme84 – Bain considers the role of the Gloss in the master’s lectures. Accepting Dahan’s claim, Bain maintains that, unlike his successor Stephen Langton, “Pierre le Mangeur … ne commente pas la Glose; il se contente de l’expliquer.”85 Although he accurately presents the fact that “[u]ne partie importante de l’enseignement de Pierre le Mangeur consiste … à rendre la Glose intelligible en la paraphrasant et en l’ordonnant en une lecture plus continue,”86 subsequent scholars would have reason to reject Bain’s claim that the Gloss is not, properly speaking, the subject of Comestor’s lectures.

In recent years, two scholars in particular have advanced our understanding of Comestor’s Gospel lectures: Mark Clark and Alexander Andrée. We are indebted to the former for a significant discovery about the prologue to the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum (discussed below), but in the present chapter it is worth recapitulating some of Clark’s findings in his 2015 monograph The Making of the Historia scholastica, 1150-1200, presented in the second chapter, “Lessons Learned in the Classroom: Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossed Gospels.”87 First, Clark takes pains to answer what

82 ibid., 94. The passage appears in Comestor’s Matthew glosses, which Bain cites from BnF lat. 15269, fol. 75v. 83 ibid., 94-5. 84 ibid., 103-16. 85 ibid., 101. 86 ibid., 102. 87 Mark J. CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 52-83.

would appear to be the most obvious question about the glosses: what, precisely, is Comestor lecturing on? According to Clark, the master was not simply explicating the sacra pagina with reference to the Gloss, as scholars had previously suggested; rather, he was lecturing on the glossed Gospels, equally expounding the biblical text and the apparatus of marginal and interlinear glosses surrounding it.88 Clark then illustrates the method used by Comestor of alternating between glosses and lemmata: in his effort to pursue distinct lines of interpretation according to the senses of Scripture (literal or spiritual), Comestor meticulously excised the heterogeneous components of the Gloss and reconfigured them around the lemma at hand. Mindful of the classroom setting to which the glosses belong, Clark maintains that Comestor’s painstaking use of the Gloss as a biblical textbook represents a fundamental concern animating Comestor’s teaching: that his students should learn to distinguish between the traditions of literal and figurative interpretation which the Gloss presented as “undifferentiated masses.”89 Based on Comestor’s constant reliance upon and reference to the Gloss, Clark follows Dahan in asserting that both master and students must have actively consulted a copy of the Gloss in the classroom.90 Apart from clarifying the role of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in the lectures, Clark helps to dispel a long-held misconception that Peter Comestor was a conservative exegete confined within a so-called “biblical-moral” school, by suggesting that the master played a larger role in the twelfth-century theological movement.91

The final study of Comestor’s Gospel lectures that warrants mention here, and the most apposite to our present purposes, is Alexander Andrée’s 2016 article, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria’ on the Gospel of John: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-century Classroom.”92 As the title suggests, Andrée’s conclusions presented in this article have far-ranging implications about the theological nature of Comestor’s lecture material. Advancing Clark’s assertion that Comestor was not a mere exegete abstracted from the theological developments of the twelfth century, Andrée forcefully challenges the dichotomy between theoretical, ‘systematic’ theology and biblical scholarship conventionally assumed by scholars of the twelfth century.93 While these arguments will

88 See e.g.: ibid., 58. 89 ibid., 83. 90 ibid., 86. 91 ibid., 70-1. 92 Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 203-34. 93 ibid., 203-5, 229-30.

feature more prominently in the following chapters, we will here consider some of Andrée’s insights into the method and structure of Comestor’s John glosses. First, Andrée characterises the development of the Gloss within the twelfth-century Parisian classroom as a scholastic tool. As manifested by Comestor’s ruthless dissection and reordering of the glosses to present a more continuous, intelligible interpretation, Andrée shows that explication of the Gloss was used to highlight theological issues and ‘disputed questions’ arising from the biblical text.94 With extensive reference to Comestor’s prefatory lectures on Iohannes glosatus, Andrée demonstrates that Comestor uses the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ as a foundational textbook from which to structure his lecture course and to extrapolate doctrine from the sacred page.95 From all of this, Andrée is persuaded of the physical presence of the Gloss in the classroom, and agrees with Dahan and Clark that copies of the glossed Gospel must have been actively consulted both by Comestor and the auditors of his lectures.96 Andrée concludes that, for the masters of the twelfth century, theology necessarily arose from exegesis of the Scriptures; consequently, the theological enterprise in this period is rooted in the glossed Bible.97

94 ibid., 229. 95 passim, but see again: ibid., 229. 96 ibid., 220, n. 69. 97 ibid., 229: “In Comestor’s vision of theology, therefore, there can be no division of labor: theology arises from the exegesis of the Bible, and his theological enterprise is firmly rooted at its beginning in sacred scripture.” Although one must be cautious to draw any far-reaching conclusions about the theological importance of the biblical Gloss from this specialised study of Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels, a wider application of Andrée’s assertion may be suggested with reference to a considerable number of examples from the mid-twelfth century. First, Andrée’s findings correspond to those of Mark Clark in his study of Stephen Langton’s corpus of lectures on the glossed Old Testament, which reportedly apply the most sophisticated logical methods and treat some of the most disputed theological issues of the time. (Cf. CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274.) With respect to the Psalms and Pauline Epistles, which have often been regarded as the foundational books from which medieval theologians extrapolated doctrine (cf. e.g. SMALLEY, Study of the Bible, 38), the importance of these glossed books in scholastic theology – whether in the form of the Parua, Media, or Magna glosatura – may be observed according to the central role they play in Robert of Melun’s theological Quaestiones, as well as his Sententiae (cf. Œuvres de Robert de Melun, ed. Raymond M. MARTIN, 3 vols. [Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1947-52], 1: XLVI-XLVII; 2: XXXIII-XXXVI; 3a: XX). Additionally, as will be discussed below, the Gloss served as Peter Lombard’s “perennial source” in his composition of the Sentences (cf. BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 119*); accordingly, for the duration of the High Middle Ages, theological masters would base their resolutions to disputed questions of ‘systematic’ theology upon the auctoritas of the same biblical textbook. Equally securing a prominent position for the Gloss in the legal dimension of high medieval theology is Gratian’s Decretum, which makes extensive use of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ (See e.g. Atria A. LARSON, “The Influence of the School of Laon on Gratian: The Usage of the Glossa ordinaria and Anselmian Sententiae in De Penitentia (Decretum, c. 33 q. 3),” Mediaeval Studies 72 (2010), 197-244.)

I. 3 PETER COMESTOR’S LECTURES ON THE JOHN GLOSS : REPORTATIO, DATATIO, TITVLATIO

Having reviewed the scholarly literature that is gradually accumulating around Comestor’s biblical glosses, it is now possible to address some of the basic questions about his lectures on the glossed Gospel of John: the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Before turning to the Glosae proper and to the intellectual tradition to which they belong, attention must be given to the circumstances of the text’s production, beginning with its origin in the scholastic process of lectio and reportatio. Regrettably, precious few accounts from the twelfth century help to elucidate the formal system by which a master’s classroom lectures became a clean set of written glosses. Consequently, scholars of the reportationes are able to generate far more questions than they can answer. To what extent do the transcripts represent the ipsissima uerba of the lecturer? Was the master involved in the revision and diffusion of the reports? Is it useful, or even possible, to collate multiple manuscripts bearing witness to the same set of lectures? Preparing the present edition has, little surprisingly, made us better equipped to contribute additional questions than to resolve those with which these reportations are already beset. Nevertheless, we will here bring some of the medieval evidence, together with modern research, to bear on these problems.

1. Reportatio

In order to determine what, precisely, the Glosae of the present edition are and how they relate to Comestor’s teaching in the Parisian schools, it will be necessary to consider the magisterial activity in which the glosses were first delivered (lectio), and the student activity by which they were first recorded (reportatio). Every scholar who has studied Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata in any depth has observed that these are not literary commentaries, but a series of lectures preserved by students in the form of reportationes, exhibiting features that can only be explained by their origin in an immediate classroom setting.98 While there is a vast corpus of scholarly literature on reportatio as it was developed in the universities of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the extensive writings of Jacqueline Hamesse offer an articulate point of departure from which to investigate the twelfth- century beginnings of this scholastic practice. According to Hamesse, reportatio should not be regarded as a technique of teaching or a genre of scholastic literature, but rather as a method of

98 This observation has been made in every specialised study of Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels, beginning with SMALLEY, “Comestor on the Gospels,” 114.

transmitting texts that originated in an oral setting.99 With reference to materials from the thirteenth century, Hamesse maintains that such student notes, as opposed to formally dictated works, were produced by the practice of excipere, which would involve abridgment, interpretation, and other types of spontaneous intervention on the part of the student reporter. Accordingly, Hamesse concludes that the reportationes cannot be regarded as “vestiges pleinement authentiques du text d’un auteur,” but rather as notes approximating more or less faithfully the original oral rhythm of a master’s lectures.100 Although she advocates that the editor should approach student transcripts with caution, Hamesse holds that reportations, which were professionally produced and authorised, are an authentic witness to a tradition of magisterial teaching.101 Moreover, despite the apparent limitations owing to their oral origin and the uncertain accuracy of their reproduction, reportationes serve as a repository of the medieval masters’ most original and dynamic teaching. This assertion may be supported by one of the questions that Brady attributes to Comestor, where it is reported of Master Lombard: “Sic, inquit [Magister Comestor], soluebat Magister in disserendo, sed non ita explicuit in scribendo.”102 Finally, due to the fact that the preponderance of thirteenth-century scholastic texts preserved as reportations circulated in more than one version, Hamesse contends throughout her writings that it is not feasible to prepare a composite, critical edition of these texts.103 Similarly, based on the complex layers of contamination which, according to the same, are inherent to reportationes – since students would inevitably compare their notes –, Hamesse maintains that it is in principle impossible to establish a stemma codicum for texts transmitted in this form.104 While these claims will be revisited in our subsequent discussion of the textual tradition of the Glosae, it is here worth noting that both of Hamesse’s assertions presuppose that a given lecture course was either recorded by multiple student-reporters, or that the same lecture course was recorded on more than one occasion (resulting in multiple versions).

99 Jacqueline HAMESSE, “La technique de la reportation,” in L’enseignement des disciplines à la Faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, XIIIe-XIVe siècle), Studia Artistarum 4, ed. O. Weijers, L. Holtz, (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 405-21. 100 EAD., “« Reportatio » et transmission de textes,” in The Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages: Acts of the Conference arranged by the Department of Classical Languages, University of Stockholm, 29-31August 1984, ed. M. Asztalos, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 30 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1986), 11-40, at 16-7. 101 ibid., 16-7. 102 This report is drawn from the manuscript PARIS, BnF lat. 18108, fol. 92r, and quoted by BRADY in “Peter Manducator,” 469. 103 See, e.g.: HAMESSE, “Les problèmes posés par l’édition critique des reportations,” Franciscan Studies 46 (1986), 107-17, at 113-4. 104 EAD., “La méthode de travail des reportateurs,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 3 (1989), 51-67, at 59.

The observations of Jean-Pierre Muller arising from his critical edition of John of Paris’ Commentaria in Sententias (ca. 1286) may here provide a useful counterpoint to Hamesse’s findings.105 As was seen above, the latter’s account hardly countenances the prospect of a reported text carried through multiple witnesses that may be usefully depicted in a stemma codicum (or textuum). Nonetheless, Fr. Muller has shown, with the case of John Quidort’s commentary on the Sentences, not only that it is feasible to produce a critical edition of a reportatio, but also that these student reports constitute an authentic witness to the master’s teaching. For our purposes, it is necessary to recapitulate the two principal conclusions advanced by Muller, which concern the nature of the reportationes as they have reached us and the valour of their testimony to the oral teaching that they preserve. First, Fr. Muller demonstrates that the student reports represent “témoignages authentiques” of the master’s teaching with reference to the fact that John of Paris, when confronted with accusations of his having taught erroneous propositions, offered none of his own personal writings or lecture notes to exculpate himself of the charges; rather, John produced student reportationes, citing these as such as “documents légitimes,” and his reporters as authentic witnesses.106 Additionally, Fr. Muller determines that the commentary as it has been preserved belongs to the fourth level of derivation from the classroom, according to following the scheme that he proposes: 1) the master’s oral performance (lectio); 2) the student-reporter’s concurrent reportatio; 3) the revision (magisterial in some cases) of the original reportatio; 4) a fair-hand copy of the revised reportatio.107 As we will have reason to believe, this same scheme appears to hold force in the case of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata.

Having thus delineated some of the principal questions surrounding student reports in the secondary literature, it is now possible to turn to the medieval accounts of the scholastic practice of reportatio. The most eloquent witness to the student preservation of oral teaching in the twelfth century appears within Peter Abelard’s sulky and vindictive account of Master Anselm and the School of

105 Cf. JEAN DE PARIS (QUIDORT), O.P., Commentaire sur la Sentences: Reportation; Livre I-II, Studia Anselmiana 47, 52, ed. Jean-Pierre Muller, O.S.B. (Rome: Herder « Orbis Catholicus », 1961-4). I am most grateful to Professor Timothy Noone for directing me to these apposite findings from Fr. Muller’s landmark edition.

106 Jean-Pierre MULLER, “Les reportations des deux premiers livres du Commentaire sur les Sentences de Jean Quidort de Paris O.P.,” Angelicum 33, n. 4 (1956): 361-414, at 363-5. 107 ibid., 398.

Laon in his Historia calamitatum, written some time in the 1130s.108 Leaving aside Abelard’s illuminating description of how biblical teaching was pursued at Laon, we will first review the passage in the Historia recounting the circumstances surrounding Abelard’s delivery of his original lectures on the Bible in 1113. After assuring his fellow scolares that he is prepared to elucidate the sacred page solely with recourse to patristic interpretations (scripta uel glosae), without relying upon the authority of any modern master (alio … magisterio),109 Abelard is presented with an “expositor” on an obscure prophecy of Ezekiel and warmly encouraged to prepare a lecture for the following day:

Assumpto itaque expositore statim in crastino eos ad lectionem inuitaui. … Et prime quidem lectioni nostre pauci tunc interfuere, quod ridiculum omnibus uideretur me adhuc quasi penitus sacre lectionis expertem id tam propere aggredi. Omnibus tamen, qui affuerunt, in tantum lectio illa grata extitit, ut … me secundum hunc nostre lectionis tenorem ad glosandum compellerent. Quo quidem audito hii, qui non interfuerant, ceperunt ad secundam et terciam lectionem certatim concurrere, et omnes pariter de transcribendis glosis, quas prima die inceperam in ipso earum initio, plurimum solliciti esse… [S]enex ille perturbatus impudenter michi interdixit inceptum glosandi opus in loco magisterii sui amplius exercere, hanc uidelicet causam pretendens ne, si forte in illo opere aliquid per errorem ibi scriberem utpote rudis adhuc in hoc studio, ei deputaretur… Post paucos itaque dies Parisius reuersus … atque ibi in ipso statim scolarum initio glosas illas Hiezechielis, quas Lauduni inceperam, consummare studui. Que quidem adeo legentibus acceptabiles fuerunt, ut me non minorem gratiam in sacra lectione adeptum iam crederent, quam in philosophia uiderant. Vnde utriusque lectionis studio scole nostre uehementer multiplicate…”110

108 All of my citations of the Historia calamitatum are taken from the recent ‘codex optimus’ edition prepared by Alexander ANDRÉE: Historia calamitatum: Consolation to a Friend (Toronto: PIMS, 2015). Nevertheless, the standard edition of this text remains: Peter ABELARD, Historia calamitatum, ed. J. Monfrin (Paris, 1959). 109 When asked by his condiscipuli how he esteemed the magisterial activity of diuinorum lectio librorum as it was pursued by the masters of Laon, Abelard reports: “Respondi: saluberrimum quidem huius lectionis esse studium ubi salus anime cognoscitur, sed me uehementer mirari quod his qui litterati sunt ad expositiones sanctorum intelligendas ipsa eorum scripta uel glosae non sufficiunt, ut alio scilicet non egeant magisterio. Irridentes plurimi qui aderant an hoc ego possem et aggredi presumerem requisierunt. Respondi me id si uellent experiri paratum esse…” (ANDRÉE, Historia calamitatum, 35-6). 110 ibid., 36-8: “And so I accepted the expositor and invited them without delay to the lecture which was to take place the following day… And indeed, only a few students attended my first lecture, since it seemed absurd to all of them that I, who until then had made practically no study of sacred teaching (sacre lectionis), could attempt such a thing so soon. Nevertheless, the lecture was so well-received by all those present that … they compelled me to gloss the text (ad glosandum) according to the manner of my lecture. Hearing this, those who had been absent eagerly flocked to my second and third lectures, and all of them alike were anxious to transcribe the glosses, which I had started on the first day, from the beginning… Troubled by this, the old man [Anselm] impudently forbade me to pursue any further the work of glossing which I had begun in the place of his teaching authority (loco

In this account, Abelard allows us a glimpse into the fluid relation between oral and written teaching activity in the schools during the first decades of the twelfth century. That which initially seizes our attention in this passage and the episode that precedes it is Abelard’s allusion to his distinctive style of pursuing lectio. While Abelard alternately uses this term to designate a type of learning (e.g. sacre lectionis) and a classroom activity (e.g. ad lectionem inuitaui), we will here consider lectio in its latter sense. Beginning with the account of his original impressions of Laonnoise teaching, Abelard uses lectio (or in the plural, lectiones) to signify a form of continuous lecture encompassing the master’s oral review and explanation of a sacred text.111 As opposed to the other contemporary scholastic activities (collatio, disputatio), lectio was practised in an ordered series, with each lecture continuing the lemmatic, verse-by-verse explication of the authoritative text;112 hence, when Abelard consented to undertake the magisterial activity of lectio, he prepared a sequential course of lectures treating Ezekiel’s prophecy.113

But upon what materials did Abelard rely in preparing for this formidable task? While he is not known to cower from expatiating upon his own ingenium, Abelard does not here boast that he prepared this lecture with no other aid than his own wits. Rather, Abelard reports that he accepted

magisterii sui), under the pretense that, if I should write something in this work through error, unpractised as I yet was in the discipline, it would be attributed to him.… Consequently, I returned to Paris after a few days … and there, at the beginning of my classes (scolarum), I set about completing the glosses on Ezekiel which I had begun at Laon. Indeed, these glosses were so pleasing to my readers that they were persuaded that I had acquired no less facility in sacred teaching (sacra lectione) than in philosophy, as they had already witnessed. Whence my classes on the study of each discipline (utriusque lectionis) increased immensely.” All translations are my own, unless stated otherwise. 111 ANDRÉE, “Sacra Pagina,” 272-3. 112 Here, we should distinguish between the emergent scholastic lectio – based on the technical explication of Scripture in the classroom context – and its monastic predecessor, lectio divina – a fixture of the contemplative life of each monk, consisting of the slow, meditative reading of the Scriptures to achieve a deeper union with God. Jean LECLERCQ, O.S.B., identifies these distinct practices of ‘reading’ Scripture as the fundamental source of the differences between the theology of the schools and that of the monasteries in this period: “The intellectual methods of monastic theology were based on the lectio divina, that is on reading accompanied by meditation and prayer; the methods of the schools were based on a lectio followed by a disputatio. In the cloister, there were ‘conversations,’ not debates” (“The Renewal of Theology,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 68-87, at 82-3). See also: G. R. EVANS, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford, 1980), 153: “[Certain changes] took the student of the Bible from something not far removed from the lectio divina of the monastic schools to the university lecture room, where there was a syllabus to be covered, an order of treatment, and a certain amount of technical knowledge expected.” 113 Cf. Michael CLANCHY and Lesley SMITH, “Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon: What Might it Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?” Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 54 (2010), 1-34, at 9.

an expositor, which Smith and Clanchy aptly define as “a biblical commentary made up of short sections drawn from the works of authoritative interpreters.”114 With what we know about Parisian lectures from the mid-twelfth century, this expositor could be understood as a kind of proto-Gloss, although the date in which Abelard was writing proscribes the possibility of his using the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in its mature form.115 But if Abelard willingly submits to this scholastic tool, what precisely is he rejecting? How is his modus legendi to be considered distinct from that of the Laonnoise masters? Posed otherwise, in what respect does Abelard refuse to bring aliud magisterium into the classroom? In this passage, it is understood that Abelard’s proposed method of lecturing is revolutionary because he presumes to interpret the Scripture without recourse to the teaching of another modern master; or, more specifically, because he prepares his lectio without basing it on the lecture materials of another master. Accordingly, it is implied that the established practice in the schools was to read the Scriptures within a tradition of biblical teaching, passed from master to student, and that this tradition had a defined place in the classroom – whether as oral references to the master’s sententiae, or in the physical form of a master’s glosses or lecture notes (complementing the expositor). As we will see in the following chapters, it is this form of lectio, negatively defined in Abelard’s description of Laon, that corresponds precisely to Comestor’s practice in his Gospel lectures.

Having arrived at some sense of what Abelard means by lectio and how this method of teaching was pursued at Laon, it is now possible to consider how such biblical lectures became a set of written glosses. In Abelard’s case, the process of reportatio is not at all clearly defined. Abelard informs us that it was under the compulsion of the Laonnoise students, in rapture over his teaching, that he began to prepare glosses on the sacred text directly after the first class according to the style of his lecture (secundum hunc nostre lectionis tenorem ad glosandum). At his subsequent lectures, flocks of new students were zealous to copy the glosses, beginning with the written account of the first day’s lecture (de transcribendis glosis quas prima die inceperam in ipso earum initio). After the first class, then, it would appear that Abelard himself wrote out or dictated a set of glosses recapitulating his first lecture which students copied out on the following days. It seems implausible that, after every class,

114 ibid., 9-10. 115 Cf. ibid. 11-2, where Clanchy and Smith discuss references made by Peter Lombard throughout his Sentences to the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ as “expositor.” That the Lombard conceived of the Gloss in the same terms with which Abelard describes his classroom aid for lecturing on Ezekiel is suggestive of the original telos of the Gloss as a scholastic tool, or a textbook for lecturers.

Abelard would have repeated the task of presenting in written form the lecture which he had just finished delivering. Equally unlikely, to my mind, is Clanchy and Smith’s supposition that, after each class, Abelard presided over an additional “glossing session” during which a clean set of glosses summarising the foregoing lecture was produced.116 The description above only indicates that the students transcribed Abelard’s written glosses covering his first lecture, otherwise unrecorded. Would not the lex parsimoniae constrain us to believe that, after the first day, Abelard simply permitted the students to take notes on his lectures while he delivered them? Perhaps he appointed a student – the “tempter” who provoked Abelard’s untimely career of sacra lectio, one might fancy – to take notes of each following lecture.

Although this episode implies a written set of glosses being produced after the initial lecture, Constant J. Mews is persuaded that Abelard’s use of transcribere signifies “to take down from oral delivery.”117 If we are to accept the students’ responsibility for the initial draft of the glosses, Abelard’s subsequent reference to his “writing” (scriberem) need only indicate that he ‘caused the glosses to be written down’ by a student or scribe.118 In keeping with magisterial practice, Abelard could have then revised and authorised the reportations brought to him by the students.119 Consequently, the “work of glossing which [he] had begun” (inceptum glosandi opus) refers equally to the oral lectio and the written glosses, being the record of Abelard’s magisterial activity. Indeed, at the end of the quoted passage, Abelard claims that he continues his work of glossing Ezekiel within the context of his Parisian classes (scolarum), and that his glosses were so pleasing to readers (legentibus) that they extolled his facility for sacra lectio. Regardless of the precise process by which Abelard’s lecture material was committed to parchment, the above passage impresses upon one the tenuous distinction between oral and written teaching in the twelfth-century schools. According to Abelard’s description, glosses are a written extension of the master’s oral teaching, continuously explicating the sacred text secundum lectionem, or “a record of the lectio, revised, edited, and approved by the

116 ibid., 16. 117 Constant J. MEWS, “Orality, Literacy, and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools,” Exemplaria 2, no. 2 (1990), 475-500, at 479. 118 Cf. CLANCHY and SMITH, “Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon,” 16. 119 Cf. Hugh of Saint-Victor’s surveillance over and revision of the notes drafted by his student-reporter Lawrence, discussed below.

lecturer.”120 Moreover, this account presupposes a culture of student-notetaking at the School of Laon. The students’ automatic impulse to make a written record of Abelard’s magisterial lectio is suggestive of a formal institution of reportatio at the School, for which we will find further support in our survey of Anselm’s glosses.121

Before turning from the ineluctable figure of Peter Abelard, brief mention should be made of the witness that the Abelardian sentence collections bear to student-notetaking in the twelfth century. In 1141, various writings of Peter Abelard were famously condemned by St. Bernard at the Council of Sens, among which appeared a certain Liber sententiarum.122 In his reply to the series of accusations, Abelard reports his amazement at finding this book listed at the end of the nineteen capitula presented at the Council: “non sine admiratione maxima suscepi, cum nusquam liber aliquis qui sententiarum dicatur a me scriptus repperiatur.”123 One among a considerable number of sentence collections definitely associated with Abelard, the Liber mentioned above seems to have been “compiled by an amanuensis or a student attending [Abelard’s] classes,” and to contain “reports of Abelard’s oral, and to some extent too, his written teaching.” 124 Unlike the biblical glosses, over which he readily asserts his authorship, Abelard firmly denies having written any book of sentences. Nevertheless, the doctrines contained in these collections are consistent with Abelard’s written corpus, leading the editor of the Liber sententiarum to conclude, “[w]hile none of these collections can be disassociated from the activity of students copying down Abelard’s sentences, they ultimately depend on his inspiration.”125 Although one might well suspect Abelard’s denial of having written the sentences as the type of pedantic disputation (pugnas uerborum) that Anselm found so puerile in the

120 CLANCHY and SMITH, “Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon,” 16. 121 See our discussion below: Cap. II. 1, “Master Anselm and his School: The Genesis of the Biblical Gloss.” 122 For the date of the council, previously supposed to have taken place in 1140, see: Constant J. MEWS, “The Council of Sens (1141), Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval,” Speculum, vol. 77, no. 2 (2002), 342-82. 123 Charles BURNETT, ed., “Peter Abelard, Confessio Fidei “Universis”: A critical edition of Abelard’s reply to accusations of heresy,” in Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986), 111-38, at 138: “It is with no little astonishment that I received [these charges], since nowhere can there be found any work written by me under the title ‘book of sentences.’” 124 Constant J. MEWS, “Introduction,” in Liber Sententiarum magistri Petri (CCCM 14, Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 158- 9. 125 IDEM, “The ‘Sententie’ of Peter Abelard,” RTAM 53 (1986), 130-8, at 170.

logicians,126 it is probable that the student collections of Abelard’s sententiae reported the master’s teaching with varying degrees of accuracy and that they circulated without his authorisation.127 Indeed, it is not until teaching began at Abbey of Saint-Victor, in Cédric Giraud’s analysis, that masters enjoyed personal surveillance over and voluntary dissemination of their oral teaching.128

What can the accounts from the School of Saint-Victor tell us about the development of reportatio as a means of scholastic literary production? A witness of particular importance is a student of Hugh of Saint-Victor by the name of Lawrence, writing in the late 1120s. Although Lawrence is temporally further removed from Peter Comestor, who was lecturing in the 1160s, we will have reason to suspect that his account of reportatio more closely resembles the situation presented by Comestor’s Glosae than did Abelard’s Historia.129 In a letter which has fortuitously come to serve as the preface to Hugh of Saint-Victor’s Sententiae de diuinitate, Lawrence describes his activities as the official reporter of Hugh’s lectures:

Qui cum sententias de diuinitate dicere incepisset, rogatus sum a plerisque sociorum, qui quidem officium, quod michi imponebant, multo facilius ipsi perficerent si non aliis fortasse impedirentur negotiis, rogatus, inquam, sum quatenus ad communem tam mei quam aliorum utilitatem easdam sententias scripto et memorie commendarem. Quorum precibus cum iam bis uel ter commonitus non acquiescerem … demum magistrum Hugonem in eadem peticione secum adhibuerunt. Qui et hoc onus scribendi nobis iniunxit et fiduciam perficiendi magna quadam alacritate promisit.… Et ne quis uel iuste reprehendentium uel inuide mordentium calumnie pateret introitus, semel in septimana ad magistrum Hugonem tabellas reportabam, ut eius arbitrio si quid superfluum esset, resecaretur; si quid

126 See Anselm of Laon’s letter addressed to the Abbot Héribrand, in which he makes a warm display of disapprobation towards the dialecticians: ANSELM OF LAON, “Epistola ad H. Abbatem S. Laurentii Leodiensis,” PL 162, col. 1587: “…quidam maxime inflati nomine scientiae, sensus Patrum ignorantes, languent, ut ait Apostolus, circa quaestiones et pugnas uerborum.” 127 In 1148, when responding to accusations of errors that he had committed in his writing, Gilbert of Poitiers similarly denies authorship of student reports. Nevertheless, unlike Abelard, Gilbert formally acknowledges that his teaching served as the basis of the reports, while he imputes the errors to the misinterpretation of his pupils. See: JOHN OF SALISBURY, Historia Pontificalis, ed. M. Chibnall (London: Nelson, 1956), 21-3. 128 Cédric GIRAUD, “L’école de Saint-Victor dans la première moitié du XIIe siécle, entre école monastique et école cathédrale,” in L’École de Saint-Victor de Paris: influence et rayonnement du moyen âge à l’époque moderne, ed. Dominique Poirel (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 101-19, at 110. 129 Although Abelard’s Historia calamitatum (ca. 1132/3) was written later than Lawrence’s letter, it describes events that occurred prior to Hugh of Saint-Victor’s teaching. Consequently, it is reasonable to suppose that Abelard’s account depicts a less developed, and indeed a more spontaneous form of lectio-reportatio than that which Lawrence describes.

praetermissum, suppleretur; si quid uitiose positum, mutaretur; si quid uero quandoque forte fortuitu bene dictum, tanti uiri auctoritate comprobaretur…130

Lawrence’s account reveals that, by the time of Hugh, the student-reporter held an official function (officium) by the appointment of his peers, delegated with the support and perhaps at the instigation of the master. By Lawrence’s description, we can identify four distinct functions that the student- reporter’s office entailed: 1) recording choice interpretations advanced in the course of the master’s lectio (sententias scripto commendare), apparently in some form of short-hand;131 2) working the classroom notes into a literary form (onus scribendi); 3) presenting the product to the master on a regular basis for emendation and approval; 4) diffusing the authorised sententiae among the other scholares. Significantly, this testimony reveals that reportatio was already an official institution in the French schools by the first quarter of the twelfth century. Indeed, Giraud and Mews are inclined to trace the “office” of the student-reporter to Laon, whose teaching tradition enjoyed a profound influence over Saint-Victor and the other Paris schools: “It seems very likely that in having Lawrence take down a record of his teaching, Hugh was simply emulating a practice already developed by Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux. The sentences preserved in L[iber] P[ancrisis] and in the Sententie Anselmi have the character of a semi-official record of the master’s teaching…”132 While the sententiae that Lawrence recorded under the supervision of Master Hugh belong to a different genre of scholastic literature than Comestor’s Glosae, it is reasonable to suppose

130 Epistola Laurentii, ed. Ambrogio Piazzoni, in “Ugo di San Vittore auctor delle Sententie de Diuinitate, in Studii Medievali, 23 (1982), 861-955. 912: “When Hugh began to express his magisterial opinions about the sacred science (sententias de diuinitate), I was asked by many colleagues – who indeed would have more skillfully undertaken the office which they had imposed upon me, had they not been prevented by other duties –, I was asked, as I said, to commit to writing and to memory the same master’s opinions, both for my benefit and that of others. Although I was forcefully visited by their petitions on two or three occasions, I would not acquiesce… At length, they presented Master Hugh with their application. It is he who enjoined upon me this burden of writing (onus scribendi) and who graciously assured me of his dependability in their completion.… And in order that no path should lie open to reproof, either of those justly offering criticism or of others enviously finding fault, once a week I brought the wax tablets (tabellas reportabam) to Master Hugh, so that, according to his judgment, if there were anything superfluous it might be removed; if there were anything omitted it might be supplemented; if there were anything badly expressed it might be altered; but that if, by some chance, there were ever something well stated, it might be approved by the authority (auctoritate comprobaretur) of so great a man.” 131 We can be quite confident that Lawrence would not suggest that the ipsissima verba of his master could be regarded as “uitiose posita.” Even supposing it were possible to transcribe a master’s lectures verbatim, Lawrence’s account of his “writing up” (scribendi) the sentences from his reportationes and submitting the product to Hugh shows that the student-reporter exercised a considerable degree of agency over the literary form in which the sententiae first appeared. 132 GIRAUD and MEWS, “Le Liber pancrisis,” 181.

that the method of reportatio practised at Saint-Victor in the 1120s would be instituted and more formally articulated in the Paris classrooms of the mid-century.133

Fortunately, we possess not only a student-reporter’s comments about the process of lectio and reportatio as it was practised at Saint-Victor, but some of the master’s as well. In his preface to the De sacramentis, Hugh describes his method of reworking his previous teachings into a formal theological treatise:

Librum de sacramentis Christianae fidei studio quorumdam scribere compulsus sum; in quo nonnulla quae antea sparsim dictaueram propterea quod iterato eadam stylo exprimere molestum uel superfluum uidebatur, inserui. In quibus, si forte sermo simplicior colorem dictaminis seruare non potuerit, non multum interesse putaui, eadem ueritate constante. Hoc autem magis me mouet quod cum haec eadem prius negligentius dictassem (utpote nondum adhuc futuri operis propositum habens), passim transcribenda exposui, sufficere tunc arbitratus eiusmodi minima uel adnotata in notitiam uenire.134

According to Hugh’s description, the teachings that came to serve as the basis of his De sacramentis – “trifling notes,” “carelessly dictated,” “previously delivered in a scattered fashion,” “simple speech” which “failed to observe the subtlety of dictamen,” and “widely distributed for transcription” – were none other than his oral sententiae propounded during the course of lectio, and subsequently preserved by the student-reporter.135 Hugh’s account, then, does not only corroborate Lawrence’s description of the master’s personal surveillance over and voluntary dissemination of his oral teaching, but it also helps to characterise the reportationes produced by his students. Above all, it is clear that Hugh regards all of the faults proper to the notes – principally, their oral character (sermo simplicior) and failure to observe the rhetorical principles of dictamen (colorem dictaminis seruare non potuerit) – arose from his own careless dictation rather than the student reporter’s defects; stated otherwise, Hugh

133 Cf. our discussion of the Glosae below: Cap. III. 2, “Peter Comestor’s Scholastic Setting & Teaching Method.” 134 HUGH OF ST. VICTOR, De sacramentis, “Praefatiuncula,” PL 176, col. 173: “I have been prevailed upon by the persistent application of certain persons to compose a book about the sacraments of the Christian faith, into which I have incorporated a great many things which I had previously delivered in a scattered fashion (antea sparsim dictaueram), as it seemed a bothersome or a superfluous task to express the same ideas in a new form. And if perhaps my simple speech (sermo simplicior) in these [reports] failed to observe the subtlety of literary style (dictamen), I have not considered this to be of great importance, as long as the truth were observed. It is, however, more troubling to me that, after I had dictated (dictassem) these teachings rather carelessly (seeing as I did not yet have the intention of composing a treatise), I then distributed them indiscriminately for transcription (passim transcribenda exposui), supposing that it would suffice for such trifling notes to be made known…” 135 Cf. GIRAUD and MEWS, “Le Liber pancrisis,” 181.

regards himself as the author of the teachings preserved in the reportations.136 Consequently, the student records made of Hugh’s magisterial activity of lectio, while mediated and unavoidably altered during the process of reportatio, should be considered a faithful witness to the teaching of the Victorine master, which is a confirmation of Hamesse’s proposition presented above.

Regrettably, we possess no such detailed accounts from the schools of Notre-Dame describing the role of reportationes in transmitting the Parisian masters’ teaching in the mid-twelfth century. Nevertheless, certain vestiges of the original composition and revision of Lombard’s Sentences have led Riccardo Saccenti to suggest that, during the period of Comestor’s tenure as a master, “the practice of teaching, as well as the techniques of reportatio, underwent a development in which the cathedral school of Notre-Dame and the figure of Peter Lombard held a central place.”137 From the documentary evidence that has reached us, it is probable that Lombard’s Sentences found their origin in the disputations that emerged during the course of his biblical lectures.138 In addition to the work’s initial production, student records – particularly the disputed questions attributed to Comestor – show that Lombard’s magisterial activity of lectio and disputatio instigated his subsequent revision of the text; following corrections and additions prompted during the course of teaching the Sentences in the schools, Lombard would instruct his students to emend their own copies of the text accordingly.139 While this classroom revision of the Sentences represents a sort of official ‘report’ given by the master in the final stages of literary production, the multiple recensions and other literary features of Lombard’s Magna glosatura are rather suggestive of the text’s origin in student reportations.140 Accordingly, at least by the time that Lombard was a master of the sacred page at the cathedral school, reportatio had become a formally instituted practice under the purview of the Parisian masters.

136 Cf. Francesco SIRI, “Lectio, disputatio, reportatio. Note su alcune pratiche didattiche nel XII seculo e sulla loro trasmissione,” in Medioevo e filosofia. Per Alfonso Maierù, ed. Massimiliano Lenzi, Cesare Musatti and Luisa Valente (Rome: Viella, 2013), 109-28, at 111-12. 137 SACCENTI, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 185. 138 See: Ignatius BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 8*-129*, at 122*-129*. 139 SACCENTI, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 185-6. 140 ibid., 186; See also: BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 63*-65*, 82*-88*.

With particular reference to Comestor’s “Materia super libros Sententiarum,” Saccenti maintains that the literary products, and particularly the biblical “commentaries,” issuing from Notre-Dame under Lombard’s students represent a continued development of the method of reportatio.141 In the close analysis of the Glosae in the following chapters, we will find that Comestor’s glosses on the Gospels corroborate Saccenti’s assertion. It will be fairly certain that reportatio served as an official apparatus of literary production in the Parisian schools, according to which a master’s teaching activity (lectio) was actively recorded by the students (reportatio), and that, likely after the master’s revision and authorisation, the text would be diffused as glosae. While observing the same essential principles as the Victorine system (and, putatively, the tradition of Laon before that) – i.e. a formally appointed student-reporter and magisterial collaboration –, the Parisian reportations produced later in the century seem to represent a different set of practices than that of excipere exhibited by the sentences of Master Hugh. The literary features of Comestor’s Glosae will suggest that, in the cathedral school of Paris in the latter half of the century, reportatio underwent a sort of professionalisation that reduced the type of student interventions proper to sentence collections. Consequently, these Parisian reportations more closely resemble detailed transcripts of the master’s oral teaching than rough notes epitomising the magisterial doctrine.

2. Datatio

In the course of preparing this critical edition, I have found no grounds, whether some reference to a contemporary historical event or the use of a particular source, for assigning a specific date to the Glosae. Of course, based on our best knowledge of the beginning of Comestor’s career (ca. 1158) and his retirement to Saint-Victor (1178), it is certain that Comestor delivered his lectures on John’s Gospel during these two decades of his career teaching in the Parisian schools.142 Nevertheless, a certain amount of speculation can help us to specify the date of the original delivery of the Glosae. While we have shown that reportatio became an apparatus for transmitting magisterial teaching in the Parisian schools, it is not at all clear that every master was assigned a reportator by virtue of his office; on the contrary, all of the twelfth-century evidence that we have suggests that only established masters (e.g. Hugh of Saint-Victor, Peter Lombard), or those of extraordinary ingenuity (e.g. Peter Abelard), possessed the degree of authority necessary to inspire students to preserve their oral

141 SACCENTI, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 186-7. 142 Cf. SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 151.

teaching. Consequently, we might suppose that the reports of Comestor’s lectures were not produced in the initial years of his career as a Parisian master. Another reason to date the Glosae super euangelia glosata to the middle or later stages of the master’s career is the fact that, with the exception of those on Mark, Comestor’s glosses have been preserved in a single, stable version.143 If, indeed, Comestor’s biblical lectures were first recorded in the early years of his magisterium, no such stability in the textual tradition could be admitted; as the master’s fame spread and the delivery of his lectures grew more refined, the original reportationes would have undergone extensive revision, and new reports would have been produced. Nevertheless, layered accretions appearing in the manuscript tradition of all four sets of glosae on the glossed Gospels suggest that some degree of textual development was prompted by subsequent versions of the master’s lectures.144 Accordingly, the reportationes preserving Comestor’s Gospel lectures were likely taken down somewhere in the middle of his career. Moreover, as Mark Clark has shown, the Historia scholastica (first published sometime before 1173, at the height of Comestor’s teaching career) presupposes the master’s lectures on the four glossed Gospels. Clark develops this argument not only from the textual dependence upon the Glosae super euangelia glosata displayed by the Historia, but also on account of Comestor’s adherence to a method, organisational scheme, and exegetical programme in the Historia that implies many years of experience teaching from the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’145 Since, to my knowledge, no explicit reference to the Historia scholastica appears in the original reportations of Comestor’s lectures,146 we may postulate

143 Peter Comestor’s Glosae super Marcum glosatum have been preserved in two, and perhaps three, distinct versions (STEGMÜLLER, RB 6576-6576,2). To my knowledge, no scholar has yet conducted a comparative study of these texts, or even determined whether they all originated in Comestor’s classroom. From my preliminary study of the two more common versions (ibid., 6576 and 6576,2), both texts appear to represent reportationes of Comestor’s lectures on the Mark Gloss from distinct periods in his teaching career. Although the material between the two sets of glosses sometimes varies considerably, Comestor’s peculiar idiolect and usus glosandi are equally observed in both. Stegmüller reports fifteen manuscript witnesses of the most common version (ibid., 6576: “Vide et ecce quattuor quadrige”), to which we may add one further copy: TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 1024, 88r-140r. 144 A discussion of the accretions and their implications upon the textual tradition of the Glosae appears below: Cap. IV. 2, “Magistralis adiectio.” 145 Cf. CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 84-156. 146 Although no material that I have encountered in the original lectures of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata makes reference to the Historia scholastica, a marginal accretion appearing in a late twelfth-century manuscript (PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 620, fol. 131v) seems to cite the Historia Actuum (added to the Historia by Comestor’s successor Peter of Poitiers, as discussed below), although the author of this accretion could equally be referring to the historical context of the book of Acts: “Patronus preses Syrie ponere debuit in templo si acquieuisset imperio Gaii, set non posuit, sicut legitur in historia Actuum.” Cf. PETER OF POITIERS, Historia Actuum, cap. LIX, PL 198, col. 1685. Nevertheless, one would expect student readers and subsequent masters consulting the Glosae to enrich their margins with material from Comestor’s magisterial textbook of biblical history.

the anterior date of the lectures on the glossed Gospels as they have been preserved in textual form. Pending further evidence, then, it is probable that Comestor’s Glosae represent a version of the master’s lectures delivered in the mid- to late-1160s.

If the order in which he lectured on the four Gospels could be demonstrated, the date of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum might be further specified. However, until we are provided with editions of Comestor’s glosses on the remaining three Gospels, it will remain impossible to determine the position in which John appeared in the order of Comestor’s Gospel lectures. Based on a casual remark that the master makes to his students in the Glosae super Lucam glosatum (“ut dixi uobis super Marcum”),147 Smalley asserts that Comestor’s lectures proceeded “through the gospels consecutively.”148 Although it may be reasonable to suppose that Comestor lectured on the Gospels in order, the master’s comment cited above can only be regarded as circumstantial evidence towards this conclusion. Indeed, Comestor is sure to have glossed the Gospels recurrently during the course of his career, and it is unclear whether the master lectured on the Gospels according to the same order each time, or whether he glossed more than one of the Gospels in a given academic year.149 In the absence of documentary evidence clarifying the custom that twelfth-century masters followed when determining the order of the biblical books on which they were to lecture, we cannot establish the order of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata with confidence. Nevertheless, one would expect that the Master of Histories observed the correct order of the sciences, in which theology held the preeminent and the final position in the medieval curriculum. Because the last evangelist ascends most eminently to the altitudinem theologie,150 Comestor is most likely to have equipped his students with the biblical history of the synoptic Gospels before introducing them to the theological mysteries of John’s Gospel.

147 DURHAM, Cathedral Library, MS A. I. 9, fol. 104vb. 148 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 105. 149 Many accretions bear witness to the fact that Comestor lectured on the Gospels on multiple occasions throughout his career. See, for example, a singular addition occurring in the portion of text edited here, in which the student reports that – although Comestor declined to read a marginal gloss in the course of lectures preserved in the original set of reportationes (GLOSAE, XXI, 13: “illa glosa, ‘SVM’ VERBVM et cetera, appunctata debet esse”) – the master lectured on this same gloss on other occasions: “M(agister) P(etrus) M(anducator) tamen legit eam quandoque” (APPENDIX II, 25). Indeed, the occurrence of many accretions seems to suggest alternate versions of the same lecture course, in which Comestor provided a distinct treatment of the same material. 150 GLOSAE, III, 2.

3. Titulatio

Of the ten manuscripts used to prepare the present edition, all but one provide a title for the text, either in the scribal hand or that of a subsequent (medieval) reader or librarian. On a couple of occasions, two contemporary hands have supplied different titles to the text in different parts of the same manuscript. Two manuscripts also give the name of the author. Otherwise, I have discounted instances in which the text has been supplied with a non-medieval title in tables of contents and other bibliographic notes. The nine manuscripts, their medieval titles and dates, and where in the manuscripts these appear, are as follows:

A Super Iohannem epyglose (as a rubric by a contemporary hand, s. XII4, top of fol. 23ra). B Glosule Iohannis secundum Comestorem (as a rubric by the text hand, s. XIII1, top of fol. 1r). D Glose super Iohannem (as a rubric by a contemporary hand, s. XIII1, top of fol. 39r). M Postille super Iohannem (list of contents, s. XIII1, fol. ir; as a rubric in a subsequent hand, s. XIII1, top of fol. 67r). N Postille super Iohannem (list of contents, s. XIII4, fol. iiv; as a rubric in a contemporary hand, s. XIII1, top of 98r). O Glose super Iohannem (as a rubric in a contemporary hand, s. XIII1, top of fol. 1r). P Postille super Iohannem (as a rubric in a contemporary hand, s. XIIex, top of fol. 219r). T Glose super euangelistas; Postille magistri Petri manducatoris super glosas euangeliorum (list of contents in two near contemporary hands, s. XII4 and s. XIIIin respectively, fol. iv). Z Glose super Iohannem; Postille super Iohannem (list of contents, s. XIIIin, fol. iv; as a rubric in a contemporary hand, s. XIIex, top of fol. 380r).

As the editor of Anselm’s Glosae super Iohannem has remarked, it is unusual that so many witnesses should provide a title for a text of this nature, since most twelfth-century commentaries, even by the most famous theologians of the period, are generally found in manuscripts that note neither the name of the author nor the title of the work.151 Andrée goes on to explain that it was especially common for glosses to circulate anonymously, because they “were thought to be instruments or aids

151 Cf. Alexander ANDRÉE, “Introduction,” in Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem (CCCM 267, Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), XVII.

in understanding a specific text or treatise; their authors were teachers and their glosses a written extension of their teaching.”152

Given the fact that the majority our manuscripts situate Comestor’s recorded lectures in the glosa tradition, it is here worth considering the implications of the term designating this genre of commentary. Most famously, William of Conches defines glosa in opposition to commentum. According to William, the latter form of commentary refers to “a collection of many things held in the mind by study or teaching.”153 Admitting that this definition could apply to any manner of book, William then specifies that commentum properly designates “an exposition (expositorium) of another book.”154 William goes on to present his distinction between commentum and glosa: “Commentum enim, solam sententiam exequens, de continuatione uel expositione litterae nichil agit, glosa uero omnia illa exequatur.”155 Whereas the commentum is confined to treating the ideas, or sententiae, contained in the authoritative text (solam sententiam exequens), the gloss also offers an explanation of the text (expositio litterae) while presenting its ideas according to the proper narrative sequence, or in a continuous format (continuatio litterae).156 By virtue of its derivation from the Greek word for tongue,157 William then associates the glosa with a master’s oral teaching: “Vnde dicitur glosa, id est lingua. Ita enim aperte debet exponere acsi lingua doctoris uideatur docere.”158 Following William’s distinction, then, the gloss is to be a continuously-written commentary treating an authoritative text according to its narrative order, in a fashion resembling a master’s verse-by-verse lectures on the

152 ibid. 153 WILLIAM OF CONCHES, Glosae super Platonem, ed. Édouard Jeauneau (CCCM 203, Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), X: “Vnde commentum dicitur plurium studio uel doctrina in mente habitorum in unum collectio.” 154 ibid.: “Et quamuis, secundum hanc diffinitionem, commentum possit dici quislibet liber, tamen non hodie uocamus commentum nisi alterius libri expositorium.” 155 ibid.: “For a commentary (commentum), pursuing the sense alone, does not treat of the continuous order or exposition of the letter, but the gloss treats of all of these matters.” 156 Cf. Rita COPELAND, “Gloss and Commentary,” in The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Latin Literature, ed. Ralph H. Hexter and David Townsend, 171-91, at 172; ANDRÉE, Glosae super Iohannem, XXVI-XXVII. 157 William is here following the classical definition of glosa provided by ISIDORE, Etymologiarum, I, 30, 1-2. Cf. COPELAND, “Gloss and Commentary,” 172. 158 WILLIAM OF CONCHES, Glosae super Platonem, X: “Whence it is called glosa, that is, tongue. For a gloss should expound clearly in this manner, as if it seemed to teach by the speech of a master.”

Scriptures.159 With this distinction in mind, we may now return to the titles presented by our witnesses.

All nine of the manuscripts introduce the text according to a particular formula: the commentary is designated by the genre to which it is considered to belong (e.g. glose, postille), followed by a phrase specifying that the commentary treats of (super) a certain text (in this case, Iohannem), which together constitute the ‘title.’160 Of the manuscripts listed above, six identify the text according to the genre of glose (including one occurrence of epyglose, and one of the diminutive glosule), while five designate postille. Although each of these terms is consonant with the continuous, lemmatic form of Comestor’s biblical teaching, assigning the title of postillae to the Gospel lectures would be anachronistic. While this term seems to have been generated from the twelfth-century masters’ practice of introducing their interpretation of a lemma with the words post illa (uerba),161 it is not until the thirteenth century that biblical commentaries came to be designated as postillae.162 Consequently, the written reports of Comestor’s lectures will be identified most accurately as glosae, which is “the preferred title for a continuously-written commentary on an authoritative text in the twelfth century.”163 Although they differ on the genre to which the text belongs, seven of the witnesses

159 Recently, in “Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon,” 17-18, CLANCHY and SMITH have suggested that glosa refers exclusively to commentaries of a particular format; namely, those with an apparatus of marginal and interlinear glosses, following the layout of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ ANDRÉE confutes their definition with reference to the passage from William of Conches presented above: Glosae super Iohannem, XVII. 160 Cf. ANDRÉE, Glosae super Iohannem, XVII. 161 For this ostensible etymology and the thirteenth-century origin of this term, see: e.g.: SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., rev. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 270; Nikolaus M. HÄRING, “Commentary and Hermeneutics,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benton and Giles Constable (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 173-200. 162 Although postillae was used to identify biblical commentaries through the first quarter of the thirteenth century, the term came to enjoy its most extensive use after Hugh of Saint-Cher and his team of friars first diffused their Postillae in universa Biblia in 1236. Cf. SMALLEY, Study of the Bible, 270-1. The history of the postillae, however, is most winsomely set out by the eighteenth-century eccentric, Thomas AMORY, The Life of John Buncle, Eſq; containing Various Obſervations and Reflections made in ſeveral Parts of the World (London: T. Beckett, 1770), 252-3: “A Poſtilla, reader, is a barbarous word made up of the words poſt illa, and was brought into uſe in the twelfth century, when the marginal explicators of the bible left the margins, and under their text writ ſhort and literal notes, before which they put the word poſtilla, instead of the words poſt illa, meaning the particular words in the text, from whence, by a letter, they referred to the little note below: but in the thirteenth century, the barbarous word took ſo much, that all the commentators following, appropriated the name to their moſt copious commentaries, contrary to the first practice in the uſe of the word, and for three centuries after the biblial [sic] learning was all poſtilla, till at length the word diſappeared, according to the wonted inconſtancy and agitation of all human things…” 163 ANDRÉE, Glosae super Iohannem, XVIII; cf. HÄRING, “Commentary and Hermeneutics,” 174-180.

specify super Iohannem, while one prefers the genitive Iohannis. Based on the evidence presented by our manuscript witnesses and the development of scholastic terminology, it is most probable that the title under which the reportations of Comestor’s lecture course on John circulated in the earliest period was Glosae super Iohannem.

The title supplied by a near contemporary librarian’s hand in the manuscript T, which I have had reason to regard as one of our most important witnesses to the text,164 here warrants special consideration. Uniquely, this witness describes Comestor’s glosses as being, not ‘on the Gospels,’ but super glosas euangeliorum. In the following chapters, it will become clear that, of all the medieval titles listed above, that of T most accurately represents Comestor’s programme of biblical teaching. As we have already begun to discuss, Peter Comestor at no point lectures on the Bible simpliciter; presuming to approach the sacred page only through the apparatus of patristic glosses with which the Scriptures circulated in the schools, the master is lecturing on the biblical Gloss, or the glossed Gospels. Thus, “particles” drawn from the Gloss and lemmata from the Gospel equally serve as the subject matter of the master’s lectures. More generally, to entitle Comestor’s Gospel lectures simply as super euangelia would be to misrepresent the relation between the Parisian masters’ teaching and the received tradition of biblical exegesis. Τhe class of magisterial authority articulated in the twelfth- century schools was primarily ordered towards the transmission, interpretation, and development upon the biblical teaching of the Fathers, and the masters’ study of the Bible was always mediated through this tradition.165 Accordingly, in keeping with the medieval precedent of the manuscript T, the editor has considered it appropriate to identify Comestor’s lectures as being “on the glossed Gospels.” Following the practice observed by medieval librarians of cataloguing individual books of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ as glosatus to distinguish them from simple copies of the biblical text,166 Peter Comestor’s lectures “on the John Gloss” might be most authentically rendered super Iohannem glosatum. A medieval precedent for this title, significantly attached to a commentary on the Magna glosatura on the Psalms ascribed to Comestor, appears as a rubric in the thirteenth-century codex Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 129 (A. 518), fol. 5r: “Notule quedam super Psalterium

164 See my description of the manuscript below: Cap. IV. 1, “The Manuscripts of the Present Edition.” 165 Cf. Marie-Dominique CHENU, “Authentica et Magistralia,” La théologie au XIIe siècle (Paris: Vrin, 1976), 351-365. 166 See e.g.: Lesley SMITH, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 3.

glosatum. Petrus Manducator.”167 While the title Glosae super Iohannem glosatum may seem to savour of pleonasm, scholars have well observed that “glossing the Gloss” was an essential principle of the Parisian masters’ theological enterprise.168 It is to this tradition of biblical teaching, in the context of which Peter Comestor’s lectures were originally crafted and delivered, that we may now turn.

167 Glosses on the biblical Gloss appear to have been designated glosae super glosas by the late-twelfth century. A kindred manuscript to T, also originating in Clairvaux at the end of the twelfth century, contains a further commentary on the Magna glosatura on the Psalms attributed to Comestor. The rubric of this text reads: “Postille magistri Petri Manducatoris super glossas Psalterii” (TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 770, 1r). As an additional example, Smalley cites a manuscript (PARIS, BnF lat. 14417, 210r) containing Stephen Langton’s glosses on the Isaiah Gloss, whose explicit reads: “Expliciunt glose super glosas Ysaie.” See: Beryl SMALLEY and George LACOMBE, “The Lombard’s Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments,” The New Scholasticism 5 (1931), 123-61, at 131. 168 See, e.g.: Beryl SMALLEY, “A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS Pembroke College, Cambridge 7,” Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1938), 103–13, at 109; John VAN ENGEN, “Studying Scripture in the Early University,” in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. Robert E. Lerner (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1994), 17-38, at 22-8; Mark A. ZIER, “Peter Lombard and the Glossa Ordinaria: A Missing Link?” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8-10 ottobre 2006 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 2007), 361-409, at 380-1; ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris; Susan LAVERE, “Glossing the Gloss: Stephen Langton’s ‘Super-Commentary’ on the Song of Songs,” in Out of the Cloisters: Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs, 1100-1250, (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 97-118; Peter O’HAGAN, “Glossing the Gloss: Reading Peter Lombard’s Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles as a Historical Act,” Traditio 73 (2018), 83- 116.

CHAPTER II

‘MASTER ANSELM’S SPIRITUAL SONS’ THE PATRIMONY OF THE SCHOOL OF PARIS

Introduction

For over a century, scholars have recognised the School of Laon as the preeminent centre of biblical studies at the beginning of the twelfth century.1 The methods of teaching practised by Anselm of Laon and his colleagues, and the monument of biblical scholarship arising from their activity in the classroom – the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ – would exert profound influence over the development of theology for the remainder of the century and beyond.2 Following the death of Anselm († 1117) and the consequent decline of his school, an efflorescence of biblical scholarship issued from the schools of Paris, which had become the centre of theological learning by the mid-century.3 Previously, scholars had maintained that the Abbey of Saint-Victor was responsible for mediating the teaching of Laon to the Parisian schools. More recently, however, a perspective has emerged that the programme of teaching articulated at Laon, and transmitted through the biblical Gloss, was principally advanced by Peter Lombard and his disciples within the context of teaching sacra pagina at the cathedral school of Paris.4 In this chapter, then, it will be our concern to trace the Laonnoise tradition of biblical scholarship to the teaching activity of the masters of Notre-Dame. It is only within the context of this translatio studii that Peter Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels will be properly understood as vestiges of one of the foremost events of the twelfth-century theological enterprise.

1 For an excellent review of the Laonnoise historiography, see: Marcia COLISH, “Another Look at the School of Laon,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 61 (1986), 7-22; See also, ANDRÉE, “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century,” The Journal of Medieval Latin 22 (2012), 257-81. 2 On the impact of Laonnoise teaching upon twelfth-century thought, see Cédric GIRAUD’s magisterial study, Per verba magistri: Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). 3 Cf. e.g.: Richard W. SOUTHERN, “The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benton and Giles Constable (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 113-37. 4 This is one of the principal findings of the forthcoming monograph by ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-Century Classroom.

II. 1 MASTER ANSELM AND HIS SCHOOL: THE GENESIS OF THE BIBLICAL GLOSS

Much of the historiography from the last century has classified twelfth-century theologians according to a distinction authored by Martin Grabmann, which divided practitioners of theology into those of a ‘practical’ or ‘biblical-moral’ orientation and those of a ‘speculative’ or ‘theoretical’ one.5 Nevertheless, the critical analysis of manuscript materials from this period has led many scholars to conclude that biblical studies and the ‘academic’ discipline of theology remained inseparable throughout the twelfth century, and that the literary products seemingly representative of one strain ought to be studied with reference to the other.6 Furthermore, despite the ‘professionalisation’ that theology underwent during this period and the consequent generation of new literary genres,7 recent scholarship maintains that early scholastic literature cannot be understood outside of the framework of orality. In his 1994 monograph The Envy of Angels, Stephen Jaeger persuasively demonstrated that tenth- and eleventh-century education was essentially oral in character.8 Following Jaeger’s study, it has been proposed with increasing frequency that these

5 Martin GRABMANN, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911), 2: 476-501. Here, Grabmann presents a dichotomy between twelfth-century theologians of a “speculative” and “theoretical” orientation (Peter Lombard, Hugh of Saint-Victor, Peter Abelard, Robert of Melun, and Peter of Poitiers), and those of a “practical” and “biblical-moral” one (Peter the Chanter, Peter Comestor, and Stephen Langton). Accordingly, the emergent genres of scholastic literature that Grabmann views as ‘theological’ are sentence collections, summae, quaestiones, and disputationes, while commentaries, postils, and glosses on the sacred page constitute a completely distinct intellectual enterprise. Although scholars have generally recognised the imprecise nature of this division, in light of the fact that most twelfth-century intellectuals practised both forms of theology as a unified enterprise, it has nevertheless been uncritically adopted by many historians as a framework by which to treat theologians and scholastic literature as ostensibly representing one form or the other in isolation from each other. See, e.g.: Beryl SMALLEY, Study of the Bible, 196-7; John W. BALDWIN, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle, 2 vols. (Princeton: 1970), 1: 25-9 and 43-6; and more recently, Ian WEI, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University, c. 1100–1330 (Cambridge, 2012), 17-33. 6 See, e.g.: Joseph GOERING, William de Montibus (c. 1140-1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care (Toronto: PIMS, 1992), 36-40; Marie-Dominique CHENU, “Les Magistri: La « Science » Théologique,” La théologie au XIIe siècle, Études de philosophie médiévale 45 (Paris: Vrin, 1957), 323-43; Artur Michael LANDGRAF, Introduction à l’histoire de la littérature thélogique de la scolastique naissante, ed. Albert-M. Landry, trans. Louis-B. Geiger (Montreal: Institut d’Etudes Médiévales, 1973); David LUSCOMBE, “The Place of Peter Comestor in the History of Medieval Theology,” in Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, 27-48, at 33; Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 204-32; Mark CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274. 7 See: Marcia COLISH, “The Theological Enterprise,” Peter Lombard, vol. 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 33-91; Richard W. SOUTHERN, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe II: The Heroic Age (Oxford: Wiley, 2001). 8 Stephen JAEGER, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideas in Medieval Europe, 950-1200 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994).

findings must be applied to the twelfth century as well.9 For instance, Alexander Andrée and Mark Clark argue that the predominant fault of twelfth-century researches has been to treat the manuscript evidence left to us – most fatefully the biblical Gloss – as a corpus of intentional literary products attributable to individual authors rather than accounts of oral teaching many times removed.10 In support both of the essential orality of the twelfth-century schools and of the centrality of biblical scholarship to the theology of this period, scholars have adduced the evidence left to us by the School of Laon.

Throughout the late-eleventh and early-twelfth centuries, scholars from all over western Europe flocked to the School of Laon. The theological education offered by Master Anselm and his colleagues came to form a new generation of masters of the sacred page, and Laonnoise teaching would enjoy a profound influence over biblical scholarship for the course of the twelfth century.11 The authority in which the School’s preeminent masters were held is remarkable given the fact that they made few direct contributions to the theological writings of the period. In order to understand the force exerted by the School of Laon in the mouvement théologique of the twelfth century, we must begin in the classroom. Of what, then, did Laonnoise magisterial activity consist, and how are we to understand its preservation and transmission throughout the twelfth-century schools?

To the principal forms of teaching pursued at the School of Laon, Peter Abelard’s Historia calamitatum is one of our best witnesses. During his studied calumniation of Master Anselm, Abelard alludes to two distinct activities undertaken by the master in the course of teaching the sacred page – lectio diuinorum librorum and collatio sententiarum:

Accessi igitur ad hunc senem [Anselmum], cui magis longeuus usus quam ingenium uel memoria nomen comparauerat. Ad quem si quis de aliqua questione pulsandum accederet incertus, redibat incertior. Mirabilis quidem in oculis erat auscultantium, sed nullus in conspectu questionantium… Hoc igitur comperto non multis diebus in umbra eius ociosus iacui. Paulatim uero me iam rarius et rarius ad lectiones eius accedente… Accidit autem

9 Cf. e.g.: Constant J. MEWS, “Orality, Literacy, and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools,” Exemplaria 2, no. 2 (1990), 475-500; ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris. 10 ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris, “Chapter Two: The School of Laon and the Biblical Gloss.” 11 On the fama of Master Anselm, his attraction of eminent students from all over Europe, and the impact of Laonnoise teaching upon twelfth-century thought, see again Cédric GIRAUD’s seminal study, Per verba magistri.

quadam die, ut post aliquas sententiarum collationes nos scolares inuicem iocaremur. Vbi cum me quidam animo intemptantis interrogasset, quid michi de diuinorum lectione librorum uideretur, qui nondum nisi in philosophicis studueram, respondi saluberrimum quidem huius lectionis esse studium, ubi salus anime cognoscitur, sed me uehementer mirari quod his, qui litterari sunt, ad expositiones sanctorum intelligendas ipsa eorum scripta uel glose non sufficiunt, ut alio scilicet non egeant magisterio.12

Springing from a long-standing tradition in the cathedral schools of magisterial lectures on the auctores of classical antiquity,13 the morning lectio to which Abelard alludes consisted of the master’s review and explanation of the sacred text, whether biblical or patristic. As discussed above, lectio consisted of an ordered series of lectures treating the authoritative text verse-by-verse. This continuous lecture course would be prepared with recourse to patristic exegesis (presented in an expositor on a given biblical book) as well as to a living tradition of biblical teaching (magisterium),14 passed from master to student both in the form of oral teaching and recorded lectures. It has well been said that lectio constituted the “fundamental act for doctrinal extrapolation,”15 because it was

12 ANDRÉE, Historia calamitatum, 34-6: “And so I sought out this old man, whose name had been earned more by long-established custom than natural intelligence or memory. If anyone in doubt approached him to resolve some question, he would go away more doubtful still. He was indeed a marvel in the eyes of those who heard him, but nothing in the view of those posing questions to him… Having discovered this, I did not lie idly in his shade for long, but gradually I attended his lectures (lectiones) more and more rarely… But it happened one day after a session of comparing authoritative sentences (sententiarum collationes) that we students were joking amongst ourselves. When someone there asked, in the spirit of the tempter, what I – who had until then only studied philosophy – thought about the lecturing on the sacred Scriptures (diuionorum lectione librorum), I responded that the pursuit of this type of teaching was indeed salutary, since it concerns the salvation of souls, but that it astonished me greatly that, for those who are learned, the writings and glosses of the Fathers were themselves not sufficient to understand their scriptural commentaries (expositiones), without needing to rely upon any other magisterial authority (magisterio).” 13 See: GIRAUD, Per verba magistri, 80-3. For the prominence of the trivium in the Laonnoise curriculum and the teaching of Master Anselm, see: SOUTHERN, Scholastic Humanism II, 25-48; ANDRÉE, “Laon Revisited,” 257-81. For the essential relation between the liberal arts and twelfth-century theology more generally, see: A. J. MINNIS, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (London: Scolar Press, 1988); Gillian R. EVANS, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980); Franklin T. HARKINS, Reading and the Work of Restoration: History and Scripture in the Theology of Hugh of St Victor (Toronto: PIMS, 2009). 14 Although, in the passage above, Abelard uses “magisterio” to signify contemporary traditions of magisterial interpretation, the term magisterium in its fullest sense denotes the office of the master of a given school and the appurtenant responsibilities for the teaching taking place there, i.e. his “jurisdiction.” It was because Abelard violated Anselm’s magisterium by lecturing sua sponte on Ezekiel that he was expelled from Laon. As we can see from the sequel to this episode in the Historia, Anselm was responsible for everything that was taught within his magisterium, even Abelard’s unsanctioned lectures. Cf. ANDRÉE, Historia calamitatum, 37: “senex ille perturbatus impudenter michi interdixit inceptum glosandi opus in loco magisterii sui amplius exercere, hanc uidelicet causam pretendens ne, si forte in illo opere aliquid per errorem ibi scriberem utpote rudis adhuc in hoc studio, ei deputaretur.” 15 ANDRÉE, “Sacra Pagina,” 272.

during his directed reading of the sacred page that the master’s theological programme would be articulated.

The magisterial activity of lectio found its completion in the logically and temporally posterior collatio sententiarum, during which the master resolved the students’ theological questions and harmonised seemingly contradictory passages from authoritative texts (sententiae) discovered in the course of the lecture.16 It is here, in the act of resolving apparent contradictions in the authorities, that the master most profoundly exercised his auctoritas, and it is during this activity that the master promulgated his own sententiae, which were subsequently gathered and thematically ordered by students.17 While scholars had previously supposed that the resulting sentence collections represented the artifice of Master Anselm himself – upon which supposition rested claims that Anselm was the father of “systematic theology”18 – more recent studies have suggested otherwise. Cédric Giraud, in consultation with a tradition of twentieth-century scholarship,19 attributes the collections to the efforts of students to preserve their masters’ dicta (“magistralia”), which stood for a newly-articulated class of magisterial authority.20 The authority of the masters is most searchingly demonstrated by the Liber pancrisis, which reverently preserves the sententiae magistrorum modernorum alongside the authoritative sentences of the Church Fathers.21

At Laon, then, we see how the newly developed methods of theological teaching resulted in literary products. As sentence collections and quaestiones arose from the magisterial collatio sententiarum, evidence suggests that another genre of early scholastic literature – namely, glosses – was generated

16 ANDRÉE, “Laon Revisited,” 263-5; GIRAUD, Per verba magistri, 186-90. 17 See, e.g.: SOUTHERN, Scholastic Humanism II, 26; ANDRÉE, “Laon Revisited,” 264. 18 Cf. COLISH, “Systematic Theology and Theological Renewal in the Twelfth Century,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988), 135-156. 19 For a summary of the twentieth-century historiography on the School of Laon, and COLISH’s own contribution, see “Another Look at the School of Laon,” Archives d’histoire doctrinal et littéraire du Moyen Âge 61 (1986), 7-22. For SOUTHERN’s distillation, see Scholastic Humanism II, 36-8. 20 Cf. Marie-Dominique CHENU, “Authentica et Magistralia,” La théologie au XIIe (Paris: Vrin, 1976), 351-65. 21 For an excellent discussion of the Liber pancrisis, see: GIRAUD and MEWS, “Le Liber pancrisis,” 145-91. Here, it is worth reproducing the more evocative version of the incipit with which the Liber circulated (TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 425, 95ra): “Incipit liber pancrisis, id est totus aureus, quia hic aureę continentur sententię uel questiones sanctorum patrum Augustini, Iheronimi, Ambrosii, Gregorii, Ysidori, Bede et modernorum magistrorum Willelmi Catalaunensis episcopi, Iuonis Carnotensis episcopi, Anselmi et fratris eius Radulfi.”

from the masters’ activity of lectio. In chapter one, we saw that the process of reportatio served as an apparatus of literary production in the schools according to which the students’ notes were revised and approved for ‘publication.’22 By this process, the master’s lectures could be epitomised and diffused in the form of sententiae, or exhaustively transcribed in the form of continuous glosses, or, as in the case of Hugh of Saint-Victor’s De sacramentis, adapted by the master to produce a formal theological treatise. As mentioned above, scholars have been persuaded that the practice of reportatio had already been instituted at the School of Laon. To what extent, then, can vestiges of the Laon masters’ most essential teaching activity (lectio) be uncovered in twelfth-century literature? Apart from the sentence collections, the contribution made by Master Anselm and his colleagues to scholastic literature takes the form of continuous, lemmatic commentaries on the Scriptures. From Peter the Chanter, we are ruefully informed that Anselm of Laon was not able to gloss the entire Bible,23 although a number of biblical glosses traceable to the School of Laon and associated with Anselm have been preserved. Though most of these glosses remain little examined and of uncertain authorship – with the exception of commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Song of Songs, which have been reclaimed for Anselm –,24 they have been identified alongside the sentence collections as our best witnesses to Laonnoise teaching activity.25 Despite the preservation of Anselm’s Glosae super Iohannem as a “polished treatise,” it is the editor’s opinion that the commentary “most probably ultimately originat[ed] in the oral environment of the classroom … and seems to

22 See above: Cap. I. 3. 1, “Reportatio.” 23 PARIS, BnF lat. 12011, fol. 173v: “Unde lugere adhuc debemus super hoc, quod magister Anselmus non permittebatur perfecte glosare omnem sacram paginam sicut incepit…” This text is cited by Beryl SMALLEY, “La Glossa Ordinaria. Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon,” RTAM 9 (1937), 365-400, at 400. 24 For the attribution of this set of glosses on John’s Gospel to Anselm of Laon, see: ANDRÉE, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled: The Glosae super Iohannem and the Origins of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Bible,” Mediaeval Studies 73 (2011), 217-60, and the critical edition of this text: ANSELM OF LAON, Glosae super Iohannem, ed. Alexander Andrée (CCCM 267, Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). For the attribution of three closely related commentaries on the Song of Songs to Master Anselm, see: Jean LECLERCQ, “Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques attribué à Anselm de Laon,” RTAM 16 (1949), 121-48, as well as Cédric GIRAUD, “Lectiones Magistri Anselmi: Les Commentaires d’Anselme de Laon sur le Cantique des Cantiques,” in The Multiple Meanings of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early- Christian and Medieval Culture, ed. Ineke van ‘t Spijker (Leiden, 2008), 177-201. 25 Although his monograph concentrates on the Laonnoise sentence collections, Cédric GIRAUD provides a comprehensive bibliography of Anselm’s works and emphasises the importance of the lemmatic commentaries as a witness to Laonnoise teaching. See: Per verba magistri, 78-101. Similarly, ANDRÉE and CLARK stress the significance of the biblical commentaries of known Laonnoise origin. Cf. The School of Paris. See also, ANDRÉE’s forthcoming monograph concentrating on the biblical and arts glosses originating at Laon: The School of Laon: Cradle of Theology in the Twelfth Century (forthcoming).

represent the final stage of a master’s lecture course on the Fourth Gospel.”26 Similarly, three closely related Laonnoise commentaries on the Song of Songs have been identified as reportationes of Master Anselm’s lectures.27 These glosses are said to represent different degrees of separation from the master’s original lectiones, and the earliest manuscripts identify one as “secundum lectionem magistri Anselmi Laudunensis.”28 The continuous biblical commentaries of known Laonnoise origin are of the greatest significance, not only because they preserve in written form the teaching tradition of Laon as exercised in the magisterial lectio, but also because of the part that they would play in the compilation of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’

Having briefly discussed the sentence collections and commentaries that emanated from the School of Laon, it remains to consider the final monument of the Laonnoise patrimony: the biblical Gloss. Previously, scholars had maintained that the Gloss was directly compiled, at least in large part, by Anselm and his collaborators.29 But what involvement did the masters of Laon really have in the production of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’? While questions of the Gloss’s compilation have scarcely begun to be answered, decisive new evidence has been presented in Theresa Gross-Diaz’s monograph on Gilbert of Poitiers’ Psalms commentary,30 as well as Alexander Andrée’s work on Anselm’s Glosae super Iohannem.31 According to these studies, certain books of the Gloss were compiled, either by students or the masters themselves, from the continuous biblical commentaries of Master Anselm and his colleagues. The masters’ commentaries were, in turn, a “written extension of their

26 ANDRÉE, Glosae, XXVII. 27 It is Jean LECLERCQ who identified the origin of these commentaries as reportationes of Master Anselm’s lectures. See: “Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques,” 121-48. These conclusions earned the support of Beryl SMALLEY, Study of the Bible (1983), 68, and Helmut RIEDLINGER, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirhce in den Latenischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittalalters (Münster: Aschendorff, 1958), 112-3. 28 See: Mary DOVE, Glossa ordinaria in Cantica Canticorum (CCCM 170, Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 34-6; Cédric GIRAUD, “Lectiones Magistri Anselmi,” 186. 29 See, e.g.: Beryl SMALLEY, “La Glossa Ordinaria. Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon,” 366; Gillian R. EVANS, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1984), 41; Jenny SWANSON, “The Glossa Ordinaria,” in The Medieval Theologians, ed. Gillian R. Evans (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001) 156-67, at 164. 30 In this monograph, Gross-Diaz suggests that the Psalms Gloss (which would come to be called Anselm’s Parua glosatura) was in fact compiled from Gilbert’s supposedly posterior Media glosatura together with a prototypical Anselmian gloss on the Psalms. See: Theresa GROSS-DIAZ, The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From lectio divina to the Lecture Room (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 122-48. For a recent study that suggests a more complex relation between the three Psalms commentaries, see: Annika EKMAN, Anselm of Laon, the Glossa Ordinaria, and the Tangled Web of Twelfth-Century Psalms-Exegesis (PhD Thesis: University of Toronto, 2019). 31 See above, n. 24. See also: GIRAUD, Per verba magistri, 84-99.

teaching,”32 being developed out of their lectures on the Bible. In the case of John, “the Gloss was compiled from a commentary [Anselm’s Glosae super Iohannem] representing the teaching of the world-renowned master … in order to preserve for posterity his memory and his teaching.”33 More tentative researches on Anselm’s commentaries on the Song of Songs,34 as well as on glosses attributed to the same master on the Gospel of Matthew and the Apocalypse,35 suggest that the commentaries emanating from the Laonnoise masters’ teaching activity played an important role in the compilation of the Gloss. These findings are part of a growing consensus that the literary products issuing from Laon represent student efforts to preserve the magisterium of their masters, especially that of Anselm, as it was exercised in the classroom. Thus, the most enduring literary monument of the School of Laon, the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ is itself, indirectly, the product of oral teaching.36 Furthermore, as we shall see, the Gloss would be reintroduced into the classroom by subsequent generations of masters as an essential resource for their oral teaching on the sacred page.

With these discoveries, there is a growing awareness among scholars that the time period generally associated with the beginnings of the Gloss – some of whose books are said to have been completed before Anselm’s death in 111737 – must be carefully reconsidered. While the first decades of the twelfth century witnessed the oral teaching of the Laon masters and the glosses that issued from their activity in the classroom, the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ seems to have been a project of the following generation of scholars. Indeed, the three earliest Gloss manuscripts known to survive, previously

32 ANDRÉE, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” 232. 33 IDEM, Glosae, XIII. 34 See esp. DOVE, Glossa ordinaria in Cantica Canticorum, 34-6. 35 On Matthew, see Adrian BALLENTYNE, “A Reassessment of the Exposition of the Gospel According to St Matthew in Manuscript Alençon 26,” RTAM 56 (1986), 19-57. See also, the study of Comestor’s glosses on Matthew reviewed above, in which Emmanuel Bain suggests that Anselm’s Glosatura served as the intermediary source for Ralph’s compilation of the Matthew Gloss: BAIN, “La travail du maître,” 94-5. For ANDRÉE’s preliminary study of the Matthew Gloss, see: “Le Pater (Matth. 6, 9-13 et Luc. 11, 2-4) dans l’exégèse de l’école de Laon: La Glossa ordinaria et autres commentaires,” in Le “Notre Père” au XIIe siècle. Lectures et usages, ed. Francesco Siri (Turnhout: 2015), 29-74. On the Apocalypse, see Guy LOBRICHON, “Conserver, réformer, transformer le monde? Les manipulations de l’Apocalypse au moyen âge central,” in The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, ed. Peter Ganz, 2 vols. (Turnhout: 1986), 2: 75-94. On the role of Laonnoise commentaries in the compilation of the biblical Gloss more generally, see ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris. 36 See: ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris. 37 See, e.g.: SMITH, The Glossa Ordinaria, “Authorship,” 17-38. In this chapter, Smith provides a useful survey of the twentieth-century historiography, but follows the prevailing error of previous scholars in attributing the compilation of many Gloss books to the direct efforts of Master Anselm and his colleagues. Her conclusions are most searchingly demonstrated in the list of authors, ibid., 32-3.

supposed to have been Anselm’s autographs, cannot have been produced before ca. 1120-1135.38 Furthermore, according to Patricia Stirnemann’s analysis, Laonnoise origin can be claimed for a relatively small number of glossed books based on the survival of pre-1140 manuscripts: Genesis, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, St. Matthew, St. John, the Canonical Epistles, and the Apocalypse.39 Despite the fact that many glossed books bear no traces of having been compiled at Laon before 1140, copies of the Gloss produced in Paris by the mid-century covered most of the Bible.40 Evidently, then, the work of glossing the sacred page was not finished at the School of Laon. Questions of the “authorship” of most individual books of the Gloss remain largely unexplored, and so they must fall outside of the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, by pursuing a couple of different lines of transmission, it may be possible to elucidate how the unfinished Laonnoise Gloss reached the classroom of Peter Comestor in a complete form.

II. 2 THE GLOSSED BIBLE IN THE PARISIAN CLASSROOM

The story of the Laonnoise tradition of biblical teaching is intimately bound up with that of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ Consequently, in order to determine the extent to which the School’s theological programme of lectio and collatio would feature in the teaching of the Parisian masters, it will be necessary to trace the diffusion, use, and development of the biblical Gloss following the decline of the School of Laon. Among others, Margaret Gibson has asserted that the School of Saint-Victor played the leading role in transmitting the Gloss. More startlingly, Gibson claimed that the whole of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ was organised for use at the Abbey, and that Hugh of Saint-Victor was responsible for the final ordination of the Gloss.41 Other scholars have maintained that neither the manuscript evidence nor the use of the Gloss in Victorine literature supports these claims. Once

38 See: Patricia STIRNEMANN, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la Glose Ordinaire dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle?” in Le XIIe siècle: Mutations et renouveau en France dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle, ed. Françoise Gasparri (Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1994), 257-301, at 258-60. 39 ibid., 262. 40 See, e.g.: SMITH, The Glossa Ordinaria, 26. 41 Margaret T. GIBSON, “The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis,” in Ad Litteram, ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1992) vii-xii. Nevertheless, Gibson would subsequently temper her claims about the Victorine origin of the biblical Gloss: EAD., “The Glossed Bible,” in Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adoph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/1. Intro. by Karfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson, 4 vols (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), X. For a frank response to Gibson, see ANDRÉE, “Introduction,” in Gilbertus Universalis: Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete; Prothemata et Liber I; A Critical Edition with an Introduction and a Translation. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, vol. 52 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2005), 24-6.

again, Stirnemann’s palaeographical studies demonstrate that only a handful of relatively early copies of Gloss books – manufactured between 1140 and 1150, postdating the first extant codices by at least twenty years – were housed in the Abbey, and even these were not likely of Victorine origin.42 Similarly, Stirnemann and others have observed that no documentary evidence before the 1150s shows that the Victorines either “read” the Gloss, incorporated its contents into their theological programme, or played a part in its transmission.43

If the Abbey of Saint-Victor had little involvement in the copying and diffusion of Gloss books, how did the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ find its way to Paris in the first half of the twelfth century? Scholars have identified two figures who played a decisive part in the initial diffusion of the Gloss outside of Laon and its subsequent incorporation into the Parisian schools: Gilbert of Poitiers and Peter Lombard. Gilbert, a student and apprentice of Anselm of Laon, is most famous for his Media glosatura, comprising his commentary on the Psalms (ca. 1117) and Pauline Epistles (ca. 1130). In an explicit to Gilbert’s commentary on the Psalms, we read: “ipse [magister Gilbertus] recitauit [glosaturam] coram suo magistro Anselmo causa emendationis.”44 Previously mistaken for the successor of the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ Gilbert’s Media glosatura on the Psalms has recently been revealed as the probable source, together with a set of Anselm’s glosses, of the text circulating in the Gloss.45 Aside from the role that his literary production might have played in the compilation of certain Gloss books, Gilbert is thought to have been the first to teach in the Parisian schools with the use of

42 Patricia STIRNEMANN, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la Glose,” 268-9. 43 See: ibid., and EAD., “Gilbert de la Porrée et les livres glosés à Laon, à Chartres et à Paris,” Monde médiéval et société chartraine, ed. J.-R. Armogathe (Paris: Picard, 1997), 83-96. Scholars are beginning to remark more generally upon the overestimation of Victorine influence upon twelfth-century theology that followed upon Beryl SMALLEY’s Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. See, e.g.: ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris, “Chapter Three: The Victorines.” Indeed, fanciful assertions about the centrality of Saint-Victor in the twelfth-century theological enterprise have not been confined to biblical scholarship. Until very recently, scholars had repeated the claim that the School of Saint-Victor was one of the principal influences behind Gratian’s Decretum. However, Atria Larson has shown that the Victorines played a modest part in Gratian’s intellectual formation, while the School of Laon (as its teaching was preserved in the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ and the sentence collections) served as one of Gratian’s major influences. See: Atria A. LARSON, “The Influence of the School of Laon on Gratian: The Usage of the Glossa ordinaria and Anselmian Sententiae in De Penitentia (Decretum, c. 33 q. 3),” Mediaeval Studies 72 (2010), 197-244. 44 This explicit appears in the MS Oxford, Balliol 36, fol. 145v, which reads in full: “Explicit glosatura magistri Giliberti Porretani super psalterium quam ipse recitauit coram suo magistro Anselmo causa emendationis [Here ends the glosatura of master Gilbert of Poitiers on the Psalms, which he read aloud before his own master Anselm for the sake of revision].” 45 GROSS-DIAZ, The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers, 122-48.

the primitive Laonnoise Gloss.46 By introducing the method that he had learned at Laon – viz., lecturing on the Scriptures with recourse to the Gloss – into Paris, the heart of the theological enterprise by the mid-twelfth century, Gilbert was central to “promoting the Glossa to its almost universal recognition as the standard school text.”47 But Gilbert’s influence seems to have extended beyond his pioneering use of the Gloss in the Parisian schools. On the basis of extensive palaeographical research, Patricia Stirnemann has persuasively argued that Gilbert was instrumental in the production of Gloss books. By 1140, following the death of the brothers Anselm and Ralph, books of the Gloss had all but ceased to be copied at Laon. It is around this same year that Gilbert, following his tenure as chancellor of Chartres, migrated to Paris to work as a master of grammar, logic, and sacra pagina. Coinciding exactly with Gilbert’s arrival, the professional production of Gloss books in Paris began on a wide scale. According to Stirnemann’s analysis, these glossed books curiously adopted the artistic methods of Chartrian book production rather than those of Laon. Simultaneously, the initial diffusion of Gilbert’s Media glosatura began in Paris, displaying the same distinctive style as the Parisian Gloss books.48 Whether or not this confluence of circumstances proves that Gilbert was responsible for the inauguration of Parisian Gloss production, it is certain that this master was decisive in the transmission of the biblical Gloss following the decline of Laon.

Gilbert of Poitiers does not seem to have been long for the Parisian classroom; in 1141 or 1142, the master was called to the bishopric of Poitiers which he held until his death in 1154.49 Accordingly, now that the mechanism of glossed book production was in place, who would continue the Laonnoise tradition in the schools of Paris? Following the thread of Gilbert’s Media glosatura, one happens upon Comestor’s revered master, Peter Lombard. Expanding upon the Parua glosatura attributed to Anselm, the Lombard’s continuous commentary on the Psalms and Pauline Epistles (together referred to as the Magna glosatura) would supersede both the Anselmian Gloss and Gilbert’s glosatura.50 In fact, by the third-quarter of the twelfth century Lombard’s Magna glosatura came to be

46 Cf. ibid., 128-30. 47 ibid., 22, n. 76. 48 STIRNEMANN’s argument is most fully articulated in “Gilbert de la Porrée et les livres,” 83-96. See also the conclusion of EAD., “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la Glose,” 276-7. 49 GROSS-DIAZ, The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers, 3-14. 50 See, e.g., Marcia COLISH, Peter Lombard, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1: 156-7; Philipp W. ROSEMANN, Peter Lombard (Oxford: OUP, 2004), 50.

copied in place of the Parua in the respective portions of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’51 With reference to Peter’s well-documented ‘completion’ of these glossed books, Hermann Glunz was inclined to attribute the confection of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in its entirety to the Lombard.52 Although the substance of this claim could not withstand the scrutiny of Beryl Smalley,53 scholars are beginning to suspect that her ostensible refutation of the Lombard’s role in the creation of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ was overstated.54 As Alexander Andrée observes, “since for many of its parts the Gloss was in a state of development over the course of the twelfth century and was shaped in the hands of the masters using it in the schools, the Lombard may very well have been instrumental in shaping its final form.”55 Regardless of whether or not the Lombard had a hand in compiling the glossed books that are known not to have originated with the Laonnoise équipe, the ‘Master of Sentences’ remains a decisive figure in the development of the Gloss in virtue of his teaching activity in the Parisian schools.

Famously, Peter Lombard first appears in the historical record under the patronage of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who between 1134 and 1136 wrote a letter of introduction on Peter’s behalf to Gilduin, Prior of Saint-Victor.56 In this letter, St. Bernard explains that the Lombard, already a reverend

51 Cf. Christopher DE HAMEL, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Brewer, 1984), 9. 52 Hans Herman GLUNZ, History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon, Being an Inquiry into the Text of Some English Manuscripts of the Vulgate Gospels (Cambridge, 1933), 213-45. 53 Beryl SMALLEY, “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa ordinaria,’” RTAM 8 (1936), 24-60, at 24-44. 54 See, e.g.: Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 209, n. 24; Mark CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 107; and IDEM, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 263. For a case study of the Romans Gloss, which was ultimately compiled with close dependence upon the Magna glosatura, and perhaps by the Lombard himself, see: Mark ZIER, “Peter Lombard and the Glossa Ordinaria: A Missing Link?” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8-10 ottobre 2006 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2007), 361-409. Similarly, Smalley’s collaborator, George Lacombe, raised the possibility that the Lombard was involved in the process of accretion and revision of the Gloss in its final stages: Beryl SMALLEY and George LACOMBE, “The Lombard’s Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments,” The New Scholasticism 5 (1931), 123-61, at 154. 55 ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 209, n. 24. Although Peter Lombard’s Magna glosatura on the Psalms and Pauline Epistles and his lectures on various glossed books of the Bible as yet represent the only direct evidence implicating this master in the textual development of the Gloss, the suspicions shared by Andrée and several other scholars already mentioned that the Lombard played a more significant part in the ‘crystallisation’ of the Gloss than had previously been supposed are increasingly well-founded. 56 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX, Epistola 410, in Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq, Charles H. Talbot, and Henri M. Rochais (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957-77), 8: 391: “Reverendis patribus et dominis, et amicis carissimis, G. Dei gratia venerabili abbati Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, et universo conventui sancto, frater Bernardus Clarae Vallis

gentleman (uir uenerabilis), had been under his own care during Peter’s studies at Rheims – where, it should here be noted, Peter almost certainly heard the lectures of Master Alberic, one of Anselm’s eminent disciples.57 The holy abbot goes on to request that Saint-Victor provide for Peter’s material needs for a brief time while he prepared for his theological education in Paris. The debate over whether Peter resided or ultimately studied at the Abbey does not here interest us,58 but it is certain that the Victorine programme of biblical scholarship, and especially that of Master Hugh, would feature prominently in Lombard’s theological writing.59 It is known that the Lombard arrived in Paris by the year 1136, and soon after composed his glosses on the Psalter (ca. 1138) and the Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles (known to his contemporaries by 1142).60 Little can be said about Peter’s exact whereabouts until he abruptly reappears in around 1144,61 when the poet of the Metamorphosis Goliae salutes him among the Parisian masters as “celebrem theologum … Lumbardum.”62 Although contemporary documents do not state where he was teaching up to this point, scholars have long situated the Lombard’s Parisian teaching career in the schools surrounding the cathedral of Notre-Dame, whose charters Peter consistently witnessed between 1145 and 1159.63 While modern scholars have treated Peter’s monumental Libri Sententiarum as a manifesto of ‘systematic’ theology in isolation from his biblical programme, the immediate reception of this

vocatus abbas, salutem et nostras qualescunque orationes. Necesse habemus multa requirere, quia multa requiruntur a nobis: nec amicis possumus parcere, quia ab aliis amicis non parcitur. Dominus Lucensis episcopus, pater et amicus noster, commendavit mihi virum venerabilem P. Lombardum, rogans ut ei parvo tempore, quo moraretur in Francia causa studii, per amicos nostros victui necessaria providerem; quod effeci, quandiu Remis moratus est. Nunc commorantem Parisius vestrae dilectioni commendo, quia de vobis amplius praesumo: rogans ut placeat vobis providere ei in cibo per breve tempus, quod facturus est hic usque ad Nativitatem beatae virginis Mariae. Vale.” 57 See: John R. WILLIAMS, “The Cathedral School of Reims in the Time of Master Alberic, 1118-1136,” Traditio 20 (1964), 93-114. 58 For the contours of the debate, see COLISH, Peter Lombard, 1: 18-20. 59 See, e.g.: Ignatius BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 16*; COLISH, Peter Lombard, 1: 18. 60 Ignatius BRADY, “Peter Lombard: Canon of Notre-Dame,” RTAM 32 (1965), 277-95, at 280. 61 The date of the Metamorphosis Goliae has not yet been settled with precision, although scholars have conventionally fixed the poem to ca. 1144. For the latest word on the question, see: Winthrop WETHERBEE, “The Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi: A Revised Edition, Translation, and Notes,” Journal of Medieval Latin 27 (2017), 41-67. 62 R. B. C. HUYGENS, ed., “Metamorphosis Goliae,” Studi medievali 3:2 (1962), 771. For the updated version of Huygens’ edition, see: Metamorphosis Golie, ed. R. B. C. HUYGENS, in Serta Mediaeualia (CCCM 171A, Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). 63 BRADY, “Peter Lombard, Canon of Notre-Dame,” 277-95.

textbook into the schools, beginning with the Lombard’s own lectures,64 attests to the ontology of the Sentences as a classroom aid for teaching sacra pagina.65 Indeed, it was his oral teaching and the biblical glosses that developed out of his magisterial activity that first earned Peter Lombard renown and that formed subsequent generations of magistri in sacra pagina. One anonymous chronicler from the last third of the twelfth century describes the Lombard in these terms:

Petrus Langobardus scholasticus Parisiensis, postea eiusdem ciuitatis episcopus, magistris sui temporis et Scripturarum expositoribus eo maxime preferendus iudicatur quod ingenio sagaci et usu assiduo tanta in exponendis Scripturis luce claruerit ut pene magisterio doctoris non egeat qui glosarum ipsius lectioni animum intendere uoluerit.66

Making no reference to the Libri Sententiarum, the chronicler here isolates the Lombard’s glosses on the sacred page (glosarum), the product of the master’s biblical teaching, as a source of magisterial authority for twelfth-century readers. It is only with respect to the immense influence of the Lombard’s teaching that we will appreciate how the master’s biblical lectures would prove decisive for the fate of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ and the Laonnoise tradition for which it stood.

That the glossed Bible was of fundamental importance to the Lombard’s activity as a magister sacrae paginae is amply demonstrated by all of the extant documents bearing witness to his biblical teaching. Scholars of the twentieth century were able to establish with certainty that Peter Lombard lectured on nearly the entire Bible in the course of his career teaching in the Parisian schools. As the inimitable editor of the Sentences affirms: “Totam nempe Bibliam [Lombardus] annotavit seu in scholis explicavit.”67 Until very recently, scholars had concluded, in a spirit of gloomy resignation,

64 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 12.* 65 For an elegant argument that the Sentences was designed as a theological casebook for use in the classroom to engage students in the tradition of biblical interpretation, see: Giulio SILANO, “Introduction” to Peter Lombard: The Sentences. Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity. Mediaeval Sources in Translation 42 (Toronto: PIMS, 2007), xix-xxvi. 66 Nikolaus M. HÄRING, “Two Catalogues of Medieval Authors,” Franciscan Studies 26 (1966), 195-211, at 211: “Peter Lombard, the Parisian schoolman, thereafter bishop of the same city, is judged to be preferred most greatly to all contemporary masters and expositors of the Scriptures, for by his keen natural intelligence (ingenio) and diligent application (usu) he shed such light upon the interpretation of Scripture that, if one should only wish to turn his attention to reading the Lombard’s glosses (glosarum ipsius lectioni), he would have practically no need of a doctor’s teaching authority (magisterio doctoris).” 67 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 21*. Fr. Brady here excludes from his affirmation the books from the Old Testament (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs,

that, excepting references to his oral teaching made by students, the only textual record of the Lombard’s biblical teaching is his Magna glosatura. In the following section, we will revisit the evidence for this conclusion. Here, we need only determine whether the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ played a part in the Lombard’s programme of biblical scholarship. First, as is manifest from the notes and apparatus fontium on almost every page of Fr. Ignatius Brady’s edition the Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, the biblical Gloss featured prominently in Peter Lombard’s teaching. “Quae Glossa ordinaria,” Brady asseverates, “fons perennis Magistro fuit, unde et plures auctoritates extraxit… Unde apte manifestatur nexus quo Magister ligatur scholae et traditionibus Anselmi Laudunensis.”68 Moreover, Beryl Smalley located a series of passages in Comestor’s lectures on the glossed books of Matthew and Luke demonstrating that the Lombard himself lectured on the glossed Gospels.69 Following Smalley, Fr. Brady systematically presents a vast array of evidence from the Lombard’s Libri Sententiarum and Sermones, as well as the biblical commentaries of his students, to demonstrate the master’s extensive teaching on the glossed Bible, including the Gospels and the twelve Minor Prophets.70 From his concentrated examination of the Lombard’s glosses on Isaiah and Exodus, to both of which the master regularly refers in his Sentences, Brady concludes: “Unde videtur quod Glosa Magistri vix alia fuerit quam quaedam glossa super Glossam ordinariam, uti pluries verificatur in successoribus eius.”71

Such vestiges as remain of the Lombard’s lost glosses indicate the central place held by the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in the master’s teaching enterprise. To establish precisely how Lombard made use of the Gloss,72 it is necessary to turn, however briefly, to the surviving textual witness of the master’s biblical teaching: the Magna glosatura. Contemporary chronicles most incisively describe the relation between Lombard’s commentaries and the Gloss: “glossaturam epistolarum et psalterii ab Anselmo

Ecclesiastes, and the books of Maccabees) omitted from the obituary notice detailing the glossed books that Peter Lombard bequeathed to the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame, discussed below. 68 IDEM, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 119*. 69 SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 154-7. These passages will be discussed below. 70 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 28*-52*. 71 ibid., 36*. 72 Recently, Mark Clark has attributed a set of Old Testament lectures extant in a small number of manuscripts to Peter Lombard, based on a close comparison of these with the reportations of Stephen Langton’s lectures on the corresponding books. Clark describes the usus glosandi exhibited by the putatively Lombardian glosses in the same study. See: CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” passim, but e.g. 264-5.

per glossulas interlineares marginalesque distinctam … [Lombardus] latius et apertius explicuit multaque de dictis sanctorum addidit.”73 Along much the same lines, Beryl Smalley characterises the Lombard’s “Great Gloss” as “simply glossing and completing the Gloss,” re-presenting the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ word-by-word in a continuous format with a more profound exposition and a wider array of authorities.74 The most sophisticated study of the relation between Lombard’s Collectanea and the Gloss yet published is Peter O’Hagan’s 2018 article, “Glossing the Gloss: Reading Peter Lombard’s Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles as a Historical Act.”75 Following his close reading of a passage from Lombard’s gloss on St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, O’Hagan concludes with an extended description of the master’s method of using the Gloss. This description is here worth reproducing in full, as a counterpoint to Comestor’s usus glosandi examined below:

[The Lombard’s] first approach to teaching the biblical text occurs as an engagement with the glosses on that text. He applies each gloss to the correct word or phrase from Paul’s text, adding words when clarification is necessary. He carefully separates disparate elements within the various glosses and applies them to Paul’s words in a way that indicates a clear structure, moving smoothly from point to point. He adds authorities to bolster the Glossa’s statements. Further, we can see how he brings to the text his own concerns – specifically, his interest in clarifying theological language, which he achieves both through the introduction of auctoritates and through a brief excursion away from the biblical text in order to investigate the nature of faith more thoroughly.76

That the foremost magister sacrae paginae of the twelfth century devoted the greater part of his teaching activity to “glossing the Gloss” could not but have resounded throughout the Parisian schools. Admittedly, the precise role that Peter Lombard played in shaping the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ into its final textual form or “crystallisation”77 must for some time bedevil scholars as one of the twelfth- century’s more tantalising problems. Nevertheless, both by ‘completing’ glossed books in the manner of his Magna glosatura on the Psalms and by introducing the Gloss into the Parisian

73 VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS, Speculum Historiale, XXIX, c. 1, in Bibliotheca mundi IV (Duaci, 1624), 1185a. Quoted in BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 53*. 74 Beryl SMALLEY, “A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS. Pembroke College, Cambridge 7,” Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1938), 103–13, at 109. 75 Peter O’HAGAN, “Glossing the Gloss: Reading Peter Lombard’s Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles as a Historical Act,” Traditio 73 (2018), 83-116. 76 ibid., 112. 77 This term was first employed by Guy LOBRICHON, “Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible,” in Le Moyen Âge et la Bible, ed. Pierre Riché et al. (Paris, 1984), 95–114.

classroom as a theological textbook, Peter Lombard secured a place of prominence for the Laonnoise tradition throughout the following century. It is this same teaching tradition that animates the biblical scholarship of the Lombard’s students, and to this tradition that Peter Comestor is the most eloquent witness.

III. 3 PETER COMESTOR, STUDENT AND MASTER: THE SCHOOL OF PARIS AND THE LAONNOISE TRADITION

Pierre le Mangeur, petit-fils spirituel d’Anselme, aurait eu ainsi quelque intérêt à diffuser l’enseignement du Laonnois. L’influence laonnoise a aussi pu parvenir jusqu’à Pierre le Mangeur à travers l’influence de son maître Pierre Lombard, lui-même élève d’Aubri de Reims, disciple favori d’Anselme.78

In the early 1140s, after obtaining a licentia docendi from the chancellor of Notre-Dame, Peter Lombard established a school of theology.79 It is not here our concern to chart the vast influence that the Lombard’s teaching exerted over the mouvement théologique of the twelfth century. Instead, we may now revert our attention to the Lombard’s preeminent student, our Master Comestor. It is largely with reference to Comestor’s writings, the Glosae super euangelia glosata prominent among them, that scholars have recently identified a “veritable and continuous School of Paris,”80 beginning with the biblical lectures of Peter Lombard and developed by subsequent generations of scholars in the schools surrounding Notre-Dame – most notably Peter Comestor, Stephen Langton, and Peter the Chanter. By regarding Comestor in his capacity as Peter Lombard’s “discipulus et successor … in scholis S. Mariae,”81 it will be possible to define the Laonnoise inheritance that Comestor received from his master. Within this discussion, we will adduce a decisive piece of evidence that was prematurely discarded by twentieth-century historians: the magisterial prologue introducing Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Finally, we will consider Comestor in more general terms as a witness to the emergent School of Paris in order to situate his Glosae within this tradition of biblical teaching.

78 GIRAUD and MEWS, “Le Liber Pancrisis,” 154. For Peter Lombard’s studies under Alberic of Rheims, see: John R. WILLIAMS, “The Cathedral School of Reims in the Time of Master Alberic,” 93-114. 79 See: Matthew DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 41. For a profitable discussion of the Lombard’s early teaching career in Paris, see: ibid., “Chapter Two: Growing Reputation, 1134-1145,” 34-51. 80 See: Mark J. CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 57-113, quotation at 59. See also: IDEM, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274, and ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris. 81 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 24* and 39*.

1. ‘ Vocem iucundam Comestoris audiuimus’

Scholars have suggested that the records of Peter Comestor’s lectures are of the highest interest for twelfth-century historiography – not primarily because they are ‘avant garde’ or innovative (although they have been characterised, not inaptly, as such), but because they are traditional: that is, because they bear witness to a tradition of teaching, above all the oral teaching of Peter Lombard. I am convinced that Comestor would be not at all affronted by the nature of the enduring interest in his glosses; indeed, as the editor of the Glosae will conclude, the animating principle behind Comestor’s magisterial activity was to promote that of his master, to conform himself to the tradition that he had inherited. Above, we were able to perceive, from a cursory review of Peter Comestor’s biography and extant writings, the profound influence that Master Lombard enjoyed in his student’s intellectual life and scholastic career.82 Although a number of historians have profitably examined this master-student relationship, I am aware of no scholarship that has assembled the overwhelming body of evidence establishing Comestor’s reception of and development upon his master’s teaching as a whole.83 Indeed, such a study would fill an ample monograph, despite the considerable amount of manuscript research that remains to be done on both of our masters. Pending such a comprehensive study, it is here worthwhile to review a variety of textual evidence that scholars have produced in the last century. Additional evidence for the Lombard’s influence on Comestor will be presented in the following chapter, which investigates the contents of the present edition. By considering the different ways in which the Lombard’s teaching is manifested in the work of Peter Comestor, we will simultaneously be witnessing the unfolding of the Laonnoise tradition of biblical teaching in the School of Paris.

Notwithstanding that the impulse to measure the Lombard’s influence with sole reference to his Sentences must be numbered among the besetting vices of Lombardian studies, the prominence of the Libri Sententiarum in Comestor’s teaching can scarcely be overstated. Recently, Comestor’s glosses on the glossed Gospels have been found to contain the first explicit references to the Lombard’s

82 See again: Cap. I. 1, “Magistrorum Parisiensium Primus.” 83 Perhaps the broadest survey of Peter Lombard’s place in Comestor’s writings appears in David LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” 115-8, although little reference is made to Comestor’s principal works: the Glosae super euangelia glosata and the Historia scholastica. A similar treatment with a greater emphasis on Comestor’s sermons can be found in Matthew DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 165-181. An excellent discussion of the indebtedness of Comestor’s History to his master’s Sentences can be found in Mark J. CLARK, “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed,” Traditio 60 (2005), 85-142.

Sentences.84 More significantly, however, following the Lombard’s own lectures from his theological textbook in the final stages of composition, Peter Comestor “began a tradition of lecturing on the Sentences.”85 Throughout the 1930s, a number of prominent historians determined that a single prologue, referred to as the “Materia super libros Sententiarum,” represents the only surviving part of Peter Comestor’s complete commentary on the Sentences. These scholars were able to show that many commentators on the Sentences for the remainder of the twelfth century, even up to Hugh of Saint-Cher, not only based their prefatory materials on Comestor’s Materia, but also drew materials for their commentaries from a common set of glosses, which have been identified as Comestor’s.86 More recently, Riccardo Saccenti has argued that the Materia does not represent a prologue to a literary commentary that has been lost, but an introduction (accessus) to a set of oral lectures which has been preserved by the process of reportatio.87 Hence, a series of quaestiones that Fr. Ignatius Brady has attributed to Comestor show the master using the Sentences in the course of the disputatio arising from his lectures.88 It is from these same questions that Comestor emerges as our best witness to the final composition of the Sentences, as he describes Lombard teaching the four books in the schools, disputing positions with his auditors, correcting the text, and making additions.89 That Comestor stands at the beginning of the centuries-long tradition of teaching the Sentences, and that his accessus served as “an essential instrument for reading and using the Sentences” for mediaeval schoolmen,90 has been amply demonstrated. “Proinde,” concludes the editor of the Sentences, “Comestor primus

84 Alexander ANDRÉE, “The Master in the Margins: Peter Comestor, the ‘Buildwas Books,’ and Teaching Theology in Twelfth-Century Paris,” Scriptorium (forthcoming). For an example from the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, see below: Cap. III. 3. 1, “The Fathers and Doctors,” n. 176. 85 DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 173. 86 The principal studies identifying Comestor’s Materia super libros Sententiarum and assessing their influence on the commentatorial tradition appeared in this order: Raymond M. MARTIN, “Notes sur l’œuvre littéraire de Pierre le Mangeur,” RTAM 3 (1931), 54-66; Artur LANDGRAF, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” RTAM 3 (1931), 292-372; Henri WEISWEILER, “Eine neue fruhë Glosse zum vierten Buch der Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus,” in Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters. Studien und Texte Martin Grabmann zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres von Freunden und Schülern gewidmet, eds. A Lang, J. Lechner and M. Schmaus. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Suppl. III.1. (Münster i.W., 1935), 360-400; O. LOTTIN, “Le prologue des Gloses sur les Sentences attributées à Pierre de Poitiers,” RTAM 7 (1935), 70-73. 87 SACCENTI, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 183-7. 88 Cf. ibid., 182. These questions will be discussed at some length directly below. See: 89 ibid., 185. For a prominent example, see: BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” 471-2. 90 SACCENTI, “The Materia super libros Sententiarum,” 187.

exstat inter testes fideles circa opera Magistri sui, immo et primarius.”91

Additional evidence for Peter Comestor’s glosses or classroom lectures on the Libri Sententiarum may be found in the manuscript Vallicelliana, B. 47, which contains a complete set of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. On fol. 129r, within the Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum, a marginal accretion reads:

Item magister super Sententias quod triplex est indulgentia, scilicet concessionis, permissionis, remissionis. Indulgentia concessionis est que de minori bono maius dimittitur, ut in apostolo: Minus ei bonum est nubere quam continere. Indulgentia permissionis est de minori malo ubi uitatur maius, ut de libello repudii quem Moyses permisit ad uitendum uxoricidium. Indulgentia remissionis est pene debite pro peccatis relaxatio.92

An examination of the corresponding passage from Book Four of the Sentences makes it clear that this accretion is reporting another master’s commentary super Sententias which adapts the original terminology and provides an additional set of biblical examples absent from the Lombard’s distinction.93 As we will find again below, although it was Comestor’s constant practice to refer to one of his own masters as magister in the course of his oral lectures (and thus recorded by the student-reporter), subsequent additions made to the glosae by students would refer to Peter Comestor under the same title.94 Accordingly, the above passage appears to represent a fragment of Peter’s oral teaching on the Sentences preserved by one of his auditors.

Peter Comestor’s known literary works and other records of his magisterial activity are hardly less indicative of his commitment to disseminating the teaching of Master Lombard. Only very recently has the Lombard’s influence been traced to Comestor’s masterwork, the Historia scholastica, but Mark Clark has successfully demonstrated that the Magister historiarum made extensive use of the Sentences in

91 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 42*. 92 ROME, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B. 47, 129r. 93 Cf. Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. IV, d. XXVI, cap. IV: “QVIBVS MODIS ACCIPITVR INDVLGENTIA. Indulgentia autem diversis modis accipitur, scilicet pro concessione, pro remissione, pro permissione. Et est permissio in nouo testamento de minoribus bonis, et de minoribus malis. De minoribus bonis est coniugium, quod non meretur palmam, sed est in remedium. De minoribus malis, id est de uenialibus, est coitus qui fit causa incontinentiae. Illud, id est in coniugium, indulgetur: id est conceditur; illud uero, id est coitus talis, permittitur: id est, toleratur, ita quod non prohibetur.” 94 Cf. below, Cap. III. 2. 1, “Oral Formulae and Signs of a Scholastic Context,” nn. 106-107.

composing his Historia Genesis.95 One of Comestor’s more concrete efforts to popularise the Lombard’s work appears in his book on the sacraments.96 The Dominican editor of this treatise, Fr. Raymond Martin, has identified the De Sacramentis as an “abrégé mixte” of Book Four of Lombard’s Sentences; in contradistinction to a simple abridgement, Comestor actively engages with the Sentences, presenting the text in a more coherent arrangement, reinforcing its arguments with additional authorities, and refining its terminology according to contemporary usage in the schools.97 Such a method of composition seems to represent the fruits of Comestor’s lectures on the Sentences, and similar patterns of textual use will be manifest in his lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on the Gospels. Perhaps complementing his teaching on the Sentences is a commentary (or set of glosses) on the Lombard’s Magna glosatura on the Psalms ascribed to Peter Comestor in multiple manuscripts.98 Although the authorship of the text has not yet been confirmed, Gilbert Dahan is inclined to regard this commentary as Comestor’s, given the close resemblance of its composition to the modus glosandi exhibited by Comestor’s glossed Gospels.99 And indeed, in light of Comestor’s far-reaching enterprise to advance the Lombard’s teaching, one would be little surprised to find that he had glossed or lectured on his master’s Magna glosatura. Similarly, despite the relative neglect that Peter Comestor’s sermons have suffered in modern historiography, Matthew Doyle has suggested that even Comestor’s preaching develops upon the content and techniques employed by the Lombard.100

We have already had occasion to cite several instances in which Comestor reports the oral teaching of Master Lombard. Such remarks have occurred exclusively within two genres of scholastic literature, both of which immediately derive from a classroom setting: quaestiones and glosae. Of the former, Fr. Ignatius Brady made a careful investigation in his 1966 “Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard.” In this foundational study, Brady persuasively argues that a series of

95 Mark CLARK, “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed,” 85-142. 96 Peter COMESTOR, De Sacramentis, ed. Raymond M. Martin. 97 MARTIN, “Introduction,” in ibid., V* - XXVIII*, at XXIII* - XXV*. See also: David LUSCOMBE, “Peter Lombard,” 117, where he finds the composition of the De Sacramentis suggestive of its telos as a convenient sacramental manual for priests. 98 STEGMÜLLER, RB 6574, 1, 3, and 4. See also: LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” 116-7. This commentary was mentioned above, within the discussion of works attributed to our master: Cap. I. 1, “Magistrorum Parisiensium Primus.” 99 DAHAN, “Les Exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” 50. 100 DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 176-80.

questions, published as nn. 288-344 in Cardinal Pitra’s edition of the Quaestiones Magistri Odonis Suessionensis,101 are in fact reportations of Peter Comestor’s lectures in the schools of Paris in the decade after Peter Lombard’s elevation to the Parisian episcopate. Not only do these questions constitute a clearly distinct group in the manuscript tradition, but the master’s opinions also stand in frequent opposition to those of Master Odo.102 Contemporary with Odo’s teaching after Lombard’s death and subsequently added to the collection of the former master’s works, these questions must have belonged to one of the Lombard’s successors in the schools of Notre-Dame. Aside from the fact that he is reported to have studied under John of Tours and to have heard Peter Abelard, this master regularly makes reference to the teaching of magister noster, who is none other than Peter Lombard.103 Considering in turn each of Lombard’s known students who succeeded their master in the Parisian schools, Brady determines that only Peter Comestor can be plausibly associated with these reported questions.104 To determine whether it is Peter Lombard’s oral teaching to which Comestor refers, Brady systematically compares the reported teachings to corresponding passages in the Sentences. Consistently, Brady finds that the Lombard’s doctrines described by the student- turned-master go beyond anything found in the Libri Sententiarum.105 Similarly, in two related groups of unedited questions that Brady reclaims for Comestor,106 the master whom the student-reporter signals with the inquit-formula refers to the oral teachings of Peter Lombard with magister dicit. Brady corroborates Peter Comestor’s certain knowledge of the Lombard’s oral teaching with reference to a question ascribed to Praepositinus, explicitly indicating Comestor’s familiarity with his master’s doctrine beyond that which appears in the Sentences: “Magister Petrus Comestor habens solutionem a magistro Petro Lombardo, dicit…”107 Whence, this single study of the extant quaestiones bearing witness to Peter Comestor’s resolution of student questions – almost certainly arising from his lectures on his master’s Libri Sententiarum –, demonstrates Comestor’s intimate knowledge of and extensive reliance upon the oral teaching of Peter Lombard in his own classroom teaching.

101 J. B. Card. PITRA, Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis altera continuatio, II (Paris-Frascati, 1888), 3-187. 102 BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” 465. 103 ibid., 465. 104 ibid., 480-90. 105 ibid., 466-479. 106 Namely, those found in BnF lat. 18108, fol. 83r-107v, and in Troyes MS 964, fol. 89r-159v. 107 Cited by BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” 486, from the manuscript Paris Mazarine 1708, fol. 260v.

