AQUINAS AND “ALCUIN”: A NEW SOURCE OF THE CATENA AUREA ON JOHN Alexander ANDRÉE, Tristan SHARP, and Richard SHAW Abstract In the Catena aurea Thomas Aquinas brought together commentary extracted from the works of all the major Fathers on the four Gospels. Unknown to him and to all scholars since, however, his citations from Alcuin in the Catena on John did not in fact come from the Northumbrian’s Commentarius. They derive instead from a commentary on John’s Gospel probably compiled by Anselm of Laon in the early twelfth century. This same text, the Glosae super Iohannem, was also the principal source for the so-called Glossa ordinaria on John. Through both the Glossa and the Catena therefore this intriguing text indi- rectly ensured the continued and widespread influence of Anselm and his teaching throughout the later Middle Ages. The Catena aurea, or Glossa (expositio) continua in Matthaeum, Mar- cum, Lucam, Iohannem, as it was originally known,1 was one of Thomas Aquinas’s most important and popular works. It marked “a turning point in the development of Aquinas’s theology as well as in the history of Catholic dogma.”2 The Catena was also one of the “most widely diffused works of Aquinas, both in manuscript and in print.”3 The very sobriquet, ‘Golden Chain’, which the Glossa con- tinua gained within a century of its composition, is testimony to the 1 Quotations from the Catena will be from: S. Thomae Aquinatis Catena Aurea in quattuor Evangelia, I: Expositio in Matthaeum et Marcum, II: Expositio in Lucam et Ioan- nem, ed. A. GUARIENTI, Turin/Rome 1953: henceforth GUARIENTI. 2 Comment by I. T. ESCHMANN in É. GILSON, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas with a Catalogue of St. Thomas’s Works by I. T. Eschmann, tr. L. K. SHOOK, New York 1956, p. 397. See also J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre, 2nd ed., Paris 2002, pp. 204-205. 3 J. A. WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino. His Life, Thought and Work, New York 1974, p. 171. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 83(1), 3-20. doi: 10.2143/RTPM.83.1.3154582 © 2016 by Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales. All rights reserved. 003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 3 16/06/16 10:34 4 A. ANDRÉE, T. SHARP AND R. SHAW respect in which it was held. Despite these accolades the work has received less attention from modern scholars than almost any other work of Aquinas. Indeed, it is more than often overlooked, since it is regarded merely as “his compilation from commentaries by others.”4 This attitude, however, overlooks the evidence of medieval readers. Most of Aquinas’s biblical commentaries were little-read in the dec- ades after his death, whereas his Catena enjoyed an immediate suc- cess.5 Its reception testifies to the importance for medieval scholars of such an endeavour – the reworking of previous sources to create new readings of the existing corpus of literature. As a result, analysis of the Catena, such as that in Carmello Giuseppe Conticello’s seminal article on the Catena aurea on John,6 can teach us important lessons about both St Thomas and his sources. Conticello devoted a short section to each “Father” quoted in the Catena on John, examining the way Aquinas used each. He provided an absolutely vital starting point for research on Aquinas’s sources and his use of them; however, the section on Alcuin raises more questions than it answers.7 Conticello only examined the seven citations of Alcuin from the prologue to John’s Gospel,8 but he noted that six of the seven quotes were not actually present in Alcuin’s Commentary on John.9 Indeed, even the one citation which he accepted as derived 4 This is the reason that Eleonore STUMP gave for ignoring the Catena in her useful analysis of Aquinas’s biblical commentaries: “Biblical Commentary and Philosophy,” in: N. KRETZMANN – E. STUMP (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, Cambridge 1993, pp. 252-268, at p. 252. 5 M. M. MULCHAHEY, First the Bow is Bent in Study...: Dominican Education before 1350, Toronto 1998, p. 504. 6 C. G. CONTICELLO, “San Tommaso ed i padri: la Catena aurea super Ioannem,” in: Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge 65 (1990), pp. 31-92. 7 CONTICELLO, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” pp. 53-54. As the present article provides a re-examination of the sources of Aquinas’s quotations from Alcuin it is inevitable that we will find ourselves taking issue with Conticello’s conclusions. This in no way detracts from the wider value of Conticello’s important article. 8 That is, John 1:1-18 (although this is not marked out as a separate section in the Catena). 