'Gilbertus Universalis' Reevaluated and The

‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ REEVALUATED AND THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GLOSS ON GENESIS

Alice Hutton Sharp

Abstract

In a two-part article published in Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale in 1935 and 1936, Beryl Smalley broke new ground in the field of medieval biblical studies by demonstrating the origin of the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible in the twelfth-century schools, with the principal work carried out by Gilbert the Universal (bishop of London from 1128-1134) and Anselm of Laon (d. 1117). This article looks at her argument for Gilbert the Universal’s authorship of the Gloss on the book of Genesis in the light of more recent textual scholarship, showing that further evidence is needed to demonstrate the nature of Gilbert’s involvement with the Gloss on Genesis and raising questions about the prominence given to the identification of authors in medieval intellectual history.

It is often claimed that the books now referred to as the Ordinary Gloss on much of the Old Testament — including the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, the Major and Minor Prophets, and Lamenta- tions — were composed by one Gilbert “the Universal,” a canon of Auxerre and the Bishop of London from 1128 to1134.1 This would be a substantial achievement and give Gilbert credit for influencing a vast proportion of the late medieval interpretation of the historical and prophetic books of the Bible. Gilbert’s role in the development of the Gloss on the Bible was promoted by Beryl Smalley, one of the first

1 B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., Notre Dame 1982, pp. 60-61; C. F. R. de Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the origins of the Paris book- trade, Woodbridge, 1984, p. 2; E. A. Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa ordinaria,” in: I. Backhus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, Leiden 1997, p. 86; L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary, Leiden 2009, pp. 28-31.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 225 10/02/17 06:59 226 a. Hutton Sharp

historians to research medieval biblical scholarship. In a two-part article published in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale in 1935 and 1936, Smalley called attention to the frequent attribution of the Gloss on Lamentations to Gilbert in the manuscripts, and argued that his hand could also be seen in the Gloss on the Pentateuch and the Major and Minor Prophets.2 This theory was later expanded by René Was- selynk to include Joshua, Judges, and Kings.3 The past eighty years have seen substantial changes in our understanding of the early history and development of the Gloss, before it acquired the title “Ordinary.” It is time to reopen the question of some of the attributions put forth in the early twentieth century. Recent work, for example, has argued that Anselm of Laon (d. 117) composed continuous, rather than gloss-format, commentaries that were only later copied as glosses by his students. In addition, several books of the Gloss are now known to have circulated in multiple forms and versions.4 This includes the twelfth-century version of the Gloss on the book of Genesis, now known to have developed in two stages — an earlier (“primitive”) and later (“reworked”) text.5 As will be shown below, in her treatment of the books of the Pentateuch Smalley’s argument for Gilbert’s authorship of the Gloss on Genesis is particularly weak, as it is fully dependent on a later external source. Reading this source in the light of the multiple versions of the Gloss on Genesis

2 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London (1128-1134) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa Ordinaria’,” in: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935) pp. 235-262; B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London (1128-1134) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa Ordinaria’,” in: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1936), pp. 24-64. 3 R. Wasselynck, “L’influence de l’exégèse de St. Grégoire le Grand sur les commentaires bibliques médiévaux (VIIe-XIIe s.),” in: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 32 (1965), pp. 157-204. 4 On the discovery of continuous commentaries associated with Anselm of Laon, 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. 217-240. On books of the Gloss surviving in different versions, see the introduction to Gilbertus Universalis, Glossa ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete: Prothemata et Liber I, ed. A. Andrée, Stockholm 2005, p. 92; G. Lobrichon, “Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible,” in: P. Riché – G. Lobrichon (eds.), Le Moyen Âge et la Bible, Paris 1984, p. 109; A. Andrée, “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: F. Siri (ed.), Le Pater noster au XIIe siècle. Lectures et usages, Turnhout 2015, pp. 46-48. 5 P. Buc, L’ambiguïté du livre. Prince, pouvoir, et peuple dans les commentaires de la Bible au Moyen Âge, Paris 1994, pp. 72-74.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 226 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 227

brings Smalley’s attribution into question and offers an opportunity to question the prominence given to the identification of authors in medieval intellectual history. Medieval authors, we are frequently reminded, were not authors. Rather, they were compilers of opinions handed down from prior auctores whose authority was conferred by widespread recognition and antiquity. Medieval innovations were limited to the inclusion or exclu- sion of specific texts, the adoption of a new source or the rejection of another, or a new manner of framing and organizing the sourced mate- rial. Nowhere is this more evident than in biblical commentaries. The above, of course, is caricature. While medieval writers worked within the constraints of their era, including limited resources for the production of books, concerns about orthodoxy, and an inherent trust in the value of written sources, they were not mindless plagiarists; if they were, historians would be less interested in determining who wrote which commentary. Medieval exegetes wrote to preserve and explain what their sources taught. The Gloss on the Bible — simultaneously derivative and magiste- rial — is a common example of this trend. Few medieval texts were as frequently cited, emended, and re-worked as the collection of commentaries that grew out of the biblical theology taught in the twelfth- century Cathedral schools. Having first developed from classroom lectures as a selection of individual commentaries, the Gloss, distin- guished by the copying of explanatory passages both in the margins and between the lines of the scriptural text, eventually came to encompass every book of the Bible. By the fourteenth century, the commentaries it comprised were described as “ordinaria” as a sign of its widespread use and status.6 The twelfth-century Gloss was a teaching aid, a resource for prescholastic theologians, and a source for foundational works of twelfth-century theology such as the Sentences of Peter Lombard (d. 1160) and the Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor (d. 1178). Used as a source, the Gloss remained influential throughout the Scho- lastic era.7