The second type of evidence establishing Comestor as a witness to Peter Lombard’s oral teaching are his lecture courses or glosses on the four glossed Gospels. In the mid-twelfth century, delivering a scholastic lecture course on the Gospels was a pioneering enterprise; in fact, Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata represent the first Parisian lectures on the Gospels known to survive.108 There can be little question that, in his choice to devote a considerable part of his teaching career to lecturing on the Gospels, Peter Comestor was following his master. More significantly, the use of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ as a theological textbook, and the practice of lecturing on its marginal and interlinear glosses alongside the biblical text, is a technique that Comestor inherited from Peter Lombard. However, it will become increasingly apparent that the influence that the Lombard enjoyed in Comestor’s classroom was not limited to the choice of subject matter. Because Peter Lombard’s biblical glosses, or lecture material, has not come to us intact, it is impossible to determine the extent to which Comestor’s lectures were based upon his master’s teaching. Nevertheless, traces of the Lombard’s oral teaching pervade all four of Comestor’s lecture courses, which Beryl Smalley was able to detect in her preliminary study of the Glosae super euangelia glosata. In her 1978 article “Some Gospel Commentaries of the Early Twelfth Century,” Smalley identifies a series of passages from Comestor’s Matthew and Luke glosses referring to Lombard’s oral teaching. One such passage states that “the Master” drew his interpretation from a marginal gloss of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on Luke, demonstrating that the Lombard lectured from the glossed Gospel: “In expositione, inquid [Comestor], huius loci gloriabatur magister, quia omnes ante tempus suum pertransibant; ipse longe melius exposuit, et expositionem suam uoluit habere ex quadam glosa…”109 Smalley cites a similar passage indicating Lombard’s use of the Matthew Gloss, while Brady would find reason to believe that he lectured on Mark and John as well.110 A further previously unprinted

108 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 84. However, Smalley would later identify a Parisian lecture course on Luke’s Gospel cum glossis (contained in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS lat. th.d. 45), which she was inclined to date before Comestor’s lectures owing to the fact that the unnamed master displayed a familiarity with the Lombard’s Sentences but not with Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata or his Historia scholastica. See: EAD., “An Early Paris Lecture on St. Luke,” in The Gospels in the Schools, c. 1000 - c. 1280 (London: Hambledon Press, 1985), 85-97. 109 SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 154. Her transcription of this passage was made from MS Pembroke College, Cambridge, 75, fol. 32rb. 110 The passages produced by Smalley indicating Lombard’s lectures on Matthew are found in ibid., 156. The piece of evidence that Brady adduces towards the Lombard’s lectures on Mark is a comment from Comestor’s Glosae super Marcum glosatum, in which he states: “nec legit eum [scil. Marcum] Magister Anselmus nec Magister Radulfus frater eius.” From this remark, Brady suggests: “Innuere etiam [Comestor] videtur, saltem ex silentio, quod Magister [Lombardus] Marci evangelium glossaverit.” The fact that Brady cites this passage via Smalley suggests that the great friar made no independent study of Comestor’s glosses – unde lugere adhuc debemus. Towards the

passage from chapter nine of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum may here be produced in support of Brady’s latter hypothesis: “SI VTRVMQVE EST EQVALIS POTENTIE, HOC MAIORIS MISERICORDIE, quia in iustificatione impii magis apparet misericordia Dei. Vide quia magister ita diu tenuit sicut sonat littera glose, scilicet quod utrumque esset equalis potencie, et sic in disserendo concedebat.”111 Once more, we find Comestor reporting the oral teaching of his master (in disserendo) based upon the text of the gloss (sicut sonat littera glose). Moreover, Comestor’s language suggests his continual attendance of this master’s oral teaching, who is stated to have held this opinion for a considerable length of time (diu tenuit ) and to have proposed it repeatedly (concedebat ). From the passages presented by Smalley, Fr. Brady would unequivocally conclude: “Testimonium enim Comestoris monstrat quod ipse in manibus textum Magistri [scil. Glosas] habebat.”112 In the following section, we will consider the full force of Brady’s assertion that Peter Comestor had the master’s glosses at his fingertips. Developing upon a recent interpretation of the prologue to Comestor’s lectures on the John Gloss (i.e. the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum), we will conclude that Brady’s conjecture was more penetrating than he might have realised.

2. ‘Sed magister preparauit ingressum’

An obituary notice from the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame, dated on the fifth day before the Nones of May, namely 1160, plaintively records: “De domo Sancte Marie … obiit magister Petrus episcopus.”113 The last-declared possessions left to the canons, among whom Peter Lombard lived

Lombard’s glosses on John, Brady cites one of Comestor’s disputed questions in which he reports the Lombard’s interpretation of John 15, 22, which cannot be located in any of the master’s extant writings. See: BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 42*-44*. 111 Glosae super Iohannem glosatum 9, 29 (P, 246rb): “IF EACH OF THESE IS OF EQUAL POWER, THIS ONE IS OF GREATER MERCY, because the mercy of God appears greater in the justification of the wicked. And see that the master for some time maintained the interpretation that the letter of the gloss suggests, namely that each of these is of equal power, and thus he was wont to concede in his oral discourse (disserendo).” Significantly, Comestor finds occasion to report his master’s same sententia at greater length in the Glosae super Lucam glosatum 15, 7 (P, 194ra): “Et magister, inquid, diu fuit in ea sententia Augustiniana ut diceret maioris potentie esse iustificare impium quam creare celum et terram; tandem rediit ad sententiam Bede, ut diceret uterque esse equalis potencie, set hoc maioris misericordie, quia licet in iustificacione impii sit peccati repugnacio que uidetur aggrauare difficultatem huius operis in creacione celi et terre, et fuit operacio de nichilo. Et hec duo, scilicet peccati repugnacio et operacio de nichilo, quasi ex equo respondent sibi in hiis duobus operibus, ut ita dicantur uterque esse equalis potentie secundum Bedam, set hoc maioris misericordie.” 112 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 27*. 113 A. MOLINIER, Obituaires de la Province de Sens (Paris, 1902), I-1, 126.

and taught sacra pagina, are his books:

Insuper habuimus omnes libros eius glosatos, scilicet: Nouum Testamentum totum; in Veteri Testamento, Psalterium, quinque libros Moysi, quatuor maiores Prophetas, duodecim minores, Cantica, Iob, Hester, Thobiam, Iudith, librum Sapientie, Ecclesiasticum, Sententias 114 eiusdem et Decreta Gratiani.

In his initial analysis of this obituary in the Prolegomena to the first volume of the Sentences, Fr. Ignatius Brady supposed that “all of the Lombard’s glossed books” referred to his collected editions of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’115 Ten years later, constrained by the evidence that he had since discovered in Lombard’s writings and those of his students, Brady would retract his previous supposition, concluding that these books contained Peter Lombard’s own biblical glosses: “nihil aliud enim sunt [libri eius glosati] quam fructus magisterii sui in scholis S. Mariae ante compositionem Libri Sententiarum.”116 Brady opined that the Lombard was not able to edit these glosses to his satisfaction on account of teaching responsibilities and other engagements, “ac proinde nec iuri publico dare voluerit.”117 Prompted by his new interpretation of the obituary, Ignatius Brady continued the investigation for Peter Lombard’s biblical glosses commenced some years earlier by Beryl Smalley; however, both of these scholars would ultimately conclude that the Lombard’s glossed Bible was irretrievably lost.118 What, then, became of the Lombard’s glossed books? Fr. Brady, with a confessor’s insight into the prevailing faults of students, offers two possible solutions: “Unde deducimus aut quod discipuli Magistri codices eius acquisierunt ad opera propria conficienda aut quod canonici codices Magistri iam vendiderant ad alia debita solvenda (quod non semel fecerunt).”119 As we will see, it is upon the first of these hypotheses, untested by Brady and left to posterity, that the renewed search for Peter Lombard’s glossed Bible hangs.

114 ibid. 115 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 114*-115*. 116 ibid., 2: 21*. 117 ibid., 23*. 118 Unfortunately, subsequent generations of scholars would not hear Brady’s appeal to continue the search – ibid., 52*: “Alia aliis libenter relinquimus ad investigandum, ad senectutem festinantes.” In her magisterial study of the Lombard, for instance, Marcia COLISH carefully recounts the investigations of Smalley and Brady as a futile enterprise. See: Peter Lombard, 1: 27-30. 119 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 23*.

In his 2014 article “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” Mark Clark reopened the investigation for the Lombard’s glosses – or rather lecture materials, as he would determine – on the biblical Gloss.120 Following Brady’s well-documented demonstration that Peter Comestor is our best witness to his master’s oral teaching, Clark alighted upon a decisive piece of evidence previously misinterpreted by both Brady and Smalley: the magisterial prologue to Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Clark’s argument begins with the prefatory text immediately following the prologue, viz. Comestor’s comments about the order of his lectures as mediated by the student-reporter:

Comestor goes on to explain the procedure that he will follow in commenting upon the prefatory materials traditionally affixed to the Gospel of John. The latter-mentioned of these materials, the prologus, is one of the four ‘Monarchian’ prologues misattributed to St. Jerome which preceded each of the Gospels in copies of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’122 Similarly, the introitus – which is, in fact, Anselm of Laon’s prologue to the Glosae super Iohannem mistakenly ascribed to St. Augustine – circulated as a preface in the John Gloss.123 As will be discussed further, Comestor’s use of the term accessus here designates no particular text, but rather refers to the desired end of “the Master’s ingressus”: to provide students a more accessible introduction to the sacred text and its author (ut commodior esset accessus).

120 Mark J. CLARK, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” Mediaeval Studies 76 (2014), 57-113. 121 See below: COMESTOR, Glosae, PROTH. 2, V: “Note that Augustine, who devoted his attention especially to John, composed an introduction (introitum) which begins thus: [THIS GOSPEL IS GREATER] THAN ALL THE PAGES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. But the Master in a certain fashion prepared an entryway (ingressus) to Augustine’s introduction, in order that there might be a more suitable approach (accessus) [i.e. to John’s Gospel]. And mark that Augustine’s introduction should be read before the prologue (prologus).” 122 For a history of the so-called ‘Monarchian’ prologues, see: John CHAPMAN, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford: 1908), 217-88. 123 ANSELM OF LAON, Glosae super Iohannem, Proth. 1, 3-4.

Of course, the most tantalising of the prefatory materials to which Comestor alludes is the ingressus, which, he informs us, “the Master” composed as an exposition of Augustine’s (i.e. Anselm’s) introitus in order to introduce his students to John’s Gospel more effectively. Before determining what, precisely, Comestor is referring to as the Master’s ingressus, it will be necessary to follow Clark in reviewing his predecessors’ treatment of this passage. In her initial study of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, Smalley made the unqualified assertion that the inquit-formula was employed by student reporters to signal Comestor’s personal views, while magister indicates Comestor’s reference to one of his own masters, frequently the Lombard.124 Similarly, Fr. Brady’s foundational study of Comestor’s quaestiones led him to the same understanding of the use of these two oral formulae in reportations of Comestor’s teaching: “first, the student reporting these disputes constantly cites his

own master [i.e. Comestor] by using inquit ; secondly, this master in turn invariably refers to Lombard as magister or magister noster.”125 Inexplicably, and without providing any justification for doing so, both Smalley and Brady treated this passage as though the use of the term magister represented the reporter’s personal remarks about Comestor’s procedure.126 After carefully substantiating these scholars’ original conclusions about the use of the inquit- and magister-formulae, and applying these principles of reportatio to the passage at hand, Clark shows that the previous interpretation of this passage is unsustainable. Accordingly, Clark confirms that “magister” here must report Comestor’s reference to his own master, while the ingressus magistri mentioned by Comestor is identical to the prologue preceding these comments. Following previous findings that the simple use of magister in Comestor’s reported teachings uniformly refers to the Lombard, Clark proposes that “the Master” responsible for this ingressus to John is none other than Peter Lombard.127

Reserving a close textual analysis of this prologue for the following chapter of the present introduction, it is here worth providing a cursory review of Clark’s principal observations about the ingressus that support a Lombardian attribution. What is at once conspicuous about the ingressus to John is that it begins with a verse from another book of the Bible, the Song of Songs: Omnia poma

124 SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 154: “Comestor’s reporter wrote ‘inquid’ tout court, when reporting the lecturer’s personal comments. ‘The master’ is not the reporter’s master, but Comestor’s, as quoted by him in his lectures.” 125 BRADY, “Peter Manducator,” 461. 126 IDEM, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 27*-28*; SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 111. 127 CLARK presents evidence for this conclusion in “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 88-113.

noua et uetera seruaui tibi, dilecte mi.128 Accordingly, we have here one of the earliest examples of what A. J. Minnis identifies as the “sermon-type” prologue: a style of accessus mysteriously originating in the mid-twelfth century that introduces biblical commentaries with a pericope from another book of Sacred Scripture.129 Although Peter Lombard employed this technique of accessus in all of his sermons,130 Smalley was misled by the fact that the Lombard did not adopt the same style in his prologues to the Magna glosatura. In consequence, Smalley devised a “test of authenticity” according to which the authorship of any such sermon-type prologues would be antecedently discounted as Lombardian131 – a “monitum” subsequently observed by Ignatius Brady with unhappy result.132 However, Clark shows that it is far more plausible that Peter Lombard was instead the originator of this style of accessus at the height of his powers as a Master of the Sacred Page, or at least an early practitioner of this newly fashioned method of biblical commentary.133 Next, Clark observes that, unlike the conspicuously oral character of Comestor’s prefatory material that follows (i.e. his glosses on the so-called prologus Ieronimi and the introitus Augustini), the ingressus bears all the marks of a deliberate literary composition.134 Furthermore, this ingressus corresponds precisely to the description in Comestor’s comments quoted above – namely, it is a prologue developing upon the pseudo- Augustinian preface of the John Gloss in order to provide a better introduction to the Gospel (“magister ad introitum Augustini quodammodo preparauit ingressum, ut commodior esset accessus”).135 Further evidence that Clark introduces from Comestor’s subsequent prefatory material is his own treatment of the introitus Augustini, which displays textual dependence upon the master’s foregoing ingressus in addition to citing this prologue explicitly as a separate source (“cum extra dictum sit”) – references which would be unintelligible if Comestor himself had composed the initial ingressus.136 According to these findings, I am persuaded that Clark’s attribution of “the Master’s” ingressus to Peter Lombard can be accepted with moral certainty.

128 See our edition below: GLOSAE, PROTH. 1, I. 129 Alistair J. MINNIS, A Medieval Theory of Authorship, 64. 130 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 109, n. 77. 131 ibid., 110. 132 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 23*-28*. 133 CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 247. 134 IDEM, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 97-8, 102-6. 135 ibid., 98. 136 ibid., 102.

From these investigations, Clark would draw a number of conclusions with significant implications for the study of twelfth-century theology, all concentrated upon Peter Lombard and his students.137 First, he observes that Smalley’s demonstrably invalid test of authenticity (i.e. discounting sermon- type prologues) led to the perfunctory dismissal of a vast deposit of prefatory materials on the entire Bible potentially originating with the Lombard. Closely related to this conclusion is the evidence of the prologues to all four of Peter Comestor’s lecture courses on the glossed Gospels, which, Clark suggests, are the best place to resume the search for further vestiges of the Lombard’s glossed Bible. Next, Clark remarks upon the transmission of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ from Laon to Paris, and upon the evolution of the Laonnoise Gloss in the Parisian classroom, which occurred by a continual “process of accretion” within a tradition of teaching handed down from master to student. It is this same traditio studii that serves as the basis of several of Clark’s most important findings. Since the time of Anselm of Laon, it was an emergent practice in the schools for the masters’ theological teaching to be passed down to students and to provide a basis for their own writings – in Master Anselm’s case, Giraud demonstrates that his oral sententiae were diffused by his students, while Andrée suggests that his continuous commentary on John was used by Laonnoise students to compile the Gloss.138 In like manner, Clark has shown that Peter Comestor entrusted his Historia scholastica, as well as his glossed Gospels, to Stephen Langton.139 Clark’s study of the ingressus to the John Gloss equally suggests that Peter Lombard’s biblical glosses served as the foundation for his student’s lectures on the glossed Gospels.140 It remains to be discovered how many of the Lombard’s biblical glosses came into the possession his students or the extent to which these materials served as a basis for their own lectures. Nevertheless, after nearly four decades of suspense, Brady’s hypothesis that the Lombard’s glossed books were obtained by students to compose their own works has met with a preliminary confirmatur. In the final section of this chapter, we will briefly consider the implications that the

137 Mark Clark presents the following conclusions in ibid., 107-10. In this section, Clark enumerates eight principal findings, a couple of which will be reserved for discussion below. 138 For GIRAUD’s brief conclusion to his discussion of the Laonnoise sentence collections, see: Per verba magistri, 405. For ANDRÉE’s discussion of the compilation of the John Gloss, see: “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” 234-45. 139 CLARK, The Making of the Historia Scholastica, 187-97. 140 Based on the Lombardian prefatory material that he discovered in Peter Comestor’s lecture course on John and Stephen Langton’s Old Testament lectures, Clark opined that the Lombard bequeathed to his students a sort of ‘accessus library,’ consisting of magisterial prologues that he composed for perhaps all the books of the Bible, developing upon the accessus tradition originating with St. Jerome and transmitted through the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ See: IDEM, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 251-3.

transmission of the Lombard’s glossed Bible through the teaching activity of Peter Comestor has for the School of Paris, and the history of mediaeval theology more generally.

3. ‘ Magistri nostri Manducatoris sequentes uestigia’

For historians of twelfth-century theology, it is a worthy object of puzzlement that Peter Comestor is known to have lectured repeatedly on the Gospels and no other biblical books, while Stephen Langton lectured repeatedly on almost every book of the Bible except for the Gospels.141 If the relation between Comestor and Langton were as distant as scholars had previously supposed, the virtual production of a complete glossed Bible between the two masters could reasonably be imputed to coincidence. Recently, however, Mark Clark has proposed an extensive revision of the previously accepted chronology of Stephen Langton’s scholastic career.142 First, Clark has presented evidence that Langton was Comestor’s student in Paris, witnessing the master’s oral teaching on the Historia scholastica and possibly the glossed Gospels in as early as the 1160s. Moreover, his investigation of the three extant recensions of Stephen Langton’s lecture course on the Historia – the original series being delivered before 1176, while Comestor was still a master in Paris – led Clark to conclude that Langton worked closely with his master on the continued production of this scholastic textbook. Indeed, Langton’s testimony and contribution to the process of accretion that resulted in the “university edition” of the Historia scholastica indicates a collaborative relation between the two masters, and equally suggests that Comestor entrusted his teaching materials (including the Historia as it had begun to evolve in the classroom) to his preeminent student.143

Such a master-student relation ought, perhaps, to remind us of that which has been described between Peter Lombard and Peter Comestor. If, as emerging evidence seems to suggest, the Lombard’s biblical glosses (i.e. lecture materials) were indeed handed down to Comestor, would it not have been logical for Comestor to bequeath the Lombard’s glossed Bible, together with his own Historia scholastica, to Stephen Langton? In turn, with Comestor having devoted his career of teaching sacra pagina to perfecting his master’s glosses on the Gospels, it seems natural that Langton should

141 Cf. CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 111. 142 CLARK presents a tentative timeline for Langton’s scholastic career challenging a number of previously held assumptions in The Making of the Historia scholastica, 170-1. 143 These findings are documented in ibid, “Chapter Six: Stephen Langton: Comestor’s Student, Collaborator, Colleague,” 187-213.

have devoted his own prolific career to developing what remained of the Lombard’s biblical material.144 Fr. Ignatius Brady was able to uncover ample evidence that, next to Comestor, Stephen Langton is our most faithful witness to Peter Lombard’s biblical teaching, and indeed that Langton may have had direct recourse to the Lombard’s glossed books: “Quod autem « omnes libros eius glosatos », scilicet ipisus Lombardi, in manibus potuerit habere [Magister Stephanus Langton] manifeste apparet…”145 Similarly, Clark has maintained that, after Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, Langton’s biblical corpus is the best place to search for traces of Peter Lombard’s glossed Bible.146 Due to the fact that Stephen Langton’s biblical glosses are all unedited and have lain virtually untouched since 1930,147 much work remains to be done if scholars hope to trace Lombardian influence in Langton’s teaching. Pursuing his own hypothesis, however, Mark Clark has begun an investigation of Stephen Langton’s Old Testament glosses. In his first extensive study of this corpus, published in 2017, Clark was able to determine that Langton’s biblical lectures relied to a very great extent upon the lecture materials of an eminent predecessor, whom Clark has persuasively identified as Peter Lombard.148 One feature of particular interest in this study is the common dependence that Clark has found exhibited by Langton’s glosses and Comestor’s Historia scholastica on this set of magisterial lectures on the Old Testament.149 These initial findings persuade me that, as the biblical corpora of Peter Comestor and Stephen Langton continue to be studied in relation to each other, additional traces of the Lombard’s glossed Bible will be uncovered.

Before considering the broader implications of this succession of Parisian schoolmen, it will be worthwhile to allude to two further masters of Notre-Dame in the generation following Comestor: Peter of Poitiers († 1205) and Peter the Chanter († 1197). Together with the Lombard and Comestor, these masters are said to represent the four solid stones (“pierres”) upon which the house

144 CLARK presents this hypothesis in “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 112. 145 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 52*. For an extended presentation of evidence of the Lombard’s teaching in Langton’s biblical glosses, see: ibid., 44*-52*. 146 CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 112. 147 Cf. ibid., 112, n. 160. 148 IDEM, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274. 149 In his initial study of Langton’s corpus of biblical lectures, Mark Clark noted that the putatively Lombardian lectures which served as the basis for those of Langton are also behind Comestor’s Historia scholastica. See: ibid., 265-6.

of twelfth-century theology was built.150 Although, following Martin Grabmann’s fateful distinction, these two masters have been treated as practitioners of two fundamentally different forms of theology – Peter of Poitiers of ‘speculative’ and Peter the Chanter of ‘biblical’ –, both theologians can be traced to a continuous tradition of biblical teaching originating with Peter Lombard: the School of Paris. On account of the close dependence of his Sentences upon Peter Lombard’s magisterial textbook, historians have conventionally speculated that Peter of Poitiers studied under the ‘Master of Sentences’ in Paris, and have even called him “the Lombard’s most faithful pupil.”151 Despite his evident commitment to advancing the Lombard’s theological teaching, the documentary evidence presents Peter of Poitiers in a far closer relation to Peter Comestor. Dismissing the supposition that Peter of Poitiers frequented Peter Lombard’s classes, Fr. Ignatius Brady nevertheless observes that Peter had some knowledge of the Lombard’s biblical teaching apart from the Magna glosatura – an occurrence that Brady seems inclined to associate with Peter of Poitiers’ relation to Comestor.152 Similarly, Matthew Doyle suggests that it is under Comestor’s influence that Peter of Poitiers continued the tradition of lecturing on the Sentences, a process that culminated in the ascendancy of the Lombard’s theological textbook in the University of Paris.153 Reportedly a master of theology in Paris from 1167 to 1205,154 Peter of Poitiers likely studied under Comestor at Notre- Dame during the 1160s, and was later appointed “praepositus scolarum Petri Comestoris.”155 In 1169, Comestor personally selected Peter of Poitiers as his successor to the chair of theology of Notre-Dame.156 Still more suggestive of a close master-student relation between these scholars, Peter of Poitiers continued the work of developing Comestor’s programme of biblical teaching. First, the former is responsible for the Historia actuum apostolorum, a continuation of the Historia scholastica

150 Astrik GABRIEL, “The Cathedral Schools of Notre-Dame and the Beginning of the University of Paris,” Garlandia: Studies in the History of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, Ind.: 1969), 39-64, at 58. 151 Martin GRABMANN, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2: 476: “… Petrus von Poitiers, dem treuesten Schüler des Lombarden.” Subsequent scholars would repeat Grabmann’s claim; see, e.g.: Philip S. MOORE, The Works of Peter of Poitiers: Master in Theology and Chancellor of Paris, 1193-1205 (Notre Dame, Ind.: 1936), 5. 152 BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 44*. 153 DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 173. 154 See: ALBERIC OF TROIS FONTAINES, Chronicon, 886: “Obiit Petrus Pictavinus cancellarius Parisiensis qui per annos 38 theologiam legerat Parisius.” 155 WALTER OF SAINT-VICTOR, Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae 4.7, ed. Palémon Glorieux, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 19 (1952), 187-335, at 274-5. For a brief discussion of Peter of Poitiers’ studies under Comestor, see: DOYLE, Peter Lombard and His Students, 167. 156 DALY, “Master of Histories,” 66.

advancing Comestor’s literal-historical account of salvation history through the Book of Acts.157 Additionally, Peter of Poitiers devised the Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi, a popular scholastic tool depicting Christ’s descent from Adam, sometimes displayed on the wall of the classroom during lectures on the Historia scholastica.158 Widely circulating as a prefix in manuscript copies of the Historia, the Compendium is a graphic abridgment of Comestor’s presentation of the genealogy of Christ. Consequently, Peter’s Compendium would share the fortuna of his master’s textbook as an indispensable tool, alongside the Gloss, for teaching biblical history in the mediaeval schools.159

Equally implicated in this milieu of Parisian masters is Peter the Chanter. It is not certain at what date the Chanter began his studies in Paris, but it would appear that Peter was a master of theology by 1173.160 Similarly, it is unknown whose schools the Chanter frequented or where he initially began to teach following his academic formation, though evidence from later in his career strongly associates him with the cathedral. In 1183, Peter was elevated to the dignity of cantor of Notre- Dame, situating him in the cathedral school of Paris during the tenure of Comestor’s students- turned-masters already mentioned.161 While this chronology supports the possibility of his having studied under Comestor, Peter the Chanter’s teaching activity and literary output are the most compelling evidence for his engagement in the tradition of biblical teaching transmitted from the Lombard to Comestor. As John Baldwin remarks in his pioneering study of the Chanter: “When [Peter the Chanter] lectured on the Scriptures, he employed the Glossa ordinaria and the Magna glosatura of Peter the Lombard… In particular he drew extensively on the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor.”162 Although the Chanter’s biblical glosses have seldom been read in light of this intellectual legacy, Beryl Smalley remarked that his Unum ex quatuor belongs to the tradition of lecturing on the glossed Gospels, originating with Laonnoise teaching, that the Lombard passed on to his disciple Peter Comestor.163 Smalley showed that the Chanter did not only make frequent use

157 See: MOORE, The Works of Peter of Poitiers, 118-22; CLARK, The Making of the Historia Scholastica, 7. 158 SMALLEY, Study of the Bible, 215. 159 DALY, “Master of Histories,” 70-1. 160 John W. BALDWIN, Masters, Princes and Merchants, 1: 5-6. 161 ibid., 1: 6. 162 ibid., 1: 48. Regrettably, Baldwin did not pursue any further Peter the Chanter’s place within this intellectual tradition, which may prove to be of the highest importance. 163 SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 175-6.

of the biblical Gloss and Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels,164 but that he also cited the oral teaching of the ‘Master of Sentences’ through Comestor’s glosses,165 placing himself in continuity with the teaching of Peter Lombard.

Despite the forceful evidence situating him within this teaching tradition, Peter the Chanter has been cited most frequently in this connection for his ostensible reaction against Comestor’s method of biblical scholarship. Based on the prevailing misconception that Comestor’s interest in biblical studies lay primarily in antiquities, archaeology, and the liturgy, scholars have interpreted the Chanter’s criticism of a certain fixation exhibited by the sancti expositores upon places, dates, genealogies, and descriptions of buildings as referring tacitly to Comestor.166 Such an interpretation cannot be sustained on several counts, the most obvious being that it would require a novel use of the term sancti expositores to signify the modern masters.167 Equally prohibitive is Peter the Chanter’s evident adherence to Comestor’s teaching practices: the Chanter lectured from the biblical Gloss and took regular recourse to Comestor’s Historia and Gospel lectures. Although Peter displays a certain coldness towards the “farraginem superfluarum glossarum” which might more plausibly

164 It should be mentioned, however, that Artur Landgraf was, to my knowledge, the first to demonstrate the Chanter’s familiarity with Peter Comestor’s teaching beyond the Historia scholastica. See: LANDGRAF, “Recherches,” 292-306. 165 SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 153-5, 175-6. See also: BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 2: 44*: “Glossas Lombardi in Evangelia novit Petrus Cantor ex illis Manducatoris iam citatis; unde in suis Glossis super Unum ex quatuor (c. 1188) ad Luc. 7: 43, solutionem Lombardi proponit…” 166 PETER THE CHANTER, Summa de Sacramentis et Animae Consiliis, ed. J. A. Dugauquier, in Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts 16, 1963), 16: 163: “Et mirum quod sancti expositores ita diligentes fuerunt in numeris, in sitibus locorum, in tabernaculis, in allegoriis, quare non fuerunt ita diligentes in moralibus ueteris testamenti et iudiciis uel decisoriis uel inflictoriis pene. Forte ideo ut darent intelligi ibi nullam esse expositionem, sed omnia etiam ad litteram intelligenda.” For the interpretation of this criticism as being directed at Comestor, see, e.g.: SMALLEY, “The Gospels in the Paris Schools in the Late 12th and Early 13th Centuries: Peter the Chanter, Hugh of St. Cher, Alexander of Hales, John of La Rochelle,” Franciscan Studies 39 (1979), 230-54, at 233-4. Alternatively, David Luscombe suggests that Peter the Chanter’s criticism, if not directed at Comestor himself, may have been aimed at the affected antiquarianism of Comestor’s readers and followers. See: LUSCOMBE, “Peter Comestor,” 127-8, and IDEM, “The Place of Peter Comestor in the History of Medieval Theology,” 41-2. 167 The same observation was made by David LUSCOMBE, “The Place of Peter Comestor in the History of Medieval Theology,” 42. Admittedly, redirecting Peter the Chanter’s use of “sancti expositores” to the Church Fathers does little to clarify the subject of the master’s criticism. Perhaps the Chanter had the ‘antiquarian’ Father, St. Jerome, in mind? A more plausible suggestion, for which I am indebted to Alexander Andrée, is that “sancti expositores” could refer to the abbreviated versions of the Fathers that circulated in the schools under this precise name (i.e. “expositor”).

describe Peter Comestor’s modus legendi,168 there can be little question that Peter the Chanter’s teaching activity places him alongside Comestor within the tradition of biblical teaching identified as the School of Paris.

This brief survey of the succession of Magistri sacrae paginae teaching theology in the schools of Notre-Dame has emphasised a continuous school of Parisian teaching originating with Peter Lombard, passed down to students primarily through his oral teaching, and grounded in the tradition of biblical scholarship articulated at Laon and transmitted through the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ Following Artur Landgraf’s observation about twelfth-century teaching, which maintains that the influence of a master is properly measured by the extent to which his oral teaching served as the basis for the lectures of subsequent masters,169 Alexander Andrée and Mark Clark have concentrated their researches upon records of the teaching of the Parisian masters mentioned above, principally the biblical glosses preserving their lectiones on the Bible. These scholars have begun to detect a pattern of common Parisian lecture material diffused and developed by generations of masters and seemingly originating with the Lombard, as has been argued in Clark’s studies of Stephen Langton’s Old Testament lectures and of the prothemata of Comestor’s lecture courses on the Gospels.170 According to their investigations of these materials, Andrée and Clark have proposed three principal characteristics distinguishing the School of Paris: 1) the common use of the Laonnoise biblical Gloss as a theological textbook; 2) the fundamental orality of the School’s teaching; that is, the relation between the Parisian masters and students can only be understood in terms of classroom teaching and lecture materials, rather than the literary documents which represent various stages of remove from this oral origin; 3) the nature of this “school” as an adherence to a tradition of teaching rather than to a set of doctrines; accordingly, masters would teach their methods and entrust their materials to students, who would, having themselves become masters, develop upon and enrich this

168 PETER THE CHANTER, Verbum adbreviatum. Textus Conflatus, ed. Monique Boutry (CCCM 196, Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), I, 2, 94. 169 Artur Michael LANDGRAF, Introduction à l’histoire de la littérature thélogique de la scolastique naissante, 26. 170 For Stephen Langton’s Old Testament lectures, which appear to be based upon the lecture materials of Master Lombard, see again: CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274. For his study of the Johannine prologue, which suggests that Comestor’s glosses on the other three Gospels begin with Lombardian prologues, see: IDEM, “The Search for the Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 57–114, at 81-110. For an application of Clark’s findings to the prefatory materials to Comestor’s lecture courses on all four of the glossed Gospels: David M. FOLEY, “The Prologues to Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata” (forthcoming).

tradition.171 Each of these characteristics has become apparent in our foregoing survey of the succession of Parisian masters following the Lombard – Peter Comestor, Stephen Langton, Peter of Poitiers, and Peter the Chanter –, each of whom inherited and advanced a body of materials and teaching methods originating with the ‘Master of Sentences.’ Research on this tradition of biblical teaching, which has been said to constitute one of the principal events in twelfth-century theology,172 is only in its nascent stages; nevertheless, based on the little that has been done, subsequent studies of the School of Paris promise to be handsomely rewarded.

Finally, it is worth considering the implications of these new discoveries surrounding the School of Paris. Previously, the influence exerted by this succession of theological masters had been measured solely with reference to the literary monuments that issued from their teaching, above all Peter Lombard’s Libri Sententiarum and Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica. Although they secured the place of our two Peters in the curriculum of mediaeval universities, these scholastic textbooks only represent vestiges of the masters’ engagement in the twelfth-century theological enterprise. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that these great mediaeval books cannot be properly understood in abstraction from their origin: the Parisian tradition of biblical lectures on sacra pagina. Practising the method of lectio articulated at Laon, and relying upon the monument of Laonnoise biblical scholarship, the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ Peter Lombard and his successors decisively advanced both aspects of twelfth-century theology – the so-called ‘speculative’ and the ‘biblical.’ By identifying Peter Lombard as the source of these two emergent currents of Parisian theology, Mark Clark asserts that the Lombard was an even more instrumental figure in the formation of the theological curriculum of the mediaeval university than had been previously supposed. Of course, Lombard’s Sentences served as the foundation of ‘systematic’ theology throughout the High Middle Ages. Similarly, however, the exegetical works of his students (e.g. Comestor’s Historia scholastica and Langton’s biblical glosses), in turn based upon the Lombard’s biblical lectures, would serve as essential sources for biblical scholarship in the following centuries. Most notably, Hugh of Saint-Cher and his Dominican postillatores relied extensively on the works of Langton, and perhaps even on the Lombard’s Old Testament lectures directly, in composing their monumental Postillae.173 While the vast, unedited

171 ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris. 172 ibid. 173 See: CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 112-3; IDEM, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 268-9.

corpus of Parisian manuscript materials has only started to attract attention, scholars are beginning to glimpse an indistinct figure emerging from the gloom whose massive appendages represent the most forceful shapers of twelfth-century theology: the School of Paris.

CHAPTER III

GLOSAE SVPER IOHANNEM GLOSATVM: THE LECTURES AND THEIR SOURCES

Introduction

Having now surveyed Peter Comestor’s scholastic career and literary output, the preservation of his biblical teaching in student reportations, the state of the scholarship on the master’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, and the intellectual tradition to which these lectures on the glossed Gospels belong, it is now possible to examine the text of the present edition: the prothemata and first chapter of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. This chapter will begin with a general survey of the structure and narrative sequence of the Glosae. After reviewing the exegetical order of Comestor’s lectures, we will proceed to analyse his teaching method. This section will include an examination of oral formulae and other signs of the immediate classroom setting of the glosses, as well as of the characteristics of Comestor’s exegesis and the principal interests animating his teaching of sacra pagina. Here, special consideration will be given to Comestor’s idiosyncratic use of the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ which properly constitutes the subject matter of the master’s lectures rather than one of their sources. Finally, we will investigate the sources and intellectual influences behind the Glosae, which are impressively varied but yet, due both to the dearth of editions of twelfth-century texts and the oral transmission of early scholastic teaching, not always identifiable. Following this discussion, a critical passage demonstrating Comestor’s engagement in contemporary theological debates will be examined. During the course of these investigations, we will have recourse to contemporary historiography on Peter Comestor’s biblical lectures, which a critical study of the Glosae will constrain us to refine or contradict in several instances. Of the highest importance for understanding Comestor’s glossed Gospels is the tradition of theological teaching handed from master to student that is said to constitute the School of Paris, which developed out of Laonnoise biblical scholarship and was transmitted by Master Lombard. For this reason, the following reading of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum will place a special emphasis upon Comestor’s place in this teaching tradition.

III. 1 STRUCTURE AND NARRATIVE SEQUENCE OF THE GLOSAE

The Master’s Ingressus (PROTH. 1, I - IV)

Like Comestor’s lecture courses on the three synoptic Gospels, the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum begins with a set of prothemata based on prefatory materials traditionally affixed to the Gospels in the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’1 The initial prothema of the Glosae, a magisterial prologue developing upon a long prefatory gloss from the John Gloss, is subsequently referred to by Comestor in these terms: “Magister ad introitum Augustini quodammodo preparauit ingressum ut commodior esset accessus.”2 In the preceding chapter, we considered Mark Clark’s arguments for the Lombardian authorship of this ingressus Magistri. Here, it remains to examine the structure and literary features exhibited by the prologue. Commencing with a verse from the Song of Songs (Cant. 2, 1: Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi), the ingressus to Comestor’s glosses on the John Gloss represent a very early example of the “sermon-type” prologue described by Alastair Minnis: a style of accessus of uncertain origin in the mid-twelfth century that introduces biblical commentaries with a pericope from another book of the Bible, according to the fashion of sermons from this period.3 The Master then begins an extended treatment of this pericope, relating the twofold figure of the “old and new fruit” to the Old and New Testament. Within this scheme, the Master distinguishes the Scriptures according to St. Gregory’s fivefold scheme of salvation history,4 with reference to a precept from Leviticus forbidding the consumption of the fruit of trees which had not yet matured to their fourth year. For this reason, the Church receives into her authority the sacred writings beginning with those of the fourth age, namely that of Moses, and reserves all of these Scriptures for her beloved, that is Christ, to whom they all refer and about whom they are written. Proceeding to compare the old and new fruits, the Master shows that the New Testament surpasses the Old in three respects: “in

1 Peter Comestor’s lectures on the three synoptic Gospels all begin, like the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, with a magisterial prologue, followed by a series of lectures on prefatory material from the Gloss. See, e.g.: PARIS, BnF lat. 620, 1ra-2va (Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum); 85ra-87va (Glosae super Marcum glosatum); 149ra-150ra (Glosae super Lucam glosatum). For a comparative study of the prologues to Comestor’s lectures on the four glossed Gospels, see: David M. FOLEY, “The Prologues to Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata” (forthcoming). 2 PROTH. 2, V, 2-3: “But the Master in a certain fashion prepared an ingressus to Augustine’s introduction, in order that there might be a more suitable accessus [i.e. to John’s Gospel].” 3 MINNIS, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 64. 4 Cf. GREGORY THE GREAT, Homiliae in euangelia, ed. R. Étaix (CCSL 141, Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), lib. I, hom. XIX, n. I.

reuelatione figurarum, in impletione promissorum, in magnitudine premiorum.”5 Afterwards, he draws the Gospels into his exposition, revealing the spiritual realities witnessed by the distinct liturgical practices associated with readings from the Gospel and the Old Testament, such that the former represents the fulfillment of the latter. At last, the Master dextrously unveils the book at hand, John’s Gospel, as the summit of this typological edifice: “Et sicut euangelium omnibus ueteris instrumenti paginis multiplici preminet excellentia, sic ceteris euangelii scriptoribus preminet Iohannes euangelista.”6 The remainder of the prologue, whose literary structure has been meticulously organised around the Old Testament sign contained in the pericope, treats of John’s Gospel with recourse to the prefatory material provided by the Gloss.

Following the structure of the “introitus Augustini” that circulated as the first marginal gloss of the John Gloss (in fact, a preface from Anselm of Laon’s Glosae super Iohannem, “Omnibus diuine scripture paginis”), the Master enriches his source text with biblical, patristic, and literary material. Initially, he expatiates upon the patristic tradition of identifying the evangelists according to the four animals of Ezekiel’s vision. While the other evangelists are like earth-bound animals describing the visible deeds of the Incarnate God, St. John is fittingly signified by an eagle who soars above the others in treating the mystery of Christ’s divine nature. The Master then pursues the historical circumstances of John’s Gospel, developing upon the account given in the Gloss. Following sixty- five years of preaching the Gospel in Asia and his exile in the island of Patmos under Domitian, John returned to his see in Ephesus. Here, the suffragan bishops pleaded with him to write his account of the Gospel to extirpate certain heresies that had begun to ravage the Church and to supplement the account of the other evangelists. Accordingly, John consented to write his Gospel for two reasons: to confute the heretics and to supply what had been passed over in the other Gospels.7 Finally, with an innovation upon the exegetical tradition, the Master ends his prologue with a set of circumstantiae or arts headings. Characteristic of Minnis’ type-C accessus,8 the ingressus concludes by treating the materia, intentio, and modus agendi in turn:

5 PROTH. 1, I, 19: “in the revelation of figures, in the fulfillment of promises, and in the magnitude of the rewards.” 6 PROTH. 1, II, 10-1: “Just as the Gospel in its manifold excellence surpasses all the pages of the Old Testament, so does John the Evangelist surpass the other writers of the Gospel.” 7 PROTH. 1, IV, 6-7. 8 MINNIS, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 40-58. For further reading on the accessus ad auctores in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see: Edwin A. QUAIN, “The Mediaeval accessus ad auctores,” Traditio, 3 (1945), 215-264 and Richard W. HUNT, “The Introductions to the Artes in the Twelfth Century,” in Studia mediaevalia in honorem

Materia Iohannis sunt deitas et humanitas Christi, uel melius materia eius est ipse Christus. Intentio est hereses eliminare, minus dicta supplere. Modus agendi talis est: primo agit de coeternitate Verbi cum Patre. Postea descendit ad creationem rerum, ostendens contra hereticos Filium esse creatorem omnium …9

Meticulously constructed and exhibiting a varied and elegant Latinity, this magisterial prologue represents a carefully crafted literary production, evidently delivered in the classroom but bearing little trace of an oral lecture. Being deliberately situated within the tradition of the Laonnoise Gloss, the better part of the prologue (II, 10 - IV, 6) is founded upon the “introitus Augustini” of the glossed John. Nevertheless, the ingressus is essentially structured by its use of certain techniques which had only begun to appear in biblical accessus of the mid-twelfth century: namely, the “sermon- type” and the circumstantiae. Significantly, then, the ingressus is at once traditional and innovative in the realm of early scholastic exegesis.

Comestor’s Prothemata (PROTH. 2-4, v - xv)

Immediately following the magisterial ingressus, Peter Comestor addresses his students to offer an explanation for the procedure that his introductory lectures on John’s Gospel will adopt. This second prothema, the so-called notula de ordine legendi that was considered within our discussion of the prologue’s Lombardian authorship,10 here warrants to be reproduced in full:

Nota quod Augustinus, qui precipue exposuit Iohannem, fecit introitum qui sic incipit: OMNIBVS DIVINE SCRIPTVRE PAGINIS. Sed magister ad introitum Augustini quodammodo preparauit ingressum ut commodior esset accessus. Et uide quia introitus Augustini legendus esset ante prologum. Facimus tamen ordinem preposterum quod non propter aliud introductum est nisi quia nimis modica esset lectio si quis ante prologum legeret solum

Raymundi Josephi Martin (Bruges, 1948), 84-112. For the use of the accessus in biblical commentaries, see: Gilbert DAHAN, “Les prologues des commentaires bibliques (xiie-xive siècles),” in Lire la Bible au moyen âge. Essais d’herméneutique médiévale (Geneva, 2009), 57-101, at 63-8. 9 PROTH. 1, IV, 8-11: “The subject matter (materia) of John’s Gospel is the divinity and humanity of Christ, or it is better to say that his subject matter is Christ himself. His intention (intentio) is to eliminate heresies, and to supply that which is spoken of less [in the other Gospels]. John’s mode of operation (modus agendi) is as follows: First, he treats of the coeternity of the Word with the Father, and afterwards he descends to the creation of things, revealing, against the heretics, that the Son is the Creator of all things…” 10 See above: Cap. II. 3, “Sed Magister preparauit ingressum.”

introitum, nimis prolixa si quis cum introitu legeret prologum. Primo ergo legemus prologum.11

As was mentioned above, it is here essential to understand Comestor’s terminology and to relate his comments to the surrounding prefatory material. By now, it is clear that the “introitus Augustini” is identifiable with Anselm’s Johannine prologue that circulated in the John Gloss. It is significant that Comestor mentions this preface first, despite the fact that it is not the first to be ‘read’ or lectured on. Due to the recent popularisation of the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ this prefatory text became the standard accessus to John’s Gospel, and, as Comestor will note below, it would ordinarily be read first in a lecture course (introitus Augustini legendus esset ante prologum). In the following sentence, Comestor describes why the place of prominence has not been given to the Anselmian introduction in his own lecture course: “Sed magister ad introitum Augustini quodammodo preparauit ingressum ut commodior esset accessus.” Using the strong adversative conjunction, sed, Comestor maintains that the ingressus composed by “the Master” (i.e. Lombard) provides a better accessus to the Gospel, for which reason it has been read first. Of course, the ingressus that Comestor here describes – namely, an introduction developing upon the Anselmian gloss which was designed to introduce the Gospel more effectively – is identical to the prologue preceding these comments, “Omnia poma noua et uetera.” Consequently, it remains for Comestor himself to lecture on the same introitus as well as a certain prologus (“Hic est Iohannes”). The latter, which is misattributed to St. Jerome, is the ancient ‘Monarchian’ prologue to John’s Gospel which served as the introductory text in copies of the John Gloss.12 Normally, Comestor tells us, Augustine’s introduction ought to be read before the lengthier Hieronymian prologue. However, due to the fact that the lecture would be too short if he were to read the introitus by itself and too long if he read both together in the proper sequence, Comestor elects to lecture on these prefatory texts in the reverse order (ordinem preposterum). Following these comments, then, Comestor begins to ‘read’ the prologus, which will itself constitute a full lecture.13

11 PROTH. 2, V, 1-6: “Note that Augustine, who devoted his attention especially to John, composed an introduction (introitum) which begins thus: [THIS GOSPEL IS GREATER] THAN ALL THE PAGES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. But the Master in a certain fashion prepared an entryway (ingressus) to Augustine’s introduction, in order that there might be a more suitable approach (accessus) [i.e. to John’s Gospel]. And mark that Augustine’s introduction should be read before the prologue (prologus). Nevertheless, we are proceeding in a disordered fashion which has been introduced for no other reason than that the lecture would be too short if one were to read the introduction alone before the prologue, and too lengthy if he were to read the prologue together with the introduction. We will therefore read the prologue first.” 12 ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 213. 13 See above: Cap. I. 2, “Comestor’s Glossed Gospels: Status Quaestionis.”

In the following prothema (PROTH. 3, V - XII), Comestor explicates his subject matter, the ‘Monarchian’ prologue, in a continuous, lemmatic fashion. Unlike the carefully cultivated literary form of the ingressus, this lecture bears the oral rhythm and reportatorial formulae of the classroom, setting the tone for the remainder of the lecture course. According to his predilection for distinctions, Comestor maintains that Jerome’s prologue serves as a fourfold commendatio of John’s Gospel: “Commendat autem sequens opus a quatuor, scilicet ab auctore, a materia, a loco, a tempore.”14 Comestor goes on to expound the prologue according to this scheme. Beginning with the author of the Gospel, Peter tells us that the prologue commends St. John in four respects: by his name, his evangelical office, his dignity as one of Christ’s chosen disciples, and the virtue of his virginity. Comestor takes particular pains to explain the historical circumstances behind John’s being called from the married state to the apostolic life, and concludes this investigation with an expression of agnosticism about the assertion, made by certain quidam of ill repute, that the wedding at Cana was in fact that of John. Comestor then takes up Jerome’s commendation of the Gospel’s materia, affirming John’s excellence according to the loftier nature of his subject matter: the godhead of Christ. Following his master’s treatment in the prologue, Comestor introduces Ezekiel’s vision of the four animals and the divergent traditions of patristic interpretation of this passage.15 Arriving at a section of the prologue that the modern masters interpret diversely, Comestor then conducts a close grammatical reading of the passage. By supplying certain particles, he proposes a solution that accords with the mind of the author and requires no violence to the sense of the words: “… habebis mentem auctoris et nullas in littera patieris angustias.”16 Similarly, in the following passage, Comestor shows his students how to interpret the text both according to a literal-historical sense and an allegorical one: “Hoc ad litteram, ut facias historiam significantem et quod sequitur facias rem

14 PROTH. 3, V, 8-9: “But [St. Jerome] commends the following work in four respects; namely, from its author, its subject matter, from the place [i.e. where it was composed], and from the time [of its composition].” 15 Here, Comestor introduces the distinct interpretations of the four animals given by St. Jerome and St. Augustine, followed by those of Sedulius and Juvencus. As SMALLEY has observed (“Some Gospel Commentaries,” 177-8), Comestor appears to be indebted to Zachary of Besançon for his reference to the two ancients poets in connection with Ezekiel’s vision. Cf. ZACHARY OF BESANÇON, Unum ex Quatuor (PL 186, col. 14-15). It is interesting to note that these various interpretations of Ezekiel’s vision, and particularly the verses of Sedulius and Juvencus that the master quotes directly, recur in all four of the prologues to Comestor’s glossed Gospels. For a transcription of the four together, see: DAHAN, “Les Exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” 73-83. 16 PROTH. 3, VIII, 4: “… you will grasp the author’s intent and you will encounter no tension at the literal level.”

significatam”; “Vel ita, ut totum facias allegoriam.”17 In his following treatment of the commendatio a loco, Comestor pursues the historical significance of St. John’s preaching and composition of the Gospel in Asia, following a tradition locating the evangelist’s bishopric in Ephesus. Similarly, discussing the commendatio a tempore, Comestor explains the importance of John’s composition of the Gospel after his revelations on the isle of Patmos which are recorded in the Apocalypse. After this fourfold commendation, Comestor states that the prologue “redit ad commendationem auctoris.”18 Consequently, following one of Comestor’s choicest imperatives (nota historiam), the remainder of the prothema treats of John’s history: the circumstances of his death, the correct interpretation of Christ’s mysterious words about him (sic eum uolo manere donec ueniam), and the dignity properly accorded to John as the last evangelist. Due to the fact that there are precious few marginal and interlinear glosses attached to this prologue in copies of the John Gloss, Comestor develops upon the text with recourse to a considerable number of auctores, notable among whom are Peter Lombard, Augustine, Isidore, Sedulius, Juvencus, and Ambrose.

In the fourth and final prothema, Comestor offers his own treatment of the introitus Augustini (PROTH. 4, XIII - XV). Far more concisely than his Master’s consummate ingressus, Comestor uses the introitus to extrapolate a select few doctrinal principles upon which he will subsequently establish the theological structure of his lecture course. Nevertheless, as Mark Clark suggested in his investigation of the prefatory material of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, it is at once apparent that Comestor “base[s] his whole treatment of the introitus on his master’s ingressus.”19 Comestor’s exposition begins with a general overview of the “Omnibus diuine scripture” gloss, within which he conspicuously adheres to the language and structure of the ingressus. First, Comestor states that the first part of the gloss consists of a commendatio euangelii, according to which the Gospels are shown to surpass all the other books of sacred Scripture in just one respect: “in uno tantum preferetur aliis scripturis, scilicet in impletione promissorum…”20 With a concessive cum-clause, Comestor then tells his students that another source (extra) asserts that the Gospel surpasses the other Scriptures in not one, but three

17 ibid., 16-8: “Understand this literally, so that you might make the historical event the signifier and that which follows the signified reality”; “Or in this fashion, so that you might render the entire passage allegorically.” 18 ibid., X, 4-5: “returns to the commendation of the author.” 19 CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 107. 20 PROTH. 4, XIII, 2-3: “In only one respect is the Gospel given preference to the other Scriptures, namely in the fulfilment of promises.”

ways: “cum extra dictum sit quia preminet in tribus, scilicet in reuelatione figurarum, in impletione promissorum, in celsitudine premiorum.”21 Here, Comestor makes another unambiguous third- person reference to the Lombard’s ingressus, quoting an argument from the magisterial prologue nearly verbatim.22 Comestor then summarises the second part of the introitus, which represents a commendatio Iohannis. In this section, Comestor discusses the gloss in terms almost identical to those of his master, while subtly altering the scheme that was proposed in the ingressus to accord with the introitus:

PROTH. 1: Ingressus Magistri

Et sicut euangelium omnibus ueteris instrumenti paginis multiplici preminet excellentia, sic ceteris euangelii scriptoribus preminet Iohannes euangelista. Et potest preminentia eius ad alios in tribus notari. Primo in eo quod per aquilam prefiguratus est in Ezechielis reuelatione… In eo quoque eius preminentia potest notari quod supra pectus Domini recubuit in cena.23

PROTH. 4: Glosae super introitum Augustini

… sicut euangelium ceteris paginis singulari quadam preminet excellentia, sic ceteris euangelii scriptoribus preminet Iohannes euangelista… Et preminentiam Iohannis ad alios notat Augustinus in duobus: in eo scilicet quod per aquilam prefiguratus est, et in eo quod supra pectus Domini recubuit in cena.24

Here, Comestor simply omits the commendation of St. John according to the name that the Lord imposed upon him (“Boanerges”), owing to the fact that this observation does not appear in the “Omnibus” gloss that he is treating.25 Finally, Comestor’s initial overview of the introitus concludes

21 ibid., 3-4: “Yet it was said elsewhere (extra) that the Gospel surpasses [the other Scriptures] in three respects, namely in the revelation of figures, in the fulfilment of promises, and in the loftiness of its rewards.” 22 Cf. PROTH. 1, I, 18-9: “Vnde euangelium ueteri testamento in tribus antecellit, scilicet in reuelatione figurarum, in impletione promissorum, in magnitudine premiorum.” 23 ibid., II, 10 - 12; III, 3 - 4: “And just as the Gospel surpasses all the pages of the Old Testament by its manifold excellence, so does John the Evangelist surpass the other writers of the Gospel. And his preeminence over the others may be noted in three ways. First, by the fact that he is prefigured by an eagle in Ezekiel’s revelation… And in this his preeminence may also be noted, namely he reclined upon the Lord’s breast at the Last Supper.” 24 PROTH. 4, XIII, 5-9: “… just as the Gospel surpasses the other pages [of Scripture] by a certain singular excellence, so also does John surpass the other writers of the Gospel… And Augustine notes John’s preeminence over the others in two things: namely, by the fact that he is prefigured by an eagle, and that he reclined upon the Lord’s breast at the Last Supper.” 25 Cf. PROTH. 1, III, 1-3.

by stating the two reasons for which John wrote his Gospel: namely, as a fortification against heresies (ad munimentum) and as a supplement to the other Gospels (ad supplementum). Although the introitus had elaborated upon the historical circumstances in which John composed his Gospel, Comestor extrapolates this twofold scheme from the master’s ingressus: “Fuit itaque duplex causa [quare euangelium scripserit], scilicet confutatio hereticorum, suppletio minus dictorum.”26 Significantly, this Lombardian scheme becomes the fundamental principle of Comestor’s theological programme throughout the Glosae.27

For the remainder of the prothema, Comestor offers a cursory lemmatic exposition of the introitus, during which he principally develops upon points raised in the ingressus and highlights other elements of the gloss that the Lombard had passed over. First, Comestor discusses John’s superiority to the other evangelists with reference to the fact that he preached the Gospel for sixty-five years without the aid of Scripture, appositely comparing the evangelist’s excellence to that of a master who had taught his science for a long time and knew all of its contents by heart.28 Comestor then alludes to John’s exile, but he passes over the history quite rapidly, noting that it had been treated above (“ut supra dictum est”), referring again to the Lombard’s ingressus. What remains of the introitus is presented under Comestor’s munimentum-supplementum scheme. Within his exposition of the lemma SCRIPSIT ADVERSVS HERETICOS, Comestor considers John’s fortification against heresies with reference to his prefiguration through the eagle of Ezekiel’s vision, as well as the evangelist’s more profound knowledge of the divine mysteries represented by his reclining on the Lord’s breast at the Last Supper.29 Afterwards, Comestor notes that John composed his Gospel as a supplement to the others under the lemma LEGERAT SIQVIDEM EVANGELIA. Following these discussions, Comestor explains the two periods of Christ’s preaching (the first beginning with the wedding at Cana, and the second after John the Baptist’s imprisonment), as well as the active and contemplative elements of

26 ibid., 1, IV, 6-7: “And thus there was a twofold reason [why he wrote his Gospel]: namely, as a confutation of heretics and as a supplement of things less spoken of [by the other evangelists].” 27 In his 2016 study of Peter Comestor’s lectures on the John Gloss, Alexander Andrée carefully documents how the munimentum-supplementum distinction that Comestor draws from the ingressus serves as “the fundamental principle of his theological program” for his lecture course John’s Gospel. See: ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 216-28. In her interpretation of Peter Comestor’s prefatory lectures on the John Gloss, Lesley Smith misunderstands the nature of Comestor’s distinction, supposing that supplementum represents some sort of supplementary commentary improving upon the Gloss. See: SMITH, The Glossa ordinaria, 211. 28 PROTH. 4, XIII, 13-5. 29 ibid., XIV, 3-14.

the Lord’s life. Within his treatment of the latter, Comestor observes that Augustine’s introitus only explicitly identifies John’s causa scribendi (i.e. describing the contemplative character of Christ’s life, which reveals his Godhead), while passing over the Gospel’s materia, intentio, and finis. Comestor exculpates Augustine of this ostensible omission by showing that John himself accounted for all three of the circumstantiae in a single passage at the end of his Gospel: Haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis quia Iesus est Christus Filius Dei et ut credentes uitam habeatis in nomine eius (Jn. 20, 31). Here, it is interesting to note that this passage recurs in much the same manner in the magisterial prologues to Comestor’s glosses on all three of the synoptic Gospels.30 The prothema concludes with a brief gloss on the last clauses of the introitus, QVEM DE FLVCTIVAGA NVPTIARVM TEMPESTATE, which Comestor identifies as a final commendation of John’s moral virtue.

“Primum capitulum”: De deitate Verbi (Jn. 1, 1-4: XVI - XXVIII)

Immediately after treating the prefatory material from the Gloss, Comestor begins to lecture on the opening of John’s Gospel: In principio erat Verbum / Et Verbum erat apud Deum / Et Deus erat Verbum / Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Comestor identifies these four verses as “colata” or “comata” (depending on the manuscript tradition), that is divisions of a rhetorical period, which he further defines as clauses or distinctions. According to Comestor, John composed each of these clauses to refute particular heresies: the first two oppose heresies that had arisen in his time, and the second two anticipated the heresies of Arius and Nestorius that John foresaw. Consequently, the opening of John’s Gospel serves “ad munimentum contra hereses.” Similarly, because the other evangelists passed over the divine mysteries contained in these clauses, John’s introduction also serves “ad supplementum.”31 After establishing his theological scheme of munimentum-supplementum, Comestor shows his students how their biblical textbook, the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ will feature into this twofold structure. First, the master identifies two marginal glosses attached to the opening verses of the Gospel. One of these treats of the heresies against which John’s clauses serve as a fortification, and the other treats of John’s supplement to the synoptic Gospels. Afterwards, Comestor instructs his students how to read the glosses, or rather how to follow his lecture from their copies of the John Gloss, within this framework: “Lege particulas utriusque glose: prius legendo particulam glose de

30 Cf. Gilbert Dahan’s transcription of the four prologues: DAHAN, “Les Exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur,” 73-83. For the significance of the common elements shared by the prologues, see again my forthcoming study: FOLEY, “The Prologues to Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata.” 31 GLOSAE, XVI, 6-8.

munimento et statim aduertendo interlinearem que congruit ille particule, postea particulam glose de supplemento.”32 Here, Comestor describes in precise terms how he will organise the apparatus of marginal and interlinear glosses around the text of the Gospel – a procedure which might otherwise have seemed unintelligible to his students. In his treatment of the first four clauses, Comestor will read excerpts from the long marginal glosses about the fortification and supplement; within his discussion of each discrete segment, he will introduce the corresponding interlinear glosses. Nevertheless, before commencing his exposition of the Gospel and its glosses, Comestor discusses the equivocity of the key terms in the initial clauses. Whereas “uerbum” invariably signifies the Son of God, “principium” signifies God the Father qua the principle of all things or alternatively the beginning of created things, while “Deus” is used personally to denote God the Father as well as essentially to denote the divine essence. According to the complexity of these terms, Comestor presents the multiple meanings contained in the phrases “in principio” and “apud Deum.”33 What follows is a substantial discussion of the relationship between the Father and the Son according to the language used in Scripture; anticipating themes raised by the Gloss, Comestor here shows that the coeternal relation between the two persons contained in biblical language confutes the ancient heresy holding that Christ’s existence began with the Incarnation.34

Having thus placed his discussion of John’s Gospel upon the foundation of grammar, the literal force of the sacred page, Comestor prepares to expand the theological investigation by introducing the glosa de munimento (“Contra eos”), that is a long marginal gloss on the first verse of the Gospel treating of John’s fortification against heresies. From this point, Comestor uses the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ as a theological textbook in a manner characteristic of all of his biblical lectures. Elaborating upon the initial clauses of this gloss, Comestor introduces the Augustinian concept of “uerbum,” and discusses why this word is fittingly used to signify Christ in his coeternal relation to the Father in the Gospel’s first clause: In principio erat Verbum.35 Within the course of showing how John refutes the heresy of Christ’s temporal beginning, Comestor takes recourse to other marginal and interlinear

32 ibid., 11-3: “Read the parts of each gloss: first, by reading the part of the gloss of fortification and then by turning immediately after to the interlinear gloss that corresponds to the same part, and afterwards [by reading] the part of the gloss of supplement.” 33 ibid., XVI, 15 - XVII, 7. 34 ibid., XVII, 8-20. 35 ibid., XVIII, 1 - XIX, 13.

glosses on the same verse. During this discussion, he first introduces the glosa de supplemento, noting that some copies of the John Gloss divide this marginal gloss into two parts.36 Such an observation will prove typical of Comestor’s minute attention to the constitution of the Gloss, and to textual criticism more generally. Concluding his analysis of the first clause, Comestor explains how John’s second clause (Et Verbum erat apud Deum) refutes the primitive heresy asserting that Christ was the same person as the Father, later developed by Sabellius.37 Having shown his students how the first two clauses correspond to heresies that festered during the time of St. John, Comestor goes on to discuss the following two clauses at length. Alternating between particles of the two marginal glosses and their corresponding interlinear glosses in the same manner as above, Comestor lectures on and expounds the various elements of the Gloss to demonstrate how the third and fourth clause refute the errors of Arius and Nestorius.38 This theological examination concludes with remarks on a contemporary practice which must have been an object of fascination to his auditors.39 As the beginning of John’s Gospel prevailed to drive away heresies, Comestor grants that it is plausible that the same would repel the malefice of both demons and of men; accordingly, those who were to undergo the trials (iudicia in aqua calida uel in ferro calido) often carried copies of these verses from John to ensure that the truth of their case would not be obscured by some evil force.

The remainder of Comestor’s lectures on John’s opening verses (In principio erat Verbum – Et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt), which together constitute the “first chapter” in the version of the Gospel that Comestor uses,40 is similarly organised according to the munimentum-supplementum scheme. First, Comestor observes that, just as John’s first four clauses concerning the divinity of the Word had done, the Gospel’s following three clauses concerning the operation of the Word served to refute diverse heresies.41 Within this section of the lectures, one of the patterns characteristic of Comestor’s modus glosandi begins to emerge. Above, Comestor principally observed a lemmatic mode of

36 ibid., 7-8: “Et nota quia glosam de supplemento quidam codices habent continuam, alii per partes.” 37 ibid., 14-9. 38 ibid., XX, 1 - XXI, 13. 39 ibid., XXI, 14-7. 40 GLOSAE, XXIV, 13-5: “Et est primum capitulum usque ibi: FVIT HOMO. Expositores enim qui concordant euangelistas distingunt eos per capitula, nos autem de huismodi distinctionibus non facimus mentionem. [And the first chapter runs until this verse: THERE WAS A MAN. For the expositors that present a concordance of the Gospels distinguish them by chapters, but we will not here mention these kinds of distinctions.]” 41 ibid., XXII, 1-8.

lecturing: that is, his lectures consisted of a continuous exposition of various elements contained in the Gloss, which Comestor meticulously ordered to the biblical lemma according by theme and the sense of Scripture. Here, the master begins to alternate between this and a thematic mode of lecturing. While observing the latter, Comestor seizes upon a topic raised within his lecture on the Gloss to pursue a more profound theological discussion, here introducing a variety of auctores (not always explicitly) rather than the apparatus of glosses. Consequently, Comestor’s treatment of the three clauses (or rhetorical divisions) constituting the second half of the first chapter begins with a long discussion about the different types of the Word’s operation, in which no reference is made to the Gloss.42 Comestor then resumes his exposition of the verse “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt” with recourse to the magna glosa – that is, the long marginal gloss on John’s fortification against heresy (“Contra eos”) – as it concerns Christ as the Creator.43 Occurring within this lemmatic exposition is Augustine’s doctrine on evil, which Comestor proceeds to discuss according to the thematic mode.44 Comestor then completes his explanation of the first clause with a final treatments of its glosses. Afterwards, the master begins a thematic discussion of the second clause (Quod factum est in ipso uita) as it relates to the Anthropomorphite and Platonic heresies, which he concludes with a lemmatic exposition of the pertinent glosses and a further comment about patristic interpretations of the passage.45 Similarly, Comestor’s discussion of the final clauses of the first chapter (Et uita erat lux hominum et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt) begins with a thematic discussion of man’s natural knowledge of God before the Incarnation, which he reinforces with reference to the Gloss.46 To conclude his lectures on the ‘first chapter’ (Jn. 1, 1-5), Comestor finishes his reading of the glosa de munimento according to the lemmatic mode. Because the end of this gloss anticipates, or stands in continuity (continuat) with, the first verse of the ‘second chapter’ (Jn. 1, 6: Fuit homo), Comestor here offers an initial treatment of this clause together with one of its glosses (‘Postquam sublimi uolatu’).47 Having thus exhausted the glosa de munimento, Peter is content to conclude his

42 ibid., XXII, 9 - XXIII, 4. 43 ibid., XXIII, 5-15. 44 ibid., 16 - XXIV, 7. 45 ibid., XXIV, 16 - XXVI, 8. 46 ibid., XXVI, 9 - XXVII, 11. 47 ibid., XXVII, 14 - XXVIII, 11.

treatment of the first rhetorical division of John’s prologue that, according to Comestor’s version, represents the first chapter of the Gospel.48

“Hic incipit secundum capitulum”: De humanitate Verbi (Jn. 1, 5-14: XXIX - XXXV)

Within his initial discussion of the second chapter – which has the coherence and relative length (2,360 words) of a long but discrete lecture –, Comestor expounds the remaining verses of what is conventionally referred to as John’s prologue (Fuit homo missus a Deo – plenum gratiae et ueritatis). Suspending his use of the munimentum-supplementum distinction, Comestor here lays the foundations for his exposition with a scheme proposed by St. Ambrose which distinguishes the second chapter into five revelations about the coming of the Word, three made by the evangelist and two by John the Baptist.49 Afterwards, Comestor expounds the text of the Gospel and its glosses with exclusive recourse to the lemmatic mode. According to the content of these verses, Comestor explains the various words that St. John uses to describe Christ in his different aspects (uerbum, lux, lumen), which leads to a discussion of Our Lord’s human and divine nature.50 Comestor’s principal concern in explaining these verses is to specify their literal sense and grammatical character, due to John’s equivocal use of certain recurring terms and the varying extent of their signification. For example, while glossing the verse “Quae illuminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum,” Comestor takes pain to distinguish that the words hominem and mundum should not be here understood according to their universal sense.51 Similarly, in his treatment of the clause “mundus eum non cognouit,” Comestor shows that John used the word mundus according to three different senses in the preceding verses, but that here it must be understood in a limited sense, though the master offers several interpretations of what the proper sense might be.52 Comestor proceeds to explain the remaining verses by concentrating on a particular word or phrase that determines the meaning of the larger passage (propria, sui, dedit eis potestatem, nomine eius, ex sanguinibus). Despite the more cursory style of exposition exhibited in this section of the lecture course, Comestor does not deflect important

48 For an extended discussion of Peter Comestor’s method and the theological significance of his biblical lectures based on a close reading of his glosses on the beginning of John’s Gospel, see: Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 211-30. 49 ibid., XXIX, 1-7. 50 ibid., 12 - XXX, 11. 51 ibid., XXX, 12 - XXXI, 11. 52 ibid., XXXI, 17 - XXXII, 8.

theological issues whenever they are introduced by the biblical text and its glosses. For instance, when he comes to gloss the lemma “Et habitauit in nobis,” Comestor offers a preliminary explanation of Christ’s Incarnation according to the habitus theory laid out in the Lombard’s Sentences, and provides a definition of the term ‘habitus’ with recourse to Abelardian terminology.53 Comestor then proceeds to discuss the final verse of the prologue (Vidimus gloriam eius – plenum gratiae et ueritatis), concluding that John’s description of Christ’s twofold fullness is expressive of his humanity (gratiae) and divinity (ueritatis).

De testimoniis praecursoris (Jn. 1, 15-34: XXXVI - LIV)

Before beginning another discrete lecture that marks a thematic transition in his course, Comestor provides a brief summary of the Gospel’s content up to this point in the text and proposes another theological scheme by which to understand the following part of the book at hand: the testimonies to Christ’s divinity. In his prologue to the Gospel (In principio erat Verbum – plenum gratiae et ueritatis), St. John first treated of Christ’s divinity and then descended to his humanity, thus commending Our Lord according to both His divine and human nature. John began this commendation with his own testimony and with the common witness of the apostles (Vidimus eum). In what follows, John will introduce the witness of John the Baptist and God the Father by interweaving their testimonies with his own (interscalari modo).54 Comestor then proceeds to explicate the following verses according to the theme of testimony, with recourse both to the thematic and Gloss-based lemmatic mode of lecturing. After expounding the initial verses of this part of the Gospel and its glosses, Comestor adopts a theme from an interlinear gloss (lucerna) to discuss the relative significance of one and two candles being borne before the deacon in the Gospel procession at Mass.55 Comestor then considers the grammatical structure of the following verses, showing how they can be construed in multiple

53 ibid., XXXIV, 8-9: “id est naturam humanam quasi habitum quendam assumens. Vt mortalium oculis congruentius appareret, factus est quasi unus ex nobis. Et adhuc amplius potes notare in uerbo ‘habitus,’ scilicet quod naturam humanam assumpsit inseparabiliter. Habitus enim est qualitas difficile mobilis [That is putting on human nature as if it were a kind of habit. In order that he might appear more suitably to the eyes of mortal men, he was made like one of us. And yet you can distinguish still more in the word ‘habit,’ namely that he took on human nature inseparably. For a habit is a quality that is difficult to change.]” Cf. Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. III, d. VI, cap. IV, n. I. For the corresponding definition of habitus that appears throughout Abelard’s writings, see e.g.: Peter ABELARD, Dialectica, tract. I, vol. II, lib. III, 101-2 (Assen, 1956); IDEM, Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum et Christianum (PL 178, 1651C). A more extended discussion of this passage and its sources appears directly below, in cap. III. 2. 3, “The principles of Comestor’s exegesis.” 54 GLOSAE, XXXVI, 1-12. 55 ibid., XXXVII, 4-12.

ways to produce a different sense.56 Arriving at the Jews’ interrogation of John the Baptist, Comestor considers the literal force of their questions and the various ways in which John might have responded.57 With reference to a previous lecture in which the Augustinian doctrine of uerbum was treated, Comestor then launches into a thematic discussion of John’s answer to the Jews (Ego uox).58 Comestor then reinforces this discussion with an extended investigation of the glosses on this verse.59 Turning again to the lemmata, Comestor considers the Pharisees’ interrogation and the answers given by John the Baptist. Here, Comestor gives special consideration to the theological and philological significance of John’s reference to Christ with the word medius,60 as well as to the various meanings of John’s affirmation: Non sum dignus.61 Comestor concludes this section of his glosses by treating the lemma “Haec in Bethania facta sunt.” Here paraphrasing the content of a long marginal gloss, Comestor explains the literal and allegorical importance of the setting of the preceding events.62

When Comestor begins to gloss the following verse (Altera autem die), another distinct transition occurs. First, the master recapitulates the preceding testimonies to Christ given by John the Baptist: Post me uenit qui ante me factus est; Non sum ego Christus; Medius uestrum stetit quem uos nescitis. Due to the prophetic character of these testimonies, Comestor explains, the Baptist is properly called “preco” or “precursor,” for which he offers a brief etymological explanation. In what is to follow, John the Baptist’s testimonies in his capacity as “lucerna” and “uox Verbi” will be given, as the Psalmist and the prophet Isaias foretold.63 According to this scheme, Comestor proceeds to expound the verses pertaining to this section of the Gospel, alternating between his Gloss-based lemmatic and thematic approaches. The first verse for which the master provides an extended exposition is Ecce agnus Dei, in the course of which Comestor explains the etymological and theological significance of Christ’s title

56 ibid., 13 - XXXVIII, 4. 57 ibid., XXXVIII, 5 - XXXIX, 4. 58 ibid., XXXIX, 9-18. 59 ibid., XL, 1 - XLI, 4. 60 ibid., XLII, 9 - XLIII, 11. 61 ibid., XLIII, 11 - XLIV, 6. 62 ibid., XLIV, 7 - 15. 63 ibid., XLV, 1-10.

as agnus, before considering the liturgical use of this phrase.64 Comestor goes on to explicate John’s phrase peccatum mundi, using a passage from St. Augustine to show how the singular “peccatum” is expressive of grammatical universality, while using various glosses to introduce the subject of original sin.65 Comestor then expounds the lemmata and corresponding glosses that treat John the Baptist’s testimony of Christ’s baptism.66

Following these considerations, Comestor arrives at the lemma which will prompt his most comprehensive theological discussion appearing in the glosses edited here: Et ego nesciebam eum. Comestor begins to explicate the lemma by providing an extensive treatment of two glosses in turn: the first which contains St. Jerome’s teaching on what John the Baptist did not know (i.e. that the world would be redeemed through Christ’s baptism), and the second containing St. Augustine’s (i.e. whether Christ would retain for himself the potestas baptismi). Although Comestor initially suggests that each of these patristic sententiae “uidetur esse durum uerbum” – by which he appears to denote an opinion that contradicts Scripture or the common teaching of the Church –, the master glosses both of the Fathers’ interpretations at length to demonstrate how they accord with the proper sense of the Gospel.67 St. Augustine’s determination about Christ’s retention of the potestas baptismi prompts a further discussion, in the course of which Comestor cites the opinions of Gilbert of Poitiers and Peter Lombard (magister noster), as well as certain alii.68 After this extended thematic discourse, Comestor returns to the lemmatic mode, glossing the initial clauses of a long marginal gloss (“Visa columba”) according to the theological findings that he has just presented. For the remaining section of the Gospel considered within the framework of John the Baptist’s witness to Christ, Comestor concentrates on a lemmatic exposition of the text and its glosses. First, the master paraphrases a long portion of the gloss “Visa columba” before bringing its contents to bear on the following lemmata, in which Comestor emphasises the sacramental significance of the dove’s descent upon the Lord and the distinction between the Holy Spirit’s indwelling in Christ and in the

64 ibid., XLVI, 6-15. 65 ibid., XLVI, 16 - XLVII, 10. 66 ibid., XLVII, 11 - XLVIII, 14. 67 Comestor’s discussion of St. Jerome’s position spans from ibid., XLVIII, 15 - XLIX, 14. He goes on to treat St. Augustine’s interpretation at XLIX, 15 - L, 7. 68 ibid., L, 8-15.

prophets.69 Comestor’s discussion of Christ’s baptism continues with a reading of two verses (Hic est qui baptizat – Et ego uidi), which the master construes for his students in three different ways: discretiue, directe, and incisiue. Once more, Comestor shows that a grammatical mastery of the sacred text is a prerequisite for accessing its various theological distinctions.70 Finally, Comestor concludes his discussion of baptism with allusion to the different liturgical practices observed by the Greeks and Latins in administering this sacrament on the feast of the Epiphany.71

De uocatione discipulorum (Jn. 1, 35-51: LIV - LXIV)

Although a distinct transition here occurs in the biblical text (Altera die), at which John the Baptist’s preaching culminates in the calling of the first disciples, Comestor does not yet explicitly introduce a new theological scheme by which to structure his lectures on the following section of the Gospel. Nevertheless, Comestor’s exposition of the subsequent verses anticipates the theme that he will propose at the next textual transition: the vocation of the disciples. According to his practice, Comestor begins to characterise the setting by considering the literal and spiritual sense of the opening words: altera, stabat, respiciens.72 While Comestor proceeds to expound the following verses containing Christ’s first recorded words to the apostles in the lemmatic mode, the master’s approach to biblical interpretation here undergoes a conspicuous change. Having never in his preceding lectures glossed a verse mystice (i.e according to one of the spiritual senses of Scripture, generally allegory or typology), Comestor now provides a mystical interpretation for virtually every clause: “hoc mysticum est,” “mystice potest intelligi,” “sicut mystica interrogatio ita et mystica responsio,” “nec idipsum a mysterio uacat.” Thus animated by the mystery of the Incarnate Word, Comestor’s glosses on the following verses examine the initial dialogue between Christ and the disciples, the Lord’s first calling of the disciples, the significance of the names mentioned in the Gospel, and finally Christ’s imposition of a new name upon St. Peter.73

69 ibid., LI, 8 - LII, 15. 70 ibid., LIII, 1 - LIV, 3. 71 ibid., LIV, 4-8. 72 ibid., LV, 1-6. 73 ibid., LV, 10 - LVIII, 17.

Following this transitional lecture, Comestor formally sets out the thematic framework for his lectures on the remainder of the first chapter of the John Gloss.74 The master begins with reference to the foundational principle of his lecture course on the fourth Gospel: the munimentum-supplementum scheme. Because St. John had recognised that the other evangelists’ accounts had lacked something of the truth of history (ueritas historie), his Gospel was designed to supplement the others. Within this scheme, Comestor then places his final thematic division of the chapter: the threefold vocation of the disciples. Following the narrative of the Gospels (euangelica historia), Comestor describes three periods of the apostles’ vocation in the sequence of Christ’s ministry, and goes on to identify each period with a degree of spiritual progress in the disciples.75 Comestor then introduces the historical setting behind the following verses with recourse to the glosses (in crastinum, exire), before discussing at length the mystical significance of the names characterising this final episode of the chapter: Philippus, Bethsaida, Iesus, and Nazareth.76 Continuing to place predominance on the mystical sense, Comestor concludes his lectures on the first chapter of John by describing the vocation of Nathanael, expounding on Christ’s interaction with this disciple according to the exegetical structure of the Gloss.77

Accretions & Singular Additions (APPENDIX I - II)

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the manuscript witnesses of Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata is the occurrence of layered ‘accretions,’ or additions originating as marginal glosses in various constellations of manuscripts that were gradually incorporated into the main body of text. The accretions occurring in the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum entered the textual tradition at a very early stage, and most appear to have originated with Peter Comestor and the students in his immediate teaching environment. While further analysis of these additions as they shed light on the manuscript tradition of the Glosae will be reserved for chapter four, it is here convenient to remark upon the content of the accretions of the present edition with some specific examples, beginning with those of APPENDIX I. In general, the accretions span between three and five lines of text – a

74 n.b. Here, the ‘first chapter’ is understood according to the modern, Langtonian system of chapter division, rather than that which Comestor observed. 75 ibid., LIX, 1 - LX, 2. 76 ibid., LX, 3 - LXIII, 2. 77 ibid, LXIII, 3 - LXIV, 15.

length suited to a concise but substantial exposition without allowing for extensive revisions. Twelve of the accretions extend only one or two lines, and these are generally terse grammatical distinctions, often beginning with uel, unde, or aliter as one routinely encounters in the interlinear glosses of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ While additions of this kind could conceivably have originated in alternate versions of the original lecture course (as is often the case with student reports, which circulated in multiple versions), their length is more suggestive of deliberate embellishments added after reading. Nevertheless, a couple of the accretions are considerably longer and are clearly intended to redress a more significant omission in the original course of lectures, perhaps with recourse to an alternate set of reportations.78 With a closer inspection of these various accretions, one is able to distinguish six prevailing concerns on the part of their author(s): 1) To elaborate upon Comestor’s original line of exposition79; 2) To present an alternate interpretation of a gloss or lemma80; 3) To provide a distinction, example, or clarification81; 4) To marshal authorities, whether biblical or patristic, in support of an interpretation82; 5) To supply a marginal or interlinear gloss from the John Gloss83; 6) To gloss biblical lemmata initially passed over in Comestor’s lectures.84 In short, the accretions represent precisely the kind of supplements, embellishments, and deeper lines of exposition that invariably occur to a teacher immediately after he has finished his lecture, or as he subsequently reviews his sources in preparation for the following class.

78 See e.g. APPENDIX I, 7, 20. 79 e.g. APPENDIX I, 11, where the author expands upon Comestor’s rather abstruse distinction between lux and lumen as they are severally predicated of Christ according to his divinity and humanity. 80 e.g. APPENDIX I, 19, in which the author provides an alternative gloss for the lemma “Verbum caro factum est.” Whereas the first verses of the Gospel, demonstrating Christ’s divinity, reveal to man the port to which he must go, this clause, demonstrating Christ’s humanity, reveals to man the ship which he must take; for it profits a shipwrecked man nothing, though he perceive whither he must tend, if he has not the vessel by which to make sail. 81 e.g. APPENDIX I, 2, in which the persecution of the Pharisees is described in terms of the twelfth-century schools: namely, that John the Baptist and Christ, being the greater magistri, were naturally a source of envy to lesser masters. See also: APPENDIX I, 27, in which the lemma “Tollit” (“who takes away the sin of the world”) is subjected to the droll analogy: “… not as we pick up stones from the road.” 82 Perhaps the most unexpected auctor that finds his way into the accretions is Amalarius of Metz, the Carolingian liturgist, who relates the triple repetition of “Agnus Dei” in the Mass to the entreaty of the sons of Israel in the book of Joel. See: APPENDIX I, 25. 83 e.g. APPENDIX I, 23, in which an additional interlinear gloss is introduced to expound the lemma “On another day” as “WITH A NEW UNDERSTANDING, that is a fuller one” (ALTERA DIE, ALTERA COGNITIONE, id est pleniori”). 84 Most significant of these is the extended exposition added by the manuscripts N and O (φ), which treats Jn. 1, 18 and its corresponding glosses. It appears that this verse, together with the three preceding it, were originally passed over in Comestor’s lecture course. See: APPENDIX I, 20; cf. APPENDIX II, 4.

While it is not here possible to make a more detailed examination of all the accretions belonging to the portion of the Glosae encompassed by the present edition, some attention is due to the singular additions that occur in the manuscripts B and I, presented in APPENDIX II. For the most part, the preceding observations about the nature of the accretions are equally applicable to the additions carried by these two manuscripts. Indeed, the style, content, and length of the additions are generally suggestive of an origin and authorship identical to the more widely attested accretions. The most tantalising of these, however, are the five extended additions occurring in manuscript B immediately following Comestor’s lectures on the prologue to John (1, 1-14), far surpassing the length of any other additions witnessed in the wider manuscript tradition.85 Spanning as many as forty-six lines, or nearly a full column of compactly-written text in the manuscript, it is difficult to imagine such additions originating in the margins of a previous witness.86 Moreover, each of these additions occurs at a decisive moment in the course of lectures, and it is evident that they have been inserted either to gloss a section of the Gospel originally passed over in the master’s lectures (most significantly, Jn. 1, 15-8),87 or to elaborate upon Comestor’s treatment of an important theological issue (e.g. the nature of the sacramental power that Christ has conferred upon the minister of baptism).88 Significantly, some of the most sophisticated theological material from the Glosae occurs within the additions from B. Similarly suggestive of a magisterial origin for these additions is their close conformity to Comestor’s modus legendi and the idiosyncratic use of the Gloss observed throughout the surrounding lectures.

Although speculation about how these additions were introduced into the manuscript tradition will appear in chapter four, it is now possible to incorporate these accretions and singular additions into the following discussion of Comestor’s teaching.

85 APPENDIX II, 4, 12-3, 15-6. 86 APPENDIX II, 4 (from PARIS, BnF, lat. 15269, 3rb-3va). As a point of comparison, the extended Ingressus Magistri (PROTH. 1) spans slightly over one column in the same manuscript. 87 APPENDIX II, 4. 88 APPENDIX II, 15. See below, our discussion of Comestor’s engagement in the theological debate concerning the potestas baptismi with reference to this singular addition: Cap. III. 3. 3, “Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates.”

III. 2 PETER COMESTOR’S SCHOLASTIC SETTING & TEACHING METHOD

Having provided a general outline of Comestor’s Glosae and considered how various theological and historical discussions arose within the context of the master’s lectures on the Gospel and its apparatus of marginal and interlinear glosses, it is now possible to make a closer study of Comestor’s teaching method and the scholastic character of his glosses. This section will begin with an examination of the oral formulae that appear throughout the reportations, which alternately represent Comestor’s patterns of speech and the reporter’s interjections. Comestor’s manner of referring to the Gloss will form an important part of this discussion. Within this section, we will also consider features of the Glosae manifesting the master’s relation to his disciples, including the use of analogies and examples which would have been particularly evocative for the medieval student. Afterwards, we will examine the master’s exegesis, placing special emphasis on Comestor’s use of the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ Here, we will consider the versatile and foundational role that this biblical textbook played in Comestor’s classroom. Finally, we will discuss the principal interests animating Comestor’s teaching of sacra pagina, especially the various senses of Scripture, grammar, history, and theology. Within this section, the popular characterisation of Comestor as an ‘antiquarian’ will become an object of suspicion.

1. Oral Formulae and Signs of a Scholastic Context

Immediately after the conclusion of the Lombard’s carefully crafted ingressus (PROTH. 1) – which Comestor had probably recited before his auditors from a clean script –, the classroom setting of the Glosae becomes palpable. As Gilbert Dahan aptly observes, the student reportations of Comestor’s lectures “nous permet[tent] de suivre le déroulement de la leçon ‘comme si nous y étions.’”89 To the reader of the Glosae, it will at once become clear that the high medieval model of reportatio is incompatible with this text. Far from the thirteenth-century student notes described by Jacqueline Hamesse – in which student-reporters epitomised, abridged, and interpreted the lecture as they recorded, such that only vestiges of the master’s words remained –,90 the reportations preserving Comestor’s Gospel lectures represent a continuous transcription of the master’s teaching. Furthermore, the Glosae do not bear the form of a literary commentary extrapolated from a set of

89 Gilbert DAHAN, “Pierre de Troyes, dit Pierre le Mangeur, maître du XIIe siècle” (Troyes: Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, 2011), 6. 90 See above: Cap. I. 3. 1, “Reportatio.”

lecture notes (as with Hugh of Saint-Victor’s De sacramentis or Anselm’s Glosae super Iohannem), but as a set of seamless transcripts representing the immediate classroom setting in which they were originally produced. Indeed, Comestor’s students did not merely reproduce the general outlines of the master’s lecture; instead, they succeeded in capturing his ipsissima uerba. As we will show, the reporters were sedulous to preserve the minutest patterns of Comestor’s speech. Similarly, student intervention is perceptible only when the reporter wishes to emphasise his master’s personal opinions (inquit), or, more frequently, when he truncates long passages from the Gloss that must have been recited in extenso. How, then, are we to understand the use of reportatio here being observed, since it accords neither with its immediate precursors (the Laonnoise, Victorine, and Parisian sententiae) nor with the impending university practice? While this question warrants careful investigation, we may here resort to speculation. In view of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of scholastic notes like those of Comestor’s lectures, one may reasonably suspect that the system of reportatio underwent a type of professionalisation in the Parisian schools of the mid-twelfth century. Unfortunately, scholars have not yet encountered any evidence defining the master’s role in the production of Parisian reportationes in the latter half of the twelfth century. It is conceivable, however, that Comestor, like Hugh of Saint-Victor, enjoyed a formal surveillance over his students’ notes. As with Hugh, this office would have entailed the master’s revision of the reportations prior to their authorised dissemination. This hypothesis would help to account for an otherwise implausible set of characteristics observable in Comestor’s lecture courses on all of the glossed Gospels: namely, the fact that each circulated in a single version,91 displaying only minimal variation among manuscripts; that Comestor was certainly responsible for subsequent additions made to the original set of transcripts; and that the reportations, while being faithful witnesses to the classroom, appear in a clean and carefully polished form – an unlikely outcome for an unsupervised student project. In any event, before one can appreciate Comestor’s teaching method, theological reasoning, and his use of sources, the oral classroom setting in which the Glosae were produced must be carefully charted.

Before examining the oral formulae that characterise this setting, it is worth introducing several instances in the Glosae in which Comestor establishes rapport with his students – a winsome feature

91 Comestor’s lectures on the Mark Gloss, which may have circulated in as many as three versions, are an exception. See above, Cap. I. 3, n. 143.

of Peter Comestor’s lectures that has been noted in previous studies.92 In general, the Glosae leave one with the impression that Comestor was a dynamic lecturer, attentive to the changing demands of the classroom and well-tempered towards his disciples. Frequently, he can be found using analogies and examples that appeal directly to the student experience, even at the expense of a certain solemnity that might have been expected of a master of the sacred page. For instance, while he is glossing the section of the introitus Augustini, which states that John surpassed the other evangelists because he alone preached the Gospel for sixty-five years without the aid of Scripture, Comestor invokes the student custom of quarrelling over the superiority of their masters: “Est ergo probatio conueniens: puta aliquis uolens probare de aliquo magistro quod sit perfectior ceteris in scientia dialectice; eleganter hoc probabit si ostendet eum eam diutius legisse et eam totam cordetenus nosse.”93 Similarly, in the portion of the Glosae edited here, the reader is given a glimpse at the droll sense of humour with which Comestor is sure to have won the sympathy of his students. While he is discussing the significance of the beloved disciple’s having reclined on Christ’s breast, Comestor cautions his students against supposing that the beloved disciple was not able to stay awake for the duration of the Last Supper: “et caue ne ad litteram intelligas quod recubuerit uel obdormierit supra pectus Domini.”94 No less diverting is the final gloss contained in the present edition, in which Comestor provides a possible interpretation for Christ’s declaration that he beheld Nathanael under the fig tree (cum esses sub ficu): “id est cum esses in lumbis Ade latentis sub ficu.”95 In an accretion on the same lemma, the master muses on the relation between the fig tree and the Mosaic Law. Informing his students that the juice of figs makes the flesh to itch, Comestor states that the prohibitions of the Law likewise produce a certain itching in human nature which causes it to tend towards what is forbidden. Following this impressive exegetical display, Comestor abruptly betakes himself to issue his students a well-meaning counsel about the proper management of one’s wife: “Prohibe uxori tue ne loquatur alicui. De cetero non cessabit ei loqui.”96 In like manner,

92 See, e.g.: SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 114. 93 PROTH. 4, XIII, 13-5: “And so this is an appropriate example: imagine that someone wanted to prove about some master that he was more accomplished than the others in the science of dialectic; he would elegantly prove this were he to show that the master had taught that science for a greater length of time, and that he knew it entirely by heart.” 94 ibid., XIV, 7-8: “And take care, lest you suppose that [John] literally laid down or slept on the Lord’s breast.” 95 GLOSAE, LXIV, 15: “That is, when you were in the loins of Adam lying hidden under the fig leaf.” 96 APPENDIX I, 41: “Forbid your wife from speaking with another man. Otherwise, she will never stop talking to him.”

Comestor displays a propensity for introducing topical subjects which would have puzzled or fascinated his students.97 As with the single instance occurring in the portion of text presented here,98 elsewhere in his glossed Gospels Comestor seems to resolve student questions which had arisen in the midst of his lecture (signalled by the student-reporter’s use of questio, quare, or various form of querere).99 Indeed, examples could here be multiplied showing Comestor establishing rapport with his students, but it is now convenient to turn to the philological features of the Glosae that characterise this scholastic setting.

The types of oral signposts that have long been associated with student reportations punctuate every page of Comestor’s glosses. These oralia can be distinguished into several types, each of which clearly had a defined function for the master or his student reporter. Because two of these formulae – inquit and magister (dicit) – featured prominently in the studies of Beryl Smalley and Fr. Ignatius Brady, we will begin by considering their occurrence in the text of the present edition. The inquit- formula appears in the first chapter of the Glosae and its accretions on only one occasion: “Mihi, inquit, uidetur facilis solutio si dicatur quod eadem testimonia bis dicta sint, et ante baptismum et post baptismum.”100 Just as these scholars had found in other contemporary reportations, inquit here represents the student-reporter’s interjection to signal one of the master’s personal opinions. It will come as little surprise to readers familiar with Peter Comestor’s teaching that the reporter signalled only one original sententia in the course of these glosses; indeed, it was Comestor’s constant observance to construct his exposition upon patristic and magisterial authorities. Nevertheless, the master does not hesitate to offer his own solution when he identifies a defect or inconsistency in the

97 See e.g. Comestor’s discussion of a contemporary practice, observed by those who were to undergo the trials, which consisted of carrying a scrap of St. John’s prologue to ward off diabolical interference (GLOSAE, XXI, 14-7). Cf. SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 114. 98 GLOSAE, XLIX, 18 - L, 1: “Queritur: si eam potuit dare alicui, eidem potuit dare potentiam diuinam? Hoc tripliciter soluitur…” 99 See, e.g.: Glosae super Iohannem glosatum (TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, 1024): “Quare autem spiritualiter dicatur ‘dilectus’? Satis determinatum est in quadam glosula…” (275ra); Glosae super Lucam glosatum (PARIS, BnF lat. 620): “Si ergo queris racionem ordinis in decantando, considera quid in singulis canticis contineatur…” (156va); “…ubi inuenis dissonantiam euangelistarum in superficie, cogimur querere consonantiam spiritualis intelligentie” (169vb). 100 GLOSAE, XXXVII, 2-3: “To me, he says, it would seem to be a simple solution if the same testimonies were given on two occasions, both before and after his baptism.”

exegetical tradition, as in the case above.101 Many further instances of this reportatorial formula appear throughout the subsequent chapters of the Glosae.102 Similarly, the occurrence of magister in the Glosae is consistent with the use specified by Brady and Smalley. Occurring three times in the text edited here, magister or magister noster signals Comestor’s personal reference to one of his own masters.103 As scholars have found elsewhere in Comestor’s writings, these simple references to “the master” or “our master” are invariably traceable to Peter Lombard.104 When Comestor refers to other contemporary masters, even those under whom he studied, his consistent practice is to cite them by name, as when he places the teaching of Gilbert of Poitiers in opposition to that of the Lombard: “Potuit alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi… et ita exposuit magister Gilbertus. Magistro nostro uisum est quod potuit seruis dare potentiam dimittendi peccata…”105 Accordingly,

101 Various glosses on the lemma Jn. 1, 15 (“qui post me uenturus est”) stand in contradiction about when John the Baptist first gave this testimony to Christ, with some asserting that this was before Christ’s baptism and others after. Comestor here offers the solution that John the Baptist made this profession on two occasions, both before and after the Lord’s baptism. Cf. GLOSAE, XXXVI, 16 - XXXVII, 3. 102 Here, it is well worth reproducing all of the instances of this formula that I have encountered in the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Incidentally, each of the master’s reported opinions provides a unique glimpse into Comestor’s exegetical priorities, teaching methods, and good humour. Cf. GLOSAE 3, 4 (T, 228vb): “Et hic, inquit, mihi uidetur commodius posse legi, quia michi uidetur adherendum uerbo quod in glosa ponitur, scilicet EXPONIT”; IDEM 4, 4 (T, 231va): “Sic, inquit, mihi uidetur intelligendum quod dictum est, PLENIVS, reliquit interlineares de littera, quia de Galilea uenit in Iudeam”; IDEM 6, 4 (T, 237rb): “Sunt alie cogitationes non inhoneste que non sunt abiciende, sed pascende. Et non inuenio, inquit, magis elegans exemplum quam de uiris scolasticis, quibus dum graues incumbunt molestie et augustie paupertatis, sepe cogitant: melius esset nobis uiuere inter amicos nostros molliter et delicate quam hic tanta affici paupertate. Et tales cogitationes quodam solatio sunt pascende. Statim enim debent seipsos confortare dicentes: nos adhuc pro huiusmodi laboribus magis honorifice erimus inter amicos nostros. Forsan et hec olim meminisse iuuabit”; IDEM 6, 45 (T, 240rb): “Et de hoc quidam libri habent glosam, et non satis, inquit, occurit mihi an sit de glosatura”; IDEM 8, 6 (244rb): “Sic, inquit, exponit Augustinus, et miror quare non est hic appositum [in glosa]”; IDEM 8, 42 (T, 246ra): “Alioquin non occurrit, inquit, mihi quod aliquot populos legerim in historiis dictos Cetheos nisi ponatur Cethea aspiratum pro duplici aspiratione, ut eosdem intelligas Cetheos et Etheos que fuit una de septem gentibus que habitabant terram promissionis. Placet tamen quibusdam Cetheos dici a Cethim, sed non uidetur mihi historicum sed fabulosum. Tradunt enim quia Cethim fluuius est et quicumque de eo potat statim insanit”; IDEM 10, 25 (T, 250va): “Nec credo, inquit, quod antichristus sit suscitaturus mortuos”; IDEM 14, 12 (T, 260ra): “Et cum ita debuit dicere, inquit, in hunc modum: QVIA VADO AD PATREM, id est ad consessum Patris, ad inuisibilitatem Patris”; IDEM 18, 21 (T, 270ra): “Etsi, inquit, in historia dissentiant [sc. Beda, Ieronimus et Augustinus] uel ubi non periclitatur fides, non est inconueniens. Et in plerisque dissenserunt, quia non semper tangebat Spiritus sanctus corda eorum sicut nec prophetarum”; IDEM 18, 38 (T, 270va-b): “QVID EST VERITAS? Eleganter, inquit, fecisset Dominus si docuisset nos quid sit ueritas. Adhuc enim incertum est. Vnde achademici dogmatizauerunt ueritatem latere in puteo sine fundo”; IDEM 19, 20 (T, 271va): “Vtrum autem illud quod premittitur in titulo scriptum esset tribus linguis, scilicet ‘Iesus Nazarenus,’ ego, inquit, non legi.” 103 GLOSAE, V, 2; L, 10; LI, 2. 104 Of the three occurrences of magister and magister noster in the portion of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum edited here, the first refers to Peter Lombard’s ingressus with which Comestor’s lectures begin, and the others refer to Book Four of the Sentences. The three references are considered below. 105 ibid., L, 9: “He was able to confer the power of baptism upon one of his servants… and Master Gilbert interpreted it in this way. But to our master it seemed that Christ was able to confer upon his servants the power to

100

the signification of the inquit- and magister-formulae proposed by previous scholars remain valid in Comestor’s glossed Gospels. Nevertheless, one important exception to this practice should here be mentioned. In my study of the manuscript witnesses of Comestor’s Glosae, I have discovered several instances in which marginal and intrinsic accretions explicitly refer to Comestor as “magister” or “magister Petrus Manducator.”106 In each one of these instances, however, it is clear that the accretion represents a student’s subsequent account of Comestor’s oral teaching given on another occasion, rather than a running report of the master’s ongoing lectures.107

A far more prominent type of oralia are the first- and second-person references continuously made throughout Comestor’s Glosae and the attendant accretions, which generate an immediate sense of the master’s relation to his students in the classroom. All of these references represent Comestor’s reported speech, and each form consistently introduces a distinct mode of address by which the master communicates with his auditors. Occurring but seldom is the master’s use of the first-person singular – inquam, dico, dixi, distinxi –, which typically serves to emphasise a text that Comestor is re- reading according to the preceding interpretation, or a point that he is repeating or clarifying. For instance, after asserting that John supplemented the other Gospel accounts by writing about the “first calling” of the disciples, Comestor clarifies: “Ideo dico ‘primam’ [sc. uocationem], quia legitur trina uocatio discipulorum.”108 Far more common is the first-person plural, most frequently appearing in the perfect tense but also in the present and future: diximus, pretermisimus, prenotauimus, intelleximus, facimus, habemus, addimus, agimus, dicimus, presumimus, redeamus, legemus. With this form, the master refers to the course of lectures as a collective enterprise, a convention which has not ceased to be observed eight-hundred years later. Accordingly, the force of this usage should be readily

forgive sins.” See our discussion of this passage and its wider theological context below: Cap. III. 3. 3, “Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates.” 106 Only one example occurs in the present edition: APPENDIX II, 25. For further instances of this phenomenon in the manuscripts of the present edition, see our manuscript descriptions below (particularly of I ): Cap. IV. 1. 1, “Description of the manuscripts.” Another example is discussed at some length by Mark J. CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 84-6. 107 Because these accretions were gradually internalised over the evolution of the textual tradition, it is possible that such references to Comestor as “magister” will appear in the main body of text in certain witnesses of the Glosae super euangelia glosata. For this reason, editors and scholars must be careful to consult multiple copies of such reportations before assuming that every reference to “the master” refers to the Lombard, or conversely concluding out of hand that the student-reporters routinely used magister to refer to the master delivering the lectures (i.e. Comestor). Cf. CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 84-6. 108 GLOSAE, LIX, 5-6.

101

apprehended: Comestor uses the first-person plural to recall material that the class has already discussed (perfect), to anticipate a subject that will be treated later in the course of lectures (future), or to refer to contemporary practices and opinions, generally not specific to the classroom setting (present). For instance, one use of the present tense occurs in an accretion where Comestor is explaining the use of John the Baptist’s profession “Agnus Dei” in the Mass: “ita nos timentes

109 eternam [captiuitatem] dicimus: ‘Agnus Dei miserere nobis.’ ”

Perhaps most evocative of the classroom setting in Comestor’s Glosae are the second-person references directed at his students. These references, generally appearing in the singular form as an imperative or jussive subjunctive, occasionally occur when Comestor is advising his students of the correct interpretation of a passage: nota, uide, transi, intellige, ut facias, ut legas, ne uidearis, ne adhereas, ne putes, ne turbet te quod dicitur, caue ne construas, adhibe diligentiam.110 For instance, when Comestor is explicating the lemma “Medius uestrum stetit,” he cautions his students not to understand the tense of the verb too rigidly: “Ne adhereas uerbo preteriti temporis, sed indifferenter intellige ‘stetit’ uel ‘stat’ uel ‘stabit.’”111 Most commonly, however, these second-person references occur when Comestor is giving instructions to his auditors about how to handle their biblical textbook, the John Gloss. Indeed, Comestor has articulated (or perhaps inherited) a thorough set of instructions treating of Gloss protocol, and it would be difficult to overstate the ubiquity of such references in all of his lecture courses. Rather than multiplying examples, we will here reproduce a short passage containing some of Comestor’s most common Gloss instructions:

109 APPENDIX I, 25. See also: ibid., 24, 26 and APPENDIX II, 10. 110 Plural forms of the imperative and jussive occur throughout the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum as well, though much less frequently; e.g.: attendite, intelligite, exponite, nolite, habetis, habebitis, uultis, ne turbemini. Nevertheless, one might reasonably wonder why Comestor’s second-person references appear predominantly in the singular rather than the plural, since he is addressing a class of many students. A possible explanation is that the student-reporter altered Comestor’s oral usage in the course of recording the lectures, in order to mark their transition from the spoken word to a “book” or “text.” However, it is equally plausible that Comestor himself used the singular form of the imperative in the classroom. In the scholastic context, this form appears not to have been employed with strict reference to an individual person, but as a means to address each of the students severally rather than collectively. This convention is observed in other twelfth-century reportationes, like the reports of Stephen Langton’s oral lectures. For readily available examples of these, see: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, Textual Appendices A. 2-4, 270-84; B. 2-4, 292-303. Similarly, this practice is consistent with a contemporary reportatio of an anonymous Parisian lecture course on John’s Gospel, Huic euangelio: PARIS, Bibliothèque Mazarine 175, fol. 252r- 298r. 111 GLOSAE, XLII, 8-9: “HE HAS STOOD IN YOUR MIDST. Do not cling to the verb of the past tense, but understand ‘stood’ or ‘stands’ or ‘will stand’ interchangeably.”

102

[Glosa:] ECCE NON EST AVCTOR MALORVM. Hic dimitte. De hoc habes aliam glosam: MALVM NON EST FACTVM, et facit similiter propositionem affirmatiuam, sed interlinearis facit negatiuam: NVLLA RES et cetera. Modo resume ultimam partem glose de supplemento:

ALII DICVNT MIRACVLA et cetera.

Representative of Comestor’s entire lecture course, this short excerpt shows the master rapidly alternating between glosses while instructing his students how to follow along. Here, several of the oral formulae characteristic of Comestor’s glossed Gospels appear: glosa, interlinearis, resume, dimitte, habes (aliam) glosam; to these, we should add lege, sume ubi dimisisti, post hanc illam. As has already been stated, it is difficult to imagine that copies of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ were not in the students’ hands while Comestor lectured, not only because the structure of his lectures would scarcely be intelligible without reference to the biblical textbook (it is conceivable that, even in the twelfth century, certain professors left something of clarity to be desired), but also on account of the language characterising the master’s references to the Gloss which presupposes student engagement with the text.

2. Comestor’s Use of the Gloss

Having reviewed the oral formulae that the master employs to guide his students through the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ it is now possible to determine the place that this biblical textbook held in Peter Comestor’s classroom. First demanding our attention is the language with which Comestor characterises the Gloss more generally. The reader of Comestor’s glosses will at once be impressed by the precision with which he refers to marginal and interlinear glosses: their composition and various parts, their relation to the lemmata, variants displayed in different copies, and even their size.112 In respect to the latter, it is here apt to mention one of Comestor’s common usages that has generated some confusion: magna glosa. Recently, Mark Clark has discussed an occurrence of this phrase in Comestor’s Luke glosses as potentially referring to an unknown glosatura on the Gospels, perhaps even composed by Peter Lombard.113 Nevertheless, I have found numerous occurrences of

112 Comestor frequently refers to the various parts of marginals glosses (principium glose, meditullium glose, finis glose); distinguishes which glosses belong with which lemmata, particularly if a certain gloss may be taken with different parts of the biblical text (e.g. XLII, 5-6: “Glosa: AVDIERANT. Quidam legunt eam superius … et utrobique competenter legitur”); specifies if different copies of the Gloss display variants that would make it difficult for auditors to follow along with his references (e.g. XIX, 7-8: “Et nota quia glosam de supplemento quidam codices habent continuam, alii per partes…”); and helps his students to locate glosses by describing their size (modica glosa, modica interlinearis, magne glose, &c). 113 CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 54-7 et sqq. The relevant section of the passage from the Glosae super Lucam glosatum that Clark here cites from TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes 1024, fol. 144rb reads thus:

103

this phrase (both in the singular and plural) in all four of Comestor’s lecture courses on the glossed Gospels, and in every instance “magna glosa” is identifiable with an unusually long marginal gloss from the part of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on which Comestor is lecturing.114 To take an example from the present edition, when he directs his students back to the extended marginal gloss treating of John’s fortification against heresies (“Contra eos”), Comestor reintroduces the gloss in these terms: “Sume magnam glosam ubi dimisisti: POSTQVAM AVTEM DIXIT et cetera.”115 Although, as Clark himself has proven, traces of the Lombard’s biblical glosses pervade Comestor’s Gospel lectures, it is not possible to identify the Lombard’s “glossed Bible” with the magnae glosae that recur throughout his student’s Glosae super euangelia glosata.

As scholars of Comestor’s glossed Gospels have suggested, Peter does not regard the Gloss as the perfect scholastic tool, nor does he feel bound to follow its order or interpretations.116 Not infrequently, we see Comestor exposing defects in the structure and exegetical content of the Gloss: “sicut iam patebit, glosa nullius momenti est”;117 “uide quia illa glosa … appunctata debet esse”;118 “quia glosa male ordinata est.”119 In equal measure, however, Comestor shows his students how to impose upon the Gloss the most intelligible order possible, to present its arguments according to

“Glosa de eodem: OCCVLTABAT SE PROPTER PRVDENTIAM… Meditullium glose quod sequitur dimitte, quia est de mitico intellectu. Negetur cum magna glosa.” Here, Comestor reads the beginning of a comparatively short marginal gloss, then tells his students to pass over the middle section because it introduces a mystical interpretation (i.e. “Mensibus quinque, hoc est quinque milibus seculi siue quinque libris Moysi”) which will be nullified by the magna glosa. The “great gloss” to which Comestor here refers is identifiable with a marginal gloss on Lk. 1, 20 (“ALLEGORICE. Per Zachariam…”) that Comestor goes on to expound (idem, 144va-b). This same gloss contains an interpretation rendering the mystical section of the previous gloss redundant; namely: “ELISABETH QVINQVE MENSIBVS OCCVLTAT, siue quia Moyses legifer quinque libris mysteria Christi parabolatim designat, seu quia ipsa lex Christi dispensationem in quinque mundi etatibus per sanctorum facta uel dicta figurat.” 114 See, e.g.: Peter COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, Paris, BnF, lat. 620, 273va: “Modo redi ad glosas misticas. Et nota quia ex hac serie surgit duplex misterium quorum alterum congruit ecclesie militanti alterum ecclesie triumphanti. Illud quod surgit de magna glosa competit ecclesie triumphanti”; IDEM, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum, Paris, BnF, lat. 620, 84ra: “Super hunc, inquid, locum, ET TENVERVNT PEDES EIVS, mihi uidetur legenda magna glosa”; ibid., 58ra: “De alia expositione habes magnas glosas que diligenter notande sunt”; IDEM, Glosae super Lucam glosatum, BnF, lat. 620, 191ra: “Hoc tangit hec glosa modica, set in magnis glosis diffusius exponetur.” 115 GLOSAE, XXIII, 5: “Continue to read the long gloss where you left off: BUT AFTER HE SPOKE and so on.” 116 Cf. e.g.: SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 129; CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, “Chapter Three: From the Gloss to the History,” 84-108. 117 ibid., XXIX, 1: “As it will already be apparent, this gloss is of no importance.” 118 ibid., XXI, 13: “Note that this gloss … ought to be expunged.” 119 Peter COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum (PARIS, BnF, lat. 620, 61ra): “For this gloss is badly arranged.”

~~104~~

their full force, and to salvage interpretations which might seem obscure or inapt: “sed si mentem glose subtilius inspicias…”;120 “nota quia finis glose trahit locutionem ad proprium sensum”;121 “et ne turbet te quod in fine glose dicitur…”122 As an apparatus of patristic exegesis that has been compiled by moderni, the Gloss equally represents in Comestor’s mind a repository of auctoritates and a worthy object of criticism. For this reason, perhaps the most profitable way to understand Comestor’s use of the Gloss is with reference to other scholastic textbooks of the twelfth century: like Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non and the Lombard’s Liber Sententiarum, Comestor uses the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ at least to some extent, as a dialectical tool. Bearing in mind that Comestor lectured on the Sentences and quite probably audited the Lombard’s own inaugural lectures on his “medieval casebook,”123 one can readily perceive in Comestor’s biblical glosses the intention to train his students how to engage in theological reasoning. Comestor constantly resolves the structural defects and exegetical problems posed by the Gloss, excises and reorders its contents to provide a coherent and orderly exposition, and distinguishes between more and less authentic interpretations contained in its component glosses. Moreover, Comestor takes special pains to do all of this in full view of his students, providing them with precise instructions such that they are able to follow along in their own copies of the textbook. Rather than digesting from the Gloss a clean and coherent running commentary, like those of Gilbert of Poitiers and Peter Lombard, Peter Comestor is determined to train his students how to navigate the complexities of the exegetical tradition.

Although the reader should now have some sense of the importance of the Gloss in Comestor’s lectures, it will here be instructive to produce examples from the Glosae emphasising different uses that the master makes of his biblical textbook. Discounting the magisterial ingressus, the Gloss first makes its appearance in Comestor’s prothemata to the lecture course. Here, the authoritative prefatory material of the John Gloss (the ‘Monarchian’ and Anselmian prologues, misattributed to Jerome and Augustine respectively) serves as the proper subject matter of Comestor’s lectures. Reading each prologue to the students with his lemmatic, verse-by-verse exposition, Comestor treats the Gloss in much the same manner in which he will later treat the biblical text: he provides various

120 GLOSAE, XXXVIII, 16-7: “But if you seek out the mind of the gloss more subtly…” 121 ibid., XIX, 9-10: “Note that the end of the gloss draws this speech to its proper sense.” 122 APPENDIX II, 4: “And do not let what is said at the end of the gloss bewilder you…” 123 Cf. Giulio SILANO, “The Sentences as a Medieval Casebook,” in Peter Lombard: The Sentences. Book 1, xix-xxvi.

~~105~~

interpretations of the text, alternates between a lemmatic and thematic exposition of its clauses, and illustrates its content with recourse to other authoritative sources.124 Even after he has begun to lecture on the Gospel, Comestor does not cease to treat the John Gloss as the proper object of his commentary. Accordingly, one will encounter many instances in the Glosae of Comestor’s concentrated exposition of the Gloss quite in abstraction from the biblical text,125 or in which he introduces the words of the Gospel in subordination to the exegetical structure of the glosses at hand.126 For this reason, Comestor’s glosses on the Gospels must be numbered among the “vrais commentaires de la Glossa ordinaria.”127

Although he occasionally diverts from the Gospel text to provide a continuous exposition of material in the John Gloss, Comestor’s usual procedure is to introduce a lemma from the Gospel (often two or three words in length) and to subordinate the corresponding glosses to his exposition of the biblical heading. Within this general framework, however, Comestor conceives of an impressive variety of uses for the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ For instance, Peter is given to paraphrase long marginal glosses, to give long readings from a succession of glosses with no exposition, and to interweave various marginal and interlinear glosses according to a thematic order. One of the more common uses that Comestor makes of the Gloss, and unhappily one of the most laborious for the reader (as opposed to the auditor) to disentangle, is the master’s rapid exposition of a series of glosses, often treated as a single syntactical unit. For instance:

ET VIDIMVS. Interlinearis continuat: ET PER HOC SANATI, id est per huius habitus assumptionem, NOS, specialiter, QVOS ELEGIT, ego scilicet et alii apostoli, dicit Iohannes, qui sumus ab eo electi in monte, VIDIMVS GLORIAM EIVS, id est gloriosa eius miracula…128

124 See: PROTH. 3-4, V - XV. 125 For Comestor’s lemmatic exposition of a series of glosses in abstraction from the text of the Gospel, see e.g.: GLOSAE, XL, 1-13. For an extended thematic discussion based on a marginal gloss, see ibid., XLVIII, 15 - L, 7. 126 See, e.g.: ibid., XIX, 3 - XXI, 13. 127 Gilbert DAHAN, “Une leçon biblique,” 23. Dahan is here correct to distinguish Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata from the running commentaries compiled out of the corresponding Gloss books, such as the Lombard’s Magna glosatura. However, it is essential to distinguish Comestor’s glosses, together with those of Stephen Langton, from contemporary biblical commentaries that took recourse to the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ much as they did to their other sources, as a work of reference from which to draw interpretations of the Scripture. For the masters of the School of Paris, the Gloss itself – that is, the biblical text with its apparatus of glosses – served as the proper subject matter of the sacra pagina. 128 GLOSAE, XXXIV, 12-4: “AND WE HAVE SEEN. The interlinear gloss continues: AND BEING HEALED THROUGH THIS, that is through the taking on of this habit, WE, especially, WHOM HE HAS CHOSEN, namely I and

~~106~~

According to this method, Peter reads the gloss to his students by dividing it into “particles” (particulae), for each of which he provides a short explanation. Here, the punctuation of the text should serve to emphasise the care that Comestor takes to present the gloss, together with his parenthetical comments, in a coherent sequence according to its original syntax.

The master’s cursory presentation of a select gloss within a continuous narrative represents just one practice characteristic of Comestor’s dominant teaching method: to extrapolate from the theologically diverse constituents of the Gloss a coherent, running commentary on the Gospel. To better understand the procedure that Comestor follows in “glossing the Gloss,” especially when he is ordering a large number of glosses around the biblical lemmata, it is worth reproducing a longer passage from the Glosae treating the first clause of the Gospel (In principio erat Verbum):

SED QVIA. Hic dimitte et lege principium illius glose: IN PATRE QVI EST PRINCIPIVM SINE PRINCIPIO. FILIVS QVI EST PRINCIPIVM SED DE PRINCIPIO, et dimitte ibi et lege interlineares. Postea lege principium glose de supplemento: ALII et cetera. Quasi: hoc scriptum est a Iohanne ad munimentum contra heresim et idipsum scriptum est ad supplementum, quia fuerat ab aliis sub silentio pretermissum. Et nota quia glosam de supplemento quidam codices habent continuam, alii per partes. NON FVIT ANTE PATER QVAM FILIVS, quia Filius Patri coeternus. Cuius coeternitas cum Patre a Iohanne ostenditur his uerbis: IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM. Et nota quia finis glose trahit locutionem ad proprium sensum, scilicet ut notet unitatem essentie Filii cum Patre, ubi dicitur: VNA SVBSTANTIA CVM PATRE. Modo sume residuum glose quod dimiseras: VEL IN PRINCIPIO OMNIVM CREATVRARVM, id est ante principium omnium creaturarum, non quod ipse fuerit primordialis creatura sicut dicitur titulus esse in principio libri, id est ante librum.129

the other apostles, John says, who were chosen by him on the mount, HAVE SEEN HIS GLORY, that is his glorious miracles.” 129 GLOSAE, XIX, 3-13: “BUT BECAUSE. Here leave aside this gloss and take up the beginning of this other: IN THE FATHER WHO IS A PRINCIPLE WITHOUT A PRINCIPLE. THE SON WHO IS A PRINCIPLE BUT FROM A PRINCIPLE, and leave aside the gloss here and read the interlinear glosses. Afterwards read the beginning of the gloss of supplement: OTHERS and so forth. As if it were said: this was written by John as a fortification against heresy and the same was written as a supplement, because it was passed over by the other evangelists in silence. And note that some manuscripts have the gloss of supplement in a continuous form, and others have it in parts. THE FATHER WAS NOT BEFORE THE SON, because the Son is coeternal with the Father. His coeternity with the Father is revealed by John in these words: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD. And note that the end of the gloss draws this saying to its proper sense, namely as it notes the unity of the Son’s essence with the Father, where it is said: ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER. Now take up the remainder of the gloss that you had left aside: OR IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL CREATURES, that is before the beginning of all creatures, not because he was the first creature as a title is said to be in the beginning of a book, that is before the book.”

