¹ See Southern, R. W., “The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson, Robert L. and Constable, Giles with Latham, Carol D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 113–37; also Flint, Valerie I. J., “The ‘School of Laon’: A Reconsideration,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 43 (1976): 89–110.Google Scholar

This is an expanded and revised version of a paper read at the International Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., May, 1990. I am indebted to the late Margaret T. Gibson, Charles H. Lohr, Lesley J. Smith, Michael A. Signer, and Thomas Van Nortwick for valuable comments and suggestions.Google Scholar

² “The major works of the twelfth century … represent efforts to assimilate and organize inherited written authority in systematic form.” Rouse, Mary A. and Rouse, Richard H., Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, Publications in Medieval Studies 17 (Notre Dame, Ind., 1991), 221.Google Scholar

³ For a recent examination of the sentence literature of this “school,” see Colish, Marcia L., “Systematic Theology and Theological Renewal in the Twelfth Century,” in Rewriting the Middle Ages, ed. Patterson, Lee (Durham, N.C., 1988) and eadem, “Another Look at the School of Laon,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 64 (1986): 7–22. See also Flint, , “The ‘School of Laon’,” and de Ghellinck, J., Le mouvement théologique au douzième siècle, Museum Lessianum, section historique, 4–5, 2nd ed. (Bruges, 1946), 133–48; Landgraf, A. M., Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante , ed. Landry, A.-M., trans. Geiger, L.-B. (Montreal-Paris 1973), 67–70, with citation of editions and literature.Google Scholar

⁴ Hunt, R. W., “The Introductions to the Artes in the Twelfth Century,” in Studia medievalia in honorem R. M. Martin, O.P. (Bruges, 1948), 85–112; Quain, E. A., “The Medieval Accessus ad auctores,” Traditio 3 (1945): 228–42; Minnis, A. J., Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1988), 9–39;Google Scholar

Minnis, A. J. and Scott, A. B. with Wallace, David, eds., Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism c. 1100-c. 1375. The Commentary-Tradition (Oxford, 1988); Huygens, R. B. C., ed., Accessus ad auctores: Bernard d'Utrecht; Conrad d'Hirsau (Leiden, 1970). Google Scholar

⁵ Abelard, , Sic et Non, ed. McKeon, Richard (Chicago, 1977). On Abelard's influence, see Luscombe, D. E., The School of Peter Lombard: The Influence of Abelard's Thought in the Early Scholastic Period (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶ Fournier, Paul and Bras, Gabriel Le, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien, 2 vols. (Paris, 1931–32); and Le Bras, Gabriel, Rambaud, Jacqueline, and Lefebvre, Charles, L’âge classique, 1140–1378: Sources et théorie du droit, Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’Église en Occident 7 (Paris, 1965).Google Scholar

⁷ De Hamel, Christopher F. R., Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origin of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1984); Gibson, Margaret T., “The Glossed Bible,” in Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, 4 vols., intro. Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret T. Gibson (Turnhout, 1992) l.vii–xi.Google Scholar

⁸ PL 175.9–28 (Hereafter, , De scripturis).Google Scholar

⁹ PL 176.741–812. Critical text: Hugonis de Sancto Victore Didascalicon De Studio Legendi: A Critical Text, ed. Buttimer, Charles Henry, The Catholic University of America Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin 10 (Washington, D. C., 1939). English translation: The “Didascalicon” of Hugh of St. Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts , trans. with intro. and notes by Taylor, Jerome, Records of Western Civilization: Sources and Studies 64 (New York and London, 1964). Cited hereafter as Did., followed by book and chapter, followed by Buttimer and page, and Taylor and page. Taylor's introduction and notes cited as Taylor, , Didascalicon. Google Scholar

¹⁰ See the introduction and notes in Taylor, , Didascalicon; Châtillon, Jean, “Le Didascalicon de Hugues de Saint-Victor,” Cahiers d'histoire mondiale 9 (1966): 539–52 (reprinted in idem, Le mouvement canonial au moyen age. Réforme de l’église, spiritualité et culture, Bibliotheca Victorina 3 [Paris-Turnhout, 1992], 403–18); and Illich, Ivan, In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh's Didascalicon (Chicago and London, 1993).Google Scholar

