¹ Clark, Mark J., “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” Mediaeval Studies 76 (2014): 57–113, at 113Google Scholar. The present study constitutes a sequel to the one published by Mediaeval Studies in 2014.

² The classic modern discussion of Lachmannian editorial method are the articles of Sebastiano Timpanaro: “La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, pt. 1,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 31 (1959): 182–228 Google Scholar and “La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, pt. 2,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 32 (1960): 38–63 Google Scholar, translated as: Timpanaro, Sebastiano, The Genesis of Lachmann's Method, ed. and trans. Most, Glenn W. (Chicago and London, 2005)Google Scholar. For a concise but standard account of Lachmann's contribution to editorial method, see Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G., Scribes and Scholars, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1991), 187–89Google Scholar.

³ My colleague at CUA, Professor Tim Noone, and I, after decades of trying to apply Lachmannian editorial method to medieval manuscripts and the scholastic works that they preserved — he working on the 1250–1350 period, I on the 1150–1250 period — came independently to the conclusion that Lachmannian editorial method does not apply to the vast majority of scholastic texts. We shall publish shortly a monograph in which we present and document our thesis that the High Middle Ages were primarily an oral culture and that scholars interested in any of the scholastic texts produced during that time must differentiate carefully between Lachmannian editorial method and technique.

⁴ See, to cite but one example of many that could be adduced for this common knowledge, Lesley Smith speaking of Abelard's teaching in her monograph, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden and Boston, 2009), 6 Google Scholar: “It is a resolutely oral exercise in an oral tradition of teaching.”

⁵ Copious evidence in support of this statement is adduced below in Part One of this study.

⁶ Ignatius Brady, the editor of the third and most recent critical edition of the Sentences, is explicit on this point: he and his predecessors had scoured extant manuscripts looking for the volumes containing the Lombard's lectures on the Bible. Brady, Ignatius, ed., Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi sententiae in IV libris distinctae (Grottaferrata, 1971–1981), vol. 1Google Scholar, Prolegomena to Sententiae, 2, 22*–23*. See also: Brady, Ignatius, “The Three Editions of the ‘Liber Sententiarum’ of Master Peter Lombard (1882–1977),” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 70 (1977): 400–411 Google Scholar.

⁷ The Lombard's incorporation of the logical theory of supposition into his lectures on Genesis, which is nowhere to be found in the Sentences, is sufficient proof of the former's later date. I shall shortly publish another study in which I show that the Lombard incorporated a great deal of his earlier teaching on the Sentences into his lectures on the Bible, at least in his treatment of the hexameron. That study will update and complete an earlier study (“Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed,” Traditio 60 [2005]: 85–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) in which I showed that Peter Comestor relied on the Lombard's treatment of the hexameron in the Sentences. From editing the Lombard's later lectures on Genesis, it is now evident that Peter Comestor was relying directly on the Lombard's lectures on Genesis and only indirectly on the Sentences.

⁸ Lacombe, George, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 5 (1930): 1–151 Google Scholar. Smalley, Beryl and Gregory, Alys, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 5 (1930): 152–266 Google Scholar.

⁹ Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I,” 18–51.

¹⁰ Ibid., 52–63.

¹¹ Ibid., 64–147.

¹² Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” 152.

¹³ Roberts, Phyllis B., Stephanus de Lingua-Tonante: Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton (Toronto, 1968)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Quinto, Riccardo, “Doctor Nominatissimus”: Stefano Langton (†1228) e la tradizione delle sue opere, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Texte und Untersuchungen, n.s. 39 (Münster, 1994)Google Scholar. The comprehensive bibliography Quinto provides in this volume for all studies bearing on Langton up to 1994 remains invaluable.

¹⁵ Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, Bériou, Nicole, Dahan, Gilbert, and Quinto, Riccardo, eds., Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, Bibliothèque d'histoire culturelle de Moyen Âge 9 (Turnhout, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This volume provides a twofold advantage of an attempt at comprehensive coverage of Langton's life and work and an up-to-date bibliography for each topic.

¹⁶ Langton, Stephen, Quaestiones Theologicae, Liber I, ed. Quinto, Riccardo and Bieniak, Magdalena, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 22 (Oxford, 2014)Google Scholar. This volume represents a major advance in our understanding of Langton's Quaestiones theologiae, since Quinto and Bieniak establish to the greatest extent possible an accurate understanding of the manuscript tradition for these collections of questions. Thus, the actual text of the first book of Langton's Quaestiones is preceded by a detailed introduction, 231 pages in length, most of which explicates the complex and variegated tradition of the different versions of Langton's theological questions. Ibid., 1–231.