6 On the date of the use of “ordinaria,” see B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 8, 1936, p. 25 n. 8. 7 See M. Zier, “Peter Lombard and the Glossa ordinaria on the Bible,” in: J. Brown – W. P. Stoneman (eds.), A Distinct Voice. Medieval Studies in Honor of Leonard E. Boyle, OP, Notre Dame 1997, 629-641. M. Clark, “Glossing Genesis 1.2 in the Twelfth Century, or

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 227 10/02/17 06:59 228 a. Hutton Sharp

For these reasons, the authorship of the Gloss has been of significant interest to historians of medieval theology and intellectual culture. For many years it was thought to be a Carolingian collection compiled by Walafrid Strabo (d. 849); this attribution is preserved in the Patrologia Latina.8 Peter Lombard was the prime suspect in the early twentieth century, thanks to his use of the Gloss in the Sentences and his role in expanding the Gloss on the Psalms. Another theory made Strabo the author of the marginal glosses, and Anselm of Laon the author of those copied interlinearly.9 These theories were put to rest by Beryl Smalley, who demonstrated that Anselm’s cathedral school at Laon, known to be the center of production for a number of important works of pre-scholastic theology, was also the point of origin for both the marginal and interlinear Gloss. She focused, in particular, on Anselm’s role in the com- position of the Gloss on Psalms and on the Pauline Epistles, both foundational works of medieval biblical theology which would have been among the most important texts taught in the classroom — and by extension, among the earliest to require extensive commentary.10 Although Anselm is now generally accepted as both the magister whose teaching inspired the first books of the Gloss and as the source of several of its commentaries — including those on the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John — Smalley’s own argument did not begin with Anselm.11 Rather, she worked back to her argument for Anselm’s

How Andrew of St. Victor and Peter Comestor dealt with the Intersection of nova and vetera in the Biblical Glossa ordinaria,” in: Sacris erudiri 46 (2007), pp. 241-286. On later medieval use of the Gloss, see L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 223-226. 8 The Patrologia Latina’s version of the Glossa ordinaria is found in volume 113, cols. 67B-1316C (which includes Genesis-Isaiah) and volume 114, cols. 9A-752B (which includes Jeremiah-Revelation). On the reasons behind the attribution to Strabo, see K. Froehlich, “Walahfrid Strabo and the Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Myth,” in: E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 28: Papers presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1991, Leuven 1993, pp. 192-196. The myth still appears in D. MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, New York 2009, p. 582: “Since the ninth century, when a group of Frankish scholars had created the commentary known as the Glossa Ordinaria, the Church has provided an increasingly rich databank of such allegories.” 9 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 8 (1936), p. 25. 10 Anselm and Peter Lombard are the focus of the second half of Smalley’s article, published in 1936. B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 8 (1936), p. 24-64. 11 On Anselm’s authorship, see L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 2; A. Andrée, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” Mediaeval Studies 73 (2011), pp. 217-240.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 228 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 229

authorship from Lamentations, a book of the Gloss for which there is reasonably concrete proof of authorship: a colophon, preserved in early printed editions and many manuscripts, naming “I, Gilbert of Auxerre” as the compiler of the Lamentations Gloss. Gilbert is also named as the author of a number of individual glosses within the text.12 Our knowledge of Gilbert begins with his time in Auxerre, where he was a canon at its important Cathedral school, which had a reputation for teaching sacra pagina. He is first recorded as a witness to a charter in 1110; the cognomen “universalis” is first used in a charter dated to 1120, by which point he was, perhaps, already well-established in his career.13 His relationship to Anselm of Laon and the School of Laon is unclear, although it has been suggested that he was Anselm’s student; he may also have been a junior colleague.14 Gilbert has left a record as a canny and ambitious clerical politician, and his memorable — and possibly self-assumed — title may refer to dual expertise in theology and canon law. Hugh the Chanter described him as a lawyer, and in 1125-1126 he was present in the Roman Curia, where he took part in a lawsuit, on the side of King Henry I, disputing the Archbishop of Canterbury’s claim to primacy over the Archbishop of York.15 He was subsequently appointed to the See of London in 1127 and was consecrated Bishop in January 1128. Records indicate that there was conflict between him and the professed reli- gious in his diocese, who remembered him for his avarice.16 Although his enemies saw him as a worldly prelate, Gilbert’s allies described him as a man of remarkable skill and learning, particularly in divinity. His obituary in the Auxerre necrology describes him as the “extraordinary glossator of the Old and New Testaments”.17

12 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), pp. 251-253. 13 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 237. 14 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 244; Introduction to Gilbertus Universalis, Glossa ordinaria in Lamentationes, ed. A. Andrée, p. 45. 15 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), pp. 238-239. 16 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 245. 17 “Veteris et novi Testamenti glosator eximius,” in: A. Vidier – L. Mirot (eds.), Obituaires de la Province du Sens, vol. 3, Diocèses d’Orléans, d’Auxerre, et de Nevers, Paris 1909, p. 239.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 229 10/02/17 06:59 230 a. Hutton Sharp

