Aquinas and “Alcuin”: a New Source of the Catena Aurea on John

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 indirectly 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 continua 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.

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 commentario 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 substantivum 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. First we will look at cases where there is nothing in Alcuin’s Commentary resembling the Catena’s ‘quotation’, and show that it is the Glosae which lies behind the “Alcuin” citation. Second we shall examine examples which could be seen as paraphrases of Alcuin, and show either that the paraphrase had originally been performed by the Glosae, which had then been copied word for word by Aquinas, or that Aquinas’s paraphrase is clearly based on the text of the Glosae rather than that of Alcuin.18 Finally, we shall discuss some examples where it seems initially as though Aquinas is quoting Alcuin almost verbatim, and show that in reality, even in these cases, the Glosae has borrowed the relevant section from Alcuin and provides the closer match to the Catena text. We shall try to take our examples from as broad a sampling of the Catena on John as possible to emphasise that the conclusion is consistent: the Glosae was the source of all the “Alcuin” sections in John.

17 See the stemma fontium in: Andrée (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohan- nem, p. xxxvi. 18 The Catena shows that Aquinas was certainly capable of paraphrase, and indeed St Thomas himself acknowledged that he had done so, as Torrell noted: Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 202.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 6 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 7

1. Quotations falsely attributed to “Alcuin” The most evident proof that the Glosae was Aquinas’s real source lies in the many “Alcuin” references in the Catena where there can simply be no claim, however liberally we may consider Aquinas to have paraphrased, that Alcuin was the source – either directly or indirectly. In these cases the Glosae can be shown to be the real source. One such example is the Catena on John 7:9-13 where Aquinas quotes “Alcuin” as saying: Vel occulte ascendit, quia favorem hominum non quaerit, non pompis stipantium se turbarum delectatur.19 There is no passage in Alcuin which matches this, but the Glosae version is essentially identical:20 Occulte ascendit, quia fauorem hominum non requirit, non pompis stipantium se turbarum delectatur. (Glosae VII, 64-66, ed. Andrée, p. 129)21 Thus, even where the Glosae has not drawn on Alcuin, the Catena’s “Alcuinus” is still taken from the Glosae. The only difference between Aquinas and the Glosae, the variant quaerit for requirit, is to be sought in the manuscript tradition of the latter work. At least one manuscript reads querit.22 Tellingly, this manuscript is probably of Italian origin, thus consistent with Aquinas’s whereabouts when he compiled the Catena on John. Another example is the Catena on John 19:12-16: Alcuinus. Parasceve, idest praeparatio; hoc nomine dicebatur sexta sabbati, in qua praeparabant necessaria sabbato, ut de manna dictum est: sexta die colligetis duplum. Quia enim sexta die homo est factus, et in septima requievit Deus, ideo sexta die pro homine patitur, sabbato quiescit in sepulchro. Hora autem erat quasi sexta.23

19 Guarienti, II, p. 433b. 20 The words and letters in bold are those which differ from the Catena. 21 The Glosae took this passage from Heiric of Auxerre, Homiliae, I, 58, 127-129, ed. R. Quadri (CCCM 116), Turnhout 1992-1994, p. 555: “Quantum ad litteram, occulte dominus ascendit quia non fauores hominum requirebat, non pompis saeculi et stipantium sese turbarum obsequiis delectabatur.” 22 Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Clm 17047 (M in the collation): see Andrée (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem, pp. lxx-lxxvii. 23 Guarienti, II, 569a.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 7 16/06/16 10:34 8 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

There is an Alcuin passage on this topic, but it is clearly not connected to the Catena’s version (987A and B): Ibi ergo propter parascevem Judaeorum, quia juxta erat monumentum, pos- uerunt Jesum. Acceleratam vult intelligi sepulturam, ne advesperasceret: quando jam propter parascevem, quam coenam puram Judaei Latine, usita- tius praeparationem apud nos vocant, facere tale aliquid non licebat. Unsurprisingly, however, the Glosae provides an essentially exact match:

