¹ For biography and bibliography, see Bagliani, A. Paravicini, Cardinali di curia e ‘familiae’ cardinalizie dal 1227 al 1254 , 2 vols. (Padua, 1972), i, pp. 256–65Google Scholar; Kaeppeli, Scriptores, ii, pp. 269-81.

² Smalley, B., ‘John Russel O.F.M.’, RTAM, xxiii (1956), pp. 277–320, at pp. 305–7Google Scholar. Aser pinguis was printed in numerous early-modern multi-volume collections of Hugh’s biblical commentaries: I have not attempted to locate all of them, but can attest to its appearance in collections of Hugh’s opera published in Basel, 1498-1502; Basel, 1504; Paris, 1531; Venice, 1600; Cologne, 1621; and Lyons, 1645. In all cases the text is the same, save for insignificant typesetters’ variants; fortunately even the foliation is the same in the three last editions I refer to: Aser pinguis appearing in all of them at ff. 363-429. Here I will cite the Cologne ed., correcting it when necessary with readings taken from a fourteenth-century MS, BAV, Pal. lat. 96 (prov., Schönau, near Heidelberg, O. Cist). Vidit lacob appears in published form in the nineteenth-century Opera omnia of St Thomas Aquinas, ed. Parma (1860-2), xxiii, pp. 325-511, with a reprint, ed. Paris: Vivès (1871-80), xxxi, pp. 469-661, xxxii, pp. 1-86. I will cite from the corrupt Parma edition and correct it with readings taken from a fifteenth-century MS: BAV Pal.lat.297 (prov. Southern Germany).

³ Beryl Smalley has already properly excluded Hugh of St Victor, who wrote no Revelation commentary. In addition I can exclude the commentaries on Revelation by Nicholas of Gorran (below, nn. 9-10), and ‘Pseudo-Albert’—B. Alberti Magni … opera omnia, ed. A. and E. Borgnet (Paris, 1890-9), xxxviii, pp. 465-792—as. well as the Super Apocalypsim of Geoffroy d’Auxerre, ed. F. Gastaldelli (Rome, 1971), and the three variants of the mid-thirteenth-century Franciscan Revelation commentary as Stegmüller, Bibl., 2961, 2963, 2964. For the last three I consulted respectively: MS Todi 68, BAV, Ross. lat. 470, and Benedictus Bonellus, ed., Supplementum operum S. Bonaventurae, 2 vols. (Trent, 1772-3), ii, pp. 5-103.

⁴ For reasons which will later become obvious, Hugh’s name will appear without quotation marks at this stage.

⁵ Ed. Parma, p. 342a; corrected by BAV, Pal. lat. 297, f. 243^ra: ‘…sicut beatus Domincus, beatus Franciscus, beatus Nicolaus …’.

⁶ My count is based initially on the assumption that entries 2727, 3771, and 3772 in Stegmüller all refer to the same postill. Adding the MSS listed by Stegmüller for these entries—minus one on the grounds that Paris Mazarine 155 appears twice—produces a total of forty-two. (Note the following corrections—Stegmüller 2727: for BN 15604, ff. 317-74, read ff. 371^r-74^v; Stegmüller 3771: for Oxford, Bodl. 760, read 716; for Oxford, Oriel College 6, does such a MS with a copy of Vidit lacob really exist?; for Paris, Arsenal 186 (XIV), read (XV).) To this figure one must add seven more MSS, as listed by Kaeppeli, Scriptores, ii, p. 274 (Kaeppeli gives eight, but BN lat. 15605 is Aser pinguis), thereby reaching forty-nine. Finally, to this number I can add the following four MSS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale I. H. 42 (XV): see Cenci, C., Manoscritti francescani delta Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, 2 vols. (Quaracchi/Grottaferrata, 1971), i, pp. 151–2Google Scholar; Oxford, Balliol College 14, ff. 6^r-123^v (XV): see Mynors, R.A.B., Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford (Oxford, 1963), pp. 10–11Google Scholar; BN lat. 12030 (XIII): see Spicq, C., Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au moyen âge (Paris, 1944), p. 321Google Scholar; and Pisa, Biblioteca Sta Caterina MS 16: see Spicq, p. 321. Virtually all this information comes to me at second hand and some of it may be imperfect: unfortunately Beryl Smalley’s call for a critical study of the MS tradition of Hugh of St Cher’s postills (Bible, p. 271) has not been answered, nor appears likely to be yet.

⁷ According to Stegmüller and/or the relevant MS catalogues, medieval hands in the following MSS ascribe Vidit Iacob to ‘Hugo’: Arras 95; Cambridge, Gonville and Caius 244; Cambridge, Trinity College 99; Copenhagen, Gl. Kgl. S. Fol. 48; Hereford Cathedral O. 2,. iii; Kiel, Bordesholm Fol. 64; Oxford, Balliol College 14; Oxford, Bodleian Bodl. 444; Oxford, Bodleian Bodl. 716; Paris, Mazarine 156 (apparently not Mazarine 155, as Stegmüller); Pisa, Sta Caterina 16; BAV Pal. lat. 297. In addition, Nigel Palmer has kindly informed me that Oxford, Bodleian Lat. th. b. 5, p. 827 gives: ‘Explicit liber Hugonis de Wyenna … super Apoc.’. The English attribution I allude to is in Bodl. 444, and the Parisian one is Mazarine 156. It should finally be added that an inventory of the holdings of the Dominican convent of Perugia made in 1430 lists Vidit Iacob as ‘postilla domini Ugonis card.’: see Kaeppeli, T., Inventari di libri di San Domenico di Perugia (Rome, 1962), p. 57Google Scholar (repeated in inventory of 1446: see p. 97); and St John of Capestrano attributed Vidit Iacob to Hugh of Digne, obviously a mistake for Hugh of St Cher: see Rusconi, R., ‘La tradizione manoscritta delle opere degli Spirituali nelle biblioteche dei predicatori e dei conventi dell ‘Osservanza’, Picenum Seraphicum, xii (1975), pp. 63–137, at p. 87.Google Scholar