~~107~~

Leading up to this passage, Comestor was ‘reading’ from the extended marginal gloss about John’s fortification against heresies (Contra eos). Here, Comestor instructs his students to “dismiss” this gloss, since it goes on to treat the second clause of the Gospel, and continues his exposition of the first clause with recourse to other marginal and interlinear glosses. This latter procedure is characteristic of Comestor’s modus glosandi: rapidly alternating between various glosses, the master excises portions from each and orders them in relation to the theme of the present lemma (here, Christ’s coeternity with the Father). Evidently, the master’s treatment of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ varies by the individual quality of each gloss; that is, its length, complexity, thematic relevance, and “authenticity.” Comestor may read a gloss to his students, either in part or in full, or he may simply paraphrase it; the master may present its contents in a continuous sequence or intersperse particles from other glosses into its reading; he may provide a single word of explanation or a prolonged exposition. In any case, the overwhelming majority of Comestor’s lectures consist of his reading from the Gloss as a theological textbook. Despite the ubiquitous presence of the John Gloss in Comestor’s lectures, the master’s recourse to a wider variety of sources is hardly restrained. As we will see, Comestor frequently introduces patristic and ‘modern’ authors in reaction to interpretations presented by the Gloss.

The most frequent setting in which Comestor uses the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ to introduce auctores (whether or not he acknowledges them) is within his thematic disquisitions. Comestor’s use of sources in this manner will be examined more carefully in the final section of this chapter; here, however, we will define this final practice characteristic of Comestor’s usus glosandi. Developing out of his typical lemmatic mode of lecturing on the Gospel text and its glosses, the master will occasionally seize upon a theme from the Gloss to pursue a more advanced theological discussion. Indeed, Comestor could launch into an elaborate discourse on almost any subject upon the slightest provocation. Take, for example, Comestor’s discourse on oil lamps:

IOHANNIS. Nota interlinearem: VT LVCERNE, de qua dictum est: Paraui lucernam Christo meo, scilicet Iohannem qui fuit unica lucerna precedens Christum in primo aduentu. Helyas et Enoch erunt due lucerne precedentes Christum in secundo, quia precedent aduentum iudicis. Ideo in ecclesia in profestis diebus defertur unicus cereus ante diaconum, quando euangelium lecturus procedit ad pulpitum, ad representandam unicam lucernam que in primo aduentu precessit Christum. Sed quia in festiuis diebus agimus memoriam resurrectionis et ita secundi aduentus, ante diaconum deferuntur duo cerei ad significandum quod Helyas et Enoch quasi gemine lucerne Christum in secundo aduentu sunt precessuri.

~~108~~

~~Alii uolunt per hoc quod deportantur duo cerei representari quod discipuli a Christo ante faciem suam missi sunt ad predicandum bini et bini.130~~

Prompted by the comparison of John the Baptist to a lamp, Comestor dignifies the existence of this innocuous interlinear gloss (“ut lucerna”) by developing from it an extended typological and liturgical exposition. Reciting a popular verse from Psalm 131 (Paraui lucernam) to corroborate the gloss, Comestor goes on to recall the traditional interpretation of the same verse as a reference to the Precursor of Christ’s first advent as Redeemer, before discussing the Old Testament prophets who were named the lucernae of Christ’s second advent as Judge. Comestor then illustrates this mystical reality by referring to symbols associated with contemporary liturgical practice, an example which must have been readily accessible to twelfth-century students of theology. Discussing the significance of either one or two candles being borne before the deacon during the Gospel procession according to the solemnity of the feast, Comestor provides the competing interpretations of contemporary liturgists (to which he has access through John Beleth).131 Here, then, we find Comestor using the Gloss as a stepping stone, by which to introduce his students to more advanced theological topics and contemporary debates.

Ultimately, to the mind of Peter Comestor, the predominant fault of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ is its disorder. Due to the miscellaneous composition of its glosses, which alternate between theological themes and the various senses of Scripture in an indiscriminate fashion, and which at times advance seemingly contradictory interpretations, this repository of patristic teaching could only be disentangled by a master of the sacred page. Representing the exegetical tradition as a whole, the Gloss in its capacity as a scholastic tool may shed light upon how the twelfth-century masters understood their teaching authority more generally within the vast landscape of Christian thought. Even the revolutionary Peter Abelard, cleaving to the authority of his expositor on Ezekiel,

130 GLOSAE, XXXVII, 4-12: “OF JOHN. Take note of the interlinear gloss: AS OF A LAMP, about which it is said: I have prepared a lamp for my Christ, namely John who was the single lamp preceding Christ in his first advent. Elias and Enoch will be the two lamps preceding Christ in the second, because they will precede the advent of the Judge. Therefore, in the church on the vigil of feast days a single candle is borne before the deacon when he processes to read the Gospel at the pulpit to represent the single lamp which preceded Christ in his first advent. But since on feast days we commemorate the resurrection and thus the second advent, two candles are borne before the deacon to signify that Elias and Enoch like twin lamps are to precede Christ in the second advent. Others would have it that by the two candles being carried it is represented that the disciples were sent by Christ before his own countenance to preach two by two.” 131 Comestor’s reliance upon John Beleth in this passage will be considered in the following section: Cap. III. 3. 2, “The Modern Masters.”

~~109~~

demonstrated his belief that biblical scholarship was, in one sense, a fully articulated science. The Bible could only be read according to the mind of the Fathers, and its authentic interpretation admitted of no innovations (profanae nouitates). As Marie-Dominique Chenu observed, the magistri sacrae paginae emerged as a new class of authority in the twelfth century precisely in order to transmit the patristic tradition. Within the confines of a new theological “science” (not yet distinct from sacra pagina), it belonged to the masters to resolve apparent contradictions between auctoritates and to extrapolate from the writings of the Fathers the Catholic interpretation of a new set of theological problems.132 In the case of Peter Comestor, this type of magisterial authority is plainly exerted in his biblical teaching. As one reads in the prefatory letter of his Historia scholastica, Comestor’s doctrine possesses nothing of profane novelty, much as it might curry favour and fondle his listener’s ears: “sic animus stylo imperauit ut a dictis Patrum non recederem, licet nouitas fauorabilis sit et mulcens aures.”133 Likewise, the master’s principal concern in his biblical lectures is to pass on the deposit of authoritative teaching that he has received. Comestor fulfils this office by reordering and developing upon the monument of Laonnoise biblical scholarship: the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’

~~3. The Principles of Comestor’s Exegesis~~

Although Peter Comestor conscientiously adhered to the tradition of biblical teaching contained in the Gloss, the master could be limited by his teaching aid only in the degree to which he lacked ingenium. Even within the confines of orally recreating the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ for the edification of his students, Comestor’s exegesis represents an original and unified programme of biblical theology. As we have seen, previous descriptions of the master’s classroom teaching have been fixated, quite understandably, upon the curiosities dispersed throughout Comestor’s glosses: his use of the liturgy, pictures, relics, Rabbinic traditions, topography, archaeology, and antiquities.134 While each of these types of evidence serves as a more or less prominent constituent of Comestor’s literal exposition of the Gospel, such narrow characterisations gravely misrepresent the animating interests behind Comestor’s teaching. With reference to the Glosae, however, it will be possible to identify the two

132 Marie-Dominique CHENU, “Les Magistri: La « Science » Théologique,” 323-43. 133 Peter COMESTOR, Historia scholastica, “Prologus epistolaris” (PL 198, col. 1053): “Thus the mind has dictated that my pen not recede from the teachings of the Fathers, although novelty is favourably received and pleasing to the ears.” 134 The material for these descriptions can be traced back to the foundational article for studies of Comestor’s glossed Gospels, namely: SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 115-23.

~~110~~

principles upon which Comestor’s biblical programme is structured, which are predominantly manifested according to four disciplines: grammar and history (together constituting littera), and theology and the various allegorical senses of Scripture (constituting mysterium).135 Unlike the Historia scholastica, in which, by his own admission, Comestor “riuulum historicum deduxi[t] … pelagus mysteriorum peritioribus relinquens,”136 the Glosae super euangelia glosata serve as a broader introduction to the distinct traditions of literal and allegorical interpretations of the Scripture as contained in the biblical Gloss. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that the literal sense constitutes the foundation of Comestor’s oral teaching. Studiously observing the theological programme advanced by Hugh of Saint-Victor, Comestor’s biblical glosses reverberate with the foundational principle of biblical studies articulated in the Didascalicon: “fundamentum autem et principium doctrinae sacrae historia est.”137 Indeed, it is not in vain that Comestor’s teaching has been said to represent “the greatest triumph of the Victorine tradition.”138 Like Hugh of Saint- Victor, Comestor understands historia as a twofold sense: the historical sequence of events and the literal force of the sacred words.139 It is only after establishing the literal-historical sense of the

135 For a perceptive characterisation of the exegetical structure of Comestor’s lecture courses on the glossed Gospels according to littera and mysterium, see: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, “History and Mystery,” 71-83. 136 Peter COMESTOR, Historia scholastica, “Prologus epistolaris” (PL 198, col. 1053): “I have pursued the rivulet of history, leaving the ocean of mysteries to those more learned.” 137 HUGH OF SAINT-VICTOR, Didascalicon de studio legendi, 6.3, ed. C. Buttimer (Washington D.C., 1939), 116. Cf. Comestor’s recapitulation of this principle in his prologue to the Historia scholastica (PL 198, col. 1053): “Historia fundamentum est…” 138 Cf. Beryl SMALLEY, Study of the Bible, 214. Although she was justified in her estimation of Comestor’s Historia scholastica as a decisive advance upon the programme of biblical scholarship articulated by Hugh of Saint-Victor, Smalley failed to observe the vast network of influences behind Comestor’s Historia (and his biblical teaching more generally), among which two have been proven dominant: the Laonnoise tradition and the teaching of Peter Lombard. See: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 15-51. Other scholars have expressed a certain agnosticism about Comestor’s debt to the writings of the Victorine masters, particularly David Luscombe, who – after showing that references which Comestor was previously supposed to have made to Andrew of Saint-Victor were in fact representative of the two masters’ common debt to the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ and Hugh of Saint-Victor – wryly concludes: “How very different this is from Beryl Smalley for whom the ‘greatest triumph for the Victorine tradition was the success of the Histories’” (LUSCOMBE, “The Place of Peter Comestor in the History of Medieval Theology,” 36). 139 For the seminal discussion of historia as it figures into the theological programme of Hugh of Saint-Victor, see: Grover A. ZINN, “ ‘Historia fundamentum est’: The Role of History in the Contemplative Life according to Hugh of St. Victor,” in Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Christian Tradition: Essays in Honor of Ray C. Petry, ed. George H. Shriver (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974), 135-58. For an excellent analysis of the influence of the Victorine’s historical principles upon the Historia scholastica, see: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, “Comestor and the Victorines,” 23-43.

~~111~~

~~Gospel that Comestor’s lectures turn to the allegorical senses of Scripture and the mysteries of Christian doctrine.~~

With an eye to the littera–mysterium scheme according to which Comestor understands the sacred page, it is now possible to examine the Glosae as they bear witness to the master’s exegetical principles. Beginning at the foundation of this scheme, we will first consider the principle of historia as it is manifested in the John glosses within Comestor’s study of grammar. Before approaching the spiritual realities lying hidden beneath the veil of the letter, Comestor makes certain that his students understand the literal meaning of the biblical text,140 their correct syntax and grammatical construction,141 and variants occurring among copies of the glossed Gospel that might alter the sense of the passage at hand.142 Recognising that the sacred Scriptures, like any other book, are constructed by human language and literary artifice, Comestor makes generous application of the methods and categories with which his students would have become familiar during their formation in the liberal arts. Thus, examples of Comestor’s discussion of the grammatical constructions and rhetorical figures that pervade the sacred page could be multiplied indefinitely: ut sit peryphrasis, et est

140 Frequently, Comestor discussion begins with a word’s various meanings or the full range of its signification. See, e.g., Comestor’s meticulous distinction between the uses of quis and quid within the context of the Pharisees’ interrogation of John the Baptist (XXXVIII, 12-4): “Per ‘quis’ reuera solet queri de substantia uel de proprio nomine. Et licet idem nomen sint ‘quis’ et ‘quid,’ tamen ‘quis’ solet referri ad propriam substantiam uel qualitatem propriam, ‘quid’ autem solet referri ad naturam. [Indeed, by the use of ‘who’ a question is generally posed about a thing’s substance or proper name. And although ‘who’ and ‘what’ may be used for the same name, ‘who’ tends to refer to a thing’s proper substance or proper quality, while ‘what’ tends to refer to its nature].” 141 Recurring throughout the Glosae are Comestor’s explanations of the tenses of verbs and the cases of nouns, the significance of word order, and the various ways to ‘distinguish,’ or punctuate, certain passages from the biblical text (i.e. whether incisiue, directe, or discretiue). See, e.g. Comestor’s discussion of how to construe a lemma in two different ways: “ET EGO VIDI ET TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVI, de hoc scilicet, QVIA HIC EST FILIVS DEI. Ecce modo construxisti directe. Vel incisiue ita: HIC EST QVI BAPTIZAT … QVIA HIC EST FILIVS DEI. Postea sume illud: ET EGO TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVI. Hanc constructionem innuit illa modica interlinearis si diligentius inspicias… [AND I SAW, AND I BORE A TESTIMONY, namely to this, THAT HE IS THE SON OF GOD. And see in this way you have constructed the passage directly. Or [you may construct it] incisively, in this way: IT IS HE WHO BAPTIZES … BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF GOD. Afterwards read this phrase: AND I BORE A TESTIMONY. The small interlinear gloss indicates this construction, if you inspect it more carefully…]” 142 Comestor will occasionally allude to variants and alternate versions of the Gospel text and its glosses, each of which he glosses individually. See, for instance, Comestor’s reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, to which one of the glosses made particular reference (LXII, 1-4): “Nota quia secundum editionem nostram non inuenies hoc expresse in aliquo prophetarum, scilicet ‘Nazareus uocabitur,’ sed secundum aliam editionem inuenies. Vbi in littera nostra dicitur ‘flos de radice eius ascendet,’ Hebraica ueritas habet ‘Nazareus,’ id est floridus, ‘de radice eius ascendet.’ [Note that according to our edition you will not find expressly in any of the prophets this phrase, namely ‘he will be called a Nazarene,’ but you will find this according to another edition. In our text where it is said ‘a flower shall rise up out of his root,’ the Hebrew truth has ‘a Nazarene,’ that is one like unto a flower, ‘will rise up out of his root.’]”

~~112~~

quasi antipophora, fit simplex relatio, intelligatur positum relatiue, construxisti directe, discretiue, incisiue, quia construit litteram retrograde, legenda est post directam prosecutionem littere, ne indefinitam facias redundare in uniuersalem, potius ad sensum quam ad uerborum superficiem. Indeed, analogues for many passages in Comestor’s Glosae could be found in contemporary arts commentaries or elementary textbooks delineating the rudiments of Latin grammar. Nonetheless, because a divine author ultimately directed the hand of his evangelists, Comestor is also diligent to reveal the mysteries contained within the letter of the Gospel, according to which such mystical interpretations still belong to the literal sense. Most frequently, Comestor achieves this with recourse to the patristic compendia of etymologies.143 Altogether, given Comestor’s habitual attention to the philological composition of the John Gloss and his discussion of the linguistic element of the Gospels, it is indeed surprising that studies of the Glosae super euangelia glosata have rarely considered Comestor in his capacity as a grammarian.144

The second dimension of the Victorine notion of historia, consisting in the historical sequence of events surrounding the sacred text, is similarly observed in Comestor’s teaching in the Glosae. As the Magister historiarum, Comestor has most frequently attracted attention under the aspect of an historian, and a couple of studies have fruitfully examined the Glosae super euangelia glosata according to their historical complexion.145 Indeed, the various curiosities that scholars have conventionally mistaken for the principles of Comestor’s exegesis (liturgy, archaeology, antiquities, etc.) are rightly situated within this dimension of Comestor’s biblical programme. Despite the simple narrative structure of the Gospel, Comestor is careful to situate John’s account together with the synoptic Gospels within the euangelica historia. Manifesting these historical priorities is the munimentum- supplementum scheme, according to which Comestor presents the Gospel of John as supplement to the other evangelists’ accounts: “quia [Iohannes] legerat aliorum euangelia et deprehenderat quedam

143 Comestor’s occasional references to the meanings of Hebrew names are most often derived, whether or not directly, from St. JEROME’s Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, ed. P. de Lagarde (CCSL 72, Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), 57-161. Nevertheless, Comestor’s etymologies are sometimes indebted to ISIDORE, Etymologiarum siue Originum libri XX, 2 vols., ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911). 144 But see Alexander Andrée’s forthcoming study, in which he discusses the prominence of the trivium in Comestor’s programme of biblical teaching: ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor and the Tools for Biblical Interpretation: Grammar, Rhetoric, Criticism,” in Biblical Exegesis from Origen to Lorenzo Valla, ed. Valeria Ingegno (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming). 145 Most notable of these is IDEM, “Caue ne facias uim in tempore! Peter Comestor and the Truth of History,” 515-50.

~~113~~

de ueritate historie deesse.”146 Indeed, Comestor construes John’s contribution to the revelation of the Word not simply as a theological achievement, but also as an historical one. Thus, the master is careful to emphasise the historical deeds and words of the Lord peculiar to John’s account, as, for instance, the “first vocation” of the disciples: “Supplet ergo primam uocationem discipulorum a ceteris pretermissam. Ideo dico ‘primam,’ quia legitur trina uocatio discipulorum. Prima uocatio facta est a baptismo usque ad miraculum mutationis aque in uinum…”147 As in the Historia scholastica, Comestor is constantly attentive to situate the biblical narrative into its larger context before turning to the other dimensions of the sacred text.

Consequently, Comestor’s effort to establish the ueritas historie often extends beyond the evangelical narrative, both in respect to his speculative analysis of the biblical context and to his use of alternate historical sources. One of Comestor’s thematic discussions in his lecture on the ‘Monarchian’ prologue involves both of these approaches. In his exposition of the lemma “quem de nuptiis … uocauit Deus,” the master considers the historical significance of Christ’s calling St. John from marriage to the apostolic life.148 First, although certain less discerning interpreters (minus sentientibus) hold that John’s original intention to marry served to detract from his dignity, Comestor tells his students that John’s being called from a good state to a better one really redounded to the evangelist’s glory. Comestor vindicates John’s intention with reference to the preeminence placed upon marriage under the Old Law, such that those without offspring were held in reproach. Furthermore, Comestor affirms that, despite this intention, John never lost the virtue of his chastity, and that he may even have vowed his virginity to God, as the Blessed Virgin is believed to have done, although conditionally (sub conditione), that is unless the Holy Spirit inspired him to do

146 GLOSAE, LIX, 2: “Because [John] had read the Gospels of the other evangelists and had discovered that certain things concerning the truth of history were absent.” 147 ibid., 3-5: “He therefore supplies the first vocation of the disciples which was passed over by the others. Thus, I say ‘first’ because one reads about a threefold vocation of the disciples. The first vocation took place from [Christ’s] baptism up to the miracle of the changing of water into wine…” 148 ibid., VI, 4-14: “QVEM DE NVPTIIS. Idipsum adhuc est de commendatione Iohannis, licet minus sentientibus uideatur detrahere Iohanni et derogare eius dignitati. Nam si cedit ei ad gloriam qui de malo uocatur ad bonum, ei cedit ad cumulum glorie qui de bono uocatur ad maius bonum. Reuera bonum erat secundum legem nubere tempore Iohannis adeo ut qui non relinqueret semen super terram subiaceret maledicto legis. Melius tamen erat intuitu Dei seruare integritatem carnis. Et licet habuerit propositum nubendi tamen uirginitatis uirtutem non amisit. Etsi enim uouerit Deo uirginitatem, credibile est eum sub conditione uouisse, scilicet nisi Deus aliter ei inspirasset, sicut et beata Virgo que munus uirginitatis prima obtulit Deo sub conditione creditur obtulisse, scilicet nisi Spiritus sanctus ei aliter reuelaret. Tradunt quidam quia nuptie ille quibus Dominus interfuit quando aquam in uinum conuertit fuerunt Iohannis et ab eis Dominus eum reuocauit. Quod licet autenticum non sit, satis esse potuit.”

~~114~~

otherwise. Finally, Comestor alludes to an opinion held by certain interpreters that the wedding at Cana was in fact that of John the evangelist, and that Christ called him thence to the apostolic life. The discussion concludes with Comestor’s laconic response to this account: “Quod licet autenticum non sit, satis esse potuit.”149 Later in the same lecture, while scrutinising the claim that the circulation of dust and sand in St. John’s tomb is caused by the evangelist’s breathing, Comestor repeats this phrase to the opposite effect: “Sed non est satis authenticum.”150 Equally admonishing his students to reserve their assent for authoritative historical sources while warning them from narrow-mindedly dismissing plausible accounts, Comestor trains them to think like historians. From the above examples, it will be clear that Comestor applies the methods of philological and historical analysis – properly constituting historia – to his teaching of sacra pagina. Because the Incarnate Word elected to manifest himself within time and place, theology cannot be conducted in abstraction from the history in which it is rooted. For indeed, as Comestor avers elsewhere, “nec omnia leguntur in euangelio.”151 Accordingly, in his classroom teaching, Comestor sought to demonstrate that salvation history admits of critical analysis according to the historical method. Indeed, it is from the master’s observance of this exegetical principle that the Glosae super euangelia glosata draw much of their vitality and original force within the landscape of twelfth-century theology.

Resting upon this literal-historical foundation is Comestor’s treatment of mysterium, manifested throughout the Glosae in the master’s study of the various figurative senses of Scripture and the theological order of the Gospel. Typically, Comestor introduces allegory, typology, and anagogy in the course of reordering “the undifferentiated masses of literal and figurative glosses,”152 and only seldom does he propose a mystical interpretation that has not been drawn from the Gloss.153 Due to

149 ibid., VI, 14: “This account, although it is not authentic, is at least somewhat plausible.” 150 ibid., XI, 2: “But this is not a sufficiently authentic account.” 151 PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum (TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, 1024, fol. 145ra): “Not everything is read in the Gospel.” Below, we will examine some of the sources to which Comestor took recourse to supplement the historical dimension of the Gospels. Cf. Cap. III. 3, “The Sources of Comestor’s Glosae.” 152 CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 88. 153 One striking example of Comestor’s autonomous introduction of figurative interpretation appears in his lecture on the ‘Monarchian’ prologue. Commenting on the section of the prologue treating the wedding at Cana, Comestor first proposes the literal-historical interpretation (Hoc ad litteram, ut facias historiam significantem), but goes on to provide an additional allegorical reading (Vel ita, ut totum facias allegoriam hoc modo). Since this preface circulated in contemporary copies of the John Gloss without its own set of glosses, Comestor’s allegorical reading was not prompted by the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ See: GLOSAE, VIII, 18 - IX, 2.

~~115~~

the nature of the opening of John’s Gospel, in which the letter itself treats directly of the divine mysteries (i.e. the eternal generation of the Word), it is difficult to discern in the first chapter of the Glosae how mystical interpretation might feature into Comestor’s teaching more generally. However, beginning with his glosses on Christ’s first recorded words in the Gospel (Jn. 1, 38), one is able to perceive the importance that Comestor places upon the spiritual senses and how he relates these to the literal foundation of biblical interpretation. For example, Comestor expounds the question posed by the apostles to Christ in this verse with an interplay between the literal and mystical senses:

RABI … VBI HABITAS? Postea sume uerbum euangeliste: QVOD DICITVR INTERPRETATVM MAGISTER. Hoc apposuit Iohannes qui Grece scripsit. Glosa: NOLVNT EO. Etsi ad litteram de hospiciolo eius querant, potest tamen mystice intelligi, acsi dicant: ‘Erudi nos in quibus habitas per gratiam ut nos eis conformemus.’ Vel mystice possunt dicere: ‘Nos uidemus ubi manes temporaliter secundum hominem, sed ostende nobis eternam tuam mansionem,’ id est quomodo manes eternaliter apud Patrem. Glosa: MYSTICE.154

In this passage, Comestor’s exposition begins with the literal force of the words: first, he provides a philological explanation for John’s translation of Rabi, then goes on to reinforce the plain literal sense of the lemma with recourse to a gloss (NOLVNT EO), which explains what the apostles sought from Christ and why. Having established the foundation of the letter, Comestor then asserts that the apostles’ question may be understood mystically. To this end, Comestor proposes two discrete mystical interpretations (one moral and the other allegorical) that he has developed from a marginal gloss, cited at the end of the passage (MYSTICE). From this example, one may abstract a couple of general principles that are consistently observed throughout Comestor’s Gospel lectures.155 First,

154 GLOSAE, LVI, 8-13: “RABBI … WHERE DO YOU DWELL? Afterwards, consider the evangelist’s explanation: WHICH BEING INTERPRETED IS CALLED MASTER. John has added this because he was writing in Greek. The gloss reads: THEY DID NOT WISH [TO USE] HIM. Even if they literally sought his hospitality, this [passage] may nevertheless be understood mystically, as if they said: ‘Teach us in what lodgings you dwell by grace, that we may conform ourselves to them.’ Or mystically they could be saying: ‘We see where you dwell temporally according to your human nature, but reveal to us your eternal mansion,’ that is, how you dwell eternally with the Father. Read the gloss: MYSTICALLY.” 155 Although a broader examination of the littera-mysterium relation in Comestor’s Gospel lectures exceeds the scope of the present thesis, Mark Clark has discussed the interplay between literal and figurative exposition in Comestor’s biblical teaching with particular emphasis on the Glosae super Lucam glosatum. See again: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, “History and Mystery,” 71-83. In a forthcoming study, Alexander Andrée similarly notes that Comestor makes frequent reference to the spiritual senses (under the terms “mysterium” and “mystice”) in all of his lecture courses, although he tends to avoid “greater contact with the allegorical or tropological levels of interpretation”; as Andrée observes, the master’s principal concern is to give his students a thorough command of

~~116~~

Peter rarely exerted his uncommonly active imagination at the expense of the sacred page; adhering closely to the Gloss, Comestor would not venture any spiritual interpretations of the text that were not founded in the exegetical tradition. Secondly, Comestor always presented the mystical senses of Scripture upon the literal foundation of the text and its historical context; necessarily building upon the ueritas historiae, mysterium represented a higher level of understanding which could not be approached without a mastery of the lower. Although introducing his students to the tradition of figurative exegesis held an important place in Comestor’s biblical programme, the master was careful to observe an order of interpretation that placed logical priority upon the letter.

The last of the four principal interests animating Peter Comestor’s biblical teaching, situated alongside the figurative senses within the mystical dimension of the sacred page (mysterium), is theological investigation. It will be clearly seen in the Glosae that Comestor does not hesitate to discuss theological issues of the highest importance when they correspond to the biblical text and its apparatus of glosses. The series of lectures on the ‘first chapter’ of the Gospel (Jn. 1, 1-5), for example, often reads like a ‘systematic’ treatise of theology: Comestor explicates John’s theological language, delineates the internal relations of the Trinity, and distinguishes the ontological categories of created beings.156 Nevertheless, Comestor’s theological investigation is not confined to the sublime prologue to John’s Gospel. Throughout his lectures, Comestor routinely introduces theological topics both in a passing fashion, in order to familiarise his students with common doctrine, and as the basis for more extended discussions. Of the former, we might select an example from Comestor’s gloss on the lemma “Et habitauit in nobis,” where the master describes the mode of Christ’s habitation among men in these terms: “id est naturam humanam quasi habitum quendam assumens. Vt mortalium oculis congruentius appareret, factus est quasi unus ex nobis. Et adhuc amplius potes notare in uerbo ‘habitus,’ scilicet quod naturam humanam assumpsit inseparabiliter. Habitus enim est qualitas difficile mobilis.”157 Here making a verbatim reference to the Lombard’s

the literal-historical foundation of Scripture. See: ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor and the Tools for Biblical Interpretation: Grammar, Rhetoric, Criticism.” 156 GLOSAE, XVI - XXVIII. 157 ibid., XXXIV, 8-9: “That is putting on human nature as if it were a kind of habit. In order that he might appear more suitably to the eyes of mortal men, Christ was made like one of us. And yet you can distinguish still more in the word ‘habit,’ namely that he took on human nature inseparably. For a habit is a quality that is difficult to change.”

~~117~~

Sentences which he will revisit later in the lecture course,158 Comestor tentatively proposes the habitus theory of Christ’s human nature which was soon to become so controversial.159 Additionally, Comestor expounds upon this theory with the logical terminology of Peter Abelard, describing Christ’s “inseparable” assumption of human nature,160 and providing the Aristotelian definition of habitus as popularised by Abelard.161 Similarly, the most profound thematic discussions that occur within the Glosae are concentrated upon theological topics, and occasionally those which were the source of active dispute in the last third of the twelfth century: e.g. the nature of evil in the order of God’s creation,162 the apprehension of God’s existence by the light of natural reason,163 and the nature of the sacramental power to baptize that Christ conferred upon his apostles.164 Indeed, the reportations of Peter Comestor’s classroom lectures bear witness to a master actively involved in the theological controversies of his time, and one who was concerned to train his students in the critical methods necessary to engage in theological reasoning. For Comestor, however, this teaching programme always begins with the letter of the sacred page: “theology arises from the exegesis of the Bible, and [Comestor’s] theological enterprise is firmly rooted at its beginning in sacred scripture.”165 For this reason, Alexander Andrée and Mark Clark have both adduced Comestor’s

158 Cf. Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. III, d. VI, cap. IV, n. I: “…sed illis duobus uelut indumento Verbum Dei uestiretur ut mortalium oculis congruenter appareret.” For a discussion of the subsequent passage in which Comestor refers to his master’s presentation of the habitus theory, see below: Cap. III. 3, “The Sources of the Glosae.” 159 Significantly, the habitus theory is thought to be that which Peter Lombard himself favoured, however tentatively. This may be inferred from a treatise written by one of the Lombard’s less devoted students, John of Cornwall’s Eulogium ad Alexandrum Papam tertium, which attributed the theory to Lombard as a personal opinion and urged the pope to have it condemned at the Third Latern Council (1179). See: Nikolaus M. HÄRING, ed., “The Eulogium ad Alexandrum Papam tertium of John of Cornwall,” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951), 253-300. For a more general survey of the controversy in the latter half of the twelfth century surrounding the three theories of the hypostatic union proposed in Book Three of the Sentences, see e.g.: Marcia COLISH, “Christological Nihilianism in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century,” RTAM 63 (1996), 146-55, and EAD., Peter Lombard, 1: 222-3, 428-30. 160 Cf. Peter ABELARD, Sic et Non (PL 178, col. 1466A), cap. LXXXI: “Sed Christus animam inseparabiliter habuit… Ideo nusquam scriptum est quod Deus Pater maior sit Spiritu sancto, quia non sic est assumpta creatura … sicut assumptus est filius hominis.” 161 Cf. e.g.: IDEM, Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum et Christianum (PL 178, 1651C): “Est igitur habitus qualitas rei non naturaliter insita, sed studio ac deliberatione conquisita et difficile mobilis.” 162 GLOSAE, XXIII, 16 - XXIV, 8. 163 ibid., XXVI, 9 - XXVII, 8. 164 ibid., XLVIII, 15 - L, 15. 165 ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 229.

~~118~~

~~Glosae super euangelia glosata as evidence that scholars must abandon Grabmann’s infelicitous distinction between ‘speculative’ theology and biblical studies in the twelfth century.166~~

~~III. 3 THE SOURCES OF THE GLOSAE~~

Serving as the foundation for all of Peter Comestor’s exposition of the sacred page is the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ As we have seen, Comestor uses the John Gloss as a theological textbook, adducing its marginal and interlinear glosses (at times under the name of their original patristic authors) as the basis for his classroom discussion. Indeed, Comestor interprets and lectures on the John Gloss as much he does on the Gospel. For this reason, the Gloss is properly understood as the subject matter of Comestor’s Glosae rather than as one of their sources. At times, however, Comestor makes reference to glosses from other books of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ (particularly the other glossed Gospels), and in these instances the Gloss serves as a source for Peter’s lectures. Despite the fact that the biblical Gloss furnishes the master with an array of auctoritates and ‘authentic’ interpretations, Peter Comestor takes recourse to an impressive variety of sources in the course of his teaching. Most frequently, Comestor uses additional sources to interpret the contents of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in relation to the biblical text, or to develop upon a thematic discussion introduced during his reading of the John Gloss. According to contemporary practice, Comestor was none too conscientious to acknowledge his sources, and only very rarely are non-patristic authors cited by name. Nevertheless, Comestor was evidently well-acquainted with ongoing theological disputes and the opinions of contemporary interpreters, to whom he often alludes as quidam or alii. At the present stage of research, however, I have been unable to decipher every such reference. Besides the fact that many of the twelfth-century writers with whom Comestor was familiar remain to be edited, the master often seems to be repeating oral teaching.

In general, Comestor’s introduction of sources is a haphazard business. One is constantly reminded that the Glosae represent a course of orally delivered lectures, and the master’s use of sources is consistent with his scholastic setting. Although it is clear that Comestor prepared for his lectures and carefully reviewed select passages that would feature into each lesson, his breadth of learning often expressed itself with a certain degree of spontaneity. Regularly, Comestor appears to cite his sources

166 See again: Alexander ANDRÉE, “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’” 204-32; Mark CLARK, “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris,” 171-274; and ANDRÉE and CLARK, The School of Paris.

~~119~~

from memory, often paraphrasing them more or less accurately and recalling only the general structure of their arguments. At times, one suspects that the master has forgotten where it is that he had read (or heard) a certain interpretation. Such, for instance, is the case when Comestor informs his students: “Hec autem expositio … hic non habeatur in glosa; alibi tamen habetur in quadam omelia.”167 (Here, two sibling witnesses helpfully suggest “Gregorii.”) Such suspicions are not at all alleviated by the fact that Comestor twice mistakes the minor prophet whose verses he is reciting.168 Despite the tacit and occasionally inaccurate use of sources that is characteristic of the classroom setting, it has been possible to identify a considerable number of patristic and ‘modern’ authors behind Comestor’s Glosae. With references to these two categories in turn, we may now consider the importance of Comestor’s sources within his programme of biblical teaching.

~~1. The Fathers and Doctors~~

Only a sparse patrimony of Johannine exegesis came to the twelfth-century schoolmen from the patristic age. Among the Latin Fathers, St. Augustine alone – “qui,” Comestor tells us, “precipue exposuit Iohannem”169 – devoted a commentary, or rather a series of tractates, to the Gospel of John: In Iohannis euangelium Tractatus. Consequently, at the foundation of all medieval Johannine exegesis stands Augustine’s 124 Tractatus, which notably served as the ultimate source for the greater part of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John.170 In several instances, Comestor accesses the Tractatus independently of the Gloss. Additionally, Peter drew more widely from St. Augustine’s writings throughout the Glosae, both in the portion edited here and the subsequent chapters. Of the few books that are specified by name in the course of the Glosae, Comestor refers to Augustine’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus in the Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri as well as the De consensu euangelistarum.171 Similarly, many of Comestor’s unacknowledged expositions are traceable to a wide

167 GLOSAE, XXII, 15-6: “But this interpretation… does not here appear in the gloss; nevertheless, it appears elsewhere in a certain homily.” 168 ibid., XLII, 2; LXI, 4-5. 169 ibid., PROTH. 2, V, 1. 170 Cf. ANDRÉE, Glosae, XXXIV-XXXVI. 171 Of these, only Augustine’s commentary on Exodus is named in the portion of text edited here: “ut dicit Augustinus super Exodum…” (XLVI, 16). Glossing John 8, 38, Comestor alludes to Augustine on Genesis: “Augustinus super Genesim nec contradicit nec asserit, dicens non fuisse parue auctoritatis qui hoc dixerunt” (T, 245vb). Finally, on Jn. 18, 21, the master reports an opinion from the De Consensu euangelistarum: “Quod autem Augustinus, et hic in libro de concordia euangelistarum, dicit…” (T, 270ra).

~~120~~

variety of Augustinian texts: De ciuitate Dei, De Trinitate, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Enchiridion, Retractationes, and Sermones, in addition to the pseudo-Augustinian Contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos Sermo de Symbolo. Judging by the abstract manner in which Comestor refers to some of the latter works, however, it is likely that he had access to various excerpts through intermediary sources (perhaps Carolingian florilegia), which have in any case been impossible to identify.

Also significant for Comestor’s Johannine teaching are patristic writings on the other Gospels, particularly St. Ambrose’s Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam. Ambrose is named on many occasions throughout the Glosae, and it appears that Comestor had first-hand knowledge of the Father’s writings. In his Glosae super Lucam glosatum, Comestor exhibits an extensive knowledge of this commentary, in addition to two prominent collections of homilies on the four Gospels: St. Gregory’s Homiliae in euangelia and Bede’s Homiliarum euangelii libri.172 These two sources likewise feature into Comestor’s John glosses, although not as frequently and they are never directly acknowledged in the portion of the text edited here.173 Additionally, Comestor alludes to “Beda super Lucam” (i.e. In Lucae euangelium expositio) in a subsequent chapter of the Glosae,174 a source with which the master appears to have some familiarity in the text edited here. The only remaining patristic writers to whom Comestor refers by name, excepting attributions from the Gloss, are John Damascene, John Chrysostom, and Hilary of Poitiers.175 Comestor’s reference to the latter author

172 I am grateful to my colleague Simon Whidbee for sharing these findings with me, which will be presented in the introduction to the forthcoming edition of the prothemata and first chapter of Comestor’s Glosae super Lucam glosatum that he is preparing for his doctoral dissertation. 173 The closest that Comestor gets to acknowledging one of these sources is his allusion to “quadam omelia

(Gregorii add. N O),” although I have been able to discover no source corresponding to Comestor’s reference. Cf. GLOSAE, XXII, 16. 174 T, 270ra. 175 For Comestor’s single allusion to John Damascene, see: GLOSAE, XXVI, 4-5: “Propter huiusmodi molestias obiectionum coacti sunt Ambrosius et Iohannes Damascenus ita distinguere: et sine ipso factum est nichil quod factum est.” Here, however, Comestor appears to have muddled his reference in the heat of the classroom. The distinction that Comestor here attributes to John Damascene was, in fact, drawn by John Chrysostom and subsequently reported by St. Ambrose. Comestor (or one of his students) more accurately traces the genesis of this sentence in an accretion. Cf. APPENDIX I, 10: “Ambrosius dicit in epistula ad Gratianum quod Iohannes Crisostomus ita distinxit: Sine ipso factum est nichil quod factum est in ipso. Non quod aliam distinctionem improbet, sed ut ab hereticis se expediret.” Curiously, St. Ambrose does not attribute this reading to John Chrysostom by name, but rather to “plerique docti et fideles” (De fide libri V ad Gratianum, lib. III, cap. VI, n. 41-3) and elsewhere to “Alexandrini et Egyptii” (Enarrationes in Psalmos, 36, n. 1). Accordingly, it is unclear how Comestor knew to associate this interpretation with one of the Greek Fathers – whether John Damascene (incorrectly) or John Chrysostom –, since the Latin Fathers do not appear to have cited these authors by name within their respective interpretations of Jn. 1, 4. Of course, Burgundio of Pisa’s 1173 Latin translation of Chrysostom’s Homiliae in Iohannem was absent from the twelfth-century compilations of sentences from which Comestor habitually drew (e.g. Lombard’s Libri Sententiarum

~~121~~

while he is glossing Jn. 10, 15 is one of particular importance, as Comestor explictly reports Hilary’s opinion through the Lombard’s Sentences: “Vide quia simile uerbum habes in Sententiis, scilicet Filius agit per se non a se, et est uerbum Hilarii.”176 In subsequent chapters of the Glosae, Comestor explicitly refers to several other ancient authors,177 but in the portion of text edited here only the poets Sedulius and Juvencus are named (being cited together through the twelfth-century commentator Zachary of Besançon, discussed below). Similarly, Peter refers on a couple of occasions to the Latin translations of Origen, which he appears to have drawn from the Lombard’s Sentences and the Gloss.178 Otherwise, Comestor introduces etymologies and historical precisions that

and Abelard’s Sic et Non). Perhaps, then, the accretion correctly attributing the opinion recorded by St. Ambrose to John Chrysostom was added some time after Burgundio’s translation was made available to Comestor’s milieu. 176 T, 249va: “Note that you have a similar opinion [recorded] in The Sentences, namely that the Son works through Himself but not from Himself, and this is the opinion of Hilary.” It is here worth transcribing the passage in full: “Glosa: FILIVS PER SE AGNOVIT PATREM. Vide quia simile uerbum habes in Sententiis, scilicet Filius agit per se non a se, et est uerbum Hilarii. Et magis expressum est uerbum quod hic [sc. in glosa] ponitur, scilicet Filius per se agnoscit Patrem, quia hoc uerbum ‘agit’ potest referri ad effectus exteriores in creaturis, sed hoc uerbum ‘agnoscit’ non potest referri nisi ad essentiam diuinam, quia cognitio Dei. Deus [sic]. Distingue /249vb/ ergo quod dicitur: Filius per se agnoscit Patrem, quia si se referatur ad personam falsum est, si ad essentiam uerum est. NISI PATER. Supple ‘et cui Pater uoluerit reuelare, quia hoc est uicissitudo noticie inter me et Patrem, ut nemo agnoscat Patrem nisi per me.’” For the corresponding reference in the Sentences, see: Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. I, d. XXXII, cap. III, n. III: “Alii uero simpliciter et absque determinatione concedunt huiusmodi locutiones: Filius est sapiens per se, sed non a se uel de se, et Filius est Deus per se et est per se, sed non a se uel de se. Hoc confirmantes uerbis Hilarii, qui Filium non a se, sed per se agere, in libro IX De trinititate ait: Naturae, inquit, cui contradicis, haeretice, haec unitas est, ut ita per se agat Filius ne a se agat, et ita non a se agat ut per se agat. Intellige Filium agentem, et per eum Patrem agentem. Non a se agit, cum Pater in eo manere monstratur. Per se agit, cum secundum natiuitatem Filii agit ipse quae placita sunt. Infirmus sit non a se agendo, nisi adeo ipse agit; non sit uero in unitate naturae, si quae agit et in quibus placet non per se agit.” 177 Cf. GLOSAE 2, 1 (T, 226rb): “De serie autem historie duplex opinio est, et utraque catholicorum doctorum – non dico magistrorum, sed expositorum. Quidam catholici doctores, ut Amonius Alexandrinus, Eusebius Caesariensis, Theophilus, qui septimus a Petro sedit Antiochie, dicunt Dominum post baptismum et ieiunium deserti aperte predicasse, discipulos congregasse et sermonem in monte fecisse”; IBID 2, 1 (T, 226ra): “Vnde Maximus episcopus in sermone qui sic incipit, Cum plura uobis et cetera, sic ait: sic posteritati sue fidelis mandauit antiquitas…”; IBID 2, 13 (T, 226va): “Hic insurgit Heliadius dogmatizans Ioseph genuisse filios de beata Virgine post Christum… Et hic insurgunt geneatici qui euentus rerum cuidam fatali necessitati astringunt”; IBID 3, 29 (T, 230vb, glosa intrinseca): “Ex hoc errauit Leo Papa dicens quandam particulam in carne Ade seruatam incorruptam et talem in posteriis transfusam, et sic in beatam Virginem Mariam et ex illa formatum corpus Christi”; IBID 6, 15 (T, 238rb): “Vnde habemus in poeta [sc. Lucanus, De Bello ciuili, lib. I, 165] quia paupertas est fecunda uirorum”; IBID, 9, 7: “Et eleganter per aquas Syloe doctrina Christi intelligitur, quia aque Syloe ad litteram placide fluunt et cum silentio; torrens Cedron cum impetu, quia in torrente Tulliani et Aristotilici eloquii maximus est strepitus. Ab eloquio sacre pagine omnis debet abesse tumultus”; IBID 14, 3 (T, 259rb): “Scientibus autem loquitur ut quod sciunt ad memoriam reducat. Et cum primo loquatur scientibus, secundo nescientibus. Tamen eisdem loquitur secundum regulam Tichonii”; IBID 19, 39 (272rb): “Que consuetudo erat Iudeorum corpora mortuorum aromatibus condire et cum magnis sumptibus ea sepelire. Nam etiam, ut tradit Iosephus, propter expensas sepulture multi Iudeorum leguntur depauperati esse.” 178 Cf. GLOSAE, VI, 7-8; XXIV, 2-4.

~~122~~

are traceable to the works of St. Jerome and Isidore of Seville, both of whom he occasionally names in the text edited here as well as in subsequent chapters of the Glosae. Although it is again unclear whether the master consulted these sources directly on every occasion, Comestor makes direct reference to Jerome’s Gospel commentaries,179 suggesting his continual recourse at least to these works. Brief mention should also be made of Comestor’s occasional references to Plato and the physici, which are traceable to Calcidius’ translation of the Timaeus and are suggestive of Comestor’s familiarity with contemporary commentators upon this dialogue.180

Having a sense of the breadth of the ancient authors to whose writings Comestor has recourse, both directly and indirectly, we must now consider how the master uses these sources in the course of his biblical teaching. Most often, Comestor introduces the writings of the Fathers to construct an argument, to propose an authoritative interpretation, or to resolve an objection. For instance, after alluding to an heretical interpretation of the verse “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt” (Jn. 1, 3) that held that the Holy Spirit was created, Comestor adds: “Propter huiusmodi molestias obiectionum coacti sunt Ambrosius et Iohannes Damascenus ita distinguere: ET SINE IPSO FACTVM EST NICHIL QVOD FACTVM EST, et ita nulla est obiectio de Spiritu sancto, quia factus non est.”181 Similarly, Comestor makes frequent use of patristic writings to clarify the historical circumstances of the Gospel text and its glosses. To this end, Comestor refers to Augustine’s discussion of St. John’s tomb,182 reports the sacrilegious assertion of Nestorius through Bede,183 and describes primitive heresies through Jerome.184 In like manner, Comestor introduces patristic sources – principally Isidore and St. Jerome

179 e.g. GLOSAE 18, 21 (T, 270ra): “De trina Petri negatione dissentire uidentur expositores, quia Beda super Lucam et Ieronimus super Matheum plane dicunt totam trinam negationem factam esse in atrio Cayphe”; IBID 19, 14 (T, 271rb): “Ieronimo non est uisum quod intra spacium unius hore tot et tanta potuerint impleri… Ideoque Ieronimus plane super Marcum et determinat istum…” 180 See e.g. GLOSAE XXV, 6-7 and XXVII, 3-4. 181 GLOSAE, XXVI, 6-8: “On account of the vexation of these objections, Ambrose and John Damascene were compelled to distinguish the passage thus: AND WITHOUT HIM WAS MADE NOTHING THAT WAS MADE, and thus no objection about the Holy Spirit remains, because he was not made.” Comestor initially glosses the lemma by construing it thus: “Quod factum est in ipso uita erat.” After raising the objection posed by certain heretics asserting that the Holy Spirit was a creature, Comestor introduces the Fathers’ interpretation of the lemma according to an alternate grammatical construction. 182 ibid., XI, 1-2. 183 ibid., XX, 16. 184 ibid., XXV, 2-6.

~~123~~

– for philological purposes: to provide the etymologies of names,185 to explicate Greek and Hebrew words,186 and to discuss ancient versions of the Scripture (e.g. “Hebraica ueritas”).187 In all of these instances, because Comestor is using the Fathers to define historical circumstances rather than authoritative teaching (sententiae), he does not consider it necessary to acknowledge his sources.

While the various types of reference to patristic authors described above are all positive, Comestor sometimes introduces his sources to a dialectical end. Indeed, the master is careful to impress upon his students the multiplicity of interpretations of which the sacred page admits, which one routinely encounters in Comestor’s introduction of the various senses according to which the same passage may be understood (most often with aliter or uel ita). Accordingly, Peter does not hesitate to introduce authorities standing in opposition to one another. In his prefatory material, for instance, while discussing the traditional interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision according to which John is prefigured by the eagle, Comestor sees fit to inform his students of a contradictory interpretation proposed by two ancient poets: “Et intellige … quia Iuuencus et Sedulius uoluerunt Marcum prefiguratum esse per aquilam, Iohannem per leonem. Vnde Iuuencus: Marcus amat terras inter celumque uolare / Iohannes fremit ore leo similis rugienti.”188 In like manner, while he is glossing the lemma “Et ego nesciebam eum” (Jn. 1, 31), Comestor devotes a long exposition to the opposing interpretations of this verse proposed by Jerome and Augustine.189 Closely analysing each of the Father’s opinions in turn, Comestor determines that St. Augustine’s is the more plausible. In one of the accretions attached to this passage, Comestor states: “Dissentiunt Ieronimus et Augustinus. Etsi in talibus dissentiant, non est inconueniens.”190 Here, Comestor does not dismiss or diminish the nature of the dispute between the two Latin fathers, but insists that disagreements over such prudential matters (talibus) are no cause for scandal, before he goes on to resolve the conflict by assessing the merits of each position. In subsequent chapters of the Glosae, Comestor formulates this

185 See e.g. ibid., LXII, 5 - LXIII, 2. 186 See e.g. ibid., XLVI, 6. 187 See e.g. ibid., LXII, 1-4. 188 ibid., VII, 6-9: “And see … that Juvencus and Sedulius would have it that Mark was prefigured through an eagle and John through a lion. Whence Juvencus writes: Mark exsults to soar between the heavens and the earth; / John thunders from his mouth like unto a bellowing lion.” 189 ibid., XLVIII, 15 - L, 7. 190 APPENDIX II, 13: “Jerome and Augustine here disagree. But yet it is not unfitting even if they should disagree on such matters.”

~~124~~

principle governing the dissent between authorities still more explicitly. For instance, within his discussion of Peter’s threefold denial of Christ (Jn. 18, 21), Comestor explains that Bede, Jerome, and Augustine proposed conflicting interpretations about the historical circumstances of this passage, yet he assures his students: “Etsi, inquit, in historia dissentiant uel ubi non periclitatur fides, non est inconueniens. Et in plerisque dissenserunt, quia non semper tangebat Spiritus sanctus corda eorum sicut nec prophetarum.”191 Comestor then goes on to analyse each interpretation at length against the various Gospel accounts, and shows that the authorities’ opinions can be reconciled at a

~~basic level (Possunt tamen aliquomodo concordari ). Indeed, for the twelfth-century master, there are few things more generative of teaching opportunities than discord.~~

~~2. The ‘Modern’ Masters~~

Still more central to Comestor’s lectures on the glossed Gospels, and yet far more difficult to detect than the Fathers, is the firmament of twelfth-century biblical teaching and the constellation of ‘modern’ masters who populate it. Reading the Glosae, one frequently senses the force of tradition or communis opinio within Comestor’s exposition, though the master identifies his contemporaries only very rarely. At times, the reader is able to glimpse the landscape of the Parisian schools behind the master’s lectures, as for instance when Comestor provides precise details about how other masters read and interpreted the Gloss: “Glosa: AVDIERANT. Quidam legunt eam superius, ubi interrogatus [Iohannes baptista] respondit se non esse aliquem horum trium, et utrobique competenter legitur.”192 Here, Comestor describes the custom observed by other lecturers of reading a particular marginal gloss (beginning “AVDIERANT”) in connection with a previous verse, and concedes that this practice is no less apt than his own.193 This digression is by no means an isolated incident. On several other

191 GLOSAE 18, 21 (T, 270ra): “Even if, the Master said, [these authorities] should dispute about matters of history or those in which the faith is not in question, it is not unfitting. Indeed, they did disagree about many such things because the Holy Spirit did not always touch their hearts, just as He did not always touch the hearts of the prophets.” 192 ibid., XLII, 5-6: “The gloss: THEY HAD HEARD. Certain masters read this gloss above, where, while he was being interrogated, [John the Baptist] responds that he is not any one of these three figures, and in either place the gloss is suitably read.” For a similar instance in a subsequent chapter of Glosae in which Comestor cites contemporary masters’ particular use of a marginal gloss, see: GLOSAE 5, 29 (T, 236ra): “SVPRA ANIMAM RATIONALEM QVE EST IMAGO DEI… Et uide quia quidam ponunt eam [glosam] supra super illum locum, QVI AVDIERINT VIVENT, et utrobique conuenienter legitur.” 193 It is noteworthy that the alternate reading of this marginal gloss in conjunction with the preceding lemma (Jn. 1, 21) mentioned by Comestor corresponds to a contemporary Parisian lecture course on John’s Gospel, to which I will refer by its incipit, viz. Huic euangelio, ad Io. 1, 21 (Z, 255va-b). Significantly, two further correspondences between Comestor’s quidam and the Huic euangelio occur within the portion of text edited here. The first occurs

~~125~~

occasions, we find Comestor referring to the tendency of other masters to read a gloss that he prefers to dismiss,194 their distinct practices in construing the syntax of particular clauses in the Gospel and its glosses,195 or their various approaches to introducing glosses in the course of their lecturing.196 On each of these occasions, Comestor refers to the masters as quidam or alii, although the same terms appear in a variety of other contexts.197 What is at once apparent from the references above is that Comestor’s lectures stood within a vast terrain of oral teaching, that Comestor was deeply familiar with this teaching and incorporated it into his own, and that the glossed Bible was at the heart of the Parisian classroom by the last third of the twelfth century. Unfortunately, as long as the vast deposit of reportations of twelfth-century Parisian lectures on the Bible remain unedited, one can do little better than speculate about the identity of Comestor’s quidam.198 Nevertheless, the ‘modern’ masters have left many more readily uncovered traces in the Glosae, to which we may now turn.

In the first chapter of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, Comestor explicitly identifies only two contemporary writers. To the first, Comestor simply refers as “magister” or “magister noster,” who is in every instance identifiable with Peter Lombard.199 As was discussed above, Comestor seems to have inherited his master’s glossed books, and the magisterial ingressus with which the Glosae commence appears to represent a vestige of the Lombard’s ‘glossed Bible.’ Although Comestor

within Comestor’s lecture on the ‘Monarchian’ prologue, when he discusses an alternate punctuation of the text proposed by certain masters: “Quidam enim hic distingunt OPVS INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI INCHOANS, et postea addunt: SOLVS VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM ESSE OSTENDIT” (GLOSAE VIII, 1-2). The anonymous master of the Huic euangelio reads the marginal gloss in this manner: “Sic construe, quasi Iohannes a Deo uirgo electus est, QVI, scilicet Iohannes, INCHOANS OPVS INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI, id est inchoans ab incorruptibili et inuariabili eternitate et deitate Verbi coeterni et consubstantiali Deo Patri dicens In principio erat Verbum, SOLVS TESTATVR VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM ESSE” (Z, 252ra). The second correspondence occurs within Comestor’s extended treatment of the power of baptism, which will be considered at length at the end of this chapter. See below, n. 232. Little coincidentally, the Huic euangelio circulated in several manuscripts together with Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. Cf. below: Cap. IV. 1, “Description of the Manuscripts,” n. 29. Further research will determine the extent to which Comestor was familiar with this anonymous master’s oral teaching. 194 APPENDIX I, 5. 195 See e.g.: PROTH. 3, VIII, 1-3; GLOSAE, LXIII, 9-12. 196 See: ibid., LIII, 2-6. 197 In particular, Comestor utters quidam with a certain curl of the lip when referring to the adherents of ancient heresies. See e.g.: XIX, 14; XXVII, 2; XL, 5; LIV, 7. 198 But see above, n. 193. 199 Comestor’s reference to “the Master’s” ingressus has already been considered. The two remaining references to Peter Lombard as magister (noster) in the first chapter of the Glosae will be taken up below.

~~126~~

expressly refers to Lombard’s oral teaching throughout his Glosae super euangelia glosata, it is impossible to calculate the degree to which Comestor’s lectures drew upon those of his master. Indeed, the Lombard’s ‘lost glosses’ (or lecture notes) may well have served as the basis for Comestor’s Glosae. While the influence that Peter Lombard exerted over his student must remain hidden to a large extent, definite traces of the Lombard’s writings routinely appear throughout the Glosae. Both the Libri Sententiarum and the Magna glosatura on the Psalms and Pauline Epistles were thoroughly studied (and, at least in the case of the former, taught) by our master, and Comestor refers to these works, especially the Sentences, more frequently than any other source. Beyond using the Lombard’s writings as a source of magisterial interpretation, Comestor also draws patristic citations from his master’s Libri Sententiarum. The second contemporary writer cited by name, “magister Gilebertus,” is identifiable with Gilbert of Poitiers, who, little coincidentally, is reputed to have written (or delivered) a continuous exposition on the Gospel of John.200 Although the opinion about baptism that Comestor ascribes to Gilbert is likely to have recurred in the latter’s glosses on John, Comestor’s reference may be identified with the Media Glosatura on the Pauline Epistles, as will be seen below.

Examining the Glosae more closely, one can only conclude that Peter Comestor’s familiarity with the writings and teaching of the twelfth-century masters was encyclopaedic. Although Comestor seldom quotes or expressly refers to contemporary sources, the Glosae resound with doctrines, interpretations, and terminology that is traceable to the modern masters, above all those of the milieu of the Paris schools. Even within the relatively short section of the John glosses edited here, Comestor repeatedly draws upon the teaching of his Parisian contemporaries. Apart from those already named, three masters feature prominently in the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum: Hugh of Saint- Victor, Peter Abelard, and John Beleth. In addition to informing Comestor’s programme of literal- historical exegesis, Hugh of Saint-Victor has left a definite textual impression upon the Glosae. In particular, Comestor would occasionally turn to the De sacramentis and Didascalicon for broader theological concepts and schemata.201 Similarly, like his master before him, Peter Comestor draws

200 See: E. RATHBONE, “Note super Iohannem secundum magistrum Gil[bertum],” RTAM 18 (1951), 205-10. Cf. Nicholas M. HÄRING, “Two Catalogues of Medieval Authors,” 210: “Gillebertus cognomento Porrata primum scolasticus Parisiensis … [e]xposuit continuatim Psalterium, epistolas Pauli et Euangelium Iohannis.” 201 For instance, while he discusses the various works or operations (opera) of the Word of God, Comestor draws the general outline of the discussion and certain terminology from the Didascalicon, while introducing developments to this scheme devised by subsequent scholastics (e.g. John Beleth and Robert of Melun). See: GLOSAE, XXII, 13-5:

~~127~~

upon the writings of Peter Abelard for logical terminology.202 Although, again like the Lombard, Comestor may also have had recourse to Abelard’s Sic et non as a source for patristic passages, no instances in the portion of the Glosae edited here have confirmed this to be the case. Finally, Comestor made special use of the teaching of the contemporary liturgist John Beleth, whose Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis served as the foundation for much of Comestor’s discussion of liturgical practices and biblical history more broadly. Significantly, an accretion appearing in the Glosae super Marcum glosatum suggests that Comestor was also familiar with Beleth’s oral teaching: “Et tamen tunc quando m(agister) hoc dixit, fuit in scholis quidam magister magni nominis nomine Iohannes Belent [sic ] qui asserebat se uidisse cathedram Marchi super quam scripsit euangelium latine.”203 The relation between these two masters is a notable one, not simply owing to the fact that Comestor displays an extensive familiarity with John Beleth’s Summa, but also because Beleth, according to the testimony of Stephen Langton, is the first master reported to have lectured on the Historia scholastica.204

Beyond these eminent schoolmen, Comestor appears to have known the works of many other theologians active during his time. For instance, although I have found only a couple of passages in the present edition reminiscent of this source, several scholars have demonstrated the importance of Geoffrey Babion’s Enarrationes in euangelium Matthaei in Peter Comestor’s Matthew glosses,205 and Comestor sometimes makes explicit references to the “glosis” or “glosatura magistri Galfridi Babiun” throughout his other lecture courses.206 Additionally, as will be shown below, Comestor was acquainted with the Sententiae of Robert of Melun and refers to this master under the title of

“… ‘omnia genera operum facta sunt per ipsum,’ id est opus creationis, opus formationis, opus propagationis quod dicitur opus nature, opus artificis.” Cf. HUGH OF SAINT-VICTOR, Didascalicon, lib. I, cap. X (PL 176, col. 747C-D): “Sunt etenim triplicia opera, id est, opus Dei [i.e. quod non erat creare], opus naturae, opus artificis imitantis naturam…” 202 On a number of occasions, Comestor uses technical terminology that is traceable to Peter Abelard. We have already considered Comestor’s definition of habitus that recurs throughout Abelard’s writings (see above, n. 161). A similar example is Comestor’s use of the term “signum uniuersalitatis” (XXII, 12), which again appears in Abelard’s treatises and which I could locate in no other twelfth-century writer. 203 PARIS, BnF lat. 645, 37va. Cf. Beryl SMALLEY, Gospels in the Schools, 74-5. 204 See: George LACOMBE, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I,” Archives d’histoire et littéraire du môyen age 5 (1930), 5-151, at 19-20; cf. CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 212-3. 205 Cf. Beryl SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 112-3; Emmanuel BAIN, “La travail du maître,” 96-7. 206 Cf. e.g. Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum (P, 3rb): “In glosis, inquid, magistri Gaufredi, que sollempnes sunt et autentice, inuenies totam genealogiam et allegorice et tropologice expositam”; Glosae super Marcum glosatum (P, 116rb): “In glosatura magistri Galfridi Babiun legitur quod fullo est pertica fullonis, sed non memini me alibi legisse.”

~~128~~

quidam.207 Likewise, Comestor’s reference to the verses of the poets Sedulius and Juvencus within the context of Ezekiel’s vision of the four animals indicates Comestor’s debt to the Unum ex quatuor of Zachary of Besançon.208 Other passages exhibit a certain resonance with various writings attributed to Alan of Lille, the glosses of William of Conches, the Johannine commentary of Rupert of Deutz, the questions of Odo of Ourscamp, and the teaching of other Parisian scholastics, although it is impossible at the present stage of research to determine the extent of Comestor’s familiarity with the writings and oral teaching of his contemporaries. Similarly, a large number of passages analogous to Comestor’s glosses may be located in Carolingian commentaries (e.g. the Expositiones in Matthaeum composed by Paschasius Radbertus and Rabanus Maurus),209 apocryphal writings (e.g. the Virtutes Iohannis of Pseudo-Abdias), and anonymous or misattributed sources (e.g. pseudo-Augustinian sermones), but Comestor’s first-hand knowledge of many of these texts cannot be confirmed until a more comprehensive source study of the Glosae in their entirety is undertaken.

As with the patristic authors, Comestor takes recourse to the modern masters for two principal reasons: to extract material for his own exposition, and to introduce his students to controversial subjects and disputed questions. In respect to the former, Comestor turns most frequently to magister noster, Peter Lombard, as a source of authentic interpretations. Comestor incorporates the Lombard’s teaching into his Glosae by summarising his master’s doctrine, paraphrasing from his various writings, or occasionally by reproducing a passage verbatim, as when Comestor describes the manner in which the Word of God took upon himself the vesture of human nature:

207 See below: Cap. III. 3. 3, “Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates.” 208 PROTH. 2, VII, 4-8; cf. ZACHARY OF BESANÇON, Unum ex Quatuor (PL 186, col. 14-15). Cf. SMALLEY, “Some Gospel Commentaries,” 177-8. Comestor’s familiarity with Zachary of Besançon’s writings can also be gleaned from various references in the Historia scholastica to “quidam enim scribentes unum ex quatuor” that correspond to Zachary’s treatise. See: James H. MOREY, “Peter Comestor, Biblical Paraphrase, and the Medieval Popular Bible,” Speculum, vol. 68, no. 1 (1993), 6-35, at 11. 209 Comestor’s find-hand knowledge of the latter commentator may be gleaned from one of his remarks in the prefatory material to his Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum (T, 2rb): “… quia hunc librum [i.e. Matthaeum] principaliter exponunt Ieronimus, Hilarius, Rabanus. Si inueniantur aliqua exposita ab Augustino uel Beda, omelie sunt, non continue expositiones.”

~~129~~

~~PETER LOMBARD: Libri Sententiarum~~

~~… sed illis duobus [sc. anima et carne] uelut indumento Verbum Dei uestiretur ut mortalium oculis congruenter appareret.210~~

~~PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum~~

~~… quia natura humana uelut quodam indumento indutum est Verbum Dei ut mortalium~~

~~211 oculis congruentius appareret.~~

Although, from elsewhere in his glossed Gospels, it is clear that Comestor read some of the other moderni rather more critically, our master seems to have placed a certain amount of credence in the teaching of a select few contemporary masters of the Paris schools. John Beleth, in particular, earned Comestor’s admiration as an historian of the liturgy, which is manifested by Comestor’s tendency to follow Beleth’s interpretation of liturgical rituals. A particularly striking example is found in the portion of the Glosae edited here:

~~JOHN BELETH: Summa de Ecclesiasticis Officiis~~

Nota quod in profestis diebus unus tantum cereus precedit diaconum, quando accedit ad legendum euangelium, per quod significatur primus aduentus Christi, qui humilis fuit et occultus. Preuenit enim unus tantum precursor, id est Iohannes Baptista, qui fuit lucerna Verbi. In festiuis uero diebus precedunt duo cerei, quia in secundo aduentu, qui sollempnis erit et manifestus, duo premittentur precones, Helyas et Enoch, uel ideo scilicet, quia Dominus binos et binos misit discipulos ante faciem suam ad predicandum.212

210 Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. III, d. VI, cap. IV, n. I: “But the Word of God was arrayed with those two [i.e. the human soul and flesh] as with a vestment, so that he might suitably appear to the eyes of mortal men.” 211 GLOSAE, XLIII, 12-3: “Because the word of God ways arrayed with human nature as if with a certain vestment, so that he might appear more suitably to the eyes of mortal men.” Cf. ibid., XXXIV, 8-9 (“ET HABITAVIT IN NOBIS, id est naturam humanam quasi habitum quendam assumens ut mortalium oculis congruentius appareret, factus est quasi unus ex nobis”), in which Comestor incorporates the same passage from the Sentences – evidently one of our master’s preferred turns of phrase. 212 John BELETH, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis (CCCM 41A, Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), cap. 39: “Note that on the vigil of feast days only one candle precedes the deacon when he processes to read the Gospel, through which is signified the first advent of Christ, who was humble and hidden. For only one precursor preceded [this], that is John the Baptist, who was the lamp of the Word. But on feast days two candles precede [the deacon], because in the second advent, which will be solemn and manifest, two heralds will be sent ahead, Elias and Enoch, or namely for this reason, because the Lord sent the disciples two by two before his own sight to preach.”

~~130~~

~~PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum~~

VT LVCERNE, … scilicet Iohannem qui fuit unica lucerna precedens Christum in primo aduentu. Helyas et Enoch erunt due lucerne precedentes Christum in secundo, quia precedent aduentum Iudicis. Ideo in ecclesia in profestis diebus defertur unicus cereus ante diaconum quando euangelium lecturus procedit ad pulpitum ad representandam unicam lucernam que in primo aduentu precessit Christum. Sed, quia in festiuis diebus agimus memoriam resurrectionis et ita secundi aduentus, ante diaconum deferuntur duo cerei ad significandum quod Helyas et Enoch quasi gemine lucerne Christum in secundo aduentu sunt precessuri. Alii uolunt per hoc quod deportantur duo cerei representari quod discipuli a Christo ante faciem suam missi sunt ad predicandum bini et bini.213

Evidently, Comestor’s attention here was turned to John Beleth’s Summa at the provocation of a minuscule interlinear gloss, “ut lucerna,” that likens John the Baptist to a lamp – the same Davidic analogy adopted by Beleth in the excerpt from his Summa presented above. In the passage from the Glosae, Comestor closely follows John Beleth’s interpretation of the liturgical imagery (viz. the bearing of one or two candles before the deacon during the Gospel procession at Mass) that he associated with the figuration of John the Baptist through a lamp, while adapting Beleth’s language for oral delivery and reordering his exposition according to contextual demands. Thus, Comestor recapitulates that the Baptist is signified by a lamp that precedes Christ in his first advent, like the single candle borne before the deacon on feast days, while Elijah and Enoch, as the precursors of Christ’s second coming, are signified by the two candles. While Beleth’s exposition concludes with an alternate interpretation that appears to be his own (“Vel ideo”), Comestor curiously ascribes this interpretation to other writers (“Alii uolunt”), suggesting that Comestor may have been independently familiar with Beleth’s sources. While many similar examples could here be adduced of Comestor’s constructive use of the ‘modern’ masters, it is now convenient to investigate Comestor’s dialectical approach to contemporary sources.

213 GLOSAE, XXXVII, 4-12: “AS OF A LAMP … namely John, who was the single lamp preceding Christ in the first advent. Elias and Enoch will be the two lamps preceding Christ in the second, because they will precede the advent of the Judge. Therefore, in the church on the vigil of feasts days a single candle is borne before the deacon when he processes to read the Gospel at the pulpit to represent the single lamp which preceded Christ in his first advent. But since on feast days we commemorate the resurrection and thus the second advent, two candles are borne before the deacon to signify that Elias and Enoch like twin lamps are to precede Christ in the second advent. Others would have it that by the two candles being carried represent that the disciples were sent by Christ before His own sight to preach two by two.”

~~131~~

Throughout the Glosae, Comestor introduces discordant interpretations of the Gospel for a number of reasons: to resolve apparent conflicts (most often between the sententiae of the Fathers), to expose errors proposed by other interpreters, and to draw attention to areas of dynamic and unresolved disputation surrounding the sacred page. According to the latter two uses, Comestor often refers to contemporary sources, although these are rarely named and not always identifiable. A more diverting example of the former may be drawn from Comestor’s discussion of the evangelist’s death, with a view to the Lord’s cryptic words about John remaining “I will have him remain until I come.” After discussing the absence of St. John’s remains, Comestor follows Peter Damian in weighing the possibility that the evangelist’s body, like that of our Lady, was taken up (“translatum esse”), but the master determines that this proposition should not be formally accepted (“nec diffiniendum”), and goes on to consider an alternate theory: “Tradunt quidam eum adhuc uiuere. Fit enim, ut aiunt, quedam scaturigo pulueris et harene in tumuluo eius de eius anelitu procedens.”214 Although Comestor is here relating an opinion discussed in St. Augustine’s Tractatus, the master presents this eccentric view as one still repeated by contemporaries (quidam). Nevertheless, none of Comestor’s auditors would be likely to insist that John was exhaling clouds of dust in his tomb following the devastating piece of understatement with which this discussion concludes: “Sed non est satis autenticum.”215

More often, Comestor presents a variety of contemporary interpretations as plausible alternatives to reading the same passage. For instance, while glossing the lemma “Tu uocaberis Cephas” (Jn. 1, 42), Comestor provides his students with three opinions about when in the Gospel Christ first imposed the name of Peter upon Simon:

TV VOCABERIS CEPHAS. Quidam uolunt nomen hic esse impositum. Alii in electione apostolorum ubi dicitur: Et imposuit Symoni nomen Petrus. Alii adhuc inferius ubi dictum est ei: Tu es Petrus. Et si dicas hic esse impositum, expones quod in electione apostolorum dictum est, Et imposuit, id est impositum confirmauit.216

214 GLOSAE, XI, 1-2: “Certain writers maintain that he [John] still lives. For, as they say, that a certain stirring up of dust and sand occurs in his tomb which proceeds from the exhalation of his breath.” 215 ibid., 2. 216 GLOSAE, LVIII, 6-10: “YOU WILL BE CALLED CEPHAS. Certain interpreters suppose that the name was imposed here; others that it was imposed at the election of the apostles, where it is said: And he imposed upon Simon the name Peter. Still others would have it later, where it was said to him: You are Peter. And if you should say that the name

~~132~~

In this passage, Comestor explains to his students that various commentators (quidam, alii) associate Christ’s initial imposition of Peter’s name with the different Gospel accounts: during the “first vocation” of the apostles (in the verse at hand, peculiar to John’s Gospel), during the election of the apostles (Mk. 3, 16), and later during the Lord’s public ministry, following Peter’s profession of faith (Mt. 16, 13). Comestor favours no one of these interpretations and presents them as equally defensible, while providing a grammatical explanation of the latter to preserve the Gospel’s chronology. In many such instances, Comestor prompts his students to decide between a number of credible interpretations, showing them how to present each to its best advantage. Like Peter Abelard or his own master Peter Lombard, Comestor understands the utility of disputation and uses it to train his students to apply reason to biblical interpretation. Although this method is not employed as easily in biblical lectures as in other disciplines of the theological science, Comestor’s application of dialectic is most readily observed when the master engages in contemporary theological debates.

~~3. Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates~~

In order to illustrate the significance of Comestor’s lectures within the landscape of twelfth-century theology, we will conclude this chapter with a close study of a passage in the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum that displays Comestor’s versatile use of sources and represents the master’s participation in contemporary debates of the highest importance. Within the portion of John glosses edited here, by far the most extended of Comestor’s thematic discussions is introduced by the verse “Et ego nesciebam eum” (Jn. 1, 33).217 By the mid-twelfth century, this verse had become a locus for theological disputation about the nature of Christ’s power to remit sins as exercised through the apostles in administering the sacrament of baptism. Abstruse as the relation between John the Baptist’s expression of nescience and sacramental theology might appear, St. Augustine’s Tractatus V serves as the origin of the debate subsequently reopened by the modern masters: “Quid non nouerat? Potestatem dominici baptismi in nullum hominem a Domino transituram, sed ministerium plane transiturum: potestatem a Domino in neminem, ministerium et in bonos et in malos.”218

had been imposed here, you must interpret what was said at the election of the apostles thus: And he imposed, that is he confirmed the name that was already imposed.” 217 The entire disquisition spans from XLVIII, 15 - L, 14. Comestor’s subsequent lemmatic exposition applies the findings of his thematic discussion to his reading of the following gloss. See: L, 15 - LI, 7. 218 AUGUSTINE, In Iohannis evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. D. Radbodus Willems (CCSL 36, Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), tract. 5, n. 11.

~~133~~

Although certain Carolingian commentators (e.g. Rabanus Maurus) and earlier masters (e.g. the brothers Anselm and Ralph of Laon) would pursue St. Augustine’s interpretation,219 it was not until the diffusion of the Libri Sententiarum that the nature of this “potestatem baptismi” would become a prominent question for twelfth-century theologians.220 With the immense popularity of his scholastic textbook, the Lombard’s extended treatment of this topic was developed by the following generation of commentators. Reviewing the history of this question, Artur Landgraf states:

Glossatores Sententiarum necnon celebres magistri ut Petrus Pictaviensis, Petrus Manducator, Udo hanc eandem doctrinam defendunt et ampliant; alii, ut Simon Tornacensis … necnon plures alii ad idem inclinant… Aliqui, inter quos doctores iuris canonici, praeeunte Gilberto Porretano, distinguunt inter potestatem auctoritatis, preminentie (excellentie, dignitatis) et ministerii.221

Being the earliest of the “glossatores” mentioned by Landgraf, and indeed the first known commentator on the Sentences, our master Comestor would play an important part in this theological debate. Significantly, it is not in his formal treatises on the sacraments that Comestor most profoundly develops his solution to this question,222 but within his biblical lectures.

In the course of his lecture on John 1, 33 (Et ego nesciebam eum), Comestor impresses upon his auditors the complexity and significance of the theological debate which arose from this verse. True to the master’s method, Comestor establishes his long exposition of this lemma upon the text of the Gloss. First, Comestor introduces a marginal gloss that relates St. Jerome’s solution to the question raised by the lemma: “Ieronimus ostendit Iohannem nescire per baptismum Christi mundum esse

219 Artur LANDGRAF, “Der frühscholastische Streit um die potestas, quam Christus potuit dare servis et non dedit,” Gregorianum, vol. 15, no. 4 (1934), 524-72, at 528-30. 220 Cf. Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, lib. IV, d. V, cap. II-III. 221 ibid., 524. 222 A more superficial treatment of the same question may be found in Comestor’s De sacramentis: “Habet tam bonus quam malus ministerium baptizandi, sed Christus sibi retinet potestatem baptismi. Ministerium dedit Christus seruis suis, sed potestatem sibi retinuit. Queritur que sit illa potestas. Dicunt quidam, potestas dimittendi peccata in baptismo. Sed hec est in Deo et Deus est. Quare nulli potuit eam dare, quia nulli potest dare ut sit quod ipse est. Alii dicunt quod potestas illa est potestas sanctificandi interius per inuisibilem gratiam que datur per Spiritum; uel potestas dandi gratiam sanctificantem. Unde et Dominus dicitur sanctificare et seruus dicitur sanctificare; sed Dominus inuisibili gratia, seruus uisibili sacramento… Visibilis tamen sactificatio non prodest absque inuisibili” (Peter COMESTOR, De Sacramentis, ed. Raymond M. Martin, 21*-22*). The distinction that Comestor here notes concerning the potestas sanctificandi, absent from his Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, is simply a paraphrase of Peter LOMBARD’s Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. IV, d. V, cap. III, n. 4.

~~134~~

redimendum.”223 Although he initially notes that St. Jerome’s interpretation “uidetur esse durum uerbum,” since it appears to conflict with John the Baptist’s previous profession (Ecce agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi), Comestor expounds the gloss at length to present the Father’s argument in its strongest form.224 Initially, Comestor concentrates on the phrase from Jerome’s gloss “baptismum Christi.” With recourse to philological arguments (viz. the etymology of the word ‘baptism’ and its extended signification) and a Gospel reference (Lk. 12, 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari), Comestor shows that Christ’s own baptism is properly understood as his passion. Nevertheless, this interpretation will not exculpate Jerome’s opinion: “Sed si ita dicatur, uidebitur Iohannes hesitasse in articulo fidei.”225 Consequently, Peter goes on to explicate St. Jerome’s sententia by placing emphasis upon another word: “sit pondus in hoc uerbo redimendum.”226 Because John that Baptist could have reasonably doubted (salua fide dubitare) whether Christ’s baptism would absolve sinners – not only of their guilt, which the Baptist evidently knew according to his profession, but also of their temporal punishment (this is Comestor’s gloss of redimendum) –, Jerome’s opinion may be maintained by this reading. All the same, an accretion to this passage wryly concludes: “Augustinus melius excusat Iohannem quam Ieronimum.”227 Significantly, three accretions occur during the course of Peter’s exposition of the Hieronymian gloss, demonstrating the pains that Comestor took (whether in another lecture or as a subsequent expansion upon his original lectio) to salvage the patristic interpretation.228

Comestor proceeds to introduce a second marginal gloss, this one containing a summary of St. Augustine’s interpretation of the lemma: “Augustinus dicit Iohannem ignorasse hoc tantum, utrum sibi retineat, scilicet uim baptismi, an alicui suorum tribuat.”229 The remainder of Comestor’s

223 Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ marg. ad Io. 1, 33 (cf. APPENDIX III): “Jerome shows that John did not know that the world was to be redeemed through Christ’s baptism.” 224 Comestor’s discussion of the Hieronymian gloss spans from GLOSAE, XLVIII, 15 - XLIX, 14. 225 GLOSAE, XLIX, 10: “But if it were said thus, then John will seem to have hesitated in an article of the faith.” 226 ibid., 11-2: “Let emphasis be placed on the word ‘to be redeemed.’” 227 APPENDIX I, 33: “Augustine better exculpates John than does Jerome.” 228 See: APPENDIX I, 32-3; APPENDIX II, 13. 229 Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ marg. ad Io. 1, 33 (cf. APPENDIX III): “Augustine says that John was ignorant only of this: whether [Christ] retained this for himself, namely the power of baptism, or whether he conferred it upon any of his servants.” This marginal gloss was drawn from an earlier section of St. Augustine’s same tract quoted above, namely: AUGUSTINE, Tractatus V, n. 7: “Potuit autem Dominus Iesus Christus, si uellet, dare potestatem alicui seruo suo… Et potuit hanc potestatem seruis dare, et noluit. Si enim daret hanc potestatem seruis, id est, ut ipsorum esset quod Domini erat, tot essent baptismi quot essent serui… Ergo ne tot baptismata dicerentur, quot

~~135~~

discussion revolves around this gloss, which leads the master to modify, however subtly, the term appearing in the Gloss (uim baptismi) according to the original language of Augustine’s tract: “potestatem baptismi.” First, following the Lombard’s exposition in the Sentences, Comestor summarises Augustine’s position and defines the crucial term: “Summa est quia uult Augustinus Iohannem ignorasse utrum Christus sibi retenturus esset uim baptismi, id est potestatem dimittendi peccata. Potuit enim potestatem baptismi dare alicui seruorum, sed noluit… Potestas enim baptismi siue potestas dimittendi peccata est potestas que Deus est.”230 With the same terms that he applied to Jerome’s interpretation, Comestor states that Augustine’s position “uidetur esse durum uerbum,” because it appears to suggest that Christ was able to confer upon men his own divine power. Nevertheless, Comestor indicates that this objection may be resolved in three ways (Hoc tripliciter soluitur) and goes on to consider each in turn.

The first interpretation that Comestor relates is one proposed by the most controversial author of the period: quidam. According to these commentators, Christ could have conferred upon his apostles the power to remit sins (i.e. potestas baptismi) by the invocation of their own names rather than that of the Trinity, but that He did not will this:

Quidam ita exponunt: Potuit Dominus potestatem baptismi alicui seruorum dare, id est potuit dare illi ut in inuocatione nominis eius fieret remissio peccatorum sicut modo fit in inuocatione trinitatis, ut sicut modo fit remissio peccatorum inuocato nomine Domini ita fieret inuocato nomine serui, ut diceretur ‘in nomine Petri baptizo te’ uel ‘in nomine Pauli,’ et eandem efficatiam haberet baptismus acsi diceretur: ‘Baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.’ Huiusmodi potestatem baptismi potuit, ut tradunt, dare alicui seruorum, sed noluit.231

essent serui qui baptizarent accepta potestate a Domino; sibi tenuit Dominus baptizandi potestatem, seruis ministerium dedit.” 230 GLOSAE, XLIX, 15-8: “The sum is that Augustine maintains that John did not know whether Christ would retain for himself the power of baptism, that is the power to forgive sins. For he could have given to one of his servants the power of baptism, but he chose not to… For the power of baptism or the power to forgive sins is the power which is God’s essence.” 231 GLOSAE, L, 2-7: “Certain interpreters expound it thus: God was able to confer the power of baptism to one of his servants, that is he was able to grant it to him such that, by the invocation of his name, the remission of sins would be effected, just us it happens now by the invocation of the Trinity; so that, just as now the remission of sins is effected by the invocation of the Lord’s name, so it would happen by the invocation of the servant’s name, such that if ‘I baptize you in the name of Peter’ or ‘in the name of Paul’ were said, the baptism would have the same efficacy as if ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ were said. He

~~136~~

In fact, the quidam to whom Comestor here refers are identifiable with Robert of Melun and his followers.232 In his Quaestiones de Epistolis Pauli, on the text I Cor. 1, 13 (“aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis?”), Robert of Melun cites the same sententia from St. Augustine’s fifth tractate – which also circulated in the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on 1 Corinthians –,233 and proposes the following solution:

Dicimus autem, quia potestas hec [sc. peccata remittere] quam sibi Deus retinuit est hec dignitas baptizandi que est in inuocatione nominis Christi uel Trinitatis, cum dicitur: In nomine Christi, uel Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti… Hanc autem dignitatem quam Christus Petro concedere posset, noluit… Nam, si in inuocatione nominis Petri conficeretur baptismus, ut sic diceretur: In nomine Petri, iam ei posset aliquis simplex salutem suam ascribere.234

Robert’s Quaestiones enjoyed some degree of popularity in the mid-twelfth century schools,235 and Landgraf was able to identify a considerable number of theologians contemporary with Comestor who repeated and developed upon Robert’s interpretation of the “potestas baptismi.”236 Evidently, Comestor was familiar with both Robert’s Quaestiones and the continued development of his

was able to give this sort of power of baptism to one of his servants, as these interpreters maintain, but he chose not to.” 232 Here, again, we can additionally trace Comestor’s use of quidam to the anonymous master of the Huic euangelio, who proposes the definition of the potestas baptizandi apparently originating with Robert of Melun, according to which this power is equated with the remission of sins by the invocation of the minister’s name: “ET EGO NESCIO. Quare quid tunc intellexerat Ioahnnes quod prius non intelligeret? Dicit Augustinus quod non intellexerat prius quod potestatem baptizandi sibi esset reseruaturus et nulli in baptismo serui quantum in baptismo Domini, sed noluit ne tot putarentur baptismi quot essent ministri, si diceretur baptismus Petri uel Pauli uel aliorum, et sic unitas ecclesie dissolueretur, et ne efficatia et uirtus baptismi pocius homini ascriberetur quam Deo. Sed que sit illa potestas quam seruis dare posset si uellet queritur? Numquid posse intingere in aqua? Est illa potestas quam dare noluit? Sed minister initingit in aqua. Quare hoc posse non est illa potestas? Si uero dicatur quod illa potestas remittendi peccata, hanc potuit dare si uellet seruis, ut sicut inuocatione nominis trinitatis, ita in inuocatione nominis Petri uel alterius serui peccata dimittantur in baptismo. Hanc potestatem Christus sibi retinuit, nec alicui seruorum dare uoluit propter supradictas causas…” (Z, 256vb-257ra). 233 Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ marg. ad I Cor. 1, 12, ‘Petrus dicitur in figura’: “Ministerium baptizandi dedit suis seruis Christus, potestatem autem retinuit sibi, quam si uellet poterat seruis suis dare, ut tanta uis esset in baptismo serui, quantam uim habet baptismus a Domino datus… [Christ gave to his servants the ministry of baptism, but he retained for himself the power, which, had he wished it, he was able to confer upon his servants, such that in the baptism of the servant there would be as great a power as that which baptism has being given by the Lord.]” 234 ROBERT OF MELUN, Quaestiones de Epistolis Pauli, I Cor. 1, 13: “But we say that this power [namely to remit sins] which the Lord retained for himself is the dignity of baptism which subsists in the invocation of the name of Christ or of the Trinity, as when it is said: In the name of Christ or of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… But though Christ was able to confer this dignity upon Peter, he chose not to… For if baptism were effected by the invocation of the name of Peter, as if it were said thus: In the name of Peter, then some simple-minded man would have been able to ascribe his salvation to the apostle” (in Œuvres de Robert de Melun, ed. MARTIN, 2: 176, 6-15). 235 See: Raymond MARTIN, ed., Œuvres de Robert de Melun, “Introduction,” 2: XLVI-LVIII. 236 See: LANDGRAF, “Der frühscholastische Streit um die potestas,” 545-51.

~~137~~

~~interpretation in the schools, according to which he saw fit to address this solution first.~~

The second interpretation that Comestor proposes, held by alii but specifically ascribed to “Master Gilbert,” is briefly presented in these terms: “Alii ita exponunt: Potuit alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi, id est potuit dare ut melior esset et magis conferret baptismus ministratus a meliori, et ita exposuit magister Gilebertus.”237 Here, Comestor refers to a second theological tradition that was current in the schools, according to which Christ was able (but did not wish) to confer the power to remit sins (potestas baptismi) to his ministers in proportion to their own merits or sanctity. The origins of this interpretation are found in Gilbert of Poitiers’ Media glosatura on the Pauline Epistles, within his exposition of the same passage that prompted Robert of Melun’s solution (I Cor. 1, 13):

Et hanc quidem potestatem [baptismi], si uellet, posset dare Dominus aliquibus praecipuis seruis suis quos etiam, sicut Aaron per uirgam ita per aliquod (add. s.l. uisibile) signum, ostenderet excellentioris sanctitatis ministros et ministeriorum dispensatores, qui scilicet soli possent baptizare, et tantam uim posset dare baptismo eorum quantam uim haberet baptismus datus a Domino. Sed noluit, ne spes esset in homine et ne tot baptismi dicerentur quot serui. Sic ergo potestatem sibi retinuit, seruis ministerium dedit. Et ideo non differt siue bonus siue malus sit qui baptismum uel cetera sacramenta ministrat.238

Although Comestor’s outline of the second solution essentially corresponds to Gilbert’s position expressed in the above passage, Gilbert’s language in the Media glosatura is in several ways quite distinct from the summation provided by Comestor. There are three possible explanations for this. The most obvious of these is that Comestor was simply paraphrasing Gilbert’s solution. Nevertheless, since subsequent glossators (alii) of the Media glosatura had extrapolated Gilbert’s

237 GLOSAE, L, 8-9: “Others understand it thus: Christ was able to confer the power of baptism to one of his servants, that is he was able to grant that baptism administered by a better man would be better and confer more grace, and thus did master Gilbert interpret it.” 238 GILBERT OF POITIERS, Media glosatura super epistolas Pauli, ad I Cor. 1, 13 (PARIS, BnF lat. 14441, 29ra): “And indeed, if he had wished to, Christ could have granted this power [of baptism] to any of his favoured servants, whom he also could have revealed – just as he did Aaron through the rod and therefore through some (visible) sign – as ministers of a more eminent sanctity and as dispensers of the ministries, namely who alone could have baptized, and he could have conferred upon their baptism as great a power as that which baptism has being given by the Lord. But he chose not to, lest hope should be placed in man and lest there were said to be as many baptisms as there were servants. And thus he retained the power for himself, while he gave the ministry to his servants. Therefore, it makes no difference whether he who administers baptism or the other sacraments is good or evil.”

~~138~~

solution from this text, and may have done so in terms more closely resembling Comestor’s outline, it is also possible that Comestor was defining Gilbert’s position according to his followers. Indeed, as Landgraf was able to determine, a significant number of contemporary theologians had developed upon Gilbert’s interpretation, and these schoolmen were likely known to Comestor.239 The third possibility is that Comestor was referring, not to the Glosatura, but to Gilbert’s oral teaching or, more likely still, to his glosses on John of which only a fragment has been identified.240

~~The final solution that Comestor advances, and this with the most enthusiasm, is that of magister noster, identifiable with Peter Lombard:~~

Magistro nostro uisum est quod potuit seruis dare potentiam dimittendi peccata – non potentiam que Deus est, sed potentiam quandam creatam – sicut quandam potentiam creatam faciendi miracula dedit Petro, ut sicut per potentiam quandam creatam faciebat miracula ita per potentiam quandam creatam dimitteret peccata. Hoc est ergo quod nesciebat Iohannes…241

In order to determine the extent to which Comestor elaborates on his master’s interpretation, we must first consider the passage from the Lombard’s Sentences to which Comestor here refers directly. In the fifth distinction of Book Four, the Lombard begins his discussion of this question by quoting Augustine’s fifth tractate at length, which states that Christ, though he was able, did not confer the potestas baptismi, but only a certain ministerium.242 In the following chapter, the Lombard recapitulates the objection (stated by Comestor in similar terms) that St. Augustine’s assertion that Christ was able to confer the potestas baptismi was untenable, as it entailed the conferral of Christ’s divinity itself.243 The Lombard then proposes an extended solution to this objection, of which we need only

239 LANDGRAF, “Der frühscholastische Streit um die potestas,” 552-8. 240 See again: E. RATHBONE, “Note super Iohannem secundum magistrum Gil[bertum],” 205-10. 241 GLOSAE, L, 10-3: “To our master is seemed that Christ was able to give to his servants the power to forgive sins – not the power which is God’s essence, but a certain created power – just as he gave to Peter a certain created power to perform miracles, so that just as he was performing miracles through a certain created power, thus he might through a certain created power forgive sins. Therefore, this is what John did not know…” 242 Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. IV, d. V, cap. II. 243 ibid., cap. III, n. 2: “Oppositio: Sed potestas dimittendi peccata quae est in Deo, Deus est: ideo alii dicunt hanc potestatem non potuisse dare alicui servorum, quia nulli potuit dare ut esset quod ipse est, vel ut haberet essentiam quam ipse habet…” Cf. GLOSAE, XLIX, 16 - L, 1: “Hoc uidetur durum uerbum. Potestas enim baptismi siue potestas dimittendi peccata est potestas que Deus est, quasi si eam potuit dare alicui eidem potuit dare potentiam diuinam.”

~~139~~

reproduce the initial clauses to which Comestor makes reference: “Ad quod dici potest quia potuit eis dare potentiam dimittendi peccata: non ipsam eandem qua ipse potens est, sed potentiam creatam, qua seruus posset dimittere peccata…”244 Although Comestor’s summation faithfully represents the Lombard’s position, the student could not help elaborating, however subtly, upon his master’s teaching. While the Lombard’s solution to the question is distinguished by his introduction of the term “potestatem creatam,” Comestor takes it upon himself to define this term more concretely for his students. To this end, he compares the potestas baptismi which Christ was able to confer to the created power granted to St. Peter to perform miracles (quandam potentiam creatam faciendi miracula).

In the course of Comestor’s presentation of Augustine’s objectionable interpretation and three potential solutions, five accretions occur in the textual tradition which multiply the length of Comestor’s exposition several times over.245 The most substantial of these is a singular addition to the manuscript B, presented in APPENDIX II, 15. Here, Comestor considers each position at some length, first expressing an ample supply of agnosticism towards the solution of Robert of Melun and his followers (Sed nescio qualiter hoc intelligant),246 then expanding upon the Lombard’s interpretation, and finally by articulating the Porretan position in terms more closely resembling the passage from the Media glosatura cited above.247 During his treatment of the Lombard’s position, Comestor first restates that Christ could have conferred upon his ministers a created power to remit sins just as he gave Peter the power to perform miracles, before he inquires into the Lombardian concept of potentia creata more profoundly:

244 ibid., cap. III, n. 3: “To this it can be said that Christ was able to give to them the power to forgive sins: not the same power according to which he is omnipotent, but a created power according to which the servant would have been able to forgive sins.” 245 See: APPENDIX I, 34-5; APPENDIX II, 13-5. Together, these accretions span some 62 lines, while this part of the discussion in Comestor’s original lecture course run from XLIX, 15 - L, 15 (= 19 lines). 246 APPENDIX II, 15, 1-15. 247 ibid., 34-6: “Alii sic: Potuit Deus alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi, id est qui de merito uite digni essent baptizare; potuit ostendere signo uisibili, sicut uisibili signo ostendit penes Aaron et filios eius esse potestatem summi sacerdocii… [Others interpret it thus: God was able to give to some of his servants the power of baptism, that is those who by the merit of their lives were worthy to baptize; he could have revealed this by a visible sign, just as by a visible sign he revealed that the power of the high priesthood belong to Aaron and his sons.]” Note that Comestor’s reference here to the priesthood of Aaron being manifested by a visible sign corresponds to the passage of Gilbert of Poitiers Media glosatura on I. Cor. 1, 13 quoted above. Cf. n. 238.

~~140~~

Sed numquid potuit alicui dare potentiam creatam dandi Spiritum sanctum? Non, quia Spiritus sanctus non potuit esse donum creature. Sed potuit alicui dare potentiam dandi dona Spiritus, scilicet remissionem, scilicet peccatorum. Ergo alicui potuit dare potentiam iustificandi impium, ergo potentiam creandi celum. Tunc alicui potuit dare potentiam operandi ex nihilo; ergo, ut esset creator. Non sequitur, quia creator innuit potentiam increatam: non dico significat. Et concessibile est quod alicui potuit et potest dare potentiam creatam creandi celum nouum et terram nouam…248

In this passage, Comestor ponders how capacious this potentia creata might be, or what metaphysical constraints might be placed upon God’s creative power. Here, Comestor refines Lombard’s position by introducing a further distinction: the potentia increata. Because it belongs to the primary, uncreated power which is identical with God’s essence (que Deus est) to send the Holy Spirit, or to be the Creator who fashions creatures out of nothing, God could not confer this power. Nevertheless, God could confer upon his creatures the power to give the gifts of the Holy Spirit (i.e. through confirmation), or even the power to create a new heaven and a new earth, but this in the capacity as a minister (tanquam minister) and with pre-created matter (i.e. not ex nihilo).

In book four of the Sentences, Peter Lombard’s treatment of the potestas baptismi concludes: “Si quis hoc melius aperire poterit, non inuideo.”249 Such a challenge was not likely to have escaped the notice of the Lombard’s most sanguine student, whose subsequent experience lecturing on the Sentences would have provided him many occasions to ponder this question. Within the above disquisition, Comestor nuances and refines his master’s position to such an extent that subsequent authors would credit the elegant solution of this theological debate to Peter Comestor. In the Summa of Guy d’Orchelles, for example, Comestor’s interpretation is given in these terms: “Retinuit sibi potestatem increatam qua peccata remittebat et aliam creatam potuit dare seruis suis qua peccatum

248 ibid., 17-23: “But surely he was not able to give to anyone a created power to give the Holy spirit? No, because the Holy Spirit could not be the gift of a creature. But he could have given to someone the power to give the gifts of the Spirit, namely remission, that is of sins. Thus, he could have given to someone the power to justify the wicked; therefore, the power to create a heaven. Accordingly, he could have given to someone the power to create out of nothing; therefore, that he be a creator. This does not follow, because ‘creator’ denotes an uncreated power: I do not hold that this is signified. And yet it could be conceded that Christ was (and still is) able to give to someone a created power to create a new heaven and a new earth.” 249 Peter LOMBARD, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, lib. IV, d. V, cap. III, n. 4: “If someone should be better able to explicate this, I will not begrudge him.”

~~141~~

~~dimitterent, non tamen principali auctoritate, sed secundaria. Et hec fuit solutio Manducatoris.”250~~

~~Similarly, in his Quaestiones Theologiae, Stephen Langton elaborates upon his master’s solution:~~

[G]lossa: “Potestatem baptizandi seruis dare potuit quam sibi retinuit”; de potestate increata que est ipse Deus non, quoniam hanc seruis dare non potuit, quoniam sic deitatem daret alii; ergo de potestate creata intelligitur qua baptizat interius; ergo potestate creata dat peccatorum remissionem…251

Stephen Langton’s debt to Comestor is equally apparent in his Glossa in Magnam glossaturam in I Cor. 1, 13, in which Langton recapitulates the same three solutions to the Augustinian gloss that Comestor provided in the Glosae, while closely following his master’s language. First, Langton elaborates upon Peter Lombard’s solution at considerable length according to Comestor’s refinements – “Christus retinuit sibi potestatem baptizandi quam potuit dare seruis; set non increatam, ergo creatam; ergo potuit dare homini potestatem creatam remittendi peccata…”252 –, before going on to mention the alternate solutions originating with Robert of Melun and Gilbert of Poitiers.253 Moreover, Arthur Landgraf shows how Comestor’s theological terminology, devised in the course of his oral lectures on the sacred page, would significantly impact the progress this theological debate well into the thirteenth century.254

By adducing the example of Comestor’s glosses on Jn. 1, 33, we have been able to make a number of observations about the master’s theological method, his use of sources, and the wider importance of his recorded teaching in the landscape of twelfth-century theology. From this discussion, the

250 PARIS, BnF nat. lat. 17501, fol. 24v: “He retained for himself the uncreated power by which he remitted [sins], and he was able to give to his servants another created power by which they could forgive sin, yet not by a primary authority, but a secondary one. And this was the solution of Manducator.” 251 STEPHEN LANGTON, “Quaestio Theologiae 62b,” ed. Magdalena Bieniak and Marcin Trepczyński, in “Christ’s Power of Remitting Sins: A Critical Edition of Stephen Langton’s Quaestio Theologiae 62,” Medieoevo 39 (2014), 217- 97, at 261, ll. 4-8: “The gloss reads: ‘The power of baptism, which Christ was able to give to his servants, he retained for himself.’ This does not treat of an uncreated power which is God’s essence, because he was not able to give this to his servants, since thus he would give his godhead to another; therefore, this is understood by a created power according to which he baptizes inwardly; therefore, he grants the remission of sins by a created power…” For BIENIAK and TREPCZYŃSKI’s discussion of the Langton’s debt to Comestor for this solution, see: ibid., 222-3. 252 STEPHEN LANGTON, “Ex Glossa in Magnam Glossaturam Petri Lombardi (in I Cor. 1, 13-18),” in ibid., 282, ll. 81-4: “Christ retained for himself the power to baptize which he could have given to his servants; but not an uncreated power, and thus a created one; therefore he was able to give to man a created power to remit sins.” 253 ibid., 283, ll. 109-24. 254 See: LANDGRAF, “Der frühscholastische Streit um die potestas,” 533-72.

~~142~~

breadth of Comestor’s reading and his familiarity with the teaching of his contemporaries has become evident. Beyond the close attention he paid to the ongoing theological developments in the schools, Comestor actively contributed to this development in the course of his classroom lectures. Inheriting a tradition of biblical teaching originating with Master Lombard, Comestor taught his students how to interpret the sacred page following ‘the Master’s’ method. Simultaneously, Comestor submitted to the authority of the Fathers and followed the new theological developments articulated by the ‘modern’ masters; he taught within the structure provided by his biblical textbook, the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ and trained his students in theological reasoning with the use of disputation and dialectic. From this brief study of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, it should be clear that Comestor was not merely a practitioner of ‘biblical-moral’ scholarship: he was an historian, a grammarian, and a theologian.

Having thus arrived at some familiarity with the text of the Glosae, it is now possible to turn to the textual tradition by which Peter Comestor’s biblical lectures were preserved and transmitted in literary form.

~~143~~

~~CHAPTER IV~~

~~THE TEXTUAL WITNESSES~~

~~IV. 1 THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PRESENT EDITION~~

There are no fewer than seventeen extant manuscripts that preserve, wholly or in part,1 Peter Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. All but two of these witnesses have been listed by Friedrich Stegmüller,2 whose catalogue includes two additional manuscripts not containing the Glosae.3 While preparing the present edition, it was not possible to consult every one of the manuscript witnesses, particularly those housed in Italian archives.4 Nevertheless, due to the oral and scholastic origin of these lecture materials, the exertion required for a complete recension would hardly promise to be rewarded with a superior text.5 For this reason, it has been sufficient for this project to make a careful selection of the better part of the extant manuscripts, governed principally by one consideration: which of the witnesses have the highest likelihood of descending directly from Peter Comestor’s classroom? Naturally, the process of selection must begin by determining whether

~~1 Two manuscripts carry an incomplete copy of the Glosae ; namely: DURHAM, Dean and Chapter Library, MS A.~~

III. 11 (D ), which concludes at Jn. 17, 1, and PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14434 (N ), ending at Jn. 13, 7. 2 Friedrich STEGMÜLLER, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, n. 6578. Stegmüller does not list two manuscripts from Peter Comestor’s birthplace: namely, TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MSS 249 and 1024. The former codex has only lately come to my attention, but I have been able to confirm that, like its sibling (T ) housed in the archive of Troyes, this manuscript contains a complete set of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. 3 The first of these is PARIS, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 730. Two manuscripts in the library’s archives have borne this shelfmark, but neither contains Comestor’s glosses. The second is PARIS, BnF nat. lat. nouv. acq. 217, which exclusively contains the Lombardian ingressus (STEGMÜLLER, RB 6650) to Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. 4 Until now I have not been able to consult four of the manuscripts listed by Stegmüller, which have consequently been excluded from the present edition. Namely, CAMBRIDGE, Pembroke College, MS 75; BAMBERG, Staatsbibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 103; TORINO, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, MS 698 (E IV 6); and VERCELLI, Biblioteca capitolare, MS 32. However, I have had occasion to examine the three remaining manuscripts listed by Stegmüller, but absent from the present edition – sc. ARRAS, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 564 (0623) (S ), which appears as MS 656 (564) in Stegmüller’s entry, ROME, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B. 47 (V ), and TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 249 (R) –, and it is my intention to incorporate these witnesses into a fuller recension of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. 5 In fact, the textual stability of the Glosae is quite remarkable, and variants displayed by the different traditions of the text are relatively minor. Consequently, a small number of witnesses would suffice if the editor’s objective were simply to reconstitute the main body of the text representing Comestor’s original lecture material. An editor’s principal interest in consulting a wide range of witnesses would be the layered accretions, or subsequent additions originating as marginal glosses that were gradually incorporated into the text. These accretions occur unpredictably, both within individual witnesses and constellations of manuscripts (not always of common descent). The content and origin of the accretions will prove to be of the highest interest for scholars of Comestor’s biblical lectures.

~~144~~

Comestor’s personal copy of his biblical glosses has survived, but the editor has been content to search for near descendants from the original set of reportationes preserving the master’s lectures (identified as the archetype ω), which would have been reviewed and emended by Comestor before the authorised diffusion of the Glosae.6 The witnesses originating most closely to Comestor’s classroom are not only the likeliest to attest the master’s ipsissima uerba,7 but also to be the copies that accrued the layered accretions to the text (discussed at length below) originating with Comestor and his students.

To observe this principle of selection, it was first necessary to determine where one would be most likely to find Peter Comestor’s own books, or those produced and preserved in his immediate teaching environment. Seeing as our master was born in Troyes and appears to have retained his titles of decanus and canonicus Trecensis until his death, it is conceivable that Comestor entrusted his glossed books to the confrères of Saint-Loup, among whom he lived as a canon before continuing his studies in Paris. However, the abbey’s necrology makes no record of a donation: “Obiit magister Petrus Manducator, sancti Petri decanus et canonicus sancti Lupi, qui sepultus est apud sanctum Victorem Parisiensem.”8 Accordingly, the investigation must turn to the Abbey of Saint-Victor. It is here that Comestor withdrew after his career of teaching at the Parisian schools, and it was common practice for scholares (both masters and students) who retired at Saint-Victor to make a gift of their books to the Abbey.9 But once again, the obituaries of Saint-Victor, where the monastery’s benefactors are listed alongside their donations, contain no record of our master.10 Yet perhaps the most promising place that one would think to search for Peter’s glossed books is in Paris itself.

6 Based on the tradition of student-notetaking and the characteristics of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, I have found it likely that Comestor was directly involved in the revision and dissemination of his lecture courses. Cf. above: Cap. I. 3. 1, “Reportatio,” and III. 2. 1, “Oral Formulae and Signs of a Scholastic Context.” 7 Perhaps this Lachmannian term entails a notion of ‘authorship’ that is not consistent with a set of recorded lectures; but yet, as I have argued above, the student-reporters appear to have recorded Comestor’s speech with considerable precision. 8 A. LONGNON, Obituaires de la Province de Sens (Paris, 1923): IV, 297: “Master Peter Manducator, dean of Saint- Peter and canon of Saint-Loup, has died. He has been buried at Saint-Victor in Paris.” 9 For an excellent introduction to the medieval holdings of the Abbey library, see: Gilbert OUY, “Introduction,” in Les manuscrit de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor: catalogue établi sur la bas du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514), 2 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 1: 7-90; cf. Jean-Pierre WILLESME, “Le Bibliothèque de l’Abbaye de Saint-Victor de Paris,” Cahiers de Recherches Medievales, vol. 17, n. 1 (2009), 241-55. 10 Cf. Léopold DELISLE, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris, 1874), II: 209-24.

~~145~~

Comestor’s long and prosperous career teaching at the cathedral school cannot but have left some documentary evidence in the city. Nevertheless, Comestor’s obituary notice from Notre-Dame bears no trace of the master’s manuscripts, although Peter bequeathed to the canons some of his more valuable possessions.11 Although it is unclear whether any of Comestor’s own glossed books ultimately found their way into the collection of Notre-Dame, the medieval archives of Paris are certain to preserve manuscripts witnessing to Comestor’s magisterial activity in the Parisian schools. Similarly, copies of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata that were diffused more widely in France, and particularly among the cathedral schools of the north, have a higher antecedent probability of descending directly from the original classroom transcripts. For this reason, I have selected all but one of the French manuscripts containing the Glosae,12 several of which appear to be of Parisian provenance. Moreover, even if the library of Saint-Victor was not enriched by our master’s personal collection, it is well known that manuscripts produced and used in the Paris schools found their way into the Abbey library. Among these, one might reasonably suspect that books belonging to Comestor’s students and colleagues were numbered. Consequently, it is felicitous that three of the witnesses selected for the present edition are of Victorine provenance.13

Altogether, I have selected ten manuscripts from which to prepare the present edition, all dating from between the last quarter of the twelfth century and the first quarter of the thirteenth. With the exception of D and O (the only witnesses preserved outside of France), I have been able to examine all of these manuscripts in situ. Of the two English codices, I was able to obtain high quality digital scans from which to conduct my examinations.14 With few exceptions, the manuscripts have never been given thorough descriptions before. Accordingly, I have ventured to provide a reasonably detailed account of the contents and production of each volume. Generally speaking, I have

11 M. GUERARD, Cartulaire de l’eglise Notre-Dame de Paris (Paris, 1850), IV: 172: “XI Kal. Nouembris… Eodem die, obiit magister Petrus Manducator, cancellarius, qui dedit nobis uiginti quinque libras, ad stationem quatuor ferculorum, et cuppam argenteam, ad denarios matutinarum.” Comestor’s obituary is undated, but the entry immediately preceding that of our master bears the date of 1177, which serves to demonstrate that Peter died after that year. Cf. DALY, “Master of Histories,” 72-3. 12 Namely, ARRAS, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 564 (0623), which I chose to exclude from the present edition on account of its unusually deficient text and paucity of accretions. 13 PARIS, BnF lat. 14434 (N); PARIS, BnF lat. 14435 (M); PARIS, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 175 (Z). 14 Here, I must acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Andrew Dunning, who has graciously provided me scans of the manuscript OXFORD, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 494 (SC 2108).

~~146~~

observed economy in my discussion of codicological features, except on occasions when these shed light on the origin and circulation of individual copies of Comestor’s glosses. Similarly, my description of palaeography has inclined towards prolixity only when it has seemed essential to establish the date and location of a script. Above all, I have been solicitous to describe each set of Peter Comestor’s glossed Gospels, particularly the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. As will be discussed in extenso in the second part of this chapter, the layered accretions – which originated as marginal glosses and came to be incorporated into the text proper through a series of stages –, are a distinctive feature of the manuscript tradition of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. Because these accretions are crucial for establishing the origin and maturity of each witness to the master’s glosses, they will figure prominently into my description of the manuscripts.

~~1. Description of the Manuscripts~~

A AVRANCHES, BIBLIOTHÈQUE MUNICIPALE 135 Parchment, i + 151 + ii (foliated 1-152), 220 x 155mm, Mont Saint-Michel, s. XIII1 (I); s. XII4 (II); s. XII4 (III); s. XII3 (IV); s. XII3/4 (V); s. XIIex (VI) A highly miscellaneous composite manuscript; Peter Comestor, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum 2o fol. inc.: Throni sunt agmina angelorum

The binding is s. XVII, with distressed brown leather over cardboard and four raised bands on the spine. The pastedown and front flyleaf, slightly later than the contents of the manuscript, have been inserted upside-down. These folia have been extracted from a text on civil law, written in a fully developed Northern Textualis from ca. s. XIIImed, which helps to establish when the various booklets constituting this manuscript were bound together. Text on the pastedown begins: “quasi delictum quoque continentibus,” and concludes on the verso of the front flyleaf: “qui cum superior.” The two leaves display a number of early modern bibliographic marks in the same hand (No. 204 / 4.0., 47), as well as a parchment label pasted into the lower margin of the flyleaf with the

inscription “ML.” The only other identifying marks present in the volume are various stamps and shelfmarks of the Bibliothèque Municipale d’Avranches. However, the library possesses a record of the manuscript’s previous ownership by the Abbey of Mont Saint-Michel. Altogether, this volume represents a disparate assortment of twelfth-century scholastic materials bound together some time after their original composition. The parchment and production exhibited by several of the booklets, excluding Comestor’s glosses, are of a relatively poor quality. Together with its small, portable format and the nature of its contents, the manuscript’s composition

~~147~~

indicates a scholastic origin. Several of the booklets (particularly I and V) appear to be spontaneous collections of school texts gathered by students. The fifth booklet, which is perhaps the richest in its content and the most haphazard in composition, contains a large amount of prefatory materials on the Gospels which seem to be of Parisian origin, significantly sharing many of the features exhibited by the putatively Lombardian prologues in Comestor’s glossed Gospels: the sermon-type pericope, reference to the Gloss, terminal use of the arts headings. Despite the importance of this volume’s contents, it is difficult to ascribe any special significance to this manuscript as a unit, which impresses one as having been arbitrarily assembled with a vague scholastic theme for the library’s convenience.

I. 2r-9v: Varia excerpta. The first booklet, which has become detached from the binding, resembles a sort of scholastic florilegium of patristic writings, canons, and extracts from the classical poets. The contents have been written in what appears to be a single glossing hand of the early thirteenth- century, minute and slovenly, displaying inchoate Gothic letter forms while retaining Protogothic characteristics. Parchment is brittle and of an inferior quality, with holes, tears, sewings, and stains. The production is poor and inconsistent, and the contents impressively varied, suggestive of a student’s assemblage of texts copied in the schools. A catchword with a corresponding quire number on 9v indicates that this booklet has been extracted from another volume. The margins have been heavily trimmed, evidently at the expense of numerous marginal annotations, and no prickings are visible. Pages have been ruled very faintly in hard point for two columns of very variable width, and between ca. 64 and 77 lines of text.

A. 2r-3r: Patristica. The text begins with an extract from Isidore’s Etymologiarum: “Throni sunt agmina angelorum qui latino eloquio sedes dicuntur.” Miscellaneous excerpts from Ss. Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, and Gregory follow, generally preceded by a gibbet. Following these extracts, the scribe has copied a couple of Hilary’s sermons, indicated by underlined rubrics: “Incipit sermo beati hilarii de corpore christi. Vos inquid nunc qui patrem et filium uoluntatem ingerunt… Item hilarius. Hec ergo uite nostre causa est…” (2vb). Eutychianus’ Exhortatio ad Presbyteros follows: “Explicit sermo. Incipit prologus. Fratres sacerdotes domini cooperantes (add. s.l. -peratores) ordinis nostri estis … regulares terminos martirologium penitentialem habeat. Explicit prologus.” (2vb).

~~148~~

B. 3rb-5r: Canones. On the fourth line of the outer column, the scribe abruptly concludes the patristic excerpts to present an extended list of canons. Meanwhile, the script becomes slenderer and more compact. Incipit: “Incipiunt canones sancti. Sicut sacrificium non debet offerre nisi episcopus uel presbyter.” Near the bottom of the column, the script compresses to complete the text at the end of the page. Explicit (5rb): “debet effligare anima acoliti et cerectarii(?) in uetere testamento.”

C. 5v-9v: Poetica. What follows is a large number of extracts from classical and late antique poets (Virgil, Prudentius, Claudian, Horace), apparently in the same hand as above. In the upper margin, the scribe has written an invocation, “sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia,” followed by a rubric, “de quorundam disconuenientiis,” which he has written again in the outer margin. Some marginal annotations appear throughout, both in the scribal hand and a couple other contemporary hands. The excerpts begin with the Eclogues, which a scribal note in the outer margin indicates (“Ecloga III”); otherwise, little indication of change between texts is observed. Incipit: “Triste lupus stabulis maturis frugibus imbre [sic].” On the final folio of the quire (fol. 9), writing begins to span four compressed columns, and the text concludes with one of Horace’s Epistolae (Ep. 1, 18, l. 90). Explicit: “Sedatum celeres agilem gnauumque remissi.”

II. A. 10r-22rb: ALAN OF LILLE, Summa de arte praedicandi (incomplete). The second booklet begins with Alan of Lille’s treatise on preaching. Writing is far tidier and more spacious (though it decays somewhat), and the script is determinately late twelfth-century Northern French, inclining towards Gothic but retaining Protogothic features: uncrossed Tironian et; c-t ligature; insular enim. Pages are pricked in the outer margins, and ruled unevenly in hard point for two columns of between 48 and 61 lines. Some marginal annotations occur, in the scribal and a couple other contemporary hands. 10r: In the upper column, a much later Gothic hand (possibly s. XIV) has written the rubric “Postille super Iohannem cum pluribus aliis,” suggesting that this text began to circulate together with Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum (cf. below) before being bound into this manuscript. Incipit: “Vidit iacob scalam a terra usque ad celum.”