Erat avtem parasceve, id est praeparatio. Hoc nomine dicebatur sexta sabbati in qua praeparabant necessaria sabbato, ut et de manna dictum est: Sexta die colligetis duplum, quia sexta die homo est factus, et in septima requieuit Deus. Ideo sexta die Iesus pro homine patitur. Sabbato quiescit in sepulchro. Hora qvasi sexta. (Glosae XIX, 71-77, ed. Andrée, p. 325) This passage does not have its source in Alcuin or Heiric or any other identifiable source. Pending the discovery of other evidence it may therefore be regarded as Anselm’s original exegesis. Through the mistake of Aquinas the opinions of Anselm of Laon thus contribute directly to high scholastic biblical commentary. One final example should put the matter further beyond doubt. Aquinas quotes Alcuin as saying on John 2:5-11: Triclinium ordo trium lectorum; clini enim lectum significat. Architriclinus princeps triclinii, idest primus inter convivas, qui more antiquo in lectis discumbebant; unde quidam architriclinum intelligunt aliquem ex sacerdotibus Iudaeorum, qui nuptiis interesse poterant, ut illos instruerent qualiter nuptiis uti deberent.24 Yet again there is no Alcuin passage which can reasonably be claimed as the source of this statement, but the Glosae is effectively identical: Triclinium ordo trium lectorum. ‘Cline’ enim lectum significat. Architricli- nus princeps triclinii, id est qui primus inter conuiuas more antiquo in lectis discumbebat. Vnde quidam architriclinum intelligunt aliquem ex sacerdotibus iudeorum, qui nuptiis interesse poterat, ut illos instrueret qualiter nuptiis uti deberent. (Glosae II, 127-132, ed. Andrée, p. 42)25

24 Guarienti, II, 359b. 25 The source of the Glosae is Heiric of Auxerre, Homiliae, I, 20, 195-198, ed. Quadri, p. 166: “Architriclinus ergo intellegitur princeps triclinii, id est qui primus inter comedentes antiquo more in lectis discumbebat; unde quidam architriclinum

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 8 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 9

2. Paraphrases of Alcuin Other Catena passages, while differing somewhat from Alcuin’s text, initially appear to be simply paraphrases of Alcuin; for instance in the treatment of John 4:1-6 “Alcuinus” is quoted as saying: Solet autem quaeri si in baptismo discipulorum Christi Spiritus sanctus daretur, cum dicatur: Spiritus sanctus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus. Sed sciendum, quia dabatur spiritus, licet non ea manifestatione qua post ascensionem in linguis igneis datus est; quia sicut ipse Chris- tus in homine quem ferebat, semper habebat spiritum, sed tamen postea super ipsum baptizatum visibiliter descendit spiritus in specie columbae; sic ante manifestum et visibilem adventum spiritus sancti quicumque sancti eum latenter habere potuerunt.26 Under other circumstances, it would be quite natural to conclude that this passage had indeed been taken, and condensed, from Alcuin’s Commentary (791A and B): Quaeri enim solet si in hoc baptismo discipulorum Christi, Spiritus sanctus daretur, propter verba quae in sequenti hujus Evangelii loco leguntur, ubi dicitur: Spiritus sanctus nondum fuerat datus, quia Jesus nondum fuerat glorificatus? Profecto dabatur Spiritus sanctus in hoc discipulorum Christi baptismo, licet non ea manifestatione, qua post ascensionem Christi decima die in igneis linguis datus est. Quod quaedam latenter, quaedam vero per visibilem creaturam, visibiliter Deus operatur, pertinet ad gubernationem prudentiae, quia omnes divinae actiones, locorum, temporumque ordinis distinctione pulcherrima aguntur. Quomodo autem ipse Dominus secum habebat utique Spiritum sanctum in ipso homine quem gerebat, quando ut baptizaretur venit ad Jordanem; et tamen posteaquam baptizatus est, descendere in eum in columbae specie idem Spiritus visus est: sic intelligen- dum est, ante manifestum et visibilem adventum Spiritus sancti quoscunque sanctos eum latenter habere potuisse. Again, the words in bold in Alcuin’s version are those which differ from the Catena. The differences are not insignificant, but they would be quite consistent with the hypothesis that Aquinas had simply freely abbreviated the text in front of him; if, that is, the Glosae had not survived: Solet quaeri si in baptismo discipulorum Christi spiritus sanctus daretur, cum dicatur: Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus. Sed

intellegunt aliquem a sacerdotibus Iudaeorum qui nuptiis interesse poterat.” Glosae manuscripts B and G omit qui. 26 Guarienti, II, 381b.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 9 16/06/16 10:34 10 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