⁸ In addition to MS Reims 165, similar thirteenth-century ‘indirect attributions’ are found in Oxford, Bodleian Laud Misc. 466; BN lat. 15604; Paris, Mazarine 155; Poitiers 22; and Toulouse 55. The first dated appearance of a set of Hugh’s postills occurs in 1239, when a sequential collection was copied in the Abbey of Fleury; but as the set now survives (Orléans, MSS 23-30) it goes no further than the Gospels: see R.H. and M.A. Rouse, ‘The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’, AFP, xliv (1974), pp. 5-30, at p. 8, n. 11.

⁹ Gorran’s authorship of Cognovit Dominus (Stegmüller, 5810) is firmly established by Meier, L., ‘Nicholas de Gorham, O.P., Author of the Commentary on the Apocalypse Erroneously Attributed to John Duns Scotus’, Dominican Studies, iii (1950), pp. 359–62Google Scholar. My dating and localization are based on the known facts of his scholarly career as reported, for example, by Smalley, B., ‘Some Latin Commentaries on the Sapiential Books in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’, AHDLMA, xviii (1950-1), pp. 103–28, at pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Gorran, Cognovit Dominus, in In Acta Apostolorum … et Apocalypsim Commentarii, authore R.P.F. Nicolao Gorrano …. (Antwerp, 1620: I use BAV, Barb. A.V.82; another copy is BL, 692 f. 5), p. 187²: ‘Hugo autem dicit ab aurum et calcos malum: quasi malum aurum, quia solum auri colorem habet, non valorem’, with ‘Pseudo-Albert’ (as above, n. 3), p. 493^b: ‘Vel aurichalcum dicitur ab auro … quod est malum, quasi malum aurum, quia habet colorem aureum, non valorem’.

¹¹ Smalley, ‘Some Latin Commentaries’, p. 109. She makes the same observation here about the citation of Hugh (i.e., ‘Hugh’ passages not found in the printed postills; real Hugh passages used anonymously) in a postill on Proverbs probably done at St Jacques c. 1270 by John of Varzy.

¹² Stegmüller, Tomus VIII: Supplementum, entry 1745, reports evidence that should end all doubt concerning the authorship of Confitebor tibi. For Peter of Tarentaise’s teaching career see Creytens, R., ‘Pierre de Tarentaise, Professeur à Paris et Prieur Provincial de France’, Beatus Innocentius PP. V (Petrus de Tarantasia O.P.): Studia et Documenta (Rome, 1943), pp. 73–100, at pp. 83–96Google Scholar. See Beatus Innocentius, at pp. 76, 178-9, 238, 366, for evidence that Peter was a disciple of Hugh of St Cher. Even before his studies at St Jacques, Peter received schooling in the Dominican cloister of Lyons (Creytens, pp. 74-6), where he must have come under the influence of Guillaume Pérault, whom I take to have been a member of Hugh of St Cher’s Parisian circle: see n. 74, below.

¹³ Cf, e.g., Peter, ed. Borgnet, p. 598^a (citation of St Bernard, ‘Felix lacryma …’) with Vidit Iacob, ed. Parma, p. 387^a; Peter, ed. Borgnet, 625^b (‘Demonium ereum sermocinalis scientia …’) with Vidit Iacob, ed. Parma, p. 405^a. It should also be recalled that John Russel quoted extensively from Vidit Iacob in 1292-3, not naming the author but calling him by the flattering title of expositor, see Smalley, ‘John Russel O.F.M.’, pp. 308-9, and, on the thirteenth-century meaning of expositor, Smalley, ‘The Gospels in the Paris Schools in the Late Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries, I, II’, Franc Stud, xxxix (1979), pp. 230-54; xl (1980), pp. 298-369, at xl, p. 327.

¹⁴ My Aser pinguis count is based on the assumption (still to be tested) that Stegmüller 3769 and 3770 refer to basically the same text. From the nine MSS listed for 3769, BN 12030 has to be subtracted because it apparently contains Vidit Iacob; but it can be replaced by Cambridge, Gonville and Caius 244, ff. 57-122. It might be noted that at least three of the surviving total of Aser MSS are of German or Austrian Cistercian provenance: Erlangen 30; Heiligenkreuz 206; and BAV, Pal. lat. 96.

¹⁵ See Erlangen MS 30 (‘Hugo Predicator’); Cambridge, Gonville and Caius MS 244; Prague, University Library MS 1857.

¹⁶ Cambridge, Gonville and Caius 244; Erlangen 30; BN lat. 156; Toulouse 24: the last three date from the thirteenth century.

¹⁷ Peter’s borrowings from Aser pinguis have already been amply documented by I.-M. Vosté, O.P., ‘S. Albertus in Apocalypsim’, Angelicum, ix (1932), pp. 328-35. Vosté, however, goes too far in branding the author of Confitebor tibi ‘plagiarius Hugonis a S. Caro’ pure and simple because—aside from Peter’s borrowings from Vidit Iacob (above, n. 13) that show him picking and choosing rather than slavishly copying—he misses Peter’s genuine originality, especially in the presentation of dubitabilia at the end of each chapter, which lend Peter’s work its own distinctive character. (Vosté was unaware that, in belittling the author of Confitebor tibi he was belittling his Order’s first pope.) Solomon, D.M., ‘The Sentence Commentary of Richard Fishacre and the Apocalypse Commentary of Hugh of St Cher’, AFP, xlvi (1976), pp. 367–77Google Scholar, argues that Richard Fishacre’s Sentence commentary of 1241-5 borrows from Aser pinguis, but in fact Fishacre’s quidam expositor super Apoc., whom Solomon takes to be the author of Aser pinguis (pp. 369-72), is Haimo of Auxerre (see PL cxvii, 1070-5; note too that whenever Nicholas of Gorran refers to the expositor on Revelation he means Haimo).