~~149~~

~~22rb: Alan’s treatise ends abruptly on cap. XXX, near the top of the right-hand column. Explicit: “que fleuerunt iterando comittunt.”15~~

B. 22rb-23ra: STEPHEN OF TOURNAI, Sermo primus. Appearing in a distinct hand on the line immediately below the previous text, Stephen of Tournai’s first sermon begins. 22rb: Incipit: “Audit uocem suam. Sacros et solemnes aduentus in ecclesia.” 22(bis)ra: The sermon appears in full, and concludes halfway down the first column. Explicit: “prestante domino nostro iesu christo qui cum patre et spiritu sancto uiuit et regnat deus per secula seculorum amen.” n.b. This page was originally passed over in the foliation. 22(bis)ra: A subsequent hand, in much fainter ink, uses the remainder of this column to record patristic excerpts (Isidore, Augustine, Jerome, and the Physiologus) with a special interest in the pelican: “Ysidorus: Pellicanus est auis parua que delectatur… /22rb/ in ipso sanguine calefacti suscitantur.” 22(bis)rb: Below these excerpts, near the top of the right column, another contemporary hand records a number of miscellaneous biblical verses and interpretations: “Quater deposuit deus uestimenta sua, primo in cena quando accinxit se lintheo…”; “Mistice iacob dicitur pater, Ioseph christus, per X fratres philosophi populum sub decalogo pascentes…”; “Augustinus: transit quod extollitur, permanet quod punitur…” 22(bis)va: In a very compressed and untidy French Protogothic, a sermon begins in medias res. In the lower margin, a subsequent hand notes: “Principium huius sermonis in folio subsequentis quaterni. Sermo sic incipit: Ecce locus apud me et cetera.” No such sermon appears in the following quire or anywhere else in this volume, indicating that this text was originally bound in another book. The top line has been severely trimmed, and little remains legible. Second line incipit: “cum angelo benedictionem ab eo expectabat. Qui autem supra hanc stare dicitur petram non ipsam supergreditur.” The text concludes halfway down the second column: “efficimur dominice passionis simul erimus et resurrectionis si compatimur et regnabimus quod ipse prestare dignetur qui cum patre et spiritu sancto uiuit deus per omnia secula seculorum amen.” Below, another disorderly contemporary hand (perhaps that which has added the preceding note about the sermon) fills the

~~15 Cf. ALAN OF LILLE, Summa de arte praedicatoria (PL 210, col. 0169D), where the editor notes that his earliest manuscript concludes at the same point of the text.~~

~~150~~

remainder of the folio with various notes about biblical chronology: “Anno ab origine mundi IIII D CCC LIa ptholomeus philadelphus egiptiorum rex … sunt qui et esdram et aggeam scripsisse dicunt,” and underneath a note about the Church’s Ember Days (i.e. seasons of fasting), headed: “de ieiunio quatuor temporum.”

III. A. 23ra-74vb: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. In a much comelier hand, Comestor’s John glosses begin. Written above top line in a northern French glossing hand from the last quarter of s. XII, the script displays several Gothic developments: two-compartment a; deliberate clubbing and bifurcation of ascenders; minims display feet. Nevertheless, the hand is determinately Protogothic: text is spacious and modestly abbreviated; uncrossed Tironian et; insular enim; retention of c-t ligature; letter g with a complex ductus. Uniquely, this scribe distinguishes between glosses and lemmata: both are underlined, but a second undulating line has been added beneath the latter. A large number of apposite marginal annotations (mostly written in one hand very like the scribe’s, but seemingly distinct) appear throughout, though most heavily in the first chapters. A couple of the annotations appearing in the lower margins have been ruled, suggesting that they were planned out as part of the original production of the text. The content of the marginalia is reminiscent of the layered accretions appearing in the present edition (APPENDIX I), though the annotations in this copy have not been found to correspond to accretions in the other manuscripts. Only a small number of accretions shared with the other witnesses of Comestor’s Glosae have been identified, all of which appear as delineated ‘intrinsic’ glosses. Some other small notes (e.g. “obiectio,” “solutio”) and nota-signs are present. Apart from these indications of study, the text shows signs of moderate correction. A contemporary hand has numbered quires in the place of catchwords. Pages are ruled in crayon for two columns (180 x 60 mm) of between ca. 35 and 45 lines. 23ra: Immediately above the text, in the tightly-trimmed margin, a rubric appears in a contemporary hand: “Super iohannem epyglose.” Headed with a small rubricated capital, the prologue commences: “Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi.” In the lower margin, a contemporary hand indicates the text and its length: “super iohannem . septem quater(ni).” 74vb: The glosses conclude halfway down the second column: “loquitur sacra scriptura et hic habes in glosa: NON DICIT SPACIO TEMPORIS et cetera,” after which the explicit is given: “Libro finito sit laus et gloria christo.” Directly below, two short, seemingly unique poems have been written in a

~~151~~

hand closely resembling the scribe’s. The first, in larger and less tidy writing, treats of the Christmas liturgy: Tres in natali misse tria tempora significant Christi, seu legis, siue quod ante fuit. Nocte prior, cum luce sequens, fit tercia luce. Distinguendo fidem tres habuisse gradus, A paucis prius est, a multis postea notus, A cunctis christi denique uoce deus.

~~On the following line, a fetching versicle about the Fathers:~~

Respice Ieronimi compedia, cerne Ioannis Commata, Gregorii dulcia melle uide. Astruit Aurelius, Ambrosius instruit, ardet Papa Leo, Rabanus colligit, Haymo fouet. Ambrosius mel est si gustas gutture sano. Nescio si mel est par melli Gregoriano.

Finally, in smaller and more compact writing, again seemingly the scribe’s, a note about chronology spans fourteen lines: “Ab origine mundi usque ad exortum urbis Romani conputantur anni … sequere deum perfecit abraham et cetera.”

IV. A. 75r-90v: PETER ABELARD, Expositio in Hexameron. What follows is Abelard’s treatise on the Hexameron. Evidently originating as a discrete booklet, the outer leaves are badly soiled. The script is Northern French, and determinately Protogothic, likely dating from the end of the third quarter of the twelfth century. Pages are faintly ruled in plummet for one long line (of between 80 and 95mm) of ca. 40 lines of text. No prickings are visible. Rubrics appear in the text indicating chapter divisions. Some fairly lengthy scribal additions and other annotations appear in the margins throughout. 75r: In the upper margin, the rubric appears: “Abaelardi prefatio in exameron.” Incipit: “Tria sunt in uetera testamento loca que ad intelligendum…” 90v: The text concludes at the end of the leaf. Explicit: “postmodum corporis incurret quasi geminam mortem.”

~~152~~

V. A. 91ra-b: ANON., Commentarius de compotu (fragment). The fourth booklet begins with a fragment from a treatise on computation, previously unidentified. Evidently an unpopular work, the scribe has emphatically crossed out the entire text on each side of this folio; the leaf seems to have served as the wrapping for the booklet. Text is written in one long line for 41 lines of text. Again, the script is characteristically Northern French displaying few Gothic developments, likely dating from the end of the third-quarter of s. XII. 91r: The upper margins are heavily trimmed, and the rubric appearing on 91r is largely illegible: “Commenta a*** super ****.” Incipit: “Compotus alius naturalis, alius artificialis, alius legalis, sed de legali nichil ad presens. Est autem naturalis compotus qui considerat tempora prout sunt.” 91v: Explicit: “concurrens que fuit secundo anno pre creacionem…”

B. 92r-113r: ST. AMBROSE, Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam (excerpts). A hand resembling the preceding text, and certainly of a similar date and origin, begins. Pages are pricked in the outer margins and ruled in hard point for one long line (110 mm) of between ca. 40 and 46 lines of text. Lemmata are underlined. Some marginal annotations and nota-signs (in the form of a Chi-Rho) appear in a couple hands throughout. 92r: Incipit: “Quedam excerpta de Ambrosi super Lucam ad supplendum quod minus habetur in glosis de eodem commentario. In proemii commentarii. Qui per IIII animalium formas que in apocalipsi reuelantur…” 113r: The text concludes near the bottom of the page: “Conturbati uero et conterriti. Credebant apostoli et cetera. Clausis omnibus uestibulis et obstructis parietibus.” The remaining five ruled lines are left blank, though what appears to have been an explicit on the final lines two lines has been erased.

C. 113r-116r: Excerpta super euangelia. Beginning on the verso of the same folio, further patristic excerpts on the Gospels appear – more from Ambrose, but principally from Bede. Each excerpt commences with a gibbet. The layout and script are consistent with the preceding text. Incipit (113r): “Aduertimus quod matheus iacob qui fuit pater ioseph filium mathan esse memorauerit … frater iuxta legis ueteris seriem suscitabat. Hec Ambrosius.” 116r: The text concludes with a description of the four senses of Scripture. Explicit: “Inter allegoriam et moralitatem et tropologiam et anagogem hoc differt, quod alleogria si proprie

~~153~~

accipiatur est illa uerborum que pertinet ad fidei edificationem … Anagoge est sermo de superioribus, ut de angelis et de ceteris celi uirtutibus et de trinitate.” 116v: The verso is ruled, but has been left blank. This page is heavily soiled, suggesting that the preceding contents of this booklet once circulated independently. Nevertheless, the following text continues with excerpts on the Gospels, and appears to have been bound together with the preceding materials.

D. 117r-118v: ANON., Prologi super euangelia. The script is consistent with the foregoing excerpts, but the text is now ruled for two columns of ca. 45 lines. The material on the Gospels recommences with a series of prologues. All but the first of these expatiate upon the ‘Monarchian’ prologues transmitted in the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’

i. 117ra-va: Prologus super Matthaeum. This initial prologue does not treat the ‘Monarchian’ prologue; nevertheless, it makes use of material circulating in the glossed Gospels. Incipit: “Sicut lex seruitutis et timoris seruis, id est iudeis per seruum, id est moisen a domino data est ita lex gratie et libertatis filiis, id est christiano populo, a patre per filium, id est per christum, collata est.” The text continues: “Viderunt siquidem animalia in uariis figuris, scilicet hominis uituli leonis aquile /117rb/ christum figurantia, qui homo nascendo, uitulus moriendo, leo resurgendo, aquila ascendendo.” 117va: Explicit: “Modus talis: primo narrat natiuitatem, deinde baptismum, tercio tentationem … septimo resurrectionem et ascensionem.”

ii. 117va: Prologus super Matthaeum. The text continues in a finer hand with a lemmatic exposition of the ‘Monarchian’ prologue on Matthew. Incipit: “Matheus ex iudea. Matheus euangelista factus non solum sermonem sed et ipsa sua conuersione euangelium predicat.” 118r: The prologue spans nine lines of the first column. Explicit: “ordo, quod in titulo prius dauid in serie, prius abraham, et postea ceteros ex ordine. numerus, quod XLIIo dispositio.” The remainder of the page has been left blank.

iii. 118va: Prologus super Matthaeum: On the top of the verso, another contemporary hand copies a second lemmatic exposition of the same ‘Monarchian’ prologue: “Matheus, primo ponit unde ordiundus fuit, deinde quod ideo primus ponitur, quia prius scripsit in iudea…” This prologue spans the entire column and the beginning of the right-hand column. Explicit: “studium nostrum

~~154~~

~~fuit demonstrare hoc: et fidem f(acte) r(ei) tra(dere) et etiam tacere queren(tibus) dis(positionem) dei esse intelligendam.”~~

iv. 118vb-119rb: Prologus super Iohannem. Below, a similar introitus expounding the ‘Monarchian’ prologue on John begins: “Euangelio iohannis prescribit ieronimus prologum in quo ostendit quis iste iohannes fuerit et ubi euangelium scripserit et quo uitam fuerit. Prologus sic incipit: hic est iohannes euangelista et cetera…” 119rb: Explicit: “et deo seruetur doctrina magisterii, ut quicumque hoc cognouerunt a deo se putent habere.”

v. 119rb: Excerpta super euangelia. After the prologues, a few further glosses on the Gospels appear. The first begins: “In principio XXX anni in die epiphanie christus a iohanne est baptizatus … et fere eadem causa tunc crucifixus est.” Below, the same excerpt as above (116r) treating the four senses of Scripture reappears: “Inter allegoriam et moralitatem … celorum uirtutibus et de trinitate.” The final excerpt on this page follows: “Tres marie fuerunt, prima fuit filia ioachim et anne, uxor ioseph … quia alfeo mortuo nupsit cleofe.”

E. 119v-120ra: BEDA, De temporum ratione (cap. I). On the verso of the same leaf, a far more compressed and elegant hand exhibiting Gothic features copies a fragment from Bede. Incipit: “Beda in libro de temporibus maiore. De temporum racione domino iuuante dicturi necessarium duximus utilissimam.” 120ra: The text concludes near the top of the first column. Explicit: “isdem prefigure sciunt.” Immediately below, the same hand adds a five-line excerpt treating the Song of Songs: “In canticum. Leua eius sub capita meo et cetera. Leua sponsi uetus testamentum que a capite ecclesie… electorum mentibus subiecta, dextera uero illius eterna beatitudo.” The remainder of the folio (including the verso) is blank and unruled.

F. 121ra-124v: ANON., Prologi super euangelia. Another Northern French hand from between the third- and fourth-quarter of the twelfth century records another series of prologues on the Gospels, which seemingly belong with the foregoing prefatory material (V. D).

~~i. 121r-122ra: Prologus super Marcum. The initial prologue (expounding the ‘Monarchian’ prologue on Mark, and perhaps part of a set with the prologues above) spans the entire folio and the~~

~~155~~

beginning of the following leaf. Incipit: “icut sunt duo status presentis seculi et future uite sic sunt due forme aliis excellentiores, rotunda scilicet et quadrata.” Notably, this prologue makes direct reference to the Mark Gloss directly (121rb): “Huic euangelio premittit ieronimus prologum in quo et de eius genere et ubi euangelium scripserit et de quibus in eo dixerit tractat summatim. Hic illa magna glosa legenda est: Quatuor sunt qualitates et cetera. Marcus euangelista et cetera. Marcus interpretatur excelsis mandato quod bene eius conuenit…” 122ra: This Marcan prologue concludes halfway down the first column of the following leaf: “paradisus iudea et mundus parate. Glosa parate, id est penitentiam agite, et post.”

ii. 122ra-123ra: Below, a slenderer and more sophisticated hand exhibiting further Gothic features (notably the crossed Tironian et) copies a series of prologues. The first begins: “Anima mea liquefacta est ut dilectus loqutus est. Quid maxime lectoribus uel auditoribus intellectum ewangelice lectionis … /123ra/ nec ad intellectum euangelii admittitur, unde dauid: a mandatis tuis et cetera. Item super senes intellexi mandata tua quesiui.”

iii. 123ra-123rb: After this, a second prologue in the same hand marked by a gibbet begins: “Qui sunt due oliue ad dextram candelabri et ad sinistram, cuius zacharias IIII: Candelabrum christus est, ergo lucerna, id est predicatio ponenda est… /123rb/ ostendit iohannes in fine cum ait: hec autem scripta sunt ut credatis: ecce intentio. Et ut credentes uitam habeatis: ecce finis. Modum agendi et expositionem prologi ideo non notauimus sed prologum luce.”

iv. 123rb-123vb: The final prologue follows: “Quoniam multi coronati sunt et cetera. Legitur XI numerorum quod populus circuibat colligens manna… /123vb/ Qui uiderunt, dominum corporaliter uel gesta eius ab initio predicacionis ut apostoli uel natiuitatis ut maria et ioseph et ministri fuerunt sermonis.” Text concludes near the top of the right-hand column. The remainder of the page is blank.

v. 124r-v: On the following folio, a similar but more minute and disorderly hand commences. The page is ruled for one long line of 51 lines of text. Another prologue on the Gospels begins: “acharias dicit: Vidi et ecce IIIIor cornua. Et angelus. Hec sunt quatuor cornua que uentilauerunt iudam. Vidi et ecce quatuor fabri… /124v/ ceteri euangeliste ut ait augustinus quasi gressibilia animalia gradiuntur in terra cum domino, sed iohannes solus ad ipsum uolat.” Beneath, a distinct hand adds another fragment: “Cum in omnibus disciplinis ediscendis atque tractandis summum in uita positum solamen existimem tum iucundius et uelut cum quadam

~~156~~

~~fructu laboris … et si diuturnis cepti tamen efficax labor excaluit.” The bottom half of the leaf is blank.~~

VI. A. 125r-152v: ANON, De arte praedicandi. The final booklet begins. The script is a comely French Protogothic with burgeoning Gothic characteristics, likely from the end of s. XII. Pages are pricked in the outer margins and ruled for two columns of ca. 45 lines. Chapter divisions are indicated throughout with rubricated initials. Little activity is observed in the margins. 125r: In the upper margin, a contemporary hand includes a rubric: “Hoc opus magistri alani de podio continuatur liber eiusdem de arte predicandi.” Beneath, a late medieval hand adds: “Liber de arte predicandi.” In fact, this is not Alan of Lille’s work but a treatise on the virtues and vices as they bear upon the art of preaching, which makes extensive use of Alan’s Summa. Incipit: “Quod peccata nostra et dei beneficia debemus ad memoriam reducere. Adam ubi es? Pietas christi querentis priorem ad penitentiam.” 152vb: Text concludes midway down the second column. Explicit: “quoniam homo fit supra hominem et superans carnem angelorum gerit similitudinem.” No further explicit is present. The remainder of the page is blank. 153r: The recto of the leaf is ruled, but otherwise the entire folio is left blank, apart from modern library stamps and notations.

~~i-ii: The rear flyleaf and pastedown are blank.~~

B PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE, LAT. 15269 (SORBONNE 143)16 Parchment, ii + 152 + i fols. (foliated 1-152), 360 x 270 mm, Paris, s. XIII1 Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Io., Lc., Mt., Mc.) 2o fol. inc.: quia iesus est filius dei

The binding is s. XVII, green leather over stiff cardboard, with six raised bands and endbands. On the pastedown, a librarian’s hand contemporary with the binding has written: “Ce manuscrit du 13e siècle contient les Gloses de Pierre le mangeur (Comestor) sur les quatre evangelistes.” Below, a contemporary hand supplies what seems to be a shelfmark (191). The first flyleaf, which was

~~16 For a short description of this manuscript, see: Artur LANDGRAF, “Recherches sur les Ecrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” 366-8.~~

~~157~~

supplied with the binding, is blank; the second bears the Sorbonne shelfmark (Sorb., 143) in an early modern hand, with another distinct bibliographic mark (S 08) at the bottom of the folio. Apart from the library stamps of the Sorbonne and the Bibliothèque nationale, no other indications of provenance are present. The palaeography of the codex (described below) is clearly French, and a Parisian origin may be assumed.

The greater part of this volume seems to have been composed by three or four closely related glossing hands (one for each set of glosses, though A and D may be identical), of a thick and compressed aspect. Each is clearly s. XIII, but displays few palaeographical developments beyond late Protogothic: Tironian et is uncrossed; insular enim; single compartment a; a predilection for the uncial d, though the upright form occasionally occurs; a complex g is used; the i tends to be dotted with a hair stroke; the c-t ligature is observed; the ascenders of b, h, k, and l are generally clubbed; the straight s is prevalent, though a round form is often used at the beginning of words; biting occurs, though somewhat tentatively. Writing above the top line.17 These features, together with the Langtonian chapter divisions used throughout, place this codex in the first quarter of the thirteenth century (ante ca. 1220). Lemmata and glosses are consistently underlined, and are frequently preceded by gibbets. For each set of glosses, a single contemporary hand provides chapter numbers (sometimes with incipits) in the margins, as well as headings in the upper margins specifying the Gospel, often divided between adjacent pages (e.g. “Io/hs”). Catchwords are provided at the end of each quire.

The manuscript is a single book of a relatively large format, composed on clean and supple parchment displaying few significant defects. The clean state of the text and conscientious preservation of the manuscript suggest that it did not see use in the schools. Overall, the volume gives the impression of a deliberate, uniform edition of Comestor’s glossed Gospels in the later stage of their textual development (i.e. internalised accretions).18 The material unity of the codex, the

17 For the significance of this scribal practice for dating manuscripts, cf: Neil R. KER, “From ‘above top line’ to ‘below top line’: A change in scribal practice,” Celtica 5 (1960): 13-6. 18 See below, my discussion of the three progressive stages in the evolution of accretions: Cap. IV. 2, “Magistralis adiectio.” By “internalised accretions,” I refer to those either appearing in the latter two stages, either as 2) glosae intrinsecae (i.e. glosses clearly delineated within the principal column of text), or as 3) inserted passages indistinguishable from the original text.

~~158~~

consistency of production and script used throughout, and the orderliness of the text and margins are suggestive of a carefully-copied exemplar intended for reference and reproduction. Although it lacks the customary marks of a stationer’s copy, one might imagine that B represents a codex circulating within a primitive pecia system.

A. 1r - 28v PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Pages are pricked in both margins and faintly ruled in plummet for two columns (250 x 85 mm) and 60 lines of text. The John glosses are written in a compact glossing hand of the early s. XIII betraying little Gothic influence. Curiously, a second, more sophisticated hand displaying Gothic features (perhaps identical to that of B below) has written the last 16 lines of 3rb, and has made a similar contribution of two lines midway through 11va. No signs of erasure, interpolation, or other textual transition help to account for these interventions. Otherwise, the entirety of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum is written in the same hand. Script is above top line. Excepting a few corrections, no marginal annotations appear in the scribal hand, although a ghost hand has provided a number of notes in the first chapters. Accretions are generally indistinguishable from the main text (except in chapter two and three, where they appear as ‘intrinsic’ glosses). A number of nota-signs, including a peculiar symbol recurring sporadically in the margins (a triangular cluster of dots with a hairline tail), appear throughout. As these signs do not occur regularly nor according to the order of the exemplar, they cannot be confidently adduced as evidence of apopeciae. 1r: In the upper margin, the text hand provides the rubric: “Glosule (add. alia manu Iohannis) secundum Comestorem.” The prologue begins with its pericope from the Song of Songs: “mnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecte mi.” 10v: A parchment stub appears at the end of this quire. 28v: Explicit: “Et hic habes in glosa: NON DICIT SPACIO TEMPORIS et cetera. Expliciunt notule super Iohannem.”

B. 29r - 72v PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum. Pages are pricked and ruled as above, though each column includes several more lines of text (ca. 64). Despite the similarity of letter forms and other palaeographical features, this hand is sharper and more angular than the others featured in this codex, generally producing a more Gothic mise en page. Minims appear with distinct feet, ascenders are more deliberately clubbed (with bifurcations occurring on the top line), the letter g exhibits a simpler ductus, and biting occurs more frequently. Accretions appear throughout as

~~159~~

‘intrinsic’ glosses,’ as well as marginally somewhat less often. Excepting accretions and scribal corrections, the margins are quite clean. 29r: The scribal hand has written the heading “Lucas” in the upper left margin. The prologue begins: “

edes eorum pedes recti planta.” 72v: Explicit: “ego uobiscum (add. s.l. sum) usque ad consummationem seculi. Explicit Lucas.” Below, a couplet is added: “Posse quidem rebus dat ius, natura, facultas; / Officum, casus, sextum [sic] diuina uoluntas.”

C. 73r - 116v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. The production of these matches those of John and Mark (below), and the principal hand of this text is nearly identical to that of A and C but for a couple of idiosyncrasies (e.g. more elaborate looped capitals, extravagant bowing of ascenders, particularly of the letter d, at the beginning of each line). The peculiar nota-sign observed in A reappears. The layout is consistent with the preceding glosses, and text is again ruled for 60 lines. Accretions are generally incorporated into the main text, although they occasionally appear in the margins, especially in the latter half of the glosses. A couple of particularly noteworthy marginal glosses report the sententiae magistri – e.g.: “Magister dicit quod prelatus ens in mortali non peccat ex eo quod corripit subditum…” (93v); “Dicit m(agister) quod in eodem igne erit frigus et calor…” (104v). 73r: No rubric is included in the upper margin. The glosses begin with the prologue: “Fecit deus duo luminaria magna in firmamento celi.” 109r: A second, more characteristically Gothic hand (again closely resembling that of B) has taken over at the beginning of a new quire, and completes the glosses. 116vb: Text spans the entire folio. Explicit: “presentia diuinitatis est quasi arca future mercedis. EXPLICIT SECVNDVM MATHEVM.”

D. 117r - 152r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Layout is the same as above. Accretions often occur as ‘intrinsic’ glosses,’ and only seldom in the margins. Common nota-signs are written throughout. Apart from the occasional correction, little marginalia appears. The hand, which may be the same as A, has composed the Mark glosses in their entirety, with the exception of another curious intervention by a hand resembling B (124vb).

~~160~~

117r: In the upper margin, the rubric appears in a distinct hand: “Proemium Marchi. Incipiunt notule secundum Comestorem.” The prologue to the glosses begins: “idi et ecce quattuor quadrige egrediebantur.” 149r: Despite the catchword, the wrong leaf has been placed at the beginning of this quire. In the upper margin, the scribal hand indicates the error: “Istud folium intrabit in prima columna sequentis folii; ibi queratis istud signum oo–.” The scribe has inserted the corresponding sign to connect the end of 148v to the first column of 150r. 152ra: The glosses conclude two-thirds of the way down the first column. Explicit: “De hoc habes glosam: NOTA QVOD MARCVS et cetera.” Below, the scribe has added: “Explicit Marcus.” The remainder of the folio is left blank, apart from the library stamps on the verso.

~~A parchment stub appears between the last folio and the rear flyleaf, which has been inserted with the modern binding. This flyleaf and the rear pastedown are blank.~~

D DURHAM, DEAN AND CHAPTER LIBRARY, MS A. III. 11 Parchment, ii + 239 + i, 345 x 230 mm, Durham, s. XIIIin (I); s. XIIIin (II); s. XIVin (III); s. XIIIex (IV); s. XIIIex (V); s. XIVin (VI); s. XIVin (VII); s. XIVin (VIII); s. XVin (IX); s. XVin (X). A highly miscellaneous composite manuscript; Peter Comestor, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum 2o fol. inc.: quod ieronimus in sua translatione

Bound in nineteenth-century full calf over thick wooden boards, this volume is a composite manuscript constructed of ten booklets copied from the early-thirteenth to early-fifteenth century. Late medieval foliation (39r-209r) indicates that most of these booklets were joined by the end of the fifteenth century. On 1r, an early modern hand refers to a table of contents (Tituli tractatuum qui in hoc libro continentur…), which has been written in the same hand on 99v, showing that all of the parts were bound together by the beginning of the seventeenth century. As an extensive description of the volume already appears in the Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue,19 a more succinct overview of this late-medieval composite will suffice for our present purposes. The front flyleaf is a fragment of polyphonic notation from a Mass-book, written in Durham in the late-fourteenth or early-fifteenth century. The shelfmark for the Cathedral has been written in

19 For a more extensive discussion of this manuscript’s contents and codicological features, see: The Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue, “Catalogue of Durham Cathedral Library MS. A.III.11”: http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ark/32150_s11g05fb74c.xml (last accessed 22 April 2020).

~~161~~

a contemporary hand. In the upper margin of 1r, a Gothic cursive hand (perhaps s. XIIIex) indicates an earlier Durham provenance (libraria infra capellam prioris Dunelm), beside which a later medieval hand adds: “Liber Ecclesiae Cathedr. Dunelm.” The pastedowns and rear flyleaf belong to the modern binding.

I. A. 1r-38v: PRAEPOSITINUS OF CREMONA, Summa super Psalterium. Ruled for two columns and ca. 72 lines, the text is written above top line in a compressed and angular English hand. The script is an early execution of Textualis, with some Protogothic vestiges still perceptible. Lemmata are underlined in red. Brief marginal annotations occasionally appear, and a later hand has numbered the Psalms. Letters are used throughout in the place of catchwords. 1r: This folio is heavily soiled, indicating that it circulated as the outer leaf of a booklet. A later hand has added the rubric in the upper margin: “Paraphrasis in Psalterium.” Incipit: “Egredimini filie syon et uidete regem salomonem … ad uos uiri literati et contemplatiui sermo iste dirigitur.” 38v: The text ends imperfectly on the final folio of the quire, at Ps. 80: “titulus qui dicitur limes, quia per titulum introitus.”

II. A. 39r-70v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum (incomplete). Pricked in the outer margins, and ruled in lead for two columns and 60 lines, the text is written above top line in a Textualis semi-quadrata from the early-thirteenth century, most likely from England. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. Only a few accretions appear, both as ‘intrinsic’ glosses demarcated within the main text and marginally. Otherwise, the margins are almost entirely empty. 39r: In the upper margin, a contemporary hand supplies the rubric: “Glose super Iohannem.” An early modern hand, perhaps the one responsible for the table of contents, writes: “Desinit haec Glossa in Capite 17mo folio 70mo,” following which he speculates on the age of the text: “Cum nulla sit a prima manu capitum distinctio, videtur hic codex antiquior anno 1260, quo Hugo de Sto Caro, istius divisionis auctor, mortuus est.” The prologue begins: “mnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi.” 70v: The glosses end abruptly at the end of this quire, at Jn. 17, 1: “humilis quod autem seminari pro sepeliri accipiatur. Habemus…”

~~162~~

III. A. 71r-99r: GREGORY THE GREAT, Dialogorum Libri (lib. IV). Contained in the third booklet is a handsomely executed copy of book four of St. Gregory’s Dialogues. Modestly decorated initials appear throughout, flourished with red, blue, and purple ink. Catchwords appear boxed in red. The rubricator has provided headings in the text, as well as the book number in the upper margins between adjacent pages (e.g. “liber / tertius”). A later hand has added subject headings in the upper margins. Two obsolete sets of foliation attest to the volatile history of this booklet. Faintly ruled in plummet for two columns and ca. 69 lines, the text is written below top line in a Textualis semi- quadrata of English origin. The text has been annotated throughout in a variety of cursive hands. 71r: With an initial decorated with red and blue ink, the rubric appears in the first two ruled lines: “Dialogorum gregorii pape urbis rome libri, numero quatuor.” Incipit: “De honorato abbate monasterii fundensis.” 99r: The text ends two-thirds of the way down the first column, completing the fourth book: “Si ante mortem deo hostia ipsi fuerimus.” The rest of the page is blank. 99v: Appearing here is the table of contents written in an early modern hand. The author has followed the late medieval foliation, but a subsequent hand has provided updated page numbers. Comestor’s Glosae are here identified as “Glossa super Iohannem.”

IV. A. 100r-148v: PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, Sermones. Written below top line in an English hand of the late thirteenth-century in Textualis semi-cursiva, the text is ruled in plummet for two columns of ca. 58 lines. Large flourished initials in red and blue ink appear at the beginning of each sermon. Following the index on the initial folio, the sermons have been numbered in the margins. Catchwords are used. The heading “Pe(trus) / Ra(uennatis)” appears in the upper margins of adjacent pages throughout. Excepting a few small notations, the margins are quite empty. 100r: In the upper margin, the early modern hand that has been providing clever notes throughout writes: “Praefatio haec deest in edit. harum homeliarum…” The text begins with a rubric to the preface: “Incipit prefatio felicis pape in omelias uel sermones beati Petri Rauennatis.” Incipit: “Beatus pontifex Petrus Rauennatis ecclesie prefulgidum decus et catholice ueritatis…” An index of titles for the 173 sermons follows.

~~163~~

~~148vb: The text concludes halfway down the second column, at the end of sermon 173: “et redempti ligno, ligno consummarentur ad palmam.”~~

B. 149r-170v: Excerpta e Chrysostomi opere imperfecto in Matthaeum. Written in what appears to be the same hand are sententiae extracted from St. John Chrysostom’s Matthean homilies. Layout and production are identical to the preceding text. Some scribal additions appear in the margins. Initially, the homilies are numbered and marked with a red gibbet, following which a few excerpts are provided. Afterwards, these excerpts are presented in an alphabetical index. 149r: In the upper margin, the rubric “Super Crisostomum” appears. The recurrent early modern hand provides a descriptive note: “Sententiae notabiles contentae in Homellis in Opere imperfecto super Mattheum…” Text simply begins at the first homily: “Omilia prima. Liber generationis iesu christi. Quomodo ysaac christum figurabat, ubi ysaac, quod esau signat presens seculum, Iacob futurum.” 152r: A rubric appears: “Explicit numerus et ordo omeliarum Crisostomi in inperfecto cum sententiis notalibus [sic] in eis contentis, que sententie ponuntur in tabula sequente.” The remainder of the text consists of an alphabetical index, under which the choice sententiae are presented under subject headings, beginning thus: “Aduersitas. Vtilitas aduersitatum temporalium…” 170vb: The text concludes on the entry for “Xpianus.” Explicit: “quomodo hic intrasti non habens intus.”

V. A. 171r-182v: AUGUSTINE, Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate. The layout, production, and decoration of this text are identical to those of the preceding booklet, and the text appears to have been written by the same scribe in a semi-cursive English Textualis of s. XIIIex. Throughout, the scribe has provided subject headings, chapter numbers, and other brief annotations in the margins. The heading “Encheridion” is divided among the upper margins of adjacent pages. Rubrics and large decorated initials introduce each new chapter. 171r: In the upper margin, the recurrent modern hand has written: “Capita sunt in hoc codice 135, in edit. Benedict. 122, sic edit. Erasm.” The text begins with the rubric: “Incipit liber Encherideon Augustini Laurento scribens eius eruditionem delectatur cups illum esse sapientem secundum scripturas sacras.” Incipit: “Dici non potest dilectissime fili quantum tua eruditione delecterer.”

~~164~~

182v: The text proper concludes: “ualui commodum quam prolixum de fide et spe et caritate conscripsi,” and the explicit is given: “Explicit Encheridion Augustini quem scripsit Laurentus.” A later hand has added a catchword corresponding to the following booklet.

VI. The sermon and opuscula contained in the following booklet are all written in the same hand: an Anglicana formata of the early fourteenth century. Large flourished initials regularly appear in red and blue ink, resembling those of the preceding booklet. The layout is consistent throughout: the text has been ruled very faintly in plummet for two columns of ca. 50 lines.

A. 183r-v: AUGUSTINE, Sermon 252. In the upper margin, a rubric appears: “Augustinus de laude dei.” Beneath which, the modern annotator’s hand appearing throughout adds: “Liber hic non editus est inter Augustini opera, nec recensetur a Bibliothecarum Ecclesiasticarum conditoribus.” Incipit: “Resurectio [sic] et clarificatio domini nostri iesu christi fratres karissimi ostendit nobis uitam.” On the right side of the initial lines of the first column, another rubric appears: “Augustinus de laude dei et penis purgatorii.” 183v: Explicit: “hic uitam uite meritis comperemus. Explicit tractatus de laude dei et penis purgatorii.”

B. 183v-185v: AUGSTINE, De uisitatione infirmorum (lib. I). Directly below Augustine’s sermon the following text appears, commenced with a rubric and a decorated initial. The rubric: “Incipit Augustinus de uisitatione infirmorum.” Incipit: “Visitacionis gratia nepoti meo karissimo morienti extremum ualedicturus.” 184r: In the upper margin, the modern annotator notes: “de Visitatione Infirmorum libri sunt duo; quorum Ius est hic, 2us in fol. 192 rejicitur; in Edit. Benedict. dicuntur esse incerti auctoris.” 185vb: In the lower margin, a contemporary hand notes that the continuation of this treatise can be found below. Explicit: “per omnia secula seculorum amen. Explicit tractatus de uisitacione infirmorum.”

C. 185vb-192ra: ALCUIN, De uirtutibus et uiciis. Beneath, another rubric (misidentifying this opuscule as Augustine’s) and decorated initial introduce Alcuin’s treatise on the virtues and vices. Additional rubrics indicate chapter divisions throughout.

~~165~~

185v: The rubric: “Incipit liber beati Augustinus de modo uiuendi.” Incipit: “Primo omnium querendum est homini quid sit uera scientia ueraque sapientia.” 192ra: Explicit: “qui est benedictus per omnia secula seculorum amen. Explicit tractatus beati augustini de modo uiuendi.”

D. 192ra-194v: AUGSTINE, De uisitatione infirmorum (lib. II). In the bottom of the column after Alcuin’s treatise, a rubric introduces the second book of Augustine’s De uisitatione: “Incipit alius tractatus beati augustini de uisitacione infirmorum.” In the lower margin, the same hand as above directs the reader to the first part of this treatise. 192rb: Incipit: “Superioris tractatus cursum me clausisse putaueram.” 194vb: Explicit: “ad deum iustificatus ab ipso qui uiuit et regnat per omnia secula seculorum amen. Explicit augustinus de uisitacione infirmorum.” The catchword on the bottom of the leaf does not correspond to the beginning of the following booklet.

VII. A. 195r-202v: PROSPER OF AQUITAINE, De uera innocentia. Script, decoration, and production closely resemble those of the preceding two booklets. The treatise constituting this booklet has been written in a single Anglicana Formata, in a more compressed script spanning two columns of ca. 68 lines. 195r: In the upper margin, the modern annotator has noted that this opuscule appears to be a type of florilegium with excerpts from multiple writers. Indeed, the work consists of many discrete meditations, which are numbered (1-390) in the margins. Incipit: “Innocentia uera est que nec sibi nec alterius notet quoniam qui diligit iniquitatem odit animam suam.” 202va: The text concludes near the bottom of the first column. Explicit: “extollaris aliquando memor autem eris si te ipsum respexeris. EXPLICIT.”

VIII. 203r-209v: VARII, Sermones. Comprising the following booklet is a collection of sermons, written in two columns of ca. 45 lines by two scribes in a fine Anglicana Formata of the early s. XIV. The modern annotator notes: “In Edit. Benedict. dicitur esse incerti auctoris qui videtur vixisse circ. aetatem Karoli M. / dubitat an Alcuini sit.” As in the previous booklets, rubrics and large initials decorated in red and blue introduce texts and chapter divisions.

~~166~~

A. 203r-205ra: PSEUDO-AUGUSTINE, De assumptione beatae Mariae. On the right hand of the initial lines, a rubric appears: “Liber Augustini de assumptione beate marie.” Incipit: “Ad interrogata de uirginis et matris domini resolucione temporali.” 205ra: Explicit: “Qui cum patre et filio et spiritu sancto uiuis et regnas deus per omnia secula seculorum amen. Explicit liber de assumptione beate uirginis.”

B. 205rb-207va: ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Sermo de ascensione Domini. The following sermon begins in the same manner in the right-hand column. The rubric: “Sermo Iohannis Crisostomi de ascensione domini.” Incipit: “Hodierna die dilectissimi fratres deo simus mira reconciliacione.” 207va: Explicit: “gratia domini nostri iesu christi qui uiuit et regnat in secula seculorum amen. EXPLICIT SERMO IOHANNIS CRISOSTOMI DE ASCENSIONE DOMINI.”

C. 207va-209ra: CESARIUS OF ARLES, De igne purgatorio. The following sermon, typically misidentified as Augustine’s, begins with the rubric: “Incipit omelia Augustini de igne purgatorio.” Incipit: “In lectione apostolica que nobis paulo antre recitata est fratres karissimi audiuimus.” 209ra: Explicit: “elemosinarum largitate possimus redimere prestante domino nostro iesu christo qui cum patre et cetera. EXPLICIT TRACTATVS BEATI AVGVSTINI DE IGNE PVRGATORIO.”

209rb-v: AUGUSTINE, Sermo de caritate. The final sermon of the booklet begins. In the upper margin, the rubric appears: “Augustinus de laude caritatis.” Incipit: “iuinarum scripturarum multiplicem habundanciam latissimamque doctrinam sine ullo errore comprehendit.” 209vb: The sermon concludes halfway down the second column: “non solum sit grauis sed etiam breuis. EXPLICIT LIBELLVS BEATI AVGVSTINI DE LAVDE CARITATIS.”

IX. A. 210r-229v: Tabula super libros Augustini de Genesi ad litteram. Written in a more rapid English cursive from the beginning of s. XV displaying certain Anglicana features, the penultimate booklet begins. Text is ruled for two columns of ca. 56 lines. The scribe often makes additions in the margins. Lemmata are underlined in red, and gibbets indicate textual divisions. Catchwords are used. Otherwise, production is hasty and of an inferior quality. 210r: The text begins without a rubric. Incipit: “Inspecturus hanc tabulam super libros beati augustini super genesim ad litteram tam exiliter compilatam omnino cauere studeat.”

~~167~~

~~229vb: Text concludes halfway down the right-hand column. Explicit: “quandoque corporaliter uidero li. 12 c. 38. EXPLICIT.”~~

~~230r-v: This folio is blank and unruled.~~

X. A. 231r-238v: Tabula super tractatu de professione monachorum. The final booklet is written in another distinct English cursive of the early s. XV, with a number of Anglicana features. Subjects are listed alphabetically in the margins throughout. 231r: Incipit: “sta tabula de libello qui uocatur tractatus de professione monarchorum tres partes continet et quelibet pars in certa capitula est diuisa.” 238va: Explicit: “excepto cum per contemptum uertuntur in usum. Par I in fine. EXPLICIT TABVLA TRACTATVS PROFESSIONIS MONACHORVM.”

~~i: The rear flyleaf and pastedown are blank.~~

I PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE, LAT. 645 Parchment, i + 158 + i fols., 260 x 170 mm, 2 cols., France, s. XII4 Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Io., Mc., Lc., Mt.) 2o fol. inc.: ambrosius in prologo quem facit.

The binding is s. XVIII with the French royal arms. The parchment is stiff and somewhat yellowed, with some tears and sewing throughout. Both pastedowns are blank. A modern hand supplies the BnF shelfmark (645) on the front flyleaf. On the first folio, there are several signs of early modern provenance common to manuscripts of the Bibliothèque nationale: a stamp of the Bibliotheca Regia, with the corresponding shelfmark written on either side in two different hands (“Regius 3992 3.3”), and a subsequent mark indicating the collection of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (“Codex Colbert 3984”). No further indications of provenance are present. Blank leaves and parchment stubs occurring between texts (e.g. 34v-35v) indicate the separate production of each set of glosses. Small parchment tabs sewn onto the first folio of each text, as well as soiling displayed by the outer leaves, also suggest that each set of glosses originally circulated as a separate booklet. This volume has been composed by at least four quite distinct glossing hands from the late- twelfth century, a couple of which (A & C) are determinately northern French. The text is modestly abbreviated, and little Gothic influence is observed in the palaeography. Writing is above top line throughout. The upper and outer margins have been severely trimmed (though unevenly among the

~~168~~

four sets of glosses), perceptibly at the expense of rubrics, headings, catchwords, and annotations in many instances. A later hand has provided foliation (1-158) wherever he has found space in the upper margins. Altogether, this codex represents a miscellaneous, seemingly economical collection of Comestor’s glosses, varying somewhat in their level of execution. Signs that the glosses were lightly studied and emended are present, but – absent evidence from the trimmings – the components of this manuscript seem to be a degree removed from the classroom.

A. 1r-34r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Page is pricked, in outer (and also inner on fol. 1-13) margins, and ruled in crayon for two columns (215 x 65 mm each) for 48 lines of text. Pages have been trimmed most heavily in this set of glosses. Gibbets are used throughout to signal transitions in the text, including ‘intrinsic’ glosses. A number of neat, purpose-ruled accretions have been added by the scribal hand in the lower margins. Glosses and lemmata are indicated by sublinear dots. The script is determinately Protogothic, executed by a few small but neat glossing hands. Salient features include: uncrossed Tironian et; transitional a with a tentative nub for a second compartment; complex ductus of g; predilection for uncial d, though the upright form does occur; c-t ligature; no biting of bows; insular enim. Late twelfth century, northern French. A number of suppletions (seemingly scribal) appear sideways in the inner margins. 1r: The upper margin has been heavily trimmed, and any rubric has been lost. The prologue begins: “Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecte mi.” In the lower margin, the first marginal accretion (“Ne uidearis”) appears in the scribal hand. 18r: An accretion has been added upside-down in a distinct hand. 34rb: Explicit: “Hoc habes in glosa: NON DIDICIT SPACIO et cetera.” Added beneath: “Expliciunt feliciter.” All but the three topmost lines of right column is left blank. 34v-35v: These leaves are unruled and have been left blank.

B. 36r-77ra: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Ruled in plummet for two columns (210 x 65 mm) of 51 lines. A charming, small but very neat glossing hand begins, displaying burgeoning Gothic characteristics, such as g with a simpler ductus and a two-compartment a. Nevertheless, no biting appears (not even in pp). Whimsically-looped ascenders sometimes appear on the topmost lines. The Tironian et remains uncrossed, and the insular enim is used. Glosses and lemmata are generally indicated with sublinear dots, but they are underlined at times. A relatively small number of marginal corrections and annotations are visible, while many others have been trimmed down.

~~169~~

Accretions appear frequently as glosae intrinsecae. Internal accretions have been carefully planned, and sometimes appear in fanciful zig-zag patterns. Flourished gibbets are used to signal such additions, and some space is generally left between accretions and the main text. A contemporary hand has ordered the quires with numbers and catchwords, though these have often been trimmed beyond legibility. 36r: A single descender indicates that some text in the upper margin (likely a rubric) has been trimmed off. The prologue begins: “Vidi et ecce quattuor quadrige egrediebantur.” 37rb-37va: Three internal accretions of particular interest appear in succession: “Proemium legit m(agister) ante alias glosas, quia ille non sufficerent ad unam lectionem et prologus sufficit”; “Ma(gister) tamen legebat eo ordine quo habetur in libro Marcus euangelista dei et petri et cetera”; “Et tamen tunc quando m(agister) hoc dixit, fuit in scholis quidam magister magni nominis /37va/ nomine iohannes belent [sic] qui asserebat se uidisse cathedram marchi super quam scripsit euangelium latine.”20 77ra: The glosses conclude: “Marcus longe inferius, scilicet a predicacione iohannis.” The scribe supplies an explicit on the following line: “Expliciunt Glosule super marcum euangelistam.” Following another space, “Finito libro sit laus et gloria christo.” The remainder of the folio has been left blank, and the verso is unruled.

C. 78r-106v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum (incomplete). A third hand begins, typical of school texts of northern France in the last quarter of the twelfth century. Compression of the text varies throughout these glosses, but a definite change of scribe is difficult to identify. The script generally has a rounder aspect than the previous hands, as displayed by the 8-shaped g, the gently- bowed suspension marks and figure-eight -ur abbreviation, and the rounded strokes connecting minims in the letters m, n, and u. Terminal strokes often descend and bow to the left (e.g. in the 9- shaped con- abbreviation, the letters h, i, u, and occasionally q). A trailing s appears in the terminal position. Otherwise, typical Protogothic letter forms appear throughout. The first half of the text is written in brown ink, throughout which a contemporary hand has made meticulous corrections and marginal additions in darker ink. Initially, the scribe has underlined glosses and lemmata, but from 80r onwards sublinear dots are used for this purpose. Accretions appear explicitly throughout, most

~~20 For a short discussion of this last accretion, see: Beryl SMALLEY, Gospels in the Schools, 74-5.~~

~~170~~

frequently as ‘intrinsic’ glosses marked with gibbets and sometimes red boxes, but also in the margins (on a couple of occasions in distinct hands). A contemporary hand has added numbers in the place of catchwords. Pages have been pricked in the outer margins, and spaciously ruled in crayon for between 41 and 49 lines of text. 78r: The prologue begins: “Pedes eorum pedes recti et planta.” The upper margin (here and throughout) is trimmed quite tightly, and no rubric appears. 106v: Explicit: “accipiendi necessaria a subditis. Hic autem sollicitudo.” The glosses end abruptly at the end of the quire, on Lk. 9, 1. This scribe has filled this page, but the verso is left blank and unruled. Two parchment stubs appear after this folio, suggesting that the glosses were originally bound in this incomplete state.

D. 107r-158r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. The parchment is generally of a lower quality, exhibiting a number of holes, gouges, tearings and sewings. Outer margins have been pricked (sometimes twice), and pages are ruled in plummet somewhat inconsistently for between 52 and 65 lines of text. A small and very untidy glossing hand begins. The script is thickset and compressed, displaying the usual Protogothic forms. The scribe displays a certain roguish disdain towards rulings: lines are crooked, spacing is uneven, and the width of columns varies considerably (ranging between 40 and 75 mm). Glosses and lemmata are underlined. Accretions have neither been added in the margins nor delineated in the principal column – an editor will be left to determine whether any have been incorporated into the text. (It is possible that this text represents a more primitive version of the Matthew glosses.) Excepting minor corrections, the margins are relatively clean. A subsequent hand numbers the quires in the place of catchwords. 107r: In the upper margin, the first five or six words of a rubric have been cropped, of which the end is legible: “Note super matheum.” The prologue of the Matthew glosses begins: “Fecit deus duo luminaria.”

122v-123r: An arcane university hand (perhaps s. XIV ) contributes some vague marginal annotations. 153r: A handsome little dragon has been drawn in the lower margin. 158rb: The Matthew glosses conclude: “in presenti uobis exibita presentia diuinitatis est quasi arca future mercedis.” No further explicit is present. The verso of the leaf is unruled, and blank but for a Bibliotheca Regia stamp.

~~171~~

M PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE, LAT. 14435 Parchment, i + 161 + i fols. (foliated 1-162), 335 x 235 mm, Saint-Victor, s. XIII1 Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Mt., Io., Mc.); Peter of Poitiers, Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi; Pierre de Roissy(?), Super cantica canticorum; Stephen Langton, Postillae super prologos et Genesim 2o fol. inc.: quod scilicet credere quod deus est homo

Bound in nineteenth-century quarter leather, with marbled pastedowns and two paper flyleaves supplied with the binding. The pastedown and front flyleaves are blank, but for the BnF shelfmark. The original flyleaf (parchment) bears in a late medieval hand, “S. Victor 70.” The verso displays a number of inscriptions. At the top, in a contemporary hand: “In hoc libro continentur postille super matheum marchum et iohannem. Item genelogia pictauensis. Glose super cantica secundum cancellarium carnotensem et quedam alia.” Further down, the Victorine shelfmark, “E. 16.” Then in a s. XIII hand (seemingly the same that writes the ‘titles’ beginning each book): “postille super matheum archidiaconi herbipolensis,” and, in a Burgundian hand, a table of contents follows: “Que secuntur hic habentur, scilicet Postille super matheum . 1 . Super Iohannem . 67 . Super marcum . 94. Item genealogia patrum figurata ad adam usque ad christum et apostolos ubi compendiose sacre scripture tractantur Hystorie quem librum composuit pictauensis . 136 . Expositio super cantica canticorum secundum quendam cancellarium carnotensem . 143 . Postille super prologos et partem genesis…” Two ex-libris marks appear on the lower half of the page. The first, s. XIII, is the charming anathema proper to Victorine codices: “Iste liber est sancti Victoris par(isiensis) quicumque eum furatus fuerit uel celauerit uel titulum istum deleuerit anathema sit.” The second, probably earlier, written in a mannerly chancery script: “Iste liber de libris domini Bertoldi herbipolensis sancto victoris par(isiensis) collatus caritatiue clericis pauperibus in theologia studentibus est accomadandus secundum formam expressam in autentico testamenti eiusdem bertoldi quod scilicet autenticum seruat armarius.”21 Despite the somewhat miscellaneous nature of this codex, its contents have been curated with a particular interest in the programme of biblical scholarship first articulated by Hugh of Saint- Victor. The nearly complete collection of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata (which may have been produced as a set), followed by Peter of Poitier’s popular abridgement of the Historia scholastica, demonstrates Comestor’s importance to the Victorine programme of biblical study. Without

21 The same Bertoldus appears in the Victorine obituaries, where he is reported to have donated twenty volumes to the Abbey, “ad usum scholarium.” Cf. Léopold DELISLE, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, II: 211-2.

~~172~~

apparent recourse to the Gloss, the miscellaneous commentaries that follow nevertheless represent an approach to glossing the text of the Bible characteristic of the Paris schools. Altogether, this manuscript indicates the Victorine attraction to Peter Comestor and his milieu of Parisian masters, now considered to have advanced Hugh’s literal-historical approach to the study of the sacred page.

A. 1r-66r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. The text is written above top line, in a conscientious French hand from the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Some vestiges of Protogothic are present (e.g. uncrossed Tironian et, c-t ligature), but the script bears the features of an emergent Northern Textualis: two-compartment a, extravagantly arced in first position; simplified and rounded ductus of g; the terminal stroke of h descends below the baseline to the left; fusion of ‘trailing’ s in terminal position; biting throughout; ascenders display an approach-stroke from the left, and are sometimes bifurcated. Glosses and lemmata are underlined. Accretions appear only occasionally, both in the margins and as ‘intrinsic’ glosses. The heading “Matthaeus” is provided in the upper margins throughout. Another hand adds chapter numbers. But for a few primitive maniculae and some trivial annotations in subsequent hands (suggesting that this text was studied in the Abbey), the margins are clean. Pages are pricked in the inner margins, and ruled in crayon for ca. 56 lines. 1r: In the upper margin, the rubric: “Postille super Matheum.” In the lower margin, the anathematising ex-libris of Saint-Victor reappears in a contemporary hand. The prologue to the glosses begins: “Fecit deus duo luminaria magna.” The blue capital F is modestly flourished in red ink and spans six lines of text. 1v: In the lower margin, the handsome Victorine coat of arms appears in red, blue, and yellow ink, with the invocation: “Iesus . Maria . Sanctus Victor . Sanctus Augustinus .” 47r: In the upper margin, a later hand provides a notable accretion, beginning: “Magister Lugo(bardus) sic exponit ex toto corde cum deuotione quo ad uirginem…” 66r: Explicit: “presentia diuinitatis est qua [eras. quasi 2 litt.] arca future mercedis.” 66v: The page is blank and unruled. Some discoloured markings and depressions in this folio corresponding to the front flyleaf suggest that this set of glosses originally constituted its own booklet.

B. 67r-94: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. An agreeable glossing hand begins, quite similar to that of the preceding text but exhibiting several distinct characteristics: two-compartment

~~173~~

a does not exhibit the tall arc; the lower compartment of g is open, terminating horizontally; rounded approach-stroke of Tironian et. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. Subsequent hands have added chapter numbers and occasionally the heading “Io” in the upper margin. Little marginalia, excepting minor corrections with tie marks and an occasional short gloss, appears in the scribal hand. Accretions are seldom conspicuous – a couple of ‘intrinsic’ glosses are delineated within the principal column of text. Pages are pricked in the outer margins, and ruled in plummet for two columns (75 mm) and ca. 58 lines of text. Catchwords appear in a distinct hand. 67r: In the upper margin, the s. XIII hand which appeared above provides the ‘title’: “Postille super marcum et iohannem archidiaconi herbipolensis.” The prologue to the glosses begins: “Poma omnia uetera et noua.” The descender of the red initial P spans 31 lines. For the first folio only, lemmata are indicated with sublinear dots. 93va: The text concludes halfway down the first column. Explicit: “et hoc habes in glosa: NON DICIT SPACIO TEMPORIS et cetera.” The rest of the leaf is blank.

C. 94r-135r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Writing above top line, a new hand begins – also early Northern Textualis and clearly of the same milieu as the previous two, but displaying several distinct features: the upright d is preferred, though an uncial form with a hairline descending to the left is used; the letter g appears in the form of a figure-eight, sometimes imperfect and closed with a hairline; a complex 3-shaped z is used; ascenders are conspicuously clubbed, and sometimes break to the left; complex, angular capitals appear; the Tironian et is crossed; the con- abbreviation in the form of a backwards c. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. For about the first half of the glosses, almost no accretions occur. From fol. 116r, accretions begin to appear regularly as delineated ‘intrinsic’ glosses or marginal additions. At this point, a contemporary hand starts to provide biblical citations in the margins, persisting until 129r. A subsequent hand (seemingly the same as that which did so for the previous texts) has supplied chapter numbers in the margins. The heading “Marcus” appears in the upper margins. Some nota-signs and marginal annotations have been added in several contemporary hands throughout. Pages are pricked in both margins and ruled in plummet for two columns (75 mm) and 52-58 lines of text. Catchwords are used. 94r: As in the previous two sets of glosses, the contemporary hand provides the rubric in the upper margin: “Marcus postille.” Immediately beside another hand adds “Super prologum Marchi,”

~~174~~

which recurs on the verso. The prologue of the glosses begins: “Vidi et ecce quadrige egrediebantur.” 114v: A space of six lines appears in the left column, and the text on each side of the lacuna does not correspond: “Quod sequitur de sequenti sententia est || ET INDE, que predicta sunt…” Another space of about half a line appears in the second column. The scribe seems to have been copying from a defective exemplar, and left himself enough room to supply the omitted text. 135rb: Explicit: “Marcus longe inferius, sed a predicatione iohannis. De hoc Glosa.” The final gloss is omitted. Beneath, a ghost hand supplies a further explicit: “Expliciunt [spat. quasi 6 litt.] super marchum.” The verso is left blank and unruled.

D. 136r-142v: PETER OF POITIERS, Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi. Here begins a handsomely-executed copy of Peter’s Compendium, a popular classroom tool depicting Christ’s descent from Adam, being an abridgement of the Historia scholastica.22 This work is a complex apparatus of two to three columns of text woven between the genealogy, framed in red medallions connected with dots and lines. Otherwise, modest decoration occurs throughout. Like the preceding sets of Comestor’s glosses, the hand is an early French Textualis, but more compact and palaeographically quite distinct from the others: e.g. the terminal stroke of the 2-shaped r bows and descends well below the baseline, uncial R and N occur in final position. Protogothic features are still present: alternation between upright and uncial d, uncrossed Tironian et, c-t ligature is retained. A contemporary hand contributes several short rubrics. Flourished initials have been supplied in red ink. Otherwise, the margins are clean, and no additional hands intervene. The parchment has once been torn and sewn. Pages are pricked in the outer margins, and the text is ruled in plummet for two columns (often further divided) and ca. 50 lines of text. Additional ruling has been provided on more graphically complex pages. 136r: In the upper left margin, the scribal hand has written, “Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia,” and on the right, “Sancti spiritus.” A contemporary hand provides the rubric, “compendium historie in genealogiam christi.” Incipit: “Considerans scripture sacre prolixitatem.” The initial C is floriated, with its vegetation descending four lines into the text, and about the space of five more above.

~~22 Cf. MOORE, The Works of Peter of Poitiers, 107-17; DALY, “Master of Histories,” 70-1.~~

~~175~~

142rb: The text proper concludes: “cum ioseph fuit electus inter dies ascensionis et penthecosten.” Beneath, two further apparatus of medallions have been drawn. 142v: A modestly-decorated candelabrum with seven branches – with which the Compendium customarily ends – spans the entire leaf.

E. 143r-146r: PIERRE DE ROISSY(?), Super Cantica canticorum (Stegmüller, RB 6535). Writing above top line, a small, compressed glossing hand begins. Once more, a French hand from the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Transitional between Protogothic and Textualis, most searchingly demonstrated by the alternation between crossed and uncrossed Tironian et. Lemmata are underlined throughout. Chapter headings have been added marginally in a subsequent hand, with the heading “Cantica” in the upper margins. Occasional marginal annotations and corrections in the scribal hand. The parchment is once torn and sewn, and elsewhere is stained. Pages are pricked in the both margins, and ruled in plummet for two very wide, compact columns of text (95 mm) extending ca. 79 lines. 143r: The rubric appears in the upper margin, “Cantica canticorum secundum cancellarium carnotensem.” The text begins: “Ecce ego hodie et cras demonia eicio et sanitates proficio et tercia die consummor. Verba sunt domini in euangelio in quibus ostenditur triplex status ecclesie, scilicet status incipientium, cum dicitur hodie et cras demonia eicio et uicia; status profitencium, cum dicitur et sanitates perficio; status perfectorum, cum dicitur et tercia die consummor…” 146rb: Text ends two-thirds down the column: “Super montes id est super sanctos. Nam sunt diuerse uirtutes et qui redolent per bonam uitam et per bonam doctrinam.” No further explicit appears. The verso is blank and unruled.

F. 147r-161v: STEPHEN LANGTON, Postillae super prologos et Genesim (Stegmüller, RB 7744, 2). The final hand of the codex begins, writing above the top line, in an early French Textualis like those observed throughout, retaining the fewest Protogothic features. A tall two-compartment a is used throughout; long approach stroke from the left observed in certain letter forms; the Tironian et is habitually crossed, with a couple exceptions; fusions appear frequently; capital letters are used more consistently. Lemmata are underlined throughout. Chapter numbers and corresponding gibbets have been added by a subsequent hand, as well as the heading “Gen.” or “super gen.” in the upper margins. Otherwise, the margins are clean, but for a couple of unobtrusive notes. A catchword

~~176~~

occurs on 143v. Prickings are occasionally visible in the outer margin, and pages are boldly ruled in plummet for two narrow columns (60 mm) and ca. 63 lines of text. 147r: In the upper margin, the usual hand adds the rubric: “Postille super prologos in genesi.” Incipit: “In exodo legitur XXXVIIo capitulo facies mihi altare de lignis sechim V cubitos habebit in longitudine et totidem in latitudine, in altitudine uero III cubitos…” The distended blue initial spans 37 lines of text. 148vb: Four empty lines followed by a second distended capital in red ink signal the beginning of the postils on Genesis proper: “IN PRINCIPIO. Nota in sacra scriptura IIIIor attenduntur.” 161va: The postils abruptly end on Gen. 6, at the bottom of the first column: “ubi nos habemus In principio creauit deus celum et terram, hebrei habent In p(rincipio) c(reauit) d(eus) eloym c(elum) et ter(ram) utriusque numeri est. Ergo…” The second column is left blank, excepting the BnF stamp. The rear flyleaf, which has been foliated (162), is otherwise blank.

N PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE, LAT. 14434 Parchment, ii + 134 fols. + ii (foliated 1-134), 320 x 220 mm, Saint-Victor, s. XIII1 A variety of biblical glosses; Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Mc., Io.) 2o fol. inc.: iustos et ab ipsis comprehenditur

The volume retains its medieval binding: distressed white leather over wooden boards, with four raised bands and endbands. Marks from clasps and a chain appear on the front cover. A small parchment book plate is pasted onto the back cover, with the red initial “E” being all that remains legible (probably standing for the Victorine shelfmark E. 13). Front and back flyleaves are conjoint with their respective pastedowns. The front pastedown and flyleaf – bearing the BnF shelfmark and stamp – are scraps of parchment from a French s. XII4 copy of Justinian’s Digest (lib. 1, t. 3-6), which has been extensively annotated in a small glossing hand of the thirteenth century, as well as a ghost hand in the commodious lower margins. These fragments derive from a respectable edition of

the Digest : large shapely capitals of red and blue begin each section, and rubricated initials appear throughout. Both leaves have been trimmed into the text in the upper margin. The text on the pastedown begins partway through n. 27, an excerpt from lib. 1 of Tertullian’s Quaestionum: “quasi hoc legibus inesse credi oportet…” The verso of the front flyleaf, which bears the foliation “13,” concludes at t. 6, n. 4: “Nam ciuium romanorum quidam … in mea potestate est. ITEM qui ex filio.”

~~177~~

On the bottom of iiv, a decidedly Gothic hand (perhaps s. XIIIex) has provided a table of contents for this codex: “Tabula hic contentorum. / Glose super matheum ab . I . usque . 25 . Super Marcum . 25 . Super iohannem . 31 . Super lucam . 48 . Item postilla super marcum . 67. Super iohannem usque ad infra…” Additionally, iiv bears the Victorine shelfmark “E. 13,” above which a much later hand has written “949.” In the lower margin of 1r, the corresponding ex-libris of Saint- Victor in a conscientious s. XIII1 hand with the familiar anathema: “Iste liber est sancti uictoris parisiensis quicunque eum furatus fuerit uel celauerit uel titulum istum deleuerit anathema sit. Amen.” On 1v, the Victorine coat of arms appears in red, blue, and yellow ink with the invocation: “Iesus . Maria . Sanctus Victor . Sanctus Augustinus .” No further indications of the manuscript’s provenance are present. Constructed of two booklets, the first of coarse and fibrous parchment, and the second finer and more supple, though yellowing. The booklets were originally composed with considerable care, and each seems to have been understood as a unified production. The first part of this codex is principally an abbreviation of Comestor’s glosses on the four Gospels, described at some length below. The second is a high quality collection of glosses, mainly a partial set of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata, together with postils (perhaps Langton’s) on the Canticles making extensive use of the Gloss, in a manner very similar to Comestor. This codex once again illustrates the continued Victorine interest in glosses emanating from the Parisian classroom, and the serious attention paid by the canons, even into the thirteenth century, to the biblical scholarship advanced by Peter Comestor and his collaborators.

I. 1r-65v: Abbreuiatio Glosarum Petri Comestoris super euangelia (Stegmüller, RB 10516-7). This set of glosses on the four Gospels is largely an abbreviation of Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata. Each text is structured as a lemmatic commentary on the Gospel, presenting long sections of lemmata coupled with succinct expositions, the latter of which represent a digestion of Comestor’s glosae while eliminating explicit reference to the Gloss. The original text is divided into paragraphs closely following the Langtonian chapter divisions, the latter which a near-contemporary hand has added in the margins throughout. A contemporary scribe includes headings in the upper margins indicating the Gospel at hand. Pages are pricked in both margins. Written above top line, the text is ruled in plummet for two columns (260 x 80 mm) and 60 lines of text. Elegant red and blue flourished initials appear. The scribe has indicated lemmata with sublinear dots, which were

~~178~~

~~subsequently underlined by the rubricator. Catchwords were originally used, but have been trimmed down.~~

Palaeography is very consistent between the four sets of glosses, and it has been difficult to detect where transitions of hand might occur. The script is French and appears to be early thirteenth- century, displaying burgeoning Gothic features: two-compartment a is used; minims display feet, and ascenders an approach stroke from the left or bifurcation; modest biting and breaking of ascenders is observed. Nevertheless, the hand remains Protogothic: text is very lightly abbreviated; Tironian et is uncrossed; ductus of g remains complex; c-t ligature is in use; con-abbreviation appears as backwards c. The writing is compressed but neat. Together with the palaeographical characteristics and writing above top line, the chapter numbers are suggestive of a date well into the first quarter of s. XIII. Plenty of marginal annotations appear throughout in various hands: these glosses have been studied in good earnest.

A. I. 1r-25rb: Super Matthaeum (Stegmüller, RB 10516). Prefatory material consists of two prologues – the first is a digestion of numerous prefatory materials, notably the prothema circulating in the Matthew Gloss, “Cum multi legantur” (in turn, an adaption of Jerome’s prologue on the four evangelists), and of the Anselmian prologue from the John Gloss, “Omnibus diuine scripture” (which, among other sources, is a development upon Eriugena’s Homiliae in euangelium Iohannis); the second is the ‘Monarchian’ prologue from the Matthew Gloss, together with excerpts of Comestor’s exposition. 1ra: With the rubric “INTROITVS IN MATHEVM,” the first prologue begins: “Cum multi legantur scripsisse euangelia … resurrectionem et ascensionem sic terminat librum suum.” Similarly, the ‘Monarchian’ prologue with Comestor’s glosses begins: “PROLOGVS IERONIMI IN MATHEO. Matheus ex iudea oriundus sicut in ordine euangelistarum primus ponitur antequam nullus … /1va/ intelligendam esse dispositionem querentibus non tacere id est aperire spiritualem intelligentiam. MATHEVS. Liber generationis. Consuetudo hebreorum est ut suis uoluminibus a principiis nomina imponant ut est Genesis Exodus. Vnde hic liber dicitur generationis …” 25rb: The Matthew glosses end: “non sunt defuturi qui diuina mansione [eras. non] sunt digni.” No further explicit appears.

~~179~~

B. 25rb-31vb: Super Marcum (Stegmuller, RB 10517). The glosses on the Mark begin with little more ceremony than chapter divisions in the previous text: a small decorative initial appears, charmingly flourished in red and blue, with a rubric on the line immediately below the conclusion of the Matthew glosses. 25r: The rubric: “INTROITVS IN MARCVM.” The first prologue follows – a fusion of the ‘Monarchian’ prologue circulating in the Mark Gloss and the ingressus to Comestor’s Glosae super Marcum glosatum – with the incipit: “Marcus petri discipulus qui ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur … in predicatione apostolorum sub his uerbis…” Afterwards, a Hieronymian prothema from the Mark Gloss together with Comestor’s digested exposition: “PROLOGVS IERONIMI IN MARCVM. Marcus euangelista dei et beati petri apostoli in baptismate filius. Vnde petrus in canonica epistula ait salutat uos marcus filius meus … /25v/ PRESTAT DEVS EST a quo omne bonum.” 25v: Afterwards, several prefatory glosses from the Mark Gloss are digested, and presented (without exposition) under the rubric: “INCIPIT PROLOGVS IN MARCHVM. Quattor sunt qualitates de quibus … Marcus petri discipulus leuiticus genere … Marcum pene intactum maiores nostri reliquerunt…,” which concludes: “Omnia que minus plene hic exposita inuenies require in matheo capitulis subnotatis. Litteram sic lege: hoc est.” Finally, the lemmatic commentary on Mark (considerably shorter than those on the other three Gospels) begins, as above, with Comestor’s abbreviated glosses inserted throughout (25vb): “INCIPIT EVANGELIVM SECVNDVM MARCVM. Initium euangelii. IIIIor euangelia unum sunt…” 31vb: As above, the Mark glosses end with little pomp: “d(omino) co(operante) et s(ermone) con(firmante) s(equentibus) s(ignis), preceptum obedientia, obedientiam signa comitantur.”

C. 31vb-46rb (cont. 66r): Super Iohannem (Stegmuller, RB 10517). An abbreviation of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum follows, produced in the same manner as above. The rubric appears on the line immediately below the conclusion of Mark. 31vb: The rubric appears: “PROLOGVM REQVIRE IN FINE LIBRI.” Following which, the beginning of a long prefatory gloss from the John Gloss has been reproduced: “Contra eos qui temporalem natiuitatem dicebant christum non semper fuisse incipit de eternitate uerbi dicens.” (A more extended introitus on John appears below [66r], as the rubric advises.) The lemmatic commentary with abbreviated glosses from Comestor immediately follows: “In principio erat uerbum. Verbum dicitur uel quod profertur et transit ut quando dicitur deus uel aliquod huiusmodi uel cogitatio et conceptio mentis que ex mente nata cum ipsa mente permanet …”

~~180~~

46rb: The glosses on John conclude near the end of the second column: “qui scribendi sunt libros. Non dicit spacio non posse capi, sed capacitate legencium, quamuis salua fide rerum plerumque uerba excedere fidem per yperbolem uideantur.” In the final three ruled lines of the column, a subsequent hand conscientiously describes how many chapters and verses appear in each of the Gospels, suggesting the relative novelty of the Langtonian divisions: “In Matheo .C. 28 / uersus / MT CCCLV.”

D. 46va-47vb (cont. 66v): Euangeliarium. Curiously interrupting the glosses is what appears to be an extract from an evangelistary, listing the Gospel readings for the Mass proper to the liturgical seasons. This text begins on the verso of the leaf on which the John glosses concluded, and spans an additional folio. The script is a contemporary French Protogothic, thought it displays more sharpness, angularity, biting, and Gothic influence in general than the preceding hands. Writing is below top line, suggesting that this text (and the glosses to which it is joined) were produced on the threshold of the change in scribal practice, ca. 1220. 46va: Ruled for two columns and 60 lines, the text begins with a rubric: “DOMINICA PRIMA IN ADVENTV DOMINI.” A list of Gospel readings spans three leaves. An alphabetical note is assigned to the reading on each line. On 47rb, a rubric introduces readings occurring within the sanctorale. 47vb: A contemporary hand indicates that the conclusion of the evangelistary will appear at the end of the Glosae super euangelia (which recommence on the following leaf): “Quere finem in fine luce per unum folium post hic inferius istorum ewangeliorum.” A tie-mark then appears (cross in circle), which is repeated below in the upper margin of 66v.

E. 48ra-65vb: Super Lucam (Stegmuller, RB 6577, 10516). The glosses on Luke begin in a hand very like those of the preceding Glosae. Production and decoration of the text are identical to those displayed earlier. Writing resumes above top line. 48ra: Rubric appears in the upper margin immediately above the text: “INTROITVS IN LVCAM.” The brief prefatory text that follows is a paraphrase of the prologue to Comestor’s Glosae super Lucam glosatum, where the circumstantiae are enumerated: “Materia et intentio luce eadem est que et precedentium euangelistarum. Modus agendi talis est: primo premittit prologum operi suo in quo redolet grecam eloquentiam … ad ultimum terminat euangelium in gaudio apostolorum expectancium spiritus sancti aduentum.” What follows is the ‘Monarchian’ prologue from the Luke Gloss; the lemmata are underlined, and expounded with abbreviations from Comestor’s glosses:

~~181~~

“PROLOGVS IERONIMI IN LVCAM. Lucas. Euangelio luce ieronimus prologum in quo ostendit quis fuerit auctor huius euangelii …” 48rb: Following the rubric “ITEM ALIVS,” the lemmatic commentary on Luke with expositions from Comestor begin: “Quoniam quidem. Lucas de omnibus que fecit iesus et docuit usque in diem qua assumptus est sermonem…” 48va: With the rubric “EVANGELIVM LVCE” appearing on the last line of the recto, the lemmatic commentary on Luke with Comestor’s glosses begins at the top of this page: “Fuit in diebus herodis regis iudee. Iam alienigena regnat.” 65vb: The Luke glosses conclude on the first line of the second column: “uictimarum sanguine. Sed in laudem dei et benedictionem concludit.” Beneath which is written: “Explicit.”

C. (cont.) 66r: Introitus in Iohannem (Stegmüller, RB 10520). As indicated above, the prefatory material belonging to the glosae super Iohannem appear after all four sets of glosses. As above, the prothemata are a digest of Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem and the John Gloss (the ‘Monarchian’ prologue and Anselm of Laon’s “Omnibus diuine scripture paginis”). This introitus is divided into three separate prologues, each with its own rubric. The third (Anselm’s “Omnibus diuine” gloss with Comestor’s abbreviated exposition) ends abruptly on 66rb: “post commendationem euangelii sequitur commendatio iohannis quasi a similia quia sicut euangelium ceteris paginis.” The remainder of the page is left blank.

~~D. (cont.) 66v: Euangeliarium. The continuation of Gospel readings, picking up from above (47vb) with the corresponding tie-mark.~~

II. A. 67ra-97vb: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Written above top line in a diligently executed and youthful French Textualis, this hand displays the principal Gothic features: two- compartment a, occasionally with a prominent arc; crossed Tironian et; occasional biting; ascenders are deliberately clubbed, and minims display feet. Some vestigial Protogothic characteristics: sparingly abbreviated; occasional occurrence of upright d, though a definite predilection for the uncial form with a conspicuous diagonal ascender; relatively complex ductus of g; con- abbreviation

~~appears as a backwards c. Ascenders of letters (especially d ) in the extremity of the column bow extravagantly into the margins. Accretions appear throughout, only rarely in the margins, but~~

~~182~~

regularly as ‘intrinsic’ glosses delineated in the principal column. These accretions have been planned with great care, and occasionally appear as medallions (84r) or as a set of graduated pillars within the column (88r). Catchwords are used throughout. Rubricated initials with elegant flourishes appear regularly (about two to five each page) to mark new paragraphs. Similarly, the rubricator adds the Langtonian chapter numbers throughout, and includes the heading “MR” in the upper margin. Apart from faint nota-signs and minor scribal corrections, the margins are very clean. Pages are pricked in both margins are ruled in crayon for 70 lines of text in two columns (each ca. 75 mm). Altogether, this is an exceptionally formal and handsomely-produced copy of Comestor’s glosses.

67r: In the upper margin, the rubricator writes: “postille super marcus [sic ].” The Mark ingressus begins: “Vidi et ecce quatuor quadrige egrediebantur.” The initial V appears in red with modest flourishing in blue ink, and extends five lines of text. The second prefix to the glosses begins in the right column with another large rubricated initial: “QVATVOR SVNT QVALITATES et cetera. Expositurus euangelium marci ieronimus ostendit…” The same hand providing the rubric here adds in the outer margin, “prologus.” 70-72: The lower margin has been excised from these folia. The same occurs again on f. 82. 97r: The Mark glosses conclude near the bottom of the first column: “Iohannes a deitate uerbi, Marcus longe inferius, scilicet a predicatione Iohannis. Laus Christo.” The second column has been excised, presumably for spare parchment.

B. 98r-117r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum (incomplete). Produced in a manner closely resembling the Mark glosses above, although less formally executed (very little decoration or textual divisions occur), Comestor’s John glosses begins. Written in an early French Textualis similar to the preceding hand, the emergent Gothic features are observed: two-compartment a; Tironian et generally crossed; 9-shaped con-abbreviation; biting occurs throughout; deliberate treatment of feet and ascenders. Once again, traces of Protogothic appear: occasionally uncrossed Tironian et; alternation between uncial and upright d; ductus of g relatively complex. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. Accretions appear quite frequently, both marginally and as ‘intrinsic’ glosses demarcated in the main text. Writing is below top line, reaffirming a date around the end of the first quarter of s. XII. One catchword appears on 115v. A rubricator has added chapter numbers in the margins and gibbets in the text, and another hand writes the heading “Io” in the upper margins. Faint nota-signs appear in the margins, showing that the text was lightly studied, but there is otherwise little marginalia.

~~183~~

98r: The page is pricked in the outer margin, and ruled in crayon for two columns (75 mm) and ca. 63 lines of text. The rubric “postille super iohannem” has been written immediately above the first column, seemingly in the same hand as that of the rubricator of the Mark glosses. The prologue begins: “Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi.” The large blue initial is flourished with red ink in a pattern very similar to those appearing in the Glosae super Marcum glosatum. 117rb: The text ends imperfectly on Jn. 13, 7, at the end of the leaf: “EGO PRIVS. Quod est prius non tempore sed causa, quasi: Ego faciam prius uirtutes infundendo, ipse post mihi cooperando.” The rubricator dolefully notes at the bottom of the outer margin: “Desunt 7 c(apitula).”

C. 117v-118r: Cantica Canticorum. Curiously, picking up on the verso of Comestor’s unfinished John glosses is a copy of the Song of Songs, written below top line in a precipitate and slovenly Northern Textualis. Prickings visible in the outer margins, and the pages are ruled (though the scribe does not seem to have noticed) for two columns of varying width and ca. 61-64 lines. An equally untidy hand adds chapter numbers in the margins. Nota-signs appear in the margins throughout. 117v: In the upper margin, the rubric appears: “Incipiunt cantica canticorum salomonis capitulum primum.” The text begins: “Osculetur me osculo oris sui,” and ends halfway down the column on the following folio: “ceruorum super montes aromatum” (118r). 118v is blank and unruled.

D. 119r-132v: STEPHEN LANGTON(?), Postillae in cantica canticorum (Stegmüller, RB 7808). The following postils on the Song of Songs have been produced in a manner closely resembling Comestor’s glosses above. The hand is an early execution of French Textualis, meticulous and palaeographically very similar to that of the Mark glosses, sharing the idiosyncratic uncial d with a prolonged diagonal ascender, and, against the hand of John, the con-abbreviation which appears as a backwards c. Written above top line, once more against the John glosses. It is significant to note that this commentary makes extensive use of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ in a manner closely resembling Comestor’s glossed Gospels. Both glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. The text is divided into paragraphs, with modest rubricated initials. What seem to be accretions appear throughout as ‘intrinsic’ glosses,’ marked by elongated scroll-shaped paragraph marks. The rubricator has added chapter numbers, gibbets, and the heading “Cantica” in the upper margins.

~~184~~

Catchwords are used. Nota-signs and a few short notations indicating study appear throughout, but the margins are otherwise quite clean. 119r: Pages are pricked in both margins and ruled for two columns (ca. 75 mm each) and 65 lines of text. In the upper margin, the rubricator (perhaps the same as in the foregoing glosses) has written: “Postille in cantica canticorum.” The prologue begins: “Ex difficultate et dignitate huius operis potest perpendi quante excellentie sit liber iste quem pre manibus habemus. Difficultatem uniuersa hebreorum testantur subsellia. Dignitatem operis IIIIor ostendunt: auctoritas scriptoris.” On the third line of the text, the first accretion begins: “Multiplex erat miseria humani generis ante incarnationem.” The rubricator has noted the transition between the prologue and the postils proper halfway down the column: “CANTICA CANTICORVM.” Afterwards, the postils begin: “Osculetur me et cetera. Descensus ad sententiam trahitur de illa glosa: Omnes anime mo(tiones) uniu(er)s(itatis) conditor et cetera. Quasi hortaturus auctor iste …” From the outset, the Gloss is used to expound the sacred text. In the lower margin, spanning six of eight lines ruled for the purpose, a gloss presenting St. Bernard’s exposition of the first word of the Canticles (osculetur) from Sermo II appears in the scribal hand: “Abbas bernardus: osculetur - Osculans est persona assumens - osculatum est natura assumpta - Ipsum osculum est christus deus et homo…” 132vb: The text concludes at the bottom of the second column with reference to two glosses (which the scribe has not underlined) on Cant. 8, 14: “Hoc uult illa glosa: ita fuge ut creberrime per gratiam com(punctionis) et cetera. Et illa: Cum in montibus figas pedes.” In the extremity of the lower margin, a contemporary hand elegantly adds: “Expliciunt glose super cantica canticorum.” The stamp of the BnF also appears.

ii. AUGUSTINE, De ciuitate Dei, II: 2, 32 - II: 28, 40. The rear flyleaf and pastedown have been excised from a copy of Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei. Written in two columns, the hand is a spacious Caroline Minuscule probably from the end of the tenth century, displaying very little inclination towards Protogothic forms: the letter a is formed by a sharply-angled minim and a lobe; uncial d appears rarely, and only as an initial; e-caudata is used; f and straight s descend below the baseline; the letter g appears with two distinct lobes; extravagant bowed c-t and s-t ligatures; ampersand is invariably used; sparsely abbreviated, though -rum and -ur have begun to occur. The margins have been heavily trimmed and display no annotations. The text begins on ir: “auctamque laboribus fędiorem stantem fecerant,” and concludes on iir: “qui feriebatur si posset feriret; Pax autem non.”

~~185~~

O OXFORD, BODLEIAN LIBRARY, BODL. 494 (SC 2108) Parchment, iv + 173 fols., 250 x 170 mm, 2 cols., Oxford, s. XIIex Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Io., Mc.); Bruno the Carthusian, Expositio in epistolam Pauli ad Hebreos; Richard of Saint-Victor, In uisionem Ezechielis 2o fol. inc.: -culum mutationis aque in uinum

iiir: In a s. XIII1/2 hand, a note of donation appears: “Hunc librum postillarum siue glosarum super iohannem et m[arcum] et epistolam ad hebreos dedit Hugo archdiaconus Tantoniensis deo et ecclesie beati petri Exoniensis, ut proprietas ipsius sit ecclesie, u[sus] uero pauperum scolarium. Si quis aliter egerit, incidat in sententiam Oxoniensem concilii contra testamentorum impeditores promulgatum.” Hugh de Wilton, archdeacon of Taunton, died between 1219 and 1244. This codex was reportedly presented by the dean and chapter of Exeter in 1602.23

A. 1r-55rb: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Written in one or two tidy English glossing hands of the late-twelfth century displaying thick and rounded Protogothic forms. Lemmata and glosses are underlined throughout. Catchwords are used. Accretions occur frequently as ‘intrinsic’ and marginal glosses with gibbets. A moderate number of nota-signs and other marginal annotations appear, suggesting that the text was lightly studied. Ruled in lead for two columns of 41 lines of text. 1r: A rubric appears in the upper right margin in a contemporary hand: “Incipiunt glose super iohannem.” Incipit: “mnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi.” 55rb: Explicit: “Et hoc non habes in glosa NON DICIT et cetera. Expliciunt.” A much later hand, perhaps s. XVI, adds directly beneath: “Expliciunt expo[sitiones?] super iohannem.”

B. 55vb-111v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. On the verso of the same folio, Comestor’s glosses on the Mark Gloss begin in the hand of A, which is replaced by a far less tidy one with more Gothic tendencies on the following folio. Production is consistent with the initial set of glosses, although the columns are ruled for an additional 11 lines of text (= 52 lines) beginning with the second hand.

~~23 Cf. Falconer MADAN and H.H.E. CRASTER, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 2. 1: 2106, 215-6.~~

~~186~~

~~55vb: No rubric appears. Incipit: “idi et ecce iiii quadrige egrediebantur de medio duorum.” 111v: Explicit: “De hoc habes glosam: NOTA QVOD MARCVS et cetera.”~~

C. 112r-127v: BRUNO THE CARTHUSIAN, Expositio in epistolam Pauli ad Hebreos (PL 153, 487-566). Written in another English protogothic hand from s. XIIIin. A note at the foot of the first folio misattributes the work to Robert of Melun: “secundum magistrum Robertum Melidunensem.” The rubric reads: “Incipit Epistola ad Hebreos,” and the incipit: “n Iudea erant eclesie.” 127v: Explicit: “Signum Pauli quod epistola ipsius esset.”

D. 128r-173r. Richard OF SAINT-VICTOR, In uisionem Ezechielis (PL 196, 527-600). In a distinct hand from s. XIIex, perhaps of French origin. Incipit: “Multis diuine scripture multo amplius dulcescunt.” 168: On a separate gathering of parchment, in an early thirteenth-century hand, the text of Ezek. 40, 1-43 has been inserted. 173r: Explicit: “decem millia latitudinis erunt leuitis qui ministrant domui.”

P PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE, LAT. 620 Parchment, 270 + i fols. (foliated 1-271), 265 x 200 mm, 2 cols., Fontenay, dioc. Autun (s. XV), s. XII4 Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Mt., Mc., Lc., Io.) 2o fol. inc.: ipsius domini id est quem elegit

Bound in a typical s. XIX quarter-leather. The front pastedown, inserted with the modern binding, bears the current BnF shelfmark. Two paper flyleaves have been supplied. The original parchment is supple yet quite rough and yellow, with holes and sewings. The first folio, on which the initial text begins, bears previous bibliographic marks common among codices from this collection of the BnF: a Bibliotheca Regia stamp (s. XVIII) with the corresponding shelfmark in ink (“Regius 3950 3.3.”), and a subsequent reference to the collection of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (“Codex Colbert 3703”). Catchwords appear in each set of glosses together with quire numbers (which start over at the beginning each text). Two sets of foliation are used – a contemporary set in Roman numerals, which become rather muddled later in the codex, and another provided by a more recent hand in Arabic numerals. The only other indication of provenance is an ex-libris mark on the final page of text,

~~187~~

placing this volume, by the date of the hand, in the Cistercian Abbey of Fontenay in s. XV: “Liber sancte marie de fonteneto / G . 6 .” (270v). Unusually, Comestor’s Glosae have been arranged according to the order of the Gospels, suggestive of the volume’s deliberate construction for a particular programme of study. The uniformity of layout and material composition of the codex attests to its original production as a single book. Additionally, the palaeographic consistency displayed between each set of glosses supports their common origin. Frequent nota-signs occurring in the same hands throughout, and the alphabetical index of subjects at the end of the manuscript (271r), shows that the glosses were carefully studied. Clean and carefully-executed, the volume resembles a set of Comestor’s glossed Gospels commissioned for purposes of study, perhaps within the context of a particular institution. Consistent with the manuscript’s late twelfth-century date, this edition appears to capture Comestor’s glosses at a relatively early stage in their textual development: apart from the Luke glosses, accretions occur infrequently in each of the glossed Gospels, as confirmed by P in the present edition of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum.

A. 1r-84r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. Pages are pricked in the outer margin, and ruled in crayon for two columns (75 and 70 mm wide) each of 50 lines of text. Written in a northern French glossing hand of the late s. XII, the script displays some Gothic influence: two- compartment a; hair stroke dotting of i; some tentative biting; approach strokes, breaking, and occasional bifurcation in ascenders. The script remains Protogothic: relatively complex g ductus; c-t and s-t ligatures appear; uncrossed Tironian et. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. Accretions do occur, both marginally and as demarcated ‘intrinsic’ glosses,’ although infrequently. A subsequent hand adds the heading “matheus” in the upper margins throughout, as well as chapter numbers in the lower margins. This text shows signs of being studied, such as frequent nota-signs in multiple hands and short marginal annotations. 1r: In the upper margin, a faint glossing hand provides the rubric, “postille super mattheum.” The prologue to the glosses begins: “ecit deus duo luminaria magna.” 84r: Explicit: “presentia diuinitatis est quasi arra future mercedis.” The glosses run to the last line of the second column, and no further inscriptions have been added. 84v: This leaf is blank and unruled.

~~188~~

B. 85r-148r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum (uersio altera: Stegmüller, 6576, 2). Appearing next is the less common of the two, or possibly three, versions of Comestor’s Mark glosses that circulated simultaneously.24 The layout of this text is identical to that described above, and the hand is difficult to distinguish from the preceding. Glosses and lemmata are underlined. At first, accretions appear only seldom, both as marginal and ‘intrinsic’ glosses; however, glosae intrinsecae begin to appear frequently at chapter fourteen of the text (137v). A notable marginal gloss reads: “In glosatura magistri Galfridi babiun legitur quod fullo est pertica fullonis, sed non memini me alibi legisse” (116r). Another appears to refer to the Historia actuum, composed by Comestor’s successor Peter of Poitiers: “Patronus preses syrie ponere debuit in templo si acquieuisset imperio gaii, set non posuit, sicut legitur in historia actuum” (131v). The same hand as in the previous glosses adds the heading “marchus” in the upper margins and chapter numbers in the lower margins throughout. Nota-signs and other uninspired notations (e.g. 128v: “Nota bene totam paginam”) appearing in multiple hands throughout indicate that this text was studied. 85r: The prologue begins: “elum mihi sedes est terra autem scabellum pedem meorum.” 93r: Oddly, the same faint glossing hand that added the rubric to the Matthew glosses (1r) now writes the rubric for Mark, at the beginning of the second quire: “postille super marcum.” 148rb: Explicit: “a predicacione iohannis. De hoc habes glosas: NOTA QVOD MARCVS et cetera.” The remaining nine lines of the column are left blank, as well as the verso (which is unruled).

C. 149r-218v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum. The page layout is the same as above, with the margins slightly lengthened. Palaeographically very similar to the previous two hands (French Protogothic), with a couple observable distinctions: considerably more compressed; occasional occurrence of upright d; extravagant lobe in c-t ligature. Glosses and lemmata are underlined. Accretions appear regularly as demarcated glosae intrinsecae, and only rarely in the margins. A particularly droll specimen appears on 188v: “Omnes fere scriptores peccant in scribendo hoc nomen IHS. Primo debet scribi iota; secundo eta, cuius figura duas lineas habet in longum…” The same hand as above includes the usual headings and chapter numbers. Again exhibiting signs of study, several contemporary hands have written nota-signs and small notes in the margins.

~~24 Cf. above: Cap. I. 3. 2, “Datatio,” n. 143.~~

~~189~~

149r: In the upper margin, the same faint glossing hand as above writes the rubric, “postille super lucam.” In the extremity of the lower left margin, the same hand paraphrases a memorable image from this Lucan prologue: “claudicauit lex promittendo terrena…” The glosses begin: “

edes eorum pedes recti et planta.” A long annotation in the lower margin, written in a cryptic s. XIII hand, reflects upon the biblical history behind the text of the prologue: “XVIII Ge(nesis) cucurrit abraam ad armentum tulitque inde uitulum…” 218v: Explicit: “Vobiscum sum usque ad consummacionem secula [sic] amen. Explicit.” Below, a verse has been written in the same hand: “Peruia porta po-li pietate polita parentis / Pande preter pro-li populi peccata parentis,” where the -li is employed by both lines. Three quarters of the page have been left blank.

D. 219r-270v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Layout is identical to the previous three sets of glosses. Again, written in a very neat northern French hand of the late twelfth century. Palaeographically very similar to the others, with prevailing Protogothic features: uncrossed Tironian et; both uncial and upright d is used; ductus of g still relatively complex; trailing s at the end of words is ubiquitous; abbreviations are very moderate; no biting occurs; there are no distinct feet to minims, which either end on the line or by an upwards stroke of the pen (excluding occasional the p with an almost horizontal foot). As above, certain emergent Gothic tendencies are observed, especially the breaking of bows. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. A small number of accretions appear, both in the margins and as demarcated ‘intrinsic’ glosses. The same contemporary hand as before adds the headings (“iohannes”) and chapter numbers in the upper and lower margins, respectively. Again, nota-signs appear in multiple contemporary hands (seemingly the same as those annotating the other glosses), as well as a couple of minor notations. 219ra: In the upper margin, a faint glossing hand (the same as above) adds the rubric: “postille super iohannem.” The Lombardian ingressus begins: “mnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecte mi.” 220r: A ghost-hand writes in lower margin: “nota de obitu iohannis euangeliste.” 220vb: In the lower margin, two notes in a contemporary hand identify the glosses to which Comestor refers: “Glosa que est ad munimentum sic incipit: contra eos et cetera”; “Glosa que est de supplemento sic incipit: et uerbum, et hoc si est decisa. Si autem una tantum est, incipit: sic alii euangeliste, et hoc rectius.”

~~190~~

270va: Explicit: “Non est inconueniens si yperbolice loquatur sacra scriptura. Et hoc habes in glosa: NON DICIT SPACIO TEMPORIS et cetera.” The four last lines of the column are left blank. Appearing at the foot of the page is the fifteenth-century ex-libris of the Abbey of Fontenay described above.

D. II. 270vb: STEPHEN LANGTON(?), Introitus in Iohannem (fragment) (Stegmüller, RB 10323). Written in the same hand as the preceding text, a fragment of another Johannine prologue spans half of the right-hand column: “Vetustissima ueterum co(medetis) et super no(uis) ue(tera) proi(cietis). Predixit Moyes hiis uerbis legalium abolicionem et euangelii substitutionem, ut uetustissima intelligantur legis naturalis precepta uetera legalia noua euangelica. Quedam tamen de numero ueterum sunt uetustissima, scilicet moralia que sunt de lege naturali et sub euangelio reseruata, et tamen…” The fragment concludes abruptly: “Sicut igitur euangelium scripturis omnibus, sic Iohannes aliis euangelistis, quia altius egit de ii…”

E. 271r: A flyleaf pasted on to the original quire contains an alphabetical index, seemingly written in the hand that provided the headings and chapter numbers. All of the entries correspond to subjects marked with alphabetical notes throughout the four sets of glosses. E.g., the first entry reads: “adulatores . XLIX . C .” On the leaf foliated XLIX by the same hand (49v), the letter C appears in the margin beside the passage: “Isti sunt adulatores de quibus ait propheta…” The verso page of the leaf is blank, and the following pastedown, supplied with the modern binding, is marbled.

T TROYES, MÉDIATHÈQUE DU GRAND TROYES 1024 Parchment, i + 275 fols. + i (foliated 1-275), 300 x 220 mm, Clairvaux, s. XII1175-1185 Peter Comestor, Glosae super euangelia glosata (Mt., Mc., Lc., Io.) 2o fol. inc.: domini extorsit a domino saul

The binding is probably s. XVIII, quarter-leather over cardboard with five raised bands. The parchment displays some minor defects throughout: tears, sewings, small excisions. Like a great number of manuscripts coming into the possession of Troyes at the time of the French Revolution, this codex was originally housed at Clairvaux. The front pastedown is blank. An ex-libris on the verso of the front flyleaf, written in a tidy hand from the early thirteenth century, records the donation of this manuscript to the Abbey: “Glose super euangelistas. / Liber sancte marie claruallis

~~191~~

datus a Bartholomeo guidonis agricole filio.”25 A bolder, more mannerly hand from the same period has written above: “Postille magistri Petri manducatoris . super glosas euangeliorum.” (It is interesting to note that this scribe suggests that Comestor comments super glosas, rather than on the Gospels themselves.) Directly below, a couple of near-contemporary but obsolete shelfmarks have been crossed out (“E . 31,” “F. 20”), with the mark “E. 71.” still intact. This shelfmark reappears on 274v and again on the rear pastedown. A later hand has written of Comestor on the top of the flyleaf, “claruit 1160.” On the bottom of 1r, the modern stamp for the Bibliothèque de Troyes appears. No further indications of provenance are present. Diligently copied and displaying a notable consistency of script and production throughout, this codex appears to represent a uniform edition of Comestor’s glossed Gospels produced by an institutionally affiliated group of scribes. The unusually clean state of the text and its margins, together with the large format of the codex, suggest that this was intended as a ‘library’ copy. Based on the date of the palaeography, as well as on the manner in which accretions occur (either frequently, as marginal or ‘intrinsic’ glosses,’ or not at all), this set of glosses seems to capture Comestor’s lectures in a very early stage of their textual development.26

A. 1r-87v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. Written above top line in a comely French hand, likely dating from beginning of the fourth quarter of s. XII, the script is determinately Protogothic: the text is spacious, quite round of aspect, and lightly abbreviated; Tironian et is uncrossed; insular enim abbreviation; complex ductus of g; occurrence of upright d with preference for uncial form; very little biting occurs. Glosses and lemmata are underlined throughout. Small spaces occur in the text quite frequently, indicating that the exemplar was defective or difficult to read. Some gibbets appear, though there is very little division of the text. A few of the folia have been trimmed very tightly in the upper margin, once at the expense of a line of text (f. 66). A later

25 Bartholomew appears to have been an early thirteenth-century scholar or bibliophile, and he is recorded to have donated seven manuscripts to the Abbey of Clairvaux; notably, glossed copies of John and Luke, and Peter Lombard’s Magna glosatura on the Psalms. In fact, the copy of Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata (T ) represents the only volume traceable to this donor that does not constitute a book of the Gloss. Cf. Jean-Paul BOUHOT and Jean-François GENEST, La Bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1997), 2: 747. 26 While the catalogue of the Abbey Library of Clairvaux conjectures an early thirteenth-century production of this manuscript (“XIIIe siècle, début”), the palaeography is more suggestive to me of the last quarter of the twelfth century. Cf.: BOUHOT and GENEST, La Bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux, 2: 309.

~~192~~

hand has included chapter numbers in the lower margins, and headings in the upper. Catchwords appear throughout, preceded (in this set of glosses exclusively) by the cumbersome formula: “quaternus qui sic incipit sequitur istum.” Excepting several elongated nota-signs, the margins are virtually empty. These glosses show no sign of accretions, and may represent a very early stage of their textual development. 1r: The page is pricked in the outer margin, and ruled in hard point for two columns (each of 75 mm) and 49 lines of text. Preceded by a rubricated initial extending eight lines, the glosses begin with the prologue: “Fecit deus duo luminaria in firmamento celi.” 87v: The glosses conclude partway down the first column: “presenti uobis exibita presentia diuinitatis est quasi arra future mercedis.” No further explicit appears, and the rest of the page is left blank.

B. 88r-140r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Layout is the same as described above. Palaeographically very close to the preceding hand(s). These glosses have been written by multiple scribes, although changes to the script are minute. The upper margins are heavily trimmed, and the heading (“Marcus”) is at times invisible; similarly, the catchwords in the lower margins are often trimmed down. The text still displays small lacunae throughout. This set of glosses exhibits a number of accretions, both marginally and as ‘intrinsic’ glosses. The latter are initially delineated in the column, and are later spaced from the main text in the column and marked with gibbets. (Accretions appearing in this latter manner abound nearer to the end of the glosses). Margins are otherwise quite clean, apart from a small number of scribal corrections and the same type of nota- signs as in the preceding text. 88ra: The more common version of the Mark glosses here begin, with the prologue: “Vidi et ecce quatuor quadrige egrediebantur.” Over half of the second column has been left blank, and the text on either side of the lacuna (“Lucas per secundam || intelligitur uita eterna”) does not correspond. The same phenomenon occurs again on 89va (“a dignitate siue ab officio || ostendit hoc ipso”); evidently, the scribe was copying from a defective exemplar.27

27 It is worth noting that lacunae of this magnitude have occurred in our manuscripts solely in the Glosae super Marcum glosatum. However, the lacuna in this manuscript does not correspond to the others.

~~193~~

140rb: The Mark glosses properly conclude (though omitting the final gloss): “Marcus longe inferius scilicet a predicatione Iohannis. De hoc Glossa.” The latter half of the column is left blank, as well as the verso of this folio. Four parchment stubs appear before the following set of glosses.

C. 141r-215v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum. The layout is consistent with the preceding sets of glosses, although some of the folia have been ruled for longer columns of up to ca. 56 lines. The script is a contemporary French Protogothic, written in multiple hands palaeographically very similar to those above, though somewhat more compressed. The first of these (replaced at 165v) displays several distinct characteristics: generally bolder and of a more angular aspect; c-t ligature is used; the letter a displays a stub rather than a second compartment; the letter g has a simpler ductus; lemmata and glosses are indicated with sublinear dots. Following this scribe, lemmata and glosses are underlined. Accretions appear fairly regularly throughout, both as marginal and neatly delineated ‘intrinsic’ glosses. The upper margins are tightly trimmed, sometimes at the expense of headings, and only a few catchwords in the lower margins have survived. Little marginal activity is observed otherwise. Small lacunae continue to appear in the text. 141r: Incipit: “Pedes eorum pedes recti et planta pedis eorum quasi planta pedis uituli.” 183r-v: This folio has been cut in half (vertically) and pasted between two quires, after which a change of hand occurs. The scribe has only used the first seven lines of the verso. Text resumes as normal on the following folio. 191v: After this folio, a parchment stub appears; the following quire begins in a distinct hand. 215v: The text ends at the bottom of the folio, with the scribe having thriftily ruled four extra lines, as well as having written two lines into the lower margin: “ego uobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi. Explicit.”

D. 216r-275r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. The layout has somewhat altered: the columns tend to be somewhat narrower (ca. 70 mm), while the lower margin has been expanded (perhaps in reaction to the parsimonious conclusion of the Luke glosses); accordingly, the text now spans ca. 43 lines. Pages have been double-pricked in both margins. Furthermore, the initial hand – which is responsible for the majority of the glosses – is quite distinct from the preceding hands, and has the aspect of a slightly more antiquated Protogothic, though still Northern French: the writing is

~~194~~

more spacious and not quite so rounded; almost no biting is displayed; ascenders and descenders are longer; the scribe shows a definite predilection for the upright d, with the uncial form reserved for initials; the e-caudata appears throughout. Glosses and lemmata are indicated with sublinear dots, until a change of scribe at 272r. Accretions appear only before the scribal change – principally as ‘intrinsic’ glosses demarcated within the main column, although marginal accretions do occur. As before, headings in upper margins have sometimes been trimmed down. Again, the margins are almost entirely clean. The initial folio (together with the rear flyleaf) is mildly soiled, and a piece of thread sewn into the lower margin of 216r may suggest that this set of glosses originally circulated separately. 216r: The prologue begins, with a simple blue initial extending four lines. Incipit: “Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecte mi.” 267: The lower half of the outer column has been excised, though none of the text appears to be missing. 272r: The sole scribal change occurs between quires. This second hand much more closely resembles those responsible for the preceding sets of glosses. 275rb: The glosses concluded halfway down the right-hand column. Explicit: “et si habes in glosa: NON DICIT SPACIO TEMPORIS et cetera.” The remainder of the folio is blank.

~~ir: The same hand which provided the note of donation on the front flyleaf adds an ex-libris: “liber sancte Marie clare uallis.” The remainder of the rear flyleaf and pastedown are blank.~~

Z PARIS, BIBLIOTHÈQUE MAZARINE, 175 Parchment, i + 477 fols., c. 260 x 180 mm, Saint-Victor, s. XIImed (I); s. XII2 (II); s. XII2 (III); s. XII3/4 (IV); s. XIIex (V) A composite manuscript containing various biblical glosses 2o fol. inc.: adhuc immunis est

Bound in the sixteenth century, with full calf over sturdy cardboard and four bands on spine and endbands, the volume is composed of five booklets with varying page size. The contents of this manuscript were bound together at least by the time of Claude de Grandrue (1514), in whose catalogue the volume appears as “D 18.”28 The front flyleaf seems to have been inserted with the s.

~~28 Claude de GRANDRUE, Le catalogue de la bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor de Paris de Claude de Grandrue, 1514 (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1983), 20.~~

~~195~~

XVI binding. On ir, some kind of list (excised from a larger piece of parchment and inserted sideways) appears in French, written in a decadent Gothic cursive (perhaps s. XV): “Item pour le salanc du dit sergent pour le dit jour…” On the verso of the front flyleaf, an accurate, though incomplete, table of contents appears in a contemporary but distinct Cursiva: “Que secuntur hic habentur, scilicet / Pars glose super psalterium ab I usque 45 . Andreas super ysaiam . 40 . Tractatus quidam de officiis ecclesie . 161 . glose super duodecim prophetas . 177 . Super Iohannem . 252 …” Directly beneath, and again in the upper left margin, the Victorine shelfmark appears (“D. 18.”). Below, a small, discoloured square of parchment (presumably excised from the original flyleaf) has been pasted onto the page, recording the same table of contents in a Victorine hand with the correct shelfmark and monogram. In the lower margin of 1r, the cheerful ex-libris of Saint-Victor appears (“Iste liber est sancti uictoris parisiensis quicumque eum furatus fuerit…”). The same ex-libris reappears, sometimes in a contracted form, at the beginning of each booklet. In the bottom margin of 1v, the Victorine arms have been illustrated in red and blue with the usual invocations (“Iesus . Maria . Sanctus Victor . Sanctus Augustinus”). Stamps of the Bibliothèque Mazarine appear on the initial and final folia. No further indications of provenance are present. These five books were clearly written and used in the schools before ending up in Saint- Victor, probably deposited there by former scholares (masters and/or students) who retired to the monastery, just like Comestor himself did. Comprising patristic and liturgical texts, the first two booklets represent a general programme of biblical scholarship, with a special Victorine interest in the canon Andrew. The third booklet, containing Stephen Langton’s extensive glosses on the Minor Prophets, once again indicates the Victorine reception of the theological enterprise pursued by the masters of Paris. The final booklets – which are of an haphazard constitution, often displaying extracts wantonly inserted into the middle of another text, the latter which then abruptly ends – are nevertheless those of the greatest importance. First, these booklets provide some evidence of a primitive pecia system in the twelfth-century schools (discussed below). Furthermore, through this collection of glosses – which bear witness to the teaching activity at Notre-Dame in the last decades of the twelfth century –, an overwhelming interest in the biblical programme of Peter Comestor again emerges: extracts from numerous copies of the master’s glossed Gospels appear throughout, together with Langton’s commentary on the Historia euangelica. Most tantalising are two anonymous sets of glosses on Matthew and John, clearly of the Notre-Dame milieu but seemingly more primitive than Comestor. Could these represent the lecture courses of one of his masters?

~~196~~

I. A. 1r-48v: GEOFFREY OF VENDÔME, Glosae psalterii (Stegmüller, RB 2609). Written above top line in multiple French Protogothic hands, minute but quite neat, from the mid-twelfth century. Pages are pricked in both margins, and ruled in hard point for two columns of ca. 51 lines. Spaces for initials beginning new paragraphs have been left blank throughout. Little marginal activity, excepting scribe’s additions and corrections. 1r: A later hand adds the rubric in the upper margin: “Glose salterii [sic].” Several now obsolete foliation marks appear in upper right. Incipit: “~~ciendum est quia psalterium totaliter acceptum prophecia uocatur…” 48v: The commentary ends imperfectly on Ps. 101, 19. Explicit: “… id est michi oranti pro membris meis prebe effectum.”~~

49r is left blank, excepting several probationes pennae on the bottom of the leaf; the first in an early thirteenth-century hand: “Venite benedicti patris mei percipite regnum quod uobis paratum est”; and in a slightly later, perhaps early fourteenth-century hand: “I. dei gratia rex anglie Dux norm(annie) et aquitan(ie) et comes and(egauensis).” 49v. Written an early thirteenth-century hand, there appears a list of Psalms with numbers and incipits, arranged under rubricated headings according to their type, e.g.: “De duabus naturis in Christo: / II Quare fremuerunt gentes / VIII Domine dominus noster quam admirabile…” The list is followed by short notes on the seven rules of scriptural interpretation, ending on the fourth rule: “~~eptem esse inter cetera regulas lectionum sanctarum scripturarum quidam sapientes dixerunt…”~~

II. A. 50r-92v: ANDREW OF SAINT-VICTOR, In Isaiam (incomplete) (Stegmüller, RB 1312). Neatly written in several French Protogothic hands of the mid-twelfth century. Pages are pricked in both margins, and faintly ruled in plummet for two columns and ca. 47 lines of text. Lemmata are underlined. Some modest decoration occurs, particularly of several large initials. Gibbets appear regularly marking transitions in the text, and a few curious shell-shaped nota-signs appear in the initial folia. Marginal glosses and corrections occasionally appear in the scribal hands. 50r: In the upper margin, a later glossing hand writes: “Andreas super ysaiam.” To the right, an early modern hand includes, for historical interest, a note about Richard of St. Victor’s polemic

~~~~197~~~~

against Andrew’s Judaizing interpretation of Isa. 7, 14: “Andreas iste erat contemporaneus Richardi de S. Victore et propter obiectiones Judeorum…” The text begins: “In explanando Ysaiam omnium quorum apud nos existit commendata…” 92v: On the bottom of the page, Andrew’s commentary concludes imperfectly on Isa. 45, 3: “qui nomen tuum antequam natus et conceptus sis uoco. Propter seruum meum iacob. Hec supradicta.”

B. 93ra-b: ANDREW OF SAINT-VICTOR, Prologus super XII prophetas (Stegmüller, RB 1316). The following page is ruled for the same number of lines but displays a conspicuously larger lower margin. In the upper margin, the rubric has been trimmed beyond legibility. Written in a s. XII2 glossing hand very similar to the preceding but considerably more compressed, Andrew’s prologue to the minor prophets spans most of the page. Incipit: “enebrosa aqua in nubibus aeris. Tenetur quodammodo mentis acies.” Explicit: “exponendis summam operi manum imponemus.”

C. 93v-160ra: ST. JEROME, Super Isaiam (Stegmüller, RB 3353). Matching the script and layout of Andrew’s foregoing commentary, this text was neatly copied by several French s. XII2 glossing hands (possibly the same as above) with determinately Protogothic features. Lemmata are truncated, and marked by gibbets. Rubrics mark the beginning and ending of each book. Some scribal additions appear in the margins, as well as nota-signs and a few of the shell-shaped symbols observed above. A couple of marginal annotations in a ghost hand can be observed. 93v: To the left of the first line of text, the heading “Ier” appears. Incipit: “Hic Ysaiam exponam ut illum non solum prophetam…” 160ra: The text cheerfully concludes near the bottom of the first column: “Ligate manus eius et pedes et mittite eum in tenebras exteriores ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium.” The remainder of the page is blank.

D. 160va-b: BEDE, De temporum ratione, 9, 12-112. On the verso of the same leaf, an excerpt of Bede’s treatise on chronology appears. The script and production is consistent with the preceding texts. Incipit: “Beda in libro de natura rerum septuaginta hebdomades.” The text concludes abruptly nine lines from the bottom of the column: “putauerit sequendum eligat…”

~~~~198~~~~

E. 161r-176va. RUPERT OF DEUTZ, De diuinis officiis, 1, 1-2, 21. Beginning with what seems to be the same hand as that of the preceding excerpt (and later displaying additional hands consistent with those appearing throughout the present booklet), extracts of Rupert’s liturgical treatise are here included. Layout is the same as above. The text is divided into many short paragraphs, fitfully preceded by rubricated initials (with blank spaces otherwise appearing). Very little marginalia appears. 161r: Without a rubric, the text begins: “Septem canonicas horas diei non licet.” 176va: The extracts conclude near the bottom of the first column: “dicte sunt ueneranda similitudine fulgeret.” A note appears in the right column, in the hand which provided the Victorine ex-libris: “In hoc libro sunt glose super ysaiam ad litteram et tractatus de officiis ecclesie.”

III. A. 177r-251v: STEPHEN LANGTON, In XII prophetas (Stegmüller, RB 7843-7854). Pricked in the outer margin and ruled very faintly in plummet for around 58 long lines (190 x 135mm). Written in a highly compressed Protogothic glossing hand of the mid-twelfth century. The bare, economically- produced text is redolent of classroom transcripts. Lemmata are underlined. Occasional reference to the Gloss appears throughout – e.g. “Perlecta littera cum glosis usque ad hunc locum: Et concepit adhuc et cetera, redi ad principium exponendo allegorice…” (177r). Conspicuous divisions occur between the glosses on each Prophet. These postils have been studied: nota-signs appear in the margins throughout (a couple of which are in red ink), as well as notes indicating the senses of Scripture being lectured upon (e.g. “moraliter”) and citations of the biblical and patristic sources that the master has introduced. The latter may be in the scribal hand. Other short annotations appear, and Langtonian chapter numbers have been added. 177r: The text begins: “ssa duodecim prophetarum pullulant de loco suo.” 188v: The glosses on Hosea are abruptly suspended at the beginning of chapter six. A contemporary hand explains: “continua sequenti quaterno ad tale signo,” adding a tie-mark that is repeated on 193r. In the opposite margin, a contemporary hand writes: “Huius sermonis finis est in principio quaterni.”

B. 188v-193r: STEPHEN LANGTON(?), Sermones. After the space of one line, a distinct hand writes the first of several sermons, all of which begins with a biblical pericope. i. 188v-189r: Incipit: “~~emen cecidit in terram bonam. In domo regis celestis de quo~~

~~199~~

dicitur aperis tu manum tuam, et imples omne animal benedictione.” Explicit: “et pane sine fine saciemur quod nobis prestare dignetur qui uiuit et regnat et cetera.” ii. 189v-190r: Incipit: “ircumdederunt me gemitus mortis.” Explicit: “decimo ordine post diem iudicii quod nobis presta et cetera.” iii. 190r-191r: Incipit: “unc scio quia misit dominus angelum suum.” Explicit: “consortes eterne glorie efficiamur prestante domino nostro iesu christo et cetera.” iv. 191r-191v: A change of hand occurs partway down the folio, at the beginning of this sermon. Incipit: “piritus oris nostri christus captus est in peccatis nostris.” Explicit: “fruitione illius corporis reficiamur in eternum quando dominus erit omnia in omnibus quod nobis prestet qui cum deo patre et spiritu sancto uiuit et regnat deus per omnia secula seculorum amen.” v. 191v-192v: Incipit: “umite in uasis uestris de optimis terre frugibus.” Explicit: “cum uenerit princeps pastor eternam retributionem mereamini percipere, quod nobis prestare dignetur pastor et episcopus animarum iesus christus dominus noster qui uiuit et regnat amen.” The last page is ruled for five additional lines.

A. (cont.) 193r: The glosses on Hosea recommence in another hand. 208v: A third of the way down the page, the glosses are abruptly suspended. The lower half of the leaf is filled with apposite notes in a contemporary hand: “VII sunt priuilegia in beato stephano … Primus gradus ueniendi ad deum est uirtus … Anna tribus nupsit ioachim cleophe solmeque…” 209r: The glosses resume in a distinct hand where they left off (Joel 3). Evidently, copying this text was divided among several scribes. 219r: A space of four lines has been left blank, after which the text resumes in the same hand. 233v: Immediately after the glosses on Nahum conclude, a paragraph and tie-mark appear, followed by glosses on the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter two of Habacuc (Hab. 1, 14 - 2, 5). 234r: The beginning of the Habacuc glosses now appear on a small piece of parchment that seems to have been inserted mid-quire. Only the first half of the verso has been used, and the text resumes on the next full folio (235r) in a different hand. The scribe has indicated the preposterous order of text with a convoluted series of tie-marks. In the upper margin, he has written: “post mo(ralitatem?) . ecce po(pulus) . uenit prologus – prologus abacuc,” seemingly referring to the

~~200~~

foregoing moral commentary on the final verses of the previous Prophet (Nahum 3, 13-9) on 233r, following which the disordered glosses on Habacuc appear. 237r: The same phenomenon is again observed: on a diminutive piece of parchment pasted in, the scribe begins the glosses on Sophonias, abruptly stopping halfway down the verso. In the upper margin: “post mo(ralitatem?) . egressus es . uenit prologus sophonie.” A similar series of tie- marks indicates where the beginning of the glosses on Sophonias should be read (236v). 242v: After this folio, a parchment stub appears. No text seems to have been lost. 251v: Felicitously, the glosses conclude on the final verse of Malachias: “anathe(mate). Illo quo zacharias non erit amplius anathema et sedebit ierusalem secura ad quam securitatem nos perducat dominus noster iesus christus filius dei amen.”