sciendum quia dabatur spiritus, licet non ea manifestatione qua post ascensionem in igneis linguis datus est, quia sicut ipse Christus in homine quem gerebat semper habebat spiritum, sed tamen postea super eum baptizatum uisibiliter descendit spiritus in specie columbae; sic ante manifestatum et uisibilem aduentum spiritus sancti, quicumque sancti eum latenter habere potuerunt. (Glosae IV, 22-31, ed. Andrée, pp. 64-65) Other than a few simple shifts in word order and the substitution of ferebat for gerebat, the Glosae and Catena are identical. Thus it is not, as one might have thought, Aquinas who has compressed Alcuin; but the Glosae author. Aquinas has simply copied out the text in front of him, apparently under the impression that the work was not simply based on a passage of Alcuin, but was actually by Alcuin. Other examples point to the same conclusion. On John 6:1-14, the Catena has: Alcuinus. Interrogat igitur, non ut ignorata discat, sed ut discipulo adhuc rudi propriam tarditatem ostendat, quam ipse in se perpendere non valebat.27 Alcuin’s version is longer, but linked (821A and B): Quod tentans Philippum Dominus, unde, inquit, ememus panes, ut mandu- cent hi; provida utique dispensatione facit, non ut ipse, quae non noverat, discat, sed ut Philippus tarditatem suae fidei, quam magistro sciente ipse nesciebat, tentatus agnoscat, et miraculo facto castiget. Here there are too many textual differences for it to be helpful to bring them out in bold. Nonetheless the idea and some of the vocab- ulary are similar enough that, absent the Glosae, we might have believed that Aquinas was simply rephrasing the original text. Once more, however, in reality it is demonstrable that it was not Aquinas who shortened Alcuin, but the Glosae, which St Thomas has again drawn on verbatim: Interrogat non ut ignorata discat, sed ut discipulo adhuc rudi propriam tarditatem ostendat quam ipse in se perpendere non ualebat. (Glosae VI, 44-46, ed. Andrée, p. 100) There are of course occasions where Aquinas has himself paraphrased or compressed the text in front of him; but even here we can be confident that it is the Glosae that he is summarizing, not Alcuin. For

27 Guarienti, II, 414ab.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 10 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 11

instance in the Catena on John 2:5-11, “Alcuinus” is quoted as fol- lows: Quia ipse est rex gloriae, qui sicut dominus elementa mutabat.28 Once more it would seem natural to assume that this has been taken, and condensed, from Alcuin’s Commentary (772B): … quia ipse esset rex gloriae, et ideo sponsus Ecclesiae, qui ut homo com- munis veniret ad nuptias, sed quasi coeli et terrae Dominus, elementa, prout voluisset, converteret. The Glosae version, however, is closer: […] quia ipse esset rex gloriae, qui sponsus aecclesiae, ut homo ad nuptias ueniebat. Sed sicut Deus elementa secundum suam uoluntatem permutabat [...] (Glosae II, 156-158, ed. Andrée, p. 43) Thus while Aquinas has in this instance himself abbreviated the text in front of him, it seems certain that he was doing so based on the Glosae, and not on Alcuin’s original text. The Catena on John 21:15- 17 is another example of the same phenomenon: Alcuinus. Pascere autem oves est credentes in Christo, ne a fide deficiant, confortare, terrena subsidia, si necesse est, subditis providere, et exempla virtutum cum verbo praedicationis impendere, adversariis obsistere, errantes subditos corrigere.29 Again, this might have been taken to be a substantially paraphrased version of Alcuin’s more lengthy treatment of the same passage (1002B and C): Pascere ergo oves Christi est credentes in Christum ne a fide deficiant con- firmare; et ut in fide magis magisque proficiant, instanter operam dare: saecularibus quoque subsidiis eos quantum valeat adjuvare, cogitantes superflue de caducis corrigere, … The Glosae text, however, is much closer:

Pasce oves meas. Pascere oues est credentes Christo ne a fide deficiant confortare; sed in fide magis et magis proficiant. Pascere est terrena subsidia, si necesse est, subditis prouidere et exempla uirtutum cum uerbo praedicationis impendere, aduersariis obsistere, errantes subditos corrigere. (Glosae XXI, 158- 162, ed. Andrée, p. 349)

28 Guarienti, II, 360a. 29 Guarienti, II, 590b.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 11 16/06/16 10:34 12 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

The Glosae has paraphrased Alcuin who was, partly, using Bede for this passage;30 and Aquinas has abbreviated the Glosae, removing a phrase in the middle, but otherwise has retained the text exactly.31