¹⁷ The British Academy has undertaken to publish all of Langton's Quaestiones theologicae in five volumes, and Bieniak's receipt of a large research grant from the European Union to support the ongoing work of her and her team will go a long way to ensuring continuing and rapid progress of this project. Bieniak is also leading a collaborative effort, together with Francesco Siri and other outstanding scholars formerly in Quinto's circle, to edit Langton's lectures on the Lombard's magna glosatura on the Pauline epistles.

¹⁸ Those six, all in Part II (“Étienne Langton, exégète de la Bible”) of the same volume, Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Nicole Bériou, Gilbert Dahan, and Riccardo Quinto, eds., Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien are: Gilbert Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique,” 201–39; Martin Morard, “Étienne Langton et les commentaires-fantômes: Le cas du commentaire des Psaumes,” 241–84; Emmanuel Bain, “Étienne Langton, commentateur des Proverbes,” 285–326; Timothy Bellamah, “The Lament of a Preacher: Stephen Langton's Commentary Super Threnos,” 327–52; Giovanna Murano, “Chi ha scritto le Interpretationes hebraicorum nominum?” 353–71; Mark J. Clark, “The Commentaries of Stephen Langton on the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor,” 373–93.

¹⁹ Louis-Jacques Bataillon, “Les Douze Prophètes enseignés et prêchés par Étienne Langton,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, 427–47. For Langton's preaching Bataillon based his study upon two reports of a sermon given on 31 October 1199, the Eve of All Saints. Ibid., 427–28. For Langton's glosses on the twelve minor prophets, Bataillon examined numerous manuscripts for each of five groups listed in Stegmüller's Repertorium Biblicum. See Stegmüller, Friedrich, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, vol. 5, Commentaria R–Z (Madrid, 1955), 283–93Google Scholar, numbers 7841–908. From this examination, he not only learned that there are four series and not five, as Stegmüller supposed, but also that versions C and D (the third and fourth, respectively) are only extracts from A. Bataillon, “Les Douze Prophètes enseignés et prêchés par Étienne Langton,” 428–30, providing multiple references to Stegmüller's Repertorium Biblicum in notes 12–19. One can only rue the fact that Père Bataillon, now deceased, did not decide to get to the bottom of the tangled web of the manuscript traditions of all of Langton's Old Testament glosses!

²⁰ Gilbert Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, 201–39.

²¹ Ibid., 201–4.

²² Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique,” 237–39. I provide a working edition of this prefatory material herein as well, since it is central to my analysis. I show below that the prologue in question, Tabernaculum Moysi, is not Langton's but rather Peter Lombard's. I show also that it is not a “moral” prologue but rather the Lombard's introduction to the Pentateuch.

²³ “Tout d'abord, il aurait été bon de faire un point général sur la tradition manuscrite des commentaires d’Étienne Langton: le travail remarquable de George Lacombe et Beryl Smalley est paru en 1930; plusieurs études de Beryl Smalley (y compris son livre The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages) ont affiné la matière, non seulement sur le plan heuristique mais aussi sur celui des procédures exégétiques.” Ibid., 202.

²⁴ A long line of scholars have founded their work on the Bible in the Middle Ages explicitly on the foundation constructed by Smalley. The list is too long to provide names here. In truth, she founded a school of sorts.

²⁵ “Malgré l'utilité apparente de la chose, je ne pourrai pas proposer ici une mise à jour des études de 1930; il aurait fallu pour cette tâche plusieurs années exclusivement consacrées à l'examen de la tradition manuscrite des commentateurs bibliques de Langton.” Ibid., 202.

²⁶ “Je me demande si cela en vaut vraiment la peine, tant la publication de Lacombe et Smalley est riche et ne paraît comporter que peu de lacunes.” Ibid. Dahan does signal his intent to subject to critical scrutiny Smalley's typology of Langton's commentaries, that is, full, literal, and moral, which he maintains remains true only for the historical books of the Old Testament. Ibid.

²⁷ Lacombe dealt with the whole of Langton's Old Testament corpus, excluding the Psalms, in Chapter III of his lengthy study. See Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I” (n. 8 above), 64–147.

²⁸ Although their studies on the commentaries of Langton were meant to be complementary, Smalley's was founded on that of Lacombe and differed notably in the determinacy of its conclusions. For that reason, I begin with Lacombe's findings and then present Smalley's.

²⁹ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 152.

³⁰ Ibid., 153–54.

³¹ Ibid., 182.

³² See Clark, Mark J., The Making of the Historia scholastica: 1150–1200 (Toronto, 2015)Google ScholarPubMed, in which it is shown that Langton, who not only revised his initial lecture course on the History twice but also edited the History before 1176, while Comestor was still teaching, was arguably as important as Comestor in the formation, transformation, and dissemination of that work in the schools of Paris from 1170 to 1200.