¹⁸

Ripelin’s treatment of Gog and Magog also follows Aser pinguis: cf. Ripelin, ed. Borgnet, xxxiv, pp. 243-4, with Aser pinguis, ed. Cologne, f. 421^a. Note that Steer, G., Hugo Ripelin von Strassburg (Tübingen, 1981), pp. 237–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, independently suspected the influence of Hugh of St Cher on bk i of Ripelin’s Compendium: most likely Ripelin owned and used a set of Hugh’s postills that ended with Aser pinguis. In my ‘Refreshment of the Saints: the Time after Antichrist as a Station for Progress in Medieval Thought’, Traditio, xxxii (1976), pp. 97-144, at p. 122, I mistakenly credited Hugh Ripelin with originality for lines actually borrowed from Hugh of St Cher.

¹⁹ Glorieux, P., Repertoire des malîtres en théologie de Paris au Xllle siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1933-4), p. 56Google Scholar; Spicq, p. 291, n. 3; Stegmüller, Bibl., 2727; Solomon, p. 377.

²⁰ Stegmüller, Bibl., 2727 (following Glorieux) misleadingly gives ‘Guerricus?’ for BN, MS lat. 15604, but in fact this MS does not offer any attribution for Vidit Iacob, and presents it after the genuine Hugh of St Cher postill on Luke, reporting it as such, f. 370^v: ‘Explicunt postille Sancte Lucam secundum fratrem Hugonem de Ordine Fratrum Predicatorum’ (I am grateful to Professor E.A.R. Brown for having looked at this MS for me). The most exhaustive study of Guerric’s works remains Henquinet, F.M., ‘Les écrits du Frère Guerric de Saint-Quentin, O.P.’, RTAM, vi (1934), pp. 184–214Google Scholar, and ‘Notes additionnelles sur les écrits de Guerric de Saint-Quentin’, RTAM, viii (1936), pp. 369-88: Henquinet knows nothing of a Revelation commentary for Guerric. Note finally that any perceived similarities between the content of Vidit Iacob and Guerric’s genuine exegetical work could easily be explained on the grounds that Hugh of St Cher’s postills notoriously took ideas from wherever they found them (what Beryl Smalley calls Hugh’s ‘paste-and-scissors method’), or even that Guerric contributed to the composition of Vidit Iacob as a ‘team member’ (see below); on the other hand, however, Vidit Iacob and Guerric’s Isaiah commentary—as described by B. Smalley, ‘A Commentary on Isaias by Guerric of Saint-Quentin, O.P.’, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, 6 vols. (ST, cxxi-cxxvi) ii, pp. 383-97—are fundamentally different in conception, Vidit Iacob being characterized by an extraordinary proliferation of moralities, but Guerric’s Isaiah commentary ‘keeping to the work of exegesis’ and restraining itself in the employment of digressive moralizations.

²¹ I was told this by Fr. L.-J. Bataillon, O.P. Presumably drawing on the same unpublished research by Fr. Perrier, Beryl Smalley reports in ‘The Gospels in the Paris Schools, I’, p. 250, that Hugh’s ‘Postilla super Totam Bibliam survives in two versions, a longer and a shorter. The longer is printed in early editions’. Assuming that Aser pinguis and Vidit Iacob are both by Hugh, they provide an exception to the latter rule, for Aser, printed in the early-modern editions, is the shorter of the two.

²² For Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College MS 244, see James, M.R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1907-8), i, p. 295Google Scholar. On Beverley himself, BRUC, p. 60.

²³ Ed. Parma, p. 470^b, corrected by BAV, Pal. lat. 297, f. 363^vb: ‘Talis terremotus sic magnus respicit hoc tempus presens, in quo multi ad predicationem modernorum predicatorum sunt conversi ad fidem. Nam de solis Cumanis conversi sunt ad fidem, et baptizati in duobus vel tribus annis, i.e. in modico tempore, centum millia. Multi etiam de Georgianis, etiam de Barberia, multi de Africa, multi heretici, et quamplures de aliis partibus mundi. Nam per gratiam Dei fere ad omnes predicatur modo Evangelium Domino nostri Iesu Christi’. Vidit Iacob’s proud reference to the accomplishments of the ‘modern preachers’ almost certainly refers to the Dominicans, for the Cumans were converted, c. 1227-30, by Dominican efforts: see on this, Richard, J., La papauté et les missions d’Orient au moyen âge (XIIIe-XVe siècles) (Paris, 1977), pp. 24–5Google Scholar. Vidit Iacob’s implicit naming of Hugh’s Order links up with its explicit naming of St Dominic and St Francis as martyrs before St Nicholas (see quotation above, n. 5) and provides noteworthy contrast to Beryl Smalley’s observation that in the Gospel postills ‘Hugh never mentions either his Order or its founder’ (Smalley, ‘Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, p. 311).

²⁴ On the Georgian events, Richard, p. 55; on the mendicant missions to the Mongols and Adam Marsh’s boast, ibid., pp. 70-80.