IV. A. 252r-298rb: ANON., Glosae siue postillae super Iohannem (Stegmüller, RB 10728).29 The initial text of the following booklet is a set of glosses, seemingly originating as reportationes, on John’s Gospel. Pages are pricked in both margins, and ruled in plummet for two columns (195 x 65 mm) and ca. 50 lines of text. Written above top line in several similar French Protogothic hands from the mid- to late-twelfth century: ascenders and descenders are still fairly extended; the text is lightly abbreviated; uncrossed Tironian et, with the occasional use of an ampersand; the upright d occurs nearly as often as the uncial form; an occasional appearance of uncial initials; retention of c-t and s-t ligatures. Due to the decidedly early stage of the script’s development towards Gothic, I am inclined to date the hand(s) slightly nearer to the middle of the twelfth century than to its close.30 Lemmata are underlined throughout, and glosses somewhat fitfully. A contemporary hand has indicated the correct order of quires by supplying numbers with catchwords. What appear to be accretions are observable throughout: various glosses within the text proper are flanked by conspicuous lines in the margins, and marginal annotations written in the scribal hand within boxed perimeters appear throughout. One of the latter is headed “Volatilis” (296v), much like marginal accretions in the

29 It is interesting to note that this same anonymous set of Parisian glosses on John only survives, according to Stegmüller’s census, in three manuscripts, all of which contain at least one set of Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata: CAMBRIDGE, Pembroke College, MS 75; DURHAM, Dean and Chapter Library, A. 1. 9 (XIII). 30 The date of this text could be of decisive for purposes of establishing the direction of the relation between these glosses and Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum.

~~201~~

manuscript tradition of the Historia scholastica.31 The margins otherwise display little activity. The text has been broken into many paragraphs marked by gibbets and small blank spaces intended for initials (only a few have been filled in). This master’s procedure of using the Gloss as a theological textbook is remarkably like Comestor’s, though less sophisticated: biblical lemmata are presented, briefly commented upon (along the lines provided by the Gloss), and bolstered with compendious quotations from the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John – the master almost seems to be trying to ‘complete’ the Gloss, and to present it as a continuous commentary. References to the John Gloss are generally marked by the initial “G.”; nevertheless, the type of formulaic citations that abound in Comestor’s lectures appear: “Modo lege g. que pertinent ad introitum. G. Ideo interpretatur gratia dei siue in quo est gratia et cetera. Iterum g. omnibus diuine scripture paginis” (252va); “Hoc dicit G. quam dimisisti, ibi scilicet” (253ra); “Hic dimitte glosam” (ibid.). Interlinear glosses do not seem to be distinguished from marginal. In all probability, the contents of this text originated as a lecture course given by a master of Notre-Dame – perhaps a teacher or a colleague of Peter Comestor. The similar lines of exposition traced between these glosses and Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum suggests that one may have served as a source for the other. 252r: In the lower margin, the Victorine ex-libris appears. The same hand adds the rubric: “Glose siue postille super Iohannem et super Matheum.” The glosses begin: “uic euangelio prescribit ieronimus prologum in quo ostendit quis iste iohannes fuit et qualis uocatus fuit a domino … Prologus sic incipit: Hic est iohannes euangelista ex discipulis dei qui uirgo a deo et cetera. Vocauit et cetera, scilicet de fluctiuaga …” 298rb: Explicit: “Similitudo si duo naues essent in mari quarum una sit in tempestate alia in tranquillitate utraque ad litus uenire desiderant magis desiderat uenire ad litus et feruentior est que est in tempestate quam que in tranquillitate.” 298v is blank, after which a parchment stub appears.

~~B. 299r-303v: STEPHEN LANGTON, Glosae in Historiam euangelicam (incomplete) (Stegmüller, RB 7743). Here, Stephen Langton’s cursory lemmatic commentary on Peter Comestor’s Historia euangelica~~

~~31 Cf. Petri Comestoris Scholastica Historia: Liber Genesis, ed. Agneta SYLWAN (CCCM 191, Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), LXXVI.~~

~~202~~

abruptly begins at the first folio of a new quire. Ruled in plummet for two columns of ca. 48 lines, the text is written by a very hasty scribe in a later twelfth-century French script betraying little Gothic influence. The text appears to pick up halfway through the commentary, with the lemmata beginning from chapter 81.32 Lemmata are underlined throughout. No marginalia appears. 299r: No rubrics or identifying inscriptions are provided. The text begins: “Sequitur uero. In sequentibus capit per ordinem per contrarium…” 303v: In the lower margin, the scribe has written three long lines immediately under the main text. The commentary properly concludes, treating the final lines of the Historia euangelica: “subuectus quadriga ignea. G. predicta lege hic hec, hanc ultimam et cetera. EXPLICIVNT GLOSE SVPER EVANGELIVM.” Following this commentary, another parchment stub appears.

C. 304r-339r: ANON., Glosae siue postillae super Matthaeum (incomplete) (Stegmüller, RB 10730). As the rubric for the John glosses indicated above, the corresponding glosae super Matthaeum begin. The layout matches the preceding John glosses. Written in at least three French Protogothic hands, two of which closely resemble those of the John glosses, the script again displays few Gothic developments. Lemmata are underlined. Additions resembling layered accretions appear throughout, both as clearly demarcated sections within the main text (sometimes inset in the column, as in Comestor’s lectures) and as marginal glosses. Apart from this often extensive scribal activity, small annotations and nota-signs in contemporary hands occasionally appear. This text displays a very similar use of the Gloss to that of the John glosses above – as the two circulated together, they could belong to the same author. This text should be closely compared to Comestor’s Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. 304r: No additional rubric appears. The glosses begin by treating the ‘Monarchian’ prologue from the Matthew Gloss: “atheus ex iudea sicut in ordine et cetera. Statim lecto prologo legitur glosa que pertinet ad introitum in qua ostenditur qui scribit euangelium et ubi scribit et eam qualiter scribit…” 320: A parchment stub appears at the end of this quire. 333v: The right column is left almost entirely blank.

~~32 Cf. Peter COMESTOR, Historia euangelica, cap. LXXXI (PL 198, col. 1578D).~~

~~203~~

334ra. The text recommences in a distinct, far more compact hand. Several scribes were copying this text at the same time. This could constitute significant evidence for a primitive pecia system in the twelfth century. 339ra: Once more, the text abruptly ends at Mt. 12, 2, halfway down the first column: “Melius fuit homine et cetera, quam sacrificium taurorum et hircorum deo offerre quia hostia deo.” The rest of the folio is left blank. The quire ends with another parchment stub.

D. 340r-369r: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super euangelia glosata (extracts: Lc., Mt.). Abruptly, commencing in a more mannerly contemporary hand, extracts from Comestor’s glosses on Luke (7, 29 - 10, 3) and Matthew (1, 25 - 5, 30) appear in medias res. Both lemmata and glosses are underlined. Marginal accretions occur in the scribal hand(s) throughout. Several nota-signs in a contemporary hand occur.

i. 240r: Pages are pricked in the outer margins, and ruled in plummet for two columns of ca. 45 lines. The glosses begin on Lc. 7, 29: “Et iustificatur in eo. Hic incipit secunda expositio quasi diceret glosator predicto modo iustificatur deus in penitente…” 347v: The text ends abruptly near the beginning of chapter ten: “sic hereticus ut per obscuritatem praue interpretationis fideles decipiat pastorum machinatur absentia uel mortem quia.”

ii. 348r: Without a change of quire or any indication of a textual transition, what appears to be the same hand begins Comestor’s glosses on Matthew from the final verse of chapter one. The layout is the same as above. Incipit: “sicut ibi ponitur pro semper quia simlitudo est in contrarium. primogenitum, id est genitum, id est ante omne genitum.” 339v is blank. 369r: The text ends abruptly on Mt. 5, 30: “et prauitas actionum, que per manum ut quicquid in oculo mentis, quantum ad prauam uoluntatem.” The verso of the leaf is left blank.

370r: A heavily abbreviated text in a ghost hand appears. From what is legible, the text seems to be a sort of florilegium comprising verses from the Old Testament, cited with the Langtonian chapter numbers. The verso of this leaf is left blank.

III. 371r-379va: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum (extract: Mt. 6, 9 - 9, 7). In a hand similar to the one responsible for the preceding extracts, a fragment of Comestor’s Matthew glosses

~~204~~

beginning with the Lord’s Prayer is presented here. The layout is identical to the Matthew glosses above, and appears to be part of the same production. Glosses and lemmata are underlined. Marginal accretions appear as before. 371r: No rubric has been provided. The text begins: “Pater noster. Primo lege duas glosas que non sunt de expositione littere sed sunt quasi note extrinsecus et prius illam. Inter cetera salutaria monita et cetera.” 379v: The glosses run to the bottom of the first column. Explicit: “Sic mistice. Ideo ipsum moraliter exponitur, quia huiusmodi sanatio in uno quoque hominum inuenitur.” No further inscriptions appear.

V. A. 380r-414va: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. The last booklet begins with Comestor’s lecture course on the John Gloss. Text is written in a small, compressed glossing hand from the last quarter of the twelfth century. Few determinately Gothic features are present. Prickings are sometimes visible in the outer margin. Pages are faintly ruled in plummet for two columns (215 x 155 mm) and ca. 55-60 lines. Glosses and lemmata are underlined in red. Accretions appear throughout (though seldom in the later chapters), generally as delineated glosses within the principal column of text but also in the margins. Some nota-signs appear, as well as short marginal annotations in a few contemporary hands (one of which indicates parts of this Gospel read in the Mass throughout the liturgical year). A later hand has included chapter numbers in the margins. Catchwords are used. 380r: In the upper margin, a contemporary hand provides the rubric: “Postille super Iohannem et super Marcum.” A Victorine ex-libris appears in the lower margin. The text begins with the prologue: “Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecti mi.” 414va: The glosses conclude at the end of the first column: “et hoc habes in glosa non dicit spacio temporis et cetera,” immediately after which the explicit is given: “Libro finito sit laus et gloria christo.”

B. 415ra-442vb: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum (incomplete). Written above top line in a few contemporary French hands, the script is a neat Protogothic which displays more Gothic influence than the John glosses. Layout is similar to the preceding text, but ruled for ca. 49 lines. No

~~205~~

accretions, either marginal or ‘intrinsic,’ are visible. Glosses and lemmata have been underlined throughout. A later hand has added Langtonian chapter numbers in the margins. 415ra: Without any rubric, the prologue of the glosses begins: “idi et ecce quatuor quadrige egrediebantur.” 439va: About ten lines of the column have been left blank, and the text on either side of the lacuna does not correspond: “quod sequitur de sequenti sententia est || ET INDE que predicta sunt fecit dominus…” Notably, the copy of the Mark glosses in the manuscript M (above) exhibits the same lacuna; the two witnesses evidently descend from the same defective tradition. 442v: The glosses abruptly conclude at the end of the folio, on Mc. 11, 10: “osanna quod in latina lingua o domine saluum me fac.” A catchword appears in the gutter, which is not satisfied by the following folio. On the recto of this leaf, a crude ghost hand has arcanely noted: “uacat totum ab hoc XI capitulo usque ad sequens XI capitulum.”

C. 443r-450v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Lucam glosatum (fragment: Lk. 1, 1 - 2, 1). In a similar, though rounder and more elegant, French Protogothic hand, the prothemata and first chapter of Comestor’s Luke glosses here begin with very little ceremony. This copy has been conscientiously produced: carefully planned and tidily delineated ‘intrinsic’ glosses appear throughout. The outer margins have been tightly trimmed, though prickings and occasional glosses in the scribal hand are visible in the inner margins. Text is faintly lined in plummet for two columns and ca. 47 lines of text. 443r: No rubric is visible. The glosses begin with the prologue: “

edes eorum pedes recti et planta pedis.” 450v: A new hand takes over: the script is far more compressed, now spanning 58 lines of text. The Luke glosses here abruptly end on the bottom of the second column: “pacis nasceretur qui pacem dare uenit et eum…”

D. 451r-476v: PETER COMESTOR, Glosae super Marcum glosatum (extract: 10, 25 - finem). A long extract from Comestor’s Mark glosses now begins in medias res, with no indication of a textual transition. New ruling commences, with text spanning ca. 43 lines of text in two columns, and the margins conspicuously more spacious than those of the Luke glosses on the facing page. Palaeographically similar to the preceding text, though the hand is slenderer. Glosses and lemmata are underlined. Accretions appear in the margins throughout, and begin to occur as delineated ‘intrinsic’ glosses nearer to the end of the text (464v). Corrections are made in darker ink throughout. Catchwords

~~206~~

marking the beginning of new quires. A few annotations appear in a ghost hand in the lower margins. This extract from the Mark glosses may have been intended to supplement the incomplete set above (V. B), although there is some overlap in content. 451r: Without a rubric or marginal note, the text begins: “reseruauit, id est reparauit, uestis quippe.”

D. 2. 475r: Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum (incomplete). On the recto of the following folio, there appears the beginning of Seneca’s letters to Paul, opening with Jerome’s prologue: “LVCIVS ANNEVS SENECA cordubensis fotini stoici discipulus,” and concluding partway through the sixth epistle at the end of the page: “et atramento eloqui, quarum res altera notat.” Text is carefully written in one long line, and the hand appears to be earlier twelfth-century (text is spacious and lightly abbreviated; c-t and s-t ligatures are used, as well as the ampersand; upright d occurs), though the scribe has, perhaps, affected antiquity for the sake of the content.

D. 1. (cont.) 475v: The Mark glosses resume, picking up on the catchword of 474v. 476v: The glosses properly conclude: “Marcus longe inferius, scilicet a predicatione iohannis. De hoc glosa: NOTA QUOD MARCUS.” No further explicit appears.

~~i. The rear flyleaf and pastedown are blank.~~

~~IV. 2 ‘MAGISTRALIS ADIECTIO’~~

Of all the riddles posed by the manuscript witnesses preserving Peter Comestor’s biblical teaching, the most difficult for the editor to address is that of the layered accretions that pervade the textual tradition of the Parisian master’s lecture courses. Beryl Smalley was the first to discuss the occurrence of these additions to Comestor’s glosses on the Gospels, which she describes as “passages … inset in the columns,” or simply “insets.”33 From her examination of a short section of Comestor’s Matthew glosses in three manuscripts, Smalley finds that one lacks the insets of the other two and includes many of its own, while the remaining manuscripts share six insets, with the third providing one of its own.34 One of the inset passages that Smalley encountered in this survey is

~~33 Beryl SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 109. 34 ibid.~~

~~207~~

headed “Magistralis adiectio,”35 which suggests that at least a certain number of the accretions originated with Comestor. Although she hazards no conjecture about how these accretions originally found their way into the manuscript tradition, Smalley is “incline[d] to accept them as magisterial, or as emanating from the master via his pupils.”36 Despite the admitted superficiality of her investigation, Smalley’s initial glimpse at the problem of the accretions resulted in a number of important observations, which I will restate in more definite terms: first, that these “insets” represent a determinate feature of the manuscript tradition of Peter Comestor’s biblical lectures. Secondly, that different accretions occur in different families of manuscripts, with some degree of overlap. Finally, that these accretions originated in the immediate environment of Comestor’s teaching, if not with the master himself.

Before making a more extensive investigation of the accretions occurring in Comestor’s Gospel lectures in general, and in his Glosae super Iohannem glosatum in particular, the situation presented by the Historia scholastica, strikingly similar as it is to that of the Glosae, warrants some consideration. In the study mentioned above, Smalley notes in passing that the inset passages observed throughout the Gospel lectures “are also in copies of Comestor’s School History,”37 which the editors of the Patrologia Latina presented as footnotes to each chapter. In the introduction of her 2005 edition of Comestor’s Historia Genesis, Agneta Sylwan provides a more thorough account of these additions, stating that all of the manuscripts contain such “notes,” which are either inserted into delineated boxes (“fenêtres”) in the margins or are incorporated directly into the text.38 Some of these additions, Sylwan observes, are preceded by the words nota magistri, uox, glosa, or, most jauntily, glosa uolatilis.39 While tacitly omitting others which she has regarded as belonging to a later textual tradition of the Historia, Sylwan elects to incorporate some twenty-five of these accretions into her critical edition, which are attested in nearly all twenty-four of the manuscripts witnesses that she has selected. Due to the consistent presence of this set of additions in the early manuscripts, Sylwan

~~35 OXFORD, Bodl. Laud. misc. 291, 6vb. 36 SMALLEY, “Peter Comestor on the Gospels,” 109. 37 ibid. 38 Agneta SYLWAN, Petri Comestoris Scholastica Historia: Liber Genesis, LXXVI. 39 ibid.~~

~~208~~

maintains that these notes properly belong to a stable literary version (“texte primitif”) of the Historia Genesis, and that Comestor himself probably added them to his commentary before any corruptions were subsequently introduced into the text owing to its use in the classroom.40

Mark Clark finds Sylwan’s account of these accretions and her subsequent treatment of them within her edition to be inadequate. With recourse to Stephen Langton’s commentary on the Historia Genesis, who commented upon certain additions (described as glosulae or notulae) which Sylwan has either excluded from her edition or reported in her critical apparatus in a truncated form, Clark uncovers several further accretions belonging to the earliest tradition of the Historia.41 Apart from these omissions, Clark also documents Sylwan’s failure to indicate the manner in which accretions occur in the manuscripts, and her occasional misplacement of these notes in the text.42 In the course of his criticism, Clark alludes to an “ongoing process by which notes were added to the History,” suggesting that “the layered accretion of glosulae” occurred in multiple stages, resulting in the incorporation of some of these notes into the main text.43 Clark understands this “dynamic fluidity between … the notes and the text” exhibited by the manuscript tradition of the Historia as a characteristic of scholastic texts, which frustrates Sylwan’s notion of a “well-defined set of ‘original’ notes” attributable to Comestor.44

In his 2015 monograph The Making of the Historia scholastica, Mark Clark provides a more sophisticated account of the process by which these “notes” were first introduced into the manuscript tradition and, in some cases, ultimately incorporated into the text of the Historia scholastica.45 Following his careful survey of manuscript witnesses of the Historia from various periods of its textual transmission, together with Stephen Langton’s commentary on his master’s textbook, Clark identifies three progressive stages according to which an accretion might appear in the

40 ibid., LXXVII. 41 Mark J. CLARK, “How to Edit Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica,” Revue Benedictine 116 (2006), 83-91, at 86. 42 ibid., 86-7. Clark further develops his criticism of Sylwan’s edition in his more recent monograph, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 157-86. 43 CLARK, “How to Edit Peter Comestor’s Historia,” 87. 44 ibid., 87. 45 IDEM, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 172-82.

~~209~~

manuscript tradition: 1) As an “extrinsic gloss” (either marginal or interlinear), 2) as an “intrinsic gloss” (written into the principal columns of text but clearly demarcated from the main body, generally with lines), or 3) as an undifferentiated part of the principal text.46 In his initial lecture course on the Historia euangelica, Langton remarks that Comestor had added an “extrinsic gloss” to provide a further solution to a difficulty posed by a particular lemma: “PVER ENIM. Super hoc ponit Magister glosam extrinsecam…”47 Locating the extended gloss to which Langton must be referring, Clark finds that the earliest known manuscript of the Historia includes the entirety of Comestor’s addition as an undifferentiated part of the text, and the second earliest includes the substance of this addition as an “intrinsic gloss,” while omitting three short sections. Accordingly, Clark concludes that the fullest form of the accretion represents a “conglomeration of glosses” which certain manuscripts integrate into the text as a single unit, but which properly consists of an “original gloss” composed by Comestor and three “complementary glosses” subsequently added at a very early period of the manuscript tradition either by Comestor or another master lecturing on the Historia.48

Citing several further examples from Langton’s lectures on the Historia scholastica, Clark characterises the development of these magisterial additions, which probably appeared in the most ancient manuscripts as a marginal annotations, passing through an intermediate stage in subsequent copies as discrete glosses presented in the main columns of text, and ultimately, at the final stage of the textual tradition, being incorporated into the text proper. Due to the seamless coherence of such “extrinsic glosses” with the original text, Clark notes that the reader would have no reason to suspect multiple layers of accretion in the text were it not for “the clue[s] about authorship and extrinsic provenance afforded by Langton.”49 From his carefully-documented survey of the rapid textual change which Comestor’s Histories underwent from a very early period, Clark concludes that it would be a grave error on the part of modern scholars to treat this book as a “private, static” text originally published in its finished form; instead, the Historia, dating from the earliest manuscripts

46 ibid., 173-4. 47 ibid., 173. For Clark’s edition of the prefaces and opening chapters of the first version of Stephen Langton’s lecture course on the Historia euangelica, see in the appendix of this same volume: Prima Stephani glosa scilicet lectiones a Stephano viva voce ante 1176 datae in Historiam euangelicam, ed. Mark CLARK (Textual Appendix B.2), 292-5. 48 ibid., 175-6. 49 ibid., 176.

~~210~~

that we possess, “was emphatically scholastica” – a dynamic textbook designed for use in the schools and adaptation to new teaching environments.50 Thanks to the testimony of Stephen Langton, who routinely describes Comestor’s meticulous revision of the Historia in the form of “extrinsic glosses,”51 Clark argues that it is not only the most feasible, but also the most desirable, for modern editors to reconstitute the text of the Historia according to the version that Langton was teaching from, as representative of the text that was first received into the Parisian schools in the late 1160s and early 1170s.52

Having established that accretions appear in the earliest extant manuscripts of the Historia scholastica, and that, despite the fact that authentic magisterial glosses are often indistinguishable from the additions of students and later masters, these “notes” bear witness to a dynamic teaching tradition in the Parisian schools originating with Peter Comestor, it is now possible to return to the manuscript tradition of Comestor’s Gospel lectures. Although Smalley’s observations about the occurrence of “insets” and their unpredictable distribution among manuscripts are entirely accurate, the problem of accretions in the Glosae super euangelia glosata is more complex than her initial survey suggests. Indeed, Smalley observed only one stage in the development of accretions, at which they appear as demarcated passages within the main column of text. This is the intermediate and most visually distinct stage, which Clark describes as the “intrinsic gloss” by analogy to Langton’s glosa extrinseca. Little surprisingly, the reportationes of Peter Comestor’s lecture courses on all of the Gospels include accretions in all three of the stages that Clark has identified in the manuscript tradition of the Historia.

Unfortunately, we do not at present possess, as we do Langton’s extraordinarily precise account of the Historia scholastica, any subsequent commentaries on Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata which could elucidate their textual development and the provenance of the accretions. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose (even before examining the accretions) that a large number of such additions

50 ibid., 182-3. 51 Comestor’s restless impulse towards revision is entirely consistent with the same master’s “obsessive care” to order the constituents of the Gloss in relation to the biblical lemmata. Cf. SMALLEY, “Comestor on the Gospels,” 112. 52 CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 184-6.

~~211~~

made to the reportationes originated with the master, not only on account of the analogue presented by Comestor’s ongoing revision of the Historia, but also of the nature of these lecture courses. Although a student might have adopted his master’s lecture notes for his own teaching at the early stages of his magisterial career, these glosses were not designed to serve as scholastic textbooks, nor did they enjoy anything resembling the dynamic development of the Historia scholastica as it was used in the twelfth-century classroom. Indeed, due to the characteristics of Comestor’s lectures described earlier, these reportations would have been in large part indecipherable to readers without direct access to the biblical Gloss and a certain familiarity with the master’s usus legendi. Accordingly, there is an antecedent probability that the additions which would become a definite feature of the textual tradition of the Glosae originated, not in the schools of subsequent generations of masters, but in Comestor’s immediate teaching environment.

Beyond speculation and Smalley’s discovery of an ‘intrinsic’ gloss in the Matthew lectures headed “magistralis adiectio,” the content and internal characteristics of the accretions (examined below) are similarly suggestive of the magisterial provenance of many such additions. Ultimately, however, irrespective of whether the various accretions can be shown to originate severally with Peter Comestor, with his students, and with subsequent masters, I am inclined to share Clark’s misgivings about discarding any material that does not demonstrably issue from the master with a view to reconstituting an “original, pre-scholastic version” of Comestor’s text.53 While the reportations of the Glosae exhibit a less complicated textual transmission than the Historia, insofar as Comestor’s original lecture material is readily distinguished from subsequent accretions during the process of collation, I have found it desirable to re-present the manuscript tradition of Comestor’s glossed Gospel in its entirety. Like the Historia scholastica, these lectures represent a dynamic scholastic tradition extending beyond the master’s initial activity of lectio. By including appendices containing the accretions occurring in various constellations of manuscripts, as well as any singular additions expanding upon the original text that appear to have been introduced into the Glosae in the same manner, it will be possible to preserve the rhythm and structure of Comestor’s lectures as they were first delivered. Equally, by reproducing all of the accretions, it is my hope that this edition will contribute to research on the nature of reportatio in the twelfth-century schools and on the textual

~~53 CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 183.~~

~~212~~

development of early scholastic texts, particularly as these processes involve the master’s teaching activity, the collaboration of the students in his immediate teaching environment, and the possible reintroduction of such lecture materials into a subsequent master’s classroom.

~~1. Accretions in the Present Edition~~

It is now convenient to make a survey of the accretions that occur throughout the present edition of Peter Comestor’s Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, with a brief examination of their manner of occurrence and distribution throughout the manuscript tradition. As was mentioned above, the accretions of the Glosae occur in the manuscript tradition according to three progressive stages: 1) Marginally (extrinsecus); 2) set off in the principal column of text (intrinsecus); 3) as an undifferentiated part of the main text (in textu). Although it is evident that most of the additions were intended for a specific context in the original lectures – often glossing an individual word or phrase, and even occasionally beginning with a subordinate clause requiring the original text to complete its sense –, only very rarely do the scribes indicate (e.g. by the use of tie marks) where accretions appearing in the first two stages of their textual evolution properly belong in relation to the original text. Consequently, since only an unusually diligent scribe might be expected to determine the precise point in the text where an unmarked “extrinsic gloss” from his exemplar should be read, the flightiness exhibited by many such glosae uolatiles in the manuscript tradition is easily accounted for. Nevertheless, based on the stage of textual evolution in which a given manuscript’s accretions appear, it should be possible to determine the relative maturity of a witness within the tradition to which it belongs. For instance, the manuscript B carries eighteen accretions, all of which appear at the final stage of evolution (in textu). Taken together with its more advanced

~~2 age (s. XIII ), this witness appears to represent the later period of its textual tradition (β ). Moreover,~~

4 of the ten accretions commonly attested by its younger sibling I (s. XII ), five of these appear in the first stage of evolution (extrinsecus). Although this principle of datation will enjoy only a modest application in the present edition, comparison of the accretions within their respective textual traditions may be fruitful in the future recension of Comestor’s complete lecture courses.

Altogether, I have identified forty-three accretions in the prothemata and first chapter of the Glosae attested by two or more of the selected manuscripts (presented in APPENDIX I). Furthermore, I have identified some thirty singular additions occurring in the manuscripts B and I (presented in APPENDIX II), which seem to have been introduced into the textual tradition according to the same

~~213~~

progressive stages undergone by the other accretions.54 Such additions have been excluded from APPENDIX I merely because they are attested by no other of the ten witnesses selected for the present edition, although they will likely enjoy a wider representation in the manuscript tradition when a full recension of the Glosae is undertaken. Consequently, I am inclined to regard the additions of APPENDIX II in the same manner as the other accretions. The richness and variety exhibited by the accretions presented in both appendices is remarkable, yet they leave one with the unmistakable impression of Comestor’s classroom. First of all, the accretions in Comestor’s lectures on John, like the glosae extrinsecae on the Historia scholastica, display such a degree of consistency with the thematic and syntactical context in which they occur that, were the reader to encounter these additions in the final stage of their evolution (i.e. in the text proper), he would have no reason to suspect that they did not belong to the original course of lectures. Moreover, the literary character of the accretions is entirely consistent with Comestor’s usus legendi exhibited throughout the lectures, being neither more refined than that of the surrounding lecture material, as one might expect of deliberate textual interpolations, nor more primitive, as tends to be the case with students’ marginal annotations. Furthermore, several of the accretions bear the types of oral signposts that occur throughout the lectures: the students are routinely addressed with the jussive and imperative singular (distingue,55 caueas,56 ne adhereas57), while the speech of the master is indicated by inquam and dico.58

While certain passages of particular interest from the accretions have been considered in the preceding chapter, we will here examine internal features that can provide clues about the origin of the accretions and their significance in the manuscript tradition. An especially suggestive case occurs over two additions in manuscript B. The second of these, expanding upon Comestor’s discussion of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ during His baptism, states: “Sed ideo specialiter descendit in specie columbe, ut hoc uisibili descensu, sicut diximus, instrueretur columba et filius columbe, id est

54 This is supported by the fact that two of the five additions contributed by I appear in the intermediate stage of this evolution, as glosae intrinsecae delineated within the main column of text. See: APPENDIX II, 2, 14. 55 APPENDIX I, 7. 56 ibid., 8. 57 ibid., 17. 58 ibid., 19.

~~214~~

ecclesia et Iohannes.”59 A close reading of the surrounding material from Comestor’s original lecture yields no gloss satisfying the term of internal reference, sicut diximus, which the master occasionally employs throughout his lectures to recall previously discussed material. However, an addition occurring considerably earlier in the same manuscript reads: “Specialiter descendit in columbe specie, ut uisibili descensu instrueretur columba et filius columbe, id est ecclesia et Iohannes.”60 From this example, it is clear that these accretions did not only originate together within a single unit – as opposed to other textual additions, which represent discrete elaborations upon particular passages in the original text –, but also that their originator understood them to belong to the lecture course. A similar instance in which a singular addition from B insinuates its relation to the original lectures and assumes magisterial authorship can be found in the provision of a gloss previously passed over by Comestor: “Ad primum respondet illa glosa quam superius pretermisimus: NON SVM CORPORE.”61 Taken together with the Comestorian modus legendi and the oral characteristics exhibited by all of the extended additions peculiar to the mansucript B, I am inclined to regard these as having originated in Comestor’s classroom. Due to their length, which is often very considerable, and to their tendency to repeat and significantly elaborate upon material from the original text of the Glosae, these accretions may be best understood as reportatiunculae from a subsequent version of Peter Comestor’s lecture course on the John Gloss.

The singular additions from the manuscripts B and I likewise include several passages suggestive of common authorship with all three of the accretion-bearing families. For instance, an early accretion that B witnesses in common with the branch ε (T Z) glosses the use of “erat” in the John prologue thus: “Vt adhereatur uerbo preteriti temporis imperfecti quod accommodatius est eternitati…”62 A singular addition in B glossing a lemma later in the Johannine prologue (Jn. 1, 2: “Hoc erat”)

59 APPENDIX II, 17: “But therefore [the Holy Sprit] descends specifically in the likeness of a dove, so that by this visible descent, as we have said, the dove the and the son of the dove might be built up, that is the Church and John.” 60 ibid., 12: “[The Holy Spirit] specifically descends in the likeness of a dove, so that by his visible descent the dove and the son of the dove might be built up, that is the Church and John.” 61 APPENDIX II, 5: “To the first [question] this gloss, which we passed over earlier, responds: I AM NOT HE IN BODY.” 62 APPENDIX I, 2: “So that that verb of the past imperfect tense might be adhered to, because it is more commodious of eternity.”

~~215~~

significantly refers back to the previous accretion, stating: “Cum eodem pondere intelligendum est uerbum preteriti temporis imperfecti cum quo supra, ubi dictum est: IN PRINCIPIO ERAT, id est ut eternitatem Christi notet.”63 Similarly, at the end of a long addition that concludes with a summary of the Porretan interpretation of Christ’s retention of the power of baptism,64 B reads: “Qui exponunt de excellentia expount negatiue ‘retinuit,’ id est nulli dedit.”65 An unusually pithy accretion

attested by δ (D P ), repeats the resolution of the addition from B almost verbatim: “Sed tunc exponitur ‘retinuit’ negatiue, id est nulli dedit.”66 For the sake of a further example, a peculiar interpretation of the lemma “Agnus Dei” proposed by the Carolingian liturgist Amalarius is cited by name on two occasions in the manuscript tradition: first, by a short addition from I,67 and again by a

~~68 more eloquent accretion from the family φ (N O). Moreover, three further additions treating the~~

~~69 70 71 same lemma – an accretion borne by φ, another by δ, and a singular addition in B – refer to the same interpretation, although they do not acknowledge its source.~~

Demonstrably, then, many of the accretions originated from a common source. But how are we to account for the verbal distinctions between various additions recording the same gloss, as well as their unpredictable distribution throughout the manuscript tradition? In other words, how were the accretions (both those carried by families and the substantial singular additions) originally introduced into the textual tradition? In light of the instances recorded above and many others like them, I am

63 APPENDIX II, 4: “The verb of the past imperfect tense should be understood with the same force as that above, where it was said: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, that is so that it might note the eternity of Christ.” 64 See above, Cap. III. 3. 3, “Comestor’s Engagement in Contemporary Theological Debates.” To restate the position in this debate held by Gilbert of Poitiers and his followers, Christ could have granted to certain of his servants the power of baptism (i.e. of remitting sins) on account of their moral excellence, just as he manifested the priesthood of Aaron and his sons by a visible sign (i.e. the rod), but he chose not to confer this power lest the efficacy of the sacrament should be confounded with the sanctity of the minister. 65 APPENDIX II, 15: “Those who interpret this as pertaining to excellence interpret ‘retained,’ in a negative sense; that is, he gave [this power] to no other.” 66 APPENDIX I, 35: “But then ‘retained’ is interpreted negatively, that is he gave [this power] to no other.” 67 APPENDIX II, 9: “Amalarius dat hanc rationem: in propheta dictum est iuxta uestibulum et altare plorabant sacerdotes et Leuite dicentes: ‘Parce Domine, parce.’” 68 Cf. APPENDIX I, 25. 69 ibid., 26. 70 ibid., 24. 71 APPENDIX II, 10.

~~216~~

persuaded that a large number of the accretions represented throughout the manuscript tradition, and not only those confined to a particular family, are of magisterial origin. First, it is probable that Peter Comestor, like Hugh of Saint-Victor, initially reviewed the student reports of his lectures and required that certain revisions be made before they were disseminated more widely (or ‘published’). Within this context, Comestor could have written out or dictated additions which then circulated as glosae extrinsecae. The hypothesis that some of the accretions originate with Comestor’s revisions to the original set of reportations from which all the extant copies descend (that is, ω) accounts well for the fact that certain accretions are attested by all, or nearly all, of the surviving witnesses. Similarly, like his master before him, Peter Lombard, who instructed students to update their copies of the Sentences in the classroom,72 Comestor may have dictated, some time after the formal ‘publication’ of the Glosae and outside of the context of lecturing, additions that he wished to be made to the Glosae. Whether such dictation were directed at multiple students simultaneously or on various occasions, this process would account for both the diversity of accretions carried by various traditions of the text and for the fact that similar content circulates across all of the accretion-bearing families, despite the peculiar manner of expression exhibited by each family. Accordingly, there are a number of plausible circumstances in which accretions could have been directly supplied by the master in an oral context, but quite apart from his magisterial activity of lectio.

Alternatively, due to the surpassing length of certain additions and the many indications of orality that occur within them, it is probable that some of the accretions originated within alternate versions of the lecture course delivered by Comestor. Supporting this hypothesis is a concatenation of evidence surrounding a passage from one of the original lectures, in which Comestor asserts that a certain gloss should be left out of the discussion: “Vide quia illa glosa, ‘SVM’ VERBVM et cetera, appunctata debet esse.”73 Immediately following this statement, the manuscript I singularly reads, “M(agister) P(etrus) C(omestor) tamen legit eam quandoque,”74 asserting that Comestor fitfully lectured on this gloss, which suggests that this particular student-reporter was familiar with his master’s subsequent lectures on the same material. More suggestive still is a further accretion

72 Cf. BRADY, Prolegomena: Sententiae, 1: 63*-65*, 82*-88*. 73 GLOSAE, XXI, 13: “Note that this gloss, THE VERB ‘I AM’ and so forth, ought to be expunged.” 74 APPENDIX II, 25: “Nevertheless, Master Peter Comestor sometimes reads it.”

~~217~~

attested by φ (N O), which hangs upon Comestor’s original assertion: “[illa glosa … appunctata debet esse], ut quidam dicunt. Tamen legitur a magistris, et est summa: quod uerbum substantiuum ‘sum’ quandoque significat substantiam tantum sine respectu alicuius motus, aliquando motum.”75 This extraordinary accretion not only presents very precise evidence for how contemporary masters lectured on the Gloss, but it also seems to record an instance of Comestor’s own treatment of the gloss in question (‘SVM’ VERBVM) in the classroom, corroborating the assertion made by I. Accordingly, I am inclined to believe that some of the additions to the Glosae originated within the context of the magisterial lectio.

Now that the magisterial provenance of certain accretions can be accepted with confidence, brief note should be made about the role played by students in introducing accretions into the textual tradition. Like the singular addition made in I that refers to Comestor by name (“Magister P[etrus] M[anducator] tamen legit eam quandoque”), a number of accretions observed throughout Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata betray the presence of the student-reporter.76 In instances such as these, the accretions make no pretense of representing Comestor’s ipsissima uerba (i.e. they do not resemble dictated additions); instead, they seem to recall the master’s oral teaching given on a subsequent occasion, or perhaps contained in another of his writings. The most significant accretion of this type that I have encountered until now is a marginal gloss in the manuscript Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B. 47, which appears to refer to Comestor’s glosses (or oral teaching) on the Sentences.77 Evidently, then, certain additions to the Glosae were introduced at the initiative of the students, although such accretions are meant to report the master’s teaching rather than to improve upon it with extraneous interpretations. Although the various evidence that I have encountered indicates that the accretions originated with Peter Comestor himself, or with the students in his

75 APPENDIX I, 5: “[This gloss … ought to be expunged], as certain people say. But yet it is read by some masters, and this is its substance: that the substantive verb ‘I am’ sometimes signifies a substance alone without respect to any motion, and sometimes [it signifies] motion.” 76 For instance, see again the series of three accretions occurring in the prefatory material of the Glosae super Marcum glosatum (PARIS, BnF lat. 645, 37rb-37va): “Proemium legit m(agister) ante alias glosas, quia ille non sufficerent ad unam lectionem et prologus sufficit”; “Ma(gister) tamen legebat eo ordine quo habetur in libro Marcus euangelista Dei et Petri et cetera”; “Et tamen tunc quando m(agister) hoc dixit, fuit in scholis quidam magister magni nominis nomine Iohannes Belent [sic] qui asserebat se uidisse cathedram Marchi super quam scripsit euangelium latine.” An additional example is considered by Mark J. CLARK, “The Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible,” 84-6. 77 fol. 129r: “Item magister super sententias quod triplex est indulgentia…” For my discussion of this accretion, see above: Cap. II. 3. 1, “Vocem iucundam Comestoris audiuimus.”

~~218~~

immediate teaching environment reporting their master’s teaching, it is reasonable to anticipate that other additions, like those in the Historia scholastica, will contain the glosses of Comestor’s students and subsequent masters or readers of the Glosae.

2. Conspectus ‘adiectionum’ Finally, it is possible to present the accretions as they are distributed throughout the manuscript tradition of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum, and to consider the implications of their occurrence within various constellations of manuscripts. It must first be stated that, by their very nature, the accretions place a stumbling block before the Lachmannian method. At the outset, it is not at all certain that the common attestation of an accretion by two or more witnesses may be regarded as a conjunctive ‘error.’ Indeed, it is entirely possible that one of our scribes, or one of his ancestors, copied the main text of the Glosae from one exemplar and subsequently consulted another available manuscript (or perhaps several) to incorporate such additions – occurring in the margins or as glosses delineated within the main text – into his own copy. Consequently, some of the surviving witnesses from which the present edition has been prepared may carry accretions originating within distinct textual traditions. It belongs to the editor, then, to regard these accretions with an antecedent suspicion of contamination. Proceeding with the necessary degree of caution, I have determined that the accretions occurring here correspond quite accurately to the families discoverable by the stemmatic method (presented below). For purposes of clarity, I here include a table illustrating which manuscripts carry each of the forty-three accretions from the prothemata and first chapter of the Glosae. From this, it will be possible to observe any prevalent relations displayed among the accretion-bearing manuscripts, and later to compare these results with the stemmatic analysis of our witnesses.

~~Accretion (inc./expl.)78 Trad. text. (MSS)79~~

~~1. “Ni uidearis – B I~~

~~transgressor precepti” T Z~~

78 Accretions are listed according to the numbers assigned to them in APPENDIX I, and not necessarily their position in the manuscripts. 79 In this column, I have grouped accretion-bearing witnesses according to the families to which they belong (postulated below).

~~219~~

~~2. “Vt adhereatur – B non est eternus” T Z~~

~~3. “De hoc uidetur – N O more consueto”~~

~~4. “SVBITO, id est – A D P T Z a parentibus educatus” B I M~~

~~5. “Vt quidam dicunt – N O aliquando motum”~~

~~6. “Nota quod proprie – N O scilicet ministro”~~

~~7. “Distingue quia quod – B artifex ut minister” T Z~~

~~8. “Aliter in apostolo – I scandalo pusillorum” T Z~~

~~9. “Augustinus est – B I se expedit” T Z~~

~~10. “Ambrosius dicit – N O se expediret”~~

~~11. “Sed Christus – N O dicitur lucerna”~~

~~12. “Glosa: ETSI VIDEAS – B~~

~~Tabula: humanitas” T Z~~

~~13. “ET, id est quia – approbo quod dicis” T Z~~

~~14. “Hic tripliciter – N O dilector mundi”~~

~~15. “Vnde alia translatio – B peccato immuni” T Z~~

~~16. “Vel quicumque – B I quicumque fuerunt” T Z~~

~~17. “Ne adhereas – B notatur gratia” T Z~~

~~18. “Minus analogice – I uel philosophorum” T Z~~

~~19. “Prius ostendit – N O hec scilicet”~~

~~220~~

~~20. “DEVM NEMO VIDIT – N O ipse enarrauit”~~

~~21. “Per primum quidem – B referatur ad duo” T Z~~

~~22. “Quasi qui hoc – B eis inuidebant” T~~

~~23. “De hoc interlinearis – B id est pleniori” T Z~~

~~24. “Vel secundum D P – dona nobis pacem”~~

~~25. “Alia ratio – N O hereditatem tuam gentibus”~~

~~26. “Vel tractum est – N O dona nobis pacem”~~

~~27. “TOLLIT. Non de loco – B I sed adnichilat” T Z~~

~~28. “Hic erat lapis – I magni consilii” T Z~~

~~29. “Pronomen N O demonstratiuum – sine omni”~~

~~30. “Notandum quod – N O fuit in Christo”~~

~~31. “MANSIT Spiritus – N O non in ramo”~~

~~32. “id est mundandum – N O credebat Iohannes”~~

~~33. “Augustinus melius – N O VISA COLVMBA”~~

~~34. “Et potestas baptizandi – N O uel ministerii”~~

~~35. “Sed tunc exponitur – D P nulli dedit”~~

~~36. “Sicut uidetis – N O talis futurus”~~

~~37. “Vnde preuidens – B I discurrunt predicando?” N O~~

~~T Z~~

~~221~~

~~38. “Tripliciter potest – A D P T Z operibus uirtutum” B I~~

~~M N O~~

~~39. “In lege predictum – B I~~

~~et antemurale” T Z~~

~~40. “VIDEBITIS et cetera – B I resurrectionem nunciauerunt”~~

~~41. “SVB FICV – B I~~

~~ei loqui” P T Z~~

~~42. “Et est ex mente – N O prius quam Filius”~~

~~43. “Vel per gratiam – T Z in presenti”~~

From this table, one may observe that all of the ten manuscripts from which the present edition has been prepared include multiple adiectiones. Two of the witnesses (A and M) contain only two unusually promiscuous, and therefore likely more primitive, accretions: the first being attested by all of the manuscripts,80 and the second by all but N and O.81 Of the forty-three accretions, all but three occur within two sets of manuscripts – namely, N-O and T-Z, to the latter of which the manuscripts B and I have consistent access. The accretions are divided nearly equally among these two dominant groups, and only twice do they witness the same accretion.82 With this brief survey, a number of relations between witnesses become readily apparent. The most conspicuous of these is the relation between the manuscripts N and O, which we will identify as the branch φ later in this chapter. These witnesses carry eighteen accretions in isolation from the rest of the manuscript tradition,83 and two others in common with a larger number of manuscripts.84 On no occasion does one of these manuscripts bear an accretion without the other. The next definite relation is that displayed between the manuscripts T and Z, identified below as siblings in the branch ε. Twenty-two of the accretions

~~80 APPENDIX I, 38. 81 ibid., 4. 82 ibid., 37-8. 83 ibid., 3, 5, 6, 10-1, 14, 19-20, 25-6, 29-34, 36, 42. 84 ibid., 36-7.~~

~~222~~

appear to originate with a common ancestor of these manuscripts,85 and only once does one of the witnesses bear an accretion without the other.86 However, unlike the accretions of N and O, those carried by the branch φ were diffused more widely within the manuscript tradition: on all but two occasions, their accretions are carried by one or more additional manuscripts – invariably by either B or I, and often by both. Accordingly, the relation between these latter two manuscripts (which we

87 will postulate below as the family β ) is also notable. B and I share ten accretions with ε, as well as one substantial addition exclusive to themselves.88 The two remaining accretions are carried by D

~~and P (identified below as the branch δ ) independently of the remainder of the manuscript tradition.89~~

~~IV. 3 THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS~~

With an eye to the foregoing survey of the accretions, it is now possible to assess the stemmatic relations exhibited by the manuscripts. All of the witnesses from which this edition has been prepared contribute individual errors not found in the other manuscripts. Furthermore, none of the manuscripts is a codex descriptus, or a copy of another witness included in the present edition. Although the text of the Glosae as it is transmitted by the ten manuscripts encompassed in this edition is reasonably homogeneous, a number of significant ‘common errors’ and conspicuous variants occurring throughout the manuscript tradition allows us to construct stemmatic relations with a fair degree of confidence, pending a recension of the entire lecture course. While it is impossible to reconstitute the biblical lectures as they were originally delivered by Peter Comestor at the cathedral school of Saint-Mary’s in the mid-1160s, the reportationes that have been preserved bear a faithful witness to the master’s teaching activity. Even so, the degree of separation between these textual records and the oral culture of the twelfth-century classroom from which they emanate must remain a matter of speculation.

~~85 sc. ibid., 1, 2, 4, 7, 8-9, 12-3, 15-8, 21-3, 27-8, 37-9, 41, 43. 86 ibid., 22. 87 ibid., 1, 4, 9, 16, 27, 37-9, 41. 88 sc. ibid., 40. 89 ibid., 24, 35.~~

~~223~~

1. The Archetype (ω) and the Constitution of the Text Although the concept of an ‘original’ in the textual history of twelfth-century reportationes ought to occasion a certain agnosticism in the textual critic, the surprising stability of the tradition of the Glosae persuades me that all of the extant manuscripts descend from a single set of transcriptions authorised by Comestor, which we will designate as the archetype (ω). In order to postulate a common origin for all of the extant manuscripts, it is necessary to trace at least one significant error to this putative archetype which subsequently transplanted itself into the hyparchetypes. A careful examination of this first part of the Glosae (namely, the prothemata and the first chapter) has resulted in three possible archetypal errors, which I will single out here:

XXIV, 3 CARO ADE REGITVR] scripsi Glosam secutus, s.c.r. A D I P T Z, s.o.r. B, om. M N O. Throughout his lectures, it is Comestor’s consistent practice to quote short interlinear glosses in full and without paraphrase or ellipsis. My conjecture represents the continuation of the gloss (FEMINE QVE), which all of the manuscripts have correctly begun to record. The archetype seems to have read “s.c.r.,” apparently understanding “caro – regitur.” Although the occurrence of s. is somewhat bewildering, its genesis might be traced to Comestor’s comment immediately preceding this gloss, which reads: “sicut caro a spiritu regitur.” Otherwise, a second interlinear gloss on the same lemma, taken up by Comestor on the following line of the Glosae, reads “uir dicitur spiritus qui regit.” It is conceivable, then, that the archetype’s truncation confounded the two glosses (whether by mental or mechanical error), resulting in “spiritu caro regitur.” It is worth noting that the constellation of

~~manuscripts M N O (which at times appears to have independent access to the Gloss) has elected to avoid this problem.~~

~~p.c a.c. XXV, 3 Anthropomorphita] emendaui, antropomorpheus A I N O P (antropolopheus A ),~~

antropomalpheus B, antroposmorpheus D, antimopheus M, antropomolpheus T Z (-phita alia manu s.l. add. Z ). Judging by the common testimony of the manuscripts, the archetype most likely read “Anthropomorpheus,” a word not otherwise attested in medieval Latin. This reading is evidently a confounded backformation of the conjectural “Anthropomorphita,” attempting to personify the founder of the obscure heresy, who was in fact named Audius.90 This error is repeated in the ablative form (XXIV, 17). In both cases, a subsequent hand has proposed our emendation in the manuscript Z.

XXV, 12 PEREVNTE] ex Glosa suppleui, om. ω. The established reading of the archetype here has “tempore,” which is quite unintelligible in the context. When one supplies the next word from the marginal gloss (“pereunte”) that is here being quoted, the problem is satisfactorily resolved: the archetypal “tempore” is Comestor’s gloss on the omitted “pereunte” of the Gloss.

90 As one of the accretions from the Historia Genesis makes a correct use of this form (“Anthropomorphitae sunt haeretici de Iudaeis…”), it seems to me that the error belongs to the student-reporter and not Comestor. Cf. Peter COMESTOR, Historia Genesis, cap. 51, add. 1 (PL 198, col. 1099 B).

~~224~~

As has already been discussed, scribes routinely refer to the John Gloss in a highly truncated fashion which appears to represent the form of shorthand originally employed by the student-reporter. The result of this process is that the portion of text to which Comestor is referring often appears mutilated beyond recognition, only to be deciphered with painstaking recourse to the Gloss. Accordingly, I have had to amend the common testimony of the manuscripts on many such occasions, although it would be misguided to regard the archetypal reading as an ‘error’ in these instances.

XXI, 11 PONITVR] scripsi Glosam secutus, po non A, po B, ponit D I P N O T Z, om. M. The gloss that Comestor is here citing uses the passive form of the verb, which is required for the sense of the passage. According to the testimony of the manuscripts, the archetype might have read “ponit,” or alternatively “po.” or “pon.” which may have been incorrectly expanded by subsequent copyists.

LVI, 10 QVASI DECIMA] scripsi Glosam secutus, quasi diceret A P T, q.d. B D I N Z, quasi d. M, quasi dicat O. According to the testimony of the manuscripts, the archetype probably read “q.d.,” truncating the words of the Gloss “quasi decima.” Little surprisingly, the manuscript tradition came either to understand this reading as the common abbreviation for “quasi diceret,” or faithfully observed the ancestral truncation.

~~LXI, 2 ID EST PROPHETIA ET OSTENSIO] scripsi Glosam secutus, prophetia et id est ostensio~~

~~A B D P N O T Z, propheta id est ostensio I, propheta et ostensio M.~~

LXIV, 2 VSVRPARE] scripsi Glosam secutus, usurpo A B D I M P T Z, usur. N O. Eight of the manuscripts incorrectly bear the first-person singular form of the verb, whether by homoioteleuton (on the following line, Comestor expounds this gloss as “michi non

~~usurpo”) or incorrect expansion. It is impossible to determine whether N O had access to the correct reading of the Gloss, but their truncation probably represents the archetypal reading.~~

A tripartite tradition, the text of the archetype ω can be reconstructed by assessing the stemmatic weight of each variant according to the textual evidence of the hyparchetypes α, β, and γ. When two of these agree, then we have the text of ω. Although factions are wont to arise within each family, with siblings variously siding with the two remaining hyparchetypes, the reading of ω can generally still be reached according to the stemmatic weight of each variant; at times, however, an editorial choice has to be made about which is the correct reading. All hyparchetypal readings are reported in the critical apparatus to the text. Furthermore, I have detected a couple instances of contamination within the tradition, although the integrity of the witnesses involved does not tend to be compromised severely.

~~225~~

~~2. THE FAMILY α (A D P T Z )~~

While this family witnesses a great number of errors in common, only on six occasions do variants (three of which are significant errors) carried by all five of these manuscripts separate the family α from the rest of the manuscript tradition.

~~I, 8 scripture] scriptura X, 12 et] om. XII, 9 disposita] et add. XIV, 1 NERVA] misericordia~~

~~XLIII, 19 HVMILITAS] humanitas IX, 13 CVI] eca A, eta D P T Z~~

Examples could be multiplied at considerable length to illustrate the majority of these manuscripts sharing significant variants and outright errors against the rest of the manuscript tradition; however, as many of these will be presented below, let this suffice to show that the five manuscripts descend from a common ancestor, the hyparchetype α. Furthermore, a large number of conjunctive errors occurring within the family allow us to postulate two further groupings of manuscripts within α.

~~The branch ε (A T Z )~~

One of the more subdued witnesses in the manuscript tradition of the Glosae is A. Throughout the lectures, this manuscript carries a number of singular, generally unobtrusive errors separating it from the other witnesses in this tradition and precluding its parentage by any of the other extant manuscripts. Nevertheless, many conjunctive errors besides those of the hyparchetype presented above place A firmly within the family α. Of these significant variants, nearly every one of them occurs with either T or Z, and frequently with both. For example:

2 V, 13 PENETRARE] pone A M T Z XII, 13 FRVCTVS ] fer A I P T Z XVII, 19 coeternus] p.c. a.c. coeuus A P T Z XXII, 4/5 de confutatione] de futatione A T XXIV, 10 MIRACVLA] a.c. mirabile A P T Z XXV, 11 POSSIT FIERI] post fac. A D M P T Z XXXII, 10 MVNDVM] p.c. mundus A B I T Z LVI, 6 POSTQVAM] p hu A I P Z

~~Furthermore, these witnesses share four separative errors distinguishing them from the rest of the manuscript tradition. Accordingly, we can postulate that the three manuscripts constitute a branch~~

~~of the family α.~~

~~II, 3/5 euangelium1,2] eum1,2 II, 6 testamenti] instrumenti XLVIII, 16 descendentem] et add. LVII, 1 istius] iste~~

~~226~~

~~Forceful evidence for this branch is also presented by the accretions. Altogether, the manuscripts T and Z carry seventeen accretions separating them from the remainder of their family,91 two of which~~

92 are unique to themselves. Only on one occasion is an accretion from one of these manuscripts ( T ) attested independently of its sibling.93 Due to the large number of additions that place these two manuscripts in close conjunction while separating them from A, it would seem that T and Z should form a sub-branch of ε. Ηowever, the evidence presented by the main text of the Glosae will suggest a different sub-branch within this constellation of manuscripts.

~~The sub-branch ψ (A Z )~~

A large number of the conjunctive errors considered above serve to establish the close relation between A and Z, and further examples could be provided to illustrate the two manuscripts sharing errors with other witnesses against the text of T. Additionally, the two manuscripts share a number of separative errors that set them apart from the remainder of the manuscript tradition:

~~I, 15 reficit] re. IV, 1 Domicianus] dominus VI, 3 euangelium] eum XI, 14 terminat] a.c. taminat XIV, 8 obdormierit] obdormuerit XXIX, 19 alii] om. A Z~~

~~How, then, are we to account for the discrepancy between the accretions and the main text of the~~

Glosae ? One possible solution is that that the hyparchetype from which the three witnesses ultimately descend (ε) carried the set of accretions shared by T and Z, while the scribe of A (or of one of its ancestors) elected not to copy the accretions carried by its exemplar. While the relatively short sample of the Glosae encompassed by the present edition does not allow us to solve this riddle satisfactorily, the relation between these three manuscripts serves to confirm that the occurrence of accretions does not always correspond with the transmission of the text.

~~The branch δ (D P )~~

~~In addition to the two accretions unique to D and P,94 an extraordinary array of variants separates~~

~~91 APPENDIX I, 1-2, 7-9, 12-3, 15-8, 21, 23, 27-8, 37, 39, 43. 92 ibid., 13, 43. 93 ibid., 22. 94 ibid., 24, 35.~~

~~227~~

~~these two manuscripts from the rest of the tradition, distinguishing them as a branch closely related~~

to their common ancestor (δ ). Each of these manuscripts displays a considerable number of peculiar separative errors, D far more than its younger sibling, precluding their descent from any other manuscript in the tradition. Discounting many banal variants (transpositions, quod for quia, etc.), Ι have identified some forty-nine significant variants separating D and P from all of the remaining manuscripts. Many of these ought to be considered outright errors – for example:

VIII, IMMVTATIS] inuitatis XII, 2 ei] et XXIII, 15 uersi] uersa XXIV, 3 natura] substantia XXVII, 3 originem habuit hec opinio] Origenes habuit hanc opinionem XXXII, 10 interlinearis] om. | 15 SVI] omnes XXXIV, 6 si homo] filius | 17 qua] quos XLV, 12 oculo1 – oculo2] oculis – oculis XLVII, 14 HVIVS] eius LI, 1 sibi] substantia LII, 11 factum tricenarium] facto tricenario LVI, 4 habitem] habitat LXIII, 10 duabus] duobus

a.c. a.c. a.c. XI, 7 sicut] si D P XIX, 16 tantum] et inde D P XXII, 4 distincte] districte D P a.c. p.c. a.c. XLVII, 6 etiam] in D P XLIX, 11 dici] hoc modo add. D P | 18 siue] fuit D P | p.c. p.c. 14 certum] om. D P LXIV, 5 ubi] alicubi D P

It is interesting to observe that, in the lower set of examples, the manuscript P was corrected four times from an error shared with D to the archetypal reading, and that three times it has been corrected to share the otherwise unique reading of its sibling. Another notable example of the latter phenomenon occurs at LII, 8, where D was the sole manuscript to give the true Vulgate reading Dominus celauit me, to which P has corrected from the otherwise unanimous reading Spiritus. Many similar corrections to P can be observed throughout the Glosae. Accordingly, we must conclude that this witness is contaminated. Unfortunately, based on the corrections occurring in the section of text presented in this edition, it is not possible to isolate the other manuscript or tradition to which P has access. Most of the corrections can be explained by the hypothesis that P has had recourse to another manuscript from its own family, owing to the fact that there is no instance of P correcting to a variant peculiar to another tradition in this part of the Glosae.

~~3. THE FAMILY γ (M N O)~~

Displaying an extraordinary number of conjunctive errors and variants separating them from the remainder of the tradition are the manuscripts M, N, and O, which constitute the family γ. The following is a selection of the more significant variants shared by these witnesses.

I, 13 scriptura – designatur] scripta – designantur II, 14/5 significatum est] significabatur III, 15 erat] extitit IV, 6 incarcerationem] decollationem VIII, 17 historiam significantem] historicam significationem XIV, 6 gressibilium] animalium add. XVI, 1 colata] comata

~~228~~

XVIII, 3 repente] ad aures add. XIX, 3 glose] glosule XX, 11 respiciens ad futurum] futuri XXIII, 4 alteram] creatam add. XXV, 12 actuali] actualis XXXVIII, 16 querunt] queritur XLIII, 10 Hebreum] Hebreorum XLVI, 11 tribus] causis add. LI, 13 fructuosum] fructiferum LII, 15 baptismi] baptizandi LIV, 10 quadam] factum est in LIX, 13 processu] precessu LXI, 14 supradictum] quod predictum est LXII, 12 radice] germine LXIII, 12 habere] intelligere

Despite the prevalent agreement of these witnesses, numerous separative errors uniquely carried by each of the three eliminates the possibility of filiation between these manuscripts and another extant in the tradition. Moreover, a large number of conjunctive errors occurring within this family allows us to postulate a further branch.

~~The branch φ (N O)~~

One cannot fail to observe the frequency with which M sides with the other families against its siblings. Indeed, the manuscripts N and O are two of our most closely related witnesses, sharing many separative errors and significant variants against the remainder of the tradition. It has been mentioned above that the branch φ carries nineteen accretions excluded from the remaining manuscripts.95 These two also share a vast array of peculiar readings within the original lecture material of the Glosae, including a type of short explanatory additions which rarely occur in the other manuscripts. Here I include a selection of the variants proper to φ.

II, 6 lectiones – terminentur] lectio – terminetur V, 9 suis] singulis IX, 8 instruendos] instituendos X, 9 dies obitus] exitus XVI, 5 eliminandas] extirpendas | 15 quatuor] tribus XXII, 12 de uniuersali] naturali XXII, 16 omelia] Gregorii add. XXV, 13 ablatiuum casum] ablatiui casus XXVI, 1 prima] in qua uita est nominata add. XXXII, 7 comprehensionem] noticiam XXXIII, 4 EIS POTESTATEM] si post habes illam a.c. XXXV, 6 GRATIE] secundum humanum add. XXXVI, 8 interserendo] inserendo N O XL, 16 directe] rectas XLIII, 12 DIGNVS] soluere corrigiam calciamentorum eius add. XLIII, 15/6 cur deus homo] cum sim homo XLIX, 11 redimendum] id est omnino esse absoluendum add. LI, 10 caritatem] ciuitatem LIX, 4/5 miraculum mutationis] mutationem

A noteworthy feature of this branch is its peculiar relationship to the biblical Gloss. As was seen above, all of the manuscripts routinely present a truncated or otherwise garbled version of the glosses that Comestor cites throughout his lectures. On several occasions, the family γ as a whole

~~95 sc. APPENDIX I, 3, 5, 6, 10-1, 14, 19-20, 25-6, 29-34, 36-8.~~

~~229~~

~~and the branch φ in particular contribute their own peculiar distortions of glosses which the remaining manuscripts have presented quite intelligibly. A couple examples will here suffice.~~

IX, 9 POSTEA QVAM] postquam γ XXXII, 2 IPSA CREATVRA DICEBATVR] creatura dei γ XLVIII, 16 REDIMENDVM] redemp. φ LVI, 11 DECIMA QVERVNT DOCERI] de qua γ p.c. LXIV, 13 VISOS] preuisos γ LVII, 1 MISTERII] ministerii N O LXIII, 9 COGNOSCENS PRIVSQVAM TE] priusquam cognoui φ, cognoui priusquam M

Accordingly, it would appear that the common ancestor of these manuscripts carried an unusually perplexed set of references to the Glossa ‘ordinaria.’ It is a little surprising, then, to find that the manuscripts N and O alone give the true reading of the John Gloss on several occasions throughout the Glosae, in addition to their carrying peculiar variants that provide additional information about certain glosses (e.g. specifying their type, providing an additional word). Some examples include:

III, 14 LXV φ] LXVI α β M X, 8 DEO γ ] domino α β XIV, 1 CVM φ] om. α β M XIX, 1 96 ETERNITAS] uerbi add. γ XXXII, 14 HVMANA φ B ] mundana α I M XXVII, 13 tenebrosos] VT AVTEM. Hic dimitte add. φ XXVIII, 8 Verbi] Iohannes que sicit incipit POSTQVAM add. φ XXX, 10 glosator] glosa interlinearis: VERA φ XLIV, 12 QVE – IERVSALEM] SVNT p.c. BE(THANIA) φ XLVIII, 2 ETIAM φ] et α β M LIV, 17 glosa] interlinearis add. N O LV, 13 A TERGO φ] om. α β M LXIV, 2 VSVRPARE] usurpo α β M, usur. φ

All of this suggests that N and O descend from a manuscript that had direct access to a copy of the glossed John, which the scribe used to correct and supplement certain distortions appearing in his exemplar; nevertheless, based on the examples considered above, he might have gone about his work more diligently.

It remains to discuss the corrections that occur throughout the Glosae in the manuscripts N and O. Occasionally, the scribe of O corrects peculiar errors to share the reading of its family members, but none of these instances is suggestive of contamination. The manuscript N presents a different story. Although this manuscript also makes corrections to share the reading of its family, more frequently N has been emended from its family’s variant to the reading carried by the remainder of the manuscript tradition. A number of examples are worth considering here.

96 Although some witnesses of the John Gloss (excluding the four that I have consulted) may carry the reading reported by the rest of the manuscript tradition (mundana), one of the accretions confirms that the version originally used by Comestor read “humana.” Cf. APPENDIX I, 15: “ Vnde alia translatio habet in mundana natura…”

~~230~~

a.c. a.c. XI, 5 MORTIS] sortis N O XII, 9 ORDINATIO] ordine N O, ordinis M XXXIII, 5 a.c. a.c. distingueres] distingues M N O XXXVI, 8 interserendo] inserendo N O XXXVII, 14 a.c. a.c. construit] constituit M N O XXXVIII, 9 cum incertitudine] in certitudinem N O XLVI, a.c. a.c. 16 singulariter PECCATVM] figulariter peccata N O XLVI, 17 Exodum] Genesim N O a.c. a.c. XLVIII, 2 textui] testimonio N O LI, 7 pro seruanda] perseueranda N O, per seruanda M a.c. a.c. LIII, 15 glosa] quo N O LVI, 5 instructionem] Glosa: QVASI SVNT. Interlinearis add. N O a.c. LX, 9/10 sub disiunctione] subiunctiue N O

It is unclear from the cluster of emendations belonging to this portion of the Glosae to what manuscript or family N has had recourse beyond its original exemplar. The only instance in which N corrects independent of its siblings to a reading peculiar to another tradition is the following:

~~p.c. XXXVI, 5 duum] duorum β N~~

~~No further evidence connects N to the family β at the present stage of research, but a full recension of the Glosae may provide further clues about the contamination of this witness.~~

~~4. THE FAMILY β (B I )~~

Of the ten manuscripts selected for the present edition, B and I represent the most promiscuous witnesses to the textual tradition. Both together and independently, B and I carry numerous errors and significant variants which are otherwise peculiar to α and γ, and often to a branch or particular manuscript within one of these families. Before considering the relation that these witnesses bear to the remainder of the tradition, it is necessary to present the separative errors that help to establish B and I as a distinct family.

I, 6 etatibus] om. X, 4 redit] reddit XI, 6 tradunt] dicunt XIII, 15 ostendet] ostendat XVIII, 9 et] om. XXVII, 12 inanimatorum] animatorum XLII, 15 aliter] nota add. XLIII, 15/6 cur deus homo] om. XLV, 15 proficere] perficere XLVI, 11 id est] om. a.c. LXII, 8 ab eo exire] exire ab eo B I

Beyond these separative errors peculiar to β, it should be noted that both of this family’s witnesses – and especially I, which has been copied by the most hapless of our scribes – displays many unique variants precluding its parentage by another extant manuscript.

~~231~~

~~Contamination of β~~

Serving both to establish the common descent of B and I, and to situate these witnesses more precisely into the manuscript tradition, are the accretions. Altogether, B and I share ten accretions,97 one of which is a substantial addition exclusive to themselves.98 Furthermore, each of these manuscripts carries numerous accretions independently of the other – B includes seven which are absent from its sibling,99 and I includes three.100 Between them, all but two of the accretions otherwise exclusive to the hyparchetype ε (represented by T and Z) are carried by β. Accordingly, it would appear that the hyparchetype from which B and I descend were contaminated with ε, and that the respective ancestor of each manuscript copied the accretions carried by β more or less fully. Throughout the Glosae, B and I share significant variants – both jointly and separately – with T and Z (sometimes directly as a branch, and other times within their larger family α), which supports this hypothesis. For example:

~~p.c. 2 IX, 11 se] om. α B X, 16 neque] nec I Z XII, 6 cetera] om. α I | 13 FRVCTVS ] fer ε I P |~~

~~13 QVERENTIBVS] querere δ B T XXXII, 10 MVNDVM] mundus β ε XXXII, 14 HVMANA]~~

~~mundana α I M XXXIII, 14 QVO AVTEM] quodam α I XXXIV, 3 CARO ADE REGITVR] s.c.r. α I, s.o.r. B XL, 4 aliquis] quis α B XLII, 9 hoc] hic ε B LI, 15 erat] om. β T LXIV, 3 determinat] ei add. ε B~~

While B and I seem to betray a certain allegiance to the family α, the errors that they share with the descendants of the hyparchetype γ (M N O) are no less ponderous. Although the accretions proper to φ do not find their way into β, an extraordinary number of significant variants otherwise peculiar to the members of γ are carried by B or I, occasionally together. Some examples should be considered here:

~~p.c. a.c. a.c. a.c. VI, 10 uouisse] nouisse B I M (nouissime B ) XVI, 6 oborte] aborte I M p.c. XVIII, 6 uerba] ad uerba γ B I XXXII, 1 nulla] ulla I M XXXV, 3 ueracem in impletione]~~

~~uera esse inpletione I M XXXVI, 7 ei] om. φ I, eum B M | 13 testmonia] testimonium B M |~~

~~18 baptizatum] baptismum I M XXXVIII, 11 interlinearis] uel distinctione add. I M XLI, 17 horum] istorum γ I XLVI, 2 illius] glose add. γ I XLVIII, 13 baptizentur] baptizarentur β M |~~

~~15 spiritualiter] specialiter β M O | 15 fraterne] superne γ B Z LIII, 1 discretiue] distingue φ,~~

~~97 APPENDIX I, 1, 4, 9, 16, 27, 37-9, 40-1. 98 ibid., 40. 99 ibid., 2, 7, 12, 15, 21-3. 100 ibid., 8, 18, 28.~~

~~232~~

~~discrete B M, distinguere I LIV, 6 interdictum] introductum γ B LX, 11 eas] eos B M |~~

~~16 A BETHSAIDA] ab esaida I M LXIV, 13 iniusticia] iusticia β M N | 13 quod] quo β M Z~~

As will be readily observed from these instances, B and I frequently display many errors otherwise peculiar to M, and other readings proper to the family γ as a whole. Taken together with its omission of the accretions belonging to φ, we may tentatively conclude that the family β is contaminated by a common ancestor of M, N, and O which may be identified as the hyparchetype γ, as it lacks the set of accretions and separative errors belonging to the latter two witnesses. Although the corrections displayed by B and I are few in number and tend to be relatively minor, almost all of them show these witnesses correcting to or from a reading of γ (often of M by itself) or ε. Consequently, it seems that the common ancestor of B and I has access to both of the remaining traditions of the Glosae.

A particularly searching example of the promiscuity of β can again be found among the accretions. In APPENDIX I, 38, we observe that B has reported the same accretion on two occasions (in textu) at different parts of the text. If this addition appeared substantially the same in both cases, then this occurrence could be explained by the blunder of a preoccupied scribe who has incorporated the same marginal gloss into the text twice. However, within the two lines of text that the accretion spans, the two iterations carried by B contain no fewer than three significant variants that clearly distinguish the two versions from each other. Evidently, then, the manuscript B descends from a witness that extracted accretions carried by numerous manuscripts. As was suggested above, the long additions included in the two extant descendants of the hyparchetype β, and especially those peculiar to B, witness a tradition that has taken care to present the complete textual tradition of the Glosae. It is tempting to attribute the substantial editorial activity exhibited by B to Master Peter himself; nevertheless, pending a complete recension of the John lectures, it is necessary to observe the peculiarities of this witness with a certain degree of detachment.

~~5. STEMMA TEXTUUM According to the findings above, a tentative stemma textuum for the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum may be represented as follows:~~

~~233~~

~~ca. 1165 ω~~

~~α γ 1170 δ ε ψ φ 1180 Τ β~~

~~A 1190 P I Ζ 1200 D O M B B 1210 B Ν 1220 B~~

Of course, the true state of affairs is more complex than this schematisation might suggest. Certain variants in the critical apparatus sometimes seem to admit of other possible manuscript constellations than the ones grouped and discussed above. A particularly difficult witness to fathom is M, which frequently shares ‘errors’ with the families α and β against its siblings. Nevertheless, the fraternity of this manuscript with N and O is incontestable, and the variants separating the latter two witnesses from M may have been introduced by their common ancestor (φ), from which they also inherited a unique set of accretions. As we have discussed above, the editor has found no cause to

suspect that the accretions proper to the two dominant manuscript groupings, ε (T Z) and φ (N O), represent contamination within these traditions, and I have ultimately regarded the accretions separating these witnesses from the remainder of the manuscript tradition as additional evidence towards their common descent. Although we have little precise knowledge of the process by which accretions were first incorporated into the textual tradition of the Glosae, the manuscript evidence suggests that each accretion originated in a single manuscript. Accordingly, the accretions carried by the manuscripts B and I insinuate that the hyparchetype from which they descend ( β ) had access to a distinct tradition of the Glosae. The fact that these manuscripts, both together and separately, carry the accretions of T and Z (ε) might best be explained by their hyparchetype’s recourse to the marginal and ‘intrinsic’ glosses contained in a witness from this sub-branch; subsequently, the descendants of β (i.e. the immediate ancestors of Β and I ) reproduced the contaminated accretions more or less fully. I have indicated this probable source of contamination with a dotted line.

~~234~~

~~CHAPTER V~~

~~EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES~~

~~V. 1 PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING THE TEXT~~

The aim of the present critical edition is twofold. First, it has been necessary to reconstitute, as far as is possible, the ‘archetype’ (ω) of Peter Comestor’s oral lectures on the prothemata and first chapter of the John Gloss, or the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. As has been discussed in the preceding chapters, the archetype likely represents a cleanly reproduced copy of an original set of student transcripts, which were corrected and authorised by Comestor before their diffusion as glosses. Generally speaking, the text of the archetype can be established by adopting the reading shared by two of the families in this tripartite tradition. Secondly, due to the often crude form of reportationes and the vestigal properties of short-hand occurring in texts originating from this method of literary production, it has been necessary to emend recurrent errors in the archetype to represent more accurately Comestor’s oral lectures (which we may identify as Ω). Most commonly, these errors occur in the form of garbled or inaccurately truncated portions of the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ considered

above. In some of these instances, the branch φ (N O) carries the true reading of the Gloss against the common testimony of the remaining witnesses. Nevertheless, even when the archetype carries the true reading of the Gloss that Comestor would have recited aloud, generally only the first couple of letters of each word have been recorded. Other examples include orthographical errors typical of reportatio, such as suggeret for sugeret (XXVIII, 2) and horam for oram (XXXIV, 17), in which cases I have adopted the correct form against the reading of the archetype. For the most part, however, it is manifest that the reportations constitute an authentic witness to Peter Comestor’s original classroom lectures at the school of Saint-Mary’s, and little substantial emendation of the text has been required. In the present edition, I have chosen to exclude from the main body of text the accretions occurring throughout the Glosae in different constellations of manuscripts. Although, as was established above, the accretions constitute a definite feature of the textual tradition and probably represent (in many cases, at least) magisterial additions to the text, they are not proper to the original course of lectures. While subsequent editors may decide to present Comestor’s glosses in their most developed scholastic form – an editorial enterprise that is already observed in the manuscript B, which has incorporated accretions from several different traditions into the main body of its text –, I have concluded that this initial attempt at a critical edition should distinguish clearly between Comestor’s original lecture material and subsequent developments within the textual tradition.

~~235~~

~~V. 2 THE PRESENTATION OF THE TEXT~~

1. Orthography and Punctuation Because the large majority of the manuscripts selected for this edition were copied in the schools within several decades of Comestor’s original delivery of his lectures on John, the orthographical variation that occurs within the witnesses is relatively modest. For this reason, it has been expedient to adopt the principles of orthography consistently observed by the preponderance of the manuscripts. Following the common practice of the scribes, the diphthongs ae and oe have been collapsed into e, and the minuscule letter u and the majuscule V represent both the consonantal and the vocalic and semi-vocalic sound. Since the manuscripts include the letter combination -ci- for the assibilated -ti- only fitfully, I have normalised such occurrences according to classical usage. Otherwise, I have standardised the orthography according to the prevailing usage of the scribes. Accordingly, biblical and other proper names (e.g. Ysaias, Iherusalem, Asya, Ieronimus) appear consistently throughout; the prevalent confusion of the vowels y and i in certain forms has been retained (e.g. ydolum, Cinomia); the use of n instead of m in words like tanquam has been observed; and assimilated prefixes have been preferred to dissimilated forms (e.g. annuntiauimus, immoratur). The use of majuscules and minuscules has been adapted to modern standards, according to which I have capitalised the nomina sacra and certain common nouns used for proper names (e.g. beata Virgo, Filius Dei). Although I have introduced a non-medieval, modified punctuation for the sake of clarifying the sense and syntactic structure, I have also punctuated the text to reflect the oral rhythm of Comestor’s lectures.

2. Critical Signs and Sections The critical signs used in the text are angle brackets < > to enclose addenda, and, within the appendices, to supply the context from the Glosae necessary for understanding some of the subsequent additions; round brackets ( ) to resolve uncertain abbreviations occurring within a single

~~1 witness; the asterisk * to refer readers to APPENDIX I, where accretions occurring in various constellations of manuscripts in the corresponding part of the text are reproduced; the “ergo”~~

~~∴ symbol to refer readers to APPENDIX II, where singular additions from the manuscripts B and I~~

~~occurring at the corresponding part of text are reproduced; and finally the ‘flosculus’ ! to signal~~

~~1 See, e.g.: APPENDIX II, 25: “M(agister) P(etrus) M(anducator) tamen legit eam quandoque.”~~

~~236~~

distinct transitions occurring within the course of Comestor’s lectures, such as between his glosses on the prothemata and the first chapter of the John Gloss. For the convenience of the reader, I have added headings in boldface to describe distinct sections of the text. Although these headings have no correspondence in the manuscript witnesses, they have sought to observe Comestor’s usus scribendi as closely as possible.

~~V. 3 THE APPARATUS~~

~~In the present edition, three apparatus are printed on the page:~~

~~1. The apparatus criticus~~

Generally, the critical apparatus is negative; occasionally, however, when the reading which has been adopted into the text is carried by only one or two manuscripts – particularly within quotations from the Gloss –, I have included positive references in the apparatus for the ease of the reader. As has been mentioned, the student-reporter’s truncation of Comestor’s references to the Gloss occasioned many distortions in the manuscript tradition, all of which have been reported in full in the critical apparatus, as they help to characterise stemmatic relations among witnesses. For the most part, lectiones singulares have been suppressed, unless they appear in an unusually volatile portion of the text or are otherwise of special interest (certain idiosyncratic readings of B, for example, have been presented in the apparatus). Variants in orthography (e.g. capud for caput, hiis for his) are not reported, except when they are the locus of corrections or other notable occurrences. Similarly, instances of transposition and homoioteleuton have been included only when they bear some stemmatic significance. Trivial errors, such as the variation between quia and quod in indirect discourse – a variant which occurs at nearly every instance of these words in the manuscripts –, are only reported when they are shared by a significant number of manuscripts.

The order in which variants should be recorded in the critical apparatus has been determined according to two principles: 1) the notional stemmatic weight of each reading (variants proper to a family are reported first, followed by those of a branch, and finally those of individual manuscripts); 2) the alphabetical order as presented above in the stemma (e.g. readings of the family α appear before those of γ, and those of the manuscript A before Z).

~~237~~

~~In addition to the critical signs appearing in the text to direct readers to the appendices, I have also included references in this apparatus at every occurrence of an accretion.~~

2. The apparatus glosarum We have already discussed at some length Comestor’s use of the biblical Gloss as a theological textbook. That the John Gloss is the object of the master’s lectures as often as the biblical text is readily observed on almost every page of the Glosae. Comestor is constantly reading, paraphrasing, reordering, and commenting upon parts of the Gloss within his larger discussion of the biblical lemmata. As I have already mentioned, the particles of the Gloss appearing in the established text are often very difficult to follow on account of the ellipsis that occurs whenever Comestor quotes a long portion of the Gloss. It seems probable, however, that the student reporter was responsible for such omissions, while the master would have read the section of the Gloss that he was treating in extenso. Moreover, it is evident that Comestor expected his students to have a copy of the Gloss prae manibus, as he routinely instructs them to “dismiss this gloss,” “take up that gloss,” and “resume the long gloss where we left off.” Indeed, any of Comestor’s disciples without the glossed Gospel at their fingertips would have found the master’s lectures largely unintelligible; nor is the situation improved for the modern reader.

For all of these reasons, I have found it essential to print an apparatus glosarum on the bottom of each page of the edition. This apparatus includes all of the glosses from the John Gloss, both marginal and interlinear (identified as MARG. and INTERL., respectively), to which Comestor explicitly refers in the course of his lectures. As the marginal glosses are often very extensive, I have only quoted the portion of the Gloss pertinent to Comestor’s exposition. Conversely, it is the master’s practice to quote shorter interlinear glosses in full, in which cases I have simply included the corresponding reference in the apparatus. Otherwise, whenever Comestor alludes to the John Gloss only indirectly or introduces an interpretation from another glossed book, I have placed these references in the source apparatus.

Complementing the apparatus glosarum is APPENDIX III, which is an edition of the prothemata and first chapter of the John Gloss. Here, the reader can examine all of the glosses in their complete form and original context, according to which he can appreciate the meticulous care that Comestor

~~238~~

~~has made to select, extract, and reorder glosses in the course of his exposition. This appendix will be discussed below.~~

~~The apparatus fontium et similium~~

Because the Glosae do not represent a deliberate literary composition, it would be unreasonable to expect the same precision or studied variety of references as we would find in written biblical commentaries of the period. Nevertheless, the Glosae reveal the master’s rich formation in the patristic tradition of Johannine commentary, and situate the lectures within an intricate terrain of contemporary theological debate. Following the practice of the period, Comestor seldom acknowledges any of his sources or interlocutors by name, with the exception of the Gloss and the Fathers. Accordingly, it has been difficult in many places to uncover the immediate sources and other moderni (many of whose works likely remain unedited) looming behind the scholastic disputes in which Comestor routinely engages. For this reason, a few of the quidam casually invoked by the master throughout his lectures have eluded the editor. Furthermore, it would be consistent with products of the medieval classroom that some of the more abstruse of Comestor’s references can be accounted for by his vague recollection of a source that he had previously read, or an interpretation that he heard in one of his own masters’ lectures. These obstacles notwithstanding, it has been possible to trace a considerable number of the sources upon which Comestor regularly draws, both patristic and contemporary, all of which were discussed in chapter three.

To avoid the needless multiplication of apparatus, I have included any biblical passages cited throughout the Glosae in the source apparatus. Additionally, I have recorded a number of similia, which are typically passages from contemporary authors which need not represent Comestor’s sources. Occasionally, parallel passages to the Glosae may be found in Comestor’s Historia scholastica or De sacramentis, in which cases I have provided references to these texts in this apparatus. Due to the regrettable lack of editions of any of Comestor’s remaining works, an extended comparison of the Glosae to Comestor’s other lecture courses would be too arduous a task for our present purposes. Nevertheless, I have noted several parallel passages found in the prefatory material of Comestor’s glosses on the synoptic Gospels in the prothemata. In order not to clutter the apparatus, I have

~~239~~

reserved mention of the sources of the John Gloss to APPENDIX III.2 All references to Latin texts are given in the abbreviated forms set out in the ‘Abbreviations’ section at the end of this introduction, and include page and line numbers to the particular edition specified in that section.

~~V. 4 THE APPENDICES~~

~~Three appendices have been printed to complement the present edition:~~

~~APPENDIX I: Adiectiones magistrales~~

Pervading the textual tradition of Comestor’s glosses on the Gospels are accretions, or additions of probable magisterial origin which were gradually incorporated into the main text. The nature of these adiectiones was treated at considerable length in chapter four, but it is here necessary to review the manner in which they occur in the textual tradition. First, we must note that the accretions are carried by various constellations of manuscripts. Two dominant accretion-bearing branches, φ (N O)

~~and ε (T Z), together transmit the overwhelming majority of these additions, although other~~

manuscripts (notably B and I of the family β ) witness a number of the accretions with ε. Only one accretion is carried by all ten of the manuscripts selected for this edition.3 Next, it is essential to recall the three progressive stages observed in the textual evolution of these additions. Each accretion originated as a marginal gloss, developing upon material from the original course of lectures. Subsequently, this gloss would have been copied into the principal column of text, while remaining clearly demarcated from the main text of the Glosae. Finally, the accretion appears as an undifferentiated part of the principal text. Although each of the additions belongs to a specific context in the original lectures, scribes have rarely indicated where glosses appearing in their initial, marginal state should be situated in relation to the main text; accordingly, accretions appearing in the subsequent stages of this textual evolution are routinely misplaced in the manuscripts.

2 For locating the sources of the Glossa ‘ordinaria,’ I am grateful once more to Alexander Andrée, who has shared with me the source study that he has compiled in his investigation of the John Gloss. 3 sc. APPENDIX I, 38. Although it is reasonable to conclude that this accretion originates with the archetype, I have nevertheless excluded it from the main text, owing to the fact that it represents a subsequent addition to the original lecture material.

~~240~~

In this appendix, I have identified the manuscripts witnessing accretions in the first stage of their textual development (i.e. marginally) with the adverb extrinsecus, following Stephen Langton’s description of similar “notes” appearing in the Historia scholastica as “glosae extrinsecae.” By analogy, Mark Clark has called additions in the Historia belonging to the second stage of this evolution (i.e. delineated in the principal column of text) “intrinsic glosses”;4 accordingly, this appendix states that manuscripts carrying an accretion in its second stage do so intrinsecus. Lastly, accretions occurring in the final form of their development, as undifferentiated parts of the main text, are reported with the phrase in textu. As mentioned above, every accretion logically fits into a precise context in the original course of lectures. On almost every occasion, at least one witness situates the accretion in its correct context. Unless I have indicated – with the use of page and line numbers corresponding to the preceding edition – that a given witness has placed the accretion in another part of the text, the reader is to understand that each witness carries the accretion in its proper place.5 In a couple of instances, in which every witness has placed the accretion in a clearly incongruous part of the text, it has fallen upon the editor to determine the proper context.

It remains, then, to explain the formulation of entries in APPENDIX I. First, every accretion is headed by a number for ease of reference between the critical apparatus and the appendix. What follows is a reference to the page and line number in the critical edition to which the accretion corresponds. Next, I have presented the established text of each accretion, employing only rudimentary editorial intervention. Following each accretion is the traditio textus apparatus, stating which manuscripts carry each accretion, in what stage of development, and in what part of the text. Finally, I have included a primitive apparatus criticus under each entry, to indicate any significant variants occurring in the manuscripts witnessing the accretions. Because accretions are generally quite short, line numbers have been suppressed in the appendix, although each variant is reported according to the line to which it belongs. Wherever necessary, I have provided context from the Glosae necessary for understanding the accretions within angle brackets. Accordingly, each entry will occur in the following format:

4 See again: CLARK, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 172-82. 5 Since accretions appearing in the first two stages of their textual development (i.e. marginally and intrinsically) do not occupy a determinate place in the text, I have generally allowed for a couple of lines of divergence when identifying the location of such additions.

~~241~~

~~12) XXX, 5: Glosa: ETSI VIDEAS PORTVM, TAMEN NISI ADHEREAS TABVLE IN NAVFRAGIO, NON PERTINGEAS AD PORTVM. Portus: Christi diuinitas. Tabula: Humanitas.~~

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu B, in textu post est transeundum [XXX, 3] T, intrinsecus Z) 1 Glosa: ETSI] uelud si B 2 PERTINGEAS] pertinges T, pertingeres Z~~

~~APPENDIX II: Additiones singulares codicum B & I~~

The additions peculiar to each of the manuscripts of the family β have already been discussed at some length. Here, we need only explain the format in which they appear in APPENDIX II. Like the accretions above, entries in this appendix begin with a reference to the page and line number to which they correspond in the critical edition. With the exception of two additions occurring in I as ‘intrinsic’ glosses,6 each entry in this appendix originated as an undifferentiated part of text in these two manuscripts. Consequently, I have construed each entry in the form of a lemma from a critical apparatus, simply stating which manuscript carries the addition. In a number of cases, the manuscript B has provided a long exposition in place of the established text, which I have indicated with the usual formula (om. B et add.). Corrections appearing in either manuscript have been reported in footnotes, as well as any emendations to the text contributed by the editor. Addenda and delenda have been indicated with angle and square brackets, respectively. As in the first appendix, any context from the original lecture material of the Glosae necessary for understanding one of the additions has been supplied in angle brackets. Finally, any significant similarities between the material of these additions and the accretions of the first appendix have been indicated with the use of a footnote. Accordingly, each entry in APPENDIX II appears in this fashion:

~~7) XLIV, 9: humanam esset transfusa] add. B: Ante tempus enim gratie non erant fluenta gratie sed quasi riuuli, quia a sanctis deferebatur uisio Dei ut plenitudo gratie attendatur in Dei uisione.~~

~~6 APPENDIX II, 2, 14.~~

~~242~~

~~APPENDIX III: Iohannes glosatus~~

Finally, I have appended a simple edition of the prothemata and first chapter of the John Gloss to the present edition. Despite the relative stability of the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John from the early stages of the book’s development,7 different manuscripts containing the glossed Gospel routinely omit or contribute numerous glosses, whether marginal or interlinear. For this reason, no single witness of the John Gloss that I have found is structurally identical to the edition used by Comestor in the classroom. Indeed, as was discussed earlier, Comestor himself comments on several variants circulating in contemporary copies of the John Gloss. Consequently, it has been necessary to consult a number of witnesses of the Gloss (three twelfth-century manuscripts and the editio princeps of Rusch) to reconstruct a version of the glossed John approximating the copy that Comestor had at his fingertips in the course of his lectures. While the edition that I present in this appendix is critical in no sense of the word, I have roughly collated the four witnesses mentioned above, tacitly adopting every reading and incorporating every gloss that Comestor has commented upon. For glosses that do not feature into Comestor’s lecture course, I have adopted the reading best supported by the manuscript witnesses that I have consulted. Whenever the master has expressly mentioned different versions of the Gloss, I have made note of the variant. However, to avoid unnecessary distractions, I have decided against the inclusion of a critical apparatus in this appendix.

Nevertheless, the reader will observe a ponderous cluster of footnotes hanging from the text of the Gloss. Almost all of these notes relate to the copy of the John Gloss originally belonging to Peter Comestor’s student, Robert Amiclas (i.e. G = Cambridge, Trinity College, B. I. 36), which has served as the basis for the edition presented here. Being enthralled in no small degree by this unique copy of the glossed Gospel, which bears all of the marks of a textbook actively annotated in the classroom during the oral lectures delivered by Comestor, the editor was constrained to include the evidence from this first-hand witness to the tradition of the Glosae super Iohannem glosatum. Since a recent study has been devoted to Amiclas’ copies of the glossed Gospels as a witness to the lectures of Peter Comestor,8 it is here only necessary to explain how his annotations feature into this

7 Cf. Alexander ANDRÉE, “Editing the Gloss (later Glossa ordinaria) on the Gospel of John: A Structural Approach,” in The Arts of Editing Medieval Greek and Latin: A Casebook (Toronto: PIMS, 2016), 2-21, at 6-7. 8 Cf. Alexander ANDRÉE, “The Master in the Margins: Peter Comestor, the ‘Buildwas Books,’ and Teaching Theology in Twelfth-Century Paris” (forthcoming).

~~243~~

appendix. Although Robert Amiclas contributed a variety of peculiar marginalia to G that help to situate this manuscript in Comestor’s classroom – e.g. alphabetical notes ordering glosses according to Comestor’s ordo legendi, tie marks connecting glosses to the lemmata with which Comestor read them, emendations of the text according to the version of the Gloss read by Comestor –, I have principally chosen to report the student’s marginal annotations while including references to the edition of the Glosae that correspond to Amiclas’ comments. To spare the reader any tedious repetition of critical formulae (e.g. add. in marg. in manu Amiclae), I have simply headed such annotations with the annotator’s name in small capitals. For example:

~~dolore mortis] AMICLAS: Vel quia nullum, uel non martirio sicut alii, transiuit. (cfr. XI, 5/11)~~

This Gloss appendix has been structured according to the lucid format devised by Alexander Andrée in his edition of Gilbert the Universal’s Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes.9 Following the prefatory material, I have presented each verse of John’s Gospel severally. Using alphabetical notes to isolate lemmata within each verse, I have placed an apparatus of the interlinear glosses corresponding to each note directly below. Afterwards, I include a section of marginal glosses, heading each gloss with the lemma that it treats in small capitals.10 In the outer margin of each page, I have included an apparatus fontium to present the sources of the John Gloss, generally up to two degrees of separation (e.g. ANSELMVS LAVD., Glosae super Io., Proth. 5, ex IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh. II, 2-6 [5]).

9 IDEM, Gilbertus Universalis: Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete; Prothemata et Liber I; A Critical Edition with an Introduction and a Translation. 10 This practice has been adopted from the manuscripts, although the scribes identify only fitfully the lemma to which each gloss corresponds.

~~244~~

~~BIBLIOGRAPHY~~

~~MANUSCRIPTS CITED~~

~~Arras Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 564 (0623) (= S ).~~

~~Avranches Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 135 (= A ).~~

~~Bamberg Staatsbibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 103.~~

~~2 Cambridge Trinity College, MS B. 1. 28 (= G ).~~

~~Trinity College, MS B. 1. 36 (= G ).~~

~~Pembroke College, MS 75.~~

~~Durham Cathedral Library, MS A. I. 9.~~

~~Cathedral Library, MS A. III. 11 (= D ).~~

~~Laon Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 78.~~

~~Münich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 2624.~~

~~Oxford Balliol College Library, MS 36.~~

~~Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 494 (SC 2108) (= O ).~~

~~Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. Laud. misc. 291.~~

~~Paris Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 175 (= Z ).~~

~~Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 730.~~

~~Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 1708.~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 620 (= P ).~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 645 (= I ).~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 12011.~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 14417.~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 14434 (= N ).~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 14435 (= M ).~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 14441.~~

~~245~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 15269 (Sorbonne 143) (= B ).~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 18108.~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 17501.~~

~~Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS nat. lat. nouv. acq. 217.~~

~~Rome Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B. 47 (= V ).~~

~~Torino Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, MS 698 (E IV 6).~~

~~Troyes Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 249 (= R).~~

~~Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 770.~~

~~Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 964.~~

~~Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, MS 1024 (= T ).~~

~~Vercelli Biblioteca capitolare, MS 32.~~

~~PRIMARY SOURCES~~

Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adoph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/1. 4 vols. Introduction by Karfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.

~~Cartulaire de l’eglise Notre-Dame de Paris. Edited by M. Guerard. Paris, 1850.~~

~~Glossa ordinaria in Cantica Canticorum. Edited by Mary Dove. CCCM 170. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997.~~

~~Obituaires de la Province de Sens. Edited by A. Longnon. Paris, 1923.~~

~~Obituaires de la Province de Sens. Edited by A. Molinier. Paris, 1902.~~

~~Alan of Lille. Summa de arte praedicatoria. PL 210: 108-198.~~

~~Alberic of Trois Fontaines. Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium. Edited by P. Scheffer-Boichorst. MGH, SS, 23. Hanover: Hahn, 1874.~~

~~Anonymous (ca. 1160). Huic euangelio. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 175, fol. 252r-298r.~~

~~Anselm of Laon. Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem. Edited by Alexander Andrée. CCCM 267. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014.~~

~~246~~

~~——. “Epistola ad H. Abbatem S. Laurentii Leodiensis.” PL 162: 1587-92C.~~

~~Augustine. In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV. Edited by D. Radbodus Willems. CCSL 36. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954.~~

~~Bernard of Clairvaux. Opera. 8 vols. Edited by Jean Leclercq, Charles H. Talbot, and Henri M. Rochais. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957-77.~~

~~Dante Alighieri. Paradiso. 2 vols. Translated by Charles S. Singleton. Bollingen Series 80. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.~~

~~Gilbert of Poitiers. Media glosatura super epistolas Pauli. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 14441.~~

~~Gregory the Great. Homiliae in euangelia. Edited by R. Étaix. CCSL 141. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.~~

~~Hugh of Saint-Victor. De sacramentis Christianae fidei. Edited by Rainer Berndt. Corpus Victorinum: Textus historici I. Münster: Aschendorff, 2008.~~

~~——. Didascalicon de studio Legendi. Edited by C. H. Buttimer. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1939.~~

~~Isidore of Seville. Etymologiarum siue Originum libri XX. 2 vols. Edited by W. M. Lindsay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.~~

Jean de Paris (Quidort), O.P. Commentaire sur la Sentences: Reportation; Livre I-II. Studia Anselmiana 47, 52. Edited by Jean-Pierre Muller, O.S.B., 2 vols. Rome: Herder « Orbis Catholicus », 1961- 1964.

~~Jerome. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. Edited by P. de Lagarde. CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. 57-161.~~

~~John Beleth. Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis. Edited by Herbert Douteil. CCCM 41A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1976.~~

~~John of Salisbury. Historia Pontificalis. Edited by M. Chibnall. London: Nelson, 1956.~~

~~John Scot Eriugena. Iohannis Scoti Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis et Homilia in prologum euangelii Iohannis. Edited by Édouard Jeauneau. CCCM 166. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.~~

~~Lawrence of Saint-Victor. Epistola Laurentii. Edited by Ambrogio Piazzoni. In “Ugo di San Vittore auctor delle Sententie de Diuinitate.” Studi Medievali 23 (1982): 861-955.~~

Odo of Soissons. Quaestiones Magistri Odonis Suessionensis. Edited by Johannes Baptista Cardinalis Pitra. In Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis altera continuatio, tom. II. Paris-Frascati, 1888. 1- 187.

~~Otto of Saint-Blaise. Continuatio San-Blasiana. Edited by R. Wilmans. MGH, SS, 20. Hanover: Hahn,~~

~~247~~

~~1868. 302-337.~~

~~Peter Abelard. Historia calamitatum: Consolation to a Friend. Edited by Alexander Andrée. Toronto: PIMS, 2015.~~

~~——. Historia calamitatum. Edited by J. Monfrin. Paris: Vrin, 1959.~~

~~Peter Comestor. De Sacramentis. Edited by Raymond M. Martin, O.P. In Maitre Simon et son groupe: De sacramentis, edited by Henri Weisweiler. Louvain, 1937. 3-105.~~

~~——. Glosae super Lucam glosatum. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 620. 149r-218v.~~

~~——. Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15269 (Sorbonne 143). 117r-152r.~~

~~——. Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 620. 1r-84v.~~

~~——. Historia scholastica. PL 198: 1049-1722A.~~

——. Materia super libros Sententiarum. Edited by Riccardo Saccenti. In “The Materia super libros Sententiarum Attributed to Peter Comestor: Study of the Text and Critical Edition.” Bullettin de Philosophie Médiévale 54 (2012): 205-215.

~~——. Petri Comestoris Scholastica Historia: Liber Genesis. Edited by Agneta Sylwan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.~~

~~Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. Edited by Ignatius C. Brady. 3rd ed., rev. 2 vols. Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971-1981.~~

~~Peter the Chanter. Summa de Sacramentis et Animae Consiliis. Edited by J. A. Dugauquier. In Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia. Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts 16, 1963.~~

~~——. Verbum adbreviatum. Textus Conflatus. CCCM 196. Edited by Monique Boutry. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.~~

~~Robert of Auxerre. Chronicon. Edited by Oswold Holder-Egger. MGH, SS, 26. Hanover: Hahn, 1882.~~

~~Robert of Melun. Œuvres de Robert de Melun. 3 vols. Edited by Raymond-M. Martin. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1932-52.~~

~~Stephen Langton. Quaestiones Theologiae Liber I. Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 22. Edited by Riccardo Quinto and Magdalena Bieniak. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.~~

~~Stephen of Bourbon. Anecdotes historiques, légendes et apologues tirés du recueil inédit d’Étienne de Bourbon, dominicain du XIIIe siècle. Edited by A. Lecoy de la Marche. Paris, 1877.~~

~~Thomas Amory. The Life of John Buncle, Eſq; containing Various Observations and Reflections made in ſeveral Parts of the World. London: T. Beckett, 1770.~~

~~248~~

~~Vincent of Beauvais. Speculum Historiale. In Bibliotheca mundi IV. Duaci, 1624.~~

~~Walter of Saint-Victor. Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae. Edited by Palémon Glorieux. In Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 19 (1952): 187-335.~~

~~William of Conches. Glosae super Platonem. Edited by Édouard Jeauneau. CCCM 203. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.~~

~~Zachary of Besançon. Unum ex Quatuor. PL 186: 11-620B.~~

~~SECONDARY SOURCES~~

~~Andrée, Alexander. “Anselm of Laon Unveiled: The Glosae super Iohannem and the Origins of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Bible.” Mediaeval Studies 73 (2011): 217-60.~~

——. “Caue ne facias uim in tempore! Peter Comestor and the Truth of History.” In Felici curiositate. Studies in Latin Literature and Textual Criticism from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century in Honour of Rita Beyers, edited by G. Guldentops, C. Laes, and G. Partoens. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. 515-550.

~~——. “Editing the Gloss (later Glossa ordinaria) on the Gospel of John: A Structural Approach.” In The Arts of Editing Medieval Greek and Latin: A Casebook. Toronto: PIMS, 2016. 2-21.~~

~~——. “Introduction.” In Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem. CCCM 267. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. IX-CXXI.~~

——. “Introduction.” In Gilbertus Universalis: Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete; Prothemata et Liber I; A Critical Edition with an Introduction and a Translation. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 52. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2005. 1-156.

~~——. “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century.” The Journal of Medieval Latin 22 (2012): 257-81.~~

——. “Le Pater (Matth. 6, 9-13 et Luc. 11, 2-4) dans l’exégèse de l’école de Laon: La Glossa ordinaria et autres commentaires.” In Le “Notre Père” au XIIe siècle. Lectures et usages, edited by Francesco Siri. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. 29-74.

——. “Magisterial Auctoritas and Biblical Scholarship at the School of Laon in the Twelfth Century.” In Auctor et auctoritas in medii aeui litteris: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Medieval Latin Studies at Benevento (2010): 3-16. Florence: Edizioni dell Galluzzo, 2014.

——. “Peter Comestor and the Tools for Biblical Interpretation: Grammar, Rhetoric, Criticism.” In Biblical Exegesis from Origen to Lorenzo Valla, edited by Valeria Ingegno. Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming.

~~——. “Peter Comestor’s Lectures on the Glossa ‘Ordinaria’ on the Gospel of John. The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-Century Classroom.” Traditio 71 (2016): 203-34.~~

~~249~~

——. “Sacra Pagina: Theology and the Bible from the School of Laon to the School of Paris.” In A Companion to Twelfth-Century Schools, edited by Cedric Giraud. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2020. 272-314.

~~——. “The Master in the Margins: Peter Comestor, the ‘Buildwas Books,’ and Teaching Theology in Twelfth-Century Paris.” Scriptorium, forthcoming.~~

~~——. The School of Laon: Cradle of Theology in the Twelfth Century. Forthcoming.~~

~~—— and Mark J. CLARK, The School of Paris: The Bible and Theology in the Twelfth-Century Classroom. Toronto: PIMS, under review.~~

Bain, Emmanuel. “La travail du maître dans le commentaire sur l’évangile de Matthieu.” In Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maitrê du XIIe siècle, edited by Gilbert Dahan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. 89-123.

~~Baldwin, John W. Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.~~

~~Ballentyne, Adrian. “A Reassessment of the Exposition of the Gospel According to St Matthew in Manuscript Alençon 26.” RTAM 56 (1986): 19-57.~~

~~Bautier, R.H. “Paris au temps d’Abélard.” In Abélard en son temps, edited by J. Jolivet. Paris: Belle Lettres, 1981. 21-77.~~

~~Bieniak, Magdalena and Marcin Trepczyński, eds. “Christ’s Power of Remitting Sins: A Critical Edition of Stephen Langton’s Quaestio Theologiae 62.” Medieoevo 39 (2014): 217-97.~~

~~Bouhot, Jean-Paul and Jean-François Genest. La Bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1997.~~

~~Brady, Ignatius. “Peter Lombard: Canon of Notre Dame.” RTAM 32 (1965): 277-295.~~

~~——. “Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard.”Antonianum 41 (1966): 454- 490.~~

~~——. Prolegomena. In Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis episcopi Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. 2 vols. Grottaferrata: Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 4-5, 1971-1981. 1: 8*-129*.~~

~~——. Prolegomena. In Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis episcopi Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. 2 vols. Grottaferrata: Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 4-5, 1971-1981. 2: 7*-52*.~~

~~Burnett, Charles. “Give him the White Cow: Notes and Note-Taking in the Universities in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” History of Universities 14 (1995-6): 1-30.~~

~~——. “Peter Abelard, Confessio Fidei “Universis”: A Critical Edition of Abelard’s Reply to Accusations of Heresy.” Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986): 111-38.~~

~~250~~

~~Chapman, John. Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908.~~

~~Chenu, Marie-Dominique. La théologie au XIIe siècle. Études de philosophie médiévale 45. 3rd ed. Paris: Vrin, 1976.~~

~~Clanchy, Michael and Lesley Smith. “Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon: What Might it Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?” Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 54 (2010): 1-34.~~

~~Clark, Mark. “How to Edit Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica.” Revista biblica 116 (2006): 83-91.~~

~~——. “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed.” Traditio 60 (2005): 85-142.~~

~~——. “Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, and the School of Paris: The Making of the Twelfth- Century Scholastic Biblical Tradition.” Traditio 72 (2017): 171-274.~~

~~——. “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard’s Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris.” Mediaeval Studies 76 (2014): 57-113.~~

~~——. The Making of the Historia Scholastica, 1150-1200. Toronto: PIMS, 2015.~~

~~Colish, Marcia L. “Another Look at the School of Laon.” Archives d’histoire doctrinal et littéraire du Moyen Âge 61 (1986): 7-22.~~

~~——. “Christological Nihilianism in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century.” RTAM 63 (1996): 146-55.~~

~~——. Peter Lombard. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.~~

~~——. “Systematic Theology and Theological Renewal in the Twelfth Century.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 135-156.~~

~~Copeland, Rita. “Gloss and Commentary.” In The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Latin Literature, edited by Ralph H. Hexter and David Townsend. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 171-91.~~

~~Dahan, Gilbert. “Les exégèses de Pierre le Mangeur.” In Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maitrê du XIIe siècle, edited by Gilbert Dahan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. 49-87.~~

~~——. “Les prologues des commentaires bibliques (xiie-xive siècles).” In Lire la Bible au moyen âge. Essais d’herméneutique médiévale. Geneva, 2009. 57-101.~~

~~——. “Pierre de Troyes, dit Pierre le Mangeur, maître du XIIe siècle.” Troyes: Médiathèque du Grand Troyes, 2011.~~

——. “Une leçon biblique au XIIe siècle: Le commentaire de Pierre le Mangeur sur Matthieu 26, 26- 29.” In Ancienne Loi, Nouvelle Loi: Recherches interdisciplinaires sur les textes classiques, edited by Jean-Pierre Bordier. Littérature et revelation au Moyen Âge 3. Paris: Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 2009. 19-38

~~251~~

~~Daly, S. “Peter Comestor: Master of Histories.” Speculum 32 (1957): 62-73.~~

~~De Hamel, Christopher. Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade. Woodbridge, Suffolk: D. S. Brewer, 1984.~~

~~Delisle, Léopold. Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris, 1874.~~

~~Doyle, Matthew. Peter Lombard and His Students. Studies and Texts 201. Toronto: PIMS, 2016.~~

~~Ekman, Annika. Anselm of Laon, the Glossa Ordinaria, and the Tangled Web of Twelfth-Century Psalms- Exegesis. PhD Thesis: University of Toronto, 2019.~~

~~Evans, Gillian R. Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.~~

~~——. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.~~

~~Foley, David M. “The Prologues to Peter Comestor’s Glosae super euangelia glosata: Vestiges of Peter Lombard’s ‘Lost Glosses’ on the Gospels?” Forthcoming.~~

Gabriel, Astrik L. “The Cathedral School of Notre-Dame and the Beginning of the University of Paris.” In Garlandia: Studies in the History of the Mediaeval University. Notre Dame, Ind.: Mediaeval Institute, University of Notre Dame, 1969. 39-64.

Gandil, Pierre. “Pierre le Mangeur, doyen du chapitre cathédral de Troyes.” In Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, edited by Gilbert Dahan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. 17-25.

~~Ghellinck, J. de. Le mouvement théologique du xiie siècle. Bruges: Tempel, 1948.~~

Gibson, Margaret T. “The Glossed Bible.” In Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adoph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/1. Intro. by Karfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. VII-XI.

——. “The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis.” In Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers, edited by Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. vii-xii.

Giraud, Cédric. “L’école de Saint-Victor dans la première moitié du XIIe siécle, entre école monastique et école cathédrale.” In L’École de Saint-Victor de Paris: influence et rayonnement du moyen âge à l’époque moderne, edited by Dominique Poirel. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. 101-19.

——. “Lectiones Magistri Anselmi: Les Commentaires d’Anselme de Laon sur le Cantique des Cantiques.” In The Multiple Meanings of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and Medieval Culture, edited by Ineke van ‘t Spijker. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2008. 177-201.

~~——. Per verba magistri. Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle. Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 8. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.~~

~~252~~

~~—— and Constant J. Mews, “Le Liber pancrisis, un florilège des Pères et des maîtres modernes du xiie siècle.” Archivium Latinitatis Medii Aevi 64 (2006): 145-91.~~

Glunz, Hans Herman. History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon, Being an Inquiry into the Text of Some English Manuscripts of the Vulgate Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933.

~~Goering, Joseph. William de Montibus (c. 1140-1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care. Toronto: PIMS, 1992.~~

~~Grabmann, Martin. Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder, 1909-1911.~~

~~Grandrue, Claude de. Le catalogue de la bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor de Paris de Claude de Grandrue, 1514. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1983.~~

~~Gross-Diaz, Theresa. The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From lectio divina to the Lecture Room. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.~~

~~Hamesse, Jacqueline. “La méthode de travail des reportateurs.” Medioevo e Rinascimento 3 (1989): 51- 67.~~

~~——. “Les problèmes posés par l’édition critique des reportations.” Franciscan Studies 46 (1986): 107- 17.~~

——. “La technique de la reportation.” In L’enseignement des disciplines à la Faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, XIIIe-XIVe siècle). Studia Artistarum, 4, edited by O. Weijers, L. Holtz. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. 405-21.

——. “« Reportatio » et transmission de textes.” In The Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages - Acts of the Conference arranged by the Department of Classical Languages, University of Stockholm, 29-31 August 1984, edited by M. Asztalos. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 30. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1986. 11-40.

~~Häring, Nikolaus M. “Commentary and Hermeneutics.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benton and Giles Constable. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 173-200.~~

~~——. “Two Catalogues of Medieval Authors.” Franciscan Studies 26 (1966): 195-211~~

~~——, ed. “The Eulogium ad Alexandrum Papam tertium of John of Cornwall.” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951): 253-300.~~

~~Harkins, Franklin T. Reading and the Work of Restoration: History and Scripture in the Theology of Hugh of St Victor. Toronto: PIMS, 2009.~~

~~Haskins, Charles Homer. The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.~~

~~253~~

~~Hunt, Richard W. “The Introductions to the Artes in the Twelfth Century.” In Studia mediaevalia in honorem Raymundi Josephi Martin. Bruges, 1948. 84-112.~~

~~Huygens, R.B.C., ed. “Metamorphosis Goliae.” Studi medievali 3:2 (1962): 764-72.~~

~~——. Metamorphosis Golie. In Serta Mediaeualia. CCCM 171A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. 805-15.~~

~~Jaeger, Stephen. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideas in Medieval Europe, 950-1200. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.~~

~~Ker, Neil R. “From ‘above top line’ to ‘below top line’: A change in scribal practice.” Celtica 5 (1960): 13-6.~~

~~Lacombe, George. “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I.” Archives d’histoire et littéraire du môyen age 5 (1930): 5-151.~~

~~Landgraf, Artur Michael. “Der frühscholastische Streit um die potestas, quam Christus potuit dare servis et non dedit.” Gregorianum 15, no. 4 (1934): 524-72.~~

——. Introduction à l’histoire de la littérature thélogique de la scolastique naissante. Edited by Albert-M. Landry. Translated by Louis-B. Geiger. Montreal: Institut d’Études Médiévales, 1973.

~~——. “Recherches sur les Écrits de Pierre le Mangeur.” RTAM 3 (1931): 292-306.~~

Larson, Atria A. “The Influence of the School of Laon on Gratian: The Usage of the Glossa ordinaria and Anselmian Sententiae in De Penitentia (Decretum, c. 33 q. 3).” Mediaeval Studies 72 (2010): 197-244.

~~LaVere, Susan. Out of the Cloisters: Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs, 1100-1250. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2016.~~

~~Leclercq, Jean. “Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques attribué à Anselm de Laon.” RTAM 16 (1949): 121-48.~~

~~——. “The Renewal of Theology.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benton and Giles Constable. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 68-87.~~

Lobrichon, Guy. “Conserver, réformer, transformer le monde? Les manipulations de l’Apocalypse au moyen âge central.” In The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture II, edited by Peter Ganz. 2 vols. Turnhout: 1986, 75-94.

~~——. “Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible.” In Le Moyen Age et la Bible, edited by Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon. Bible de tous les temps 4. Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1984. 95-114.~~

~~Longere, Jean. Œuvres oratoires de Maîtres parisiens au XIIe siècle: Étude historique et doctrinale. 2 vols. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1975.~~

~~Lottin, Odon. “Le prologue des Gloses sur les Sentences attributées à Pierre de Poitiers.” RTAM 7 (1935): 70-73.~~

~~254~~

~~——. Psychologie et morale aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles V: l’école d’Anselme de Laon et de Guillame de Champeaux. Louvain, Abbaye du Mont César: Gembloux, 1959.~~

~~Luscombe, David. “Peter Comestor.” In The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley. Edited by Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood. Oxford, 1985. 109-29.~~

——. “The Place of Peter Comestor in the History of Medieval Theology.” In Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, edited by Gilbert Dahan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. 27-48.

~~Maas, Paul. Textual Criticism. Translated by Barbara Flower. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.~~

~~Madan, Falconer and H.H.E. Craster. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.~~

~~Martin, Raymond M. “Introduction.” In Peter Comestor: De Sacramentis, in Maitre Simon et son groupe: De sacramentis, edited by Henri Weisweiler. Louvain, 1937. V* - XXVIII*.~~

~~——. “Notes sur l’œuvre littéraire de Pierre le Mangeur.” RTAM 3 (1931): 54-66.~~

~~Mews, Constant J. “Introduction.” In Liber Sententiarum magistri Petri. CCCM 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.~~

~~——. “Orality, Literacy, and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools.” Exemplaria 2, no. 2 (October 1990): 475-500.~~

~~——. “The Council of Sens (1141), Abelard, Bernard, and the Fear of Social Upheaval.” Speculum 77, no. 2 (2002): 342-82.~~

~~——. “The ‘Sententie’ of Peter Abelard.” RTAM 53 (1986): 130-8.~~

~~Minnis, A. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Scolar Press, 1988.~~

~~Moore, Philip S. The Works of Peter of Poitiers: Master in Theology and Chancellor of Paris, 1193-1205. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1936.~~

~~Morey, James H. “Peter Comestor, Biblical Paraphrase, and the Medieval Popular Bible.” Speculum 68 (1993): 6-35.~~

~~Muller, Jean-Pierre. “Les reportations des deux premiers livres du Commentaire sur les Sentences de Jean Quidort de Paris O.P.” Angelicum 33, n. 4 (1956): 361-414.~~

~~O’Hagan, Peter. “Glossing the Gloss: Reading Peter Lombard’s Collectanea on the Pauline Epistles as a Historical Act.” Traditio 73 (2018): 83-116.~~

~~Ouy, Gilbert. “Introduction.” In Les manuscrit de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor: catalogue établi sur la bas du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514). 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.~~

~~255~~

Paré, G., A. Brunet, and P. Tremblay. La Renaissance du XIIe Siècle: Les Écoles et l’Enseignement. Publications de L’Institut d’Études Médiévales d’Ottawa 3. Paris: Vrin, and Ottawa: Institute d’Études Médiévales, 1933.