3. Passages quoted verbatim from Alcuin Finally, there are the passages which appear to have been taken from Alcuin essentially verbatim. In the treatment of John chapter 13, verses 12-20, Aquinas quotes “Alcuinus” as saying: Mystice autem, impleta redemptionis nostrae purgatione per sanguinis sui effusionem, accepit vestimenta sua, tertia die de sepulchro resurgens, et eodem corpore iam immortali vestitus; et cum recubuisset ascendens in caelum in dextera paternae divinitatis recumbens, inde venturus est ad iudicandum.32 At first sight this appears to have been taken from Alcuin’s Commen- tary (926B): [...] id est, impleta redemptionis nostrae purgatione per sanguinis sui effusionem, accepit vestimenta sua, tertio die de sepulcro resurgens, et eodem corpore quo moriebatur in cruce, immortalis factus est et vestitus. Et cum recubuisset iterum, ascendit in coelum, in dextera Dei sedens, et in majestate

30 Bede, Homiliae 2, 22, 111-113, ed. Hurst, p. 345. 31 There is a clear parallel to this passage in Hermann of Reun (or Rein), Sermo 44 “In festiuitate Petri et Pauli” 1, 82-93, in Hermannus de Runa, Sermones festiuales, ed. E. Mikkers, J. Theuws, R. Demeulenaere, CCCM 64, Turnhout, 1986, p. 196: “Terrena quoque subsidia necesse est, ut subditis rector, ne desint, prouideat et exempla uirtutis simul cum uerbo praedicationis eisdem sollicitus impendat, et si quos aut spiri- talibus aut etiam communibus eorum commodis aduersantes deprehenderit, horum uio- lentiae, quantum ualet, obsistat, ipsos quoque cum forte errauerint subiectos iuxta psalm- istae uocem: Corripiat iustus in misericordia, et increpet neque oleo noxiae consensionis eorum corda demulceat. Nam qui subditorum errata corrigere et uulnera in eis peccato- rum, in quantum sufficit, curare neglexerit, inter pastores ouium Christi qua fronte se annumerare praesumit?” The editors of Hermann’s sermons have not found any source for this passage. Hermann completed the first part of his cycle of sermons (1-52) before 1172, so he would definitely be using the Glosae rather than vice-versa. Hermann (fl. ca. 1160-ca. 1180) was a monk, and perhaps the head of the scriptorium, at the Cistercian abbey of Reun (or Rein) in Styria (southwestern Austria). Rein was founded in 1129 from Ebrach (Oberfranken, Bavaria), which was in turn founded from Morimond (Cham- pagne-Ardenne, France). Otto of Freising (b. ca. 1114, d. 1158) entered Morimond in 1132, after studying at Paris, so the abbey does have filiations with an abbey whose dominant figure was educated in Paris in the 1120s. Hermann’s sermons survive in a single manuscript, Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 94, dated to the late twelfth century. 32 Guarienti, II, 506ab.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 12 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 13

paternae divinitatis recumbens, unde iterum venturus est, judicare vivos et mortuos. The differences are fairly minor and could be put down to simplifica- tion and abbreviation by Aquinas, or arguably even merely to different manuscript readings. When we look at the Glosae version, however, it quickly becomes clear that the minor adjustments to Alcuin’s text were actually made by the author of the Glosae, which was faith- fully followed by Aquinas: [...] impleta redemptionis nostrae purgatione per sanguinis sui effusionem, accepit vestimenta sva, tertia die de sepulchro resurgens et eodem corpore iam immortali uestitus, et cvm recvbvisset ascendens in caelum in dextera paternae diuinitatis recumbens, unde uenturus est ad iudicandum. (Glosae XIII, 102-107, ed. Andrée, pp. 235-236) Again the differences from the Catena version have been drawn out in bold font, but it should immediately be evident that we are looking at the same text and the real source of Aquinas’s quotation. Another example is found in the Catena on John chapter 18 verses 12-14, where “Alcuinus” says: Refert enim Iosephus, istum Caipham, unius anni sacerdotium redemisse. Non ergo mirum si iniquus pontifex inique iudicaverit: saepe qui per avaritiam ad sacerdotium accedit, per iniustitiam in eo servatur.33 Alcuin (971B and C) has: Refert Josephus istum Caipham unius tantum anni ab Herode pretio redemisse sacerdotium. Non ergo mirum, si iniquus pontifex inique judicaverit. Saepe qui per avaritiam ad sacerdotium accedit, per injustitiam versatur in eo […] This is extremely close to the Catena version and, given the attribution to Alcuin, would be easy to take as Aquinas’s source; nonetheless the Glosae text is an even better fit: Refert autem Iosephus istum Cayphan unius anni sacerdotium ab Herode redemisse. Non ergo mirum, si iniquus pontifex inique iudicauerit. Saepe qui per auaritiam ad sacerdotium accedit per iniustitiam in eo uersatur [...] (Glosae XVIII, 110-114, ed. Andrée, p. 313) Thus, even the passages closest to Alcuin in wording Aquinas took from the Glosae. In fact, after chapter XII, the Glosae becomes more

