No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
The essential conservatism of medieval Biblical exegesis is well illustrated by the sources used by Andrew of St. Victor in his commentary on the books of Samuel. Despite his justified reputation as an exponent of literal exegesis, his originality and his freedom in his handling of his authorities, the overall appearance of his commentary is not all that different from the literal portions of the ninth-century commentaries of Rabanus Maurus and Angelomus of Luxeuil, despite the lapse of time and increasing sophistication of approach. Josephus, Jerome, Isidore, Bede, and Pseudo-Jerome continue to hold the field. In fact, in at least one respect there is a recession, as Rabanus and Angelomus knew how to distinguish between Jerome and Pseudo-Jerome (Hebraeus), whereas Andrew did not, and this in spite of his use of Rabanus and Angelomus, who had incorporated substantial chunks of Pseudo-Jerome into their commentaries.
1 The starting-point of this investigation was provided by Miss B. Smalley, who has noted Andrew of St. Victor's use of Pseudo-Jerome (Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 1952 edn., 126). I have consulted four MSS of Andrew on Kings: (I) Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 30. (2) Cambridge Trinity College MS B i 29. (3) Oxford Bodleian MS Laud Latin 105. (4) Vatican MS Latin 1053. The MSS differ somewhat in the use of Pseudo-Jerome, as indicated in the Appendix. I had hoped to continue the investigation in respect to the Quaestiones on Chronicles, but there is no proper commentary by Andrew on this book. The Quaestiones are printed in Migne Patrologia Latina (PL) 23 (1845 edn.), col.1329 sqq. They are arranged by chapter and verse, so it is unnecessary to give the column references, which vary in the reprints of the Patrologia. I have, however, numbered them for convenience, and this numeration is used in the Appendix.
2 These commentaries are printed in PL 109 and 115 respectively. My article, Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum et Paralipomenon, with references to Angelomus, has already appeared in HTR 66 (Jan., 1973). Further information on Angelomus can be found in my article on Pseudo-Jerome and Biblical Exegesis in the Ninth Century, in a collection of essays to be published in memory of Dr. I. Epstein, late Principal of Jews' College, London.
3 Appendix, 10, 30, 109, 150, 158. Cf. Smalley, op. cit., 128.
4 Corpus MS f.57a on I Sam. vii 2 (PL 91/718).
5 App. 20. The section copied from Pseudo-Jerome is omitted from the Trinity and Laud MSS. For use by Rabanus see PL 109/25B.
6 App. 27. The possibility has been considered that the reference could be to some genuine work of Jerome, but there is nothing of relevance to be found either in his Liber de nominibus Hebraicis or in the De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum.
7 App. 102. In view of the preceding two examples it cannot be contended that Andrew copied the Quaestio from Angelomus.
8 In Rabanus's dedicatory preface to his commentary. A better text is given in MGH Ep., vol. v, 403.
9 Rheims MS 118 f.38.
10 St Gall Stiftsbibl. MS 672 p.138.
11 Paris Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 2384 f.117.
12 Orléans MS 38 p. 1.
13 These Quaestiones need not necessarily be attributed to the author of the Quaestiones on Samuel and Chronicles.
14 Berkeley University of California MS UCB 17 (formerly Phillipps 391). A typical early 12th-cent. heading is Incipit liber beati Jeronimi presbiteri de questionibus in librunt Regum (Cambridge Trinity College MS B ii 34 (77), f.117. MS Cambridge Emmanuel College 57 (early 12th cent.) has a similar heading on f.75.