²⁵ On Hugh’s extraordinarily energetic activities as cardinal, Sassen, J.H.H., Hugo von St. Cher, seine Tätigkeit als Kardinal 1244-1263 (Bonn, 1908).Google Scholar

²⁶ The same conclusion was reached by Solomon, pp. 373-7, primarily on the grounds of passages other than those upon which I comment here. Spicq, p. 321, mistakenly states that the conclusions of both commentaries are identical; but they are indeed very close. I should make clear here that neither Aser pinguis nor Vidit Iacob was transmitted as a reportatio, for both speak consistently in the first person: Aser, ed. Cologne, e.g., f. 382^vb: ‘ut diximus’; Vidit Iacob, as Smalley, ‘John Russel’, pp. 302, 309.

²⁷ Ed. Cologne, f. 367^va: ‘Item Grecis et non Hebreis quia ad literam sapientia incepit in Grecis et a Grecis. Item ut sciremus quia non solum scientia divinarum Scripturarum est a Deo, sed etiam scientia philosophorum; Eccl. 1a: “Omnis sapienlia a Domino Deo est”’. This passage is taken over in the Revelation postill by Peter of Tarentaise: see ed. A. and E. Borgnet, p. 488².

²⁸ Ed. Parma, p. 373^b:’Non quas jacit Aristoteles, vel Plato, vel inanis quelibet philosophia … Quia studendum est ad honorem Dei, non ad lucrum mundi vel laudem hominum’. Also Parma, p. 458^a: ‘Et super fontes aquarum, i.e. super philosophos, a quibus sunt orte insipide doctrine et varie unde heretici originem duxerunt; Et factus est sanguis, i.e. occisio sanctorum, vel doctrina hereticorum et philosophorum’. Although Peter of Tarentaise and Nicholas of Gorran both drew on Vidit Iacob, neither of them appropriated either of these passages.

²⁹ Of the two texts it may be that Aser is more ‘Hugh-like’ inasmuch as Hugh quotes Dionysius in his Questio de prophetia (see ed. Torrell, J.-P., Théorie de la prophétie el philosophie de la connaissance aux environs de 1230: la contribution d’Hugues de Saint-Cher (Louvain, 1977), p. 8Google Scholar), in his postill on John (see Smalley, ‘The Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, p. 309), and at least once in Aser pinguis itself: see ed. Cologne, f. 363^ra. Peter of Tarentaise accepts Aser’s reading here rather than Vidit Iacob’s: see ed. Borgnet, p. 607². On Pseudo-Dionysius in thirteenth-century Paris, see Dondaine, H.-F., Le corpus dionysien de l’Université de Paris au XIIIe siècle (Rome, 1953).Google Scholar

³⁰ Smalley, ‘A Commentary on Isaias’, p. 390.

³¹ Aser, ed. Cologne, 1621, f. 411^ra: ‘Unde li in notat hic causam efficientem’; Vidit Iacob’s Aristotelian disposition appears in its opening lines: ‘Quattuor sunt cause huius operis, sc. efficiens, materialis, formalis, finalis’.

³²

Note that Peter of Tarentaise, who knew both texts, chose to follow Vidit Iacob here (ed. Borgnet, p. 625^b).

³³ Ed. Parma, p. 405²: ‘Vet capita eorum sunt doctores falsorum philosophorum, sc. Plato, Pythagoras, et huiusmodi’.

³⁴ The first, ed. Parma p. 328^a, reads: ‘Hic enim duplici modo acquiritur scientia, sc. per inventionem studendo aut per doctrinam audiendo, ut dicit Philosophus’; this does not appear in Auctoritates Aristotelis, I. Concordance, ed. J. Hamesse (Louvain, 1972) and I am unaware of its real source. The second, ed. Parma, p. 346^a—’Propter hoc dicit Philosophus: “Utinam inspiciendo mulieres aut lynceos oculos haberemus, aut nullos”’—comes by way of Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, bk. iii, prose 8. The third, ed. Parma p. 385^a—’Philosophus: “Sapientia est hominis sui ipsius cognitio”’—appears to derive ultimately from the Jewish physician lsaak b. Solomon (ϯc. 933); cf. Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, ed. L. Baur (Münster, 1903), p. 7: ‘philosophia est integra cognitio hominis de se ipso’, and Baur’s commentary, p. 176.

³⁵ Ed. Cologne, f. 373^vb: ‘Utinam sic dicerent omnes Episcopi habentibus plures prebendas. Pondus enim est una prebenda si bene attenderent, sed aliud pondus est alia prebenda. Sed dicunt multi: “non curetis domine, date mihi multa pondera, fortis sum, bene possum portare illa”. Verum dicis fortis es, ut asinus in posterioribus, i.e. in terrenis, sed in anterioribus, i.e. spiritualibus, debilis. … Tales eliam peiores sunt lupo, de quo dicitur quod in posterioribus sit debilis, sed fortis in anterioribus’. In BAV, Pal. lat. 96, f. 15^va, a fifteenth-century hand from the Cistercian monastery of Schönau adds marginally: ‘Utinam sic dicerent Cardinales et Episcopi nepotibus’.

³⁶ Ed. Cologne, f. 376: ‘Quicquid dicant vobis, verba sunt consulentium sibi invicem de habendo plures prebendas. Nesciunt quidem dicere quod sit peccatum … Tenete: Hoc est contra absentes qui volent percipere fructus et non deserviunt. Sed dicunt ipsi “bene possumus tenere, quia longas habemus manus: sumus enim filii nobilium”, illam doctrinam Ovidii adducentes in ecclesiam Dei. “An nescis longas regibus esse manus?” Sed aliquando dicent ipsi, illud Cant, Ib: “Posuerunt me custodem in vineis, vineam meam non custodivi”’.

³⁷ For this and the Parisian plurality of benefices controversy, see Stegmüller, F., ‘Die neugefundene Pariser Benefizien Disputation des Kardinals Hugo von St. Cher O.P.’, HJb, lxxii (1953), pp. 176–204.Google Scholar

³⁸ ’Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, pp. 315-16.