His nephew, a canon of St. Paul’s, London, says that Gilbert, “truly abounding in letters and wisdom and also authority and measured temperance, clearly expounded the Old Testament before [his] episco pacy.”18 These texts, with others, agree in their praise for Gilbert as an expositor of the Bible. However, no chronicler left a record of which books Gilbert glossed. From her discussion of the concrete evidence in the manuscripts of the Gloss on Lamentations, Smalley turned to the Gloss on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In a 1495 printed edition of the Gloss cited by Smalley, a number of glosses in these books are also attributed to Gilbert; Smalley described these as similar in their style and approach to Gilbert’s glosses on Lamentations, and hypothesized that he had learned the practice of signing his glosses from his legal studies, a discipline in which it was a common practice.19 However, when she attempted to trace the occurrence of these attributions in a number of medieval manuscripts, Smalley could not identify specific glosses consistently attributed to Gilbert, with only one manuscript — Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 76, a mid-twelfth-century manuscript of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — contain- ing almost the same attributions as the printed edition of 1495.20 Despite this, she continued to accept the attributions as evidence for authorship, noting that Robert of Bridlington (fl. 1147-1160), in his own commentary on Exodus, once quotes the Gloss on Exodus and attributes it to a “Bishop Gilbert.”21 Unlike the commentaries on the last four books of the Pentateuch, there are no glosses attributed to Gilbert in either the early printed editions of the Gloss on Genesis or the manuscripts. Instead, for evidence

18 “Nempe litteris et sapientia, necnon auctoritate et frugalitate media cumulatus ante episcopatum uetus instrumentum ad liquidum exposuerat.” The Saint of London: The Life and Miracles of St. Erkenwald. Text and Translation, ed. and trans. E. G. Whatley, Bir- mingham, NY 1989, p. 130. 19 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 253. Smalley cites the 1495 Venice edition of the Gloss. The editio princeps was published in Strassburg in 1480/1481 and is now available in facsimile: Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria. Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps: Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, 4 vols., Turnhout 1992. 20 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), pp. 254-255. 21 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 255.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 230 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 231

for Gilbert’s authorship, Smalley relied on written reports of thirteenth- century lectures on the Gloss. Specifically, she turned to a text found in a thirteenth-century manuscript — Eton, College Library, 48 — which bears the modern title Notule super Genesim; other commentaries found in the manuscript are by Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1096-1141) and Peter Comestor.22 For the most part, the Notule treats the wording, context, and meaning of individual glosses. Twice, it discusses the differences between the text of a gloss and its patristic source and attributes the alteration to Gilbert. It will be shown, however, that these passages in the Notule reflect the multiple versions and ongoing development of the Gloss on Genesis, and that their author was too distant from the origins of the Gloss to be trusted as a source for the attribution of authorship. There are a number of ways in which the Gloss on Genesis differs from those on the other four books of the Pentateuch. First, of course, is the absence of internal references to Gilbert in the manuscripts and early printed editions. The Gloss on Genesis also contains much more commentary, as a result of the complicated philosophical and theological consequences of the creation narrative, which ensured that Genesis had an extensive tradition of study distinct from that of the remaining books of the Pentateuch.23 The earliest surviving manuscript of the Gloss on Genesis, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14398, also predates the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gloss on the other four books of the Pen- tateuch, as it dates to before 1140 and was likely copied in Laon. This is considered the first, early period of the production of books of the Gloss. In contrast, the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gloss on Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy all date to after 1140, when the production of manuscripts of the Gloss had largely moved to Paris.24

22 Smalley transcribes this as Notuli; the manuscript reads Notule and it is so entered in M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of Eton College, Cambridge 1895, pp. 23-24. B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 256. 23 On the tradition of Hexameral commentary, see T. O’Loughlin, Teachers and Code-Breakers: The Latin Genesis Tradition, 430-800, Turnhout 1998. 24 P. Stirnemann, “Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la glose ordinaire dans la pre- mière moité du XIIe siècle?” in: F. Gasparri (ed.), Le XIIe siècle. Mutations et renouveau en France dans la première moité du XIIe siècle, Paris 1994, pp. 262 and 267. The earliest surviving manuscript of the Gloss on Lamentantions — the text most securely attributed

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 231 10/02/17 06:59 232 a. Hutton Sharp

The question of manuscript survival brings us to the other feature that distinguishes the Gloss on Genesis from the other books of the Pentateuch: when we speak of the earliest manuscript of the Gloss, which Gloss do we mean? Many books of the Gloss survive in multiple versions, with different degrees of difference. The Gloss on Lamenta- tions survives in two fairly similar versions, while the Gloss on the Psalms was redacted twice, producing the successive versions known as the media and magna glosatura.25 As noted, the Gloss on Genesis is no exception to this pattern, with the text of the earliest manuscript — carrying what has been referred to as the “primitive” version of the commentary — differing substantially from the “reworked” Gloss found in later witnesses.26 The primitive Gloss relies almost exclusively on the work of Augustine, particularly for the commentary on Genesis 1-3, although it incorporates a number of glosses from Bede and a few unattributed medieval glosses. In contrast, the version of the Gloss on Genesis produced after 1140 includes extracts from a wider variety of sources, and abbreviates those found in the primitive Gloss. The text of the reworked Gloss on Genesis would be further expanded with new glosses throughout the twelfth century, eventually resulting in the text of the editio princeps, which provided the basis for the text found in the Patrologia Latina. Smalley made frequent reference to the early printed editions and cites the Patrologia Latina in her tables. A late version of the reworked Gloss on Genesis is the text that Smalley knew.27 Of course, the dates given for the earliest surviving manuscripts are very broad. Manuscripts were rarely dated, and so their age must