¹¹ See the discussion later in this paper.Google Scholar

¹² See Did. 3.6–19 and 5.5–10, Buttimer 51–69 and 102–12, Taylor 90–101 and 126–34.Google Scholar

¹³ The most comprehensive study of Hugh's life and thought remains Baron, Roger, Science et sagesse chez Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1957); see Baron's later entry on Hugh in Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique 7.901–939. See also Ehlers, J., Hugo de St. Viktor. Studien zum Geschichtsdenken und zur Geschichtsschreibung des 12. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurter historische Abhandlungen 7 (Wiesbaden, 1973).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The most recent study of the early history of the Abbey is Bautier, Robert-Henri, “Les origines et les premiers développements de l'abbaye Saint-Victor de Paris,” in L‘Abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Age , ed. Longère, Jean, Bibliotheca Victorina 1 (Paris-Turnhout, 1991), 23–52. For earlier studies of the Abbey's history, see Châtillon, Jean, Théologie, spiritualité et métaphysique dans l'oeuvre oratoire d'Archard de Saint-Victor, Études de Philosophie Médiévale 58 (Paris, 1969), chap. 2, and Ehlers, , Hugo von Sankt-Viktor, chap. 1. Still useful is Bonnard, Fourier, Histoire de l'abbaye royale et de l'ordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor de Paris (Paris, n.d. [1904–1907]).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The introduction and notes to Taylor, , Didascalicon, are central for Hugh and the liberal arts. For biblical study, Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1963) remains fundamental. For theology, see Baron, , Science et sagesse, 97–145. On contemplation, see Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “De gradibus ascensionum: The Stages of Contemplative Ascent in Two Treatises on Noah's Ark by Hugh of St. Victor,” Studies in Medieval Culture 5 (1975): 61–79, and idem, “Mandala Use and Symbolism in the Mysticism of Hugh of St. Victor,” History of Religions 12 (1972–73): 317–41. Patrice Sicard examines aspects of Hugh's teaching on contemplation in his Diagrammes médiévaux et exégèse visuelle. Le “Libellus de formatione arche” de Hugues de Saint-Victor, Biblioteca Victorina 4 (Paris, 1993). Sicard also offers a broad selection of texts from Hugh's writings with useful introductions in Hugues de Saint-Victor et son École, Témoins de notre histoire (Turnhout, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See note 9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ An edition of the preface and description of the tables of the Chronicon are found in Green, W. M., “Hugo of St-Victor: De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum,” Speculum 18 (1943): 488–92. See also Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “The Influence of Hugh of St. Victor's Chronicon on the Abbreviationes chronicorum by Ralph of Diceto,” Speculum 52 (1977): 38–61. See also the Descriptio mappe mundi now attributed to Hugh of St. Victor by Patrick Gautier Dalché, La “Descriptio mappe mundi” de Hugues de Saint-Victor. Texte inédit avec introduction et commentaire (Paris, 1988). Gautier Dalché concludes that the text of the Descriptio was probably taken down by a student in the classroom and reviewed by Hugh, who provided a preface (ibid., 54–55, 58). For a clearly documented reportatio, or student notes of Hugh's lectures, see the Sententiae de divinitate which were taken down by one Laurence of Durham; Bischoff, B., “Aus der Schule Hugos von St. Viktor,” in Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1967), 2.182–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ PL 176.173–618B. Translation by Deferrari, R. J., Hugh of Saint Victor: On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De sacramentis), Mediaeval Academy of America, Publication No. 58 (Cambridge, Mass., 1951). Cited hereafter as De sacramentis. Google Scholar

¹⁹ See, for example, in De sacramentis, 1, prol., “Why he has changed the reading.” Hugh States: “… I have prepared the present work for those who are to be introduced to the second stage of instruction, which is allegory” (PL 176.183–84; Deferrari 3). This same passage in De sacramentis refers to an earlier “… compendium on the initial instruction in Holy Scripture, which consists in their historical reading….” The Chronicon is now generally accepted as the work to which Hugh refers. The preface to the Didascalicon gives the purpose of that work as “reading, … setting forth rules for it.” (Did. pref., Buttimer, 2, Taylor, 44).Google Scholar