³⁹ The dating raises the question as to whether Hugh’s association with biblical scholarship continued after he left his theological regency late in 1235 for the position of Dominican Provincial of France. In my view the answer certainly has to be ‘yes’, not only because his Vidit Iacob has to be dated after 1240 on grounds explained above, but also because the St Jacques biblical correctorium associated with his name was still unfinished at the time of the Dominican General Chapter of 1236: see on the latter, Sölch, G.G., Hugo von St. Cher O.P. und die Anfänge der Dominikanertheologie (Cologne, 1938), p. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ed. Cologne, ff. 392^vb-393^ra: ‘Per Stellas [Rev., viii. 12) religiosi, quorum tres partes sunt tria vota: continentie, obedientie, paupertatis. Prima ac secunda adhuc ita aperte non est percussa; sed tertia, sc. paupertas, est‘aperte percussa. Omnes enim iam divites volunt fieri, et propter hoc incedunt in tentationes et in laqueos diaboli’. The essence of this passage is retained by Peter of Tarentaise: see ed. Borgnet, p. 609^b.

⁴¹ Ed. Cologne, f. 392^vb: ‘Per lunam [Rev., viii. 12] medii prelati ecclesie intelliguntur, quorum sunt tres partes. Prima cura temporalium, secunda administratio sacramentorum, tertia administratio pastus, vel temporalis vel spiritualis. Sed hec tertia pars percutitur, quia ipsi sunt et avari et inscii’. This is also retained, though muted, by Peter of Tarentaise: see ed. Borgnet, p. 609^b.

⁴² Ed. Parma, p. 395^a: ‘Per lunam clerici designantur. … Horum autem sunt tres partes: nam alii scholares qui frequentant scholas, alii sunt chorales, qui sequuntur chorum, alii curiales, qui sequuntur curias principum et prelatorum. Et hec tertia pars fere lota percussa est, et utinam non mortua’.

⁴³ ’Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, pp. 314-15, 365.

⁴⁴ Aser’s version appears in ed. Cologne at f. 403^ra, but since Vidit Iacob’s is fuller I give it here, correcting ed. Parma, pp. 430^b-1^a, with BAV, Pal. lat. 297, f. 324^ra-b: ‘Vel per aquam fluminis significatur abundantia terrenorum, que fluunt continue sicut aqua …. Et de hac aqua fluminis … significat abundantiam quam misit draco Domino permittente in ecclesiam Dei, quando Constantino datum est imperium occidentalis ecclesie. Et signanter dicit, quod “draco sive serpens ex ore suo misit aquam post mulierem” [Rev., xii. 15]. Quia ex ore serpentis non exit nisi sibilus et venenum. Et ista temporalia non sunt nisi sibilus unus, quia cito transeunt, et plena sunt vento vanitatis et litis. Et etiam venenosa sunt, quia bibentes occidunt. Unde tunc audita fuit vox angelorum in aere dicentium, “hodie infusum [MS; effusum] est venenum in ecclesia Dei”, sicut legitur in Apocrifo Sylvestri. Et iam appropinquat venenum ad cor ecclesiae’. Both Peter of Tarentaise and Nicholas of Gorran refrained from telling the Donation of Constantine story in their respective Revelation postills that otherwise drew heavily on Aser pinguis and Vidit Iacob.

⁴⁵ Laehr, G., Die konstantinische Schenkung in der abendländischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1926), pp. 72, 76Google Scholar; Smalley, ‘Gospels in the Paris Schools, I’, p. 245, n.29.

⁴⁶ Leclercq, J., ‘Hélinand de Froidmont ou Odon de Cheriton?’ AHDLMA, xxxii (1965), pp. 61–69, at p. 65Google Scholar. On Odo’s activity c. 1226, Friend, Albert C., ‘Master Odo of Cheriton’, Speculum, xxxii (1948), pp. 641–58, at pp. 649, 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ C.T. Davis called attention to the appearance of the story in Pérault’s Summa de vitiis in Speculum, 1 (1975), p. 349. It appears in tr. iv, pars II, ch. n, as in Guilelmus Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2 vols. (Antwerp, 1571), ii, f. 83^r: ‘Sed magis occupata est hodie ecclesia in temporalibus quo ad magnam partem sui, quam fuerit synagoga, unde quando datum fuit a Constantino occidentale imperium, facta est vox de celo, dicens: “Hodie infusum est venenum ecclesie Dei”’. Pérault, who came from the same area around Lyons as did Hugh of St Cher, studied at St Jacques from c. 1236-40 and wrote his Summa de vitiis during that period (in one thirteenth-century MS it is dated to 1236): see Dondaine, A., ‘Guillaume Peyraut: Vie et oeuvres’, AFP, xviii (1948), pp. 162–236, at pp. 171–2, 186–7Google Scholar. His knowledge of the story, then, must have come from its having been discussed at St Jacques around the time it appeared in Aser pinguis. Cf. n. 74, below.

⁴⁸ Evidence of such hostility is presented by Grundmann, H., Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1935, repr. Hildesheim, 1961), pp. 153–6Google Scholar, and Freed, J.B., The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 88–90Google Scholar. Yet there is also plenty of evidence for a generous reception of the friars by prominent members of the secular clergy: see Lerner, , ‘Weltklerus und religiöse Bewegung im 13. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, li (1969), pp. 94–108, and Leclercq, pp. 67–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Ed. Cologne, f. 388^ra: ‘Hos ventos demones impedire conantur, et homines qui eos impediunt sunt membra diaboli. De quibus dicitur Amos 7c: Qui vides gradere fuge in terram luda [vii. 12]. “Vade”, dicunt ipsi, “et predica in claustro tuo, et in Bethel, i.e. in parochia mea, non adicies ultra, ut prophetes, i.e. ut predices, quia sanctificatio regis est, et domus regni est [vii. 131. quasi ego sum rex el Dominus ibi. Vel quia ecctesia cathedralis est, ecce domus regni, el non est consuetude quod pauperes predicent ibi”. lta dixit unus malus sacerdos ad Amos, sc. Amasius. Sed audiant et timeant isti illud quod Amos respondet ei, dicens: “Propter hoc quia me prohibes predicare in tua parochia hec dicit Dominus: uxor tua in civitate fornicabitur … de terra sua” [vii. 17]. Et hoc est mirabile, quod isti prohibent quos Dominus vocal, et vocari precepit a propheta; Ezech. 37a: A quattuor ventis veni spiritus et insuffla super interfectos istos’.