9 ALCUIN, Commentarius in Iohannem, PL 100, cols. 737-1008. A critical edition of this influential work of Alcuin is now long overdue. Pending this, see M. M. GORMAN, “Rewriting Augustine: Alcuin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John,” in: Revue Bénédic- tine 119 (2009), pp. 36-85, and S. C. BERARDUCCI, “La genesi redazionale del commen- tario di Alcuino di York al Vangelo di Giovanni e il codice Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 258,” in: Immagini del Medioevo. Saggi di cultura mediolatina, Spoleto 1994, pp. 23-79. 003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 4 16/06/16 10:34 AQUINAS AND “aLCUIN” 5 from Alcuin does not match the source precisely,10 and if Aquinas did take it from Alcuin, then he also added a phrase which changes the focus of the point being made.11 Conticello’s sample was obviously, and understandably, a small one, but we shall see his basic conclusion borne out by a broader sampling from the Catena on John: many of the quotes from “Alcuin” are not derived from Alcuin’s Commentary at all, and most of those which might seem to be are loose quotations or paraphrases. Noting that at least two of the Catena’s “Alcuin” citations in the prologue appear to be related to a homily of Bede,12 Conticello ten- tatively suggested that a possible reason for the Catena’s apparent misattribution of these quotes to Alcuin was that Aquinas “added the lemma ‘Bede or Alcuin’ to extracts that circulated in anonymous glosses.”13 It is a sensible proposal, especially in light of Conticello’s observation that the works of Bede and Alcuin were often confused in the Middle Ages.14 We are, however, now able to show that Aqui- nas excerpted the passages in question from a single, complete work which he wrongly believed to be by Alcuin. This is a little studied commentary on John, entitled the Glosae super Iohannem in several manuscripts,15 and recently attributed to Anselm of Laon.16 10 CONTICELLO, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” p. 53 and n. 155. 11 The Catena (GUARIENTI, II, p. 330a) has: “Alcuinus. Qualiter autem ponit sub- stantivum verbum erat? Ut intelligeres omnia tempora praevenisse coaeternum Deo patri verbum.” The similar Alcuin passage, as referenced by Conticello, is: “Ideo quater dicit evangelista, Erat, erat, erat, erat, ut intelligeres omni tempore praevenisse coaeternum Deo Patri Verbum.” (745B). 12 BEDE, Homilia I, 8 – In nativitate Domini, ed. D. HURST (CCSL 122), Turnhout 1955. Although the second of the examples seems to be only very distantly connected at best to Bede’s version: CONTICELLO, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” p. 54. 13 CONTICELLO, “San Tommaso ed i padri”, p. 54: “È pensabile che Tommaso abbia aggiunto il lemma BEDA o ALCUINO ad estratti che circolavano anonimi nelle glosse?” 14 CONTICELLO, ibid. 15 Two manuscripts give the name of the author as “Anselmus”: Durham, Dean and Chapter Library, B III 17, fols. 1r-31r (31r), England (Oxford?), s. XIII1/4; and Cam- bridge, Trinity College, B 1 10, fols. 82r-138r (83r), England, s. XII3/4 (although the hand that has added “Anselmus” is of later, though uncertain date). Other evidence, external and internal, helps ascribe this text to Anselm. See A. ANDRÉE (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem (CCCM 267), Turnhout 2014, pp. XVI-XXV. 16 See A. ANDRÉE, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled: The Glosae super Iohannem and the Origins of the Glossa ordinaria on the Bible,” in: Mediaeval Studies 73 (2011), pp. 217- 260. 003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 5 16/06/16 10:34 6 A. ANDRÉE, T. SHARP AND R. SHAW The Glosae is a skilful blend of excerpts from the works of previous commentators on John interspersed with original and independent comment by the author. Liberal use is made of Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium, Bede’s Homilies, Gregory the Great’s corpus and the sermons of Heiric of Auxerre; but the base text, which provides the core and the structure of the commentary’s content is Alcuin’s Commentarius.17 There are therefore often sections of the Glosae which are either taken directly from Alcuin or which are close paraphrases. One consequence of this close dependence of the Glosae on Alcuin is to tend to obscure the real relationship between the Catena and its “Alcuin” source. Because the Glosae uses Alcuin’s Commentary as a base a superficial survey of the “Alcuin” passages in the Catena might give the impression that he was indeed the source for much of the material, even if it would be clear that the original had almost always been at least slightly altered by Aquinas and that some passages had no relation to Alcuin. In order to show convincingly that the “Alcui- nus” in the Catena is actually the Glosae, therefore, it is necessary to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible and analyse several different types of examples.