~~Quain, Edwin A. “The Mediaeval accessus ad auctores.” Traditio, 3 (1945): 215-264.~~

~~Rathbone, E. “Note super Iohannem secundum magistrum Gil[bertum].” RTAM 18 (1951): 205-10.~~

~~Riedlinger, Helmut. Die Makellosigkeit der Kirhce in den Latenischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittalalters. Münster: Aschendorff, 1958.~~

~~Rosemann, Philipp W. Peter Lombard. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York, 2004.~~

~~Saccenti, Riccardo. “The Materia super libros Sententiarum Attributed to Peter Comestor: Study of the Text and Critical Edition.” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 54 (2012): 155-215.~~

~~Silano, Giulio. “Introduction.” In Peter Lombard: The Sentences. Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity. Mediaeval Sources in Translation 42. Toronto: PIMS, 2007. xix-xxvi.~~

Siri, Francesco. “Lectio, disputatio, reportatio. Note su alcune pratiche didattiche nel XII seculo e sulla loro trasmissione.” In Medioevo e filosofia. Per Alfonso Maierù, Edited by Massimiliano Lenzi, Cesare Musatti and Luisa Valente. Rome: Viella, 2013. 109-28.

~~——. “Le Quaestiones attribuite a Pietro Comestor.” In Pierre le Mangeur ou Pierre de Troyes: Maître du XIIe siècle, edited Gilbert Dahan. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. 191-223.~~

~~Smalley, Beryl. “A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS Pembroke College, Cambridge 7.” Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1938): 103–13~~

~~——. “An Early Paris Lecture on St. Luke.” In The Gospels in the Schools, c. 1000 - c. 1280. London: Hambledon Press, 1985. 85-97.~~

~~——. “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa ordinaria.’” RTAM 8 (1936): 24-60.~~

~~——. “La Glossa Ordinaria. Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon.” RTAM 9 (1937): 365- 400.~~

~~——. “Peter Comestor on the Gospels and his Sources.” RTAM 46 (1979): 84-129.~~

~~——. “Some Gospel Commentaries of the Early Twelfth Century.” RTAM 45 (1978): 147-80.~~

——. “The Gospels in the Paris Schools in the Late 12th and Early 13th Centuries: Peter the Chanter, Hugh of St. Cher, Alexander of Hales, John of La Rochelle.” Franciscan Studies 39 (1979): 230-54

~~——. The Gospels in the Schools, c. 1000 - c. 1280. London: Hambledon Press, 1985.~~

~~——. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 3rd ed., rev. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.~~

~~256~~

~~—— and George Lacombe. “The Lombard’s Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments.” The New Scholasticism 5 (1931): 123-61.~~

~~Smith, Lesley. The “Glossa Ordinaria”: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009.~~

~~Southern, Richard W. Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe I: Foundations. Oxford: Wiley, 1995.~~

~~——. Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe II: The Heroic Age. Oxford: Wiley, 2001.~~

~~——. “The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 113-37.~~

~~Stegmüller, Friedrich. Repertorium biblicum medii aevi. 11 vols. Madrid: 1950–80.~~

Stirnemann, Patricia. “Gilbert de la Porrée et les livres glosés à Laon, à Chartres et à Paris.” In Monde médiéval et société chartraine, edited by J.-R. Armogathe. Paris: Picard, 1997. 83-96.

——. “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la Glose Ordinaire dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle?” In Le XIIe siècle: Mutations et renouveau en France dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle, edited by Françoise Gasparri. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1994. 257-301.

~~Swanson, Jenny “The Glossa Ordinaria.” In The Medieval Theologians, edited by Gillian R. Evans. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001. 156-67.~~

Sylwan, Agneta. “Petrus Comestor, Historia scholastica: Une nouvelle édition.” Sacris erudiri 39 (2000): 345-82. van Engen, John. “Studying Scripture in the Early University.” In Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, edited by Robert E. Lerner. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1994. 17-38.

~~Wei, Ian P. Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University, c. 1100-1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.~~

Weisweiler, Henri. “Eine neue fruhë Glosse zum vierten Buch der Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus.” In Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters. Studien und Texte Martin Grabmann zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres von Freunden und Schülern gewidmet, edited by A Lang, J. Lechner and M. Schmaus. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Suppl. III.1. Münster i.W., 1935. 360-400.

~~Willesme, Jean-Pierre. “Le Bibliothèque de l’Abbaye de Saint-Victor de Paris.” Cahiers de Recherches Medievales 17, n. 1 (2009): 241-55.~~

~~Williams, John R. “The Cathedral School of Reims in the Time of Master Alberic, 1118-1136.” Traditio 20 (1964): 93-114.~~

~~257~~

~~Wetherbee, Winthrop. “The Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi: A Revised Edition, Translation, and Notes.” Journal of Medieval Latin 27 (2017): 41-67.~~

Zier, Mark A. “Peter Lombard and the Glossa Ordinaria: A Missing Link?” In Pietro Lombardo. Atti del XLIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8-10 ottobre 2006. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 2007. 361-409.

Zinn, Grover A. “‘Historia fundamentum est’: The Role of History in the Contemplative Life according to Hugh of St. Victor.” In Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Christian Tradition: Essays in Honor of Ray C. Petry, edited by George H. Shriver. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974. 135-58.

~~258~~

~~PETRI COMESTORIS~~

~~Glosae super Iohannem glosatum~~

~~Prothemata et Capitulum I~~

~~ABBREVIATIONES ET SIGNA~~

~~a.c. ante correctionem~~

~~add. addidit, -erunt~~

~~a.m. alia manu~~

~~cfr confer~~

~~corr. correctio, -nis~~

~~e.g. exempli gratia~~

~~hom. homoioteleuton~~

~~interl. interlinearis~~

~~lin. linea, -ae~~

~~marg. margo, -inis; marginalis~~

~~om. omisit, -erunt p.c. post correctionem praem. praemisit, -erunt~~

~~scil. scilicet~~

~~s.l. supra lineam~~

~~tr. transposuit, -erunt~~

~~uid. uidetur~~

~~⟨ ⟩ addenda~~

~~CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM~~

~~a a A AVRANCHES, Bibliothèque Municipale 135, fol. 23r - 31v~~

~~a a~~

~~B PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15269 (Sorbonne 143), fol. 1r -6r~~

~~a a D DURHAM, Dean and Chapter Library, MS A. III. 11, fol. 39r - 45r~~

~~a b I PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 645, fol. 1r - 8v~~

~~a b M PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14435, fol. 67r - 71r~~

~~a b N PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14434, fol. 98r - 102r~~

~~a b O OXFORD, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 494 (SC 2108), fol. 1r - 10r~~

~~a b P PARIS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 620, fol. 219r - 227r~~

~~a a T TROYES, Médiathèque du Grand Troyes 1024, fol. 216r - 226r [basis of transcription]~~

~~a b Z PARIS, Bibliothèque Mazarine 175, fol. 380r - 385r~~

~~α = A D P T Z (δ = D P ) (ε = A T Z) (ψ = A Z )~~

~~β = B I~~

~~γ = M N O (φ = N O)~~

~~LEMMA GLOSSA biblica~~

PROTHEMATA 1. INGRESSVS MAGISTRI /216ra/ Omnia poma noua et uetera seruaui tibi dilecte mi. Solet sacra scriptura pomorum nomine censeri, quia quarto tempore, id est quarta etate, esibilis facta est, id est in auctoritate recepta est. Habes enim in Leuitico quia Dominus fructus arborum que de nouo fuerant plantate tribus annis abici precepit tanquam preputia Egipti, id est quasi quedam immunda. Fructus autem quarti anni fuerunt esibiles. 5 Sicut ergo Dominus fructus in tribus annis productos abici precepit, sic scripturas in tribus primariis etatibus editas nemo in auctoritate recepit, et ita abiecta sunt quasi inmunda quecumque in tribus etatibus scripta sunt, scilicet ab Adam usque ad Noe, a Noe usque ad Abraham, ab Abraham usque ad Moysen. Et sicut fructus quarti anni et deinceps esibiles fuerunt, sic scripture quarte etatis et sequentium fuerunt autentice et refectionem prestiterunt. Omnia ergo poma noua et uetera reseruat 10 ecclesia Christo, id est omnem scripturam noui et ueteris testamenti refert ad Christum. Quecumque enim scripta sunt tam in ueteri quam in nouo testamento uel ad Christum spectant uel dicta sunt de Christo. Scriptura autem utriusque testamenti per poma elegantius designatur, quia poma et odore alliciunt et gustu reficiunt. Quorum alterum congruit ueteri testamento, alterum congruit nouo. 15 Vetus namque testamentum odore promissionum allicit, nouum earumdem impletione reficit. In ueteri namque testamento facta est multiplex et odora promissio, sed impletio promissorum facta est in euangelio. Vetus testamentum promittebat et non reddebat, et sic alliciebat rudes. Euangelium promissa reddit. Vnde euangelium ueteri testamento in tribus antecellit, scilicet in reuelatione figurarum, in impletione promissorum, in magnitudine premiorum.

2 habes] habemus φ D 5 fructus] post productos γ 6 etatibus] om. β 1 p.c. 7 scripta sunt] tr. γ | Abraham ] Habraam B M 8 scripture] scriptura α, scripta φ 9 et1] in φ | autentice] autentica φ | noua et uetera] uetera et noua γ 10 et] ac φ 13 scriptura – designatur] scripta – designantur γ | autem] namque φ 14 congruit2] om. δ | nouo] testamento add. γ 15 namque] enim γ | promissionum] promissione M, promissionis Z | reficit] re. ψ, replet T 16 promissorum] promissionum φ 1 17 et ] sed B T | sic] inde P T | alliciebat rudes] tr. γ I 18 Vnde] per add. φ

~~1 CANT. 7, 13; cfr BEDA, In Cant., lib. V, cap. VII, 813 et sqq. 4 cfr IOS. 5, 2-5 4/6 LEV. 19, 23-5 8/9 cfr GREG., Homil. in euang., lib. I, hom. XIX, n. I~~

Ad insinuandam hanc triplicem euangelii preminentiam, tria facit ecclesia cum legitur euangelium. Ad ostendendum enim quia per euangelium facta est figurarum reuelatio, audit euangelium capite reuelato. Ad ostendendum quod in euangelio facta est promissorum impletio, audit euangelium cum silentio, acsi ipso silentio dicat: ‘Iam obtineo promissa.’ Solent enim pueri 5 silere postquam tenent petita. Ad ostendendam celsitudinem premiorum, terminat euangelium uoce eleuata: Plenum gratie et ueritatis, cum lectiones ueteris testamenti terminentur uoce remissa: Dicit Dominus omnipotens, ad insinuandum quia in ueteri testamento infima sunt promissa. Terminatur ergo euangelium uoce eleuata, uetus testamentum uoce remissa, acsi dicatur ‘ibi promittebantur terrena, hic superna.’ 10 Et sicut euangelium omnibus ueteris instrumenti paginis multiplici /216rb/ preminet excellentia, sic ceteris euangelii scriptoribus preminet Iohannes euangelista. Et potest preminentia eius ad alios in tribus notari. Primo in eo quod per aquilam prefiguratus est in Ezechielis reuelatione. Vidit enim Ezechiel quatuor animalia in figura quatuor euangelistarum et, cum premisisset de tribus, addidit de quarto: Et erat quartum animal simile aquile uolanti desuper illorum quatuor,∴ in quo significatum 15 est quod Iohannes super alios uolaret, id est ad describendam Christi deitatem super alios quasi sublimi uolatu ascenderet. Et sicut aquila irreuerberatis luminibus solem in rota intuetur, sic Iohannes irreuerberata mentis acie deitatem contemplatur.

2 per euangelium] om. φ 3 euangelium] eum ε, illud I 4/5 euangelium1,2] eum1,2 ε, eum – euangelium φ, om. I 6 testamenti] instrumenti ε | lectiones – terminentur] lectio – terminetur φ 7 terminatur] terminantur Aa.c. Ia.c., terminat γ 8 euangelium] eum ψ | dicatur] dicat γ

~~10 sicut] sic β ε P | instrumenti] testamenti γ δ 14 super ipsorum quatuor] uide APPENDIX II, 1 14/5 significatum est] significabatur γ~~

~~15 quod] quia α | describendam] scribendam γ δ 16 solem] post aquila γ~~

~~17 deitatem] diuinitatem M N~~

2/3 IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic., cap. 39H-I 6 IO. 1, 14 14 cfr APOC. 4, 7; EZEK. 1, 10 10/7 ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, Proth. 4, 31-44 (per GO Io. marg. ad prol.: ‘Omnibus diuine scripture’) 16 cfr GO Io. marg. ad 1, 6, ‘Postquam sublimi uolatu’ 16/7 cfr GREG., Moralia, lib. XXXI, n. 7; ISID., Etymol., lib. XII, cap. VII, n. 10-1.

~~III~~

In eo quoque eius preminentia notatur quod a Domino impositum est ei nomen Boanarges, quod sonat filius tonitrui, quia theologie altitudinem ceteris altius intonuit usque adeo, ut ait Augustinus, quod si paulo altius intonasset, nemo uocem eius capere posset. In eo quoque eius preminentia potest notari quod supra pectus Domini recubuit in cena et de fonte dominici pectoris 5 hausit archana deitatis plenius quam alii. Et hoc quoque in tribus potest notari, scilicet quod plenius hauserit quam alii, primo in arduitate materie. Ceteri namque euangeliste tanquam gressibilia animalia cum Domino gradientes in terra multa de Christi humanitate dixerunt, de deitate pauca tetigerunt. Ipse solus de deitate multa dixit. Secundo in eo quod uerba illa diffuse posita in euangelio, quibus ecclesia de fide trinitatis et unitatis instruitur, breuiter et commode exposuit. Tertio in eo quod ceteri 10 euangeliste de miraculis quidem sed de uerbis Domini pauca collegerant, et precipue in eo quod sermonem habitum ad discipulos in cena, quem pro sui profunditate alii intactum reliquerant, ipse aggressus est exponere. Causa autem quare euangelium scripserit fuit hec: post ascensionem Domini Iohannes sine omni amminiculo scribendi LXV annis euangelium predicauit in Asya ad eruditionem ecclesie sue, 15 cuius erat metropolitanus. Postea a nequissimo imperatore Domitiano in Pathmos insulam in exilium relegatus est, ubi Apocalipsim suam primo uidit et scripsit. Mortuo autem Domitiano, Nerua permittente /216va/ de exilio rediit Ephesum, non quod Nerua intuitu benignitatis eum liberauerit,

~~1 notatur] potest notari γ Ι 2 Boanerges] Boasnerges δ ε (ante. corr. A ) p.c. 3 ait] dicit δ | intonasset] intonuisset δ I M p.c. 4 supra] super γ | recubuit in cena] in cena recubuit γ D I~~

5 deitatis] diuinitatis φ | potest notari] tr. φ Β | scilicet] om. B M 5/6 Et hoc – quam alii] om. δ I T (ob homoioteleuton) 8 de deitate multa] multa de deitate φ | dixit] predixit I, p. dixit O

10 exposuit] exponit D M | quidem] multa add. δ 11 habitum ad discipulos in cena] in cena habitum ad discipulos γ 13 euangelium] eum ψ | euangelium scripserit] tr. γ | fuit hec] hoc est γ 14 scribendi] quoddam add. φ (ante corr. N ) | LXV φ] LXVI α β M | euangelium predicauit] tr. φ Β ecclesie sue] tr. φ 15 erat] extitit γ 16 Apocalipsim] scilicet add. φ (ante corr. N ) | primo uidit et] om. φ

2 MC. 3, 17; cfr GO Io. marg. ad Io. 1, 6, ‘Postquam sublimi uolatu’ 3 cfr PS. AUG. (BELGICVS), Sermones, 223, 59; IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic., cap. 70F 3/5 ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, Proth. 4 (50-3) 4 cfr IO. 13, 23 5 cfr GO Io. marg. ad 1, 51, ‘Quod dictum est Nathanaeli’ 6/9 ANSELM. LAVD., op. cit. (45-50, 66-7) 11 sermonem – in cena] scil. IO. 14-16 13/8 ANSELM. LAVD, op. cit. (35-8)

cum nec forte de eo mentionem audierit, sed quia tante nequitie fuerat Domitianus ut quecumque fecerat Nerua ex senatus consulto in irritum reuocaret. Vnde et hoc inter alia reuocatum est in irritum. Cum autem redisset Ephesum a suffraganeis rogatus episcopis euangelium scripsit, tum quia multe hereses in ecclesia sua emerserant tum quia legens aliorum euangelia et ueritatem dictorum 5 approbans inuenit quia multa pretermiserant, illa scilicet que fecit Christus ante incarcerationem Iohannis et precipue primum miraculum quod fecit in nuptiis. Fuit itaque duplex causa, scilicet confutatio hereticorum, suppletio minus dictorum. Materia Iohannis sunt deitas et humanitas Christi, uel melius materia eius est ipse Christus. Intentio est hereses eliminare, minus dicta supplere. Modus agendi talis est: primo agit de 10 coeternitate Verbi cum Patre. Postea descendit ad creationem rerum, ostendens contra hereticos Filium esse creatorem omnium, ibi: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Postea descendit ad incarnationem Verbi, ibi: Et Verbum. Postea agit de precursore, ibi: Fuit homo. Postea agit de baptismo Iohannis. Postea ponit miraculum quod fecit in nuptiis. Postea breuiter ponit quedam miracula que alii posuerant diffuse. Postea precipue immoratur in sermone quem Dominus fecit in cena. Postea 15 transit ad passionem. Tandem in uita actiua et contemplatiua terminat euangelium.

~~1 audierit] audiuerit γ | Domitianus] dominus ψ~~

2 Nerua] om. δ | hoc] hec M O 2/3 reuocatum est] reuocauit γ 3/15 euangelium1,2] eum1,2 ψ 5 illa] om. δ Β 6 incarcerationem] decollationem γ 8 materia eius est] om. γ 1 9 intentio] eius add. M N, est ] eius add. O | hereses eliminare, minus dicta supplere] minus dicta supplere et hereses eliminare γ 13 breuiter ponit] tr. φ B 14 posuerant] posuerunt δ γ | immoratur] moratur γ Β | Dominus fecit] fecit Christus δ ψ

3/6 ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, Proth. 4 (39-42, 54-8) 4 multe hereses – emerserant] cfr HIER., Comm. in euang. Mat., praef., 26-50 11/2 IO. 1, 3-6 15 cfr AVG., In Ioh. euang. Tract., tract. 124, n. 5-7; IDEM, Cons. euang., lib. I, cap. IV, n. 7-8

2. NOTVLA DE ORDINE LEGENDI Nota quod Augustinus, qui precipue exposuit Iohannem, fecit introitum qui sic incipit: OMNIBVS DIVINE SCRIPTVRE PAGINIS. Sed magister ad introitum Augustini quodammodo preparauit ingressum, ut commodior esset accessus. Et uide quia introitus Augustini legendus esset ante prologum. Facimus tamen ordinem preposterum quod non propter aliud introductum est nisi quia 5 nimis modica esset lectio si quis ante prologum legeret solum introitum, nimis prolixa si quis cum introitu legeret prologum. Primo ergo legemus prologum.

3. GLOSAE SVPER PROLOGVM HIERONYMI HIC EST IOHANNES et cetera. Premittit Ieronimus huic operi prologum ad sequentis operis commendationem. Commendat autem sequens opus a quatuor, scilicet ab auctore, a materia, a loco, a tempore, et singula suis locis distinguentur in proximo. Primo igitur commendat auctorem operis, 10 et a quatuor, scilicet a nomine, ab officio, a dignitate, a uirtute. A nomine commendat ubi /216vb/ dicit ‘Iohannes,’ quia nominis interpretatio commendabilis est. HIC, scilicet qui scripsit hoc euangelium, EST IOHANNES. Glosa: IOHANNES … PENETRARE ET INTIMARE, sicut iste penetrauit et intimauit. EVANGELISTA. Ecce commendat ab officio, quia hoc nomen euangelista ad hoc restrictum est ut tantum euangeliste dicantur scriptores 15 euangelii, non doctores. Commendat itaque ab officio, quia tale officium commendabile est. VNVS

~~EX DISCIPVLIS, scilicet ex duodecim∴ quos elegit Dominus in monte. Ecce commendat a dignitate,~~

~~quasi tante fuit dignitatis ut eligeretur a Domino. QVI VIRGO. Ecce commendatio a uirtute, et potest~~

~~3 accessus] introitus uel praem. φ | uide] inde φ (ante corr. N ) | esset2] est γ 4/5 ante prologum] om. γ 5 solum introitum] introitum solum et γ 6 legemus] legimus φ~~

~~8 sequens] hoc γ (post corr. O ) 9 suis] singulis φ | igitur] ergo φ~~

~~13 PENETRARE] pone. ε M | INTIMARE] om. φ, intu δ Z, nitu A M 14/5 scriptores euangelii] tr. γ~~

~~16 ex duodecim] uide APPENDIX II, 27 | quasi] quia φ, quod P T 17 VIRGO] est add. γ~~

7/17 GO Io. PROL. ‘MONARCHIANVS’: “Hic est Iohannes euangelista unus ex discipulis Dei qui uirgo electus a Deo est.” 11/3 GO Io. MARG. ad prol.: “Iohannes interpretatur ‘Dei gratia’ siue ‘in quo est gratia’ uel ‘cui donatum est.’ Cui autem theologorum donatum est ita abscondita summi boni penetrare misteria et sic humanis mentibus intimare.”

1 Augustinus – fecit introitum] immo ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae super Io., Proth. 4 (per GO Io., marg. ad prol., ‘Omnibus diuine scripture’) 2/3 Magister – preparauit ingressum] scil. supra, PROTH. 1 4 prologum] scil. GO IO., Prol. ‘Monarchianus,’ “Hic est Iohannes” 11/2 cfr HIER., Nom. hebr. 69, 16; 76, 19 16 MC. 3, 13-4

legi dupliciter. Primo sic: QVI ELECTVS EST A DOMINO VIRGO, id est ut esset uirgo, quia cum nubere proposuisset reuocauit eum a proposito nubendi. Vel ita: QVI . . . VIRGO, ut ‘qui’ et personam notet et causam, ELECTVS EST A DOMINO. Supple ‘ad scribendum euangelium.’ QVEM DE NVPTIIS. Idipsum adhuc est de commendatione Iohannis, licet minus sentientibus 5 uideatur detrahere Iohanni et derogare eius dignitati. Nam si cedit ei ad gloriam qui de malo uocatur ad bonum, ei cedit ad cumulum glorie qui de bono uocatur ad maius bonum. Reuera bonum erat secundum legem nubere tempore Iohannis, adeo ut qui non relinqueret semen super terram subiaceret maledicto legis. Melius tamen erat intuitu Dei seruare integritatem carnis. Et licet habuerit propositum nubendi, tamen uirginitatis uirtutem non amisit. Etsi enim uouerit Deo uirginitatem, 10 credibile est eum sub conditione uouisse, scilicet nisi Deus aliter ei inspirasset, sicut et beata Virgo que munus uirginitatis prima obtulit Deo sub conditione creditur obtulisse, scilicet nisi Spiritus sanctus ei aliter reuelaret. Tradunt quidam quia nuptie ille, quibus Dominus interfuit quando aquam in uinum conuertit, fuerunt Iohannis et ab eis Dominus eum reuocauit. Quod licet autenticum non sit, satis esse potuit.* CVI VIRGINITATIS et cetera, QVOD PRE CETERIS, id est familiarius quam ceteri, 15 quod habuit prerogatiua uirginitatis. Ecce unum testimonium. ET HVIC. /217ra/ Ecce aliud testimonium quod uirgo fuerit.

~~DENIQVE.∴ Premissa est commendatio operis ab ipso auctore operis; sequitur commendatio a materia. Est enim in hoc commendabile opus quia illud, quod erat magis arduum in materia~~

~~3 euangelium] eum ψ 4 NVPTIIS] uocauit add. φ 7 qui] si quis γ~~

~~8 habuerit] habuit D I 9 enim] non φ, om. I p.c. a.c. a.c. a.c. 10 uouisse] nouisse B I M (nouissime B ) | scilicet] om. γ | ei] om. γ Ι | inspirasset] inspiraret φ~~

~~11 munus] minus B D | obtulit] om. φ | prima Deo sub conditione] Deo sub conditione prima φ | creditur]~~

~~cum dicitur M Z a.c. 12 tradunt] tamen dicunt γ (traditur O ) 13 Dominus eum] tr. γ Β 13/4 satis esse potuit] uide APPENDIX I, 1~~

~~16 prerogatiua] prerogatiuam A B M | HVIC] homo ut uid. M Τ Ζ 17 DENIQVE] uide APPENDIX II, 2~~

1/17 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “… quem de nuptiis uolentem nubere uocauit Deus. Cui uirginitatis in hoc duplex testimonium in euangelio datur, quod et pre ceteris dilectus a Deo dicitur, et huic matrem suam pendens de cruce commendauit Deus ut uirginem uigro seruaret. Denique …”

7/8 qui non relinqueret – maledicto legis] P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. IV, d. XXXIII, cap. I, n. 2 (ex ORIGENES, In Gen. Homil., hom. XI); cfr EXOD. 23, 26; DEUT. 7, 14; DEUT. 25, 5-10 9/11 P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. IV, d. XXX, cap. II, n. I 12/3 cfr BEDA, Homil. euang., lib. I, hom. IX, 62-5; ISID., De ortu et obitu patrum, cap. LXXI, n. 4 (129); ANON., De ortu et obitu patriarch., cap. 48. 1 (64, 6-10); RVP. TIVTIENSIS, Comm. in euang. S. Ioh., II, 11B, 2013- 7; P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 38 (1559A-B)

~~VII~~

euangelice historie et pro sui arduitate ab aliis sub silentio pretermissum, in hoc opere suppletur. Nec tantum pretermiserant alii euangeliste quod in materia erat altius, uerum etiam quod fuit tempore prius, scilicet miraculum mutationis aque in uinum. Et hoc est MANIFESTANS IN EVANGELIO QVOD, supple ‘aliter.’ ERAT IPSE, id est per cuius 5 animalis figuram prefiguratus erat ipse, quia tractando quod altius erat. Vnde ostendit se in uisione Ezechielis merito sortitum formam aquile. Et intellige secundum Augustinum quia Iuuencus et Sedulius uoluerunt Marcum prefiguratum esse per aquilam, Iohannem per leonem. Vnde Iuuencus:

~~“Marcus amat terras inter celumque uolare, Iohannes fremit ore leo similis rugienti.”~~

10 Aliter: MANIFESTANS IN EVANGELIO QVOD ERAT IPSE, supple ‘Christus,’ quasi ostendens in euangelio suo quod Christus erat Deus, id est agens de deitate Christi. INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI OPVS INCHOANS SOLVS, id est solus illa quatuor ponens que pertinent ad opus incorruptibilis Verbi, que ponit Ambrosius in prologo quem facit communem quatuor euangelistis, scilicet ostendens quando erat, ubi erat, quid erat, quid agebat, quid adhuc agit. 15 Quando erat ubi ait: In principio. Vbi erat cum ait: Apud Deum. Quid erat ubi ait: Et Verbum erat Deus. Quid agebat ubi ait: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Quid adhuc agit ubi ait: Erat lux uera que illuminat omnem hominem.

~~1 ab aliis] om. φ a.c. 2 tantum] tamen M P Z 3 fuit] ipso add. φ~~

~~4 IN EVANGELIO] om. φ | aliter] animal B D N 5 erat1] est γ 6 et] om. γ~~

~~1/16 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “… manifestans in euangelio quod erat ipse incorruptibilis Verbi opus inchoans, solus…”~~

6/9 ZACH. CHRYSOPOL., Unum ex quatuor, Praef. (14D-15A); cfr P. COMESTOR, Glosae sup. Mat. glosat., prol. (T, 1va); IDEM, Glosae sup. Marc. glosat., prol. (B, 117rb); IDEM, Glosae sup. Luc. glosat., prol. (T, 141rb) 6/7 AVG., Cons. euang., lib. I, c. VI; SEDVL., Paschale Carmen, lib. I, 355 8/9 IVVENC., Euang. lib. IV, Praef., ll. 3, 7 13/7 AMBR. Expos. euang. sec. Luc., lib. II, n. XL, 554-63

~~VIII~~

Et nota quia hic fit multiplex distinctio. Quidam enim hic distingunt OPVS INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI INCHOANS, et postea addunt: SOLVS VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM ESSE OSTENDIT et determinat expresse. Sed forte adhuc habet hoc uerbum questionem. Ideo ceteris omnibus distinctionibus omissis tene premissam et habebis mentem auctoris et nullas in littera patieris angustias. SOLVS, 5 inquam, INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI OPVS INCHOANS, supple ‘tamen,’ VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM ESSE TESTATVR, quasi licet specialiter agat de deitate, tamen addidit de humanitate. Alia littera habet: VERBVM CARO FACTVM EST, et tunc supplebis ‘quod,’ NEC LVMEN, id est Verbum incarnatum, A TENEBRIS, id est a tenebrosis, FVISSE COMPREHENSVM. Hoc suo loco diffusius explicabitur. PRIMVM SIGNVM. Ecce ostendit Iohannem supplesse quod alii pretermiserant et erat in 10 materia altius. Modo ostendit eum supplesse quod alii pretermiserant et fuit tempore prius. Pretermiserant enim primum omnium miraculorum. VT OSTENDENS, scilicet illo signo, QVOD ERAT IPSE, ut referatur ad Iohannem, id est per mutationem aque in uinum factam insinuans se mutatum, id est a proposito nubendi ad uirginitatem reuocatum. /217rb/ Vel ita: VT OSTENDENS QVOD ERAT IPSE Christus, id est miraculosa illa mutatione ostendens 15 Christum esse Deum, LEGENTIBVS DEMONSTRARET, hoc scilicet quod sequitur: QVOD, id est quia, VBI DOMINVS INVITATVS EST VINVM NVPTIARVM DEFICERE DEBEAT. Hoc ad litteram, ut facias historiam significantem, et quod sequitur facias rem significatam: ET, id est VETERIBVS IMMVTATIS et cetera. Vel ita, ut totum facias allegoriam hoc modo: QVOD VBI DOMINVS INVITATVS EST, ad

~~1 hic] ita γ 1/2 OPVS INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI INCHOANS] opus quoque uerbi incorrputibilis φ~~

~~2 postea addunt] tr. φ | CARNEM] caro δ I T | FACTVM] om. γ 3 adhuc habet] tr. δ φ 4 distinctionibus omissis] tr. γ 5 CARNEM] caro δ T~~

~~6 specialiter] spiritualiter φ (ante corr. N ) Z | addidit] addit φ D I~~

9/10 et erat – alii pretermiserant] om. B M (ob homoioteleuton) a.c. 11 primum] om. I O | scilicet] in add. φ | illo signo] tr. γ 12 erat ipse] tr. φ 13 ad uirginitatem] om. φ 15 hoc scilicet] tr. φ I

~~16 VINVM NVPTIARVM] in nup. ψ B D M, uel in nuptiarum I, in nuptiis P, uinupte T | DEFICERE] om. φ B D 17 historiam significantem] historicam significationem γ | IMMVTATIS] inuitatis δ~~

1/18 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “… incorruptibilis Verbi opus inchoans, solus Verbum carnem factum esse nec lumen a tenebris comprehensum fuisse testatur. Primum signum ponens quod in nuptiis fecit Deus, ostendens quod erat ipse ut legentibus demonstraret quod ubi Dominus inuitatus deficere nuptiarum uinum debeat, ut et ueteribus immutatis …”

1 Quidam – distingunt] cfr ANON., Huic euang., ad prol. ‘Monarch.’ (Z, 252ra): “Sic construe, quasi Iohannes a Deo uirgo electus est, qui … INCHOANS OPVS INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI, id est inchoans ab incorruptibili et inuariabili eternitate et deitate Verbi…, SOLVS TESTATVR VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM ESSE.”

spirituales nuptias in mente uiri iusti, VINVM NVPTIARVM, id est carnalis delectatio, DEFICERE DEBEAT, quia iocunditas nuptiarum est delectatio carnalis et amplexus uxoris. Quod sequitur, ET VETERIBVS et cetera, inculcatio est. HOC AVTEM EVANGELIVM SCRIPSIT IN ASYA. Commendauit opus ab auctore, a materia, 5 commendat a loco. Sed numquid commendabile est euangelium Iohannis quia scriptum est in Asya? Est utique, quia ibidem LXV annis predicauerat euangelium et plures testes habuit, quia ibi scriptum ubi fuerat predicatum. Vel inde commendabile est quod scriptum in Asya, quia scilicet scriptum est in cathedrali loco ad instruendos suffraganeos episcopos et concanonicos suos, quia erat archiepiscopus Ephesinus. 10 POSTEA QVAM IN PATHMOS. Ecce commendatio a tempore. Inde enim commendabile est opus quia scriptum est a Iohanne postquam senuerat et post omnes reuelationes que leguntur in Apocalipsi. Vnde ipse se appellat senem in epistola canonica. APOCALIPSIM SCRIPSERAT. Supple ‘ubi

~~dixerat in persona Christi: Ego sum alpha et omega.’∴ VT CVI IN PRINCIPIO CANONIS et cetera, quasi ideo~~

dixit in Apocalipsi Christum esse alpha et omega, quia congruum erat. VT CVI, supple ‘datum erat,’ 15 INCORRVPTIBILE PRINCIPIVM IN PRINCIPIO CANONIS, canonice scripture que consistit in canone utriusque testamenti, id est in libro Geneseos ubi Christus secundum quandam expositionem dicitur principium, ibi scilicet: In principio creauit Deus celum et terram, id est in Filio. Eidem REDDERETVR INCORRVPTIBILIS FINIS, id est ut Christus qui in principio canonice scripture dictus erat

~~a.c. 1 spirituales] speciales D I T | carnalis] carnis φ | delectatio] dilectio β ψ (ante corr. A) D O a.c. 2 delectatio] delectio β A D | carnalis] carnis D I N~~

3 inculcatio] incultio B D Z a.c. 4 commendauit] commendat B N | commendabile] om. φ (ante corr. N ) 5 est] om. φ (ante corr. N ) 5/6 LXV annis predicauerat euangelium] predicauerat euangelium LXV annis φ 6 ibi scriptum ibi] scriptum est ibi ubi φ, ibi scriptum est ubi M

~~7 scilicet] om. D M | scriptum in Asya, quia scilicet] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) p.c. 8 instruendos] instituendos φ | episcopos] suos add. φ | concanonicos] canonicos δ I | Ephesinus] Ephesi φ~~

9 POSTEA QVAM] postquam γ | commendabile est] tr. B D 9/10 est opus] tr. φ 10 est] om. φ 11 se] om. α Β 12 alpha et omega] uide APPENDIX II, 23 | omega] quia congruum erat add. φ | quasi ideo] tr. φ

~~13 dixit] dixi γ | Apocalipsi] Apocalipsim D Z | CVI] eta δ ε, equa I~~

~~14 CANONIS] ca. et ψ B M, cari T | id est add. B D 15 libro] om. φ~~

1/17 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “… et ueteribus immutatis noua omnia que a Christo instituuntur appareant. Hoc autem euangelium scripsit in Asia, postea quam in Pathmos insula Apocalipsim scripserat, ut cui in principio canonis incorruptibile principium in Genesi et incorruptibilis finis per uirginem in Apocalipsi redderetur …”

~~7/9 cfr IVO CARNOT., Decretum, d. V, cap. XXVI (331C-D) 12 2 IO. 1, 1 13 APOC. 1, 8 17 GEN. 1, 1; cfr e.g. GO GEN., interls. ad 1, 1~~

principium diceretur et finis, quia sicut ipse est principium omnium rerum, ita et finis, id est consummatio. DICENTE CHRISTO PER VIRGINEM, id est per Iohannem, IN APOCALIPSI: EGO SVM ALPHA ET OMEGA. ET HIC EST IOHANNES. Premissa multiplici commendatione operis, redit ad 5 commendationem auctoris quem in principio proemii multipliciter commendauerat, commendans opus ab auctore ipsius operis. Ergo /217va/ quem commendauerat circa principalia uite sue commendat circa finalia, quia non tantum commendabile est principium uite eius, uerum etiam commendibilis est exitus. Continuatio: HIC EST IOHANNES QVI VIRGO EST ELECTVS A DEO. ET HIC EST IOHANNES et cetera. Nota historiam: cum immineret dies obitus Iohannis, 10 Dominus uenit ad eum et determinauit ei diem. Et tradunt quidam quod obierit in sollempnitate paschali, quod, siue fuerit siue non, certum est quod die dominica obiit. Die ergo sibi a Domino prefinita mane celebrata missa conuocauit discipulos suos et concanonicos suos et precepit eis, ut prepararent ei locum sepulture, et ad eius mandatum preparatus est ei tumulus. Postea fecit eis sermonem de Christo probans uera esse omnia que dicta fuerant de Christo. Facto autem sermone 15 uiuus intrauit tumulum coram eis. Et cum intraret, factus est circa tumulum inestimabilis fulgor per duas horas usque adeo reuerberans oculos circumstantium, ut non possent tumulum uidere neque seipsos. Et postquam desiit fulgor ille, inuenerunt tumulum uacuum. Ideo credibile est translatum esse, quia nichil de corpore eius habetur sicut nec de corpore beate Virginis. Hoc tamen incertum et

1 diceretur] omnium rerum ita φ (ob diplographiam) 4 redit] reddit β 7 uite] om. φ 8 DEO] domino α β 9 dies obitus] exitus φ a.c. 10/1 in sollempnitate – obiit] om. N O (ob homoioteleuton) 11 sibi] om. γ | prefinita] prefinito φ Ι

~~12 et] om. α | concanonicos] canonicos γ Α Ι | ei] eis δ~~

14 uera esse omnia] omnia esse uera φ Β | autem] om. φ 15 tumulum coram eis] coram eis tumulum φ 15/6 duas horas] tr. φ p.c. 16 non] nec φ | neque] nec I Z 16/7 tumulum uidere neque seipsos] seipsos uidere φ, uidere seipsos M 17 et] sed γ

~~1/18 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “… dicente Christo: Ego sum Α et Ω. Et hic est Iohannes, qui sciens superuenisse diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis in Epheso…”~~

9/18 cfr PS. ABDIAS, Virtutes Ioh., cap. IX; P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 196 (1642C-43A) 11/5 cfr BEDA, Homil. euang., lib. I, hom. IX, 137-43 13/5 cfr ANON., De ortu et obitu patriarch., cap. 48. 2 (65, 35-40) 17/8 cfr P. DAMIANI, Sermones, sermo 64, 187-93

nec diffiniendum. Tradunt quidam eum adhuc uiuere. Fit enim, ut aiunt, quedam scaturigo pulueris et harene in tumuluo eius de eius anelitu procedens. Sed non est satis autenticum. PER MVLTA SIGNORVM EXPERIMENTA PROMENS CHRISTVM, id est manifestans uera esse que dicta erant de Christo. POSITVS EST AD PATRES SVOS, id est iuxta, quasi appositus est patribus 5 antiquis, id est associatus eis in regno Dei. TAM EXTRANEVS A DOLORE MORTIS, id est immunis, quia non gustauit dolorem mortis secundum opinionem eorum qui tradunt eum adhuc uiuere. QVAM A CORRVPTIONE CARNIS INVENITVR ALIENVS, quasi sicut adhuc inuenitur caro eius incorrupta, ita adhuc immunis est a dolore mortis. Vel quia ipse Christus mortis dolorem gustauit, uerisimile est quod Iohannes mortis dolorem senserit; ideoque sic melius potest exponi: TAM EXTRANEVS, id est 10 immunis, A DOLORE MORTIS, id est martirio. Vnde Dominus de ipso in euangelio ait: Sic eum uolo manere donec ueniam, id est sine lesione martirii transire. QVAM A CORRVPTIONE CARNIS INVENITVR ALIENVS, quia forte adhuc manet corpus eius incorruptum quia non legitur caro eius corrupta. Vel quia uirgo /217vb/ permansit. TAMEN POST OMNES. Istud tamen eleganter continuatur, licet minus sentienti non uideatur, 15 et continuatur a longe retro, quasi Iohannes altiora que pro sui profunditate alii subticuerant edidit et ita ceteris dignior fuit. TAMEN POST OMNES SCRIPSIT EVANGELIVM, in quo uidetur ei minus

1 diffiniendum] definiendum δ Α T | Tradunt] tamen add. φ | eum adhuc] tr. δ φ | enim] hic φ a.c. quedam] quidam M T a.c. 2 anelitu] hanelitu β δ, adnelitu O , anhelitu T | procedens] proueniens γ, precedens P T a.c. 3 EXPERIMENTA PROMENS] expri. B, ex per. D I, expi. MN | PROMENS CHRISTVM] tr. M O , om. N manifestans] omnia add. γ 4 SVOS] om. φ 5 MORTIS] sortis φ (ante corr. N ) 6 opinionem eorum] eos γ | tradunt] dicunt β

~~7 INVENITVR ALIENVS] om. γ | sicut] si δ (ante corr. P ) 8 est] om. γ | mortis dolorem] tr. φ~~

~~9 senserit] gustauerit B | ideoque] ideo I M~~

~~10 id est] a add. B N~~

~~12 INVENITVR ALIENVS] om. φ | forte adhuc manet corpus eius] forte adhuc corpus eius manet M O, forte corpus eius adhuc manet N~~

~~14 istud] illud γ | continuatur] taminat ψ, terminat B T, continuat I M | sentienti] scienti γ 15 a] om. γ | subticuerant] obticuerant B 16 ceteris dignior] tr. γ | ei minus] tr. φ~~

1/17 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “ … per multa signorum experimenta promens Christum descendens in defossum sepulture locum, facta oratione posistus est ad patres suos, tam extraneus a dolore mortis quam a corruptione carnis inuenitur alienus. Tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit.”

1/2 Quidam – procedens] sec. AVG., In Ioh. euang. Tract., tract. 124, n. 2; cfr ISID., De ortu et obitu patrum, cap. LXXI, n. 4 (130); ANON., De ortu et obitu patriarch., cap. 48. 4 (40-4) 11 IO. 21, 22

~~XII~~

satisfactum et in aliquo dignitati eius derogatum. Nota diligenter quia obiectio est quod aduersando dicitur: TAMEN POST OMNES SCRIPSIT EVANGELIVM. Quod autem sequitur responsio est: ET, id est etiam, HOC VIRGINI DEBEBATVR, id est debebatur hoc ei pro prerogatiua uirginitatis, quasi soluendo obiectionem dicat: ‘Ne mireris si ultimus scripsit, quia etiam in hoc dignitati eius satisfactum est in 5 quo uidetur derogatum, quia idipsum cessit ei ad cumulum honoris et prerogatiuam dignitatis quod ultimus scripsit tanquam corrector aliorum.’ QVORVM TAMEN et cetera, quasi: ‘Dixi de Iohanne quod ultimus scripsit; tamen non dicam de aliis quis prior uel quis posterior scripserit. Posset enim hoc querere aliquis.’ Ideo occurrit dicens: DISPOSITIO TEMPORIS SCRIPTORVM QVORVM, id est quomodo scripta eorum fuerint tempore 10 disposita, id est que alia precesserint in tempore. VEL LIBRORVM ORDINATIO, id est quare libri ita sint ordinati ut iste sit primus, ille secundus, ille tertius. IDEO PER SINGVLA A NOBIS NON EXPONITVR, id est ideo a nobis subticetur. Supple ‘extra,’ ut sciendi desiderium collocetur. Quando enim magister aliquid subticet et differt in posterum, amplius excitat desideria auditorum. ET SCIENDI DESIDERIO COLLOCATO FRVCTVS, id est merces, LABORIS. FRVCTVS QVERENTIBVS, id est ut pro diligentia 15 querendi recipiant mercedem. ET DEO SERVETVR DOCTRINA MAGISTERII, id est auctoritatis.

~~1 dignitati eius] tr. γ | derogatum] derogatur B 2 EVANGELIVM] hoc add. φ | id est] om. φ~~

9 eorum] om. M T 8/9 scripta eorum fuerint tempore disposita] tempore scripto disposito fuerint eorum φ (ante corr. N ), tempore scriptura disposita fuerit eorum M 10 disposita] et add. α, deposita δ, deponita A | ORDINATIO] ordine φ (ante corr. N ), ordinis M 12 ideo] om. γ | extra] litteram add. γ 2 14 LABORIS] laborum φ | FRVCTVS ] fer ε I P, sit B | QVERENTIBVS] querere δ B T, quere M 14/5 FRVCTVS2 – mercedem] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) 15 id est auctoritatis] om. ψ B, id est auctoritas δ N

1/14 cont. PROL. ‘MONARCH.’: “Tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit. Et hoc uirgini debebatur. Quorum tamen uel scripturarum temporis dispositio uel librorum ordinatio, ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut et sciendi desiderio collocato et querentibus fructus laboris et Deo magisterii doctrina seruetur.”

~~XIII~~

4. GLOSAE SVPER INTROITVM AVGVSTINI OMNIBVS et cetera. Hec glosa est introitus in Iohannem factus ab Augustino et est hec continentia glose. In prima parte est commendatio euangelii et in uno tantum prefertur aliis scripturis, scilicet in impletione promissorum, ibi: QVIA QVOD LEX et cetera, cum extra dictum sit quia preminet in tribus, scilicet in reuelatione figurarum, in impletione promissorum, in celsitudine premiorum. Post 5 commendationem euangelii sequitur commendatio Iohannis quasi a simili, quia sicut euangelium ceteris paginis singulari quadam preminet excellentia, sic ceteris euangelii scriptoribus preminet Iohannes euangelista: INTER IPSOS AVTEM et cetera. Et preminentiam Iohannis ad alios notat Augustinus in duobus: in eo scilicet quod per aquilam prefiguratus est, et in eo quod supra pectus Domini recubuit in cena. Notat etiam quod euangelium scripsit propter duo, scilicet ad 10 munimentum et ad supplementum. QVI A TEMPORE. Conueniens est causa que subditur quod fuerit ceteris excellentior in profunditate euangelii, scilicet quia diutius predicauit euangelium sine auxilio scripture. Inde enim patet quia omnia sciebat cordetenus. Est ergo probatio conueniens: puta aliquis uolens probare de aliquo magistro quod sit perfectior ceteris in scientia dialectice; eleganter /218ra/ hoc probabit si 15 ostendet eum eam diutius legisse et eam totam cordetenus nosse. VSQVE AD VLTIMA TEMPORA

1 in] ad φ | factus] facta φ | est hec] tr. β M 2 tantum] tamen γ Ι | in3] om. γ ε Ι 3 LEX] quia add. γ 6/7 excellentia – preminet] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) 8 Augustinus] om. φ Ι | in eo scilicet] scilicet in eo φ

~~9 recubuit in cena] in cena recubuit φ Ι Z | euangelium] eum φ (ante corr. N ) A I 10 munimentum] scilicet add. δ~~

11 QVI A] quia α β N | fuerit] fuit φ I Z | ceteris excellentior] tr. γ 13 puta] ut si γ 14/5 probare] post magistro γ 14 sit perfectior] tr. γ a.c. 15 ostendet] ostendat β, ostenderit φ (ostenderet O ) | totam cordetenus] tr. φ | VLTIMA TEMPORA] om. γ

1 introitus – ab Augustino] scil. GO IO., proth. (ex ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, Proth. 4): “Omnibus diuine scripture paginis euangelium excellit, quia quod lex et prophete futurum predixerunt. Hoc completum dicit euangelium. Inter ipsos autem euangeliorum scriptores Iohannes eminent in diuinorum misteriorum profunditate, qui a tempore dominice ascensionis per annos LXV uerbum Dei absque aminiculo scribendi usque ad ultima Domitiani predicauit tempora…”

~~4/6 cum extra – celsitudine premiorum] scil. supra, PROTH. 1, I, 19-20~~

~~XIV~~

DOMITIANI, id est usque ad eius mortem, CVM PERMITTENTE NERVA, generali permissione, ut supra dictum est. SCRIPSIT ADVERSVS HERETICOS. Hic ostendit quod scripserit ad munimentum. VNDE. A longe retro continua, quasi Iohannes inter ceteros excellit in profunditate diuinorum mysteriorum. 5 VNDE, id est ad quod significandum. Et hic notat eum excellentiorem, quia prefiguratus est per aquilam. QVASI GRESSIBILIA et cetera, id est merito sortiuntur figuras gressibilium. AD CELVM, supple ‘quasi.’ QVI ENIM, quasi uere ceteris profundior. QVI ENIM et cetera. Caue ne ad litteram intelligas quod recubuerit uel obdormierit supra pectus Domini. Sed cum Dominus diceret in cena unus ex uobis me tradet, Petrus non est ausus Dominum interrogare quis esset, sed innuit Iohanni qui erat 10 collateralis Domino tanquam uirgo uirgini, ut secreto quereret ab eo. Tunc Iohannes inclinauit se ad Dominum et inclinatus secreto interrogauit eum et Dominus secreto dixit ei: Cui panem intinctum porrexero hic me tradet. Ergo huiusmodi inclinationem Iohannis intellige recubitum de quo hic agitur, in quo ostendit Augustinus eum ceteris excellentiorem. LEGERAT SIQVIDEM. Hic ostendit eum scripsisse ad supplementum. PRIMO TEMPORE, id est 15 in principio. Vel distingue duo tempora dominice predicationis, ut primum tempus sit a mutatione aque in uinum usque ad incarcerationem Iohannis, in quo secreto predicauit paucis et discipulos collegit; secundum ab incarceratione Iohannis usque ad passionem. CIRCA ACTIVAM SVNT VERSATI.

~~XIII, 15 - 1 TEMPORA DOMITIANI] tr. φ 1 Domitiani] docet δ ψ (ante corr. Z ) M | CVM φ] om. α β M~~

~~NERVA] misericordia α, pro add. φ | permissione] promissione D M 3 scripserit ad munimentum] ad munimentum scripsit φ, ad munimentum scripserit M~~

6 GRESSIBILIA] animalia add. M O | gressibilium] animalium add. γ 7 ceteris] cunctis φ | Caue] praem. et α 8 recubuerit uel obdormierit] recubuit uel obdormuit γ I | obdormierit] obdormuerit ψ 9 Dominum interrogare] tr. γ B 12 inclinationem Iohannis] tr. γ 13 ostendit Augustinus] tr. φ p.c. 16 incarcerationem] incarnationem A I | secreto] Dominus add. γ | predicauit paucis] tr. φ

~~17 incarceratione] incarnatione A I M | passionem] Domini add. δ | SVNT VERASTI] om. φ~~

1/17 cont. GO Io. praef. I: “… cum permittente Nerua de exilio redisset Ephesum, … scripsit aduersus hereticos… Vnde merito in figura IIII animalium aquile uolanti comparatur… Ceteri quippe euangeliste qui temporalem Christi natiuitatem et temporalia eius facta que gessit in homine sufficienter exponunt et de diuinitate pauca dixerunt, quasi gressibilia animalia cum Domino ambulant in terra. Hic autem … cum Domino ad celum uolat. Qui enim supra pectus Domini in cena recubuit, celestis haustum sapiencie ceteris excellentius de ipso dominici pectoris fonte potauit. Legerat siquidem euangelia trium euuangelistarum et approbauit fidem eorum et ueritatem. In quibus uidit deesse aliqua … que Dominus gessit primo predicationis sue tempore… Tres siquidem alii euangeliste dicta et facta Domini temporalia que ad informandos mores uite presentis maxime ualent, copiosius persecuti circa actiuam uitam sunt uersati.”

~~1/2 ut supra dictum est] scil. PROTH. 1, III, 16 - IV, 3 8/9 IO. 13, 21 11/2 IO. 13, 26 15/7 cfr BEDA, In Luc. euang. expos., lib. I, cap. III~~

Potest intelligi circa actiuam Christi, quia Christi acta in humanitate prosecuti sunt, que possunt dici uita actiua Christi respectu pertinentium ad deitatem; uel circa actiuam nostram, quia Christi actio nostra est instructio et morum informatio, quod ad actiuam pertinet. IN QVA LABORATVR, sicut et Christus laborauit. Labor est enim in operibus misericordie exequendis. 5 ET IN CONTEMPLATIVA VIRTVTE COMMENDANDA INTENTIONEM TENVIT, id est circa pertinentia ad contemplatiuam specialiter eius intentio uersata est, id est circa deitatem. Attende quod Augustinus in hoc introitu causam scribendi posuit, sed materiam, intentionem, finem subticuit, quia ipse Iohannes circa finem sui uoluminis hec tria paucis innuit dicens: Hec autem scripta sunt ut credatis quia Iesus est Filius Dei. Ecce notauit materiam, quia ipse Iesus est materia, et 10 intentionem, quia hac intentione scripsit: Vt crederent. Finem uero innuit cum subdit: Et credentes uitam habeatis in nomine eius. ISTE SIQVIDEM EST IOHANNES. Hec glosa est de commendatione Iohannis. QVEM DE FLVCTIVAGA NVPTIARVM TEMPESTATE, id est de mole-/218rb/-stiis coniugii.

1 potest – actiuam] om. φ | Christi acta] tr. γ 1/2 prosecuti sunt] tr. γ B a.c. 4 est] om. I M O | est enim] tr. δ 5 ET IN CONTEMPLATIVA – TENVIT] et sic in uita N, et sic in uita contemplatiua O 6 id est] om. φ | deitatem] scilicet add. φ 9 ecce] et φ

~~10 et] et ut φ, ut I M 1 2 12 EST ] om. I N | est ] om. I O 13 NVPTIARVM TEMPESTATE] om. γ~~

4/5 et sqq. cont. GO Io. praef. I: “In qua laboratur, ut cor mundetur ad uidendum Deum. Iohannes uero pauca Domini facta dicit, uerba uero Domini, que trinitatis unitatem et uite eterne felicitatem insinuant, diligentius conscribit et sic in contemplatiua uirtute commendanda; intentionem suam et predicationem tenuit in qua contemplatiua uacatur, ut Deus uideatur. Iste siquidem est Iohannes quem Dominus de fluctiuaga nuptiarum tempestate uocauit, cui et matrem uirginem uirgini commendauit.”

~~3 cfr ALAN. AB INSVLIS, Summa de arte praed., cap. I (113C); P. LOMBARDVS, Mag. glosatura in Ps., Ps. 85, 1 (799) 8/11 IO. 20, 31~~

~~XVI~~

~~GLOSAE SVPER IOHANNEM GLOSATVM~~

~~IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM et cetera. In principio huius euangelii ponuntur quatuor colata, id 1, 1-2~~

~~est quatuor clausule siue distinctiones. Et est prima: IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM. Secunda: ET~~

VERBVM ERAT APVD DEVM. Tertia: DEVS ERAT VERBVM. Quarta: HOC ERAT IN PRINCIPIO APVD DEVM. Due autem que premittuntur apposite sunt ad duas hereses eliminandas 5 que iam tempore Iohannis emerserant; due que secuntur ad alias duas eliminandas que nondum oborte erant. Sed Iohannes in spiritu preuidit eas emersuras, scilicet heresim Arrii et Nestorii. Sunt igitur quatuor clausule ad munimentum contra hereses, et non solum apposite sunt ad munimentum sed etiam ad supplementum, quia que continentur in quatuor clausulis ab aliis pretermissa sunt. Habes itaque duas glosas: alteram de munimento, alteram de supplemento. Glosa de 10 munimento ostendit que clausula contra quam heresim sit introducta. Glosa de supplemento ostendit singulas clausulas supplementum esse. Et secundum particulas littere lege particulas utriusque glose, prius legendo particulam glose de munimento et statim aduertendo interlinearem que congruit illi particule, postea particulam glose de supplemento. Sed in distinctione uerborum in singulis clausulis positorum summam adhibe diligentiam. 15 Habes enim tria uocabula in quatuor clausulis posita: principium, uerbum, Deus. Hoc uocabulum ‘uerbum’ ubique manet immobile, ut ubique per uerbum Filium Dei intelligas. Aliorum intelligentia uariatur, nam hoc nomen ‘principium’ interdum notat Patrem, ut in principio erat Verbum; interdum notat principium creaturarum ut ibidem iuxta aliam expositionem et ibi: Hoc erat in principio. Ita quoque hoc nomen ‘Deus’ modo est personale, ut ibi: Verbum erat apud Deum; modo essentiale,

~~6 oborte] aborte I M 8 munimentum] contra hereses add. φ~~

~~9 habes] habemus φ D 9/10 Glosa de munimento – de supplemento] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) 11 supplementum esse] tr. γ | et secundum particulas] om. φ 12 aduertendo] addendo φ~~

~~15 habes] habemus D N T | quatuor] tribus φ 16 Filium Dei] tr. α I~~

9/10 Glosa de munimento] scil. MARG. ad 1, 1, ‘Contra eos’ 10 Glosa de supplemento] scil. MARG. ad 1, 1, ‘Alii euangeliste describunt,’ et ibid., ‘Alii inter homines’ (cfr XIX, 8-9: “Nota quia glosam de supplemento quidam codices habent continuam, alii per partes”)

~~XVII~~

ut ibi: Verbum erat Deus, id est essentia diuina. Distingue ergo quia hec locutio “in principio” interdum idem significat acsi dicatur ‘in Patre,’ ut in principio erat Verbum; interdum idem significat acsi dicatur ‘ante secula et eternaliter,’ ut hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Sic quoque hec locutio “apud Deum” modo notat diuersitatem persone, ut Verbum erat apud Deum; modo idemptitatem essentie, 5 /218va/ ut hoc erat in principio apud Deum, id est Filius erat unius essentie cum Patre ante secula et eternaliter. Primum ergo eliminat heresim quorumdam, que iam suo tempore emerserat, dicentium Christum esse Dei Filium sed in uirgine habuisse initium. Qui occasionem erroris sui potuerunt habere a Iudeis qui messiam suum futurum putant Filium Dei, non tamen putant futurum eternum 10 sed hominem purum. Horum ergo elidit errorem ubi dicit: Verbum erat in principio, id est Filius erat in Patre, Patri coeternus. Et nota quod hec locutio deserit hic uiam suam, quia cum hic notet Filii cum Patre coeternitatem, alibi ubique notat essentie idemptitatem. Quotiens enim in sacra scriptura reperitur hec locutio, ‘Filius est in Patre’ uel ‘Pater est in Filio,’ hunc facit sensum: Filius est eiusdem essentie cum Patre uel Pater est eiusdem essentie cum Filio. Hic autem ponitur locutio preter 15 consuetum modum, ut sit sensus: Filius erat in Patre, id est erat coeternus Patri. Alioquin nichil probaret Iohannes heretico nec in aliquo artaret. Non enim quia eiusdem essentie cum Patre ideo poterat ei probare quod esset Patri coeternus. Nam filius carnalis unius substantie est cum patre, non tamen ei coeternus. Ergo per hoc non posset probare Filium Patri coeternum, quod debebat probare

∴ heretico. Alioquin non artaret eum.*

2 acsi dicatur – idem significat] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) 4/5 modo idempnitatem – apud Deum] om. δ (ob homoioteleuton) 7 primum] prius φ 8 Dei Filium] tr. φ I | initium] et add. γ | erroris sui] tr. γ B 9 qui] quia φ | futurum eternum] tr. γ

11 deserit hic] tr. M O p.c. a.c. 12 cum Patre coeternitatem] eternitatem cum Patre M O, coeternitatem cum Patre N (eternitatem N ) 14 uel Pater – cum Filio] om. γ a.c. 16 artaret] constaret O, staret N 17/8 unius substantie est cum patre] est eiusdem substantie cum patre φ 18 ei] est φ, est ei M | coeternus] coeuus ε (post corr. A ) P | per] propter φ 19 Alioquin non artaret eum] om. B et add. APPENDIX II, 24; uide APPENDIX I, 2

~~7/19 cfr GO Io. marg. ad 1, 1, ‘Contra eos’ 11/2 cfr ROB. DE MILIDVNO, Quaest. de epist. Pauli, ad Rom. 1, 20 (26, 2-4) 12/4 cfr ALAN. AB INSVLIS, Theol. Reg., reg. XLV (461A-C) 13 cfr IO. 13, 20~~

~~XVIII~~

CONTRA EOS et cetera, usque ibi: VERBVM DICITVR. Summa est quia uerbum dicitur ipsum audibile quod euolat ad aures et statim perit. Verbum quoque dicitur conceptus siue cogitatio mentis que manifestatur per uerbum.* Et uerbum audibile transit /218vb/ repente, uerbum intelligibile manet in mente. Cogitatio enim mentis que manifestatur per uerbum audibile non transit cum uerbo 5 audibili sed remanet in mente.* Itaque hec uocabula ‘nomen,’ ‘uerbum’ equiuoca sunt ad nomina et uerba que in uoce et nomina et uerba que sunt in anima; et nomina et uerba que sunt in uoce sunt note eorum nominum et uerborum que sunt in anima. Ergo Filius Dei eleganti similitudine uerbum dicitur, quia et habet similitudinem cum uerbo intelligibili et cum uerbo audibili. Cum uerbo intelligibili habet similitudinem secundum quod Deus et Patri coeternus, quia sicut uerbum 10 intelligibile non transit sed manet in mente, ita Filius ab eterno fuit in Patre. Cum uerbo audibili habet similitudinem secundum quod homo factus in tempore, quia sicut uerbum audibile prodit cogitationem, sic Filius homo factus manifestauit Patrem. QVI EST PRINCIPIVM NON DE PRINCIPIO, id est Pater, ut sit peryphrasis. QVI EST PRINCIPIVM SED DE PRINCIPIO, id est Filius, ut sit similiter peryphrasis, et sic facile poteris euadere obiectionem 15 que sit de Spiritu sancto. IN QVO, scilicet in eo quod dicitur: Verbum erat in principio. SOLVM

1 quia] quoniam φ 2/3 cogitatio mentis] tr. γ 3 repente] ad aures add. γ | manifestatur per uerbum] uide APPENDIX I, 3 4 remanet in mente] uide APPENDIX I, 42 5 nomen uerbum] tr. δ (post corr. N ) 1 1 6 uerba] ad uerba β (post corr. I ) γ | que ] sunt add. ψ M | et nomina – in uoce] om. φ Β (ob homoioteleuton) 8 et1] om. β 8/9 habet similitudinem cum uerbo intelligibili et cum uerbo audibili] cum uerbo audibili et cum uerbo intelligibili habet similitudinem φ 9 habet] habens φ 12 Filius] Dei add. γ 14 facile poteris] tr. φ | euadere] soluere B

1/16 MARG. ad 1, 1: “Contra eos qui propter temporalem natiuitatem dicebant non Christum semper fuisse. Incipit de eternitate Verbi dicens: In principio erat Verbum. Verbum dicitur uel quod profertur et transit, ut quando dicitur ‘Deus’ uel aliquid huiusmodi, uel cogitatio seu conceptio mentis que ex mente nata cum ipsa mente permanet, ut quando cogitas, uel diuinam substantiam uel aliam rem hac similitudine. Ratio et sapientia Dei, que ex Deo nata omnia comprehendit, Verbum dicitur. Hoc dicitur esse in principio, contra eos qui, quia ex tempore dicitur nasci de uirgine, dicunt non semper fuisse. In principio, id est in Patre qui est principium non de principio. Ipse cum eo principium de principio, in quo solum notatur…”

1/4 cfr HVGO DE S. VIC., De archa Noe, lib. II, cap. XIV 2 cogitatio mentis] EZEK. 20, 32 2/3 cfr HVGO DE S. VIC., De Sacramentis, lib. I, pars III, cap. XX 3/5 cfr P. ABAELARDVS, Theol. Christiana, lib. I, cap. XVIII-XXI; IDEM, Sententie magist. P. Abael., sent. 55 5/7 BOET., In Peri Herm., lib. I, cap. I, 36; cfr P. ABAELARDVS, Glossae in Peri Herm., cap. I, n. 40 5/10 cfr ALAN. AB INSVLIS?, Lib. dist. (996B-C) 7/12 cfr AVG., De Trinitate, lib. XV, cap. XI, 487, 5-12; GREG., Homil. in euang., lib. I, hom. VII, n. 2

~~XIX~~

NOTATVR ETERNITAS, id est non substantie idemptitas, quia locutio, ut dictum est, ponitur preter consuetum modum. SED QVIA. Hic dimitte et lege principium illius glose: IN PATRE QVI EST PRINCIPIVM SINE PRINCIPIO. FILIVS QVI EST PRINCIPIVM SED DE PRINCIPIO, et dimitte ibi et lege interlineares. Postea 5 lege principium glose de supplemento: ALII et cetera. Quasi: hoc scriptum est a Iohanne ad munimentum contra heresim et idipsum scriptum est ad supplementum, quia fuerat ab aliis sub silentio pretermissum. Et nota quia glosam de supplemento quidam codices habent continuam, alii per partes. NON FVIT ANTE PATER QVAM FILIVS, quia Filius Patri coeternus, cuius coeternitas cum Patre a Iohanne ostenditur his uerbis: In principio erat Verbum. Et nota quia finis glose trahit 10 locutionem ad proprium sensum, scilicet ut notet unitatem essentie Filii cum Patre, ubi dicitur: VNA SVBSTANTIA CVM PATRE. Modo sume residuum glose quod dimiseras: VEL IN PRINCIPIO OMNIVM CREATVRARVM, id est ante principium omnium creaturarum, non quod ipse fuerit primordialis creatura sicut dicitur titulus esse in principio libri, id est ante librum. Ecce Iohannes in prima clausula arguit quosdam hereticos qui iam suo tempore emerserant 15 dogmatizantes Christum in uirgine habuisse initium. Sed quia iam alii emerserant qui concedebant esse Patri coeternum sed asserebant esse eandem personam cum Patre tantum in uocabulis pluralitatem facientes, ideo ad eorum confutationem subditur: Et Verbum erat apud Deum, id est Filius apud /219ra/ Patrem et ita alius ab eo. Non enim eadem res potest dici apud seipsam esse nisi figurate. Huic heresi postea adhesit Sabellius et dilatauit eam.

1 ETERNITAS] uerbi add. γ | non substantie idemptitas] non subicitur idemptitas I, non subditur ydemptitas substantie φ 3 et] sed γ | glose] glosule γ 5 Quasi] quia γ Ι p.c. 6 idipsum] ipsum φ Β | fuerat] senserat M N , sumserat O | sub silentio] om. γ Β

~~9/10 trahit locutionem] trahitur locutio B | locutionem] lectionem D I 11 SVBSTANTIA] est add. γ 13 ante librum] et uerbum erat apud deum add. φ~~

~~16 esse Patri coeternum] Patri coeternum esse φ, Patri esse coeternum M Z | tantum] et inde δ (αnte corr. P ) 17 ideo] hoc φ I~~

1/3 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “… eternitas Verbi, quia omnia precedit. Sed quia…” 3/4 MARG. ad 1, 1: “In Patre, qui est principium sine principio. Filius, qui est principium de principio, uel in principio omnium creaturarum uel temporum, quia ab ipso omnia habent principium existendi.” 5/11 MARG. ad 1, 1: “Alii euangeliste describunt Christum natum ex tempore; Iohannes affirmat eum fuisse in Patre ut in principio. Non fuit ante Pater quam filius. Ecce Filius alia persona a Patre, una substantia cum Patre.”

Modo sume glosam de munimento ubi dimisisti: SED QVIA ALII DICEBANT et cetera, usque ibi: SED QVIA ALII CONCEDERENT et cetera. Et dimitte ibi et lege interlinearem que congruit illi clausule. Postea sume glosam de supplemento ibi: ALII INTER HOMINES.* Ecce in his duabus clausulis confutauit duas hereses iam suo tempore obortas, in duabus sequentibus confutat alias duas 5 post tempus suum emersuras. Preuidens ergo Iohannes in spiritu quosdam hereticos futuros qui concederent Filium esse Patri coeternum et aliam personam esse a Patre et tamen creaturam esse, ut Arrium, ad eorum confutationem subdit: Et Deus erat Verbum. Et facies propositionem transpositam, ‘Verbum erat Deus,’ id est essentia diuina, quia hoc nomen ‘Deus’ in hac clausula est essentiale cum in precedenti sit personale. 10 Sume glosam de munimento ubi dimisisti: SED QVIA ALII CONCEDERENT et cetera. Et nota quia hoc ipso quod ponitur hic uerbum respiciens ad futurum, scilicet ‘concederent,’ innuit Augustinus quia nondum nate erant due hereses sequentes sed adhuc nasciture. Vnde quia due precedentes iam orte erant, in precedentibus dictum est ‘dicebant.’ Modo lege interlinearem que congruit huic clausule. Postea sume glosam de supplemento ubi dimisisti: ALII VERVM HOMINEM. 15 Sed quia iterum preuidebat in spiritu alios futuros qui dicerent esse Deum sed adoptione non natura, ut Nestorius dicens: “Non inuideo Christo facto Deo, quia et ego si uolo possum fieri Deus,” ideo ad eorum confutationem subditur hoc, id est Verbum, erat apud Deum, id est apud Patrem, id est erat

~~2 et cetera et dimitte ibi] om. γ | interlinearem – congruit] interlineares – congruunt φ | illi] huic φ 3 ALII INTER HOMINES] uide APPENDIX I, 4 4 duas2] hereses add. γ 6 Filium] om. γ ε Β~~

~~7 eorum] horum γ | confutationem] confutionem B D 8 transpositam] et add. γ~~

~~10 et cetera] om. γ | et] om. β P 11 respiciens ad futurum] futuri γ 13 in] om. φ 15 iterum] om. φ | esse Deum] tr. γ 16 facto Deo] tr. γ | et] om. γ~~

~~17 confutationem] confutionem β D N | subditur] subdit φ~~

1 et sqq. cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Sed quia alii dicebant quod idem Deus aliquando Pater, aliquando est Filius, ut alter notetur in persona, subdit: Et Verbum erat apud Deum, ut alius apud alium. Sed quia alii concederent et semper alium fuisse, sed non Deum esse, subdit: Et Deus erat Verbum. Sed quia iterum alii esse Deum concederent…” 3/9 et sqq. MARG. ad 1, 1: “Alii inter homines subito apparuisse, Iohannes dicit apud Deum semper fuisse. Alii hominem uerum, Iohannes uerum Deum asserit, dicens: Et Deus erat Verbum.”

2 cfr GO Io. interls. ad 1, 1: “Erat apud Deum, ut alia persona”; “Deus erat Verbum. Ne dicatur esse cum Deo et non Deus.” 13/4 interlinearem – clausule] cfr GO Io. interl. ad 1, 2: “Apud Deum. Ita erat unum cum Patre, ut omne principium creaturarum sua preiret essentia.” 16 BEDA, Homil. euang., lib. I, hom. VIII, 60-2; cfr GREG., Moralia, lib. XVIII, p. LII, n. 85

~~XXI~~

eiusdem nature cum Patre, et ita Deus naturalis non adoptionis. IN PRINCIPIO, id est ante secula et eternaliter. Et distingue quia hec locutio, VERBVM ERAT APVD DEVM, alium sensum hic facit quam in secunda clausula. Ibi enim notat diuersitatem persone, hic autem idemptitatem essentie. 5 Sume glosam de munimento ubi dimisisti: SED QVIA ITERVM ALII et cetera. IN QVO, scilicet in eo quod dicitur fuisse apud Deum in principio, id est natus ex Deo Patre ante omnia. INDICATVR COOMNIPOTENS, CONSVBSTANTIALIS, COETERNVS, ut tantum sit pondus in hoc uerbo quod notet hec tria, et consubstantialitatem et coeternitatem satis expresse notat, sed coomnipotentiam non uidetur notare. Dimitte ibi et lege interlinearem que congruit huic clausule: ITA ERAT et cetera. Et 10 sume glosam de supplemento ubi dimisisti: ALII HOMINEM INTER /219rb/ HOMINES. Modo lege

illam: QVATER PONIT⟨VR⟩ ‘ERAT.’ Et est summa quia per hoc quod quater dictum est uerbum ‘erat,’ cum non sint nisi tria tempora, ostenditur uerbum preuenisse omnia tempora. Vide quia illa glosa,

∴ ‘SVM’ VERBVM et cetera, appunctata debet esse.* Nota quia sicut hoc principium ualuit ad hereses repellendas, ita credibile est quod repellat 15 fantasmata et maleficia demonum. Ideo qui habent facere iudicia in aqua calida uel in ferro calido, ne ueritas rei impediatur maleficiis hominum uel demonum portant super se scriptum hoc euangelium in quibusdam cartis.

~~6 ante] om. δ~~

~~11 QVATER PONITVR] scripsi Glosam secutus, quater ponit δ φ I T Z, qua terpo non A, quater po. B, quater M~~

~~12 tempora] tempus ante legem tempus sub lege tempus gratie add. in marg. φ, presens preteritum et futurum add. M 13 et cetera] om. γ | debet esse] uide APPENDIX I, 5; APPENDIX II, 25~~

14 ualuit] cornu aluit D, conualuit P | repellat] repellet φ, repellerat Β T Z, expellat D 15 et] om. δ 16 maleficiis] maleficio B | scriptum] descriptum φ 17 quibusdam] om. δ | cartis] cartulis φ

5/9 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Sed quia iterum alii esse Deum concederent, sed factum Deum, ut ex hominibus fiunt dii, contra eos addit: Hoc, id est Verbum, Deus, erat apud Deum in principio, id est ante omnia natus ex Deo, in quo et coomnipotens et consubstantialis et coeternus indicatur.” 10 INTERL. ad 1, 2: “Ita erat unum cum Patre, ut omne principium creaturarum sua preiret essentia.” 10/1 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Alii inter homines’: Alii uerum hominem inter homines temporaliter conuersatum, Iohannes apud Deum manentem dicit: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.” 11 MARG. ad 1, 1: “Quater ponitur ‘erat’ substantiuum uerbum, ut intelligas omnia tempora preuenisse coeternum Patri Verbum.” 13 MARG. ad 1, 1: “ ‘Sum’ uerbum duplicem habet significationem … sed pro substantia ponitur ‘erat.’ ”

~~XXII~~

~~OMNIA PER IPSVM FACTA SVNT et cetera. Sicut premisit Iohannes de deitate Verbi tum 1, 3~~

~~ad confutationem hereticorum tum ad suppletionem pretermissorum, ita subdit de operatione Verbi~~

et ad munimentum contra hereses et ad supplendum quod pretermiserant alii. Et sicut in precedentibus distincte sunt quatuor clausule quibus confutati sunt diuersi heretici, ita et hic de 5 confutatione hereticorum possunt tres clausule distingui usque ibi: FVIT HOMO. Et est prima: OMNIA PER IPSVM FACTA SVNT ET SINE IPSO FACTVM EST NICHIL. Secunda: QVOD FACTVM EST IN IPSO VITA ERAT. Tertia: ET VITA ERAT LVX HOMINVM, usque ibi: FVIT HOMO. Agens autem de operatione Verbi premittit de operatione uniuersitatis. Postea addit de 10 operatione ante aduentum. Postea addit de operatione in aduentu, scilicet de operibus recreationis. Quod autem dicitur, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, potest exponi de operatione generali uel de uniuersali. De generali ut signum uniuersalitatis comprehendat genera operum, non singula operata, acsi dicatur ‘omnia genera operum facta sunt per ipsum,’ id est opus creationis, opus formationis, opus propagationis quod dicitur opus nature, opus artificis; et potes addere quintum: opus recreationis. 15 Hec autem expositio de generali operatione, licet hic non habeatur in glosa, alibi tamen habetur in quadam omelia. Glose autem hic exponunt de uniuersali operatione ut colligat singula operata, sed nonnisi naturalia. Non enim in hac generalitate locutionis includuntur que naturam uitiant uel peruertunt, ut peccata. Et uide quia hoc uerbo confutantur Arrius et Manicheus. Si enim omnis

~~1 et cetera] om. γ~~

~~2 confutationem] confutionem B D N | suppletionem] supplementum MN, suppletum O | pretermissorum]~~

premissorum I M a.c. 3 supplendum] supplementum γ P a.c. 4 distincte] districte δ (ante corr. P ) | diuersi] om. γ 4/5 de confutatione] confutatione δ Z, de futatione A T 5 FVIT HOMO] et cetera add. φ 12 de uniuersali] naturali φ | uniuersalitatis] uniuersitatis γ Ι 16 habetur] dicitur γ | omelia] Gregorii add. φ 16/7 colligat singula operata] omnia singula colligat operata γ 17 locutionis] om. γ 18 ut peccata] om. φ | quia] in add. φ | Arrius et Manicheus] heretici et Manicheus et Arrius γ

13/4 signum uniuersalitatis] cfr e.g. P. ABAELARDVS, Dialectica, tract. III, lib. I, 341, 11 13/5 cfr HVGO DE S. VICTORE, Didascalicon, lib. I, cap. X; IDEM, Sent. de diuinitate, p. I, 935; IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic., cap. 121M; ROB. DE MILIDVNO, Sententie, lib. I, p. I, d. XXI 16 quadam omelia] cfr BEDA, Homil. euang., lib. I, hom. XXIII, 247-63; IOH. CHRYSOST., Hom. in Ioh., hom. V, n. 1 (53) 17/8 cfr P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. I, d. XXXVI, cap. III-III

~~XXIII~~

creatura per ipsum facta est, ergo ipse creatura non est /219va/ uel a seipso factus est. Itaque mentitur Arrius. Item si omnis natura ab eo facta est, ergo utraque natura in homine ab eo creata est. Ergo mentitur Manicheus dogmatizans duas esse naturas in homine, alteram creatam a Deo alteram a principe tenebrarum. 5 Sume magnam glosam ubi dimisisti: POSTQVAM AVTEM DIXIT et cetera, QVICQVID EST SIVE IN SVBSTANTIA SIVE IN ALIQVA NATVRALI PROPRIETATE, id est omnis substantia uel naturalis proprietas. ECCE BONORVM EST AVCTOR DEVS. Hic dimitte et lege interlinearem: OMNIS CREATVRA VISIBILIS quantum ad corpora, ET INVISIBILIS quantum ad spiritus. OMNIS COMPAGO, id est

~~∴ coniunctio. OMNIS CONCORDIA, id est proportio.* Post hanc illam: NON EST CREATVRA. Modo~~

10 resume glosam: ET SINE IPSO FACTVM EST NICHIL, id est quod est nichil, ut facias propositionem affirmatiuam, SED EST PERVERSIO NATVRE. Vide quia non per hoc excludit Augustinus defectus nature humane cuiusmodi sunt fames, sitis, ab illa generalitate locutionis qua dicitur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Exquisite enim ait id solum non esse ab eo, quod est peruersio nature. Hii autem defectus naturam non uitiant uel peruertunt; immo, post corruptionem nature humane in primo parente uersi 15 sunt in naturam et quodammodo facti naturales.* VT MALVM. Vide quia malum reuera aliquid est et aliquam habet essentiam. Sed cum dicitur nichil esse, intelligendum est inquantum malum. Inquantum enim malum est non est nisi priuatio boni. Priuatio autem nichil est et ita inquantum malum est nichil est. Vel dicitur nichil esse quia

~~3 in homine ab eo] ab ipso in homine γ 4 alteram] creatam add. γ 6 NATVRALI] om. γ | substantia] substantialis γ | uel] et γ~~

8 spiritus] spiritum D T 9 id est proportio] uide APPENDIX I, 6; APPENDIX II, 3 a.c. 10 nichil] nichil tibi D, nichit P 10/11 propositionem affirmatiuam] proportionem alteram B 11 SED EST PERVERSIO NATVRE] scilicet quod est peruersio φ

~~12 nature humane] tr. γ Β 13 ab eo] a Deo γ~~

~~14 nature humane] tr. M O T 15 uersi] uersa δ | facti naturales] uide APPENDIX I, 7~~

5/7 et sqq. cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Postquam autem dixit de natura Filii, de operatione ipsius supponit: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Omnia, id est quicquid est siue in substantia siue in aliqua naturali proprietate. Ecce actor bonorum est Deus. Et sine ipso factum est nichil, quia non est ab eo quod non est naturaliter sed est peruersio nature, ut malum uel idolum.” 7/9 INTERL. ad 1, 3: “Omnia per ipsum. Omnis creatura uisibilis et inuisibilis, omnis forma, omnis compago, omnis concordia partium.” 9 MARG. ad 1, 3: “Non est creatura per quem omnis creatura facta est.”

3/4 cfr P. LOMBARDVS, Collectanea in epist. Pauli, ad Rom. 7, 24 (1431D) 11/3 cfr AVG., De ciu. Dei, lib. III, cap. I; P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. I, d. XXXVI, cap. III, n. I 16/8 cfr AVG., Enchiridion, cap. III; P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. II, d. XXXIV, cap. IV, n. II

~~XXIV~~

adni-/219vb/-chilat, id est a uero esse abducit et quasi ad nichilum deducit. Ydolum quoque dicitur nichil esse et certum est, quia materia ydoli aliquid est. Secundum Origenem dicitur nichil esse, id est in nulla rerum natura similitudinem habere. Appellat enim ydolum quod ex diuersorum animalium membris est compactum, ut si habeat caput caninum et pedes humanos et caudam arietinam. Vel 5 potius cum dicitur ydolum nichil esse intelligendum est de falsa illa cogitatione gentilium qua estimant ipsi statue preesse deitatem et ex statua et deitate esse quendam deum. Talis cogitatio reuera nichil est.* ECCE NON EST AVCTOR MALORVM. Hic dimitte. De hoc habes aliam glosam: MALVM NON EST FACTVM, et facit similiter propositionem affirmatiuam, sed interlinearis facit negatiuam: NVLLA 10 RES et cetera. Modo resume ultimam partem glose de supplemento: ALII DICVNT MIRACVLA et cetera. Et hic terminatur glosa supplementi, quia non erat necessarium ut amplius protenderetur, cum constet totum primum capitulum Iohannis supplementum esse nec aliquid quod ibi contineatur in aliquo aliorum inueniri. Et est primum capitulum usque ibi: Fuit homo. Expositores enim qui concordant euangelistas distingunt eos per capitula, nos autem de huismodi distinctionibus non 15 facimus mentionem. Prosequere: QVOD FACTVM EST. Hic est secunda clausula, quasi ‘audis omnia creata esse a Deo.’ Sed cum uniuersa creata uariabilia sint, caue ne cum Anthropomorphitis putes scientiam Dei

~~3 natura] substantia δ 6 ipsi statue] tr. γ | et2] ex add. φ 7 reuera nichil est] uide APPENDIX I, 8~~

~~8 habes] habemus φ D 1 a.c. 2 10 et cetera ] om. γ | ultimam] alteram γ | glose] om. γ | MIRACVLA] mirabile ε P | et cetera ] om. γ 11 necessarium] necesse γ~~

13 aliorum] librorum φ | capitulum] caput M O | enim] autem γ a.c. 17 uniuersa] omnia γ | creata] a Deo add. γ | Anthropomorphitis] emendaui, Antropomolpheo T Z (-phitis alia manu p.c. a.c. s.l. add. Z ), Antropomorpheus A (Antropolomorpheus A ), Antropomalpheo B, Antropomorpheo δ a.c. (Antromorpheo P ), Antrophomorpheo IN, Alpheo M, Antroporuorpheo O

8 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Ecce non est auctor malorum.” 8/9 MARG. ad 1, 3: “Malum non est factum per ipsum, nec idolum, quia nichil sunt, nulla sua natura subsistunt.” 9/10 INTERL. ad 1, 3: “Factum est nichil. Nulla res subsistens sine ipso facta est.” 10 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Alii inter homines’: “Alii dicunt miracula que fecit homo in mundo, Iesus per ipsum omnia facta testatur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ecce auctor bonorum: Et sine ipso factum est nichil. Ecce non est auctor malorum.”

1 cfr PS. 14, 4; P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. III, d. XXXVII, cap. II, n. II 1/6 I COR. 8, 4; P. LOMBARDVS, Collectanea in epist. Pauli, ad I Cor. 8, 4 (1602C-D) 2/4 cfr P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. III, d. XXXVII, cap. I, n II (ex GO Exod. 20, 3-4, ex ORIGENES, Quaest. in Heptat., q. 71, n. 3)

~~XXV~~

~~siue dispositionem uariabilem esse, quia omne quod factum est erat in ipso uita, id est uiuens, id est in 1, 4~~

~~eius dispositione immutabiliter permanens. Mentitus est ergo Anthropomorphita qui dogmatizauit~~

Deum in deitate habere lineamenta corporis et motus animi uarios sicut membrorum uarietatem, ut modo inclinaretur uoluntas Dei ad hoc, modo ad contrarium. Si enim omne quod factum est /220ra/ 5 antequam foret immobiliter fuit in notitia Dei, ergo scientia Dei fuit immutabilis. Per idipsum arguitur Plato dogmatizans creaturam aliquam coeternam creatori, scilicet materiam. Si enim omne quod factum est immutabiliter mansit in mente Dei antequam fieret, ergo nulla creatura factori suo coeterna est. Sume glosam ubi dimisisti: SED NE QVIA ISTA FACTA MVTABILIA SVNT … QVOD FACTVM EST 10 IN TEMPORE et cetera, id est ipsa scientia Dei immutabilis est. ARCHA IN MENTE, id est scientia faciende arche. VT EX EA, scilicet scientia faciendi archam. ALIA, manualis siue actualis. POSSIT FIERI

~~ALIA, actuali, PRIVS FACTA ⟨PEREVNTE⟩ tempore … DICTO. Hic dimitte et lege aliam de eodem: SI~~

AVDIS et cetera. Et nota quia finis, ubi dicitur QVOD IN SAPIENTIA, facit ‘uita’ ablatiuum casum, acsi diceretur: ‘quod factum est in ipso uita, id est in ipso sapientia, erat, id est immutabiliter existebat.’ Et est 15 summa: ipse qui est uita, qui est sapientia, immutabiliter existebat. De hac habes interlinearem:

1 uariabilem esse] tr. γ | erat in ipso uita] in ipso uita erat φ | id est2] om. φ Β a.c. a.m. 2 Mentitus est] mentitur γ | Anthropomorphita] emendaui, Antropomolpheus T Z (-phita s.l. add. Z ), p.c. a.c. Antropomorpheus φ A I P (Antropolopheus A ), Antropomalpheus B, Antroposmorpheus D, Antimopheus M a.c. 3 lineamenta] liniamenta B T 4 inclinaretur uoluntas Dei] Dei uoluntas inclinaretur φ 6 immutabilis] quia add. φ | creturam aliquam] antiquam creaturam φ (ante corr. N ) 8 coeterna est] tr. γ

~~9 NE QVIA] neque δ (ante corr. P ) T~~

~~11 faciende arche] faciendi archam γ Ι | POSSIT FIERI] post fac. δ ε Μ, post fi. B, prius fac I 12 actuali] actualis γ | PEREVNTE] ex Glosa suppleui | tempore] opere B~~

~~13 et] om. β M O | finis] om. φ | SAPIENTIA] factum add. φ Ι | facit uita] tr. φ Ι | ablatiuum casum] ablatiui casus φ~~

~~15 hac] hoc γ | habes] habemus D N, hanc add. φ~~

9/12 cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Sed ne, quia ista facta mutabilia sunt, ipsa uoluntas, ratio, et sapientia Dei uideretur mutabilis, addit: Quod factum est in tempore, et est mutabile. Erat uiuens et permanens in ipso, ut archa facta in opere mutatur et perit, archa in mente artificis permanet ita ut ex ea alia et alia possit fieri, illa prius facta pereunte, et ita constat quod creatura non est coeterna creatori, sed ars et ratio et sapientia ex qua fit, coeterna est Deo. Dicto que sit natura Verbi…” 12/3 MARG. ad 1, 3: “Si audis mutabilem creaturam per Filium factam, non tamen credas eius mutabilem uoluntatem… Quod factum est in tempore transit; quod in sapientia inmutabili est transire non potest.”

XXIV, 17 - 6 cfr GREG., Moralia, lib. XXXII, p. V; ISID., Etymol., lib. VIII, cap. V, n. XXXII; P. COMESTOR, Historia Genesis, cap. 51, add. 1 (1099B) 6/7 cfr PLATO (sec. trans. CALCIDII), Timaeus, pars I, 32C

~~XXVI~~

VITA, ID EST SAPIENTIA DEI, et de prima aliam: IN SPIRITVALI et cetera.* Nota quia ex hoc euangelio precipue confutantur heretici, sed unde arguuntur inde arguere nituntur. Insurgebant ergo heretici dicentes: ‘In precedenti mentio est de Patre ubi dictum est: In principio erat Verbum, id est in Patre, et de Filio ubi dicitur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Nusquam autem 5 de Spiritu sancto. Ergo Spiritus sanctus est creatura.’ Item: ‘Cum omnia facta sint per Filium, ergo Spiritus sanctus, et ita creatura est.’ Propter huiusmodi molestias obiectionum coacti sunt Ambrosius et Iohannes Damascenus ita distinguere: Et sine ipso factum est nichil quod factum est, et ita nulla est obiectio de Spiritu sancto, quia factus non est.* Prosequere: ET VITA ERAT LVX HOMINVM. Postquam premisit de operatione 10 uniuersitatis, subdit de operatione ante aduentum, id est ostendit quid operatus sit Deus in homine ante aduentum in carne: dedit scilicet homini lucem rationis ut ea duce posset uenire ad notitiam sui creatoris. Ductu enim naturalis rationis, ut ait apostolus, per uisibilia potuerunt comprehendere inuisibilia et comprehendere unum Deum: Sed quia non probauerunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum. Interlinearis continuat litteram: ET HEC VITA. Coninuatio est ex ‘uita’ 15 ablatiuo, non ex nominatiuo, id est Dei sapientia quantum in se erat. ERAT LVX HOMINVM. Supple ‘ante aduentum in carne,’ nondum enim descendit ad opera recreationis, id est ante aduentum dedit eis unde poterant illuminari nisi staret in eis, quia ductu

~~a.c. 1 DEI] dicitur add. M O | prima] in qua uita est nominata add. φ | IN SPIRITVALI et cetera] uide APPENDIX I, 9~~

~~3 heretici] om. φ | ubi] ut B M~~

~~4 id est in Patre] om. I N | sunt] id est per Filium add. φ | nusquam] numquam I M~~

~~5 sint] sunt M N~~

~~7/8 nulla est obiectio] nulla obiectio est M O 8 quia] qui φ | factus non est] uide APPENDIX I, 10 1,2 1,2 9/10 operatione ] opere γ, opere – operatione Ι~~

~~10/1 id est ostendit – ante aduentum] om. O Z (ob homoioteleuton) 11 carne] carnem φ~~

~~13 in notitia] in notitiam ε φ B P, innocentiam D 14 Deus] om. φ 15 id est] scilicet δ~~

~~1 INTERLS. ad 1, 4: “Et uita. Et hec uita, id est sapientia Dei”; “In ipso. In spirituali factoris ratione semper uiuit et uixit.”~~

7/9 Ambrosius] AMBR, De fide, lib. III, cap. VI, n. 41-3; cfr IDEM, Enarr. in Ps., 36, n. 1 | Damascenus] immo IOH. CHRYSOST., Homil. in Ioh., hom. V, n. 1-2 (53-4); cfr APPENDIX I, 10 10/3 cfr. RVP. TIVTIENSIS, Comm. in euang. S. Ioh., I, 5, 310-21; P. LOMBARDVS, Collectanea in epist. Pauli, ad Rom. I, 18 (1326) 12/3 cfr ROM. 1, 18-20; HEB. 11, 3 13/4 ROM. 1, 28

~~XXVII~~

~~naturalis /220rb/ rationis poterant comprehendere unum Deum ante tempus incarnationis. Et uide~~

~~quia per hoc quod specialiter dicitur ‘lux hominum,’ arguuntur quidam heretici dicentes omnia esse~~

~~animata. Et forte originem habuit hec opinio a phisicis qui dixerunt mundum esse animal et animam~~

~~habere. Ex eo autem in hunc errorem inducti sunt, quia in sacra scriptura frequenter sermo dirigitur~~

~~5 ad huiusmodi inanimata quasi essent animata, ut ibi: Audite celi et auribus percipe terra. Et in euangelio~~

~~legitur: Imperat uentis et mari et obediunt ei. Per hoc etiam arguitur generalis error omnium gentilium,~~

~~scilicet ydolatria, quia omnibus dedit naturalem rationem cuius ductu poterant comprehendere unum~~

~~Deum.~~

~~Sume glosam ubi dimisisti: DICTO QVE SIT NATVRA VERBI et cetera, QVID FACIAT HVMANE~~

~~10 RATIONALI CREATVRE. Supple ‘ante aduentum.’ Et nota quod dicitur ‘humane,’ quia rationalis~~

~~creatura diuiditur in angelicam et humanam, sed non ostendit hic quid faciat angelice creature.~~

~~HOMINVM, id est rationalium, non inanimatorum.~~

~~IN TENEBRIS, id est in tenebrosis, id est inter tenebrosos. 1, 5-6~~

~~Prosequere: FVIT HOMO et cetera. Postquam premisit de operatione ante aduentum, subdit~~

15 de operatione in ipso aduentu agens de humanitate et primo de humanitate precursoris. Et est duplex continuatio, quia glosa quam dimisisti continuat directe: VT AVTEM TENEBRE POSSENT COMPREHENDERE, PREMISSVS EST HOMO et cetera. Et ita continuat secundum ordinem littere: IN LAC. Vide quia eodem cibo uescitur mater et paruulus, sed quia paruulus non potest uesci solido

~~a.c. p.c. 1 poterant comprehendere unum Deum] poterant Deum comprehendere unum N O 2 uide] inde φ~~

~~3 originem habuit hec opinio] Origenes habuit hanc opinionem δ 3/4 esse animal] tr. δ I Z~~

~~5 sermo] Dei add. γ | dirigitur] post inanimata γ | essent] esset B T~~

~~9 et cetera] om. M N 11 hic] om. γ~~

~~12 rationalium] rationabilium γ ψ | inanimatorum] animatorum β, non add. φ~~

~~13 tenebrosos] VT AVTEM. Hic dimitte add. φ | id est inter tenebrosis] om. B D 15 agens] agit δ~~

9/10 et sqq. cont. MARG. ad 1, 1 ‘Contra eos’: “Dicto que sit natura Verbi, que etiam est eius operatio, supponit quid faciat humane rationali creature… Vt autem et ipse tenebre possent comprehendere, premissus est homo in testimonium huius lucis. Et ipsa lux, id est Verbum factum est caro, quasi mutatus in lac propter paruulos.”

2/3 GO Mc. marg. ad 4, 39, ‘Nota quod omnis creatura’; cfr P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 55 (1567A) 3/4 cfr PLATO, Timaeus (sec. trans. CALCIDII), I, 30B-D; AVG., Retract., lib. I, cap. XI; P. ABAELARDVS, Theol. Christiana, lib. I, cap. XCV; GVILL. DE CONCHIS, Glosae super Platonem, lib. I, cap. XCIV 5/6 ISA. 1, 2 6 LC. 8, 25

~~XXVIII~~

cibo ideo mater solido cibo uescitur et in lac uertitur; uersus in lac paruulo propinatur. Sic solidus cibus angelorum Dei Filio humanato mutatus est in lac paruulorum, ut inde lac sugeret paruulus unde forti cibo pascebatur angelus. Aliam habes glosam de continuatione capituli, nec continuat directe secundum ordinem 5 littere, immo transeundo et postea retrograde procedendo in hunc modum: ‘ut tenebre comprehenderent lucem, in propria uenit Dei Filius,’ id est in humana natura. Sed antequam ueniret, premissus est precursor, de quo subditur: Fuit homo et cetera. Et hoc nota in glosa: MOX AD HVMILITATEM HVMANE NATVRE. Et supple ‘Verbi.’ DESCENDIT ET SPECIALITER, id est in primo, antequam scilicet descendit ad humanitatem Verbi descendit ad humilitatem humane nature 10 precursoris Domini. CONTRA ILLOS, scilicet quosdam hereticos dicentes naturam humanam non posse reparari.

~~1 ideo] om. γ | mater] pro eo add. γ | cibo] om. φ | uertitur] et add. γ~~

~~2 sugeret T ] suggeret β γ ψ P, suggerit D | paruulus] homo γ~~

~~4 habes] habemus φ D | habes glosam] tr. φ~~

~~6 comprehenderent lucem] tr. I M~~

~~7 premissus est precursor] precursor premissus est I M | et cetera] om. γ~~

8 Verbi] Iohannes que sicit incipit POSTQVAM add. φ | in] om. M Z 8/10 et supple – humane nature] om. P T (ob homoioteleuton) 9 scilicet] om. φ I 10/1 naturam humanam] tr. φ B 11 reparari] operari B, separari M

7/10 MARG. ad 1, 6 ‘Postquam sublimi’: “Mox ad humilitatem humane nature et specialiter precursoris Verbi descendit, contra illos qui dicebant humanam naturam in primo parente ex toto perditam et ad nichilum redactam.”

~~1/3 cfr I COR. 3, 2; PS. 77, 25; AVG., Enarrat. in Ps., Ps. 119, 2; P. LOMBARDVS, Mag. glosatura in Ps., Ps. 77, 29 (732); 30, 6 (302C-D)~~

~~XXIX~~

~~FVIT HOMO et cetera. Hic incipit secundum capitulum. Et nota quia sicut supra distinxit quinque 1, 6~~

~~Ambrosius in prologo quem facit communem quatuor euangelistis, ita et in hoc capitulo distinguit~~

~~quinque: tria determinata /220va/ ab ipso euanglista, duo a Iohanne baptista. Nam ipse euangelista~~

~~ostendit ubi erat, quo uenit, quomodo uenit. Iohannes baptista determinat quando uenit et ad quid~~

~~5 uenit. Vbi erat ostendit dicens: In mundo erat. Quo uenit ubi ait: In propria. Quomodo uenit ubi ait:~~

~~Verbum caro factum est. Iohannes baptista determinat quando uenit dicens: Qui post me uenit. Ad quid~~

~~uenit ubi ait: Baptizabit uos in spiritu et igne.~~

~~CVI NOMEN. Interlinearis: APVD … RESERVATVM, id est a Deo ante secula prescitum uel ab~~

~~angelo predictum.~~

~~10 HIC VENIT. Nota quia per hoc quod dictum est, ‘missus,’ notatur gratia. Per hoc quod 1, 7~~

~~dictum est, ‘uenit,’ notatur liberum arbitrium.~~

~~DE LVMINE. Ecce supra agens de deitate appellauit Filium Dei ‘uerbum,’ ‘lucem,’ sed~~

~~accedens ad humanitatem appellat ‘lumen,’ quia lumen proprie dicitur lux in testa, id est Verbum Dei~~

~~in humana natura.* Glosa: IAM NOMEN VERBI MVTAVIT IN LVMEN.~~

~~15 CREDERENT. Interlinearis: LVMEN CHRISTVM. Ita distingue Christum esse lumen, id est~~

~~Deum hominem.~~

~~ERAT LVX VERA et cetera. Egit Iohannes de deitate Verbi quam alii pretermiserant. Postea 1, 9~~

~~descendit ad humanitatem premittens de humanitate precursoris, quam etsi alii descripserant tamen~~

~~non adeo plene. Sic itaque plenius agit de Christo quam alii. Sic enim plene de Christo agitur si~~

XXVIII, 7 - 1 glosa: MOX – HOMO et cetera] om. δ (ob homoioteleuton) | et cetera] om. φ 2 facit] fecit γ I 5/6 ubi ait] om. φ 1 7 uenit ] om. γ B | baptizabit] baptizat φ | Spiritu] sancto add. φ 8 NOMEN] tamen φ | RESERVATVM] seruatum φ 10 dictum est] dicitur φ p.c. a.c. 12 uerbum lucem] uerbum lucens N (lumen lucis N ), uerbum lumen lucens O

~~14 in humana natura] uide APPENDIX I, 11 | NOMEN] natura A I M | IAM NOMEN VERBI MVTAVIT IN LVMEN] iam nomen uerbis in lumen φ 15 CREDERENT] credunt φ~~

~~18 premittens] pretermittens B T | descripserant] non pretermiserant φ (post corr. N ) 19 alii] alius φ, om. ψ (ante corr. Z)~~

~~8 INTERL. ad 1, 6: “Cui nomen. Apud Deum reseruatum.” 14 MARG. ad 1, 7. 15 INTERL. ad 1, 7.~~

1 sicut supra] scil. PROTH. 3, VII, 11-6 3/7 AMBR., Expos. euang. sec. Luc., lib. II, n. XL, 562-7 7 LC. 3, 16 10/1 cfr GO Io. interls. ad 1, 6-7, ‘Iohannes, id est gratia’; ‘Sponte, libera uoluntate’ 13 cfr GO Lc. marg. ad 15, 8, ‘Mulier, id est sapientia’

~~XXX~~

utraque eius natura plene describitur. Ideo autem agit de duabus naturis, ut instruat hominem de duobus, scilicet quo sit eundum et qua sit eundum. Christus enim est uia et uita, quia diuina eius natura uita est ad quam eundum, quia ad uitam eternam est transeundum. Natura eius humana uia est per quam eundum quia per fidem humanitatis ad uitam eternam itur, nec per aliam uiam ad uitam 5 eternam uenitur.* Commendans autem Christum secundum naturam diuinam dixit esse creatorem omnium, dixit esse lucem. Adhuc secundum naturam diuinam commendans dicit esse ubique, ibi: in mundo erat, ut in his tribus comprehendatur commendatio secundum naturam diuinam. Hic autem repetit quod prius dixerat, appellauerat enim Christum lucem et idem modo repetit dicens: Erat lux uera et cetera. Et est quasi antipophora quod subditur. Sed quare additum est ‘uera’? Ad differentiam 10 lucis non uere, quasi diceret glosator: /220vb/ ‘Ideo dictum est uera, quia non est uera lux’ et cetera. QVE ILLVMINAT OMNEM HOMINEM VENIENTEM IN HVNC MVNDVM, id est omnem hominem nascentem, sic enim uenit homo in mundum cum nascendo prodit in lucem; id est aliquos de omnibus, quia interdum uniuersalis redundat in fere uniuersalem. De hac sententia non habes nisi modicam interlinearem: VT IPSVM IOHANNEM, id est illuminat omnem, id est aliquos de 15 omnibus ut ipsum Iohannem. Aliter: VENIENTEM IN HVNC MVNDVM, id est in cecitatem mundi, non quia mundus cecus est sed quia cecos facit. Illuminat ergo omnem hominem uenuientem in hunc mundum, id est

~~2 diuina eius] tr. D T 3 quam] est add. γ (post corr. N ) | eius] om. φ 4 quam] est add. φ 5 uitam eternam uenitur] uide APPENDIX I, 12 | naturam diuinam] tr. φ~~

6 naturam diuinam] tr. γ I | dicit] dixit φ, dicit et I, dicet M Z 7 comprehendatur] comprehenditur φ 8 naturam diuinam] tr. φ | Christum] esse add. φ 10 glosator] glosa interlinearis: VERA φ | uera2] om. φ | non est] tr. φ 11 IN ] et φ (ante corr. N ) 12 hominem] om. φ | in mundum] immundus B 13 aliquos] alios B | omnibus] hominibus φ | interdum] aliquando B 14 habes] habemus φ D 15 omnibus] hominibus φ

~~16 cecitatem] cecitate I O | quia] qua δ A I T a.c. a.c. p.c. 17 quia] qua δ Α T, om. O I (que I )~~

~~10/1 INTERL. ad 1, 9: “Vera. Quia non est uera lux, scilicet que non ex se sed aliunde lucet.” 15 INTERL. ad 1, 9~~

~~XXXI~~

~~nemo in huiusmodi tenebras cadens illuminatur nisi per eum. Et est tropus locutionis. Glosa: NON~~

~~QVOD OMNEM. Postea illam, id est QVI A DEO. Aliter, ut nomine hominis intelligatur ratio, nomine~~

~~mundi superior eius portio que proprie mundus dicitur a sui munditia. Mundus enim a munditia dicitur. Vnde pars illa superior a luna sursum proprie mundus dicitur a quadam sui munditia et~~

~~5 puritate. ILLVMINAT ergo OMNEM HOMINEM, id est omnem rationem que proprie homo dicitur,~~

~~quia per eam similis est homo Deo.~~

~~VENIENTEM IN HVNC MVNDVM, id est in hanc sui munditiam, id est ascendentem in~~

~~superiorem sui partem que tantum Deum contemplatur. Glosa: OMNIS HOMO EST ILLA NATVRA ET~~

~~QVODAMMODO EXTRA HOMINEM, quia faciunt Deo dissimilem. QVIA QVORVM VITA ET~~

~~10 CONVERSATIO IN CELIS EST, id est in celestibus, QVASI IN ALIO MVNDO SVNT, scilicet in mundo~~

~~superiori.~~

~~IN MVNDO ERAT. Adhuc commendat Christum secundum naturam diuinam dicens esse 1, 10~~

~~ubique. Interlinearis continuat: ET HEC LVX, scilicet Christus antequam ueniret in carnem, erat in~~

mundo. Interlinearis: PRESENTIA DEITATIS, secundum quam ubique est. NON VT PARS EIVS, SED VT 15 FACTOR OMNIBVS CREATVRIS INFVSVS, quia in omnibus est per essentiam, per potentiam, per gubernationem.* ET MVNDVS EVM NON COGNOVIT, id est creatura mundi, scilicet homo. Sed caue ne indefinitam facias redundare in uniuersalem, acsi diceretur: ‘nulla creatura mundi /221ra/ eum

~~2 OMNEM] omne δ I | id est] om. φ Β | QVI] quia γ Α~~

~~4 mundus dicitur] tr. I M 4/5 Mundus enim – sui munditia] om. φ (ob homoiototeleuton) 5 omnem2] om. γ 6 similis est homo] est homo similis γ~~

~~7 ascendentem] ascendere B 8 contemplatur] contempletur δ M O~~

~~9 EXTRA HOMINEM] extraho M O | dissimilem] similes B 1 a.c. a.c. 10 EST ] om. δ | MVNDO] modo N O | scilicet] id est γ 12 naturam diuinam] tr. γ 15/6 per gubernationem] uide APPENDIX I, 13~~

2 INTERLS. ad 1, 9: “Que illuminat omnem. Non quod omnem, sed quia sine eo nullus illuminatur.”; “Venientem, id est qui a Deo recedens et cadens in mundum cecatus est. Alioquin non indigeret illuminari.” 9/11 MARG. ad 1, 9: “Omnis homo dicitur illa natura in homine que ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei facta est. Alia omnia que sunt in homine inferiores sunt partes hominis et quodammodo extra hominem sunt in illa superiori uelut in quodam mundo superiori. Vera lux lucet, et in mundum illum uenientes per gratiam renascentes illuminat, quia quorum uita et conuersatio in celis est, quasi in alio mundo sunt.” 13 INTERL. ad 1, 10. 14/5 INTERL. ad 1, 10: “In mundo erat. Presentia deitatis non ut pars eius, sed ut factor omnibus creaturis infusus regens quas fecit.”

~~XXX, 17 - 1 cfr GO Io. interl. ad 1, 9: “Venientem, qui a Deo recedens et cadens in mundum cecatus est. Alioquin non indigeret illuminari.”~~

~~XXXII~~

~~cognouit.’ Glosa: NON QVOD CREATVRA, id est non quod nulla creatura, SED HOMO, aliquis, PRIVS~~

~~MVNDVS IPSA CREATVRA DICEBATVR, id est ipse mundus creatus a Deo, id est machina ista sensilis.~~

~~Iam enim habuisti tres acceptiones huius uocabuli ‘mundus.’ Nam in precedentibus ratio dicta est~~

~~mundus, ibi: Venientem in hunc mundum. Etiam machina ista sensilis dicta est mundus, ibi: In mundo~~

~~5 erat. Hic autem nomine mundi intelligitur homo.* Aliter, MVNDVS EVM NON COGNOVIT, id est~~

~~dilectores mundi. Forte cognouerunt per notitiam, sed non per dilectionem que est ualidior cognitio~~

~~quam per comprehensionem. Aliter, MVNDVS EVM NON COGNOVIT, id est nulla creatura mundi,~~

~~ut sit uniuersalis. Glosa: QVIA OMNEM.~~

~~IN PROPRIA. Ecce postquam egit de deitate Christi et premisit de humanitate precursoris, 1, 11~~

~~10 agit de humanitate mediatoris. IN PROPRIA, id est in res proprias. Interlinearis: ID EST MVNDVM QVI~~

SVVS EST, quia Domini est terra et plenitudo eius. Et est sensus: in mundum uenit, id est qui inuisibilis erat mundo uisibilis apparuit. Aliter, ut ‘propria’ sit ablatiui casus et sit sensus: IN PROPRIA VENIT, id est in propria natura mundi uisibilis apparuit, id est in natura humana que est propria natura mundi, quia natura diuina non est natura mundi. Glosa: ID EST IN HVMANA NATVRA.* 15 ET SVI. Omnes homines sui sunt, sed specialiter Iudei de quibus secundum carnem natus est, quibus legem dedit, ad quos specialiter missus est. Et non est intelligendum generaliter, quia aliqui de Iudeis eum receperunt, scilicet apostoli. Glosa: ID EST QVICVMQVE HOMINES. Et caue ne

~~1 nulla] ulla I M a.c. 2 IPSA CREATVRA DICEBATVR] creatura dei γ | sensilis] sensibilis β D M O 3 habuisti] habemus φ, accepistis B 3/4 dicta est mundus] est dicta mundus φ~~

~~4 sensilis] sensibilis B D M, sensiliter T | uenientem – mundus ibi] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) 5 intelligitur homo] uide APPENDIX I, 14~~

~~6 id est] om. I M | dilectores] amatores γ 7 comprehensionem] notitiam φ~~

~~8 OMNEM] omne I M~~

10 in] inter M O | interlinearis] om. δ | MVNDVM] mundus β ε 11 EST1] om. MO | eius] et cetera add. γ 12 inuisibilis erat] est inuisibilis M, est et erat inuisibilis O 12/3 Aliter – apparuit] om. δ I (ob homoioteleuton)

~~13/4 uisibilis – mundi] om. γ Z (ob homoioteleuton)~~

~~14 ID EST] om. β D | HVMANA] mundana α I M | IN HVMANA NATVRA] uide APPENDIX I, 15 15 SVI ] omnes δ~~

~~17 ID EST] om. I M | HOMINES] om. γ~~

1/2 MARG. ad 1, 10: “Non quod creatura non cognouit, sed homo qui in mundum mente amando descendit. Prius mundus ipsa creatura dicebatur.” 8 MARG. ad 1, 10: “Quia omnem intellectum et sensum diuina lux excedit.” 10/1 INTERL. ad 1, 11, ‘In propria.’ 14 ibid. 17 MARG. ad 1, 11: “Et sui, id est quicumque homines, presertim Iudei, eius cognati, quos omnibus pretulit.”

~~6 cfr GO Io. interl. ad 1, 10, ‘Mundus. Dilectores mundi’ 11 PS. 23, 1~~

~~XXXIII~~

~~intelligas ‘quicumque homines non receperunt eum,’ quia tantum est glosa eius quod dictum est,~~

~~SVI, quasi sui sunt quicumque homines.* Post hanc illam: NON QVOD NVLLI, QVIA ALIQVI. Post~~

~~hanc illam: AB INITIO.~~

~~/221rb/ DEDIT EIS POTESTATEM, ut hic fiat distinctio, scilicet dedit eis FILIOS DEI FIERI, 1, 12~~

~~5 quod nisi ita distingueres non constaret. Nemini enim dat Deus hanc potestatem ut faciat se filium~~

~~Dei, sed dat homini ut sit filius Dei, que est maxima potestas. Glosa: VT SINT … COHEREDES. Post~~

hanc illam: MIRABILIS POTESTAS.*

~~QVI CREDVNT IN NOMINE EIVS, id est qui credunt illa duo que exprimit nomen eius,~~

~~scilicet Iesus Christus, id est qui credunt deitatem eius et humanitatem. Quia hoc nomen Iesus~~

~~10 deitatem exprimit, interpretatur enim saluator et ex uirtute deitatis saluat. Hoc nomen Christus~~

~~exprimit humanitatem secundum quam est unctus, id est plenitudine carismatum Spiritus sancti~~

~~repletus. Vel hoc nomen Christus potest notare hec duo, ut in hoc nomine intelligatur natura diuina~~

~~ex cuius uirtute ungit et natura humana in qua ungitur.~~

~~QVI NON EX SANGVINIBVS. Glosa: QVO AVTEM ORDINE. Vide quia minus analogice 1, 13~~

~~15 dictum est, tamen pluraliter dictum est ‘ex sanguinibus,’* id est ex duobus seminibus, scilicet patris et~~

~~matris. Et quod sequitur est quasi expositio huius, id est NEQVE EX VOLVNTATE CARNIS, id est~~

~~ex semine mulieris, NEQVE EX VOLVNTATE VIRI, id est neque ex semine uiri, SED EX DEO~~

1 tantum est glosa eius quod] propter hoc φ 2 quicumque homines] uide APPENDIX I, 16 2/3 post hanc illam] om. φ 4 EIS POTESTATEM] si post habes illam φ | ut] om. φ | scilicet] om. φ 5 distingueres] distingues γ (ante corr. N ) | constaret] staret γ 7 MIRABILIS POTESTAS] uide APPENDIX I, 17 8 illa] de add. φ (post corr. O) | duo] deo φ (ante corr. N ) 9 id est] om. γ (ante corr. N ) | humanitatem] eius add. φ 10 interpretatur enim] inde enim tempore M, interpretur enim N, in tempore enim O 11 Spiritus sancti] spiritu sancto φ 12 Vel] sed φ (ante corr. N ) I | natura diuina] tr. γ 13 ungit] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | natura humana] tr. φ 14 QVO AVTEM] quodam α I | uide] inde φ (ante corr. N )

~~15 tamen] inde M O | ex sanguinibus] uide APPENDIX I, 18~~

~~16 est] om. N T~~

2 INTERL. ad 1, 11: “Sui. Non quod nulli, quia aliqui et quotquot eum receperunt.” 3 MARG. ad 1, 11: “Ab initio mundi nullum tempus erat in quo receptores diuini Verbi non essent. Vnde addit: Quotquot autem receperunt.” 6/7 MARG. ad 1, 12: “Vt sint fratres eius et coheredes per gratiam, sicut ipse Filius unigenitus per naturam, ut iam non fit solus.” 7 ibid.: “Mirabilis potestas est, ut qui filii diaboli erant, filii Dei et fratres Christi per eum liberati dicantur.” 14 MARG. ad 1, 13: “Quo autem ordine filii Dei fiant, et quomodo hec generatio distet a carnali, subdit: Qui non ex sanguinibus.”

~~9/11 cfr HIER., Nom. hebr., 136, 24; 142, 17; GAVD. BABION, Enarrat. in euang. Mat., cap. I (1228C)~~

~~XXXIV~~

~~NATI SVNT. Et est summa quia non est carnalis natiuitas qua ex Deo nascuntur sed spiritualis. Bene~~

a autem nomine carnis intelligitur mulier, quia sicut /221v / caro a spiritu regitur, sic mulier a uiro. De hoc habes interlinearem: FEMINE QVE CARO ADE REGITVR. Cui respondet illa: VIR DICITVR SPIRITVS

~~QVI REGIT, et intellige alibi. Non enim nomine uiri hic intelligitur spiritus, quia nichil esset dicere 5 ‘neque ex uoluntate spiritus nati sunt.’~~

~~ET VERBVM, quasi non est mirum si homo ex Deo, quia Deus ex homine natus est.* Glosa: 1, 14~~

~~VT AVTEM SECVRE. Post hanc illam: SI DEVS EST HOMO FACTVS.~~

ET HABITAVIT IN NOBIS, id est naturam humanam quasi habitum quendam assumens, ut mortalium oculis congruentius appareret, factus est quasi unus ex nobis. Et adhuc amplius potes 10 notare in uerbo ‘habitus,’ scilicet quod naturam humanam assumpsit inseparabiliter. Habitus enim est qualitas difficile mobilis. ET VIDIMVS. Interlinearis continuat: ET PER HOC SANATI, id est per huius habitus assumptionem, NOS, specialiter, QVOS ELEGIT, ‘ego scilicet et alii apostoli,’ dicit Iohannes, ‘qui sumus ab eo electi in monte, VIDIMVS GLORIAM EIVS, id est gloriosa eius miracula que fecit in 15 humanitate, et sic per humanitatem intelleximus deitatem et postea aliis annuntiauimus quia nos sumus barba Aaron in quam descendit unguentum a capite et a barba in oram uestimenti.’