⁵⁰ Ed. Parma, p. 381^a: ‘Demones conati sunt et conantur quotidie impedire predicatores ne predicent. … Sciunt enim demones quod nihil adeo prodest ut predicalio verbi’. Neither Peter of Tarentaise nor Nicholas of Gorran borrowed from either Aser pinguis or Vidit Iacob’s language as cited here or in n. 49.

⁵¹ Since none of the passages 1 deal with below mentions the imminence of the final earthly Sabbath expected by Aser pinguis, it is well to make clear here that Aser expects it to come soon: ed. Cologne, f. 411^ra: ‘hic loquetur de poena futura malis in tempora Antichristi, que cito erit’ (the Sabbath was to follow immediately on the reign of Antichrist).

⁵² Ed. Cologne, ff. 385^ra-7^ra: see also the convenient summary by R.E. Kaske, ‘The Seven Status Ecclesiae in Purgatorio XXXII and XXXIII’, in Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio: Studies in the Italian Trecento in Honor of Charles S. Singleton, ed. A.S. Bernardo and A.L. Pellegrini (Binghamton, 1983), pp. 89-113, at pp. 93-4. On the prior tradition, see, e.g., Lerner, ‘Refreshment of the Saints’, pp. 103-4, p. 116, n. 61. Note that while Aser pinguis’s author always calls the final age brief, following a precedent established by Haimo of Auxerre (see ‘Refreshment’, p. 107) he considers its exact duration to be a matter of uncertainty: ‘Quantum vero spatium sit inter illos quadragintaduos dies et finem mundi nemo scit’.

⁵³ Lerner, ‘Refreshment’, pp. 101-10.

⁵⁴ Ed. Cologne, f. 390^ra: ‘Tunc enim libere et sine obstaculo sanctipredica bunt veritatem et fidem, nec aliquis eos impugnabit vel affliget’. Also f. 382^vb: ‘Septimum modica ecclesie requies post Antichristum extinctum, quando libere predicabunt fideles, annunciantes tam preterita quam futura de reprobis et electis’; f. 390^ra: ‘erit pax bonis qui libere predicabunt verbum Dei’. Note also f. 397^va: ‘Hoc erit post mortem Antichristi, ubi libere postea predicabunt, sed tempore Antichristi turn audientur, unde nec tunc predicabunt’.

⁵⁵ PL cxcvi, 794-5: ‘In fine visionis agit de fine temporis … ‘. Note Richard’s explicit attack on chiliasm, ‘ut quidem heretici putaverunt’, at 795A. The best analysis of Richard’s Revelation commentary remains Kamlah, W., Apokalypse und Geschichts-theologie: die mittelalterliche Auslegung der Apokalypse vor Joachim von Fiore (Berlin, 1935). pp. 38—53Google Scholar; according to Kamlah, Richard came to Bede’s periodizations indirectly, by way of the Glossa ordinaria.

⁵⁶ Ed. Cologne, f. 399^va-vb, corrected by MS BAV, Pal. lat. 96, f. 44^vb, with bold-face indicating verbal borrowings from Richard of St Victor, PL cxcvi, 794-5: ‘Per hunc etenim angelum designatur ordo [MS: status] predicatorum qui erunt post mortem Antichristi. … “Voces magne in celo”. … Bis dicit consolabitur, quia ecclesia tempore Antichristi duplicem desolationem sustinebit. Unam quidem quia erit multos persecutoribus vexata. Et aliam quia non faciet miracula. Et propter hoc post mortem Antichristi in tempore septimi angeli duplex erit consolatio, sc. pax et multiplicatio fidei.

Tunc enim omnes Iudei convertentur ad fidem Christi. … “Et Christi eius.” … Huius regni tranquillitas etiam tunc in mundo incipiet, quando Christus spiritu oris sui Antichristum interficiet [II Thess., ii. 8] et sancta ecclesia quasi dimidie hore silentio [Rev., viii. 1], sc. tempore quod consequenter usque ad finem mundi, pacificata conquiescet. … Et propter hoc etiam dicitur hic factum est et non fiet quia extunc fraudulentia et sevitia diaboli penitus deficiet et in suis fidelibus universis Deus perpetua pace et tranquillitate regnabit’.

⁵⁷ PL cxcvi, 830.

⁵⁸ Ed. Cologne, f. 412^rb, with borrowings from Richard in bold-face: ‘Iste ergo Septimus angelus sunt predicatores ultimi post mortem Antichristi, secure predicantes, in quorum tempore certissime scient demones instare diem iudiciii … Qualis nunquam fuit: Etiam hoc legitur per recapitulationem de opere Antichristi. Vel potest lege de tempore novissimo post mortem Antichristi, in quo sanctifacient miracula, et multi movebuntur ad penitentiam’.