²⁰ PL 176.617/18–680D (De arca Noe morali) and 681A–704A (De arca Noe mystica). For a translation of De arca Noe morali , see Hugh of St. Victor: Selected Spiritual Writings, trans. by a Religious of C.S.M.V.; intro. Squire, A. (London, 1962), 45–153. No translation of De arca Noe mystica exists. Discussion of these treatises in articles by Zinn cited in n. 15, and also Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “Hugh of St. Victor, Isaiah's vision, and De arca Noe,” in The Church and the Arts , ed. Wood, Diana, Studies in Church History 28 (Oxford, 1992), 99–116. The relation of the Ark treatises to teaching and learning in the traditional “monastic” collatio as practiced at Saint-Victor is also explored in detail by Sicard, , Diagrammes médiévaux et exégèse visuelle 21–69.Google Scholar

²¹ van den Eynde, D., Essai sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor, Spicilegium Pontificii Athenaei gt5 13 (Rome, 1960), 45, 46, 72–73, 75, 228 (under Praenotatiunculae de scripturis et scriptoribus sacris), and the table preceding p. 215.Google Scholar

²² For Taylor, see Didascalicon 174, n. 4: “… with Didascalicon iv-vi, cf. Hugh's earlier and briefer De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris praenotatiunculae …” For Baron, see “Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution à un nouvel examen de son oeuvre,” Traditio 15 (1959): 223–97, here 249: “De scripturis is found, transcribed or abridged, in the Didascalicon”; and “the Didascalicon is, finally, for all essentials, a synthesis of the Epitome and De scripturis, not without its own additions.” R. Goy also dates De scripturis as the earlier of the two works. Goy, R., Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von St. Viktor. Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte des Mittelalters, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 14 (Stuttgart, 1976), 48: “Es dürfte vor dem Didascalicon entstanden sein.” Sicard, , Diagrammes médiévaux et exégèse visuelle 33, seems to agree with this sequence also.Google Scholar

²³ Text edited by de Ghellinck, J., “La table des matières de la première édition des oeuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor,” Recherches de science religieuse 1 (1910): 270–89, 385–96. I am indebted to Mr. Burgass, librarian of Merton College, Oxford, for allowing me to examine this manuscript.Google Scholar

²⁴ Texts: Adnotationes elucidatoriae in pentateuchon, PL 175.32C-61B (In Genesim); 61C–74A (In Exodum); 74A–84C (In Leviticum); 84C–86A (In Numeros); 86A–86D (In Deuteronomion); also printed in Migne are: Adnotationes elucidatoriae in librum Judicum, 87A–96B; Adnotatiuncula una in librum Ruth, 96B–C; Adnotationes elucidatoriae in libros Regum, 95D114B. On these exegetical notes and their authenticity, see den Eynde, van, Essai, 40–45; Baron, , “Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution,” 253–56; and, more recently, the extensive study by van Zwieten, Jan, The Place and Significance of Literal Exegesis in Hugh of St. Victor: An Analysis of His Notes on the Pentateuch, the Book of Judges, and the Four Books of Kings (diss. Amsterdam, 1992). These exegetical notes will be cited by the brief title “Notulae“ with “in Genesim,” etc. added as necessary. Concerning the Notulae on Genesis, it should be noted that the Migne text (incorrectly) gives Hugh's gloss on Jerome's text Desiderii mei as chapter 1 of the Notulae. Hugh's introduction to the Notulae begins with Migne's “chapter 2” at 175.32C. See below, nn. 26, 28, 30, 35.Google Scholar

²⁵ See the remarks by van den Eynde, , Essai, 2–13 and his list of authentic works on 14–34, indicating whether or not each work is mentioned in the Indiculum. See also Baron, R., “Étude sur l'authenticité de l'oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor,” Scriptorium 10 (1956): 183–96. De Ghellinck's comments on the works listed in the Indiculum are still valuable, though dated: de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières,” 283–89, 385–96.Google Scholar

²⁶ Printed (in error) as ch. 1 of Hugh's Notulae (PL 175.29A–32B). Hugh glosses various words and phrases in Jerome's preface. For Jerome's text, see PL 28.177A–184B.Google Scholar

²⁷ See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières,” 277–78 and 284; also see below at n. 35.Google Scholar