~~3 habes] habemus δ φ Ι | CARO ADE REGITVR] scripsi Glosam secutus, s.c.r. α I, s.o.r. B, om. γ 4 QVI REGIT] om. γ~~

5 neque] nec φ Β Ζ 6 si homo] filius δ | ex homine natus est] uide APPENDIX I, 19 9 est] om. φ | amplius] om. γ Ι | potes] om. δ 10 habitus1] habitum φ | scilicet] secundum δ φ | naturam humanam] tr. φ 11 est] om. γ 12 continuat] contenio autem M, continuatio O 12/3 huius habitus assumptionem] hunc habitum assumptorum B

~~13 specialiter] spiritualiter M T, om. φ (ante corr. N ) 14 ab eo] a Deo φ | eius2] om. γ~~

~~15 intelleximus] eius add. γ, intelligimus D I, intellige M O | deitatem] diuinitatem φ (post corr. O)~~

~~16 in quam] in qua A M O T, in quos δ | oram M T ] horam β δ φ ψ~~

3/4 INTERL. ad 1, 13: “Voluntate carnis, id est femine que caro Ade, et regitur.” 4 INTERL. ad 1, 13: “Voluntate uiri. Vir dicitur spiritus qui regit.” 7 MARG. ad 1, 13: “Vt autem secure credamus homines nasci ex Deo, subdit Deum nasci ex homine…” ; cfr ibid., ‘Homo Christus’: “Nec mirum si dicitur homo fieri Deus, cum dicitur Deus fieri homo.” 12 INTERL. ad 1, 14. 13 ibid.

6 cfr GO Io. interl. ad 1, 13, ‘Nati sunt. Homines ex Deo’ 8/9 P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. III, d. VI, cap. IV, n. I 9/10 cfr P. ABAELARDVS, Sic et Non, q. 81, n. 7-8 10/11 cfr e.g. P. ABAELARDVS, Dialectica, tract. I, vol. II, lib. III, 101-2 (ex ARISTOTELES, Praedicamenta, cap. 8, 9A, 4-13 [AL I. 1, 24]) 15/6 PS. 132, 2; cfr P. LOMBARDVS, Mag. glosatura in Ps., Ps. 132, 2 (1183B-1184A); ALAN. AB INSVLIS?, Lib. dist. (717D-718E)

~~XXXV~~

GLORIAM QVASI VNIGENITI A PATRE, id est gloriam reuera unigeniti a Patre. ET VIDIMVS EVM PLENVM GRATIE, id est carismatibus Spiritus sancti gratuito datis. ET PLENVM VERITATIS, id est ueracem in impletione olim facte promissionis. Olim enim promissum fuerat quod plenitudo diuinitatis in homine illo corporaliter habitaret et ei plenitudinem carismatum 5 infunderet. Et hec promissio in Christo impleta est. Glosa: HOMO CHRISTVS. Post hanc illam modicam que facit aliam sententiam: VEL GRATIE, quasi: Vidimus eum plenum gratie, uerum scilicet hominem, quia nonnisi secundum hominem fuit plenus gratia, et ueritatis, id est deitatis, quasi ‘uidimus eum uerum Deum.’

~~1 VNIGENITI A PATRE] om. γ 2 ET] om. φ (ante corr. N )~~

~~3 ueracem in impletione] uera esse inpletione I M, uerace impletione φ (ante corr. N ) | enim] om. φ (ante corr. N )~~

4 promissum fuerat] tr. γ | diuinitatis] deitatis γ | ei] ex M O, eo T | plenitudinem] plenitudine M O, a.c. plentunitudine N 6 GRATIE] secundum humanum add. φ a.c. 7 hominem fuit] quod fuit homo γ | gratia] gratie I N

5 MARG. ad 1, 14, ‘Homo Christus’: “… sicut olim promissum est et modo exhibitum, scilicet ut Deus sit in homine implens eum omni bono et per eum suos.” 6 INTERL. ad 1, 14: “Vel gratie, secundum humanitatem; ueritatis, secundum diuinitatem.”

~~4 COL. 2, 9~~

~~XXXVI~~

~~IOHANNES et cetera. Egit Iohannes de deitate Christi. Postea descendit ad humanitatem et ita Io. 1, 15~~

~~commendauit Christum secundum utramque naturam, partim secundum diuinam partim secundum~~

~~humanam, et perhibuit ei testimonium suum et aliorum apostolorum in utraque natura dicens:~~

~~Vidimus eum, ego scilicet et alii apostoli quibus credendum est, plenum gratie et ueritatis, id est uerum~~

~~5 Deum et uerum hominem. Sed quia in ore duum uel trium testium stat omne uerbum, ideo posito~~

~~testimonio suo ponit testimonia aliorum. Ponit autem primo testimonium Iohannis baptiste. Inferius~~

~~ponet testimonium Patris quod perhibuit ei in baptismo /221vb/ dicens: Hic est Filius meus dilectus.~~

~~Vtitur autem interscalari modo testimoniis Iohannis baptiste sua interserendo. Ponit enim primo~~

~~quoddam testimonium Iohannis baptiste dicens: IOHANNES PERHIBET et cetera, quasi ‘non~~

~~10 tantum nos apostoli perhibemus ei testimonium sed etiam Iohannes baptista.’ Postea statim redit ad~~

~~narrationem suam, ibi: ET DE PLENITVDINE, quod aperte notat illa glosa: EXPOSITO TESTIMONIO 1, 16~~

∴ et cetera.*

~~ET HOC EST TESTIMONIVM. Ecce interserto testimonio suo redit ad testimonia Iohannis 1, 19~~

~~baptiste, quasi quod premissum est est quoddam testimonium Iohannis baptiste.~~

15 QVI POST ME VENTVRVS EST et cetera. Et hoc est aliud testimonium Iohannis. Glosa: ET HOC ET CETERA SEQVENTIA TESTIMONIA IOHANNIS EXHIBITA SVNT POST BAPTIZATVM CHRISTVM. Ecce ex hac glosa innuitur quod precedens testimonium Iohannis, qui post me uenturus est et cetera, dictum sit ante Christum baptizatum. Hoc autem quod hic ponitur et sequentia post baptismum.

~~4 scilicet] om. γ p.c. 5 Deum – hominem] tr. γ | duum] duorum β N | testium] om. φ 6 primo] om. γ (ante corr. N )~~

7 ei] om. φ I, eum B M 8 interserendo] inserendo φ (ante corr. N ) | enim] autem δ, eum φ 9 primo quoddam testimonium] quoddam testimonium primo γ | PERHIBET] perhibuit φ 10 perhibemus ei testimonium] testimonium ei perhibemus γ | etiam] om. φ | statim] om. φ p.c. a.c. 11 narrationem] rationem B (argutionem B ) 11/2 EXPOSITO TESTIMONIO et cetera] uide APPENDIX I, 20; APPENDIX II, 4

~~13 interserto] intercepto B | testmonia] testimonium B M 14 quasi quod – baptiste] om. γ (ob homoioteleuton)~~

~~15/6 Glosa: ET HOC – BAPTIZATVM CHRISTVM] et hoc et cetera testmonia M, Glosa testi. N, om. O T~~

~~18 baptizatum] baptismum I M~~

11 MARG. ad 1, 16: “Exposito testimonio precursoris, redit euuangelista ad testmonium sue assertionis…” 16/7 MARG. ad 1, 19: “Et hoc et cetera testimonia sequentia exibita sunt post baptizatum Christum cum iam Iesus ueniret inuitare discipulos, quos Iohannes suis testimoniis ad eum mittit.”

~~5 MT. 18, 16 7/8 MT. 3, 17 8 cfr P. COMESTOR, Historia III Regum, cap. 28 (1373A)~~

~~XXXVII~~

~~Et quedam glose uidentur uelle quod precedens testimonium post baptismum dictum sit. Mihi,~~

~~inquit, uidetur facilis solutio si dicatur quod eadem testimonia bis dicta sint, et ante baptismum et~~

~~post baptismum.~~

~~IOHANNIS. Nota interlinearem: VT LVCERNE, de qua dictum est: Paraui lucernam Christo meo,~~

~~5 scilicet Iohannem qui fuit unica lucerna precedens Christum in primo aduentu. Helyas et Enoch~~

~~erunt due lucerne precedentes Christum in secundo, quia precedent aduentum iudicis. Ideo in~~

~~ecclesia in profestis diebus defertur unicus cereus ante diaconum, quando euangelium lecturus~~

~~procedit ad pulpitum, ad representandam unicam lucernam que in primo aduentu precessit~~

~~Christum. Sed quia in festiuis diebus agimus memoriam resurrectionis et ita secundi aduentus, ante~~

~~10 diaconum deferuntur duo cerei ad significandum quod Helyas et Enoch quasi gemine lucerne~~

~~Christum in secundo aduentu sunt precessuri. Alii uolunt per hoc quod deportantur duo cerei~~

~~representari quod discipuli a Christo ante faciem suam missi sunt ad predicandum bini et bini.~~

~~Nota illam glosam: ORDO VERBORVM et cetera. Et legenda est post directam prosecutionem~~

~~littere, quia construit litteram retrograde hoc modo: ET HOC EST TESTIMONIVM IOHANNIS, ET 1, 20~~

~~15 CONFESSVS EST ET NON NEGAVIT QVANDO MISERVNT et cetera. Et supplebis ‘uel,’ ut dicas:~~

VEL ORDO VERBORVM EST, quasi modo directe construxisti litteram. Vel ita potest constructio ordinari: Confessus est et non negauit quando miserunt ad eum et cetera. Postea resume ET, id est scilicet, CONFESSVS EST QVIA NON SVM EGO CHRISTVS ET NON NEGAVIT quod erat, scilicet se esse

1 testimonium] Iohannis add. φ 2 mihi inquit uidetur] sed γ | inquit] inquam B | facilis] est add. γ | sint] sunt γ 2 a.c. 3 baptismum ] om. γ I 4 qua] quo φ 5 scilicet] id est γ | unica lucerna] tr. γ 6 secundo] aduentu add. γ | iudicis] et add. φ a.c. 7 profestis] festis B O 8 representandam] significandum N, designandam O 12 ante faciem suam missi sunt] missi sunt ante faciem Domini φ, ante aduentum Domini missi sunt M | ad predicandum] om. φ (ante corr. N ) 13 Et] om. φ a.c. p.c. 14 construit] constituit γ (ante corr. N ) | retrograde] retrogradem M O (retrogradam O ) 16 construxisti] construxi φ, construisti D, constituisti M 18 scilicet] sed δ | QVIA NON SVM EGO] quia ego non sum γ Β | NEGAVIT] scilicet add. φ 19 se] om. δ

~~4 INTERL. ad 1, 19 13 MARG. ad 1, 19: “Ordo uerborum: Et confessus est, et non negauit, quando miserunt.”~~

~~4 PS. 131, 17 6/12 IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic., cap. 39C 12 cfr MT. 10, 1-5; MC. 6, 7; LC. 10, 1~~

~~XXXVIII~~

~~precursorem. Et uide quia primo eliminat magis communem opinionem. /222ra/ Omnes enim fere~~

~~putabant eum esse Christum, id est messiam in lege promissum. Ideo prius tollit hanc opinionem.~~

~~Alii putabant ipsum esse Helyam, alii Helyseum quem anthonomasice dicebant prophetam, quia~~

~~spiritus Helye fuit duplex in eo.~~

~~5 DIXERVNT ERGO IVDEI et cetera. Miserant ab Ierosolimis legisperitos et Leuitas ad 1, 22~~

~~Iohannem, ut scirent de eo quis esset. Et quesierunt ab eo utrum esset Christus siue Helyas siue~~

propheta, id est Helyseus qui communi nomine prophetarum appropriato sibi uocabulo censebatur. Forte non est eis iniunctum ut amplius quererent, sed ipsi uolentes amplius certiorari, licet non esset eis mandatum, progrediuntur querendo: QVIS ES, ne cum incertitudine redeamus? QVID DICIS DE 10 TE IPSO? Quasi dicerent: ‘Audiuimus te multa asserentem de Christo, sed nulla de teipso.’ Interlinearis: AVDIVIMVS. Vide quia glosa ex ipsa determinatione responsionis aggrauat questionem eorum. Per ‘quis’ reuera solet queri de substantia uel de proprio nomine. Et licet idem nomen sint ‘quis’ et ‘quid,’ tamen ‘quis’ solet referri ad propriam substantiam uel qualitatem propriam, ‘quid’ autem solet referri ad naturam. Querunt ergo quis es? id est ‘quo nomine appellaris?’ Quasi dicerent: 15 ‘Exprime nomen tuum nobis. Quid dicis de te ipso?’ id est ‘cuius nature dicis te esse?’ Sic itaque querunt de duobus, scilicet de nomine, de natura. Sed si mentem glose subtilius inspicias, adhuc de tertio querunt, scilicet de dignitate.*

1 primo] prius MN, post O | fere] om. γ (ante corr. N ) 2 messiam in lege promissum] messiam promissum in lege γ 5 et cetera] om. γ | miserant] miserunt γ Ι 6 ab eo] quis esset add. φ 7 sibi uocabulo] tr. γ Ι 8 certiorari] certificari B 9 cum incertitudine] in certitudine M, in certitudinem φ (ante corr. N ) | redeamus] reddamus γ 10 audiuimus te multa asserentem de Christo] audiuimus te de Christo multa asserentem φ

11 interlinearis] uel distinctione add. I M | determinatione] distinctione B 12 eorum] scilicet add. φ 14 autem] om. Ia.c.M 16 itaque] ita φ | querunt] queritur γ | de] om. φ 17 querunt] queritur φ | de dignitate] uide APPENDIX I, 21

~~11 INTERL. ad 1, 22: “Quid dicis de te ipso. Audiuimus de Christo te predicare, sed de te ipso nil manifestum asseris.”~~

~~12/4 cfr P. ABAELARDVS, Glossae super Porph., tract. de gen. (35, 33 - 36, 26)~~

~~XXXIX~~

Alioquin, sicut iam patebit, glosa nullius momenti est. Querunt itaque de tribus, scilicet de nomine, de natura, de dignitate, ut sit pondus in interrogatione eorum, acsi dicant: ‘Quis es? Cuius nature es? Cuiusmodi es? Quantum ad dignitatem?’ Et poterat respondere nomen proprium ‘Iohannes.’ Et naturam, ‘homo sum.’ Dignitatem, ‘filius summi sacerdotis sum.’ Nullum tamen 5 istorum trium respondet, sed hec omnia transcendit et in responsione eminentiam suam ostendit dicens: Ego sum uox Verbi. Et est pondus in uerbo, id est ita me habeo ad Christum sicut uox ad uerbum. Verbum dicitur, ut supra habuisti, et ipsum audibile quod auribus in-/222rb/-sonat et intellectus surgens ad uocis prolationem. Vox autem tria facit circa uerbum, sicut alibi magis expressum habemus. Precedit uerbum, 10 prius enim uocem meam audis quam conceptum mentis mee percipias. Interpretatur uerbum, id est manifestat. Etiam sine medio precedit uerbum. Quam cito enim uox insonat auribus, uerbum illabitur menti nullo mediante. Etiam inutilis est uox sine uerbo. Sic Iohannes precessit Christum nascendo, predicando, baptizando, moriendo, sed non resurgendo. Precessit etiam sine medio, quia nati sunt in eodem anno, quia inter Iohannem et Christum non fuit media lex uel prophete. 15 Manifestauit etiam Christum quia non solum de eo prophetauit, uerum etiam, ut tradunt, indice digito demonstrauit. In hoc ergo quod dicit se uocem Verbi, eminentiam suam exprimit. In eo enim quod Christum sine medio precessit, quod presentem digito demonstrauit, preminet hominibus et angelis. Nulli enim angelorum uel hominum hoc datum est.

~~2 de natura, de dignitate] de dignitate, de materia γ (ante corr. N ) 3 nomen proprium] tr. γ~~

~~5 istorum] horum φ | hec] om. D M | eminentiam suam] tr. γ 5/6 ostendit dicens] demonstrans cum ait B~~

~~9 habemus] habes ψ I M P a.c. 11 sine] si in δ (ante corr. P ) T Z 12 inutilis] sutilis M, subtilis Z 14 etiam] autem φ 16 se] esse add. φ | enim] scilicet γ 17 quod] quem φ~~

1/2 cfr. GO Io. marg. ad 1, 23, ‘Non dicit’ 7/8 cfr HVGO DE S. VIC., De Sacramentis, lib. I, pars III, cap. XX 7/9 supra habuisti – alibi] scil. supra, XVIII, 1-12 9/12 cfr AVG., Sermones ad populum, sermo 288 (1305-6) 12/3 cfr P. ABAELARDVS, Sententie magist. P. Abael., sent. 55; BEDA, Homil. euang., lib. II, hom. XXIII, 174-82; RVP. TIVTIENSIS, Comm. in euang. S. Ioh., I, 7, 415-9; GREG., Homil. in euang., lib. I, hom. VII, n. III 14/5 cfr ANON., De ortu et obitu patriarch., cap. 39.1 (41, 16-9); ANSELM. LAVD, Glosae, 1, 21 (395-7) 16/8 cfr AVG., In Ioh. euang. Tract., tract. 13,

~~n. 2 & tract. 4, n. 1;~~

~~Glosa: NON DICIT, acsi dicat Augustinus: ‘Querentibus illa tria poterat singula respondere et,~~

~~in eo ipso quod hec tria distincte excludit, innuit quia ipsi de his tribus quesierant.’ Ad quid enim hec~~

~~tria nominatim excluderet nisi ipsi de illis quererent superfluum uideretur? SVM HOMO. Sed dicet~~

~~aliquis: ‘Numquid temerarium erat querere naturam cum uiderent eum hominem esse?’ Non, quia~~

~~5 quidam heretici dogmatizauerunt eum esse angelum, id est spiritum angelicum humanatum. VEL~~

~~IOHANNES, quantum ad nomen, VEL FILIVS ZACHARIE, quantum ad dignitatem. NON CONSIDERAT IN~~

~~SE HVMANAM SVBSISTENTIAM, id est naturam humanam que in ceteris hominibus sicut in eo~~

~~subsistit.∴ VEL GENERATIONEM, scilicet a quo genitus. SED VLTRA HEC OMNIA EXALTATVR~~

~~PRECVRSOR VERBI, supple ‘cum dicitur.’ PRECVRSOR VERBI DESERIT QVE INTRA MVNDVM 10 CONTINENTVR, quia multi in mundo poterant inueniri appellati hoc nomine Iohannes et habentes~~

~~humanam naturam et filii summi sacerdotis. QVA EXCEDIT OMNEM CREATVRAM, ita VT SIT VOX VERBI, et uide quod excedit in hoc, non tamen excedit. Vel ita: QVA EXCEDIT OMNEM CREATVRAM~~

~~VT SIT VOX VERBI, id est inquantum est uox Verbi. EGO VOX. Interlinearis determinat cuius, scilicet VERBI INCARNATI, et est suppletio non 1, 23~~

15 expositio eius quod dictum est. CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO, id est in Iudea deserta. Hoc scilicet DIRIGITE, id est directe facite, quia pondus est in uerbo. VIAS DOMINI, id est opera misericordie per que itur /222va/ ad Dominum. Quasi: ‘Si opera misericordie facitis, ad debitum finem dirigite ut non faciatis ea intuitu fauoris humani uel terreni emolumenti sed solo intuitu Dei.’ De hac tamen

~~1 illa] hec φ 2/3 hec tria nominatim] nominatim hec tria φ 3 dicet] si diceret φ 4 aliquis] quis α B | esse] om. φ~~

~~5 esse] om. P T~~

~~8 subsistit] uide APPENDIX II, 29 9 DESERIT] defer. δ A I, omnia add. φ (post corr. O) | INTRA] inter δ I 10 CONTINENTVR] om. φ~~

~~11 CREATVRAM] om. I Z~~

~~12/3 Et uide quod – VOX VERBI] om. B O P T (ob homoioteleuton) 16 directe] rectas φ, recte M 18 tamen] om. φ~~

1/13 MARG. ad 1, 23: “Non dicit ‘ego sum homo’ uel ‘Iohannes’ uel ‘filius Zacharie’; non considerat in se humanam subsistentiam uel generationem, sed ultra hec omnia exaltatur. Precursor Verbi deserit omnia que intra mundum continentur, ascendit in altum, factus uox Verbi. Nullam in se substantiam fatetur preter habundantiam gratie que excedit omnem creaturam, ut sit uox Verbi.” 14 INTERL. ad 1, 23

4/5 cfr GO Malac. marg. ad 1, 1, ‘Malachi interpretatur angelus’; HIER., Comm. in Malac., prol. (902, 41-7); ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, 1, 6 (87); P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. LXVI (1571C) 17/8 ALAN. AB INSVLIS?, Lib. dist. (728B-C)

~~XLI~~

~~expositione hic non habes glosam. Caue ne construas ita: ‘dirigite sicut dixit,’ sed potius ‘ego sum~~

~~uox sicut dixit,’ quia ita uult glosa: YSAIAS … ID EST PROPHETIA ET OSTENSIO. Post hanc illam: VOX~~

~~INTERPRES. Et nota quia Dei Filius proprie dicitur animus Patris, mens Patris, intellectus Patris.~~

~~Tropice autem dicitur intellectus noster, quia nos intelligere facit.~~

~~5 ET QVI MISSI. Nota quia nec unum uerbum Iohannis est sine pondere sicut nec Pauli. 1, 24~~

~~Posset hoc uideri quasi ex habundanti dictum. Eleganter tamen est introductum, quasi in eo notatur~~

~~excellentia Iohannis quod dixit se uocem Verbi. In eo etiam apparet quod ueritatem non tacuit.~~

~~PHARISEIS, qui non querebant ut addiscerent sed ut detraherent.* Et nota quia Pharisei licet~~

~~detractores sepe ueniebant ad Iohannem, quia predicabat resurrectionem quam et ipsi predicabant,~~

~~10 licet aliter sicut continetur in fabula mille annorum. In hoc ergo consentiebant Iohanni sicut et~~

~~Christo consenserunt in responsione quam fecit Saduceis querentibus de septemuira muliere, quia~~

~~fouebat partem eorum. Glosa: EX PHARISEIS, ID EST PRINCIPIBVS IVDEORVM, quia cum tres essent~~

~~secte Iudeorum, scilicet Pharisei, Saducei, Essei. Pharisei erant excellentiores tum propter artiorem~~

~~uitam tum propter traditiones quas faciebant. VNDE ET IN MVLTIS, sicut in responsione facta~~

~~15 Saduceis. PAVLVM QVOQVE. Vnde in Actibus Apostolorum habes quia Paulo predicanti~~

~~resurrectionem dixerunt: ‘Volumus te adhuc in his audire.’~~

~~QVID ERGO BAPTIZAS, id est qua audacia baptizas si non es aliquis horum trium? 1, 25~~

~~Interlinearis: QVI HABENT AVCTORITATEM BAPTIZANDI. Christus potentia, Helyas et Helyseus in~~

1 habes glosam] habetur glosa B | sicut dixit] Ysaias. Hec enim uerba, dirigite uias Domini et cetera, uerba sunt euangeliste add. B, uel si uis uerba sunt euangeliste add. O 2 ID EST PROPHETIA ET OSTENSIO] scripsi Glosam secutus, prophetia et id est ostensio α φ Β, propheta id est ostensio I, propheta et ostensio M 4 autem] om. γ 7 se] esse add. φ 8 detraherent] destruerent B | ut detraherent] uide APPENDIX I, 22 12 id est] glosa φ (ante corr. N ) 14 sicut] et add. φ

~~15 habes] habemus φ D~~

~~16 resurrectionem] rationem D I~~

~~17 horum] istorum γ I~~

2 MARG. ad 1, 23: “Ysaias hoc de Iohanne prophetauit: Ego uox, in qua uerbum sonat, id est prophetia et ostensio.” 2/3 MARG. ad 1, 23: “Vox est interpres animi. Animus autem, id est intellectus omnium est Filius Dei. Iohannes ergo uox et interpres animi huius, quia primum mundo eum demonstrauit: Ecce, inquit, agnus Dei.” 12/5 MARG. ad 1, 24: “Ex Phariseis. Principibus Iudeorum qui doctrinam non quereunt sed inuident. Qui tamen ad Iohannem ideo ueniunt, quia audiunt eum predicasse communem omnium resurrectionem, quam et ipsi credebant. Vnde et in multis Christo consentiunt, Paulum quoque apostolum in multis audierunt.” 18 INTERL. ad 1, 25

9/10 cfr BEDA, In Luc. euang. expos., lib. V, cap. XVIII 10/2 MT. 22, 23-34; cfr P. LOMBARDVS, Collectanea in epist. Pauli, ad I Cor. 15, 50 (1689C); IDEM, Mag. glosatura in Ps., Ps. 65, 1 (589D); P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 130 (1606A-B) 15/6 cfr ACT. 17, 32

~~XLII~~

~~figura. Nota quia Iudei expectabant et adhuc expectant Christum suum, id est messiam~~

~~baptizaturum, quia in Iohel legitur: Effundam super uos aquam mundam. Putabant etiam Helyam et Helyseum baptizaturos, quia uterque siccis pedibus transierat Iordanem qui prefigurabat baptismum.~~

~~Quia ergo putabant istos tres tantum auctoritatem baptizandi habere,∴ audacie imputant quod~~

~~5 Iohannes baptizat.∴ Glosa: AVDIERANT. Quidam legunt eam superius, ubi interrogatus respondit se~~

~~non esse aliquem horum trium, et utrobique competenter legitur. Quasi non est imputandum~~

~~audacie, quia minimum est quod facio; tantumdem posset facere fullo. Glosa: NON IMPVTETVR.~~

~~MEDIVS AVTEM. Hoc tripliciter. Primo sic: MEDIVS VESTRVM STETIT. Ne adhereas 1, 26~~

~~uerbo preteriti temporis, sed indifferenter intellige /222vb/ ‘stetit’ uel ‘stat’ uel ‘stabit.’ Quasi:~~

10 Christus stat in medio uestrum, id est omnium peccatorum. Medium enim si uere et proprie medium est eque distat ab extremis. Christus ergo dicitur medius inter peccatores, quia immunis est ab omni peccato et ita equaliter distat ab omnibus peccatoribus. Et de hac expositione non habes glosam. Aliter, quia modice sunt interlineares sed magni ponderis, et facit utraque per se sententiam, si quis diligenter distinguat. Quasi: Ego tanquam purus homo baptizo in aqua, sed ille quem uos 15 nescitis stat medius uestrum, id est est mediator uester et ita Deus et homo. Alioquin non esset conueniens mediator inter homines et Deum nisi participium haberet cum utroque, id est nisi esset

~~p.c. 1 et adhuc expectant Christum suum] Christum suum et adhuc expectant M O 2 etiam] in δ a.c. p.c. 3 transierat] transiunt M N (transiuit N ), transierant O~~

~~4 Quia] hii B | putabant] sciebant B | baptizandi habere] uide APPENDIX II, 5 | quod] quia γ D I a.c. 5 Iohannes baptizat] uide APPENDIX II, 6 | respondit] respondet γ B~~

~~6 horum] istorum I N 7 facere] om. φ~~

~~8 hoc] hic B T Z~~

~~9 stat – stabit] tr. φ | Quasi] quia γ B~~

~~12 habes] habemus D N T 13 Aliter] nota add. β 15 est2] om. γ~~

5 MARG. ad 1, 25: “Audierant pharisei Christum uenturum et baptizaturum, scientes etiam Iordanem figuram baptismi gessisse, eumque Heliam et Heliseum siccis pedibus transisse, figuram baptismi in Helia et Heliseo non dubitant precessisse. Vnde et nunc eos surrexisse putebant et baptizasse. Vnde nec interrogant ‘es tu unus prophetarum,’ sed solummodo ‘es tu propheta,’ ille uidelicet qui prefigurauit baptismum?” 7/8 MARG. ad 1, 26: “Non imputetur quod ago audacie, quia corpora abluo aqua; non aufero peccata, ut sicut nascendo et predicando precursor sum, sic etiam baptizando, sed iste medius inter uos est qui peccata tollit.”

~~2 immo EZEK. 36, 25; cfr IOEL 2, 28 5 cfr Huic euang. ad Io. 1, 21 (Z, 255va-b)~~

~~XLIII~~

~~Deus et homo, sicut ad reformationem pacis inter aliquos non esset aliquis idoneus nisi~~

~~familiaritatem haberet cum utroque. Hanc sententiam facit illa modica interlinearis: PRESENS VOBIS~~

~~APPARET CORPORE. Et distingue ita: PRESENS VOBIS quantum ad deitatem, APPARET CORPORE~~

~~quantum ad humanitatem. Et hoc est MEDIVS VESTRVM STAT, id est est mediator uester, id est~~

~~5 Deus et homo. Et quod Deus notat glosa ubi dicitur: PRESENS VOBIS, et quod homo notat ubi~~

~~dicitur: APPARET CORPORE.~~

~~Aliter, MEDIVS VESTRVM STAT, id est ille stat uilis inter uos. QVEM medium, supple ‘et~~

~~quia medius,’ id est uilis, ut ‘quem’ referat personam et notet causam. VOS NESCITIS. Est enim~~

~~ydioma Hebreorum ut commune dicant uile. Medium autem dicitur quod commune est et ita~~

~~10 medium secundum ydioma Hebreum dicitur uile. Ita ergo insere interlinearem: QVEM medium, et~~

~~quia medius, id est QVIA HVMILIS, VOS NESCITIS.~~

~~CVIVS EGO NON SVM DIGNVS. Vide quia uenit ad nos diuinitas calciata, id est humanata, 1, 27~~

~~quia quasi calciamentum siue indumentum deitatis fuit ipsa humanitas, quia natura humana uelut~~

quodam indumento indutum est Verbum Dei, ut mortalium oculis congruentius appareret. Corrigiam 15 huius calciamenti, dicit Iohannes, non sum dignus soluere, id est cur Deus homo non sufficio ad plenum aperire, uel ligaturam siue unionem qua unitur et quasi colligatur natura humana deitati, sicut calciamentum per corrigiam adheret pedi. NON SVM DIGNVS, id est sufficiens explicare. Glosa: SIMPLICITER, id est quantum ad litteram ostenditur, INDICATVR HVMILITAS. MYSTICE et cetera, PENETRARE, id est penitus intrare uel

~~2 familiaritatem haberet] tr. δ 3 deitatem] diuinitatem φ 6 CORPORE] uel add. γ~~

~~8 quem] quam δ T | VOS] om. φ 9 et ita] quasi add. γ 10 Hebreum] Hebreorum γ | dicitur uile] tr. φ I | insere] intersere γ I | insere interlinearem] tr. δ~~

12 DIGNVS] soluere corrigiam calciamentorum eius add. φ | nos] uos M Z | diuinitas] deitas γ 14/5 ut mortalium – dicit Iohannes] om. φ 15 cur deus homo] om. β, cum sim homo φ 16 uel] om. φ (post corr. O) 17 natura humana] tr. γ a.c. p.c. 19 ostenditur] om. A B N , humilitas add. ε (post corr. A ) I M | ostenditur, INDICATVR] tr. δ | HVMILITAS] humanitas α | INDICATVR HVMILITAS] tr. δ φ

2/3 INTERL. ad 1, 26 11 INTERL. ad 1, 26: “Quia humilis, et ideo ego lucerna preaccendor.” 18/9 MARG. ad 1, 27: “Simpliciter indicatur humilitas. Mystice ligaturam misterii incarnati Verbi non sum dignus penetrare …”

~~12 GREG., Homil. in euang., lib. I, hom. VII, n. III 13/4 P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. III, d. VI, cap. IV, n. I~~

~~XLIV~~

~~intimare, id est ad plenum explicare, ut sit pondus in uerbo. VEL NOMEN SPONSI MIHI NON~~

~~VSVRPARE, id est sponsam ei debitam, scilicet ecclesiam, mihi non usurpo. Et tangit consuetudinem~~

~~legis que nota est. Post hanc illam: NON AIT ‘NON SOLVAM,’ soluit enim pro /223ra/ modulo suo, sed~~

~~ait: Non sum dignus, ex humilitate reputans se indignum. Sed ne ex humilitate uideatur mentiri, melius~~

~~5 est ut dicatur non sum dignus ex officio, non est enim dignus euangelizare qui non habet officium~~

~~euangeliste. Ipse autem non erat euangelista.~~

~~HEC IN BETHANIA. Vide quia Bethania que est trans Iordanem significat naturam 1, 28~~

~~humanam in statu legis naturalis antequam fluenta gratie per Christum mediatorem in naturam~~

humanam essent transfusa.∴ Iohannes ergo baptizat in Bethania ultra Iordanem, id est baptizat ultra 10 fluenta gratie, quia baptismus eius fluenta gratie non confert. Christus autem baptizat in Bethania citra Iordanem, quia eius baptismus confert fluenta gratie. Illa enim que est citra significat naturam humanam sub statu gratie. Glosa: DVE … QVE EST PROXIMA IERVSALEM. Qui enim sunt sub gratia regno celorum sunt propinqui, qui autem ante tempus gratie fuerunt erant eo longinqui. Mortuus est enim Abraham et statim descendit ad infernum; mortuus est Martinus et statim ascendit in celum. 15 Itaque propinquior erat celo quam Abraham.

~~2 VSVRPARE] scripsi Glosam secutus, usurpo α β Μ, usur. φ | scilicet] id est γ δ 3 NON2] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | enim] om. φ 4 DIGNVS] id est add. γ~~

~~5 enim] om. β O | est enim] tr. M N Z 9 humanam essent transfusa] uide APPENDIX II, 7~~

~~10/1 quia baptismus – fluenta gratie] om. φ (ob homoioteleuton) | Christus autem – fluenta gratie] om. B M (ob homoioteleuton) 11 enim] om. φ 12 QVE – IERVSALEM] sunt be. φ~~

~~15 in] ad I T~~

1/2 cont. MARG. ad 1, 27: “… uel nomen sponsi michi usurpare.” 3 MARG. ad 1, 27: “Non ait ‘non soluam.’ Soluit enim quando ipsum manifestauit et de diuinitate et humanitate ipsius multa aperuit. Sed non sum dignus, qui indignum ad hoc agendum se reputat.” 12 MARG. ad 1, 28: “Due sunt Bethanie: una trans Iordanem, altera citra non longe ab Ierusalem ubi Lazarus suscitatus est. Illa que est trans significat humanam naturam sub lege naturali, ante fluenta gratie que post incarnationem fuit Christus, que ad hoc creata erat ut lege nature Deo obediret, in qua Iohannes baptizat, quia a peccato non liberat, baptizat ultra fluenta diuinorum donorum, que nondum in Christo inchoauerant in humanam naturam descendere. Illa que est citra significat eandem humanam animam obedientem sub lege gratie, que est proxima Ierusalem, id est uisioni pacis per caritatem, in qua Christus mortuum suscitauit, quia a peccato liberat.”

~~14 cfr SVLP. SEVERVS, Epistulae, III, 17~~

~~XLV~~

~~ALTERA AVTEM DIE et cetera. Premissa sunt quedam testimonia Iohannis baptiste: Post me uenit 1, 29~~

~~qui ante me factus est; Non sum ego Christus; Medius uestrum stetit quem uos nescitis. Propter hec testimonia~~

dicitur Iohannes preco siue precursor. Preco enim dicitur quia preconia Christi precinuit, precursor quia ipsum precessit. Nondum autem posita sunt testimonia propter que dictus est lucerna Verbi 5 quod predictum est a Dauid, ubi ait: Paraui lucernam Christo meo, uel propter que dicitur uox Verbi quod prophetauit Ysaias dicens: Vox clamantis in deserto. Hic autem subditur testimonium propter quod dictus est lucerna uel uox Verbi,∴ scilicet propter presentialem et apertam demonstrationem. Quamuis enim diceret eum post se uenturum et in multis eum commendaret, non tamen propterea lucerna uel uox Verbi proprie diceretur. Sed quia presentem digito indicauit, proprie dictus est 10 lucerna uel uox Verbi. Vide quia ‘altera’ improprie hic ponitur pro ‘alia,’ ut sit sensus: alia quadam die, uel forte altera, id est secunda. VIDIT, et oculo corporis et oculo rationis. Oculo corporis, hominem; oculo rationis, Deum. Interlinearis: CONTVITV MENTIS ET CORPORIS. VENIENTEM, non solum exteriori passu sed etiam contemplationis accessu, quia 15 contemplatione ad Iohannem accessit, id est in sui contemplatione eum proficere fecit. Quanto enim sepius Dominus ad Iohannem ueniebat, tanto amplius Iohannes in eius cognitione proficiebat.* /223rb/ Glosa: NON SOLVM.

1 et cetera] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | premissa sunt quedam] que premissa sunt φ (ante corr. N ) 3 precinuit] predicit φ, preemit M, preemuit T 5 ubi ait] om. γ 7 lucerna uel uox Verbi] uide APPENDIX II, 8 9 diceretur] dicitur φ | proprie diceretur] tr. δ φ

10 altera] alteram φ | hic] om. δ I | improprie hic] tr. γ | ponitur] ponit φ a.c. 11 uel forte – secunda] om. A B T 12 VIDIT] uidet γ (ante corr. Ο) | oculo1 – oculo2] oculis – oculis δ | corporis] uidet add. γ | rationis] uidet add. φ 13 CORPORIS] cone φ 14 VENIENTEM] om. φ 15 proficere] perficere β 16 Dominus ad Iohannem] ad Iohannem Dominus γ Β | cognitione] agnitione δ | proficiebat] uide APPENDIX I, 23

13 INTERL. ad 1, 29 17 MARG. ad 1, 29: “Non solum gressibus corporis, sed etiam interioris sue contemplationis accessibus, quia dignatus est a Iohanne cognosci secundum diuinitatem et humanitatem.”

2/4 cfr BEDA, Lib. hymn., hymn. 8 4/6 cfr ZACH. CHRYSOPOL., Unum ex quatuor, lib. I, cap. XIII (97A); GO Io. marg. ad 1, 23 5 PS. 131, 17 5/11 cfr ALAN. AB INSVLIS?, Lib. sent., n. XXVI (243B-D) 6 ISA. 40, 3

~~XLVI~~

ECCE AGNVS. Christus dicitur agnus propter tria, scilicet propter innocentiam, propter immolationem, propter significationem. Glosa: AGNVS, INNOCENS. Post hanc lege principium illius: HIC EST AGNVS QVI TOLLIT PECCATA QVOD NON EGO, et dimitte ibi. Nota quia cum Christus dicatur agnus propter tria predicta, nos tamen pro aliis tribus ter utimur hoc testimonio in missa ter dicentes 5 “agnus Dei.”* Agnus enim secundum Grecam ethimologiam dicitur ab ‘agnos,’ quod interpretatur pius. Vnde merito Christus agnus dicitur, quia sola pietate tulit peccata generis humani. Agnus quoque secundum ethimologiam Latinam dicitur ab agnoscendo, quia in magno grege agnoscit balatum matris ceteris omnibus balantibus. Vnde merito Christus agnus dicitur, quia in cruce pendens Patrem 10 suum agnouit obedientia, quia fuit Patri obediens usque ad mortem. Matrem agnouit cura, quia curam eius egit et discipulo commendauit. Ergo pro his tribus, id est quia Patrem agnouit obedientia, quia matrem agnouit cura et quia sola pietate tulit peccata nostra, ter utimur hoc testimonio in missa, acsi dicamus: ‘Agnus Dei qui in cruce pendens Patrem agnouisti obedientia, miserere nobis. Agnus Dei qui in cruce pendens matrem agnouisti cura, miserere nobis. Agnus Dei qui in cruce pendens

∴ 15 sola pietate nostra tulisti peccata, dona nobis pacem.’ *

Nota quod dicitur singulariter PECCATVM MVNDI, quia, ut dicit Augustinus super Exodum: “Nescio quo pacto magis exprimitur multitudo per singularem numerum quam per pluralem, ubi dixit: ‘Et uenit Cinomia,’ id est multitudo Cinomiarum.” Ad hunc modum dictum est: Qui tollit

1 ECCE] om. φ Ι | Christus dicitur agnus] agnus Christus φ 2 illius] glose add. γ Ι 3 PECCATA] unde add. φ 4 ter utimur] utimur φ, conuertimur M 5 agnus Dei] uide APPENDIX I, 24-6 6 Agnus] Dei add. M, enim] Dei add. φ | Vnde] et inde γ 7 merito christus] tr. γ | generis humani] tr. γ 8 agnoscit] cognoscit γ Β 10 agnouit1] cognouit γ Β | quia fuit – ad mortem] om. φ | agnouit2] cognouit δ B 11 tribus] causis add. γ | id est] om. β 12 in missa] om. φ (ante corr. N )

~~15 nostra] om. O Z | dona nobis pacem] uide APPENDIX I, 27; APPENDIX II, 9-10 16 singulariter PECCATVM] figulariter peccata φ (ante corr. N ) 17 Exodum] Genesim φ (ante corr. N ) 18 dixit] dicit φ~~

~~2 INTERL. ad 1, 29: “Agnus. Innocens, immolandus, prefiguratus in agno pascali.” 3 MARG. ad 1, 29: “Hic est agnus ei qui tollit peccata mundi, quod non ego, quem etiam modo melius noui…”~~

6/9 cfr ISID., Etymol., lib. XII, cap. I, n. XII 6/15 IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccl. offic., cap. 48E; cfr P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 36, add. 1 (1557A-D) 16/8 AVG., Locut. in Heptat., lib. II, loc. XL; cfr GO Exod. marg. ad 8, 24, ‘Et uenit musca’

~~XLVII~~

~~peccatum mundi, id est uniuersitatem peccatorum, prius a se postea a nobis. De hoc tamen non habes hic glosam.~~

~~Vel PECCATVM MVNDI, id est originale peccatum quod est commune totius mundi, id est~~

~~totius generis humani.* Glosa: PECCATVM MVNDI et cetera, QVO TOTA HVMANA NATVRA SIMVL ET~~

~~5 SEMEL CONDITA, in primis parentibus secundum carnem quantum ad materiam, quia de eadem materia conditi sunt Adam et Eua, quia de costa Ade facta est Eua. Et nota quia per ‘quo’ fit simplex~~

~~relatio. Si enim discrete fieret relatio ad originale quod est commune generis humani, non constaret. Illud enim non fuit in primis parentibus. Et uide quia originale in nobis dicitur originale, quia~~

~~traductum ab origine; originale in primis parentibus dicitur originale, quia fuit origo /223va/ omnium~~

~~10 peccatorum et omnia peccata ab eo quasi ab origine sunt traducta.∴~~

~~HIC EST DE QVO DIXI. Quidam aderant presentes, quibus alias dixerat hoc Domino non 1, 30~~

~~presente. Ideoque eo presente modo dicit eis: ‘Hic est de quo dixeram uobis.’ Interlinearis: HIC~~

~~DETERMINAT. ET EGO NESCIEBAM EVM. Supple ‘adeo plene sicut modo.’ Glosa: COMPARATIONE~~

~~HVIVS COGNITIONIS … OCVLIS mentis.~~

~~15 SED VENI, ab heremo. Iohannes enim diu fuit in heremo et ibi dixit ei Spiritus sanctus: 1, 31~~

~~Vade, baptiza. Dixit etiam ei: Super quem uideris Spiritum descendentem sicut columbam, hic est qui baptizat.~~

~~VENI, inquam, VT MANIFESTARETVR ISRAHEL (uel -li). Intellige duplici manifestatione, id est ut per baptismum meum Israhel ad eius baptismum preparetur. Ecce una manifestatio et eius humilitas~~

~~1 peccatorum] mundi add. φ~~

~~2 habes] habemus φ D | hic] om. D N 4 humani generis] tr. γ | tocius generius humani] uide APPENDIX I, 28~~

5 materiam] naturam B M 3 6 Et ] om. φ | quo] quod γ I a.c. 7 commune] om. I M | generis humani] tr. φ I 9 originale1] om. φ 10 ab origine sunt traducta] uide APPENDIX II, 11 12 presente modo] tr. γ

~~13 nesciebam] nescio δ Z 14 HVIVS] eius δ 16 Spiritum] sanctum add. γ | descendentem] et add. ε, et manentem add. I~~

~~17 MANIFESTARETVR] in add. φ (post corr. O) | li] om. B, ho. D, hec M O, israheli N, h. P 18 id est] om. γ~~

4/5 MARG. ad 1, 29: “Peccatum mundi dicitur originale peccatum, quid est commune totius mundi, quo tota humana natura simul et semel condita. Leges diuinas per inobedientiam transgressa est in paradisso, quod originale singulorumque superaddita gratia relaxat.” 12/3 INTERL. ad 1, 30: “Hic est. Hic determinat quis ille medius de quo supradixit.” 13/4 MARG. ad 1, 30: “Comparatione huius cognitionis. Nam ex uisu et auditu licet corporali, multum profecit in cognitione maiestatis et potestatis reuelatis oculis.”

~~16 IO. 1, 33~~

~~XLVIII~~

~~exprimeretur. Hec duo distingue in glosa cuius principium legisti: HIC AGNVS et cetera.* QVEM~~

~~ETIAM MODO MELIVS NOVI. Hec particula congruit illi textui: nesciebam eum. Postea distingue primam~~

~~manifestationem usque ibi: BAPTISMO ETIAM … QVE EST IMPLETIO OMNIS IVSTITIE, quia~~

~~consummatam et supremam humilitatatem impleuit Christus cum caput suum in baptismo manibus~~

5 Iohannis supposuit. A DOMINO, id est a seruo in baptismo Domini.*

~~ET TESTIMONIVM. Quasi Iohannes perhibuit Christo premissa testimonia et etiam hoc 1, 32~~

~~testimonium. Glosa: SICVT DIXIT. Sicut non est similitudinis sed expressiuum ueritatis, quia uera~~

~~columba fuit in qua fuit Spiritus sanctus non aliter quam in alia creatura, sed ad aliud. Et peracto~~

~~officio in preiacentem materiam est resoluta.~~

~~10 DESCENDENTEM. Glosa: NON QVOD MODO. Summa est quia ideo descendit columba~~

~~super Christum et sedit super caput, ut per huiusmodi uisibilem descensum Spiritus sancti~~

~~ostenderetur Spiritus sanctus inuisibiliter descendere super baptizatos. ET NON ALITER, scilicet nisi~~

~~baptizentur, si tempus habeant. ET VT IOHANNES. Ecce alia causa, ut scilicet Iohannes ex hoc~~

∴ descensu in cognitione proficeret.*

~~15 ET EGO NESCIEBAM EVM. IERONIMVS OSTENDIT IOHANNEM NESCIRE PER BAPTISMVM 1, 33~~

~~∴ CHRISTI MVNDVM ESSE REDIMENDVM.* Hoc uidetur esse durum uerbum. Si enim nesciebat per baptismum eius mundum esse redimendum a peccato, quomodo sciebat esse agnum qui tolleret~~

~~1 exprimeretur] exprimentur φ, exprimetur M | HIC AGNVS et cetera] uide APPENDIX I, 29~~

~~2 ETIAM φ] et α β M | NOVI] om. I N | congruit] conuenit φ | textui] testimonio φ (ante corr. N ) 5 in baptismo Domini] uide APPENDIX I, 30, 43~~

6 etiam] in δ (ante corr. P ) | etiam hoc] tr. φ 11 super] supra φ | caput] eius add. φ 12 scilicet] et non aliter φ 13 baptizentur] baptizarentur β M 14 in cognitione proficeret] uide APPENDIX I, 31; APPENDIX II, 12 16 REDIMENDVM] redemp. φ | MVNDVM ESSE REDIMENDVM] uide APPENDIX I, 32 | durum uerbum] uide APPENDIX II, 13 17 per baptismum eius mundum esse redimendum] mundum per eius baptismum redimendum γ | esse2] eum γ

2/5 cont. MARG. ad 1, 29: “Hic est agnus … quem etiam modo melius noui… Vnde postquam ad ipsum qui uia est uentum est baptismus eius cessat, baptismo etiam Iohannis manifestatur humilitas Christi, que est impletio omnis iustitie… Si enim ipse qui non eget a seruo baptizatur, non dedignentur quantumcumque sapientes et sancti a Domino baptizari…” 7 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Sicut dixit se uenisse ut manifestaret Christum, ita perhibuit testimonium, scilicet uidi spiritum, in quo didicit quod prius nesciuit.” 10/3 MARG. ad 1, 32: “Non quod modo primum descenderit, sed ut per hoc ostendatur descendere et manere in baptizatis aqua et non aliter, et ut Iohannes per eum excellentius de Christo intelligeret.” 15/6 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Ieronimus ostendit Iohannem non scire per baptismum Christi mundum esse redimendum. Nam sciebat eum Filium Dei esse et natum in carne.”

~~XLIX~~

peccata mundi? Potest intelligi per baptismum passio et potest dici, sicut habebitur in sequentibus, quia nesciebat an per se an per interpositam personam esset ad infernum descensurus et liberaturus genus humanum, que liberatio facta est per mortem. Et est summa: Nesciebat per mortem Christi mundum /223vb/ esse redemptum, id est redimendum, id est nesciebat an in propria persona esset 5 descensurus ad infernum, qui descensus factus est per mortem. Et uide quia passio Christi magis proprie dicitur baptismus quam baptismus noster. Baptismus enim interpretatur tinctio. Tinctio autem proprie dicitur ubi lana uel uestimentum immergitur et emergit alterius coloris. Vnde passio Christi proprie dicitur baptismus, ut ibi: Baptismo habeo bapitzari et coartor donec impleatur. Bene autem dicitur baptismus, id est tinctio, quia de morte surrexit Christus quasi alterius coloris, passus est enim 10 mortalis et resurrexit inmortalis. Sed si ita dicatur, uidebitur Iohannes hesitasse in articulo fidei. Propterea melius potest dici quia nesciebat per baptismum Christi mundum esse redimendum, ut sit pondus in hoc uerbo ‘redimendum,’ id est omnino absoluendum a pena sicut a culpa, sciebat enim quod a culpa. Et salua fide poterat super hoc dubitare, scilicet an baptismus absolueret ab omni temporali satisfactione.* 15 Post hanc illam: AVGVSTINVS DICIT. Summa est quia uult Augustinus Iohannem ignorasse utrum Christus sibi retenturus esset uim baptismi, id est potestatem dimittendi peccata. Potuit enim potestatem baptismi dare alicui seruorum, sed noluit. Hoc uidetur durum uerbum.∴ Potestas enim baptismi siue potestas dimittendi peccata est potestas que Deus est. Queritur: Si eam potuit dare alicui, eidem potuit dare potentiam diuinam?

intingitur M Z 7/8 Vnde passio Christi proprie] Vnde proprie passio Christi γ 2 9 id est] et φ | est ] om. B M O p.c. 11 dici] secundum Ieronimum add. B, hoc modo add. D P | Christi] om. δ φ (ante corr. N ) | redimendum] id

~~est omnino esse absoluendum add. φ 11/2 ut sit – redimendum] om. B M (ob homoioteleuton) 13 super] de γ 15 AVGVSTINVS DICIT] tr. φ~~

~~16 sibi] om. I M | sibi retenturus esset] esset sibi retenturus φ 17 durum uerbum] uide APPENDIX II, 26~~

~~18 siue] fuit δ (ante corr. P ) | peccata] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | queritur] quare I P, quasi M O 18/9 Queritur – diuinam] om. B~~

~~15 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Augustinus dicit Iohannem ignorasse hoc tantum, utrum sibi retineat, scilicet uim baptismi an alicui suorum tribuat.”~~

3/5 cfr GREG., Homil. in euang., lib. I, hom. VI, n. I; P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. III, d. XXV, cap. III, n. 3 6 ISID., Etymol., lib. VI, cap. XIX, n. XLIII 6/8 cfr PASC. RAD., Expos. in Mat., lib. IX (998, 2201-11) 8 LC. 12, 50 15/7 cfr AVG., In Ioh. euang. Tract., tract. 5, n. 7 17/9 cfr ODO SVESSIONENSIS, Quaest. 13 (Clm. 2624, fol. 6r-v)

Hoc tripliciter soluitur. Quidam ita exponunt: Potuit Dominus potestatem baptismi alicui seruorum dare, id est potuit dare illi ut in inuocatione nominis eius fieret remissio peccatorum sicut modo fit in inuocatione trinitatis, ut sicut modo fit remissio peccatorum inuocato nomine Domini, ita fieret inuocato nomine serui, ut diceretur ‘in nomine Petri baptizo te’ uel ‘in nomine Pauli,’ et 5 eandem efficatiam haberet baptismus acsi diceretur: ‘Baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.’ Huiusmodi potestatem* baptismi potuit, ut tradunt, dare alicui seruorum, sed noluit.* Alii ita exponunt: Potuit alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi, id est potuit dare ut melior esset et magis conferret baptismus ministratus a meliori, et ita exposuit magister Gilebertus. Magistro nostro uisum est quod potuit seruis dare potentiam dimittendi peccata – non potentiam 10 que Deus est sed potentiam quandam creatam – sicut quandam /224ra/ potentiam creatam faciendi miracula dedit Petro,∴ ut sicut per potentiam quandam creatam faciebat miracula, ita per potentiam quandam creatam dimitteret peccata. Hoc est ergo quod nesciebat Iohannes, sed statim uisa columba intellexit, scilicet per descensum columbe et sessionem super caput Christi intellexit quod Christus sibi soli reseruaret potestatem baptismi.∴

~~15 Glosa: VISA COLVMBA et cetera. QVOD AB EO, id est Christo, DEBET BAPTIZARI ipse~~

~~Iohannes, SICVT Iohannes confessus fuerat dicens: ∴ Ego a te debeo baptizari. Et tu uenis ad me? Et~~

1/15 Hoc tripliciter – potestatem baptismi] om. B et add. APPENDIX II, 15 a.c. 2 id est – illi] om. φ | in] om. φ I T | in inuocatione nominis eius] per baptismum B 2/3 sicut modo – a.c. trinitatis] om. N O (ob homoioteleuton) 3 sicut modo2] om. φ | remissio peccatorum] om. φ

4 inuocato nomine] inuocatione I T 5 baptizo te] tr. φ 6 potestatem] uide APPENDIX I, 34 | baptismi potuit ut tradunt] baptismi ut tradunt alii potuit φ | seruorum] suorum add. φ | sed noluit] uide APPENDIX I, 35

~~8 et magis conferret] om. M O | exposuit] exponit M O 9 potuit seruis] tr. φ~~

~~10 quandam potentiam] tr. φ | creatam] om. I O~~

~~11 quandam] om. φ D | miracula dedit Petro] uide APPENDIX II, 14 11/2 faciebat miracula – creatam] om. P T (ob homoioteleuton)~~

~~13 quod] quia γ I 15 id est] a add. γ 16 fuerat dicens] uide APPENDIX II, 30~~

~~16 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Visa columba dicit se per eam didicisse quod prius nesciebat. Sciebat quidem quod Dominus, quod agnus tollens peccata, quod ab eo debet baptizari, sicut et confessus erat…”~~

1/14 cfr P. COMESTOR, De Sacramentis, 21*-22* 1/6 ROB. DE MILIDVNO, Quaest. de epist. Pauli, ad I Cor. 1, 13 (176, 6-15); cfr ANON., Huic euang. ad Io. 1, 33 (257ra) 7/8 cfr GILBERT. PORRETANVS, Med. glosatura sup. epist. Pauli, ad I Cor. 1, 13 (BnF lat. 14441, 29ra) 9/12 P. LOMBARDVS, Sententiae, lib. IV, d. V, cap. II 16 MT. 3, 14

Dominus respondit: Sine modo, sic enim oportet nos implere omnem iustitiam. SED NESCIEBAT QVOD SIBI RETENTVRVS … ESSET POTESTATEM BAPTISIMI, illam scilicet creatam secundum magistrum nostrum. PER QVOD, id est per hoc quod sibi soli retinuit et nulli dedit, CONSTAT VNITAS ECCLESIE, ut sit unus tantum baptismus. POTVIT AVTEM et cetera, VT TANTA ESSET VIS et cetera, id est ut per potentiam 5 illam creatam similiter seruus in baptismo peccata dimitteret sicut Dominus per potentiam increatam in baptismo peccata dimittit, SED NOLVIT, ne spes poneretur in seruo non in Domino solo, ET VNIANTVR, quia pro seruanda unitate hoc fecit. VT AVTEM et cetera, quasi Spiritus in baptismo super Christum apparuit in columba et una super apostolos descendit in linguis igneis sed diuisis. Ideo autem in una columba descendit super 10 Christum baptizatum, ut commendaret baptizatis columbe unitatem et fraternam caritatem, quia omnes debent esse una columba, id est una ecclesia que bene columbe assimilatur, quia in erumpnis seculi gemit sicut columba gemitus edit. Et sicut columba ramum oliue qui extra erat ad archam detulit, sic ecclesia ramum fructuosum, id est uirum iustum qui sacramentorum participatione manet extra sui unitatem, in unitatem suam recipit per caritatem, ut Cornelius licet extra esset 15 sacramentaliter, tamen intus erat spiritualiter. Vt autem post conseruationem fraterne pacis et

~~XLX, 17 - 1 dominus respondit] tr. γ 1 sibi] substantia δ~~

~~2 creatam] creaturam B D 2 4 unus tantum] tr. M O | et cetera ] om. γ | id est] om. I O~~

5 dimitteret] dimittit φ 5/6 sicut Dominus – dimittit] om. O P T (ob homoioteleuton) 7 VNIANTVR] unirentur B | quia] om. γ (ante corr. N ) | pro seruanda] perseueranda φ (ante corr. N ), per seruanda M, pro perseueranda D

~~8 et] om. φ Z 9 diuisis] diuersis γ I a.c. 10 baptizatis] baptizantis D, baptizans P | fraternam] supernam γ B D | caritatem] ciuitatem φ~~

~~11 omnes debent esse una columba] una columba deberent esse omnes I M O, una columba debent esse omnes N~~

~~12 extra erat] tr. γ | ad] om. γ D 13 fructuosum] fructiferum γ 14 manet extra sui unitatem] extra sui unitatem manet φ | suam] om. φ~~

~~15 erat] om. β T | spiritualiter] specialiter β M O | fraterne] superne γ B Z~~

16 cont. MARG. ad 1, 33, ‘Visa columba’: “Sed nesciebat quod sibi retenturus et nulli traditurus esset potestatem baptismi et ministerium, per quod unitas constat ecclesie, ne sint tot baptismi quot baptiste. Potuit autem Dominus potestatem baptismi alicui seruo uice sua tradere, ut tanta esset uis in baptismo serui quanta est in Domini, sed noluit, ut spes baptizatorum sit in Domino tantum, non in homine, et uniantur in eo, ut sit una columba et non diuidantur per homines… Vt autem unitas et fraternitatis pax sine laniatione in omnibus baptizatis seruetur, quasi in una columba que gemit in erumnis mundi, et ramum qui extra est, fructum si habet fert ad archam…”

~~1 MT. 3, 15 8/9 ACT 2, 3-4 14/5 cfr ACT. 10~~

~~LII~~

unitatis insinuaret necessarium esse feruorem caritatis, apparuit in linguis igneis et ideo in diuisis, ut ostenderet diuersitatem gentium uniri uinculo caritatis. EDIFICATORIBVS, turris Babel. ET MANSIT SVPER EVM. Glosa: SPECIALITER. Summa est quia in uiris sanctis non uere et proprie manet Spiritus sanctus, quia, si ad tempus accedit, ad tempus propter peccata recedit. Sed si 5 aliquibus datur a quibus numquam per peccata recedit, ut Helye et Helyseo, tamen non manet in eis ad omnia, quia etsi semper in eis maneat ad iustitiam, tamen non semper ad prophetiam uel ad miracula facienda. Quandoque enim non dat eis facultatem faciendi miracula. Vnde Helyseus ait: Dominus celauit me.∴ SED QVI MISIT ME et cetera. Dixe-/224rb/-rat Iohannes se nescire Christum, et nondum 10 determinauerat quid nesciret de Christo. Hic autem determinat quid nesciret de Christo et a quo sit edoctus, scilicet a Deo. Iohannes enim ab adolescentia uixerat in deserto et factum tricenarium misit Deus ad baptizandum dicens ei: SVPER QVEM VIDERIS et cetera, acsi diceret ei: ‘Plures uenient ad te et baptizabuntur a te, sed super quem uideris Spiritum in specie columbe descendentem et columbam quiescentem super caput eius,∴ scito quia hic est qui baptizat,’ id est sibi soli potestatem 15 baptismi reseruat.

~~1 1 in ] scilicet φ | diuisis] diuersis δ I M 2 caritatis] in add. φ~~

3 SPECIALITER] spiritualiter A N, spiritaliter T 3/8 Glosa – celauit me] om. B et add. APPENDIX II, 16 6 per] propter φ 7 in eis maneat] maneat in eis φ Ι | semper] manet in eis add. φ, permanet M a.c. 8 Quandoque] quando D M | Dominus δ (post corr. P )] spiritus γ ε Ι P (om. B) 9 et cetera] om. γ 10 Hic] nunc φ 11 in deserto] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | factum tricenarium] facto tricenario δ 12 et cetera] om. γ B 13 Spiritum] sanctum add. γ 14 super caput eius] uide APPENDIX II, 17 15 baptismi] baptizandi γ

2 cont. MARG. ad 1, 33, ‘Visa columba’: “Ideo Spiritus in quo baptizantur per columbam ostenditur ut autem habita unitate et pace in se ferueant contra mala, post in igne datus est apostolis et in linguis diuisis secundum diuersitatem gentium, que modo uniuntur, olim de una diuise in tumidis edificatoribus.” 4 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Specialiter dicitur Spiritus sanctus manere in Christo, a quo nunquam per peccatum recessit, in quo semper mirabiliter uixit et mirabiliter operatus est. In sanctos uenit, et propter peccata recedit. Manet tamen semper in eis ad aliquid ut Christus eis promisit, scilicet ut bonis semper insistant, ad aliquid non manet, scilicet ut ex eo prophetent uel miracula faciant, et ideo hoc quod dicit est proprium signum agnoscendi Christum.”

~~8 IV REG. 4, 27~~

~~LIII~~

~~HIC, discretiue. Interlinearis: NON ALIVS. Ecce hoc est quod nesciebat de Christo, scilicet an~~

~~sibi soli retenturus esset potestatem baptismi. Nota aliam interlinearem: QVID? QVI BAPTIZAT. Et~~

~~uide quia multipliciter introducitur. Quidam introducunt ita: Iohannes ostendit se nescire Christum.~~

~~Et quid nesciebat? Hoc scilicet: QVI BAPTIZAT. Et ita potest introduci ex glosa Augustini longe ante~~

~~5 premissa. Alii introducunt ita: Qui misit baptizare dixit mihi. Et QVID? Hoc scilicet, QVI BAPTIZAT.~~

~~Alii ita: HIC EST. Et quid est? Ipse est ille QVI BAPTIZAT. Post hanc illam: ECCE QVID DIDICIT.~~

~~IN SPIRITV SANCTO. Interlinearis: QVOD NON IOHANNES. Post hanc illam: IN QVO. Et nota~~

~~quia quod dicitur ‘sancto’ cum pondere intelligendum est, ut Spiritus sanctus dicatur, id est sanctos~~

~~faciens et de sanctis sanctiores. Primo enim sanctos facit a peccatis mundando, postea sanctiores in~~

~~10 uirtutibus multiplicando. Glosa: BAPTIZAT CHRISTVS. Post hanc illam: CHRISTVS BAPTIZATVR A~~

~~IOHANNE VT INDICETVR OMNIS HVMILITAS, id est omnimoda et suprema humilitas, QVE EST OMNIS~~

~~IVSTITIA, id est quam Christus appellat omnem iustitiam dicens Iohanni: Sine modo, sic decet nos implere~~

~~omnem iustitiam. Duo plane secuntur in glosa, scilicet quare non solus et quare alii.~~

~~ET EGO VIDI ET TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVI, de hoc scilicet, QVIA HIC EST FILIVS DEI. Io. 1, 34~~

~~15 Ecce modo construxisti directe. Vel incisiue ita: Hic est qui baptizat, quia hic est Filius Dei. Postea sume~~

~~illud: ET EGO TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVI. Hanc constructionem innuit illa modica interlinearis, si diligentius inspicias: FILIVS, VNICVS VNDE POTEST BAPTIZARE. Nota quia hic dicit Dei Filium quem~~

1 discretiue] distingue φ, discrete B M, distinguere I 2 retenturus esset] tr. φ | potestatem] potentiam γ, uim B | aliam] om. γ 4/6 et ita – QVI BAPTIZAT] om. γ I (ob homoioteleuton) a.c. 8 quod] om. P T | sancto] secreto I, sacrato M | dicatur] intelligatur γ (ante corr. O) I Z | id est] ut add. φ I

~~9 facit a peccatis mundando] facit mundando a peccatis γ | peccatis] peccato D I 11 VT INDICETVR] om. γ~~

~~13 glosa] quo φ (ante corr. N ) | scilicet] om. B N 2 15 hic B T ] om. γ δ ψ I 16 illud] illam γ~~

1/7 INTERLS. ad 1, 33 7 INTERL. ad 1, 33: “In Spiritu sancto, in quo est remissio.” 10 MARG. ad 1, 33: “Baptizat Christus in Spiritu, non solum remittendo peccata in aqua sed et post purgando et donis implendo et amore accendendo.” 10/2 MARG. ad 1, 31: “Christus baptizatur a Iohanne ut indicetur omnis humilitas que est omnis iustitia. Sed non solus, ne baptisma Iohannis sanctius et maius in quo Deus homo baptizatus est, uideretur baptismo Christi, in quo homines baptizantur. Baptizantur autem alii a Iohanne, ut usus baptizandi preparet uiam baptismo Christi.” 17 INTERL. ad 1, 34

~~15/6 MT. 3, 15~~

~~LIV~~

supra uirum, et sic perhibet ei testimonium in utraque natura. Glosa: HIC TESTATVR. Post hanc illam: CHRISTVS EST VIR IN QVO VOBIS, quia loquebatur ad eos quibus faciebat sermonem. Vel ‘nobis,’ alia littera. Nota quia Christus baptizatus /224va/ est a Iohanne die Epiphanie. Ideo ecclesia Grecorum 5 adhuc facit sollempne baptisma in illa die sicut nos in sabbato sancto. Nobis autem prohibitum est ne absque necessitatis articulo aliquem in die illa baptizemus. Quod ideo interdictum est, quia emerserunt quidam heretici dogmatizantes quod baptismus nemini remissionem peccatorum conferret nisi baptizaretur in illa die.

~~5 baptisma] baptismum M Z 6 die illa] die illo φ, illo die I | interdictum] introductum γ Β 7 emerserunt] emerserant γ Z | nemini remissionem peccatorum] remissionem peccatorum nemini φ~~

1/2 INTERL. ad 1, 35: “Hic testatur Filium Dei, quem superius uirum, ut ab eo testimonium habeatur utriusque nature.” 2/3 MARG. ad 1, 34: “Christus est uir in quo nobis congruit, et pro nobis soluit. Est et Filius Dei in quo Patri congruit et peccata dimittendo reconciliat nos illi.”

~~4/6 IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic., cap. 110W-Y; cfr RVP. TIVTIENSIS, Lib. de diu. offic., lib. V, cap. XXXI (152A)~~

~~ALTERA DIE. Non est necesse ut ‘altera’ intelligatur positum relatiue. Forte factum est in sequenti 1, 35~~

~~die, forte quadam alia die. STABAT. Vide quia huiusmodi uerba sepe in sacra scriptura non designant~~

~~status corporum, sed potius status animorum. Non est ergo referendum ad situm corporis, quia forte~~

~~non stabat ad litteram, sed ad statum erecte mentis. Glosa: IMMOBILIS.~~

~~5 ET RESPICIENS, hominem oculo corporis, Deum incarnatum oculo mentis. Glosa: 1, 36~~

~~INCARNATIONE.~~

~~ECCE AGNVS DEI. Vide quia quod sepe dixerat eis ad instructionem modo ait ad~~

~~incredulitatis exprobrationem. Sepe enim persuaserat eis ut potius sequerentur Christum quam se.~~

~~Vnde quidam ex eis indignati sunt. Glosa: QVASI, ‘QVID ME SEQVIMINI’?~~

~~10 ET SECVTI. Glosa: IMPERIO MAGISTRI. Nota quia non ex toto secuti sunt eum sicut postea, 1, 37~~

~~quando relictis nauibus et patre secuti sunt eum. Glosa: VT IAM EVM POTIVS. Nota hoc uerbum,~~

QVANDO DE NAVI, quia non leguntur nisi quatuor uocati de naui, scilicet, Petrus, Andreas, Iacobus, Iohannes. Vnde constat hos duos fuisse aliquos de illis quatuor: DVO SECVNTVR. Hoc mysticum est. Mystice Iohannes stat, Christus ambulat, id est lex cessat, gratia subintrat. Glosa: TYPICE. De hac 15 habes interlinearem: SEQVENTES EVANGELIVM LEGEM AMISERVNT, id est legalia postposuerunt, VTENTES TAMEN EIVS TESTIMONIO, quia lex perhibet adhuc testimonium Christo. Ideoque etiam legalia adhuc in ecclesia leguntur.

~~1 ALTERA] autem add. φ 2 quadam] factum est in γ | STABAT] et add. φ Β 3 ergo] om. φ 4 erecte] recte φ 7 eis] om. γ 9 ex eis] om. φ~~

~~10 ET SECVTI ] et secuta δ (ante corr. P ) A, om. γ | glosa] interlinearis add. φ (post corr. O)~~

~~10/1 sicut postea – secuti sunt eum] om. D M (ob homoioteleuton) 14 Glosa] om. φ (ante corr. N ) 15 habes] habemus φ (post corr. O) D | interlinearem] sequentem add. φ | postposuerunt]~~

~~preposuerunt ε δ (αnte corr. P ) M , proposuerunt O 16 perhibet] et add. φ | etiam] om. γ 17 legalia adhuc] tr. γ~~

4 INTERL. ad 1, 35: “Stabat. Immobilis stat in culmine perfectionis.” 6 INTERL. ad 1, 36: “Ambulantem. Incarnatione ad nos uenientem.” 9 INTERL. ad 1, 36: “Ecce. Quasi: ‘Quid me sequimini? Illum sequimini qui est agnus Dei, precium mundi.’” 10 INTERL. ad 1, 37 11/ MARG. ad 1, 37: “Vt iam eum potius quam Iohannem audirent, non tamen adhuc penitus ei adherentes, sed ut uideant ubi habitat, ut assidue ad eum ueniant et ab eo erudiantur, post perfecte secuti quando eos de naui uocauit. Duo secuntur, quia qui secuntur gemina caritate debent accendi.” 14 MARG. ad 1, 35: “Typice. Stat Iohannes, cessat lex, tamen testimonium perhibens Christo. Ambulat Iesus, id est gratia, hinc inde colligens.” 15/6 INTERL. ad 1, 34: “Secuti sunt Iesum. Sequentes euangelium legem amiserunt, utentes tamen eius testimonio.”

~~LVI~~

~~QVID QVERITIS? Acsi diceret: ‘Petite quicquid uultis.’ De hoc habes glosam: DAT 1, 38~~

~~FIDVCIAM. Et uide quia Dominus non querit pro ignorantia, sed ad meritum respondentium. Glosa:~~

~~INTERROGAT … ‘QVID’? Hoc de littera: REM, quasi: Dominus interrogatione sua notat rem per hoc~~

~~nomen ‘quid.’ Non enim ait ‘quem,’ ne notando personam se uideretur ostendere. Nota quia ipsa~~

~~5 conuersio Domini corporalis mystice potest intelligi. Mystice namque ante incarnationem uidebatur~~

~~ab hominibus quasi a tergo et non in facie, sed faciem suam uidendam prebuit cum in carne uisibilis~~

~~apparuit. Glosa: QVASI A TERGO.~~

~~RABI … VBI HABITAS? Postea sume uerbum euangeliste: QVOD DICITVR~~

~~INTERPRETATVM MAGISTER. Hoc apposuit Iohannes qui Grece scripsit. Glosa: NOLVNT EO.~~

~~10 Etsi ad litteram de /224vb/ hospiciolo eius querant, potest tamen mystice intelligi. Acsi dicant:~~

~~‘Erudi nos in quibus habitas per gratiam, ut nos eis conformemus.’ Vel mystice possunt dicere: ‘Nos~~

~~uidemus ubi manes temporaliter secundum hominem, sed ostende nobis eternam tuam mansionem,’~~

~~id est quomodo manes eternaliter apud Patrem. Glosa: MYSTICE.~~

~~VENITE. Ecce sicut mystica interrogatio, ita et mystica responsio. Quasi: ‘Vos queritis in 1, 39~~

~~15 quibus habitem per gratiam uel eternam habitationem meam, sed hoc melius intelligetis per fidem et~~

~~bonam operationem quam per doctrinam uel instructionem.’ Glosa: QVASI SERMONE.~~

~~1 uultis] et add. φ | habes] habemus D N 3 QVID] interrogat add. φ | REM] et cetera add. γ~~

~~4 quid] quod I M 7 A TERGO φ] om. α β M a.c. 8 RABI] om. φ, uir abi ε (uir ibi Z ), mirabili D, uir a. M, uir rabi P I 9 apposuit] posuit γ | scripsit] om. δ | EO] om. φ~~

~~10 hospiciolo eius] tr. M, eius hospicio φ | mystice intelligi] tr. I M~~

~~11 conformemus] conformemur φ I Z~~

~~12 uidemus] uidimus φ | manes] maneas φ | manes temporaliter] tr. γ Z | tuam mansionem] tr. γ Ι~~

~~14 et] om. δ φ Β 15 habitem] habitat δ~~

~~16 uel] et I M | instructionem] Glosa: QVASI SVNT. Interlinearis add. φ (ante corr. N )~~

1/2 INTERL. ad 1, 38: “Dat fiduciam interrogandi.” 3 MARG. ad 1, 38: “Interrogat eos non ignorans, sed ut mercedem habeant respondentes, ‘quid?’ rem non personam, ‘quid?’ non ‘quem?,’ ne se uideatur ostendere. Illi personam respondent.” 7 MARG. ad 1, 38: “Quasi a tergo uiderant, sed quasi faciem prebuit dum de maiestate descendit, ut posset uideri dum pro umbra legis euangelii lucem exibuit.” 9 INTERL. ad 1, 38: “Nolunt eo transitorie uti, sed scire locum quo frequenter ueniant et secreto instrui.” 13 MARG. ad 1, 38: “Mystice. Volunt ostendi sibi in quibus Christus habitet ut se illi assimilent, uel qui incarnationem uident pie querunt ostendi sibi eternam mansionem quomodo sit apud Patrem.” 16 INTERL. ad 1, 39: “Venite. Quasi sermone non potest explicari, sed opere demonstratur. Venite credendo et operando et intelligetis. Venite testimonio Iohannis, a lege recedite et gratiam suscipietis.”

~~LVII~~

~~ET APVD. Interlinearis: POSTQVAM. DIE ILLO. Vere in die manebant qui cum luce~~

~~manebant, id est Christo. Interlinearis: NON EST NOX, uel per diem claritas euangelii exprimitur. Et de hoc habes aliam: OSTENDIT.~~

~~ERAT AVTEM HORA. Nec idipsum a mysterio uacat. Per hoc enim quod decima hora 5 uenerunt, mystice ostenditur quod a decalogo uenerunt. Glosa: QVASI DECIMA, QVIA EX LEGE …~~

~~DECIMA QVERVNT DOCERI. Supra querunt ab eo doceri ubi fatentur eum magistrum dicentes ‘Rabi.’ CVM MISERICORDIA, quia non tantum docet, sed misericorditer dimittit peccata.~~

~~ERAT AVTEM ANDREAS. Vide quia ad hoc, ut stet quod supra habuisti in glosa, ut alter 1, 40~~

~~istorum fuerit Iacobus uel Iohannes. Certum est enim ex sequenti quia non fuit Petrus. Nos autem~~

~~10 presumimus quod fuerit Iohannes, quia sancti pro humilitate solent nomina sua subticere, et~~

~~necessario alter illorum fuit socius istius Andree, cum non legatur aliquis uocatus de naui preter istos~~

~~quatuor. Glosa: MINOR … FORTE AD DIGNITATEM, quia etsi Petrus fuerit posterior uocatus tamen~~

~~magis priuilegiatus.~~

~~INTVITVS AVTEM. Huic uerbo adheret Pelagius, quasi diceret: ‘Intuitus est secretum cordis 1, 42~~

~~15 eius, et uidit in eo quandam habilitatem et ydoneitatem et iam bonum merito suo, nondum apposita~~

~~gratia, et pro merito suo mutauit ei nomen.’ Similiter adheret ille euangelice parabole qua dicitur~~

~~a.c. 1 ET APVD ] eum manserunt add. φ (post corr. O ) | interlinearis] om. N O | POSTQVAM] om. φ (ante corr. N ), p.c. p hu ψ I P , plm D, p hac M~~

~~2 NOX] uox I D~~

~~3 habes] habemus D N | OSTENDIT] et cetera add. om. φ (post corr. O) 4 HORA] quasi decima add. φ~~

5 QVASI DECIMA] scripsi Glosam secutus, q.d. β D N Z, quasi diceret A P T, quasi d. M, quasi dicat O 6 DECIMA QVERVNT DOCERI] de qua γ 7 misericorditer] meritum B 8 AVTEM] om. φ | ut1] quod γ | habuisti in glosa] in glosa habuisti oportet φ

~~15 iam] tam I O~~

1 INTERL. ad 1, 39: “Manserunt. Postquam ad Christum uentum est, ibi est manendum.” 2 INTERL. ad 1, 39: “Apud eum. Non est nox ubi est lumen Christus.” 3 MARG. ad 1, 39: “Die illo. Ostendit nouum testamentum siue presentem uitam.” 5/7 MARG. ad 1, 39: “Quia ex lege uenerant decalogus, ad Christum misit. Decima hora querunt doceri ab ipso quia non alius docet legem nisi qui dedit eam. Docet autem cum misericordia et impletur que impleri non poterat.” 12 MARG. ad 1, 40: “Minor natu prior credit. Non enim est ordo inanis. Forte ad dignitatem Andree dicitur esse frater Petri, super quem fundanda erat ecclesia.”

~~LVIII~~

de patrefamilias quod distribuit seruis talenta et uni dedit quinque, alii duo, alii unum, unicuique secundum propriam uirtutem.* IOHANNA. Vide quia idem nomen est Iona uel Iohanna in Hebreo quod Iohannes in Latino. Vnde in alio euangelista dicitur “Symon Iohannis,” sed corrupte dicitur Iona, integre 5 Iohanna. TV VOCABERIS CEPHAS. Quidam uolunt nomen hic esse impositum. Alii in electione apostolorum ubi dicitur: Et imposuit Symoni nomen Petrus. Alii adhuc inferius ubi dictum est /225ra/ ei: Tu es Petrus. Et si dicas hic esse impositum, expones quod in electione apostolorum dictum est: Et imposuit, id est impositum confirmauit. Interlinearis est de alia opinione: NONDVM PONIT NOMEN, 10 SED PRESIGNAT. Nota illam: PRIVS DICIT et cetera, IN MVTATIONE AVTEM NOTATVR VIVACITAS

~~MYSTERII, id est uirtus secreti, id est uirtus quedam secreta.∴ Vel ita: IN MVTATIONE AVTEM, id est in~~

facilitate mutationis, quia facilis est mutatio et prolatio nominis. NOTATVR, in Petro et in aliis, VIVACITAS, id est strenuitas, MYSTERII, id est officii, quia per facilem mutationem nominis notatur strenuitas in officio predicationis.* IN FIGVRA ECCLESIE, quia Petrus gerit personam ecclesie ubi ei 15 dicitur: Tu es Petrus.∴

1 quod] qui I M 2 propriam uirtutem] uide APPENDIX I, 36 3 idem nomen est] nomen est idem δ | Iona – Iohanna] tr. φ 9/10 in Latino] latine φ 4 dicitur] om. φ a.c. 7 apostolorum] dicunt add. φ 7/8 alii adhuc –Petrus] om. I N O (ob homoioteleuton) 8 apostolorum] om. γ (ante corr. N ) 9 alia] illa φ

10 PRESIGNAT] designat φ (ante corr. N ) | PRIVS] primo φ (ante corr. N ) | et cetera] om. M O 10/1 IN MVTATIONE – quedam secreta] om. B et add. APPENDIX II, 18 11 MYSTERII] ministerii φ (post corr. O) | quia] om. φ 14 officio predicationis] uide APPENDIX I, 37 | ubi] ut φ 14/5 quia Petrus – Tu es Petrus] om. B et add. APPENDIX II, 19

9/10 INTERL. ad 1, 42 10/4 MARG. ad 1, 42: “Prius dicit nomen quod habet a parentibus, ut significetur mutatio dum de Symone Petrum facit. In mutatione autem notatur uiuacitas misterii, sed nec prius nomen caret uirtute. Est enim Symon obediens filius Grece, uel columbe, dum uenit ad Iesum sequens fratrem. Vnde a petra Christo dicitur Petrus, firmus in illo, in figura ecclesie que in petra fundatur.”

~~1/ 2 MT. 24, 14-30; LC. 19, 12-27 4 MT. 16, 17; cfr IO. 21, 16-7 7 MC. 3, 16 8 MT. 16, 18~~

~~LIX~~

~~IN CRASTINVM et cetera. Iohannes, ut a principio diximus, aggressus est euangelium scribere ad 1, 43~~

~~supplementum, quia legerat aliorum euangelia et deprehenderat quedam de ueritate historie deesse.~~

Supplet ergo primam uocationem discipulorum a ceteris pretermissam. Ideo dico ‘primam,’ quia legitur trina uocatio discipulorum. Prima uocatio facta est a baptismo usque ad miraculum 5 mutationis aque in uinum et ea uocati sunt quinque, scilicet Andreas, Iohannes, Petrus, Philippus, Nathanael. Secunda facta est a miraculo usque ad sequens Pascha quando incarceratus est Iohannes, quando quatuor uocati sunt de naui et relictis nauibus secuti sunt eum, scilicet Petrus, Andreas, Iacobus, Iohannes. Tertia post incarcerationem Iohannis quando idem quatuor uocati sunt bini et bini, Petrus et Andreas seorsum, Iacobus et Iohannes seorsum. Sic leguntur isti sex uocati, scilicet 10 Petrus, Andreas, Iacobus, Iohannes, Philippus, Nathanael. De uocatione quoque Mathei legitur. Quomodo autem uel quando fuerint uocati alii ex euangelica historia non habetur, scilicet Symon, Thadeus, Bartholomeus et alii. Potest autem notari differentia uocationum ex processu uocatorum. In primaria namque uocatione Dominum reuera secuti sunt sed ei non adheserunt, sed querebant scire hospiciolum eius 15 ut ad eum frequenter uenirent. In secunda autem uocatione Domino adheserunt sed non ex toto, quia post illam uocationem habuerunt propria, scilicet domos, agros, liberos, uxores cum quibus pro tempore habitabant. /225rb/ In tertia uero uocatione omnino ei adheserunt, quia omnem proprietatem abiecerunt nec postea redierunt ad propria. Agens itaque de primaria uocatione subdit

1 et cetera] om. γ | diximus] om. φ | scribere] ascribere B 2 euangelia] euangelium γ a.c. a.c. 3 ergo] itaque φ | uocationem discipulorum] tr. γ | pretermissam] premissam M Z 4 prima] enim add. δ | prima uocatio] tr. φ (post corr. O) 4/5 miraculum mutationis] mutationem φ a.c. 5 scilicet] om. γ Ι | Iohannes] om. M O | Iohannes, Petrus] tr. φ (post corr. O)

~~7 nauibus] retibus γ 7/8 Petrus Andreas Iacobus Iohannes] Petrus et Andreas et Iacobus et Iohannes I M O 9 leguntur isti sex uocati] leguntur uocati isti sex γ~~

~~10 Petrus] et add. δ I | Iacobus] et add. δ I 11 uocati fuerint alii] sint alii uocati φ, uocati sunt alii M~~

~~13 differentia uocationum] alia uocatio M O | processu] precessu γ 14 reuera] om. γ | secuti sunt] tr. γ (post corr. O) | hospiciolum] hospicium φ 15 autem] om. γ | liberos, uxores] tr. φ~~

3/10 Trina uocatio] cfr WAL. STRABO?, Expos. in quat. euang. (871C-D); P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., capp. 36, 41, 45 (1557A - 1562D) 4/6 IO. 1, 35-51 6/8 MC. 1, 16-20; LC. 5, 4-11 8/9 MT. 4, 18-22 10 MT. 9, 9-13; MC. 2, 13-7; LC. 5, 27-8

~~de uocatione Philippi, iam enim premiserat de uocatione Andree et Iohannis ubi dictum est: Venite~~

~~et uidete, et de uocatione Petri ubi dictum est: Tu uocaberis Cephas. Subdens ergo de uocatione Philippi~~

~~dicit in hunc modum: IN CRASTINVM et cetera. Et noli te astringere tante paucitati dierum, sed~~

~~‘crastinum’ large accipe pro qualibet alia sequenti die. Glosa: NON AD ILLA.~~

~~5 EXIRE. Interlinearis: A IVDEA, quia ascenderat de Galilea in Iudeam ut baptizaretur a~~

~~Iohanne et postquam bapizatus est rediit in Galileam. Et intellige quod traxerit istos secum.~~

~~ET INVENIT PHILIPPVM. Vide quia interpretatio nominis tantum ponitur hic pro memoria.~~

~~Vide quia ex ipso nomine regionis, in quam traducit eos localiter, mystice insinuat quo traducit eos~~

~~spiritualiter. Galilea enim interpretatur transmigratio uel reuelatio, quia sub disiunctione ponit glosa~~

~~10 interpretationes. Sed mysterium quod surgit de interpretationibus exigit eas poni coniuncte, ut dicatur~~

~~‘transmigratio et reuelatio,’ acsi eo ipso quod traducit eos in Galileam mystice dicat: ‘Traduco uos in~~

~~transmigrationem et in reuelationem.’ Est autem transmigratio duplex: de malo in bonum, de bono~~

~~in melius. Primo enim transmigrat homo de uiciis ad uirtutes, postea de uirtute in uirtutem, et de hac~~

transmigratione peruenit ad reuelationem, id est ad uisionem Dei. Glosa: GALILEA.*

~~15 A BETHSAIDA. Non est sine pondere quod dicit eos fuisse de Bethsaida, interpretatur enim 1, 44~~

~~domus uenatorum. Quo uerbo et eorum officium innuitur et affectus animi circa officium. Per~~

~~a.c. a.c. 1 premiserat] pretermiserat M O~~

~~2 subdens] subdit δ I | ergo] enim δ I, uero φ p.c. 4 sequenti die] tr. γ I | AD] ab γ Z~~

~~6 traxerit] traxit φ | istos secum] tr. B M 7 tantum ponitur hic] hic ponitur tantum φ~~

~~8 quo] quod γ Z 9 sub disiunctione] subiunctiue φ (ante corr. N )~~

~~10 glosa] om. φ | eas] eos B M~~

~~11 coniuncte] sub coniunctione B | quod] quo I T | traducit] introducit B 12 in2] om. γ 14 in] ad γ | GALILEA] uide APPENDIX I, 38~~

~~16 A BETHSAIDA] ab Esaida I M 17 eorum officium] tr. γ~~

5 INTERL. ad 1, 43: “Voluit exire. A Iudea, ubi erat Iohannes baptizans.” 15 MARG. ad 1, 43: “Galilea dicitur transmigratio uel reuelatio. Transmigrat homo a uiciis ad uirtutes et post de uirtute in uirtutem, et sic sit ei reuelatio ut uideatur Deus deorum in Syon. Vocaturus ergo discipulum ad sequendum, id est imitandum, exit in Galileam ipso loco innuens, ut sicut ipse proficiebat sapientia et sicut per passiones intrauit in gloriam, sic sequaces.”

~~1/2 IO. 1, 39 2 IO. 1, 42~~

~~LXI~~

~~hoc enim ostenduntur esse uenatores, id est predicatores qui uenantur ad capiendas animas retibus~~

~~uerbi Dei. Et per id ipsum exprimitur affectus eorum circa predicationem, uenatio enim est actus~~

~~laboriosus, sed affectuosus. Et uide quia in sacra scriptura raro acccipiuntur piscatores in malo,~~

~~uenatores in bono. Accipiuntur tamen quandoque uenatores in bono. Vnde Zacharias: Mittam ad eos~~

~~5 uenatores et uenabuntur eos ex omni loco et monte. Ita accipiuntur hic. Glosa: NON FRVSTRA … VNDE~~

~~PHILIPPVS. Ecce iam ostendit se uenatorem esse.~~

~~QVEM SCRIPSIT et cetera. Vide quia ut legisperitus sciebat que in lege et prophetis predicta 1, 45~~

~~erant de messia uenturo. Ergo uidens ea impleta circa ipsum, per ea ostendit esse illum qui predictus~~

/225va/ erat in lege et prophetis, scilicet quia dicitur Iesus et quia filius Ioseph, id est descendens de 10 progenie Ioseph, id est de progenie Dauid de qua descendit Ioseph. Glosa: VT CAVTVS VENATOR …

~~VT PER EVM CVM MARIA MATRE EIVS∴ QVAM SCIEBAT EX PROPHETIS VIRGINEM PEPERISSE, id est~~

cuius partum sciebat a prophetis prenuntiatum esse, nondum enim sciebat eam peperisse, NOTETVR ESSE DE DOMO DAVID … NON QVOD DE EO NATVS. IESVM. Interlinearis: ET HOC NOMEN A PROPHETIS, sicut et illud supradictum, scilicet 15 messias.* FILIVM IOSEPH. Ita introduc interlinearem: ‘Iste dicit eum filium Ioseph,’ VT ET MARIA.

1 ostenduntur] ostenditur γ Z 2 enim] autem γ 1 a.c. 3/4 accipiuntur – in bono ] om. N O (ob homoioteleuton) a.c. 5 monte] mente M O 8 ea1] om. γ | circa ipsum] circa Christum que de ipso dicta erant B

~~9 scilicet quia] secundum quod φ, scilicet quod I M a.c. 10 VT ] preter α I M, om. N , propter O 10/1 CAVTVS – PEPERISSE] om. φ (ante corr. N )~~

~~11 id est] om. I O | MATRE EIVS] uide APPENDIX II, 20 a.c. 12 prenuntiatum] pronuntiatum M O~~

~~13 DOMO] om. φ | NATVS] natum δ Z 14 IESVM] om. γ | supradictum] quod predictum est γ 14/5 scilicet messias] tr. γ 15 messias] uide APPENDIX I, 39 | ita] scilicet δ~~

5/6 MARG. ad 1, 44: “Non frustra nominatur ciuitas, nec frustra dicitur Philippi, Petri, Andree. Sonat enim domus uenatorum, in quo notatur animus et officium istorum. Sunt enim uenatores in capiendis animabus. Vnde Philippus antequam fiat apostolus sponte uocat Nathanaelem.” 10/3 MARG. ad 1, 45: “Vt cautus uenator multis rationibus ueritatem fratri astruit, scilicet quod Iesus est qui prenuntiatur in lege et prophetis, filius Ioseph qui est de domo Dauid, ut per eum non quod de eo natus cum Maria ex matre eius quam sciebat ex prophetis, uirginem peperisse notetur esse ex Dauid.” 14 INTERL. ad 1, 45 15/6 INTERL. ad 1, 45: “Filium Ioseph. Vt et Maria que non ignorat se uirginem dicit: Ego et pater tuus.”

~~4/5 immo IER. 16, 16~~

~~LXII~~

~~A NAZARETH. Glosa: PATRIAM PONIT. Nota quia secundum editionem nostram non~~

~~inuenies hoc expresse in aliquo prophetarum, scilicet “Nazareus uocabitur,” sed secundum aliam~~

~~editionem inuenies. Vbi in littera nostra dicitur: Flos de radice eius ascendet, Hebraica ueritas habet:~~

~~“Nazareus,” id est floridus, “de radice eius ascendet.”~~

~~5 A NAZARETH POTEST ALIQVID BONI ESSE? Potest enim dubitando querere: numquid a 1, 46~~

~~Nazareth potest esse aliquis uir bonus et magni nominis, cum sit modicus uiculus et nullius~~

momenti? Vel affirmando potest dicere: licet sit modicus uicus et contemptibilis, tamen potest ab eo exire homo magne dignitatis. Glosa: VEL DVBITANDO. Sed quid est quod dicitur “tanti nominis,” cum nullius momenti esset? Intellige: TANTI NOMINIS, id est tante significationis. Magna namque 10 significatio est in interpretationibus nominis. Interpretatur enim flos, unde congruum erat ut inde egrederetur flos, id est Christus de quo dictum est: Egredietur uirga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet. Et uide quia Christus quandoque in sacra scriptura nomine fructus designatur, ut ibi: De fructu uentris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Et in Ysaia: Et fructus terre sublimis. Sed frequentius et elegantius nomine floris intelligitur. Flos enim habet tria que Christo congruunt: de arbore procedit sine arboris 15 lesione, sic Christus de utero uirginis non lesa uirginis integritate; flos decorus est, sic et Christus speciosus forma pre filiis hominum; in flore etiam spes fructus est, ita in Christo spes salutis. Interpretatur etiam germen quod Christo congruit de quo dictum est: Germinauit radix Iesse.

~~1 quia] quod φ B a.c. 3 inuenies] ut add. φ 3/4 Vbi in littera – ascendit] om. δ I M~~

5 ESSE] uel esse add. δ Α M T, uel add. B | dubitando] om. φ (ante corr. N ) 6 esse aliquis] tr. δ | uiculus] uicus φ 8 ab eo exire] exire ab eo β (ante corr. Ι ) | homo] uir γ | dignitatis] auctoritatis et praem. φ a.c. 10 est in] om. I M O, in N | enim] om. I M 12 radice] germine γ | quia] quod δ | Christus] om. γ (ante corr. N ) | quandoque in sacra scriptura] in sacra scriptura quandoque φ

~~13 ponam super sedem tuam] om. β γ ψ, ponam et cetera δ 15 uirginis] uirginitatis γ 17 salutis] est add. φ Ι | etiam] et φ~~

1 INTERL. ad 1, 46: “Nazareth. Patriam ponit, ut notet eum de quo prophete: Nazareus uocabitur.” 8/9 MARG. ad 1, 46: “Vel dubitando interrogat, uel affirmat ut legisperitus a ciuitate tanti nominis posse esse aliquem bonum uel eximium doctorem uel ipsum saluatorem. Dicitur enim Nazareth flos, germen mundicie, sanctitas. Vtrique autem pronuntiationi congrue subditur: Veni et uide.”

3/4 HIER., Comm. in euang. Mat., lib. I, 208-16; cfr IDEM, Epistulae, ep. LVII, n. VII 3 ISA. 11, 1 11/2 ibid. 13 PS. 131, 11; ISA. 4, 2 16 PS. 44, 3 17 ANT. IV ad Laud. in Octaua Nat. Domini; cfr NVM. 24, 17

~~LXIII~~

~~Interpretatur etiam sanctitas, quod congruit ei de quo dictum est: Cum uenerit sanctus sanctorum, cessabit~~

~~unctio uestra. Post /225vb/ hanc illam: NATHANAEL, et uult legi litteram enuntiando.~~

~~VENI ET VIDE. Vt bonus discipulus iam imitatur uerba magistri sui, qui supra dixerat:~~

~~Venite et uidete.~~

~~5 IN QVO DOLVS NON EST, quia non simulabat se bonum, adhuc tamen habens mortale 1, 47~~

~~peccatum.~~

~~VNDE ME, id est conscientiam meam, NOSTI? Acsi diceret: ‘Deus es.’ Glosa: COGNOSCENS. 1, 48~~

~~PRIVSQVAM … TE. Et hoc totum sub una distinctione potest legi. Quidam tamen legunt~~

~~sub duabus hoc modo: PRIVSQVAM TE PHILIPPVS VOCARET, VIDI TE, id est cum esses~~

~~10 materialiter in primis parentibus, quando latuerunt sub ficu et fecerunt sibi perizomata, VIDI TE, id~~

~~est predestinaui te. Hoc autem ex quodam uerbo cuiusdam glose uolunt habere, ut iam ostendetur.~~

~~TV ES FILIVS. Glosa: ECCE EADEM VOX, id est eadem confessio. Modo illam: QVIA~~

~~COGNOVIT. Post hanc illam: MYSTICE NATHANAEL.∴ 1, 49~~

~~QVIA DIXI TIBI ‘VIDI TE SVB FICV’ CREDIS? Et ideo, quia per hoc modicum credis, 15 MAIVS HIS, scilicet que tibi modo dixi, quia hec modica sunt, VIDEBIS. Vel sub una distinctione 1, 50~~

5 simulabat] simulabit φ (ante corr. N ) | tamen] om. γ 7 ME] nosti add. γ 7/8 COGNOSCENS. PRIVSQVAM TE] priusquam cognoui φ, cognoui priusquam M 9 duabus] duobus δ | te Philippus uocaret] Philippus uocaret te γ 11 habere] intelligere γ 12 FILIVS] dei add. γ 13 MYSTICE NATHANAEL] uide APPENDIX II, 21 | NATHANAEL] nota δ (ante corr. P ) Z

~~14 Et] id est γ Ι | ideo] om. M N 15 tibi modo] tr. φ | VIDEBIS] om. γ~~

2 MARG. ad 1, 45: “Nathanael peritissimus scripturarum intelligit quod non alii, a Nazareth exire singularem Nazareum, quia autem doctissimus non est in apostolum electus. Omnes enim apostoli primo de idiotis, ut confundantur sapientes.” 8 MARG. ad 1, 48: “Cognoscens Dominum loqui de sua conscientia, non ex indignatione, querit sed admirando, unde et ex qua uirtute.” 13 INTERL. ad 1, 49: “Tu es Filius Dei. Ecce eadem Nathanaelis uox uel confessio, que post Petri. Vnde et Petrus meruit uocari.” 13/4 MARG. ad 1, 49: “Quia cognouit Nathanael Christum absentem uidisse que ipse in alio loco gesserat, id est quomodo et ubi uocatus sit a Philippo, quod est indicium deitatis. Fatetur non solum magistrum sed et Dei Filium et regem Israhel, id est Christum, in quo probatur esse Israhelita, ut dicitur, id est uidens Deum.” 14 MARG. ad 1, 49: “Mystice Nathanael, id est donum Dei, est uerus populus Israel dono Dei, qui erat sub ficu abditus, id est sub consuetudine peccandi et umbra mortis, ut primi parentes sub fici foliis se texerunt, ubi prius uisus est a Domino, et quesitus quam Deum uideret et quereret, ante etiam quam per apostolos uocaret.”

~~1/2 P. LOMBARDVS, Magna glosatura in Ps., Ps. 4, 4; 73, 10 (ex PS. AVG., Contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos, cap. XII [1124]); cfr DAN. 9, 24 12 ut iam ostendetur] uide infra, LXIV, 8/15~~

~~LXIV~~

~~potest legi hoc totum: QVIA DIXI TIBI ‘VIDI TE SVB FICV’ CREDIS? id est quia credis, ideo quia~~

~~dixi tibi: Vidi te sub ficu, maius reuelabitur tibi.~~

~~Et statim determinat quod maius dicens*: VIDEBITIS CELVM APERTVM et cetera. Potuit 1, 51~~

~~esse quod uiderit ad litteram angelos ascendentes et descendentes ad eum et ministrantes ei, licet non~~

5 legatur alicubi. Et nota quia id quod modo factum est circa Nathanaelem congruit ei quod factum est circa Iacob. Sicut enim Iacob, quia uidit angelos ascendentes et descendentes, dictus est Israhel, sic Nathanael idem uisurus dictus est a Domino Israhelita. Glosa: NATHANAEL. Nota quia licet forte, sicut dictum est, ad litteram possit intelligi quod

~~ait: Videbitis celum apertum et cetera, tamen mystice intelligitur. Glosa: QVOD DICTVM EST.∴ Et nota~~

10 illud uerbum infra: MAIVS EST EIS CELVM APERIRI, id est credere et iustos esse, QVAM VISOS, ID EST PRESCITOS ESSE DVM ESSENT SVB VMBRA MORTIS. Hinc habes auctoritatem quia maius est esse iustum quam predestinatum, de quo sepe disputatur. Quia esse predestinatum et semper manere in iniustitia quid prodesset? Et uide quia huic uerbo quod dicitur, QVAM VISOS, ID EST PRESCITOS ESSE DVM ESSET SVB VMBRA MORTIS, adherent qui ita exponunt litteram: CVM ESSES SVB FICV VIDI 15 TE, id est cum esses in lumbis Ade /226ra/ latentis sub ficu, prius etiam predestinaui te.*

~~1 hoc totum] tr. φ | TIBI ] om. φ T~~

3 determinat] ei add. ε B | maius] est add. γ | quod maius, dicens] uide APPENDIX I, 40 | APERTVM] et apertum est φ 3/5 VIDEBITIS – legatur ibi] om. B 4 uiderit] uidit φ a.c. 5 alicubi] ubi γ ψ Ι P , ibi Β Τ | quia] quod β φ | id] ipsum add. γ 7 a Domino Israhelita] Israhelita a Domino φ 8 licet] om. φ (ante corr. N ) | forte sicut dictum] sicut dictum forte φ | quod ait] om. γ 9 uidebitis celum apertum et cetera] uidebis celos apertos γ | QVOD DICTVM EST] uide APPENDIX II, 22 10 ID EST] et γ

~~11 habes] habemus D N | quia] quod γ Ι~~

8 MARG. ad 1, 51: “Videbitis celum. Nathanael Israhelita dicitur uisurus apertum celum et angelos ascendentes et descendentes, ut olim patriarcha Iacob uidit scalam et angelos ascendentes et descendentes, qui per benedictionem uocatus est Israhel.” 9/11 MARG. ad 1, 51: “Quod dictum est Nathanaeli modo impletur in Christianis… et maius est celum aperiri et utramque naturam per angelos cognoscere quam uisos, id est prescitos esse, dum essent sub umbra mortis. Si enim ibi remanerent, quid profuisset ibi uideri?”

6 cfr GEN. 28, 11-12; GEN. 32, 28 7 IO. 1, 47 12 sepe disputatur] cfr P. COMESTOR?, Quaest., q. 298 (112-4); P. ABAELARDVS, Expos. in epist. ad Rom., cap. III, lib. II (873A - 838C) 14/5 cfr AVG., Sermones ad populum, sermo 89, n. 5; P. COMESTOR, Hist. euang., cap. 36 (1557D)

~~LXVI~~

~~APPENDIX I~~

~~ADIECTIONES MAGISTRALES (*)~~

1) VI, 14: Ne uidearis aliquatenus obfuscare splendorem uirginitatis in eo. Si dicatur eum uolentem nubere, id est ita in proposito habentem, ne propositum nubendi uideatur derogare uirginitati. Ita poteris exponere VOLENTEM NVBERE, id est paratum obsequi legi si forte legis precepto artaretur suscitare semen defuncto fratri. Lex quidem stabat ex aduerso uirginibus. Nullatenus tamen

~~desisteret timore maledicti, sed ne esset transgressor precepti.~~

~~Trad. text.: B I T Z (in textu B, extrinsecus I, intrinsecus T Z)~~

~~1 Ne] uel praem. B 2 proposito] eum add. T~~

2) XVII, 20:1 Vt adhereatur uerbo preteriti temporis inperfecti quod accommodatius est eternitati, que ab eterno fuit et interminabilis est, sicut uerbum tale cum significat rem fuisse et interminatam esse, et ideo potius dictum est ‘erat’ quam fuit uel erit. Et hoc idem notandum erit infra, ubi dicitur cui nomen erat Iohannes et, ut baptista dicit, hic erat qui post me uenturus est. Vel potest poni locutio consueto modo ut notet idemptitatem essentie, quia, cum idem sit ‘Filium esse eiusdem essentie cum Patre’ et ‘esse cum Patre eandem essentiam,’ probata idemptitate substantie probata est coeternitas. Nam si Filius est eadem essentia cum Patre, ergo uel est coeternus Patri uel Pater non est eternus.

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu B, intrinsecus post aliquo artaret [XVII, 17] T Z )~~

~~1 accommodatius est] accommodatur B 2 sicut] sic B 3 infra] om. B 4 dicitur – ut] Iohannes B 6 essentiam] cum Patre add. B | probata idemptitate] probat idemptitatem Z 7 cum Patre ergo] om. B~~

3) XVIII, 3: De hoc uidetur Ysidorus assignare rationem, scilicet quare cogitatio siue conceptus dicitur uerbum. Dicit enim quod dicitur uerbum quasi uernum, id est uerum uiuum, id est quod uere uiuit in mente, et ponitur ‘b’ pro ‘u,’ more consueto.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O)~~

~~1 conceptus] deceptus Oa.c. 2 quasi – uernum] om. O~~

~~4) XX, 3: SVBITO, id est non premissa eterna genitura, ut subito determinet dictum non apparuisse. Non enim subito apparuit. Primo enim conceptus, postea natus et a parentibus educatus.~~

Trad. text.: A B D I M P T Z (intrinsecus A Z, in textu B, intrinsecus post appunctata debet esse [XXI, 13] D P, intrinsecus post maleficia demonum [XXI, 15] I, intrinsecus post VERVM HOMINEM [XX, 14] M, intrinsecus post nisi tria tempora

~~[XXI, 12] T )~~

~~1 dictum] dicunt A D P T, deum I~~

~~1 cfr APPENDIX II, 4 LXVII~~

~~5) XXI, 13: ut quidam dicunt. Tamen legitur a magistris, et est summa: Quod uerbum substantiuum ‘sum’ quandoque significat substantiam tantum sine respectu alicuius motus, aliquando motum.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post quibusdam cartis [XXI, 17] N O)~~

6) XXIII, 9: Nota quod proprie dicitur creari quod de nihilo fit, formari quod de preiacente materia. Vnde potest dici: OMNIS FORMA, id est omne opus formationis, et illud dicitur opus formationis quod de alio fit, unde quatuor elementa prius fuerunt creata, quia de nihilo facta; post terra fuit formata compago et concordia possunt dici opera artificum ut domus et huiusmodi, quia Dei auctoritate fuerit aliquo medio, scilicet ministro.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O) 2/3 et illud – formationis] om. N~~

7) XXIII, 15: Distingue quia quod premittitur, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, dictum est pro creaturis; quod autem subditur, sine ipso factum est nichil, dictum est pro facturis. Quedam enim facit Deus sine medio, quedam alio mediante. Eorum autem que facit sine medio quedam facit de nichilo, ut quatuor elementa, alia facit de materia preiacente, ut que post materiam rerum conditione de quator elementis produxit, et huiusmodi dicuntur creature. Eorum uero que facit alio mediante quedam facit ministerio artificis, quedam ministerio solius nature, ut quod de ligno facit lapidem, et huiusmodi dicuntur facture. Pro eis ergo que fiunt inmediate a Deo, ait Iohannes prima fronte: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Pro eis uero que licet fiant a Deo, tamen non inmediate, non prima fronte ait: Per ipsum facta sunt, sed aliquantulum temperauit sermonem dicens: Sine ipso factum est nichil, ut huismodi temperamento sermonis innueret quia talia facit alius a Deo, sed non sine eo, id est eius auctoritate, quia ipse ut auctor, artifex ut minister.

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu post principe tenebrarum [XXIII, 4] B, intrinsecus post qua dicitur [XXIII, 12] T, extrinsecus Z)~~

~~4/5 materiam rerum conditione] primariam rerum conditionem B 6 quedam2] facit add. T~~

8) XXIV, 7: Aliter in apostolo: Ydolum nichil est, id est nullius potentie. Quasi diceret: ‘non potest tibi obesse comestio ydolotitorum, si cum sana conscientia comedas,’ id est si non exhibeas reuerentiam ydolo, et caueas tibi a scandalo pusillorum.

~~Trad. text.: I T Z (extrinsecus I [uersio altera], intrinsecus post ydolum nichil esse [XXIV, 5] T, intrinsecus post de operatione Verbi [XXII, 2] Z ) LXVIII~~

~~a.c. 1 nichil] non I 2 ydolotitorum] emendaui, ydolotitarum I T Z 1/3 Quasi – pusillorum] et est quod non potest prodesse uel obesse I~~

9) XXVI, 1: Augustinus est qui primo ita exposuit: Quidlibet erat uita in ipso, id est uiuens. Postea aliter distinxit, ita scilicet: Quod factum est in ipso uita erat, ut sit ablatiuus, non quod priorem expositionem mutari uellet, sed ut modico uerbo faceret obmutescere imperitos, quia bonum opus facit qui a stultorum questionibus citius se absoluit, uel qui a stulto cito se expedit.

~~Trad. text.: B I T Z] in textu post obiectio de Spiritu sancto [XXVI, 8] B, extrinsecus I, in textu T, intrinsecus post de operatione Verbi [XXII, 8] Z )~~

1 Augustinus] Et nota quod nisi dicitur QVOD FACTVM EST IN IPSO VITA ERAT, uita potest esse nominatiui casus, 1 uel ablatiui ut in ipsis glosis prenotauimus. praem. B | est ] om. I T Z 3 mutari uellet] tr. I Z

10) XXVI, 8: Ambrosius dicit in epistula ad Gratianum quod Iohannes Crisostomus ita distinxit: Sine ipso factum est nichil quod factum est in ipso, non quod aliam distinctionem improbet, sed ut ab hereticis se expediret.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O) 1 dicit] om. N~~

11) XXIX, 14: Sed Christus non erat testa nisi secundum alteram, tantum scilicet secundum penam, non secundum culpam. Christus uero secundum quod Deus est lux, quia lux dicitur ipsa substantia rei unde splendor procedit. Vnde sol dicitur lux in sui essentia, splendor in aere qui est ex sole dicitur lumen, quasi a luce manans. Vnde Christus secundum quod Deus est lux, secundum quod homo lumen, et, ut proprie satis dicatur, Christus dicitur lux, lumen, non lucerna, quia lucerna est lux in testa. Iohannes uel aliquis alius fragilis dicitur lucerna.

~~Trad. text.: N O (in textu N O) 5/6 quia lucerna – dicitur lucerna] om. Na.c.~~

~~12) XXX, 5: Glosa: ETSI VIDEAS PORTVM, TAMEN NISI ADHEREAS TABVLE IN NAVFRAGIO, NON PERTINGEAS AD PORTVM. Portus: Christi diuinitas. Tabula: Humanitas.~~

~~Trad. text.: BTZ (in textu B, in textu post est transeundum [XXX, 3] T, intrinsecus Z) 1 Glosa: ETSI] uelud si B 2 PERTINGEAS] pertinges T, pertingeres Z~~

~~13) XXXI, 16: ET, id est quia, MVNDVS PER IPSVM FACTVS EST. Si enim mundus per eum factus est, ergo ipse Deus est. Ergo in omni creatura essentialiter est, et ita probat adhuc esse Deum. LXIX~~

MVNDVS, id est amator mundi, NON COGNOVIT per approbationem, licet per comprehensionem. De cuiusmodi cognitione dicitur: Nescio uos, id est non approbo. Et Petrus: Nescio quid dicis, id est non approbo quod dicis.

~~Trad. text.: T Z (intrinsecus T Z )~~

~~14) XXXII, 5: Hic tripliciter mundus dicitur. Dicitur enim ratio, dicitur machina mundi, dicitur homo dilector mundi.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O)~~

~~15) XXXII, 14: Vnde alia translatio habet ‘in mundana natura’ uel ‘in propria natura,’ id est in natura humana priuilegiata et ei soli appropiata, scilicet a peccato immuni.~~

~~2 Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu post natura mundi [XXXII, 14] B, intrinsecus T Z )~~

~~16) XXXIII, 2: Vel quicumque homines non receperunt, id est aliqui de omnibus quicumque fuerunt.~~

~~Trad. text.: B I T Z (in textu B I, intrinsecus post QVICVMQVE HOMINES [XXXII, 17] T Z )~~

~~1 Vel] om. T Z~~

17) XXXIII, 7: Ne adhereas ordini uerborum tanquam primo receperunt et postea in filios adoptati, sed per hec duo uerba duo notantur in illa adoptione sibi cooperari, scilicet quia per hoc quod dictum est, ‘receperunt,’ notatur libertas arbitrii; per hoc quod dictum est, ‘dedit,’ notatur gratia.

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu post in qua ungitur B [XXXIII, 13], intrinsecus T Z )~~

~~3 dictum est] om. T Z~~

18) XXXIII, 15: Minus analogice dictum est ‘ex sanguinibus,’ quod auctores non uerbis minus analogicis commodius possunt exprimere ueritatem, non curatum de analogia, quia non timent ferulas grammaticorum uel philosophorum.

~~Trad. text.: I T Z (in textu I [uersio altera], intrinsecus T Z )~~

1 non] ut T 2 possunt] possint T | curatum] creatum T 3 uel philosophorum] om. Z 1/3 Minus analogice – philosophorum] Nota quod auctores nisi uerbis analogicis minus possunt commodius exprimere ueritatem non curauit de analogia, quia timent ferulas gramaticorum. Tamen pluraliter dictum est ex sanguinibus I

~~LXX~~

19) XXXIV, 6: Prius ostendit quo sit eundum, scilicet ad Deum, cum eius deitatem ostenderet. Sed quia parum prodest scire quo sit eundum nisi sciatur qua sit eundum, ideo agit de humanitate dicens: VERBVM CARO FACTVM EST. Verbi gratia, aliquis est in naufragio et uidet quo sit eundum, scilicet portum, sed parum prodest ei nisi habeat nauem per quam ueniat ad portum. Ita dico quod parum prodest scire portum salutis esse Deum nisi fidem habeat humanitatis per quam itur ad Deum. Vel est alia continuatio, hec scilicet:2

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O)~~

~~20) XXXVI, 12:3 DEVM NEMO VIDIT. Dixerat quod gratia et ueritas est per Iesum. Sed ne credetur~~

quod summa gratie et ueritatis esset pro presenti, remouet hoc per hoc quod dicit, DEVM NEMO, quia summa gratie et perfectio non habetur nisi per uisionem Dei que erit in futuro. Et hoc notat illa glosa: QVE SIT SVMMA VNIGENITVS, quasi diceretur: ‘Deum nemo uidit, sed unigenitus narrat quomodo eum uidebimus.’ In prosecutione illius glose: QVE SIT SVMMA, ibi scilicet: IPSE NARRAT SVIS QVIDEM DE TRINITATE, scilicet ibi docet de credendis, postea de faciendis, ibi scilicet: QVOMODO AD EAM PERVENIENDVM, deinde ostendit quod ipse est uia, cum dicitur: ET AD IPSAM INTRODVCIT.

~~Aliter, DEVM NEMO VIDIT VNQVAM, sed VNIGENITVS ENARRAVIT, id est efficaciter narrauit, id est demonstrauit Deum esse uisibilem, per hoc quod factus est homo, et hoc dicit glosa illa: IPSE ENARRAVIT.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post VT LVCERNE [XXXVII, 4] N O) 4 VNIGENITVS] unigeminis O 9 demonstrauit] enumerauit O~~

21) XXXVIII, 17: Per primum quidem de natura, per secundum de dignitate, per ‘quis’ de proprio nomine de quo querunt quasi admirantes, quia nemo in cognatione eius uocatur hoc nomine Iohannes. Non considerat in se humanam substantiam, id est communem naturam uel qualitatem propriam, ut referatur ad duo.

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu post itaque de tribus [XXXIX, 1] B, intrinsecus T Z )~~

~~1 Per primum – natura] de natura per primum quidem B 2 quasi] om. B | uocatur] uocaretur B 3 Iohannes] om. TZ 3/4 Non considerat – ad duo] om. B~~

~~2 Prius ostendit – hec scilicet] cfr supra, APPENDIX I, 12 3 cfr APPENDIX II, 4 LXXI~~

~~22) XLI, 8: Quasi qui hoc querebant ex inuidia querebant quia Christus et Iohannes magistri erant; et ideo pharisei, quia magistri erant, eis inuidebant.~~

~~Trad. text.: B T (in textu B, intrinsecus post supple cum dicitur [XL, 9] T ) 1 Quasi] quia B~~

~~23) XLV, 16: De hoc interlinearis: ALTERA DIE, ALTERA COGNITIONE, id est pleniori.~~

~~Trad. text.: B T Z (in textu post NON SOLVM [XLV, 17] B, in textu T Z )~~

24) XLVI, 5: Vel secundum auctoritatem illam ueteris testamenti, parce Domine, primum dicimus agnus Dei; et cum sequitur parce populo tuo, inde nos secundo agnus; et ne des hereditatem tuam in perdicionem, inde nos dicimus dona nobis pacem.