⁵⁹ Ed. Cologne, f. 382^vb: ‘Vel sicut ecclesia dicitur liber cuius septem sunt sigilla, sicut Ioachim distinxit, qui hunc librum exposuit’. This reference was first noticed by Solomon, p. 372. Assuming the passage was written c. 1236, it apparently provides the earliest datable evidence of knowledge of Joachim’s Revelation commentary at Paris, although it is probably roughly contemporaneous with the reference by William of Auvergne discussed by Reeves, M., The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism (Oxford, 1969), pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Solomon, p. 372.

⁶¹ Ed. Parma, pp. 387^b-8^a, 416^a, 417^a, 462^a.

⁶² Smalley ‘John Russel’, pp. 302-3; Reeves, Influence of Prophecy, pp. 87-8. Vidit Iacob’s discussion of the red dragon’s seven heads [Rev., xii. 3], ed. Parma, p. 452^b, is taken extensively verbatim from Joachim.

⁶³ Ed. Parma, p. 493^a: ‘Dicunt quidam Iudei … et tunc reedificabunt Ierusalem auream et erunt in ea gloria magna, et ducent uxores et facient convivia, et sic mille anni erunt et postea transferentur in celum. … Nos autem magis volumus glossis sanctorum adherere. …’ The non-italicized words repeat language used by Vidit Iacob to describe the conduct of the sinful after the death of Antichrist in commenting on Revelation, viii. 1 (ed. Parma, p. 388^a) and derive ultimately from a condemnatory passage in Matthew, xxiv. 38.

⁶⁴ Dondaine, H.-F., ‘L’objet et le “medium” de la vision béatifique chez les théologiens du XIIIe siècle’, RTAM, xix (1952), pp. 60–130, at pp. 82–3Google Scholar. See also Smalley, Bible, p. xiii: ‘The Postilla super totam Bibliam of Hugh of St Cher has turned out to be even more composite, so much so that it would be more correct to call the Postillator “Hugh’s team”’. An excellent review of disparate evidence for the practice of team work in thirteenth-century St Jacques is Congar, Y., ‘“In dulcedine societatis quaerere veritatem”: Notes sur le travail en équipe chez S. Albert et chez les Prêcheurs au XIIIe siècle’, Albertus Magnus, Doctor Universalis: 1280/1980, ed. Meyer, G. and Zimmermann, A. (Mainz, 1980), pp. 47–57Google Scholar; note the quotation from St Thomas, p. 53: ‘precipue in acquisilione scientie plerumque societas multorum studentium prodest, quia interdum alter ignorat quod alius invenit’.

⁶⁵ My count of the disputed questions comes from adding the one edited by Stegmüller (as above, n. 3) with fifteen others treated by Eynde, D. Van den, ‘Nouvelles Questions de Hugues de Saint-Cher’, Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, 2 vols. (Gembloux, 1951), ii, pp. 815–35Google Scholar, and Torrell (as above, n. 29). Schneyer, Repertorium, ii, pp. 758-85, lists 429 sermons for Hugh, of which many must have been composed during his Parisian years, given their clustering in Parisian MSS. Finally, regarding the concordance, the doubts of R.H. and M.A. Rouse, ‘The Verbal Concordance’, pp. 7-8, regarding Hugh’s association with the earliest St Jacques concordance should be removed by Salimbene de Adam, Cronica, MGH SS, XXXII, p. 175 (drawing in part on the chronicle of Martin of Troppau): ‘Concordantiarum in Bibliotheca primus auctor fuit. Sed processu temporis facte sunt Concordancie meliores’. Strong evidence that the first concordance was completed by c. 1236 appears in the fact that Aser pinguis uses its system of subdividing biblical chapters by letters: see not only the printed editions but BAV, Pal. lat. 96, at ff. 24^ra, 44^vb.

⁶⁶ ’Hugh’s’ gloss on I Thessaionians derives from language used by Haimo of Auxerre but may have been based on the intermediary of Peter Lombard’s Magna glossatura. Unfortunately Migne’s edition of the latter (PL cxcii, 306D) gives ‘40’, instead of the correct ‘45’ which appears in the best early MSS such as BN lat. 649, 17246, and 17247, and BAV, Vat. lat. 144 and 695. (I wish to thank Helen-Feng for checking the readings in the Paris MSS for me.) The faulty PL edition led to mistakes made in ‘Refreshment’, p. 109, and in Solomon, p. 371.

⁶⁷ The same ‘gloss’ which gives forty-two days for penance after the death of Antichrist on the analogy of the forty-two years given to the Jews for penance between the Passion and the destruction of the Temple is cited independently by Nicholas of Gorran in his Revelation commentary. Cognovit Dominus, p. 222^b, and in his Commentaria in Quatuor Evangelia (Cologne: P. Quentel, 1537), f. 124A, and by William of St Amour [?], Liber de Antichristo, ed. Martène and Durand, Collectio, ix, pp. 1271-1446, at p. 1439 (a new edition is currently being prepared by Robert Adams). On the basis of remarks in Gorran’s Commentaria, it appears that the forty-two-day thesis may ultimately have derived from St John Chrysostom. In addition to its appearance in Aser pinguis, Gorran, and Pseudo-[?] William of St Amour, it may also be found in Pseudo-Hugh of St Victor, Questiones in Epistolas Pauli, PL clxxv, 592A (a work apparently written between 1180 and 1230; see Traditio, xii (1957), p. 384) and St Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron, ed. F. Delorme (Florence, 1934), p. 185.