²⁸ The data that follow are derived from information in Goy, , Die Überlieferung, 9–11 (Epitome), 14–36 (Didascalicon), 43–48 (De scripturis), and 48–55 (Notulae). Of the manuscripts that contain De scripturis and the Notulae, I have personally examined five, either directly or on microfilm (Paris, BNF MSS Lat. 13422, 14507, 15315, and 15695; Cambridge, England, Trinity College MS 23). I am indebted to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, for furnishing microfilms, and to David McKitterick, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, for allowing me to examine Trinity College MS 23. It should be noted that Goy consistently considers Desiderii mei to be the prologue, or chapter 1 of the Notulae. This is simply not the case in either the manuscripts consulted or the Indiculum. Desiderii mei functions as a glossed “authentic text” which prefaces Hugh's collection of texts that provide an accessus to the biblical text and his commentary (mostly literal) on the first several books of the Bible.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cambridge, Trinity College MS 23 is a twelfth-century manuscript, but it does not contain all of De scripturis; see description below and n. 32.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Goy, , Die Überlieferung, 45. He makes a similar comment on Douai MS 365, noting De scripturis is “eingeschoben in das Werk in Pentateuchon,” thus again assuming Desiderii mei to be the prologue, or chapter 1 of the Notulae. See above, nn. 26 and 28 and below, n. 35. On Paris, BNF MS Lat. 345, see Catalogue général des manuscrits latins , ed. Lauer, Ph. (Paris, 1939), 1.121–22.Google Scholar

³¹ Baron, , “Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution,” 236, notes that Paris BNF MS Lat. 15315 belonged to the “collegium magistrorum studentium Parisius” and was given to the Sorbonne by Master Gerard of Abbeville.Google Scholar

³² Goy, Neither, Die Überlieferung, 43–58, nor Baron, , “Hugues de Saint-Victor. Contribution,” 254–55, has described this manuscript correctly with regard to De scripturis and the Notulae. I have a brief note in preparation concerning this.Google Scholar

³³ The data that follow are derived from information in Goy, , Die Überlieferung, 14–36, 43–58. It should be noted that the place of the Didascalicon in the list of Hugh's works in the Indiculum differs from all surviving manuscripts with respect to the relation of the Didascalicon to Hugh's exegetical writings. In the Indiculum, the Didascalicon is listed immediately after the Notulae. The Didascalicon in turn is followed by three works on philosophy/liberal arts (Epitome Dindimi in philosophiam, De grammatica, Practica geometriae), two works on the contemplative life (De arca Noe mystica and De arca Noe morali), and one work on the ascetic life (De institutione novitiorum), which ends the first of the four volumes whose contents are described in the Indiculum. See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières (n. 23 above),” 278–79. However one interprets the position of the Didascalicon in the Indiculum, it is still De scripturis and Desiderii mei that provide the “introduction” to the exegetical Notulae, as recorded in the Indiculum. Google Scholar

³⁴ PL 175.9–28.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 29A–32C (Desiderii mei) and 32C-61B (introduction and notes to Genesis). Goy, , Die Überlieferung, 48, considers the placement of De scripturis after Desiderii mei to be an interruption of the “normal” form of Hugh's commentary on the Pentateuch. He apparently assumes the Migne version is correct in printing Desiderii mei as chapter 1 of the Notulae. As noted previously (nn. 26, 28 and 30) this arrangement is not that of the earliest manuscripts or the Indiculum. Google Scholar

³⁶ On the glossing of texts from “authorities” in the twelfth century, see the treatment in Minnis, , Scott, , and Wallace, , Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism (n. 4 above).Google Scholar

³⁷ Did. 6.3, Buttimer 115, Taylor 137.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., Buttimer 113, Taylor 135–36.Google Scholar

³⁹ See the discussion of these chapters below and also Smalley, , Study of the Bible (n. 15 above) 93–94. On the fundamental role of history and the historical reading of the text for Hugh's exegetical program, see Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “The Influence of Augustine's De doctrina Christiana upon the Writings of Hugh of St. Victor,” in Reading and Wisdom: The De doctrina Christiana of Augustine in the Middle Ages , ed. English, Edward D., Notre Dame Conferences in Medieval Studies 6 (Notre Dame and London, 1995), 48–60, here 55–56, and idem, “Historia fundamentum est. The Role of History in the Contemplative Life according to Hugh of St. Victor,” in Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Christian Tradition , ed. Shriver, George H. (Durham, N.C., 1974), 135–58. On the place of literal/historical interpretation for Hugh, see also Moore, Rebecca, Jewish and Christian Relations in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St. Victor (diss. Marquette University, 1995), 112–55.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See the selection of accessus from the arts faculty in Minnis, , Scott, , and Wallace, , Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, 1–36; also, Huygens, R. B. C., ed., Accessus ad auctores (n. 4 above).Google Scholar