to Gilbert — is Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, 2° Ms. Theol. 6; it is discussed in W. Petke, “Eine frühe Handschrift der ‘Glossa ordinaria’ und das Skriptorium des Augustiner- Chorherrenstifts Riechenberg bei Goslar,” in: J. Dahlhaus – A. Kohnle (eds.), Papstge- schichte und Landesgeschichte: Festschrift für Hermann Jakobs zum 65. Geburtstag, Cologne 1995, pp. 255-296. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers of this article for this important reference regarding the early manuscripts of the Gloss. 25 L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 76-77. The Gloss on Lamentations survives in two versions, with differences described as “the exchange and transpositions of words, and occasional addition and omission of interlinear glosses.” The differences between the two versions of the Gloss on Genesis, it will be shown, are far greater. See the introduction to Gilbertus Universalis, Glossa ordinaria in Lamentationes, ed. A. Andrée, p. 93. 26 P. Buc, L’ambiguïté du livre, pp. 70-72. A second manuscript of the primitive Glossa on Genesis, albeit incomplete, is Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 64. 27 See the table in B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 257.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 232 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 233

be determined through the comparison of styles, formats, and scribal hands. The earliest versions of a text were easily lost or destroyed, particularly with heavy use. The books of the Gloss attributed to Gil- bert were, for the most part, copied after 1140. Gilbert died in 1137, and in any case had likely completed or set aside his exegetical efforts before he left for Rome around 1125. However, it would be over- confident to rule out his involvement in the Gloss from the late dates of the earliest manuscripts; the earliest manuscripts may no longer survive. However, the fact that the Gloss on Genesis alone survives in a manuscript from the early period of Gloss production suggests that it has a distinct history independent from the rest of the Gloss on the Pentateuch. When Smalley wrote her article on Gilbert’s role in the development of the Gloss on the Pentateuch, the two versions of the Gloss on Genesis were not yet known. When we read the Notule in the light of these two versions, does the commentator appear to know this history? Comparing the commentary found the Eton Notule to the two versions of the Gloss on Genesis in order to identify the version of the Gloss used is not a challenging task. The wording of the extracts differs so dramatically across the two versions of the Gloss that it is easy to tell the difference, even with only a short passage. However, with only two brief references to Gilbert’s supposed exegetical activity, the Notule author’s understanding of both the relationship between the primitive and reworked Gloss and Gilbert’s role in the production of the text is clearly problematic. While Smalley presented the two references to Gilbert in the order in which they appear in the Notule, reversing the order (that is, looking at her second example first) allows for a clearer explanation of the textual problems at hand. Her second example is taken from Eton, College Library, 48, folio 108r. The relevant excerpt reads: “[...] de hoc glosa, non dixit, et post quoniam universaliter, nota quod Augustinus dicit: an ideo quoniam. Magister Gilebertus tamen simpliciter posuit quoniam [...].”28

28 Eton, College Library 48, fol. 108r. While I have relied on microfilms of the manuscript for the citations in this article, there are no substantial differences between my transcription and that of Smalley.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 233 10/02/17 06:59 234 a. Hutton Sharp