15 PL 178/714C.
16 App. 180. For examples of use of Angelomus by Andrew see App. 112, 113.
17 See n.8 above.
18 PL 115/292D-293A. See App. 33.
19 Rabanus on I Sam. is slightly longer. Angelomus has a ratio of about 3: 2 in favour of I Sam.
20 In the Corpus MS, I Sam. is covered in 13 folios and II Sam. in less than 4.
21 Numbers v 11ff.
22 Exodus xxxii 20.
23 App. 30.
24 Angelomus's almost automatic response to Jewish Midrashic material.
25 PL 115/288D.
26 Quoted in Soncino Books of the Bible, vol. 12: Samuel, ed. S. Goldman (1951), 37.Google Scholar
27 I Sam. ix 19.
28 App. 33.
29 Paris Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 11937, known as θG Pseudo-Jerome uses more than 50 of these scholia in his Quaestiones on Samuel.
30 This can bs easily verified from the Benedictine Vulgate edition of Samuel, where the correctoria are constantly citing “Jerome.”
31 App. 1. In fact Andrew does much better and shows that Zophim is a participle, “overlooking,” depending on Ramathaim, which alone is the place-name.
32 App. 27.
33 II Sam. XX 18.
34 Heb. Abel or Evel.
35 Genesis 1 10–11.
35a But in more than one place he interprets Abel as luctus.
36 APP. 32.
37 App. 48.
38 App. 28.
39 The Vulgate has vixitque centum decem annis (Gen. l 22).
40 This is also the case further on in v.25; cf. Joshua xxiv 29.
41 The early genealogies in Genesis provide obvious examples.
42 App. 51.
43 App. 101. See Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. A. le Prévost (1855), vol. V, 15.Google Scholar
44 The note is technically correct, but certainly a proverb is implied.
45 Gen. xlvi 17; I Chron. vii 30. See App. 173. It is also omitted by Rabanus.
46 Deut. xx 15. The Jewish exegesis does in fact soften this legislation and is fairly reflected by Pseudo-Jerome. But the point at issue here is whether Andrew is giving a literal interpretation of the text, which as a Christian he is free to do.
47 Josh, ix 9ff.
48 PL 91/717.
49 Corpus MS f.55b.
50 App. 1.
51 The current representative of Hebraica veritas, the translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America, adopts this reading.
52 PL 109/11B.
53 PL 115/249A.
54 App. 3.
55 See App. 2.
56 PL 115/250B.
57 Possibly Deut. xii 11–12; cf. also ibid, xiv 27, 29 and xvi 11, 14.
58 Andrew might also have mentioned that Benjamin subsequently received extra changes of clothing (Gen. xlv 22).
59 App. 13.
60 They similarly refused to believe in the literal sense of Reuben's behaviour (Gen. xxxv 22).
61 PL 115/274CD.
62 App. 15.
63 PL 115/276A.
64 App. 33 See text to n. 28.
65 PL 115/292CD.
66 App. 43.
67 By the same logic this text could be applied to Solomon. However, Peter Comestor comes to the rescue: Superabundat “filius” idiomate Hebraeo (PL 198/1328B).
68 PL 109/40A.
69 Ibid. 40B.
70 PL 115/295D-296A.
71 App. 52.
72 PL 115/304B.
73 PL 109/54A; PL 115/311B.
74 App. 63.
75 App. 112, 113.
76 PL 115/347D-348A.
77 PL 109/116–20.
78 App. 180.
79 App. 4.
80 See above, n. 36.
81 PL 115/292B.
82 App. 103.
83 II Sam. xvii 25.
84 App. 162.
85 App. 143.
86 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 21a favours the legality of the marriage.
87 He transfers the Quaestio on I Sam. x 8 (App. 38) to I Sam. xiii 9. Andrew follows him here to some extent.
88 For the numerous examples see the appendix to my article, Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones.
89 App. after 180. See also in Appendix on I Sam. xxv 3 and II Sam. vi 20.
90 I am grateful to Miss Beryl Smalley and Dr. P. M. McGurk for reading the typescript of this article. Mrs. G. Hadfield, who has completed a doctoral dissertation at Oxford University on the Hebrew sources of Andrew, with particular reference to the commentaries on Exodus and Isaiah, informs me that my conclusions are in line with her assessment of Andrew's Hebrew scholarship.