~~Trad. text.: D P (intrinsecus D P )~~

~~a.c. 1 auctoritatem] auctor P , in Ioele est hoc add. s.l. P~~

25) XLVI, 5:4 Alia ratio que est in Amalario sicut habetur in Iohel. Filii Israhel timentes captiuari cum fletu dicebant: Parce domine, parce populo tuo. Et sic illi timentes captiuitatem temporalem dicebant hoc uerbum bis, scilicet parce et cetera, ita nos timentes eternam dicimus: Agnus Dei miserere nobis, et hoc bis. Tercio dicimus: Dona nobis pacem, et illi dicebant: Et ne des hereditatem tuam gentibus.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O) 2 sic] si cum O 4 et1] quia O | tuam] om. O~~

26) XLVI, 5: Vel tractum est ab illo loco ueteris testamenti: Parce Domine, parce populo tuo et ne des hereditatem tuam in perditione. Ibi dicitur bis parce, hic bis dicimus miserere nobis; ibi dicitur ne des hereditatem tuam in perditionem, hic dona nobis pacem.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post simplex relatio [XLVII, 7] N, intrinsecus post SEMEL CONDITA [XLVII, 5] O) 2 miserere nobis] tr. O~~

~~27) XLVI, 15: TOLLIT. Non de loco ad locum, sicut tollimus lapides de plateis, sed adnichilat.~~

~~alia manu Trad. text.: B I T Z (in textu post Et nota – nobis pacem [APP. II, 6] B, extrinsecus I , intrinsecus T Z ) 1 TOLLIT] qui praem. B~~

~~4 cfr APPENDIX II, 9 LXXII~~

~~28) XLVII, 4: Hic erat lapis ad ostium monumenti magnus ualde quem amouit angelus magni consilii.5~~

~~alia manu Trad. text.: I T Z (extrinsecus I T, intrinsecus post testimonium in missa [XLVI, 12] Z )~~

~~1 ostium] hostium I Z~~

29) XLVIII, 1: Pronomen demonstratiuum ‘hic’ ponitur discretiue, quasi diceret: ‘Hic et non alius.’ Et dicitur uir a uiribus, uel melius a uiriditate de quo dictum est: Si in uiridi ligno hoc fit, in arido quid fiet? Sancti tamen dicuntur palmites. Non sunt tamen sine omni ariditate. Christus uero sine omni.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O) 1 demonstratiuum] deminatiuum ut uid. O~~

~~30) XLVIII, 5: Notandum quod est iusticia debita, est habundans, est superhabundans: debita cum minor se humiliat maiori, habundans cum par pari, superabundans cum maior minori, que fuit in Christo.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post ET VT IOHANNES [XLVIII, 13] N O)~~

31) XLVIII, 14: MANSIT. Spiritus mansit super Christum mirabiliter, id est ita mansit in eo quod ex eo et per eum mirabilia faciebat, et semper mansit in eo ad hoc, sed non ita in sanctis. Tamen semper est in sanctis, sed non semper in sanctis ad faciendum mirabilia, sed ad bene operandum. Tamen quidam dicunt simpliciter quod sanctitas semel habita numquam excidit, et ita semper in sanctis. Etsi non est in ramo, tamen est in radice, sicut fructus in hyeme dicitur esse in radice, non in ramo.

~~Trad. text.: N O (extrinsecus N, intrinsecus post ETIAM HOC TESTIMONIVM [XLVIII, 7] O)~~

32) XLVIII, 16: < IERONIMVS OSTENDIT – MVNDVM ESSE REDIMENDVM, > id est mundandum. Sed uidetur in hoc quod Iohannes hesitauerit in articulo fidei, quia in symbolo continetur tanquam unus articulus fidei. TANQVAM, ut ibi: “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.” Et uidetur quod teneretur scire quod per baptismum fieret remissio peccatorum. Sed ad hoc potest dici quod symbolum fuit appositum in Nicena synodo; apostoli in suo symbolo non dixerunt. Sed dixerunt tantum “credo remissionem peccatorum,” et hoc credebat Iohannes.

~~5 cfr infra, APPENDIX I, 40. LXXIII~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post interpretatur tinctio [XLIX, 6] N, extrinsecus O) 2 in2] om. O | unus] unius N~~

~~33) XLIX, 14: Augustinus melius excusat Iohannem quam Ieronimum in glosa illa: VISA COLVMBA.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus post alicui seruorum [XLIX, 17] N, intrinsecus O)~~

~~34) L, 6: Et potestas baptizandi potest dici potestas excellencie, non auctoritatis uel ministerii.~~

~~alia manu Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N, extrinsecus O ) 1 Et] om. N~~

~~35) L, 7:6 Sed tunc exponitur retinuit negatiue, id est nulli dedit.~~

~~Trad. text.: D P (intrinsecus D, extrinsecus P ) 1 Sed] et P~~

36) LVIII, 2: Sicut uidetis de patrefamilias, cum uidet pullum equi considerat ad quid dispositus est et secundum hoc facit eum aut ueredarium aut dextrarium, et secundum hoc Pelagius dicebat per bonum antecedens haberi gratiam et alia dona. Et hoc uidetur uelle Ambrosius super epistulam, quod quem Deus preuidet talem uel talem futurum illum uocat. Sed potest dici quod qui talis est futurus uocatur, sed non quia talis futurus.

~~Trad. text.: N O (intrinsecus N O)~~

37) LVIII, 14: Vnde preuidens in spiritu Ysaias eorum strenuitatem et discursum per orbem, quasi admiratur dicens: Qui sunt isti qui ut nubes uolant, id est quasi celeri uolatu per orbem discurrunt predicando?

~~Trad. text.: BINOTZ (in textu BNOZ, extrinsecus I, intrinsecus T )~~

~~a.c. 2 id est] om. I N O~~

38) LX, 14 (cf. XLV, 15): Tripliciter potest intelligi quod in glosa dicitur:7 Proficiebat sapientia quantum ad opinionem hominum uel in subditis uel in operibus sapientie. Non enim poterant proficere in uirtutibus, sed in operibus uirtutum.

6 cfr APPENDIX II, 15 7 sc. MARG. ad 1, 43, ‘Galilea dicitur’: “Vocaturus [Iesus] ergo discipulum ad sequendum…, exit in Galileam, ipso loco innuens ut sicut ipse proficiebat sapientia et sicut per passiones intrauit in gloriam, sic et sequaces.” LXXIV

Trad. text.: A B D I M N O P T Z (intrinsecus post DOLVS NON EST [LXIII, 5] A D O P T, in textu B, in textu post mortale peccatum I [LXIII, 6], in textu post DOLVS NON EST [LXIII, 5] M, extrinsecus N, intrinsecus post mortale

~~peccatum [LXIII, 6] Z )~~

~~1/2 Tripliciter – subditis uel] om. et add. VT SICVT IPSE PROFICIEBAT SAPIENTIA B 2 poterant] poterat N Z 3 in]~~

~~om. N O | uirtutum] VEL PROFICIEBAT SAPIENTIA, quantum ad opinionem hominum uel quantum ad subditorum profectum add. B~~

~~39) LXI, 15: In lege predictum est hoc nomen Iesus, unde Iacob in fine benedictionis Danielis: Salutare tuum expectabo, Domine. In prophetis, ut in Ysaia: Saluator ponetur in ea murus et antemurale.~~

~~Trad. text.: B I T Z (bis in textu, et hic et post messia uenturo [LXI, 8] B, extrinsecus I, intrinsecus T Z )~~

~~2 1 1 1 In] legitur praem. B | lege] enim add. B | est] om. T Z | Iesus] Iohannes B~~

40) LXIV, 3: Quaedam allusio est, quasi ‘quia Israhelita es, uidebis quod uidet Israhel. Hoc est: VIDEBITIS et cetera, quasi ‘uidebitis angelos assistentes et ministrantes Filio hominis,’ acsi celum aperiretur et ascenderent et descenderent. Forte sic uidit Nathanael ad litteram, licet non legatur quando uel ubi. Sepe enim leguntur angeli Christo homini ministrasse, ut post temptationem deserti et in resurrectione et ascensione, quia baiulus nubibus ascendit assistentibus choris angelorum et imminente passione apparuit angelus Domini confortans eum, et lapis amotus est ab hostio monumenti ministerio angelorum qui eius resurrectionem nunciauerunt.8

~~Trad. text.: B I (in textu B I )~~

~~1 Quedam allusio – hoc est] om. B 6 amotus est] remotus I 7 qui] quando I | nunciauerunt] nuntiabant I~~

41) LXIV, 15: SVB FICV. Interlinearis: SVB LEGIS LITTERA, quia sucus de ficubus expressus si tangat carnem facit in carne pruritum. Sic legis prohibitio fecit nature humane pruritum, quia natura humana prona in uetitum. Prohibe uxori tue ne loquatur alicui. De cetero non cessabit ei loqui.

~~Trad. text.: B I P T Z (in textu post iam ostendetur [LXIII, 12] B, in textu post resurrectionem nuntiabant [APP. I, 40, l.~~

~~6] I, extrinsecus P, intrinsecus T, intrinsecus post predestinaui te [XLIII, 12] Z )~~

~~2 nature humane] tr. B Z~~

~~8 cfr supra APPENDIX I, 28. LXXV~~

~~ADDENDA:~~

~~42) XVIII, 4: < Cogitatio enim mentis – remanet in mente > et est ex mente. Filius ex Patre, sed non est usquequaque simile, quia prius est mens quam conceptio. Pater non est prius quam Filius.~~

~~Trad. text.: N O (in textu N O)~~

~~43) XLVIII, 5: Vel per gratiam et ueritatem, id est per fidem et semiplenam intelligentiam datam in presenti.~~

~~Trad. text.: T Z (extrinsecus T Z ) 1 Vel] om. T | intelligentiam] intelligunt scientiam T~~

~~LXXVI~~

~~APPENDIX II~~

~~ADDITIONES SINGVLARES CODICVM B & I (∴∴∴)~~

1) II, 14: desuper illorum quatuor] add. I: Sicut scripta sacre pagine scriptis etnichorum, ita inter hec euangelium ueteri testamento, ita et Iohannes ceteris euangelistis excellit. Scriptura siquidem sacra excellit scripture1 etnichorum in tribus: in2 auctore, in materia, in fine. In auctore, quia illa ab homine, hec a Spiritu; scilicet in materia, quia illa de naturis rerum, hec de rerum auctore; in fine, quia illa ut habeatur scientia inflans, hec ut credamus, et credentes uitam habeamus. Eodem modo euangelium excellit uetus testamentum in tribus: in reuelatione figurarum, in inpletione promissorum, in celsitudine premiorum. In reuelatione figurarum, quia uitula rufa cremata extra castra, hic Christus occissus extra portam in promissis; quia ibi dictum est: Ecce uirgo concipiet, hic: Verbum caro factum est. In celsitudine premiorum, quia3 ibi: Terra fluens lac et mel, hic quod oculus4 non uidet nec auris audit et cetera. Similiter Iohannes ceteros euangelistas excellit in exordio operis, in5 supletione omissorum, in altitudine uerborum. Merito ergo in uisione Ezechielis per faciem aquile, que ceteris superior erat, designatur Iohannes.

2) VI, 17: DENIQVE] add. I quasi glosa intrinseca : DENIQVE. Hic commendat opus a materia, ponens secundum quosdam hic duo excellentia opera Verbi, id est Filii, de quibus agitur in hoc opere. Agitur enim in hoc opere de primordiali opere Verbi, scilicet de creatione rerum ubi dicitur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et de finali opere, scilicet de incarnatione Verbi facta in fine seculorum. Secundum hoc sic leges litteram: DENIQVE Iohannes MANIFESTANS QVOD ERAT IPSE, cuius animalis figura presignatus sit, scilicet quod merito aquila sit, quia de tam excellenti materia egit. IPSE, inquam, INCORRVPTIBILIS VERBI OPVS INCHOAT SOLVS. Sic distingue, id est solus agens de primordiali opere Verbi, quod nullus aliorum euangelistarum fecit, testatur: Verbum caro factum, id est egit de incarnatione Verbi dicens: Verbum caro factum est. Ideo autem distinxi post ‘solus,’ quia, si diceretur ‘solus Verbum carnem factum esse testatur,’ factum esset, hoc enim et alii fecerunt. Videtur autem quibusdam incongruam esse commendationem si Ieronimus commendet hoc opus a minori et non a maiori,6 scilicet a temporali genitura Verbi et non ab eterna

~~1 scripture] scripsi, scriptura I 2 in] om. Ia.c. 3 quia] scripsi, qe. I 4 oculus] oculis Ia.c. 5 in] scripsi, ii I 6 maiori] scripsi, minori I LXXVII~~

de qua similiter agit Iohannes. Vnde dicunt tria hic poni in hoc capitulo a quibus Ieronimus commendat hoc opus, scilicet eternam genituram Verbi et temporalem et primordiale opus. Secundum hoc sic leges litteram: DENIQVE Iohannes INCHOANS OPVS VERBI INCORRVPTIBILIS, agens de primordiali eius opere, SOLVS TESTATVR VERBVM CARNEM FACTVM, MANIFESTANS IN EVANGELIO QVOD IPSE, scilicet Verbum, id est Filius, ut sit relatio ad intellectum, ERAT INCORRVPTIBILIS, id est eternus cum Patre, scilicet ubi dixit: In principio erat Verbum et cetera, id est Iohannes solus hec duo facit, scilicet agit de incarnatione Verbi et de eius eternitate cum Patre. Nota quia in hac lectione ‘incorruptibilis’ est nominatiuus, et post ‘ipsum’ distinctio. In priori genitiuus, et distinctio post ‘ipse.’ Item in hac lectione ‘solvs’ refertur ad sequentia, et distinctio post ‘inchoans.’ In priori ‘solus’ refertur ad precedentia, et distinctio post ‘ipsum.’

3) XXIII, 9: CONCORDIA, id est proportio] add. I: Vel in hac glosa notantur tria opera, scilicet opus creationis quo Deus primo die fecit materiam omnium de nichilo, secundum quod dicitur creator; et opus ceterorum quinque dierum quo fecit aliqua ex materia, secundum quod dicitur formator; uel opus nature uel artificis, quorum proprie dicitur Deus auctor. Non enim proprie dicitur Deus illa facere, sed eo auctore ab auctentis fuerit illa. Primum ergo opus notat glosam, ibi: OMNIS CREATVRA; secundum, id est OMNIS COMPAGO; tertium, id est OMNIS CONCORDIA.

4) XXXVI, 12: EXPOSITO TESTIMONIO et cetera] add. B: ET CLAMAT DICENS, id est euidenter enunciat. /3va/ HIC ERAT et cetera. Cum eodem pondere intelligendum est uerbum preteriti temporis imperfecti cum quo supra,7 ubi dictum est: In principio erat, id est ut eternitatem Christi notet. Glosa: PER DEMONSTRATIVVM PRONOMEN. Quasi hic utens pronomine demonstratiuo ad oculum, ostendit presentem ibi tunc adesse Christum, et, quia sepe locutus fuerat discipulis suis de Christo eo absente, modo certificat eos eo presente. Mittebat enim discipulos suos ad Christum, Andream et alias. QVEM DIXI, id est de quo, DIXI VOBIS QVERENTIBVS. Hoc quod sequitur, quasi ‘quod dixi iterum dico.’ QVI POST ME VENTVRVS EST, id est de quo prophetatum est quod post me esset uenturus; non est quando hoc dicebat: Erat post eum uenturus. Ita commode posset exponi. Sed glosa ita exponit, acsi in littera dictum esset: ‘Qui post me uenit et post me uenturus est.’ Pretermittitur enim in glosa, id est QVI POST ME NATVS, quod non est expositio eius quod dictum est,

~~7 supra] cfr APPENDIX I, 2. LXXVIII~~

qui post me uenturus, sed pocius eius quod non est appositum: Qui post me uenit. Potest tamen ad priorem expositionem accomodari tota glosa, quasi QVI POST ME VENTVRVS EST, id est qui predictus est a prophetis post me uenturus, et ideo ex parte iam expletum est, quia IAM POST ME NATVS, et adhuc ex parte implendum, QVIA POST ME PREDICATVRVS et cetera. Alia translatio habeat ‘coram me factus est,’ id est intelligentia mea humanatus. Non enim factus est, sed ponitur factus pro humanatus, et est sensus: euidenter in noticia mea humanatus est et ita coram me humanatus est, id est eius incarnatio mihi est in euidenti facta. Dicitur enim coram me esse quod in euidenti mihi est. Vnde habes interlinearem: EX GRECO CORAM ME FACTVS, id est apparuit mihi. QVI PRIOR ME ERAT, id est quia non solum homo uerus, etiam Deus erat. ET DE PLENITVDINE. Parenthesis fuit ab eo loco.

VIDIMVS EVM et cetera. Et inde continuatur: GRATIA PER GRATIAM. Primo sic: Gratiam intelligendi pro gratia credendi. Expositio: et ne turbet te quod in fine glose dicitur: Et ueritatis, quia ueram Dei cognitionem uocat ueritatem, nec propterea trahenda est glosa inferius. Vel pro gratia iustificationis gratia glorificationis, que dicitur gratia licet ex meritis detur, quia merita pro quibus datur sunt ex gratia. NON SOLVM et cetera. Quasi: ‘Vere ab eo accepimus gratiam et non ab alio, quia non a Moyse de quo magis uidetur, quia lex quam dedit non tollebat peccata, sed mittebat ad medicum.’ Acsi diceret: ‘Lex infirmis, infirmi estis: necessarie essent uobis medicine,8 necessaria elimosina.9 Non habeo illa. Ite ad medicum.’ GRATIE ET VERITATIS, id est ueritatis gratuita, id est cognitio ueritatis gratuita. QVE SIT CONSVMMATIO GRATIE ET VERITATIS, id est que sit ueritas gratuita consummata quam dat nobis pro gratia, ut idem uocet hic gratiam et ueritatem quod in supraposita glosa uocauit ueritatem, uel que fit consummatio ad quam perueniemus et gratiam datam pro gratia. Subdit ubi dicit gratia et ueritas per Iesum Christum facta est, id est gratuita cognitio ueritatis. Et ne putes illam consummatam cognitionem ueritatis habere in hac uita statim, subdicitur: DEVM NEMO VIDIT VMQVAM. Quasi huiusmodi plenam uisionem Dei nemo habuit uel habebit in hac uita. Et statim additur tacite prolatio in glosa quod Moyses non potuit dare gratiam, quia nec etiam uidit Deum. Et ita quod additur, Deum nemo uidit umquam, pro duobus apponitur: Principaliter ad ostendendum quod illam ueritatis cognitionem nemo in hac uita plene habuit; secundario et quasi tacite ad probandum quod Moyses gratiam conferre non potuit. VNDE, id est de qua plena cognitione alibi dicitur enarrauit, id est plene narrauit, quia solus plene nouit Christus.

~~8 medicine] ut uid. B (mne) 9 elimosina] ut uid. B (elia) LXXIX~~

Interlinearis: ENARRAVIT, id est euidenter narrauit. GRATIA ET VERITAS, id est gratuita ueritas. Interlinearis: QVA SIT HOMINI SALVS, et ideo gratia ut erat promissa, et ideo ueritas. TESTIMONIVM, CONTRA HOC QVOD OCCVLTVM, quasi necessaria erant ei testimonia, quia occultus. SACERDOTES, INTER SAPIENTES IN LEGE. Sic habes in Regum quod filii Dauid erant sacerdotes, id est litterati.

5) XLII, 4: auctoritatem baptizandi habere] add. B: Vnde superius quesierant quis es tu, acsi dicerent: ‘Es tu Christus uel Helias uel Helyseus?’ Cum uero respondens dixit quod NON SVM EGO CHRISTVS, pocius ad sensum quam ad uerborum superficiem respondens. Illi subiungentes dixerunt: HELIAS ES TV? Supple ‘et precessurus messiam.’ Populi enim sic intelligebant. Cum uero respondit non sum, in utroque uidetur mentiri uel facere Dominum mendacem. Querentibus enim discipulis a Domino ipso transfigurato, quid est quod dicunt Iudei Heliam uenisse primum, respondit Dominus: Helias cum uenerit, id est Iohannes baptista. Ergo Helias erat, et constat quia erat precursor messie. Ita ergo intellige NON SVM, quasi diceret: ‘Non sum Helias quem esse putatis, neque hoc modo precessurus messiam quo ille, quia ille precedet aduentum maiestatis. Ego precedo aduentum humilitatis.’ Ad primum respondet illa glosa quam superius pretermisimus: NON SVM CORPORE. Ad secundum illa: CVM OMNES et cetera. Iohanne ergo negante se Christum uel Heliam uel Heliseum esse, qui tantum auctoritatem baptizandi uidebantur habere.

6) XLII, 5: quod Iohannes baptizat] add. B: Iam patet inuidia, quia uolunt suggillare eum. Ad quod ille: EGO BAPTIZO, quasi diceret: ‘Pro uilo arguitis me, quia non baptizo simpliciter, sed baptizo aqua, quod uos facere potestis,’ ut sicut tanquam diceretur: ‘Et hoc quare facis? Vt assuefaciam baptismo Christi.’

~~7) XLIV, 9: humanam esset transfusa] add. B: Ante tempus enim gratie non erant fluenta gratie sed quasi riuuli, quia a sanctis deferebatur uisio Dei, ut plenitudo gratie attendatur in Dei uisione.~~

8) XLV, 7: lucerna uel uox uerbi] add. B: Vel precursor propter istud testmonium: Post me uenturus est. Et est preco propter illud: Non sum dignus. Precursor quia eius aduentum prenunciat, preco quia eius preconia pronunciat, id est eius dignitatem et eminentiam. LXXX

~~9) XLVI, 15: dona nobis pacem] add. I: Amalarius dat hanc rationem: In propheta dictum est: Iuxta uestibulum et altare plorabant sacerdotes et Leuite dicentes: ‘Parce domine, parce.’10~~

10) XLVI, 15: dona nobis pacem] add. B: Et nota quia Iohannes usus est aduerbio demonstratiuo ad oculum, cum ait: ECCE AGNVS DEI, inuisibiliter et presentialiter demonstrans eum. Huius uisibilem demonstrationem representat sacerdos quando eleuat corpus Domini super altare, quando scilicet eleuatis manibus tenet illud super altare, acsi ipsa eleuacione circumstantibus dicat: ‘Ecce agnus Dei: Videte illum hic.’ Et nota quia cum Christus pro tribus datur agnus, scilicet pro medela, pro prefiguratione, pro immolatione, specialiter tamen pro immolatione. Vnde et nos post representationem immolationis, id est post sumptionem Eucharistie, hoc testimonium Iohannis utimur dicentes: Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi et cetera. Quod autem tercio iteramus, reddere possumus aliam11 apud missam tractam a ueteri testamento, ubi legitur quia, cum esset obsessa Ierusalem, inter uestibulum et altare, clamabant sacerdotes dicentes: Parce Domine, parce populo tuo, et ne des hereditatem tuam gentibus. Pro eo enim quod iterato dicebant: Parce Domine, parce, iterato dicimus: Agnus Dei, miserere; pro eo quod tercio addebant: Ne des hereditatem gentibus, et nos addimus: Dona nobis pacem.

~~11) XLVII, 10: ab origine sunt traducta] add. B: ET SINGLORVM SVPERADDITA. Glosa mittit te ad aliam litteram, ut legas peccata pluraliter.~~

12) XLVIII, 14: cognitione proficeret] add. B: Specialiter descendit in columbe specie ut uisibili descensu instrueretur columba et filius columbe, id est ecclesia et Iohannes filius ecclesie, scilicet ut uisibili descensu intelligeretur ecclesia Spiritum, scilicet inuisibiliter in baptizatos descendere, et Iohannes intelligeret de Christo quod non intellexerat hucusque. Glosa: NON QVOD MODO et cetera, OSTENDATVR. Hoc ad instructionem ecclesie. ET VT IOHANNES. Hoc ad instructionem filii columbe.

~~ET MANENTEM. In solo Christo Spiritus mansit, ut intelligatur uerbum cum pondere, quia solus Spiritum habuit ad quodcumque uoluit et quandocumque uoluit. Etsi enim uiri sancti habeant~~

~~10 cfr APPENDIX I, 25 11 aliam] emendaui, alia B LXXXI~~

Spiritum sanctum, non tamen ad quodcumque uoluerunt uel quandocumque uoluerunt.12 Sepe enim ab eis recedit, uel propter peccata propria uel propter aliena. Vel de peccato commisso in Bersabee recessit a Dauid, et statim amisit gratiam prophetandi. Vnde presens clamat: Redde mihi letitiam salutaris tui. Etsi fuerint aliqui uiri sancti a quibus numquam recessit propter peccata propria, quia numquam commiserunt modo talia, non tam habuerunt ad quecumque et quandocumque uoluerunt. Sepe enim propter peccata aliena amiserunt gratiam prophetandi et miracula faciendi, quia sepe propter peccata populorum. Claudit Deus ora prophetarum. Sepe ergo amiserunt quantum ad aliud. Vnde non dicitur in eis mansisse, licet semper in eis manserant quantum ad aliud. SPECIALITER PROPTER PECCATVM, uel alienum uel proprium uel propter peccata aliena. Vnde sequitur IN EIS, a quibus scilicet recedit propter peccata aliena, non propria. In eis enim, a quibus recedit propter peccata propria, non semper manet ad aliud. PROMISIT, dicens: Ego et pater ad eum ueniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus.

13) XLVIII, 16: durum uerbum] add. B: Secundum Ieronimum nesciebat utrum per aquam baptismalem liberaturus esset hominem a peccato. Etsi enim legerat in Ioel: Effundam super uos aquam mundam, poterat intelligere de aqua que fluxit de latere Christi, que, ut antiqui dixerunt, fuit baptismum omnium fidelium quotquot saluati sunt sine aqua baptismi.13 Sed hec opinio et antiqua est et antiquata. Sciebat ergo secundum Ieronimum quia erat liber⟨a⟩turus mundum de peccato per passiones, sed numquam per aquam baptismalem. Et hoc poterat hesitare salua fide, si ita dicatur plane. Dissentiunt Ieronimus et Augustinus. Etsi in talibus dessentiant, non est inconueniens. Sed illud improbabile uidetur quod Iohannes non intellexerit prophetiam. Mirum enim uidetur quod de aqua illa illud uerbum Ioel intellexerit. Augustinus econtra dicit quia non ignorabat Iohannes de Christo quod per aquam baptismalem esset remissurus peccata, et adheret illi uerbo quod iam ante hanc uisionem dixerat Iohannes Domino ad se uenienti: Ego a te debeo14 baptizari. Ex hoc nolens Iohannem iam intelligere hominem per Christi baptismum a peccatis mundari, sed nesciebat utrum ipse solus esset per baptismum peccata remissurus an alii potestatem hanc15 daturus. Vnde ait: Qui misit me baptizare in aqua dixit mihi quod nesciebam; scilicet, hic est qui baptizat. Hic scilicet et non alius,

~~12 Etsi enim – uoluerunt] cfr APPENDIX I, 31 13 baptismi] emendaui, baptismum B 14 debeo] dabeo Ba.c. 15 hanc] om. Ba.c. LXXXII~~

discretiue ad omnes. Sciebat ergo, secundum Augustinum,16 hic est qui baptizat, si ponatur ‘hic’ non discretiue. Sed nesciebat, hic est qui baptizat, si ponatur discretiue, id est utrum ipse solus. Sed inuisibili descensu columbe insidentis capiti17 Christi, intellexit quod Christi potestatem erat retenturus sibi nec daturus alii, quia discretiue intellexerat quod dictum ei fuerat: Super quem uideris columbam descendentem et capiti eius insidentem. Scito quod hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto, non tu uel alius, sed, ut dixiums secundum Ieronimum, uidetur inconueniens esse Iohannem nescire per baptismum Christi mundum esse redimendum a peccato.

~~14) L, 12: miracula dedit Petro] add. I quasi glosa intrinseca : Sicut etiam Deus scientia, que ipse est, scit aliqua. Nobis tamen dedit scire illa scientia quadam creata.~~

15) L, 1/15: Hoc tripliciter soluitur – reseruaret potestatem baptismi] om. B et add.: Quidam ita: Potuit autem Christus dare18 potestatem baptismi alicui seruorum, id est potuit facere ut per baptsimum fieret remissio peccatorum inuocato nomine serui, sicut modo fit in nomine Domini. Sed nescio qualiter hoc intelligant. Si enim intelligant quod potuit Christus dare alicui seruo ut denominaretur baptismus ab eo, otiose uidetur Augustinus dixisse pro huiusmodi denominatione: “Potuit dare alicui seruorum potestatem baptismi uice sua.”19 Que enim potestas baptismi daretur Petro si diceretur baptismus Petri sicut baptismus Iohannis. Numquid ipsam denominationem potestatem uocauit Augustinus? Ipse alibi hoc uidetur uelle inquiens excellentissimum munus20 contulit Deus Iohanni baptiste, cui dedit ut ab eo baptizarentur homines et bapitsmus eius diceretur baptismus Iohannis. Vel forte ita intellexit: Potuit facere ut eandem efficaciam haberet inuocatio nominis serui quantam habet modo inuocato trinitatis: causa efficiens est remissionis peccatorum, sicut illorum uerborum prolatio causa efficiens est confectionis. Ita et quodlibet uerbis potuit eandam efficaciam conferre alii. Ergo potuit alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi, id est quandam excellentiam in baptizando, ut, cum quibus baptismus peccata remitteret, tamen baptismus sanctioris efficacior esset et maiorem cumulum gratie conferret. Sed quomodo secundum eos exponetur quod sequitur in

~~16 secundum Augustinum] tr. Ba.c. 17 capiti] emendaui, capitis B | eius add. Ba.c. 18 dare] emendaui, dari B 19 sua] sa Ba.c. 20 munus] emendaui, minus B LXXXIII~~

glosa, AVGVSTINVS, ut tanta esset uis in baptismo serui quanta in baptismo Domini? Alii dicunt quod potuit dare alicui seruorum potentiam quandam creatam dimittendi peccata, sicut et Petro dedit potentiam quandam creatam faciendi miracula. Sed numquid potuit alicui dare potentiam creatam dandi Spiritum sanctum? Non, quia Spiritus sanctus non potuit esse donum creature. Sed potuit alicui dare potentiam dandi dona Spiritus, scilicet remissionem, scilicet peccatorum. Ergo alicui potuit dare potentiam iustificandi impium, ergo potentiam creandi celum. Tunc alicui potuit dare potentiam operandi ex nihilo; ergo, ut esset creator. Non sequitur, quia creator innuit potentiam increatam: non dico significat. Et concessibile est quod alicui potuit et potest dare potentiam creatam creandi celum nouum et terram nouam, sicut Petro dedit potentiam creatam faciendi miracula qua tanquam minister faciebat miracula, ut non solo ministerio sicut modo facundos retinuit, sed etiam potestate quadam ultra ministerium sibi a Do collata peccata remitteret. Vnde legitur habuisse singularem prerogatiuam in faciendis miraculis, id est singularem quandam potentiam creatam, et ita plus operabatur in faciendo miracula quam sacerdos in conficiendo. Quia preter exterius ministerium et potestatem exequendi tale ministerium, habebat potentiam quandam creatam faciendi miracula, cum sacerdos in conficiendo non habeat nisi exterius ministerium et potestatem conficiendi et orationem ex qua hoc potest. Quibusdam tamen uidetur quod Petrus non habuit aliam singularem prerogatiuam faciendi miracula, nisi quod Deus sepius per eum operabatur miracula. Sed cum sepe etiam per malos fecerit miracula, non uidetur magna prerogatiua si per Petrum sepius fecit miracula. Alii sic: Potuit Deus alicui seruorum dare potestatem baptismi, id est qui de merito uite digni essent baptizare potuit ostendere signo uisibili, sicut uisibili signo ostendit penes Aaron et filios eius esse potestatem summi sacerdocii. Sed hanc potestatem sibi retinuit, quia de se solo uisibili signo, scilicet uisibili descensu columbe, ostendit quod penes ipsum solum erat potestas baptismi. Et ita proprie exponitur quod dictum est: “sibi soli retinuit.” Qui exponunt de21 excellentia exponunt negatiue ‘retin⟨ui⟩t,’ id est nulli dedit. Ex premissis liquet glosa Augustini que sequitur.

16) LII, 3/8: Glosa: SPECIALITER – Dominus celauit me] om. B et add.: SED QVI MISIT ME BAPTIZARE IN AQVA. Non baptizare simpliciter, scilicet Spiritus sanctus uel trinitas Deus, ILLE MIHI DIXIT, cum esset in deserto solitariam uitam agens, per inspirationem uel per subiecte creature uocem, ‘dixit mihi quod nesciebam.’ Modo transi ut legas litteram retrograde: ‘Hoc,’ scilicet, ‘dixit mihi quod nesciebam.’ HIC EST QVI BAPTIZAT IN SPIRITV SANCTO. Modo

~~21 de] om. Ba.c. LXXXIV~~

iterum articulum transi: HIC EST, inquam QVI BAPTIZAT IN SPIRITV SANCTO, QVIA HIC EST FILIVS DEI. Modo resume: SVPER QVEM VIDERIS SPIRITVM DESCENDENTEM ET MANENTEM SVPER EVM. Modo resume quod restat: ‘Et ego uidi Spiritum uisibiliter descendentem’ ut ille predixerat mihi, et ita instructus. PERHIBVI TESTIMONIVM, et sic manifestaui cum Israeli. Quod autem quod dictum est, ILLE MIHI DIXIT, adnectendum sit: HIC EST QVI BAPTIZAT. Habes ex eo quod interlinearis super HOC EST ponitur: QVID. Acsi diceretur: ‘Quid tibi dixi quod nesciebas, hoc: Hic est qui baptizat.’ Quod autem hoc esset quod nesciebat habebis ab Augustino. Vel directe potest fieri constructio hoc modo:

17) LII, 14: super caput eius] add. B: Vere dicitur ‘specie,’ scilicet super Christum descendere, quia tunc primo in eum descenderit, quia a prima hora conceptionis iuxta plene descendit. Sed ideo specialiter descendit in specie columbe, ut hoc uisibili descensu, sicut diximus,22 instrueretur columba et filius columbe, id est ecclesia et Iohannes filius ecclesie.

18) LVII, 16/7: IN MVTATIONE AVTEM – quedam secreta] om. B et add.: < Nota illam: PRIVS DICIT et cetera. > IN MVTATIONE NOMINIS, id est in eo quod mutatum est primum nomen et impositum hoc nomen Petrus. NOTATVR VIVACITAS MISTERII, id est mistica uiuacitas, id est mistica firmitas ecclesie. Petrus enim gerit figuram ecclesie. Vnde in eo quod mutato nomine dictus est Petrus, significatum est quod ecclesia erat mutanda et firmanda, id est supra petram fundanda.

19) LVIII, 14/5: quia Petrus – Tu es Petrus] om. B et add.: Quod autem sequitur, VNDE et cetera, ad primam refertur sententiam, quasi in mutatione nominis Petri notatur mistica firmitas ecclesie. Petrus enim gerit figuram ecclesie. VNDE, id est ad cuiusmodi intentionem et fundationem ecclesie significandam. A PETRA et cetera. IN PETRA, id est supra petram, non supra Petrum. IN FIGVRA ECCLESIE, quia, ut dictum est,23 Petrus gerit formam ecclesie. Modo resume quod dimisisti in medio glose: SED NEC PRIVS NOMEN, quasi nomen secundo impositum misticum est, sed nec primum misterio caret. DVM VENIT, id est eo ipso quod uenit, quia columbe

~~22 sicut diximus] cfr APPENDIX II, 12 23 ut dictum est] sc. APPENDIX II, 18 LXXXV~~

~~humilitate obsecutus est fratri, licet minori.~~

20) LXI, 11: MARIA MATRE EIVS] add. B: < VT PER EVM CVM MARIA MATRE EIVS, > id est et per eum et per Mariam, sed aliter et aliter: per Mariam, quia de ea natus; per Ioseph, quia eius cognatus. Ambo enim de domo Dauid.

21) LXIII, 14: MISTICE NATHANAEL] add. B: Significat illos qui sunt uerus populus Israhel dono Dei, id est CONSVETVDINE, que facit similiter pruritum, quia grauide importat miraculum, quia uiciosa alia cum ratio subditur. Quare consuetudo peccandi designetur per ficum? Quia scilicet primi parentes foliis ficium se operuerunt post peccatum, ita consuetudine peccati homo uelatur, id est cecatur. VBI PRIVS, sicut Dominus prius uidit Nathanael sub ficu, quam ipse eum uiderit.

22) LXIV, 9: QVOD DICTVM EST] add. B: /6ra/ < QVOD DICTVM EST … > ADITVS CELI. Vnde primicerius martyrum: Video celos apertos. Vidit et introiuit. Et iusti, decedentes ubi traxerint criminalia, statim introeunt. PREDICATORES, qui sunt nuncii Dei. Vide simile: Augustinus orator facundus et fecundus in torrente eloquii tota die in disceptionibus causatur, utitur uerbis palacii. Circa noctem ueniens domum et inueniens filium paruulum scincopat uerba et quasi balbutiendo loquitur ei. Sic predicatores contemperant, ut puerilibus proponerat puerilia, spiritualibus spiritualia, et sic ascendunt24 et descendunt. Vnde Paulus modo dicebat se raptum usque ad certum celum, et modo dicebat nihil fateor me scire inter uos nisi Iesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum. Modo in principio erat Verbum, modo Verbum caro factum est.

~~24 ascendunt] emendaui, ascendus B LXXXVI~~

~~ADDENDA:~~

~~23) IX, 12: Ego sum alpha et omega] add. I: Et hic euagatur Ieronimus interserens quandam causam quare Iohannes scripserit Apocalipsim.~~

~~24) XVII, 19: Alioquin non artaret eum] om. B et add.: Hec ergo oratio in hoc locutio deserit uiam suam ut hic non notet substantiam sed eternitatem.~~

~~25) XXI, 13: appunctata debet esse] add. I: < Vide quia illa glosa, ‘SVM’ VERBVM et cetera, appunctata debet esse. > M(agister) P(etrus) M(anducator) tamen legit eam quandoque.~~

~~26) XLIX, 17: durum uerbum] add. B: < Hoc uidetur durum uerbum > et scrupulosum, et eius expositione alii ab aliis discentiunt.~~

~~27) V, 16: scilicet ex duodecim] add. I: Quamuis hoc nomen dicatur a disciplina eruditionis uel correctionis, tamen appropriatum est ut sit quasi dignitatis in illis duodecim: SVIS EX DVODECIM.~~

29) XL, 8: id est naturam humanam – in eo subsistit] add. B: id est communem naturam uel propriam qualitatem, ut referatur ad duo. Communis enim natura hominis uel propria qualitas conuenienter subsistentia dicitur, quia hominem facit subsistere.

30) L, 17: Glosa: VISA – fuerat dicens] add. B: VISA et cetera, SCIEBAT QVIDEM, quasi: ‘Inuestigemus quid nesciebat de Christo, cum hec omnia sciret de eo.’ CONEFESSVS. Ecce quomodo adhereo illi uerbo. Confessus quidem fuerat dicens:

~~! LXXXVII~~

~~APPENDIX III~~

~~IOHANNES GLOSATVS : CAPITVLVM IVM~~

G Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 1. 36 2 G Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 1. 28 La Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 78 Rusch Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, ed. Alfred RUSCH (Anton Koberger: 1480/1)

* Infra in apparatu, AMICLAS praeuenit quasdam adnotatiunculas marginales Magistri Roberti Amiclae, satis ignoti P. Comestoris discipuli, praecipue cuius exemplo Iohannis Glosati (G ) nitentes hanc editionem confecimus. Quem quidem codicem in scholis eiusdem Manducatoris Glosam ‘ordinariam’ super Iohannem legentis adnotatum esse pro certo probauit Magister noster, cuius mentionem iam fecimus. Itaque GLOSAS Comestoris aeque citauimus cum marginalia Amiclae manifesto ab illis lectionibus exciperentur.

†

~~PROTHEMATA~~

~~1. PROLOGVS HIERONYMI /1r/ Hic est Iohannes euangelista1 unus ex discipulis Dei qui uirgo electus a 1. PROLOGVS ‘MONARCHIANVS’~~

Deo est, quem de nuptiis2 uolentem nubere uocauit Deus. Cui uirginitatis in cfr John CHAPMAN, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford: hoc duplex testimonium in euangelio datur, quod et pre ceteris3 dilectus a 1908), 217-88 Deo dicitur et huic matrem suam pendens de cruce commendauit Deus, ut uirginem uirgo seruaret. Denique manifestans in euangelio4 quod erat ipse5 incorruptibilis Verbi opus inchoans, solus6 Verbum carnem /1v/ factum esse7 nec lumen a tenebris comprehensum fuisse testatur. Primum signum ponens quod in nuptiis fecit Deus ostendens quod erat ipse,8 ut legentibus demonstraret quod ubi Dominus inuitatus9 deficere nuptiarum10 uinum debeat, ut et ueteribus immutatis noua omnia que a Christo instituuntur

1 Iohannes euangelista] AMICLAS: Ecce quis. (cfr V, 11/5) 2 de nuptiis] AMICLAS: Vnde uocatus. (cfr VI, 4/14) 3 pre ceteris] AMICLAS: Non plus forsitan, sed familiarius. (cfr VI, 15/6) 4 manifestans in euangelio] AMICLAS: Ad quid et de quibus agat. (cfr VII, 10/1) 5 ipse] AMICLAS: Cuius animalis speciem gerebat; uel quod Christus erat, eternus scilicet. (cfr VII, 4/5) 6 solus] AMICLAS: Expresse. (cfr VIII, 2/3) 7 uerbum carnem factum esse] caro uerbum factum G2 (cfr VIII, 5-7) 8 quod erat ipse] AMICLAS: Mutatus in mente; uel quod Christus erat, Deus scilicet, qui hoc potuit. (cfr VIII, 14 - IX, 2) 9 inuitatus] AMICLAS: Intus in mente. (cfr IX, 1) 10 nuptiarum] AMICLAS: Delectatio carnalis. (cfr IX, 2) LXXXVIII

appareant. Hoc autem euangelium scripsit in Asia,11 postea quam in Pathmos insula Apocalipsim scripserat, ut cui in principio12 canonis /2r/ incorruptibile principium in Genesi13 et incorruptibilis finis per uirginem in Apocalipsi redderetur, dicente Christo14: Ego sum Α et Ω. Et hic est Iohannes, qui sciens superuenisse diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis in Epheso, per multa signorum experimenta promens Christum descendens in defossum sepulture locum facta oratione posistus est ad patres15 suos, tam extraneus a dolore16 mortis quam a cor-/2v/-ruptione carnis inuenitur alienus. Tamen17

post omnes euangelium scripsit et hoc18 uirgini debebatur.19 Quorum tamen uel scriptorum temporis dispositio20 uel librorum ordinatio21 ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut et sciendi desiderio collocato et querentibus fructus laboris et Deo magisterii doctrina seruetur.

~~INTERL. |~~

~~SCIENDI DESIDERIO COLLOCATO. Vel nescientibus inquirendi desiderium collocetur.~~

~~MARG. | HIC EST IOHANNES. Iohannes interpretatur ‘Dei gratia’ siue ‘in quo est gratia,’ uel ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae, Proth. 5~~

~~‘cui donatum est.’ Cui autem theologorum donatum est, ita abscondita summi boni (ex IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., II, 2-7) penetrare misteria et sic humanis mentibus intimare.~~

~~2. INTROITVS AVGVSTINI 2. ANSELM., Glosae, Proth. 2~~

~~Omnibus diuine scripture paginis euangelium excellit, quia quod lex et (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [740D-43A]) prophete futurum predixerunt. Hoc completum dicit euangelium. Inter ipsos~~

~~autem euangeliorum scriptores Iohannes eminent in diuinorum misteriorum (ex AVG., Cons. euang., 1, 1, 1-4 [1])~~

11 in Asia] AMICLAS: Ecce ubi. (cfr IX, 3/4) 12 principio] AMICLAS: Genesi. (cfr IX, 14/6) 13 in Genesi] AMICLAS: (add. s.l. Cum dicitur:) In principio, id est in Filio, creauit Deus celum et terram. (cfr IX, 16) 14 dicente Christo] AMICLAS: Per Iohannem in Apochalipsis fine. (cfr X, 2/3) 15 patres] AMICLAS: Precedessores in celo. (cfr XI, 4/5) 16 dolore] AMICLAS: Vel quia nullum, uel non martirio sicut alii, transiuit. (cfr XI, 10/1) 17 Tamen post omnes] AMICLAS: Licet ita dignus. (cfr XI, 14/6) 18 et hoc] AMICLAS: Et hoc etiam a dignitate, quia et, id est etiam, hoc. (cfr XII, 1/5) 19 debebatur] AMICLAS: Vt consummaret et quod aliis defuit adderet. (cfr XI, 14/6) 20 dispositio] AMICLAS: Quo tempore singulorum euangelia edita. (cfr XII, 8/9) 21 librorum ordinatio] AMICLAS: Quis prius, quis posterius. (cfr XII, 9/10) LXXXIX

~~profunditate, qui a tempore dominice ascensionis per annos LXV uerbum Dei (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [741A];~~

~~absque adminiculo scribendi usque ad ultima predicauit tempora Domitiani, ex. BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 9, 218-27)~~

~~sed occiso Domitiano cum permittente Nerua de exilio redisset Ephesum, compulsus ab episcopis Asie de coeterna Patri diuinitate Christi, scripsit~~

~~aduersus hereticos qui, eo absente, in eius ecclesias irrumperant, qui~~

~~Christum ante Mariam fuisse negabant. Vnde merito /1v/ in figura IIII (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [743A-B];~~

~~ex. BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 11-5) animalium aquile uolanti comparatur, que uolat altius ceteris auibus et solis~~

~~radios irreuerberatis aspicit luminibus. Ceteri quippe euangeliste qui~~

~~temporalem Christi natiuitatem et temporalia eius facta que gessit in homine~~

~~sufficienter exponunt et de diuinitate pauca dixerunt, quasi gressibilia~~

~~animalia cum Domino ambulant in terra. Hic autem pauca de temporalibus~~

~~eius gestis edisserens, sed diuinitatis potentiam sublimius contemplans, cum~~

~~Domino ad celum uolat. Qui enim supra pectus Domini in cena recubuit, (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [743A];~~

~~celestis haustum sapientie ceteris excellentius de ipso dominici pectoris fonte ex BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 8-11)~~

potauit. Legerat siquidem euangelia trium euuangelistarum et approbauit (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [741C- 42A]; fidem eorum et ueritatem. In quibus /2r/ uidit deesse aliqua gestarum rerum ex BEDA, In Lucae euang., 2, 3-25 [100]) historie, et ea maxime que Dominus gessit primo predicationis sue tempore, scilicet antequam Iohannes baptista clauderetur in carcere. Hec ergo quasi omissa ab illis scribit Iohannes, que fecit Iesus antequam Iohannes traderetur, sed maxime diuinitatem Christi et misterium Trinitatis commendare curauit.

Tres siquidem alii euangeliste dicta et facta Domini temporalia, que ad (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. [742D-43A]; informandos mores uite presentis maxime ualent, copiosius persecuti circa ex AVG., Cons. euang., 1, 5, 14-22 [8-9]) actiuam uitam sunt uersati; in qua laboratur, ut cor mundetur ad uidendum

Deum. Iohannes uero pauca Domini facta dicit, uerba uero Domini que Trinitatis unitatem et uite eterne felicitatem insinuant diligentius conscribit et sic in contemplatiua uir-/2v/-tute commendanda, intentionem suam et predicationem tenuit; in qua contemplatiua uacatur, ut Deus uideatur. Iste siquidem est Iohannes quem Dominus de fluctiuaga nuptiarum tempestate uocauit, cui et matrem uirginem uirgini commendauit.

~~CAPITVLVM PRIMVM~~

~~A B C 1 IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM ET VERBVM ERAT APVD DEVM ET DEVS D ERAT VERBVM.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A In Patre. || Non in Maria incepit, ut quidam uolebant. A cfr ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., praef. (741B)~~

22 B In Patre, qui est principium sine principio. || Filius, qui est principium de principio, B ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1 (9-11) uel in principio omnium creaturarum, uel temporum, quia ab ipso omnia habent principium (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 1 [745B]) existendi.

~~C Vt alia persona.~~

~~D Ipse Filius erat Deus. || Ne dicatur esse cum Deo et non Deus. D ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1 (32)~~

~~MARG. |~~

IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM. Contra eos qui propter temporalem natiuitatem cfr ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 1 (744D-45A) dicebant non Christum semper fuisse. Incipit de eternitate Verbi dicens: In principio erat Verbum. Verbum dicitur uel quod profertur et transit, ut quando dicitur ‘Deus’ cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 1, n. 8; uel aliquid huiusmodi, uel cogitatio seu conceptio mentis que ex mente nata cum ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1-2 (17-22) ipsa mente permanet, ut quando cogitas uel diuinam substantiam uel aliam rem. Hac similitudine, ratio et sapientia Dei que ex Deo nata omnia comprehendit Verbum dicitur. Hoc dicitur esse in principio, contra eos qui, quia ex tempore dicitur nasci de uirgine, dicunt non semper fuisse. In principio, id est in Patre, qui est principium non cfr IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., VI, 10-30. de principio. Ipse23 cum eo principium de principio, in quo solum notatur eternitas Verbi, quia omnia precedit. Sed quia alii dicebant quod idem Deus aliquando Pater, ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 1 (745B) aliquando est Filius, ut alter notetur in persona, subdit: Et Verbum erat apud Deum, /3r/ ut alius apud alium. Sed quia alii concederent et semper alium fuisse, sed non Deum esse, subdit: Et Deus erat Verbum. Sed quia iterum alii esse Deum concederent, sed factum Deum, ut ex hominibus fiunt dii, contra eos addit: Hoc, id est Verbum, Deus, erat apud Deum in principio, id est ante omnia natus ex Deo, in quo et coomnipotens et consubstantialis et coeternus indicatur. Postquam autem dixit de natura Filii, de operatione ipsius supponit: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Omnia, id est quicquid est siue in substantia siue in aliqua naturali proprietate. Ecce auctor bonorum est Deus. Et sine ipso factum est nichil, quia non est ab eo quod non est naturaliter, sed est peruersio nature, ut malum uel idolum. Ecce non est auctor malorum. Sed ne, quia ista facta mutabilia sunt, ipsa uoluntas, ratio, et sapientia Dei uideretur mutabilis, addit: Quod factum est in tempore et est mutabile. Erat uiuens et permanens in ipso, ut archa facta in opere mutatur et perit, archa in mente artificis permanet, ita ut ex ea alia et alia possit fieri, illa prius facta pereunte, et ita constat quod creatura non est coeterna creatori, sed ars et ratio et sapientia ex qua fit24 coeterna est Deo. Dicto que sit natura Verbi, que etiam est eius operatio, supponit quid faciat humane rationali creature. Hec uita, id est sapientia Dei in qua uiuunt omnia, erat lux, quantum in se est, etsi iniqui non sentiunt. Lux, illuminatio hominum, non pecorum uel aliarum rerum. Et hec quidem lux lucet, quantum in se est in tenebrosis, sicut sol super cecum, et tamen illi mali ut ceci non sentiunt solem. Si enim comprehenderent,25 tenebre non essent. Vt autem et ipse tenebre possent comprehendere, est premissus homo in testimonium huius lucis. Et ipsa lux, id est

22 Filius] AMICLAS: id est Verbum erat Deus. (cfr XVII, 1) 23 ipse] AMICLAS: Semper qui est principium. (cfr XIX, 8/12) 24 ex qua fit] AMICLAS: Creatura. 25 si enim comprehenderent] AMICLAS: Sic illi non comprehenderunt lucem. XCI

~~Verbum factum est caro, quasi mutatus in lac propter paruulos. In forma enim deitatis cfr I Cor. 3, 3-2 non posset nosci a paruulis.~~

IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBVM. Alii euangeliste describunt Christum natum ex ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1 (6-9) tempore; Iohannes affirmat eum fuisse in Patre ut in principio. Non fuit ante Pater (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 1 [745A]; quam filius. Ecce Filius alia persona a Patre, una substantia cum Patre. ex BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 24)

ERAT. ‘Sum’ uerbum duplicem habet significationem. Aliquando enim temporales ANSELM., Glosae, Proth. 2 motus secundum analogiam aliorum uerborum declarat, aliquando substantiam (ex IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., VI, 4-11) unius cuiusque rei de qua predicatur, sine ullo temporali motu designat. Ideo et substantiuum uocatur tale est quod dicitur: In principio erat Verbum, quasi in Patre subsistit Filius. Non enim pro tempore, sed pro substantia ponitur erat.

~~ERAT. Quater ponitur erat substantiuum uerbum, ut intelligas omnia tempora ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1 (15-7) preuenisse coeternum Patri Verbum. (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 1 [745B-C]~~

ET VERBVM ERAT. Alii inter homines subito apparuisse, Iohannes dicit apud Deum ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 1-2 (28-37) semper fuisse. Alii hominem uerum, Iohannes uerum Deum asserit dicens: Et Deus (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3 [745C-D]; erat Verbum. Alii uerum hominem inter homines temporaliter conuersatum, ex BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 24-34)

Iohannes apud Deum manentem dicit: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Alii dicunt miracula que fecit homo in mundo, Iohannes per ipsum omnia facta testatur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ecce auctor bonorum: Et sine ipso factum est nichil. Ecce

~~non est auctor malorum.~~

~~2 HOC ERAT IN PRINCIPIOA APVD DEVM.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Ita erat unum cum Patre, ut omne principium creaturarum sua preiret essentia. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 2 (35-6) (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3 [745C-D])~~

~~A B 3 OMNIA PER IPSVM FACTA SVNT ET SINE IPSO FACTVM EST NICHIL . C QVOD FACTVM EST~~

~~INTERL. | ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 3-4 (38-53)~~

~~A Omnis creatura uisibilis et inuisibilis, (A: ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3 [745C-D];~~

~~omnis forma, omnis compago, omnis concordia partium. cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract., tract. 1, 13, 35-42)~~

~~B Nulla res subsistens sine ipso facta est. (B: ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3-4 [745D-46A])~~

~~C In tempore. (C: ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 4 [746A])~~

~~MARG. | ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 3 (41-3)~~

~~OMNIA PER IPSVM. Non est creatura per quem omnis creatura facta est. || (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3 [745D])~~

~~Malum non est factum per ipsum, nec idolum, quia nichil sunt, (ex AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 1, 13, 35-42)~~

~~nulla sua natura subsistunt. (ex GREG., Moral., 3, 9, 15)~~

~~FACTA SVNT. Ea que sunt per ipsum facta sunt. Illa autem sunt que a natura propria non recedunt, id est que concordant omnipotentie diuinitatis.~~

QVOD FACTVM EST. Si audis mutabilem creaturam per Filium factam, non tamen ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 3 (49-59) credas eius mutabilem uoluntatem, quia non subito aliquid uoluit facere, sed omnia (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 3 [745D], ab eterno fecit. Quod factum est in tempore transit; quod in sapientia inmutabili ex BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 74-6) est transire non potest. || (ex AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 3, 4, 14-5)

~~Faber archam facit prius in mente, post in opere. Quod in mente est uiuit cum cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 3 (54-8)~~

~~artifice; quod fit mutatur cum tempore. (ex AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 1, 17, 1-11)~~

~~XCII~~

~~A B C 4 IN IPSO VITA ERAT ET VITA ERAT LVX HOMINVM~~

~~INTERL. | ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 3-4 (53-69)~~

~~A In spirituali factoris ratione semper uiuit et uixit. (A: ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 4 [746A])~~

~~B Et hec uita, id est sapientia Dei. (B: cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 1, 16)~~

~~C Non aliarum rerum. || Rationalium creaturarum. (C: cfr ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 4 [746B]; BEDA, Homel. euang., I, 8, 74-6)~~

~~5 ET LVX IN TENEBRIS LVCET ET TENEBREA EAM NON COMPREHENDERVNT.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A A tenebris tamen non cernebatur. || Peccatores. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 4 (78)~~

~~B Sed ut etiam tenebre comprehenderent. (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 5 [746C])~~

~~6 FVIT HOMOA MISSVSB A DEOC CVI NOMEND ERAT IOHANNES.E~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Precursor humanati Verbi. A cfr IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., XV, 21-7~~

~~B Cur missus?~~

~~C Non ab hominibus.~~

~~D Non ab homine impositum, sed a Deo quasi substantialiter datum. || Apud Deum reseruatum.26~~

~~E Iohannes, id est gratia, quia totum habet a gratia, et gratiam predicat. E cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 6 (89-91)~~

~~MARG. |~~

FVIT HOMO MISSVS. Postquam sublimi uolatu ultra omnem naturam in altitudinem cfr IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., XIV, 1-5, 18-25 theologie ascendit, qua Verbum semper apud Patrem fuisse contemplatus est, mox ad humilitatem humane nature et specialiter precursoris Verbi descendit. Contra illos qui dicebant humanam naturam in primo parente ex toto perditam et ad nichilum redactam.27

~~HOMO MISSVS. Homo, non angelus, ut heretici uolunt. Missus a Deo, et ideo potuit ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 6 (86-7) dicere de Deo. (ex IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., hom. XV, 17-25)~~

~~MISSVS. Missus est, id est electus Iohannes ad gratie Dei Verbum annuntiandum uenit, non coactus sed libera uoluntate. De illo testimonium perhibuit uerbo, uita et opere.~~

~~A B 7 HIC VENIT IN TESTIMONIVM VT TESTIMONIVM PERHIBERET C D E DE LVMINE VT OMNES CREDERENT PER ILLVM.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Hic missus est ; Hic uenit in testimonium. || Sponte, libera uoluntate. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 7 (95)~~

~~B Cuius rei?~~

26 apud Deum reseruatum] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. in marg. (cfr XXIX, 8) 27 Contra illos – nichilum redactam] AMICLAS: Vt non posset reparari, contra quos de Iohanne ait: Fuit homo missus. (cfr XXVIII, 7/11) XCIII

~~C De Christo nato. || Iam nomen Verbi mutauit in lumen.28 || Quare?~~

~~D Lumen Christum. || Quantum in se erat.29~~

~~E Testificantem.~~

~~A B C 8 NON ERAT ILLA LVX SED VT TESTIMONIVM PERHIBERET DE~~

~~D LVMINE.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Magnus quidem iste, non tamen ex se lucens. Sunt tamen sancti lux illuminata. || A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 7 (109-13) Vera. | B Missus. |~~

~~C De quo? || id est Christo nato. |~~

~~A B C D E 9 ERAT LVX VERA QVE ILLVMINAT OMNEM HOMINEM VENIENTEM IN HVNC MVNDVM.F~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A autem~~

~~B Christus.~~

~~C Vera lux, quia non est uera lux, scilicet que non ex se sed aliunde lucet. C cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 9 (111-27)~~

~~D Non quod omnem, sed quia sine eo nullus illuminatur. |~~

~~E Vt ipsum Iohannem. |~~

~~F id est qui a Deo recedens et cadens in mundum cecatus est. Alioquin non indigeret | illuminari.~~

~~MARG. |~~

ERAT LVX VERA. Omnis homo dicitur illa natura30 in homine que ad imaginem et cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 9 (126-35) similitudinem Dei facta est. Alia omnia que sunt in homine inferiores sunt partes hominis, et quodammodo extra hominem sunt in illa superiori31 uelut32 in quodam mundo superiori. Vera lux lucet et in mundum illum33 uenientes34 et per gratiam renascentes illuminat, quorum uita et conuersatio in celis est, quasi in alio mundo 35 sunt.

~~A B 10 IN MVNDO ERAT ET MVNDVS PER IPSVM FACTVS EST ET MVNDVS EVM NON COGNOVIT.C~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Et hec lux. || Presentia deitatis. Non ut pars eius, sed ut factor omnibus creaturis cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 10 (137-40) infusus regens quas fecit. (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 10-1 [747C])~~

~~B Dilectores mundi. AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 3, 5; cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 10 (145-6)~~

28 Iam nomen – lumine] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. in marg. (cfr XXIX, 14) 29 Quantum in se erat] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. in marg. (cfr XXVI, 16) 30 illa natura] AMICLAS: Illa sola debet homo nominari proprie. (cfr XXVI, 6-7) 31 illa superiori] AMICLAS: Natura. ¶ Scilicet in anima. (cfr XXVI, 2/3) 32 uelut] AMICLAS: Sicut facit in celo quod est superior mundus. (cfr XXVI, 4/5) 33 illum] AMICLAS: Celum. 34 uenientes] AMICLAS: Conuersatione scilicet. (cfr XXVI, 7/10) 35 quorum uita – mundo sunt] add. in manu AMICLAE. (cfr XXXI, 10/1) XCIV

~~MARG. |~~

~~ET MVNDVS. Non quod mundi creatura36 non cognouit, sed homo qui in mundum cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 2, 11 mente amando descendit. Prius mundus ipsa creatura dicebatur.~~

~~MVNDVS37 NON COGNOVIT,38 quia omnem intellectum et sensum diuina lux excedit.~~

~~A B C 11 IN PROPRIA VENIT ET SVI EVM NON RECEPERVNT.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A id est in mundum qui suus est, sicut cetera sua. || In humana natura.39 A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 10 (155-6)~~

~~B Christus per carnem. B IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XX, 20-1~~

~~C Non quod nulli, quia aliqui et quotquot eum receperunt. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~IN PROPRIA VENIT. Quia mundus non cognouit, ergo uenit per carnem in propria. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 10 (155-6)~~

~~SVI, id est quicumque homines, presertim Iudei,40 eius cognati, quos omnibus IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XX, 4 pretulit.~~

~~NON RECEPERVNT. Ab initio mundi nullum tempus erat in quo receptores diuini IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXI, 7-9 Verbi non essent. Vnde addit: Quotquot autem receperunt.~~

~~12 QVOTQVOT AVTEM RECEPERVNT EVMA DEDIT EIS POTESTATEMB FILIOS C D E DEI FIERI, HIS QVI CREDVNT IN NOMINE EIVS,~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Per fidem. || Quotquot. Siue Iudei siue gentiles.41~~

~~B Per Spiritum. || Non tantum reformari.~~

~~C Per adoptionem. || Adoptiuos.~~

~~D scilicet~~

~~E Deum esse hominem. E ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 12 (182-3)~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~POTESTATEM. Mirabilis potestas est ut, qui filii diaboli erant, filii Dei et fratres cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 12 (183-4) Christi per eum liberati dicantur.42~~

~~FILIOS DEI FIERI. Vt sint fratres eius et coheredes per gratiam, sicut ipse Filius ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 12 (168-72) unigenitus per naturam, ut iam non fit solus.~~

36 creatura] AMICLAS: Aliqua. (cfr XXXII, 1) 37 mundus] AMICLAS: Creatura aliqua. (cfr XXXII, 7/8) 38 cognouit] AMICLAS: Perfecte. (cfr XXXII, 6/7) 39 humana natura] AMICLAS: Vniendo. (cfr XXXII, 12/4) 40 Iudei] AMICLAS: Sui, beneficio. (cfr XXXII, 15/6) 41 Quotquot – gentiles] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. s. l. 42 potestatem – dicantur] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. s. l. (cfr XXXIII, 7) XCV

~~13 QVI NON EX SANGVINIBVS,A NEQVE EX VOLVNTATE CARNIS,B NEQVE EX VOLVNTATE VIRI,C SED EX DEOD NATI SVNT.43E~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Pluraliter dicit, ut significet et maris et femine materiam. || Materia. || Ex materia A AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 2, 14 unde fit homo. |~~

~~B id est concupiscentia. || id est femine que caro Ade et regitur. |~~

~~C Vir dicitur spiritus44 qui regit. || Concupiscentia uiri. |~~

~~D operante post baptismum. D ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 13 (196-7)~~

~~E Homines ex Deo et Deus ex homine. E cfr. AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 2, 15~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~QVI NON EX SANGVINIBVS. Quo autem ordine filii Dei fiant, et quomodo hec ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 13 (192-6) generatio distet a carnali, subdit: Qui non ex sanguinibus.~~

~~14 ET VERBVMA CAROB FACTVM EST ET HABITAVIT IN NOBISC ET VIDIMVSD GLORIAM EIVS,E GLORIAM QVASI VNIGENITI EX PATRE,F GPLENVM~~

~~GRATIEH ET VERITATIS.I~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A id est Filius Dei.~~

~~B id est homo. B IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXI, 3~~

~~C Habitu inuentus ut homo. C PHIL. 2, 7~~

~~D Cognouimus esse Deum. || Nos quos elegit. || Per hoc sanati. D IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXII, 1~~

~~E Maiestatem eius per humanitatem, in qua docuit et miracula fecit, in qua transfiguratus E cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 14 (225-31) est, in qua surrexit. (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 14 [749B])~~

~~F Non ut cuiuslibet sancti. || Non quamlibet, sed gloriam. | | G Vidimus.~~

~~H In promissis.~~

~~I Vel gratie, secundum humanitatem; ueritatis, secundum diuinitatem. I IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXII, 7; cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 14 (241-2) MARG. |~~

ET VERBVM. Vt autem secure credamus homines nasci ex Deo, subdit Deum nasci cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 2, 15 & 3, 6 ex homine. Ex hac enim subsceptione infirmitatis sanatur nostra infirmitas, ut possimus dii fieri. Et hoc est: Et Verbum caro factum est. Quod superius erat, inferius IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXI, 22-5 descendit. Et quid mirum si quod inferius erat in id quod superius est ascenditur?

~~VERBVM CARO FACTVM EST. Iohannes autem premissus ei testatur idipsum, cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 15 (270-2) scilicet celsitudinem humanitatis et eternitatem diuinitatis.~~

PLENVM GRATIE. Homo Christus plenus fuit gratia, quia nullis precedentibus cfr IOH. SCOT., Homil. Ioh., XXIII, 5-11 meritis ex quo conceptus est fuit deitas in eo45 implens hominem illum omni plenitudine redundante in omnes suos. Vnde et mater eius non tantum dicitur cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 14 (248-9) (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 14 [749C]) mater hominis sed et mater Dei. Nec mirum si dicitur homo fieri Deus, cum dicitur Deus fieri homo. Hec autem gratia dicitur et ueritas, quia sic olim promissum est et modo exhibitum, scilicet ut Deus sit in homine implens eum omni bono et per eum suos.

~~43 NATI SVNT ] AMICLAS: Nascuntur. (cfr XXXIV, 1) 44 spiritus] AMICLAS: Sed non hic. (cfr XXXIV, 4) 45 deitas in eo] AMICLAS: Per unionem. (cfr XXXV, 5/8) XCVI~~

~~A B C D E 15 IOHANNES TESTIMONIVM PERHIBET DE IPSO ET CLAMAT DICENS: F G HIC ERAT /5v/ QVEM DIXI, QVI POST ME VENTVRVS EST, ANTE ME~~

~~FACTVS EST,H QVIA PRIOR ME ERAT.I~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Sed.~~

~~B Baptista.~~

~~C Veritatis uerbo.~~

~~D id est de Christo.~~

~~E Aperte, non obscure ut lex. E ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 14 (265-6)~~

~~F Ab eterno. F ibid., 1, 16 (16, 268-9)~~

~~G Quod dixi, iterum dico. || Vobis querentibus46 an ego essem Christus. |~~

~~H Cur?~~

~~I Eternitate deitatis. || id est mihi prepositus est etiam in humanitate. I IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIII, 36~~

~~MARG. |~~

HIC ERAT. Per demonstratiuum pronomen ‘hic’ innuitur Christum affuisse in loco IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIII, 10-5 illo, sepe enim ipse Dominus adhuc ignotus antequam baptizaretur et predicaret ad Iohannem solitus erat uenire, quia tota uita Iohannis Christi ostensio fuit.

~~QVI POST ME. Qui post me natus post me est predicaturus, baptizaturus, ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 15 (270-1) moriturus.47~~

~~ANTE ME FACTVS EST. Ex Greco est ‘coram me factus est,’ id est apparuit mihi IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIII, 36-45 quod est, scilicet quia prior me erat.~~

~~16 ET DE PLENITVDINE EIVS NOS OMNES ACCEPIMVS,A ET GRATIAM PRO GRATIA.B48~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Quia illi Spiritus datus est non ad mensuram, nobis ab eo secundum mensuram. A IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., III, XII, 22-34~~

~~B Bonum pro bono.~~

~~MARG. |~~

ET DE PLENITVDINE. Exposito testimonio precursoris redit euangelista ad ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 16 (280-3) (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 16 [750B-D]) testmonium sue assertionis, quasi: Verbum caro factum est, uidimus gloriam eius, plenum gratie et ueritatis, et de plentiduine eius nos omnes accepimus gratiam, ut in ipsum credamus IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIV, 20-2 et ueritatem, qua illum intelligimus.49

~~ACCEPIMVS. Vere ab eo accipimus, quia lex que mala non tollit sed ostendit et reos cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 17 (312-7) conuincit, ut humilient se medico.~~

46 querentibus] AMICLAS: Prius quesierant quam hoc diceret. Forte bis quesitum est, sed sollempniter secundo. (cfr XXXVII, 2/3) 47 moriturus] AMICLAS: Non surrexit Iohannes. (cfr XXXIX, 12/3) 48 GRATIAM PRO GRATIA] AMICLAS: Gratiam pro gratia. In inceptione boni datur simpliciter que non ex meritis; si postea cum illa operemur, in bono crescimus, et tunc datur gratia pro gratia priori. (cfr APPENDIX II, 4, 22/6) 49 gratiam – intelligimus] AMICLAS add. in marg. (cfr APPENDIX II, 4, 22/3) XCVII

GRATIAM PRO GRATIA. Non solum gratiam que plene gratis datur sine merito, ut ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 16 (299-308) fidem que per dilectionem operatur ex qua iustus uiuit, sed et pro ista gratiam, id (ex ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 16 [751A]); est beatitudinem eternam que et merces iusticie dicitur et etiam gratia, quia cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 3, 9 meritum ex gratia.

~~A B 17 QVIA LEX PER MOYSEN DATA EST GRATIA, ET VERITAS PER IESVM C CHRISTVM FACTA EST.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Gratia qua fit salus homini, ut erat promissa. A cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 17 (325-8)~~

~~B Sed. |~~

~~C Qui Dominus liberans. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~LEX PER MOYSEN. Per Moysen ergo non est gratia nec per ipsum Iohannem. Et ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 19 (365-70) hoc est quod testatur se non esse Christum.~~

~~LEX PER MOYSEN. Per Moysen seruum prenuntiatio, per Iesum Dominum salutis cfr ibid, 1, 17 (315-28) impletio.~~

~~18 DEVM NEMOA VIDIT VMQVAM.B VNIGENITVS FILIVS QVI EST IN SINV C D PATRIS IPSE ENARRAVIT.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Nec Moyses. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 18 (340-55)~~

~~B Sed. |~~

~~C Secreto et eum nouit. |~~

~~D Fidelibus. || Per manifestationem sue incarnationis Deum inuisibilem demonstrauit. D IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVI, 28-9~~

~~MARG. |~~

NEMO VIDIT VMQVAM. Quod legitur Deus apparuisse hominibus siue uisibiliter IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXV, 29-52 carnalibus oculis siue inuisibiliter propheticis uisionibus per subiectam creaturam intelligendum est. Visiones enim prophetarum quadam spirituali creatura facte sunt, quibus Deum uidisse perhibentur.

IPSE ENARRAVIT. Que sit summa gratie et ueritatis breuiter subdit, scilicet cognitio ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 18 (345-59) ipsius Trinitatis. Vnde: Hec est uita eterna, ut cognoscant te uerum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum, que in hac uita non plene est, quia nemo in carne uidit Deum ut est. Vnde nec ipse Moyses uidit, ne dum per eum sit data gratia, sicut ipse post omnia uisa in typo50 Dei dixit: Ostende michi te ipsum. Sed Filius qui est in secreto Patris narrauit quia nemo nouit Patrem nisi Filius et cui Filius uoluerit reuelare. Ipse narrat suis quid de Trinitate deitatis sentiendum sit, quomodo ad eam perueniendum et ad ipsam introducit.

~~A B C D 19 ET HOC EST TESTIMONIVM IOHANNIS QVANDO MISERVNT IVDEI AB IEROSOLIMIS E F G SACERDOTES ET LEVITAS AD EVM VT INTERROGARENT EVM : TV QVIS ES?~~

~~50 typo] AMICLAS: In creaturis que figurabant eum. XCVIII~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Iterum.~~

~~B Quasi non per Moysen latorem ueteris testamenti potuit dari gratia et ueritatis, sed nec B ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 19 (365-6) per Iohannem baptistam.~~

~~C Vt lucerne. C AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 4, 3~~

~~D Cum eius excellentia mouerentur, quia ausus est baptizare. |~~

~~E Legisperitos. || Sapientes in lege. E ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 19 (374-8)~~

~~F Dicentes. || Quid? |~~

~~G Vt confessione ipsius Iohannis scirent quis esset. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

ET HOC. Et cetera testimonia sequentia exhibita sunt post baptizatum Christum, IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVI, 28-9 cum iam Iesus ueniret inuitare discipulos, quos Iohannes suis testimoniis ad eum mittit.

~~TESTIMONIVM. Contra hoc quod occultus Christus, occultus quia humilis, humilis AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 4, 1 ut possit sperni et occidi, occidi ut redimeret.~~

TV QVIS ES? Putabant Iudei Iohannem esse Christum qui in lege promittebatur. IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 11-9 Alii putabant eum esse Heliam propter nimiam abstinentiam et castitatem et solitariam uitam et asperrimam delictorum reprehensionem et durissimum uindicte future terrorem. Aliqui dicebant unum51 esse ex prophetis resuscitatum propter prophetie gratiam.

~~A B 20 ET CONFESSVS EST ET NON NEGAVIT, ET CONFESSVS EST QVIA NON~~

~~SVM EGO CHRISTVS.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Ecce humilitas Iohannis qua nichil maius est cum posset credi Christus. A AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 4, 3~~

~~B Quid?~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~ET CONFESSVS EST. Vel ordo uerborum:52 Et confessus est, et non negauit, quando IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 7-8 miserunt.53~~

~~CONFESSVS, ut post dicit quod non erat Christus non negauit quid erat, id est ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 20 (381-3 et sqq.) precursor, ut post interrogatus dicit: Vox clamantis et cetera.~~

~~A 21 ET INTERROGAVERVNT EVM: QVID ERGO? HELIAS ES TV? ET DIXIT NON SVM. PROPHETAB ES TV? ET RESPONDIT NON.C~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Iterum.~~

~~B ergo || Heliseus.~~

~~C Non. Quia non prenuntio sed ostendo.~~

51 unum] AMICLAS: Vt Heliseum. (cfr XXXVIII, 7) 52 uerborum] AMICLAS: Et hoc est testimonium Iohannis. (cfr XXXVII, 13/4) 53 miserunt ] AMICLAS: Iudei ab Ierosolomis sacerdotes et Leuitas ad Iohannem ut interrogarent: tu quis es? (cfr XXXVIII, 5-6) XCIX

~~MARG. |~~

~~NON SVM corpore, quod ipse de se, Dominus spiritualiter de eo dicit Helias: In ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 21 (388-9) spiritu et uirtute.~~

~~NON SVM HIC, quia non solum propheta, sicut ille, sed etiam precursor. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 21 (395-6)~~

ELIAS ES TV? Cum omnes scirent nomen Christi, sciebant etiam quod Helias ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 21 (384-91) precursurus sit eum, sed ipse Helias in potestate iudicaturum. Iohannes figulariter Helias eundum iudicandum, ut sint duo precones sicut aduentus eiusdem. Vnde: Non sum Helyas, id est non preeo et indico potentiam, sed inquam offenditis humilitatem, quasi: ‘Seruite humili antequam excelsus iudicet.’ Ecce non ego Christus, nec iudex aperte potentie.

~~RESPONDIT NON. Non sum propheta, quia plus quam propheta. Non sum unus IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 31-6 de illis54 prophetis, de quibus me esse putatis.~~

~~A 22 DIXERVNT ERGO EI: QVIS ES? VT RESPONSVM DEMVS HIS QVI B MISERVNT NOS. QVID DICIS DE TE IPSO?~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Dic quis es, ne absque responso redeamus ad eos qui miserunt nos. A IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 29-43~~

~~B Audiuimus de Christo te predicare, sed de te ipso nil manifestum asseris. |~~

~~A B C D E AIT EGO VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO DIRIGITE VIAM DOMINI 23 : : , SICVT YSAIAS PROPHETA DIXIT.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Sum.~~

~~B Verbi incarnati. B cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 23 (404-5)~~

C In me. D cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 23 (404-5) D Deserte Iudee solatium nuntians. || Quid? (ex IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 62-3) E Per fidem et opera, per que Dominus ingreditur. E IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVIII, 7-9

~~MARG. |~~

EGO VOX. Non dicit ‘ego sum homo’ uel ‘Iohannes’ uel ‘filius Zacharie’; non IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 47-55 considerat in se humanam subsistentiam uel generationem, sed ultra hec omnia exaltatur precursor Verbi, deserit omnia que intra mundum continentur, ascendit in altum factus uox Verbi, nullam in se substantiam fatetur preter habundantiam gratie qua excedit omnem creaturam,55 ut sit uox Verbi.

VOX. Vox est interpres animi. Animus autem, id est intellectus omnium56 est IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVII, 79 Filius Dei. Iohannes ergo uox et interpres animi huius, quia primum mundo eum demonstrauit: Ecce, inquit, agnus Dei.

~~YSAIAS PROPHETA. Isayas hoc de Iohanne prophetauit: Ego uox in qua uerbum IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVIII, 10-27 sonat, id est prophetia et ostensio et lucerna uerbi presentis.~~

~~54 unus de illis] AMICLAS: Helias uel Heliseus. (cfr XXXVIII, 6/7) 55 omnem] AMICLAS: Quantum ad hoc quod uox. (cfr XXXIX, 5/7) 56 omnium] AMICLAS: Prophetarum. C~~

~~24 ET QVI MISSI FVERANT ERANT EX PHARISEIS,~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~EX PHARISEIS. Principibus Iudeorum qui doctrinam non quereunt sed inuident. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 24 (416-8);~~

Qui tamen ad Iohannem ideo ueniunt, quia audiunt eum predicasse communem IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVIII, 35-43 omnium resurrectionem, quam et ipsi credebant. Vnde in multis Christo consentiunt, Paulum quoque apostolum in multis audierunt.

~~25 ET INTERROGAVERVNT EVM ET DIXERVNT EI: QVID ERGO BAPTIZASA B SI TV NON ES CHRISTVS NEQVE HELIAS NEQVE PROPHETA?~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Quasi audatie est. || Hic plene inuidia patet. A AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 4, 8~~

~~B Qui habent auctoritatem baptizandi. B ibid, tract. 5, 7~~

~~MARG. |~~

QVID ERGO BAPTIZAS? Audierant pharisei Christum uenturum et baptizaturum IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVIII, 47-54 scientes etiam Iordanem figuram baptismi gessisse eumque Heliam et Heliseum siccis pedibus transisse, figuram baptismi in Helia et Heliseo non dubitabant precessisse. Vnde et nunc eos surrexisse putebant et baptizasse.57 Vnde nec interrogant ‘es tu unus prophetarum,’ sed solummodo ‘es tu propheta,’ ille uidelicet qui prefigurauit baptismum?

~~26 RESPONDIT EIS IOHANNES DICENSA: EGO BAPTIZO IN AQVA. MEDIVS~~

~~B C D AVTEM VESTRVM STETIT QVEM VOS NESCITIS.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Etiam inuidis ex bonitate ueritatem reddit. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 24 (419-21)~~

~~B id est presens uobis apparet. B IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXVIII, 58-9~~

~~C Corpore. C ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 24 (430-2)~~

~~D Quia humilis et ideo ego lucerna preaccendor. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

EGO BAPTIZO. Non imputetur quod ago audacie, quia corpora abluo aqua; non ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 26 (422-9) aufero peccata, ut sicut nascendo et predicando precursor sum, sic etiam baptizando. Sed iste medius inter uos est qui peccata tollit.

~~27 IPSE EST QVI POST ME VENTVRVS ESTA QVI ANTE ME FACTVS EST,B CVIVS EGO NON SVM DIGNVS VT SOLVAM CORRIGIAM EIVS CALCIAMENTI.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Ante tempora diffinitum est quod post me ueniret. || Sicut nascendo, ita A IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIX, 2-3; predicando. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 26 (425-7)~~

~~B Mihi prepositus dignitate. B cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 27 (435-6)~~

~~57 baptizasse] AMICLAS: Vel baptizare. CI~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~NON SVM DIGNVS. Simpliciter iudicatur humilitas. Mistice, ligaturam58 misterii IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXIX, 40-9 incarnati Verbi non sum dignus penetrare uel nomen sponsi mihi usurpare. |~~

~~VT SOLVAM. Non ait ‘non soluam,’ soluit enim quando ipsum manifestauit et de |~~

~~diuinitate et humanitate ipsius multa aperuit, sed ‘non sum dignus,’ qui indignum | ad hoc agendum se reputat.~~

~~28 HEC IN BETHANIAA FACTA SVNT TRANS IORDANEM VBI ERAT IOHANNES BAPTIZANS.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A id est in domo obedientie baptizat, ut significaret obedientiam conuenire baptizatis. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 28 (455-8); cfr HIER., Nom. hebr. 60, 27 (135) MARG. |~~

BETHANIA. Due sunt Bethanie. Vna trans Iordanem, altera citra non longe a IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXX, 7-36 Ierusalem ubi Lazarus suscitatus est. Illa que est trans significat humanam naturam sub lege naturali ante fluenta gratie, que post incarnationem fuit Christus, que ad hoc creatura erat, ut lege nature Deo obediret, in qua Iohannes baptizat, quia a peccato non liberat, baptizat ultra fluenta diuinorum donorum, que nondum in Christo inchoauerant in humanam naturam descendere. Illa que est citra significat eandem humanam naturam obedientem sub lege gratie, que est proxima Ierusalem, id est uisioni pacis per caritatem, in qua Christus mortuum suscitat, quia a peccato liberat.

~~29 ALTERA DIEA VIDITB IOHANNES IESVM VENIENTEM AD SE, ET AIT: C D E ECCE AGNVS DEI, ECCE QVI TOLLIT PECCATVM MVNDI.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Altera59 scilicet cognitione. A IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXXI, 3-8~~

~~B Contuitu60 mentis et corporis.61 |~~

~~C Innocens, immolandus, prefiguratus in agno pascali. C ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 36 (583-5)~~

~~D Quid confert?~~

~~E Non de loco ad locum, sed ut omnino non sint peccata. || Quia non cum traduce E IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXXI, 28-30; peccati natus est. AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 3, 12~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~Tipice IOHANNES, id est populus gratie. ALTERA DIE, id est post legem cognoscit cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 29 (459-61) agnum quo redimitur.~~

VENIENTEM. Non solum gressibus corporis sed etiam interioris sue IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXXI, 10-4 contemplationis accessibus, quia dignatus est a Iohanne cognosci secundum diuinitatem et humanitatem.

58 ligaturam] AMICLAS: Quod Deus homo, et quomodo. (cfr XLIII, 15/7) 59 Altera] AMICLAS: Mistice. 60 contuitu] AMICLAS: Ad litteram. (cfr XLV, 12) 61 Contuitu mentis et corporis] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. (cfr ibid.) CII

~~AGNVS. Tria ministrat agnus possidentibus se: lac simplicis doctrine quo parui IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXXI, 22-3 nutriuntur, lanam indumentum uirtutum, esum carnis sue.~~

PECCATA MVNDI. Peccatum mundi dicitur originale peccatum quod est commune IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., I, XXXI, 32-41 totius mundi, quo tota humana natura simul et semel condita. Leges diuinas per & 65-8 inobedientiam transgressa est in paradisso, quod originale singulorumque superaddita gratia relaxat.

~~30 HICA EST DE QVO DIXIB ‘POST ME VENIT VIRC QVI ANTE MED FACTVS~~

~~EST,’E QVIA PRIOR MEG ERAT.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Hic determinat quis ille medius de quo supradixit.~~

~~B Hoc.~~

~~C Post preconem iudex. C ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 30 (469-76)~~

~~D Dignitate. |~~

~~E Natiuitate, et ceteris. |~~

~~F Deitate. |~~

~~31 ET EGO NESCIEBAM EVM. SED VT MANIFESTETVR IN ISRAHEL,A PROPTEREA VENI EGO IN AQVA BAPTIZANS.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Vsu baptizandi, et ostensione humilitatis Christi. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 31 (488-502)~~

~~B Non in Spiritu peccata tollens. |~~

~~MARG. | | EGO NESCIEBAM EVM. Comparatione huius cognicionis. Nam ex uisu et auditu | licet corporali multum profecit in cognitione maiestatis et potestatis reuelatis | occulis.~~

VT MANIFESTETVR. Hic est agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi, quod non ego, | quem etiam modo melius noui. Sed propterea baptizo ut manifestaretur Israeli, ne | enim propter insolentiam minus baptizarentur a Christo in Spiritu, usu baptizandi | uiam ei parauit. Vnde postquam ad ipsum qui uia est uentum est baptismus eius | cessat, baptismo etiam Iohannis manifestatur humilitas Christi, que est impletio | omnis iustitie, sicut enim opus est Christo nasci et mori, sic et baptizari. Si enim | ipse qui non eget a seruo baptizatur, non dedignentur quantumcumque sapientes | et sancti a Domino baptizari, sine quo permanent in peccatis. |

BAPTIZANS. Christus baptizatur a Iohanne, ut indicetur omnis humilitas que est | omnis iusticia. Sed non solus, ne baptisma Iohannis sanctius et maius in quo Deus | homo baptizatus est uideretur baptismo Christi, in quo homines baptizantur. | | Baptizantur autem alii a Iohanne, ut usus baptizandi preparet uiam baptismo | Christi.

~~CIII~~

~~32 ET TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVIT IOHANNES DICENS: QVIA VIDI SPIRITVM DESCENDENTEM QVASI COLVMBAMA DE CELO, ET MANSIT SVPER EVM.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Corporali specie columbe. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 32 (507)~~

~~B Cum dixit: Hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi bene complacui.~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~ET TESTIMONIVM. Sicut dixit se uenisse ut manifestaret Christum, ita perhibuit ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 32 (503-6) testimonium, scilicet uidi spiritum, in quo didicit quod prius nesciuit.~~

QVIA VIDI. Non quod modo primum descenderit, sed ut per hoc ostendatur cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 32 (508-10) descendere et manere in baptizatis aqua et non aliter62 et ut Iohannes per eum excellentius de Christo intelligeret.

~~33 ET EGO NESCIEBAM EVM.A SED QVI MISIT ME BAPTIZARE IN AQVAB ILLE MICHI DIXIT: SVPER QVEM VIDERIS SPIRITVM DESCENDENTEM ET C D E F MANENTEM SVPER EVM, HIC EST QVI BAPTIZAT IN SPIRITV SANCTO.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Comparatione huius cognitionis.63 A cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 33 (513-36)~~

~~B Penitentiam peccatorum. |~~

~~C Non alius. |~~

~~D Quid? |~~

~~E Ecce quid didicit. |~~

~~F In quo est remissio. || Quod non Iohannes |~~

~~MARG. |~~

EGO NESCIEBAM. Visa columba dicit se per eam didicisse quod prius nesciebat. cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 33 (503-47); Sciebat quidem quod Dominus, quod agnus tollens peccata, quod ab eo debet AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 5 baptizari, sicut et confessus erat. Sed nesciebat quod sibi retenturus et nulli traditurus esset potestatem baptismi et ministerium, per quod unitas constat ecclesie, ne sint tot baptismi quot baptiste. Potuit autem Dominus potestatem baptismi alicui seruo uice sua tradere, ut tanta esset uis in baptismo serui quanta est in Domini, sed noluit, ut spes baptizatorum sit in Domino tantum, non in homine, et uniantur in eo, ut sit una columba et non diuidantur per homines. Vnde nichil differt baptismus Domini siue per bonum ministrum siue per malum. Nec iteratur quia semper est Domini. Baptismus Iohannis iteratur, quia non est Domini sed hominis et si ex Deo. Baptismus Iude non Iude sed Domini est, nec iteratur. Vt autem unitas et fraternitatis pax sine laniatione in omnibus baptizatis seruetur, quasi in una columba que gemit in erumnis mundi et ramum qui extra est, fructum si habet fert ad archam. Ideo Spiritus in quo baptizantur per columbam ostenditur, ut autem habita unitate et pace in se ferueant contra mala, post in igne datus est apostolis et in linguis diuisis secundum diuersitatem gentium, que modo uniuntur olim de una diuise in tumidis edificatoribus.

~~62 naturaliter] AMICLAS: Si tempus habent. (cfr XLVIII, 12/3) 63 Comparatione huius cognitionis] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. (cfr XLVII, 13/4) CIV~~

~~NESCIEBAM EVM. Ieronimus ostendit Iohannem non scire per baptismum Christi PS. HIER., Expos. euang., (PL 578B) mundum esse redimendum.64 Nam sciebat eum Filium Dei esse et natum in carne.~~

~~NESCIEBAM EVM. Augustinus dicit Iohannem ignorasse hoc tantum, utrum sibi AVG., In Ioh. Tract, tract. 5, 8 retineat, scilicet uim baptismi an alicui suorum tribuat.~~

ET MANENTEM. Specialiter dicitur Spiritus sanctus manere in Christo, a quo cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 33 (557-65) nunquam per peccatum recessit, in quo semper mirabiliter uixit et mirabiliter operatus est. In sanctos uenit et propter peccata recedit. Manet tamen semper in eis ad aliquid ut Christus eis promisit, scilicet ut bonis semper insistant, ad aliquid non manet, scilicet ut ex eo prophetent uel miracula faciant, et ideo hoc quod dicit est proprium signum agnoscendi Christum.

~~QVI BAPTIZAT. Baptizat Christus in Spiritu, non solum remittendo peccata in cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 33 (548-55) aqua, sed et post purgando et donis implendo et amore accendendo.~~

~~34 ET EGO VIDIA ET TESTIMONIVM PERHIBVI QVIA HIC EST FILIVS DEI.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Illum Spiritum~~

~~B Vnicus, unde potest baptizare. B ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 35 (571)~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~HIC EST FILIVS. Hic testatur Filium Dei quem superius uirum, ut ab eo ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 30 (568-70) testimonium habeatur utriusque nature.~~

~~FILIVS DEI. Christus est uir in quo nobis cogruit et pro nobis soluit, et Filius Dei cfr ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 34 (758D-59A) in quo Patri congruit et peccata dimittendo reconciliat nos ei.65~~

~~35 ALTERA DIE ITERVM STABAT IOHANNES ET EX DISICIPVLIS EIVS DVO.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Immobilis stat in culmine perfectionis. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 36 (575-8)~~

~~B Firmiter eius herentes magisterio. || Quia dilectio ad minus est inter duos. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~ALTERA DIE. Typice, stat Iohannes, cessat lex, tamen testimonium perhibens ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 36 (580-2) Christo. Ambulat Iesus, id est gratia, hinc inde colligens.66~~

~~A B C 36 ET RESPICIENS IESVM AMBVLANTEM DICIT : ECCE AGNVS DEI.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Incarnatione ad nos uenientem. A cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 36 (578-91)~~

~~B Discipulis ostendendo. |~~

~~C Quasi ‘quid me sequimini? Illum sequimini qui est agnus Dei, precium mundi.’ |~~

~~64 redimendum] AMICLAS: Vel redemptum. (cfr XLIX, 3/4) 65 FILIVS DEI – nos ei] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. (cfr LIV, 2) 66 Typice – colligens] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. in marg. (cfr LV, 14) CV~~

~~37 ET AVDIERVNTA EVM DVO DISCIPVLI LOQVENTEM ET SECVTI SVNT IESVM.B~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Intellexerunt.~~

~~B Imperio magistri. || Sequentes euangelium legem amiserunt, utentes tamen eius B cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 37 (595-9) testimonio.~~

~~MARG. |~~

SECVTI SVNT IESVM. Vt iam eum potius quam Iohannem audirent, non tamen cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 37 (601-8) adhuc penitus ei adherentes, sed ut uideant ubi habitat, ut assidue ad eum ueniant et ab eo erudiantur; post perfecte secuti quando eos de naui uocauit. Duo secuntur, quia qui secuntur gemina caritate debent accendi.

~~38 CONVERSVS AVTEM IESVS ET VIDENS EOS SEQVENTES SE DICIT EIS: A B C D QVID QVERITIS? QVI DIXERVNT EI: RABI, QVOD DICITVR~~

~~E INTERPRETATVM MAGISTER, VBI HABITAS?~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Non dixit quem de persona sed de re. A cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 38 (616-20)~~

~~B Dat fiduciam interrogandi. |~~

~~C Quecumque uellent. |~~

~~D Hoc nomine fidem suam indicant; iam sequntur ut magistrum. D cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 38 (621-5)~~

~~E Nolunt eo transitorie uti, sed scire locum quo frequenter ueniant et secreto instrui. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~CONVERSVS.67 Quasi a tergo uiderant, sed quasi faciem prebuit dum de maiestate ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 38 (609-15) descendit, ut posset uideri, dum pro umbra legis euangelii lucem exibuit.~~

QVID QVERITIS? Interrogat eos non ignorans, sed ut mercedem habeant ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 38 (616-20) respondentes: ‘Quid?’ rem non personam.68 ‘Quid?’ non ‘quem,’ ne se uideatur ostendere, illi personam respondent.

VBI HABITAS? Mistice, uolunt ostendi sibi in quibus Christus habitet, ut se illis ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 38 (626-9, 37-40) assimilent, uel qui incarnationem uident pie querunt ostendi sibi eternam mansionem quomodo sit apud Patrem.

~~39 DICIT EIS: VENITE ET VIDETE. VENERVNT ET VIDERVNT VBI MANERET. ET APVD EVM MANSERVNTA DIE ILLO.B HORA AVTEM ERAT~~

~~QVASI DECIMA.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Postquam ad Christum uentum est, ibi est manendum.69~~

~~B Non est nox ubi est lumen Christus B cfr ALCVIN., Ioh. euang., 1, 39 (760A)~~

~~67 conuersus] AMICLAS: Mistice. (cfr LVI, 4/5) 68 personam] AMICLAS: Subicit. (cfr LVI, 3/4) 69 postquam ad – manendum] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. (cfr LVII, 1) CVI~~

~~MARG. |~~

VENITE. Quasi: sermone non potest explicari, sed opere demonstratur. Venite ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 39 (630-4) credendo et operando et intelligetis. Venite testimonio Iohannis, a lege recedite et gratiam suscipietis.

~~DIE ILLO, ostendit nouum testamentum siue presentem uitam.~~

QVASI DECIMA. Quia ex lege uenerant decalogus ad Christum misit. Decima hora ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 39 (641-55) querunt doceri ab ipso, quia non alius docet legem nisi qui dedit eam. Docet autem cum misericordia et impletur70 que impleri non poterat. Vel hora decmina uesperam mundi indicat.

~~40 ERAT AVTEM ANDREAS71 FRATER SIMONIS PETRIA72 VNVS EX DVOBVS~~

~~QVI AVDIERANT A IOHANNE ET SECVTI FVERANT EVM.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Obediens. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 40 (683-4)~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~ANDREAS FRATER SIMONIS. Minor natu prior credit. Non enim est ordo inanis. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 40 (657-61) Forte ad dignitatem Andree dicitur esse frater Petri, super73 quem fundanda erat ecclesia.~~

~~41 INVENIT HICA PRIMVM FRATREM SVVM SYMONEM ET DICIT EI: B C D INVENIMVS MESSIAM QVOD EST INTERPRETATVM CHRISTVS.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

A Vera pietas statim inuentum thesaurum nuntiat fratri, ut sicut est sanguine sit germanus A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 40 (661-70) etiam in fide. | B Hoc uerbo innuit quod diu eum quesierint. | C Ebraice.74 |

~~D Grece.75 || Christus, id est unctus Spiritu sancto specialiter, a qua unctione dicuntur | Christiani.~~

~~42 ET ADDVXIT EVM AD IESVM.A INTVITVS AVTEM EVM IESVSB DIXIT: TV ES SYMONC FILIVS IOHANNA.D TV VOCABERIVS CEPHASE QVOD INTERPRETATVR PETRVS.~~

70 impletur] AMICLAS: Sic. 71 ANDREAS ] AMICLAS: Virilis, quia fortis et constans. 72 PETRI ] AMICLAS: Petrus, firmus uel agnoscens. 73 super] AMICLAS: id est super fidem cuius. 74 Ebraice] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. 75 Grece] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l.

~~CVII~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Non dedignatur maior sequi minorem. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 42 (667-87)~~

~~B Secretum cordis, ex quo cognito mutat nomen. |~~

~~C Per spiritum obedientie.76 |~~

~~D id est columbe, id est Spiritus sancti ex quo humilis dum maior minorem est secutus. |~~

~~E Nondum ponit nomen, sed presignat. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

TV ES SYMON. Prius dicit nomen quod habet a parentibus, ut significetur mutatio ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 42 (681-93) dum de Symone Petrum facit. In mutatione autem notatur uiuacitas77 misterii, sed nec prius nomen caret uirtute. Est enim Symon obediens filius Grece, uel columbe, dum uenit ad Iesum sequens fratrem. Vnde a petra Christo dicitur Petrus firmus in illo, in figura ecclesie que in petra fundatur.

~~FILIVS IOHANNA. Idem dicitur Iona et Iohanna. Iona, columba; Iohanna, gratia.78 ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 42 (684-5)~~

~~A B C 43 IN CRASTINVM VOLVIT EXIRE IN GALILEAM ET INVENIT PHILIPPVM ET DIXIT EI IESVS: SEQVERE ME.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A id est post resurrectionem Christi ad gentes.~~

~~B A Iudea, ubi erat Iohannes baptizans.~~

~~C id est os lampadis. C IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh., VI, V, 16-7~~

~~MARG. |~~

IN GALILEAM. Galilea dicitur transmigratio uel reuelatio. Transmigrat homo a cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 43 (701-5) uiciis ad uirtutes et post de uirtute in uirtutem et sic sit ei reuelatio, ut uideatur Deus deorum in Syon. Vocaturus ergo discipulum ad sequendum, id est imitandum, exit in Galileam, ipso loco innuens ut sicut ipse proficiebat sapientia et sicut per passiones intrauit in gloriam sic et sequaces.

~~44 ERAT AVTEM PHILIPPVS A BETHSAIDA CIVITATE ANDREE ET PETRI.~~

~~MARG. |~~

A BETHSAIDA. Non frustra nominatur ciuitas, nec frustra dicitur Philippi, Petri et ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 44 (706-12) Andree. Sonat enim domus uenatorum, in quo notatur animus et officium istorum. Sunt enim uenatores in capiendis animabus. Vnde Philippus antequam fiat apostolus sponte uocat Nathanaelem.

~~45 INVENIT PHILIPPVS NATHANAEL ET DICIT EI: QVEM SCRIPSIT MOYSES B C IN LEGE ET PROPHETE INVENIMVS IESVM FILIVM IOSEPH A NAZARETH.~~

~~76 per spiritum obedientie] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. 77 uiuacitas] AMICLAS: Virtus. (cfr LVIII, 10/1) 78 Idem – gratia] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. in marg. CVIII~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Fratrem suum. A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 45 (715-21)~~

~~B Et hoc nomen a prophetis. |~~

~~C De semine Dauid.79 || Vt et Maria que non ignorat se uirginem dicit: Ego et pater tuus. |~~

~~MARG. |~~

INVENIT PHILIPPVS NATHANAEL. Nathanael peritissimus scripturarum intelligit cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 47 (739-43) quod non alii a Nazareth exire singularem Nazareum. Quia autem doctissimus non est in apostolum electus. Omnes enim apostoli primo de idiotis, ut confundantur sapientes.

QVEM SCRIPSIT MOYSES. Vt cautus uenator multis rationibus ueritatem fratri cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 45 (715-23) astruit, scilicet quod Iesus est qui prenuntiatur in lege et prophetis, filius Ioseph qui est de domo Dauid, ut per eum non quod de eo natus, cum Maria ex matre eius quam sciebat ex prophetis uirginem peperisse notetur esse ex Dauid.

~~46 ET DIΧIT EI NATHANAELA: A NAZARETHB POTEST ALIQVID BONI 80 ESSE. DICIT EI PHILIPPVS: VENI ET VIDE.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Virgultum.~~

~~B Patriam ponit, ut notet eum de quo prophete: Nazareus uocabitur. B ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 45 (721-2)~~

~~MARG. |~~

A NAZARETH. Vel dubitando interrogat uel affirmat ut legisperitus a ciuitate tanti ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 46 (725-36) nominis posse esse aliquem bonum uel eximium doctorem uel ipsum saluatorem. Dicitur enim Nazareth flos, germen mundicie, sanctitas. Vtrique autem pronunciationi congrue subditur: Veni et uide.

~~47 VIDIT IESVS NATHANAEL VENIENTEM AD SE ET AIT DE EO: ECCE~~

~~VERE ISRAHELITA IN QVO NON EST DOLVS.~~

~~MARG. |~~

DOLVS, id est simulatio. Si enim habet peccata, confitetur. Non ergo negat ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 47 (737-8) peccatorem, sed in eo laudat confessionem. Pharisei sunt dolosi qui se bonos predicant, cum sint mali.

~~48 DICIT EI NATHANAEL: VNDE ME NOSTI? RESPONDIT IESVS ET DIXIT EI: A PRIVSQVAM PHILIPPVS TE VOCARET, CVM ESSES SVB FICV VIDI TE.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Sub arbore fici. || Sub littera legis. A AVG., In Ioh. Tract., tract. 7, 20~~

~~MARG. |~~

~~VNDE ME NOSTI? Cognoscens Dominum loqui de sua conscientia non ex cfr ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 49 (745-7) indignatione querit sed admirando, unde et ex qua uirtute.~~

~~79 De semine Dauid] AMICLAS hanc glosam add. i. l. (cfr LXI, 10) 80 ESSE] AMICLAS: Vel ‘?’ (cfr Glosae, LXII, 5/8) CIX~~

SVC FICV VIDI TE. Mistice Nathanael, id est donum Dei, est uerus populus Israhel ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 48 (754-68) dono Dei, qui erat sub ficu abditus, id est sub consuetudine peccandi et umbra mortis, ut primi parentes sub fici foliis se texerunt, ubi prius uisus est a Domino et quesitus,81 quam Dominum uideret et quereret ante etiam quam per apostolos

~~uocaret.~~

~~A 49 RESPONDIT EI NATHANAEL ET AIT: RABI, TV ES FILIVS DEI. TV ES REX B ISRAHEL.~~

~~INTERL. |~~

~~A Ecce eadem Nathanaelis uox uel confessio, que post Petri. Vnde et Petrus meruit A cfr AVG., In Ioh. Tract., tract. 7, 20 uocari. B ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 49 (751-2) B Cuius ego miles.~~

MARG. | ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 49 (745-50) RABI, TV ES FILIVS DEI. Quia cognouit Nathanael Christum absentem uidisse que ipse in alio loco gesserat, id est quomodo et ubi uocatus sit a Philippo, quod est indicium deitatis. Fatetur non solum magistrum sed et Dei Filium et regem Israhel, id est Christum, in quo probatur esse Israhelita ut dicitur, id est uidens Deum.

50 RESPONDIT IESVS ET DIXIT EI: QVIA DIXI TIBI VIDI TE SVB FICV CREDIS? MAIVS HIS VIDEBIS. 51 ET DICIT EI: AMEN AMEN DICO VOBIS, VIDEBITIS CELVM APERTVM, ET ANGELOS DEI ASCENDENTES ET DESCENDENTES SVPER FILIVM HOMINIS.A

~~INTERL. | A ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 50-1 (770-1) A Hoc maius.~~

MARG. | ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 51 (782-90) VIDEBITIS CELVM. Nathanael Israhelita dicitur uisurus apertum celum et angelos ascendentes et descendentes ut olim patriarcha Iacob uidit scalam et angelos ascendentes et descendentes, qui per benedictionem uocatus82 est Israhel. ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 51 (772-95) VIDEBITIS CELVM APERTVM. Quod dictum est Nathanaeli modo impletur in Christianis, quia postquam homo Deus ascendit credentibus in eum aperitur aditus celi et uident angelos, id est predicatores super eum ascendentes dum archana deitatis considerant et predicant, et descendentes dum infirmis se comtemperant et humana de eo predicant, et maius est celum aperiri et utramque in eo naturam per angelos cognoscere quam uisos, id est prescitos esse, dum essent sub umbra mortis. Si enim ibi remanerent, quid profuisset ibi uideri? ANSELM., Glosae, 1, 51 (800-4) FILIVM HOMINIS. Christus dicit se filium hominis quod minus est affirmans humanitatem, Nathanael et Petrus Filium Dei quod maius affirmantes diuinitatem. Ecce confirmatio utriusque nature in Christo. Isti confitentes deitatem merentur ascendere; ille asserens humanitatem se testatur ad redimendum uenisse.

~~81 quesitus] AMICLAS: Populus. 82 uocatus] AMICLAS: Ita hic Israelita. (cfr LXIV, 6/7) CX~~

~~ABBREVIATIONES~~

~~APPARATVS FONTIVM ET SIMILIVM~~

~~ALAN. AB INSVLIS, Lib. dist. Alanus ab Insulis(?). Liber distinctionum dictionum theologicalium. PL 210: 685-1011.~~

~~Lib. sent. IDEM(?). Liber sententiarum ac dictorum memorabilium. PL 210: 229-64.~~

~~Summa de arte praed. IDEM. Summa de arte praedicatoria. PL 210: 109-198A.~~

~~Theol. Reg. IDEM. Theologiae Regulae. PL 210: 621-84.~~

~~ALCVIN., Ioh. euang. Alcuinus Eboracensis. Commentarius in Iohannem. PL 100: 737-1008.~~

~~AMBR., De fide Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fide libri V ad Gratianum Augustum. CSEL 78. Vienna, 1962.~~

~~Enarr. in Ps. IDEM. Explanatio Psalmorum. CSEL 64. Vienna, 1919.~~

~~Expos. euang. sec. Luc. IDEM. Expositio euangelii secundam Lucam. CCSL 14. Turnhout: 1957.~~

~~ANON., De ortu et obitu patriarch. Anonymus. Liber de ortu et obitu patriarcharum. CCSL 108E. Turnhout, 1996.~~

~~ANON., Huic euang. Magister anonymus (ca. 1160). Huic euangelio. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 175, fol. 252r-298r.~~

~~ANSELM. LAVD., Glosae Anselmus Laudunensis. Glosae super Iohannem. CCCM 267. Turnhout, 2014.~~

~~ARISTOTELES, Praedicamenta Aristoteles (a Boethio translatus). Categoriae uel Praedicamenta. Aristoteles Latinus I. 1-5, 1961.~~

~~AVG., Cons. euang. Augustinus Hipponensis. De consensu euangelistarum. CSEL 43. Vienna, 1904.~~

~~De ciu. Dei IDEM. De ciuitate Dei. CCSL 47-8. Turnhout, 1955.~~

~~De Trinitate IDEM. De trinitate libri XV. CCSL 50-50A. Turnhout, 1968.~~

~~Enarrat. in Ps. IDEM. Enarrationes in Psalmos. CCSL 38-40. Turnhout, 1956.~~

~~CXI~~

~~Enchiridion IDEM. Enchridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate. CCSL 46. Turnhout, 1969.~~

~~In Ioh. euang. Tract. IDEM. In Iohannis Euangelium Tractatus CXXIV. CCSL 36. Turnhout, 1954.~~

~~Locut. in Heptat. IDEM. Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri VII. CCSL 33. Turnhout, 1958.~~

~~Retract. IDEM. Retractationum libri II. CCSL 57. Turnhout, 1999.~~

~~Sermones ad populum IDEM. Sermones ad populum. CCSL 41Bb. Turnhout, 2016.~~

~~BEDA, Homil. euang. Beda Venerabilis. Homiliae in euangelia. CCSL 122. Turnhout, 1955.~~

~~In Cant. IDEM. In Cantica canticorum Libri VI. CCSL 119B. Turnhout, 1983. 167-375.~~

~~In Luc. euang. expos. IDEM. In Lucae euangelium expositio. CCSL 120. Turnhout, 1960. 1-425.~~

~~Lib. hymn. IDEM. Liber hymnorum. In Opera rhythmica. CCSL 122. Turnhout, 1955.~~

~~BOET., In Peri Herm. Boethius. In librum Aristotelis Peri hermeneias commentarii (editio secunda). CPL 883. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880.~~

~~GAVD. BABION, Enarrat. in euang. Mat. Gaudfridus Babion(?). Enarrationes in euangelium Matthaei. PL 162: 1227-1500B.~~

~~GILBERT. PICT., Med. glosatura sup. epist. Pauli Gilbertus Pictauensis. Media glosatura super epistolas Pauli. Paris, BnF lat. 14441.~~

~~GREG., Homil. in euang. Gregorius Magnus. Homiliae in euangelia. CCSL 141. Turnhout, 1999.~~

~~Moralia IDEM. Moralia in Iob. CCSL 143. 3 vols. Turnhout, 1979-85.~~

~~GVILL. DE CONCHIS, Glosae sup. Platonem Guillelmus de Conchis. Glosae super Platonem. CCCM 203. Turnhout, 2006.~~

~~HIER., Comm. in euang. Mat. Hieronymus. Commentariorum in Matheum libri IV. CCSL 77. Turnhout, 1969.~~

~~Comm. in Malac. IDEM. Commentarius in Malachiam. In Commentarii in CXII~~

~~prophetas minores. CCSL 76A. Turnhout, 1964.~~

~~Epistulae IDEM. Epistulae. CSEL 54-6. Vienna, 1910-18.~~

~~Nom. hebr. IDEM. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. CCSL 72. Turnhout, 1959.~~

~~HVGO DE S. VIC., De archa Noe Hugo de Sancto Victore. De archa Noe. CCCM 176. Turnhout, 2001.~~

~~De Sacramentis IDEM. De sacramentis Christianae fidei. Corpus Victorinum. Münster, 2008.~~

~~Didascalicon IDEM. Didascalicon de studio Legendi. Washington, D.C., 1939.~~

~~Sent. de diuinitate IDEM. Sententie de diuinitate. In Ambrogio Piazzoni, ed., “Ugo di San Vittore auctor delle Sententie de Diuinitate.” Studi Medievali 23 (1982): 912-55.~~

~~IOH. BELETH, Summa de eccles. offic. Iohannes Beleth. Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis. CCCM 41A. Turnhout, 1976.~~

~~IOH. CHRYSOST., Homil. in Ioh. Iohannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Iohannem. PG 59.~~

~~IOH. SCOT., Comm. in Ioh. Iohannes Scotus Eriugena. Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis. CCCM 166. Turnhout, 2008. 47-137.~~

~~Homil. Ioh. IDEM. Homilia super ‘In principio erat uerbum.’ CCCM 166. Turnhout, 2008. 1-43.~~

~~ISID., De ortu et obitu patrum Isidorus Hispalensis. De ortu et obitu Patrum. Paris, 1985.~~

~~Etymol. IDEM. Etymologiarum siue Originum libri XX. 2 vols. Oxford, 1911.~~

~~IVO CARNOT. Iuo Carnotensis. Decretum. PL 161: 47-1022D.~~

~~IVVENC., Euang. lib. IV Iuuencus. Euangeliorum libri IV. CSEL 43. Vienna, 1891.~~

~~ODO SVESSIONENSIS, Quaest. Odo Suessionensis. Quaestiones. In Die Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der Theologie der Schlüsselgewalt 38, ed. Ludwig Hödl. Münster, 1960.~~

~~P. ABAELARDVS, Dialectica Petrus Abaelardus. Dialectica. Edited by Lambert Marie de Rijk. Assen, 1956. CXIII~~

~~Expos. in epist. ad Rom. IDEM. Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos. Fontes Christiani 26. 3 vols. Freiburg, 2000.~~

~~Glossae sup. Peri Herm. IDEM. Glossae super Peri hermenias. CCCM 206. Turnhout, 2010.~~

~~Glossae sup. Porph. IDEM. Logica ‘ingredientibus’: Glossae super Porphyrium. XXI, 1. Edited by Bernhard Geyer. Münster i.W., 1919.~~

~~Sententie magist. P. Abael. IDEM. Sententie magistri Petri Abaelardi. In Opera theologica VI. CCCM 14. Turnhout, 2007.~~

~~Sic et Non IDEM. Sic et Non. Chicago-London, 1976-77.~~

~~Theologia Christiana IDEM. Theologia Christiana. CCCM 12. Turnhout, 1969.~~

~~P. COMESTOR, De Sacramentis Petrus Comestor. De Sacramentis. In Maitre Simon et son groupe: De sacramentis. Louvain, 1937. 3-105.~~

~~Glosae sup. Luc. glosat. IDEM. Glosae super Lucam glosatum. Paris, BnF lat. 620, 149r-218v.~~

~~Glosae sup. Marc. glosat. IDEM. Glosae super Marcum glosatum. Paris, BnF lat. 15269 (Sorbonne 143), 117r-152r.~~

~~Glosae sup. Mat. glosat. IDEM. Glosae super Matthaeum glosatum. Paris, BnF lat. 620, 1r-84v.~~

~~Hist. scholastica IDEM. Historia scholastica. PL 198: 1049-1722A.~~

~~Quaest. IDEM(?). Quaestiones. In Quaestiones Magistri Odonis Suessionensis. In Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis altera continuatio, II. Paris-Frascati, 1888. nn. 288-344.~~

~~P. DAMIANI, Sermones Petrus Damiani. Sermones. CCCM 57. Turnhout, 1983.~~

~~P. LOMBARDVS, Collectanea in epist. Petrus Lombardus. Collectanea in epistolas Pauli. PL 191: 1297-1696C; PL 192: 9-520A.~~

~~Mag. glosatura in Ps. IDEM. Magna glosatura in Psalmos. PL 191: 32-1296D.~~

~~Sententiae IDEM. Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. Edited by Ignatius Brady. 3rd ed., rev. 2 vols. Grottaferrata, 1971-1981.~~

~~CXIV~~

~~PASC. RAD., Expos. in Mat. Pascasius Radbertus. Expositio in Mattheo. CCCM 56. 3 vols. Turnhout, 1984.~~

~~PLATO (sec. trans. CALCIDII), Timaeus Plato (a Calcidio translatus). Timaeus. London: Brill, 1962.~~

~~PS. ABDIAS, Virtutes Ioh. Pseudo-Abdias. Virtutes Iohannis. In Acta Iohannis. CCSA 2. Turnhout, 1983.~~

~~PS. AVG., Contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos Pseudo-Augustinus Contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos Sermo de Symbolo. PL 42: 1115-30.~~

~~PS. AVG. (BELGICVS), Sermones Pseudo-Augustinus (Belgicus). Sermones. in S. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum supplementum, vol. 3. Paris, 1836.~~

~~PS. HIER., Expos. euang. Pseudo-Hieronymus. Expositio euangeliorum. PL 30: 531-90A.~~

~~ROB. DE MILIDVNO, Quaest. de epist. Pauli Robertus de Miliduno. Quaestiones de epistolis Pauli. In Œuvres de Robert de Melun, tom. 2. Louvain, 1938.~~

~~Sententie IDEM Sententie, vol. 1. In Œuvres de Robert de Melun, tom. 3. Louvain, 1947.~~

~~RVP. TIVTIENSIS, Comm. in euang. S. Ioh. Rupertus Tiutiensis. Commentaria in euangelium sancti Iohannis. CCCM 9. Turnhout, 1969.~~

~~SEDVL., Paschale Carmen Sedulius. Paschale Carmen. In Sedulii Opera omnia. CSEL 10. Vienna, 1885.~~

~~SVLP. SEVERVS, Epistulae Sulpicius Seuerus. Epistulae. CSEL 1, 138. Vienna, 1866.~~

~~WAL. STRABO(?), Expos. in quat. euang. Walafridus Strabo(?). Expositio in quatuor euangelia. PL 114: 861-916B.~~

~~ZACH. CHRYSOP., Unum ex quatuor Zacharias Chrysopolitanus. Unum ex Quatuor. PL 186: 11-620B.~~