Smalley explained this gloss as follows: St. Augustine, De Primitive Gloss on Reworked Gloss on Notule super Gene- Genesi ad litteram I, Gen. I. i (Paris, Gen I. i. (Amiens, sim (Eton, College The commentator here is following a common procedure; he compares 3 Bibliothèque natio- Bibliothèque Louis Library, 48, the extracts from ‘authority’ in the Gloss, with the original, and points out the nale de France, lat. Aragon, 34, fol. 3r) fol. 108r) discrepancy. He finds that St. Augustine in the original suggests two alterna- 14398, fol. 7r) tive solutions to a question; the Gloss omits to show that the first solution is offered merely as an alternative. Clearly the commentator regards this section Et cur ita dictum Notandum quod In principio creauit ... de hoc glosa, non of the Gloss as Gilbert’s abbreviation of St. Augustine […] No part of the est: in principio fecit cum in principo fecit etc. Non dicit: “in dixit, et post quo- Gloss on Genesis is attributed to Gilbert in the printed edition, or so far as I deus caelum et ter- dei caelum et terram, principio dixit deus, niam universaliter, ram, et non dictum non dictum est: “in fiat caelum et terra,” nota quod Augusti- know, in the MSS., but the anonymous commentator in MS. Eton 48 has est: “in principio principio dixit deus, sicut dixit fiat lux, et nus dicit: an ideo given us convincing proof of Gilbert’s connexion with the Gloss on this 29 dixit deus, fiat cae- fiat caelum et terra, facta est lux: quoniam. Magister book. lum et terra, et facta et facta sunt caelum Gilebertus tamen sunt caelum et et terra” sicut de simpliciter posuit There are a number of questions to be answered before one can terra”, sicut de luce luce dicitur, quoniam, et post decide how convincing this proof is. The first is: where in Augustine’s narratur: dixit deus: cum primum fiebat... De Genesi ad litteram does the phrase “an ideo quoniam,” attributed fiat lux; et facta est to Augustine by the author of the Notule, appear? Smalley’s own lux? utrum prius ideo quoniam prius quoniam universali- universaliter nomine universaliter nomine ter nomine caeli et table, which compares the Patrologia Latina text of the Gloss to the caeli et terrae com- caeli et terrae com- terrae comprehen Augustinian source, does not include these words. Augustine’s phras- prehendendum erat prehendendum erat dendum erat quod ing, found in both the Patrologia Latina edition cited by Smalley and et commendandum, quod fecit deus, et fecit deus, deinde per quod fecit deus, et deinde per partes partes explicandum Zycha’s 1894 edition for the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Lati- deinde per partes exequendum quo- quomodo fecit... norum, reads “Utrum prius universaliter [...],” as shown in the table exequendum, quomodo fecit... below.30 modo fecit... Smalley appears to assume that an ideo quoniam is the Notule An cum primum vel etiam ideo quia vel quia cum pri- author’s paraphrase of Augustine’s utrum. A look at the primitive fiebat...31 cum primum fiebat... mum fiebat... Gloss, however, makes it clear that this brief passage is more focused on the literal wording. Augustine may not have written “an ideo quoniam,” but the author of the primitive Gloss did use an almost identi- Comparing the Notule to the primitive Gloss shows that the author cal phrase. The different versions of this passage, and its progression of the Notule is discussing the words themselves: that is, “note that from the patristic source to the reworked Gloss, is shown in the table Augustine says, an ideo quonium, but Master Gilbert puts, simply, quo- below. Where Smalley cited the Patrologia Latina edition of the Gloss, niam.” What the Notule commentator appears to have had at hand for for the reworked gloss I have depended on the early thirteenth-century his lectures, then, was not Augustine’s text but an extract close to the text found in Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon, 34; I also present text of the primitive version of the Gloss — if not in the primitive Gloss my own transcription of the Notule. itself, a related commentary with the same wording. We can therefore see, first, that the author of the Notule did not use Augustine’s text (although he may have believed that he did). Second,

29 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), he has attributed a change in the wording of the reworked Gloss to p. 258. Gilbert, even though manuscripts of this version of the text only sur- 30 Nor is an ideo quoniam listed as a variant in the most recent critical edition: vive from after Gilbert’s death. Given that the age of the manuscripts Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I, 3, ed. J. Zycha, Vienna 1894, p. 7, 13. Indeed, thanks to the ability to search the Library of Latin Texts it is possible to say that Augustine never uses the words “ideo quoniam” in De Genesi ad litteram. 31 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I, 3-4, ed. J. Zycha, p. 7, 10-18.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 234 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 235

St. Augustine, De Primitive Gloss on Reworked Gloss on Notule super Gene- Genesi ad litteram I, Gen. I. i (Paris, Gen I. i. (Amiens, sim (Eton, College 3 Bibliothèque natio- Bibliothèque Louis Library, 48, nale de France, lat. Aragon, 34, fol. 3r) fol. 108r) 14398, fol. 7r) Et cur ita dictum Notandum quod In principio creauit ... de hoc glosa, non est: in principio fecit cum in principo fecit etc. Non dicit: “in dixit, et post quo- deus caelum et ter- dei caelum et terram, principio dixit deus, niam universaliter, ram, et non dictum non dictum est: “in fiat caelum et terra,” nota quod Augusti- est: “in principio principio dixit deus, sicut dixit fiat lux, et nus dicit: an ideo dixit deus, fiat cae- fiat caelum et terra, facta est lux: quoniam. Magister lum et terra, et facta et facta sunt caelum Gilebertus tamen sunt caelum et et terra” sicut de simpliciter posuit terra”, sicut de luce luce dicitur, quoniam, et post narratur: dixit deus: cum primum fiebat... fiat lux; et facta est lux? utrum prius ideo quoniam prius quoniam universali- universaliter nomine universaliter nomine ter nomine caeli et caeli et terrae com- caeli et terrae com- terrae comprehen prehendendum erat prehendendum erat dendum erat quod et commendandum, quod fecit deus, et fecit deus, deinde per quod fecit deus, et deinde per partes partes explicandum deinde per partes exequendum quo- quomodo fecit... exequendum, quomodo fecit... modo fecit...

An cum primum vel etiam ideo quia vel quia cum pri- fiebat...31 cum primum fiebat... mum fiebat...