33 Guarienti, II, 559b.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 13 16/06/16 10:34 14 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

dominated by Alcuin. This is explainable by the fact that Anselm had access only to the hiemalis part of Heiric’s homiliary and was, therefore, more dependent on Alcuin for the latter half of his commentary.34 Therefore, as one goes through the Catena, it increasingly appears as if the quotes are from Alcuin, though this is actually simply because the real source, the Glosae, is becoming more dependent on the Northumbrian and using other sources less. The conclusion is clear: Aquinas did not have in front of him Alcuin’s Commentary on John when he came to add the “Alcuin” quotations to the Catena. He had the Glosae. Taken as a whole, the Catena’s “Alcuin” passages are drawn either verbatim or with minimal paraphrase by Aquinas from the Glosae.35 We have thus discovered a new source for Aquinas. Aquinas did not use Alcuin in the Catena, except indirectly, and instead, unwittingly, bestowed the aura of patristic authority on a work by an anonymous author – who is most likely to have been Anselm of Laon.36 Aquinas’s reputation has meant

34 See Andrée (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem, p. xliii, and the Index fontium, s.v. ‘Heiricus’, pp. 443-453 35 Minor exceptions to this rule occur in the first half of the Catena on John 1, where Aquinas apparently has incorporated passages taken from the Gloss on John rather than the Glosae for three of the “Alcuinus” quotations. As recent research has revealed, the Glosae was one of the primary sources of the Gloss on the Fourth Gospel, and sometimes in the manuscript tradition of the two works, due to their close dependence, texts were conflated. These are the passages in Aquinas that have been taken from the Gloss rather than the Glosae but have been labelled “Alcuin”: “Contra eos ergo qui propter temporalem nativitatem dicebant Christum non semper fuisse, incipit evangelista de aeternitate verbi, dicens in principio erat verbum” (Guarienti, II, p. 329; these are, in fact, only the first few words of a longer passage serving as one of the prefaces in the John Gloss manuscripts); “Postquam dixit de natura filii, de operatione eius subiungit, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt; idest, quidquid est, sive in substantia, sive in aliqua proprietate” (Guarienti, II, p. 335a); and “Vel habitavit in nobis, idest inter homines conversatus est” (Guarienti, II, p. 339b). But even in this uncharacter- istic section, the rest of the citations – the majority – are taken essentially verbatim from the Glosae, including the only quotation Conticello accepted as based on Alcuin. The Catena has: “Alcuinus. Qualiter autem ponit substantivum verbum erat? Ut intelligeres omnia tempora praevenisse coaeternum Deo patri verbum.” The Alcuin passage referenced by Conticello is certainly similar (745B): “Ideo quater dicit evangelista, Erat, erat, erat, erat, ut intelligeres omni tempore praevenisse coaeternum Deo Patri Verbum.” As usual, though, the Glosae (I, 15-17) is a better fit: “Ideo quater ponit substantiuum uerbum, ‘erat, erat, erat, erat’, ut intelligeres omnia tempora praeuenisse coaeternum Deo patri uerbum.” 36 The life and achievement of Anselm of Laon are due for re-evaluation. If the Glosae really is by Anselm then scholars may finally have the necessary textual basis upon which to build such an assessment. For other aspects of Anselm’s career, see C. Giraud, Per verba magistri: Anselme de Laon et son école au xiie siècle, Turnhout 2010.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 14 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 15

that the Alcuin identification has been taken on trust for seven and a half centuries. As a result, the content of the Glosae gained a much wider readership thanks to St Thomas and the Catena, integrated as it was into what became the quasi-official handbook of orthodox commentary on the four Gospels. The evidence for the diffusion and reception of the Catena is con- siderable. It was a crucial resource for Aquinas’s own later work as a theologian and preacher.37 It quickly became a standard resource for Dominican preaching,38 and Aquinas’s confrères used it in controver- sial literature as well.39 Its rapid influence was not limited to the Preachers. Louis-Jacques Bataillon has pointed out that by 1285 the Franciscan friar Peter John Olivi was using the Catena in both con- troversial literature and exegesis.40 In his Lectura super Ioannem on John 10:22-23, Olivi refers to the opinion of Alcuin: Secundum Alchuinum porticus Salomonis dicitur porticus illa in qua Salo- mon ad orandum stare consueuerat.41 As Père Bataillon points out, this is quite close to the Catena: Alcuinus. Porticus Salomonis dicitur ubi rex ille ad orandum stare consueverat.42 Bataillon observes that “the passage from Alcuin has been seriously abridged in the Catena.”43 Alcuin has (891D): […] porticum, in qua rex quondam mortalis ac terrenus, quamvis potentissimus ac sapientissimus ad orandum stare solebat [...]