⁶⁸ Smalley, ‘Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, p. 307. Apart from the dramatic exception in ch. 16 of Vidit Iacob, described as follows, the appearance of pagan sources in Aser pinguis and Vidit Iacob is minimal. In Aser, I note the following: a few citations of Seneca; two of ‘Tullius’ (both at f. 364^rb), which, however, are definitely not by Cicero; a story from historie romanorum about ‘Crassus’ and the Carthaginians (f. 411^ra), which is certainly confused or apocryphal (Vidit Iacob’% re-telling—ed. Parma, p. 460^b—changes the Carthaginians to the Parthians); a reference from fabulae poetarum about Antaeus (f. 402^rb); and, most interesting, a citation of the Arabic philosopher Algazel (f. 396^ra). The source for the last is clearly a Latin translation of Algazel’s Metaphysics, known today in only six MSS: see Muckle, J.T., Algazel’s Metaphysics: A Mediaeval Translation (Toronto, 1933), p. 1Google Scholar, lines 24-5; p. 4, line 1 (Fr. L.-J. Bataillon kindly called my attention to Muckle’s edition); note that Peter of Tarentaise (ed. Borgnet, p. 625^b) retained this citation but changed the ascription (which he had via the intermediary of Vidit Iacob, ed. Parma, p. 405^a) from ‘Agazel’ to ‘Philosophus’! Exclusive of ch. 16, Vidit Iacob mentions Aristotle occasionally (above, n. 34) as well as introducing a few citations from Seneca and Boethius. Of these the most interesting is a story from a liber tragediarum Senece qui intitulatur liber de nugis senum (ed. Parma, p. 385^b), which I cannot identify, but which is definitely not by Seneca: in retelling it Nicholas of Gorran (ed. Antwerp, p. 221^a) gives in quibusdam apocryphis Senece.

⁶⁹ See ed. Parma, pp. 460^b-470^a. Of the five quotations of versus, three have rough parallels in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 16101 (XIII)—see Walther, H., Initio carminum ac versum medii aevi, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1969)Google Scholar, nos. 10528, 9368, 3449—suggesting the use of a similar source by the compiler of this section of Vidit Iacob. Otherwise, I have been able to locate the three tags from Horace (all from the Epistles), the one from Cicero (Post reditum ad Quirites, 21), and the one from Sidonius (Epistolae, VII, 7: see MGH AA, VIII, p. 134; Sidonius is mistakenly called Suetonius in the printed edition).

⁷⁰ ‘Hugh’s’ motivation of providing moralities as an aid to preachers emerges clearly, for example, from Vidit Iacob’s explicit warning, ed. Parma, p. 470^a, that it is offering an exemplum. BAV, Pal. lat. 96 gives ample evidence in its margins that Aser pinguis was indeed used that way: e.g., f. 30^vb: ‘Exemplum’; f. 67^rb: ‘In dedicatione ecclesie’.

⁷¹ Hence Beryl Smalley’s finding, ‘Gospels in the Paris Schools, II’, p. 363, that ‘a reader of Hugh’s postills will risk disturbing his neighbours in the library by chuckles of laughter’.

⁷² Smalley, ‘A Commentary on Isaias’, p. 395.

⁷³ In addition, there are technical common denominators such as the system of biblical citation by chapter number and letter (see above, n. 65) and the use of li, as in ed. Cologne, ff. 383^va, 411^ra. Neither of these traits reappears in Vidit Iacob.

⁷⁴ The likelihood that one member of Hugh’s team between c. 1236 and 1240 was Guillaume Pérault, O.P. appears to be very strong, for not only was Pérault definitely a student at St Jacques during that period, and not only was he a compatriot of Hugh of St Cher’s, but his Summa de vitiis, apparently written in 1236, retells the ‘poison in the Church’ story and devotes much space to the sin associated with holding a plurality of benefices.

⁷⁵ Gregory IX’s letter to Frederick II of October 1236 invoking the Donation of Constantine, is ed. MGH Epp Saec XIII, I, p. 604. A good introduction to the Donation frescoes, executed during 1244, is Mitchell, J., ‘St. Sylvester and Constantine at the SS. Quattro Coronati’, Federico II e l’arte del duecento itatiano, ed. Romanini, A.M., 2 vols. (Galatina, 1980), ii, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The earliest evidence of heretical appropriation of the story of which I am aware appears in the ‘Anonymous of Passau’, a treatise against heresy written in the diocese of Passau between 1260 and 1266, probably by a Dominican inquisitor; see the ‘first error’ of the Waldensians in the edition by Patschovsky, A. and Selge, K.-V., Quellen zur Geschichte der Waldenser (Gütersloh, 1973), p. 77Google Scholar: ‘quod ecclesia Romana non sit ecclesia Iesu Christi … et quod defecit sub Silvestro, cum venenum temporalium in ecclesiam est infusum’. Evidence for fourteenth-century Waldensian use appears in Rusconi, R., L’attesa della fine (Rome, 1979), pp. 190–1Google Scholar; 198, n. 53. Examples of the use of the story by Wyclif and Hus are provided by Kaminsky, H., A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 39, 54–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ In fact, Aser pinguis contains numerous attacks on heresy and is worthy of study as a source for heretical doctrines c. 1236. E.g., ed. Cologne, f. 383^va: ‘Hic insurgunt Manichei, qui dicunt [Christum] habuisse phantasticam carnem’; f. 404^ra: ‘blasphemabit sanctos, sc. qui iam sunt in celo, et dicet esse damnatus in inferno: sicut iam faciunt quidam heretici qui dicunt beatum Nicolaum et ceteros omnes confessores qui fuerunt in ecclesia a tempore Silvestri Pape damnatos esse et in inferno’; f. 406^vb: ‘Primum celi … est vetus testamentum, per hoc volant Iudei. Ultimum celi est novum testamentum, per hoc volant Manichei, qui non recipiunt vetus testamentum …’.

⁷⁸ The standard work on this subject remains Denifle, H., ‘Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commision zu Anagni’, ALKG, i (1885), pp. 49–142Google Scholar. Extracts from the protocol of Anagni are translated by McGinn, B., Visions of the End (New York, 1979). pp. 165–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Lerner, ‘Refreshment’, pp. 140-2.