Comparing the Notule to the primitive Gloss shows that the author of the Notule is discussing the words themselves: that is, “note that Augustine says, an ideo quonium, but Master Gilbert puts, simply, quoniam.” What the Notule commentator appears to have had at hand for his lectures, then, was not Augustine’s text but an extract close to the text of the primitive version of the Gloss — if not in the primitive Gloss itself, a related commentary with the same wording. We can therefore see, first, that the author of the Notule did not use Augustine’s text (although he may have believed that he did). Second, he has attributed a change in the wording of the reworked Gloss to Gilbert, even though manuscripts of this version of the text only survive from after Gilbert’s death. Given that the age of the manuscripts

31 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I, 3-4, ed. J. Zycha, p. 7, 10-18.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 235 10/02/17 06:59 236 a. Hutton Sharp

does not necessarily preclude the involvement of an author with the text, as older manuscripts may have been lost, this could reflect a number of scenarios. Gilbert could have produced the reworked Gloss from the primitive; if the author of the Notule knew this, he may have been describing this activity. This supposition will be shown to be unlikely, however, given the second reference to Gilbert in the Notule, discussed below. On the other hand, if the author of the Notule was not familiar with the primitive Gloss but rather had access to some other source, it is possible that the author of the Notule was confused only about which version of the Gloss was Gilbert’s work — that is, it is possible that Gilbert produced the primitive Gloss but the author of the Notule was unaware of its existence and believed that the reworked Gloss was the first and only version. Finally, the Notule commentator may have assumed that Gilbert was responsible for the Gloss on Genesis due only to the appearance of Gilbert’s name in the other books of the Pentateuch. Unfortunately, the other reference to Gilbert in the Notule confirms that its author was not familiar with the development of the Gloss. This reference appears on folio 107r of the Eton manuscript and refers to one of the first glosses on Genesis, which begins with the words “Divina scriptura.” The Notule gloss reads: “Prosequere deinde glosas de introitu, quarum prima Sicut Paulus, secunda Divina scriptura, et post ut est in principio. Nota quod haec exempla non Augustinus sed magister Gilebertus Universalis apposuit [...].”32 The exempla mentioned are a number of references to biblical passages, which serve as examples of the multiple senses through which one could interpret scripture. Smalley presents the Patrologia Latina text of the Gloss beside a related text from Augustine, and notes: If we compare the Gloss ‘Divina Scriptura’ referred to by the anonymous commentator, with the original in St. Augustine, we see that in the Gloss three passages of Scripture have been added by way of illustration. The commentator ascribes this addition to Master Gilbert the Universal: “Hec exempla non Augustinus sed magister gilebertus universalis apposuit.”33

32 Eton, College Library, 48, fol. 107r. The words “non Augustinus sed” have been added above the line in a correction in the same or a similar hand. 33 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), pp. 257-258.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 236 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 237

While the “an ideo quoniam” discussion shows that the author of the Notule was comparing the reworked Gloss to either the primitive Gloss or a related commentary, the problem with this reference to Gilbert is somewhat different. The Gloss beginning “Sicut Paulus,” mentioned directly above the discussion of the “Divina scriptura” gloss, is found in the tradition of the Gloss from the earliest manuscripts, appearing in both the primitive and reworked Gloss. How- ever, the Divina scriptura gloss is included in neither the primitive Gloss nor in the twelfth-century manuscripts of the reworked gloss. It first appears in the early thirteenth century — long after Gilbert’s death, and roughly contemporary with the text of the Notule itself.34 Nor did Gilbert add the scriptural examples noted. The “Divina scriptura” passage — including the exempla that the author of the Notule ascribes to Gilbert — can be found in the Liber quaestionum super librum Genesis attributed to Wigbod (eighth century).35 The successive abbreviation of this gloss is shown in the table below. Not only could Gilbert have not added these emendations to the Gloss because they only appear after his death, but the biblical examples cited as evidence of his authorship are not actually emendations, as they are found in the source. In short, the gloss “Divina scriptura” could not be the product of Gilbert’s work, and the Notule commentator shows no evidence of understanding that the gloss as he is reading it in the thirteenth century is not in a form that Gilbert could have composed.

34 Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon, 34, dates to the early thirteenth century and is one of the earliest manuscripts in which this gloss appears. Another gloss on the four senses, which begins “Quattuor sunt regulae scripturae,” also appears for the first time in this period. It was excerpted from Guibert of Nogent’s Introduction to his Moralia Gen- eseos. Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon, 34, fol. 1r; Guibert of Nogent, Quo ordine sermo fieri debeat, ed. R. Huygens, Turnhout 1993, p. 53, 198-204 (often quoted, for instance by Simon of Tournai; see C. Marmo, “Simon of Tournai’s Institutiones in sacram paginam. An Edition of His Introduction about Signification in Theological Dis- course,” in: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin 67 [1997], pp. 93-103, at 102 [§ 4.2.5]). 35 Wigbod, Liber quaestionum super librum Genesis, Patrologia Latina 96, col. 1114D.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 237 10/02/17 06:59 238 a. Hutton Sharp

Augustine, De Genesi ad lit- Wigbod, Liber quaestionum Gloss. Prologue to Genesis. teram I.1. super librum Genesis. Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon, 34, fol. 1r. Omnis divina scriptura Omnis enim scriptura Divina scriptura bipartita est secundum id, divina bipartita est, quod dominus significat dicens scribam eruditum in regno dei similem esse patri familias proferenti de the- sauro suo nova et vetera, vetus testamentum, et quae duo etiam testamenta novum. dicuntur. In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet, quae ibi aeterna Alia quippe sunt, ubi aliquando aeterna intiman- intimentur, quae aeterna intimantur, ut est: tur, ut est, in principio erat in principio erat verbum. Alia verbum, aliquando facta facta narrentur, quae facta narrantur, ut est: In narrantur, ut in principio principio fecit deus caelum et creavit deus caelum et terram, futura praenuntientur, terram. Alia futura pronun- aliquando futura narrantur, tiantur, ut est,: Cum venerit ut cum venerit filius hominis filius hominis in majestate in sede magisterii sui, ali- quae agenda praecipiantur sua. Alia vero sunt, quae quando quae agenda sunt uel admoneantur.36 agenda praecipiuntur, cum praecipiuntur, ut diliges dicitur: diliges proximum proximum tuum sicut teip- tuum.37 sum.38