37 L.-J. Bataillon, “Les Sermons de Saint Thomas et la Catena aurea,” in: A. Mau- rer, et al. (eds.), St. Thomas Aquinas 1274-1974. Commemorative Studies, vol. 1, Toronto 1974, pp. 67-75; id., “Saint Thomas et les Pères: de la Catena à la Tertia pars,” in: C.-J. Pinto de Oliveira (ed.), Ordo sapientiæ et amoris. Image et message de saint Thomas d’Aquin à travers les récentes études historiques, herméneutiques et doctrinales. Hommage au professeur Jean-Pierre Torrell O.P., Fribourg, 1993, pp. 15-36. 38 Mulchahey, First the Bow, 504-505. 39 E.g., John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali. See M. D. Jordan, Rewritten Theology: Aquinas after His Readers, Oxford 2006, p. 29. 40 L.-J. Bataillon, “Olivi utilisateur de la Catena aurea de Thomas d’Aquin,” in: A. Boureau – S. Piron (eds.), Pierre de Jean Olivi (1248-1298). Pensée scolastique, dissidence spirituelle et société. Actes du colloque de Narbonne (mars 1998), Paris 1999, pp. 115-120. 41 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Plut. 10 dext. 8, fol. 62ra, cited in Bataillon, “Olivi utilisateur de la Catena aurea”, p. 117. 42 Guarienti, II, 447a. 43 Bataillon, “Olivi utilisateur de la Catena aurea,” p. 117: “[…] le passage d’Alcuin a été sérieusement abrégé dans la Catena.”

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 15 16/06/16 10:34 16 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

In fact, Aquinas was not drawing on Alcuin, but on the Glosae: Porticus Salomonis dicitur ubi rex ille potentissimus ad orandum stare consueuerat […] (Glosae X, 23, ed. Andrée, p. 193)44 The Catena on John survives in eighty-eight complete manuscripts,45 and it was printed early and often: following the editio princeps at Rome in 1470, there were twenty editions, 1501-1550, and roughly forty thereafter.46 Therefore, while the Glosae – this little-studied and, until recently, almost unknown work – merits attention on its own terms, given the broad diffusion of its influence, the text assumes an even greater interest and importance. Nor is this the only reason to take the text more seriously. Recently the Glosae has been identified as one of the chief sources for the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John,47 that other compendium of biblical studies in the high and late Middle Ages. The Gloss on the Fourth Gospel makes ample use of the exegesis of the Glosae but rewrites it to such a degree that it cannot be a question of Aquinas quoting from this text instead. Thus, via both the Catena and the Glossa ‘ordinaria’, the teaching of the Glosae was preserved and transmitted anonymously (or in one case under a false name) to generations of those using these two encyclopaedias to gain a digest of Church teaching and thinking on the Gospel of John. As a result, the indirect impact of the work will have been vast, if immeasurable. Yet despite these signs of the commentary’s enduring importance and influence, it has remained in obscurity and only very recently found its editor.48 Our discovery of the Glosae’s role as a source for the Catena, and its mistaken attribution to Alcuin, may, however, assist in a renewed interest in the commentary and the milieu from which it originated: the twelfth-century school of Laon. Aquinas’s misattribution of the Glosae to Alcuin may provide a vital clue, improving our understanding of the spread of the work and the likely areas for discovering new manuscripts. Given that we know

44 The source of the Glosae is not Alcuin directly, but Heiric of Auxerre, Homiliae I, 59, 33-34, ed. Quadri, p. 559. 45 Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 369. 46 Conticello, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” p. 43. 47 Andrée, “The Glossa Ordinaria on the Gospel of John,” pp. 125-134 and 290-305. 48 See notes 15 and 16 above.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 16 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 17