⁴¹ This adoption is discussed by Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship (n. 4 above) 40–41, where he comments: “It seems reasonable to assume that the ‘type C’ prologue-paradigm was coming into use in scriptural exegesis in the first quarter of the twelfth century.” Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid., ch. 2 (“Prologues to Scriptural ‘Auctores’ ”) concentrates on prologues to the Psalter and the Song of Songs but also considers those to other books.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Hunt, R. W., “Introductions to the Artes“ (n. 4 above), 85–112; Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship, 9–39.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., 19–25.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Notulae in Genesim 4 (PL 175.33A).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See In Ecclesiasten 1 (PL 175.116C): “Intentio est mundi contemptum persuadere.” At that point Hugh has already considered the topics of titulus libri (115C) and auctor (115C116B), and he follows with modus tractandi (116C) and, much later, a divisio of the text that can be likened to the ordo libri topic in an accessus (121C–122B). I have in preparation a detailed study of the accessus material found in In Ecclesiasten. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières” (n. 23 above), 277. The title in Migne is, “Quae scripturae divinitatis nomine singulariter appellari debeant” (PL 175.9A).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Horace Ars poetica, line 333 (Horace, , Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (‘Ars Poetica’), ed. Rudd, Niall [Cambridge, 1989], 69). For the use of prodesse and delectare see the brief note by Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship, 241, n. 77.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ De scripturis 1 (PL 175.10A).Google Scholar

⁵¹ In the thirteenth century Bonaventure distinguished carefully between auctor, scriptor, compilator, and commentator in his commentary on Peter Lombard's Libri sententiarum. The distinctions reappear in Bonaventure's scriptural commentaries, where Bonaventure seeks to find a role for a human “author” of biblical books while retaining the ultimate role of God as the “author,” through inspiration, of the sacred text. For Bonaventure, , scriptor refers to the scribe who copies a manuscript “adding or changing nothing.” See the discussion by Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship, 94–95.Google Scholar

⁵² PL 175.11A–D. See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières,” 277. Title in Migne, , “Quod divina Scriptura ab aliis distinguitur in materia et modo tractandi.” Google Scholar

⁵³ For a good summary of Hugh's views on the two works, see De sacramentis christianae fidei 1, prol. (n. 18 above).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ De sacramentis does not directly raise the question of the value of the writings of the philosophers versus sacred Scripture, a question very much in evidence in both the Didascalicon and De scripturis. See De sacramentis, 1, prol., 2–3 (PL 176.183A–184C; Deferrari, 3–4) where the distinction of the “works of creation” and the “works of restoration,” as found in De scripturis is very prominent, but the philosophers remain unmentioned. See De sacramentis, 1, prol., 2 (Deferrari, 4): “Worldly or secular writings have as subject matter the works of foundation. Divine Scripture has as subject matter the works of restoration. Therefore, it is rightly believed to be superior to all other writings insofar as the subject matter is the more dignified and the more sublime with which its consideration and discourse are concerned. For the works of restoration are of much greater dignity than the works of foundation, because the latter were made for servitude, that they might be subject to man standing; the former, for salvation, that they might raise man fallen.” (“Mundanae sive saeculares scripturae materiam habent opera conditionis. Divina Scriptura materiam habet opera restaurationis. Propterea tanto excellentior omnibus scripturis jure creditur, quanto dignior est et sublimior materia in qua ejus consideratio tractatioque versatur. Nam opera restaurationis multo digniora sunt operibus conditionis; quia illa ad servitutem facta sunt, ut stanti homini subessent; haec ad salutem, ut lapsum erigerent.”) Hugh goes on to note, however, that Scripture also recounts the “works of creation (opera conditionis)” at the outset of the sacred narrative. The main subject of Scripture is, however, the works of restoration (ibid., 1, prol., 3; Deferrari, 4).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières,” 277–78. In Migne the title for ch. 3 is the same, with “intelligentia” for “intelligencia.” Migne entitles ch. 4, “Non omnia in divino eloquio comperta, sed quaedam duntaxat ad dictam triplicem interpretationem esse adigenda.” Google Scholar