Strangely, Smalley chose to cite a different passage from Augustine, which follows immediately upon the “Omnis divina scriptura” passage and is represented by both the primitive and reworked Gloss, but is not the source for the gloss under discussion in the Notule.39

36 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I,1, ed. J. Zycha, p. 1, 1-10. 37 Wigbod, Liber quaestionum super librum Genesis, Patrologia Latina 96, col. 1114D. 38 Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon 34, fol. 1r. 39 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), pp. 257. Smalley quotes “In narratione ergo rerum factarum quaeritur, utrum omnia secundum figurarum tantummodo intellectum accipiantur, an etiam secundum fidem rerum gestarum adserenda et defendenda sint.” Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I,1, ed. J. Zycha, p. 1, 10-13. Cf. the primitive Gloss passage beginning “In narratione rerum factarum non omnia secundum figurarum intellectum tantummodo accipienda sint,” Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14398, fol. 6r, and the reworked Gloss passage, “In narratione rerum gestarum non omnia secundum figuratum tamen intellectum accipimus sed quedam

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 238 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 239

The Notule super Genesim shows that there was a thirteenth-century school tradition claiming that Gilbert had composed the Gloss on Genesis. The source of this opinion, however, is unclear.40 The author of the Notule is a problematic witness: insofar as he associates Gilbert with the Gloss, it is with a late, thirteenth-century version of the text, which could not have been Gilbert’s work. In trusting his attributions, we are eavesdropping on decades of rumour. The textual tradition of the Gloss — and the Notule author’s evident confusion on that front — reminds us that Gilbert wrote and died long before the turn of the thirteenth century. In the reference found on 108r, the author of the Notule ascribes a change in a gloss to Gilbert which was made in the transition from the primitive to reworked Gloss; in the reference on 107r, the author of the Notule attributes a gloss to the joint work of Augustine and Gilbert which was neither directly from Augustine nor added by Gilbert. The attributions in the Notule, if they have any truth, could mean many things. Gilbert may have compiled the primitive Gloss on Genesis, the text that is closest — in terms of the dates of manuscripts — to his own life. The author of the Notule, hearing of Gilbert’s reputation, may then have misunderstood the nature of Gilbert’s work, assuming that Gilbert was responsible for the later, more widespread, reworked form of the Gloss. If he was the author of the reworked Gloss, Gilbert may have adapted or updated the primitive Gloss on Genesis after it was begun by another scholar.41 Both versions may be filtered through student reports of classroom lectures. As noted above, recent work on Anselm has shown that a medieval reputation for teaching does not necessarily signify authorship.42 On the other hand, it is possible that the references to Gilbert in the other books of the Pentateuch encouraged the belief that Gilbert had compiled the Gloss on Genesis as well, whether

secundam fidem rerum gestarum asserenda et defendenda sunt,” Amiens, Bibliothèque Louis Aragon 34, fol. 3r. 40 We may note at this point Smalley’s own uncertainty about the attribution of the Gloss on the Minor Prophets, another argument she based on attributions in later commentaries. B. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 3rd ed., pp. 60-61. 41 This is the suggestion of L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, 143. 42 A. Andrée, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled,” pp. 233-234. On a similar problem with the masters of an earlier period, see C. S. Jaeger, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950-1200, Philadelphia 1994, p. 2.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 239 10/02/17 06:59 240 a. Hutton Sharp

accurate or not. The Notule cannot answer these questions about the Gloss on Genesis; it tells us only about Gilbert’s reputation in the century after his death. In her first article, Smalley stopped short of crediting Gilbert with the Ordinary Gloss on the Pentateuch. She argued, rather, that the evidence shows he must have composed some commentary on the Pentateuch, which could then have been incorporated into the Gloss. As for attributing the Gloss to Gilbert, she writes, “our knowledge of the origin of the Gloss is so defective that it would be rash to do so.”43 While much work has since been done, much remains, and there are still too many questions about the Gloss on Genesis to even say, with certainty, that it was composed alongside the Gloss on the other books of the Pentateuch. Smalley appears to have theorized the existence of an intermediary between Gilbert’s commentary and their inclusion in the Gloss. While recent research on the books of the Gloss attributed to Anselm has observed a similar pattern of transmission, more work must be done to show if this is true of the books attributed to Gilbert. In later studies, however, Smalley made broader claims, and this has encouraged a widespread acceptance of Gilbert’s authorship of the Gloss on the complete Pentateuch, despite the many questions that remain. In the third edition of The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Smalley wrote, “[Anselm’s] brother Ralph compiled the Gloss on St. Matthew; his pupil Gilbert the Universal compiled the Gloss on the Pentateuch and the Greater Prophets and Lamentations, some time before he became bishop of London in 1128.”44 Her entry on the Ordinary Gloss in the Theologische Realenzyklopädie repeats this claim, adding — courtesy of the research of Wasselynck — the Gloss from Joshua to Second Book of Kings.45