Aquinas prefaced each quote in the Catena with the name of the source,49 we can be reasonably certain that, in crediting Alcuin with the quotations, he was working from a text which identified Alcuin as the author.50 In some ways it should not perhaps be surprising either that it was Alcuin who was credited with the work or that Aquinas did not see through the error. As Michael Gorman has pointed out, there was “a tradition of attributing works to Alcuin that dates back to the ninth century.”51 Nowhere would this have made more sense than with the Glosae, which, as noted above, used Alcuin’s Commentary as the core upon which the author built and expanded. Given the connection between the two texts it is also understandable that Aquinas should have accepted the authorial attribution the manuscript apparently provided. Furthermore there is other evidence that Aquinas did not question the authenticity of the attributions of the works in front of him: perhaps most obvious is his use of Nicholas of Durazzo’s Libellus de processione Spiritus Sancti et de fide trinitatis contra errores Graecorum, and his acceptance of the blatant forgeries within it, in his own Contra errores Graecorum.52 Thus we can be confident that Aquinas was using a text of the Glosae marked as by Alcuin, an attribution which he accepted and passed on and into his Catena. This raises the question of the manuscript source of Aquinas’s version of the Glosae or, as he must have thought, Alcuin’s commentary. Aquinas began preparing the Catena in Italy after his first stay in Paris and during his time in Orvieto working for and with Pope Urban IV.

49 Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 202. In the same place Torrell also noted that when Aquinas did not know the source, he simply wrote “Glossa” or “Grecus.” 50 With the evidence presented in this essay in hand, Conticello’s theory (“San Tom- maso ed i padri,” p. 54) that the citations might come from a florilegium cannot be correct (except in the sense that the Glosae may be argued to represent a florilegium). As Torrell pointed out, Aquinas (and Albert) “ne se contentent pas de florilèges et pratiquent le recours direct aux sources”: Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 205. More importantly the range of dependence on the Glosae is simply too close and too extensive to represent anything other than direct dependence on the text. 51 M. Gorman, “Alcuin Before Migne,” in: Revue Bénédictine 112 (2002), pp. 347- 376, at p. 347. 52 Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 168-70. In Weisheipl’s words: “Thomas did not question the authenticity of the various texts quoted, but repeated the falsifications of the original”: Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 169.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 17 16/06/16 10:34 18 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

He started the Catena on Matthew in 1262/3,53 as a commission from Urban and was finished by the end of 1263.54 The precise dat- ing of the Catena on the other three Gospels is unclear, though they seem to have been completed after the pope’s death on 2 October 1264.55 This was a busy and productive period in Aquinas’s literary career,56 and he had finished the work before his return to Paris in 1268.57 Without much doubt then the Catena was written in Italy, and the sources for the work are likely to have been gathered from Italy as well: either prepared in Naples or Monte Cassino prior to his arrival at the papal court, or present in Orvieto, or available in Rome, perhaps at Santa Sabina where Thomas was based.58 Interestingly, given this strong testimony to the presence of the Glosae in Italy in the mid-thirteenth century, the current list of manuscripts of known surviving copies of the Glosae only includes one from Italy, and that is not entirely certain.59 The provenances of the rest of the manuscripts predominantly centre around France, England and ‘Germany’, interpreted at its broadest.60 The fact that Aquinas’s version of the Glosae was credited to Alcuin raises the possibility, or perhaps even probability, that more copies (one at the least) of the commentary await discovery in Italian collections,61 currently marked

53 According to Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 172, the work was commis- sioned “in the last months of 1262 or early in 1263.” 54 Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 172. 55 Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 200; Torrell also suggested, probably cor- rectly, that Aquinas “travailla simultanément aux trois autres évangiles”. 56 Conticello, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” p. 39. 57 Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 200. 58 For Aquinas’s movements during this period see Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 143-47 and 168; Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas, p. 200; and Conti- cello, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” p. 42. The most likely route of transmission to Italy was via the Dominicans, from Paris to either Santa Sabina or Naples. 59 The manuscript is Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Clm 17047, fols. 46r-103r, dated to the mid-twelfth century: see Andrée (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem, pp. lxx-lxxvii, and note 22 above. 60 Andrée (ed.), Anselmi Laudunensis Glosae super Iohannem, pp. xlv-xcii. Interest- ingly, no manuscript seems to date from later than the first quarter of the thirteenth century and most come from the mid-twelfth. 61 There has already been a concrete instance of misidentification of manuscripts of the Glosae: Beryl Smalley confused the work with the Glossa ordinaria on John: B. Smal- ley, “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128-1134) and the Problem of the “Glossa Ordinaria,” in: Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935), pp. 235-62 and 8 (1936), pp. 24-60, at p. 40; the mistake is repeated by L. Smith, The Glossa

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 18 16/06/16 10:34 aquinas and “alcuin” 19

and shelved as by Alcuin.62 This would be the most plausible explanation for the effective absence of ‘Italian’ manuscripts of the Glosae, when we can be quite clear that it must have been there at least in the second half of the thirteenth century.63 A thorough search of Italian collections for twelfth and thirteenth century copies of Alcuin’s commentary may therefore reveal new copies of the Glosae.64 Even without such research, however, it is already clear that the Glosae super Iohannem is a text deserving much closer attention and study. This was a much more widely spread and

Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary, Leiden/Boston 2009, p. 22; this mistake is identified and explained in Andrée, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” pp. 225-227. 62 This might also be the reason the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ used the Glosae so extensively, with the compilers believing the work was by Alcuin. If the latter was by Anselm of Laon, however, then the Glossa ordinaria’s use of the work more probably represents the pres- ervation by Anselm’s students – the likely “authors” of the Laonnoise Glossa ordinaria on John – of the teachings of their master: see Andrée, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” pp. 254- 256. 63 The same explanation may lie behind the absence of copies of the Glosae from Spain, where, again, we can be certain the work was known, as it was used by Martin of Leon (c. 1130–1203), an Augustinian canon writing at the end of the twelfth century whose extensive travels had taken him to Rome and Jerusalem. Martin copied a significant portion of the Glosae’s commentary on the first chapter of the Gospel of John for his second sermon on the Nativity in his Book of Sermons (PL 208, where it is Sermon IV). Martin extracted Glosae I, 1-258 (ed. Andrée, pp. 6-16) and replicated the text verbatim, except for some minor changes of word order and the occasional addition of a few extra words to suit the different, homiletic medium. Once again use of the Glosae prompts the question of how the author obtained the commentary and why he decided to quote so much from it. The respect for the source and the auctoritas of its author, which Martin’s reliance on it implies, is somewhat hard to reconcile with the apparently anonymous nature of the Glosae. In this case, unlike with the Catena, there is no direct reason to believe that Martin thought he was using Alcuin. Martin does not mention his source, or even note that he is using one. Nonetheless, even though in the late twelfth century, Anselm’s reputation would undoubtedly have been greater than it is today (on this point, see A. Andrée, “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century,” in: Journal of Medieval Latin 22 [2012], pp. 257-281), such extensive quotation from the Glosae as we see in Martin of Leon might make most sense if the manuscript in front of him credited the work to Alcuin, given the respect in which the Northumbrian was held throughout the Middle Ages. 64 The Clavis for Alcuin seeks to provide a complete list of the twenty-eight known manuscripts of his commentary on John, including four from the thirteenth century. None of those seem to contain another text than that of Alcuin. By the authors’ own admission, the Clavis may have missed manuscripts, which is particularly likely with regard to misat- tributed works. See M.-H. Jullien – F. Perelman (eds.), Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevii. Auctores Galliae, 735-987, Vol. 2, Alcuinus, Turnhout 1999, pp. 373, 512, and Berarducci, “La genesi redazionale del commentario di Alcuino di York.”

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 19 16/06/16 10:34 20 A. Andrée, T. Sharp and R. Shaw

influential work than the modern lack of analysis and attention would suggest. We have now shown not only that it lay behind the Glossa ‘ordinaria’ on John, but also that it was the source for Aquinas’s “Alcuinus” citations in the Catena aurea.65 Taken together the indirect influence of the original work must have been immense. Not only this, but we have seen that the extent of its direct influence was greater than might be imagined by the spread of the surviving manuscript witnesses. Despite minimal manuscript attestation from Italy, the work was certainly known there. Hopefully these building blocks will encourage further study of this evidently important work, and indeed of the Catena aurea itself, which still has much to tell us about both St Thomas and his sources. The results of this study should also serve as a reminder of the risks of accepting at face value the ascription of ‘sources’ in medieval works. The resources available to even the most impressive scholar were limited and often corrupt. Nor should we assume either capac- ity or desire on the part of authors to return in each case ad fontes to verify claims in front of them. In consequence, if we wish to under- stand better the nuances of the scholarly process, as well as its results, it is vital to begin by ascertaining the real nature of the sources these writers used, and consider how they used them. In so doing, we will find, as in this case of the Catena and the Glosae, that, hidden behind even the most obvious examples of the medieval compilation of the opinions of others, lie interesting stories and important lessons.

Alexander Andrée – Tristan Sharp – Richard Shaw Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto 125 Queen’s Park, 3rd floor Toronto, ON M5S 2C7 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

65 Further work is needed to evaluate fully whether Aquinas also drew on the Glosae in his Lectura super Iohannem. If so, it was probably via the Catena on John, which Aqui- nas used extensively in preparing his commentary: Conticello, “San Tommaso ed i padri,” pp. 79-86.

003_98858_RTPM_2016-1.indb 20 16/06/16 10:34