⁵⁶ De scripturis 3 (PL 175.11D–12A). Hugh returns to this topic with much more detail in his analysis in chapters 14–16 (20D–24A).Google Scholar

⁵¹ De doctrina christiana 1.2.2 and 2.1.1–2 (CCL 32.7–8, 32–33) are exemplary passages on words, things, and signification. On the relation of Hugh's exegetical theory to Augustine, see Zinn, , “The Influence of Augustine's De doctrina christiana” (n. 39 above), 48–60. In the same volume, see also Gibson, Margaret T., “The De doctrina christiana in the School of St. Victor,” 41–47, and Sweeney, Eileen C., “Hugh of St. Victor: the Augustinian Tradition of Sacred and Secular Reading Revised,” 61–83.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ De scripturis 3 (PL 175.12B): “Dicitur allegoria quasi alieniloquium, quia aliud dicitur et aliud significatur, quae subdividitur in simplicem allegoriam et anagogen.”Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid., 4 (12D–13A).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., 5 (13A–15A). The Indiculum has the title, “Quam sit necessaria lectio historica.” See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières” (η. 23 above), 278. In Migne the title is, “Quod sit necessaria interpretatio litteralis et historica.” Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. (15A).Google Scholar

⁶² See references in n. 39 above.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., 6 (15A–16B). Entitled “De ordine et numero divinorum librorum” in the Indiculum, this is the last chapter of De scripturis to receive a title in that list. See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières,” 278. The title in Migne is, “De ordine, numero et auctoritate librorum sacrae Scripturae.” Google Scholar

⁶⁴ De scripturis 6 = Didascalicon 4.2; De scripturis 7 = Didascalicon 4.3 and 4.4; De scripturis 8 = Didascalicon 4.4; De scripturis 9 = Didascalicon 4.5; De scripturis 10 = Didascalicon 4.6; De scripturis 11 = Didascalicon 4.7; De scripturis 12 = Didascalicon 4.4 and 4.16.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid. (16B-17A).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The details of these borrowings can be found in the footnotes in the edition of Buttimer and the translation of Taylor.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ De scripturis 8 (175.17A).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid., 9 (17A–18A).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid. (17D–18A). The received text of the Vulgate Old Testament in the Middle Ages was made up of Jerome's translation of the canonical books directly from the Hebrew text, with the exception of the Psalms, which were in the form of the Gallican Psalter, Jerome's revision of the received Latin text of the Psalter, a revision based on the Psalms text in Origen's Hexapla. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ De scripturis 10 (PL 175.18A–C).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., 11 (18C-D). On the importance of distinguishing between authentic and apocryphal works in the arts accessus texts, see Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship (n. 4 above), 10–12.Google Scholar

⁷² De scripturis 12 (PL 175.18D-20B). The parallels are in Did. 4.16, Buttimer 93–94, Taylor 118–19. For the passages from Isidore, see the notes for the Didascalicon chapter in Buttimer's text and Taylor's translation.Google Scholar

⁷³ De scripturis 13 (PL 175.20B-D).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid. (20B): “Nihil enim sine causa appeti debet; nec desiderium trahit, quod utilitatem non promittit.” Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid. (20B-C).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid. (20C).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁸ For knowledge and morality as the twofold goal of the study of philosophy, see Did. 1.1–5, 1.8, and 5.6, Buttimer 4–12, 15–16, and 104–5, Taylor 46–52, 54–55, and 127–28 with Taylor's introduction, 28–36. See Eileen Sweeney's consideration of the relation of the liberal arts to exegesis for Hugh and for Augustine; Sweeney, , “Hugh of St. Victor” (n. 57 above), 61–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ In De sacramentis 1, prol., 6 (PL 176.185C-D; Deferrari, 5–6 [n. 18 above]) Hugh presents knowledge of truth (gained through allegorical interpretation) and love of virtue (gained through tropological interpretation) as the divine science that leads to the “true restoration of man.” In the same section of De sacramentis Hugh repeats the association of history, allegory, and tropology with the trivium and quadrivium as in De scripturis. Interestingly enough, the prologue to De sacramentis repeats in a modified form several of the accessus topics treated in De scripturis: materia libri, modus tractandi, utilitas, cui parti philosophiae supponitur, and ordo libri. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See above at nn. 46 and 47.Google Scholar