43 B. Smalley, “Gilbertus Universalis Bishop of London,” in: RTAM 7 (1935), p. 259. 44 B. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 3rd ed., pp. 60. 45 B. Smalley, “Glossa ordinaria,” in: G. Müller (ed.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Bd. XIII, Berlin 1984, p. 453. See also L. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 26-31; D. A. Salomon, An Introduction to the Glossa Ordinaria as Medieval Hypertext, Cardiff 2012, p. 37; and F. van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible, Cambridge 2014, p. 155.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 240 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 241

This article has shown that these claims cannot be supported. Its purpose, however, is not to divorce Gilbert from the history of the Gloss on Genesis forever, but to clarify the nature of the evidence available in the Eton Notule and to serve as a corrective against the over-zealous use of Smalley’s claims about the history of the Gloss on Genesis and Gilbert’s relationship to the text.46 Barring the appearance of new manuscripts bearing attributions to Gilbert, any future argu- ments for his authorship must rest on a close textual analysis of the sources used and the manner of abridgement and compilation, comparing the Gloss on Genesis to those for which we have a more certain attribution. Lamentations may offer some help in this regard. Who wrote the Gloss? The past few decades of research have shown that the text was not, for much of the period in which it was most influential, read in the same form that is found in the early printed editions, or even the form used by the author of the Eton Notule. It was an evolving text, both influencing and influenced by its prescholastic contemporaries. However, even as the many stages and sources of the Gloss are identified, there remains a desire to attribute the text of the Gloss to some singular personality — a person, if not of genius, at least of dedication, whose influence shaped the commentary as an authoritative text. This was not uncommon in the Middle Ages; as the Gloss itself shows, the medieval intellectual world was centered on individual guiding lights whose renown offered the best guarantee of orthodoxy and accuracy. For this very reason, edi- tors have long looked with suspicion on medieval attributions, rec- ognizing the widespread desire to assign the text to a recognized authority.47 But do ideas work this way? Is the desire to identify a single authority as the defining force behind a book of the Gloss, even when shared by modern historians and medieval clerics, an accurate depiction of textual and intellectual development in the middle ages? For answers

46 The most egregious example is found in Stegmüller’s Repertorium Biblicum, which claims the Notule attribute the glosses “Sicut Paulus”, “Divina scriptura,” and “ut est in principio” to Gilbert. F. Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum Medium Aevi, vol. 2, Madrid 1950, p. 351 no. 2536. 47 R. Sharpe, Titulus: Identifying Medieval Latin Texts. An Evidence-Based Approach, Turnhout 2003, pp. 21-22.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 241 10/02/17 06:59 242 a. Hutton Sharp

to these questions, we must return to the evidence at hand. It cannot be denied that contemporary writers held up Gilbert as especially renowned for his knowledge of the sacred page, and that he is credited with a number of individual glosses on the Old Testament; this includes, it would appear, a reputation — in a later century — for having had a part in producing the Gloss on Genesis. The evidence, however, is slim, and we do not know at which point Gilbert’s work influenced the exegetical tradition. Further, there are questions of definition when we discuss the authorship of a developing text. At what point does the Gloss count as the Gloss? In the reworked stage, or in the primitive version? Could Gilbert, who seems to have flourished in the early twelfth century, have been the author of a yet earlier commentary that stands behind the primitive version of the Gloss? Or was his renown chiefly due to his work as a teacher who inspired students to preserve his lectures in commentaries? It is, in the end, the manuscripts of the Gloss that reveal the most. They do not present a commentary compiled ex nihilo by an originating mind (although there are occasional hints of an essential core, still to be extracted through careful textual study) but reveal a text that was repeatedly altered and stitched together from older compilations. The manuscripts reveal an engaged and energetic intellectual community, reworking a well-regarded commentary to a form that could be used in new ways and in new contexts in the developing university system. What is innovative in the Gloss is not in its content. Rather, it is a text that is remarkable and influential in its flexibility and in its ability to be expanded — as seen in the movement from the primitive to the reworked versions — or abridged. Questioning Gilbert’s authorship of the Gloss on Genesis may suggest the question, “if not Gilbert, who?” It is more productive, however, to ask why it would be necessary to replace him.48 There is an understandable anxiety about creating anonymous texts when a recognized historical actor

48 Similar questions about the role of individual authors in the development of the Gloss can be found in D. A. Salomon, An Introduction to the Glossa Ordinaria as Medie- val Hypertext, Cardiff 2012, pp. 39-40. For Salomon, the more communal aspects of the production of the Gloss is of a piece with the commentary’s later position at the center of a textual community, in which the Scriptural text is joined by the reading process not only to the included commentary, but to other texts. D. A. Salomon, An Introduction to the Glossa Ordinaria, p. 94.

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 242 10/02/17 06:59 ‘GILBERTUS UNIVERSALIS’ 243

has been credited with authorship. However, by setting aside the desire to find a named author and observing the difficulties inherent in identifying authorship, we can begin to see the role of the community that gave the text its life and influence.

Alice Hutton Sharp Department of History and Classical Studies McGill University Leacock Building, 7th floor 855 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7 Canada [email protected]

99267_RTPM_2016-2_01_Sharp.indd 243 10/02/17 06:59