⁸¹ De scripturis 14 (PL 175.20D-21D).Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., 3 (11D-12A).Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid., 14 (20D–21A): “… quia hanc [the signification of words] usus instituit, illam [the signification of things] natura dictavit. Haec [the signification of words] hominum vox et, illa [the signification of things] Dei ad homines. Significatio vocum est ex pactio hominum; significatio rerum naturalis est, et ex operatione Creatoris volentis quasdam res per alias significari.” See Did. 5.3, Buttimer 96, Taylor 121. The contrast here with Augustine is striking. M.-D. Chenu has pointed out that for Augustine, the deeper senses of Scripture are established by human agreement about the further signification of things. Chenu, M.-D., La théologie au douzième siècle, Études de philosophie médiévale 45 (Paris, 1957), 175–77; Eng. trans. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, sel., ed., and trans. Taylor, Jerome and Little, Lester K. (Chicago and London, 1968), 124–26. By “nature” in this passage, Hugh does not mean a self-acting principle different from the divine; he means, rather, “nature” as “the divine Wisdom, Second Person of the Godhead, conceived as archetypal exemplar of creation.” Taylor, , Didascalicon, n. 5 on p. 219, referring to “natura” in Did. 5.3.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Did. 5.3, Buttimer 97, Taylor 122.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See especially De scripturis 14 (PL 175.21B-C) for a basic statement of this, on which Hugh will elaborate.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Did. 4.1 and 5.3, Buttimer 70 and 97, Taylor 102 and 122.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See De scripturis 14 (PL 175.21A).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid., “Hae autem res primae per voces significatae, et res secundas significantes, sex circumstantiis discretae considerantur: quae sunt hae, videlicet res, persona, numerus, locus, tempus, gestum.” With this, see the four circumstances related to the study of Scripture ad historiam (person, time, place, and deed) in Did. 6.3, Buttimer 113–14, Taylor 135–36. Also note the title of the preface to Hugh's Chronicon: De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum, id est persona, locus, et temporum. See the edition of the preface in Green, W. M., “Hugo of St-Victor: De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum” (n. 17 above).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See, for example, Quintillian on “places” (loci) as related to arguments: Institutio oratoria 5.10.20–23, trans. Butler, H. E., 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1977), 2.213–14. Quintillian lists things, persons, causes, time, place, occasion, instruments, means, “and the like,” as the basis for arguments.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See De doctrina christiana 3.12.19–20 (CCL 32.89–90).Google Scholar

⁹² De Scripturis 14–16 (PL 175.21A–24A).Google Scholar

⁹³ The manuscripts are: Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek MS 257 (from Heiligenkreuz); Munich, Staatsbibliothek MSS Clm 17477 (Benedictines in Scheyern) and 18412 (Benedictines in Tegernsee); Paris, BNF MS Lat. 4891 (perhaps Italian, later in the Visconti and Sforza library, Milan); Vienna, Nationalbibliothek MSS 383 (Cathedral, Salzburg), 811 (Benedictines in Mondsee), 870 (from Austria), 1596 (unknown, but later in the Jesuit College in Vienna), 4913 (unknown, but later in the University library, Vienna). Information from Goy, Die Überlieferung, 44–47.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ De Scripturis 17 (PL 175.24A–D).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “Influence” (n. 17 above), esp. p. 43 for the periodization of history. The significance of this for Hugh has more recently been considered by Moore, Rebecca, “The Jews in World History According to Hugh of St. Victor,” Medieval Encounters: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture in Confluence and Dialogue 3 (1997), 1–19, esp. 8–12. (I am indebted to Charles H. Lohr for this last reference.) Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Zinn, , “Influence,” 46–47.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ De scripturis 17 (PL 175.24D).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid., 18 (25A–26D). The Indiculum does not include this chapter in its list of incipits of chapters. See de Ghellinck, , “La table des matières” (n. 23 above), 278.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See Did. 4.1, Buttimer 70–71, Taylor 102–3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See ibid., 5.3, Buttimer 97, Taylor 122.Google Scholar