³³ Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I,” 18–51.

³⁴ Clark, Mark J., “The Commentaries on Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica of Stephan Langton, Pseudo-Langton, and Hugh of St. Cher,” Sacris erudiri 44 (2005): 301–446, at 321–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Ibid. I continued to refine our knowledge of the collaboration of Comestor and Langton on the History in a series of articles published between 2007 and 2010: “Stephen Langton and Hugh of St. Cher on Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica: The Lombard's Sentences and the Problem of Common Sources,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 74 (2007): 63–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Peter Comestor and Stephen Langton: Master and Student, and Co-makers of the Historia scholastica ,” Medioevo 35 (2010): 123–50Google Scholar; “The Commentaries of Stephen Langton on the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien (n. 15 above), 373–93; “Le cours d’Étienne Langton sur l'Histoire scolastique de Pierre le Mangeur: Le fruit d'une tradition unifiée,” in Pierre de Troyes, dit Pierre le Mangeur, maître du XIIe siècle, ed. Dahan, G., Bibliothèque d'histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 12 (Turnhout, 2013), 243–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ This is a central finding of The Making of the Historia scholastica: 1150–1200.

³⁷ Thus, Colish writes: “In theology, our one datum from that period is Stephen Langton's inception sermon as master in 1180.” Colish, Marcia, “Scholastic Theology at Paris around 1200,” in Crossing Boundaries at the Medieval Universities: Intellectual Movements, Academic Disciplines, and Societal Conflict, ed. Young, Spencer A., Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 36 (Leiden, 2011), 31–50, at 29Google Scholar, noting the importance of this date in the work of Nancy Spatz. See Spatz, Nancy K., “Evidence of Inception Ceremonies in the Twelfth-Century Schools of Paris,” History of Universities 13 (1994): 3–19, at 4, 6–7, and 10–13Google Scholar. For the text of the sermon, see Roberts, Phyllis B., ed., Selected Sermons of Stephen Langton (Toronto, 1980), 17–34 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Riccardo Quinto, “La constitution du texte des Quaestiones theologiae d’Étienne Langton,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, 525–62, at 554 and n. 84: “Nous avons déjà rappelé la demonstration donnée par Mark Clark que la première version du commentaire de Langton sur l'Histoire Scolastique de Pierre le Mangeur ne peut pas être postérieure à 1176. … Langton doit donc avoir commenté cette œuvre quand il était encore un étudiant. Quant au moment où il devint maître, nous n'avons aucune certitude: l'année 1180 comme date de sa leçon inaugurale — hypothèse qui a acquis petit à petit un status de quasi-évidence — est simplement le fruit d'une série de conjectures avancées par Maurice Powicke et reprises par Roberts, Phyllis B. (voir “Stephanus de Lingua-Tonante”: Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton, Toronto, 1968, p. 1, note 6 et p. 224Google Scholar; la leçon inaugurale est datée de 1180 avec moins de nuances dans l’édition: Ph. Roberts, B., Selected Sermons of Stephen Langton, Toronto, 1980, p. 15)Google Scholar.”

³⁹ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 187–253. Langton's second and final revision of his course on the History dates to 1193.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 170–71.

⁴¹ A more precise estimate of the time of Langton's arrival in Paris to begin the Arts course awaits a determination of whether his lectures on Comestor's Historia scholastica were delivered at the beginning of his career as a theologian or subsequent to other theological work. This will only be determined through systematic editing of Langton's entire corpus. Somewhat remarkably, though, studies relying explicitly on the already-discredited chronology for Langton's Parisian career proposed by Powicke in 1928 and subsequently endorsed by Smalley, Baldwin, and others continue to appear. See, for example, LaVere, Suzanne, Out of the Cloister: Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs; 1100–1250 (Leiden and Boston, 2015)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, such ignorance of proven facts about Langton's career and corpus ends up undermining research that might otherwise be meritorious. See my review of LaVere's monograph to appear in The Journal of Mediaeval Latin (2017).

⁴² For a recent assessment of the central importance of the biblical Gloss to Comestor's History, see my study: “Peter Comestor's Historia Genesis and the Biblical Gloss ,” Medioevo 39 (2014): 135–70Google Scholar.

⁴³ Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I” (n. 8 above), 64.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 65.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 64.

⁴⁶ Thus, he writes: “This mass of ms. material can be classified through external resemblances into a certain number of homogenous groups; though this does not preclude diversities within each group, as will be seen later. To permit the reader to understand this classification, to appreciate the problems which arise from the ms. tradition, and to control the arguments which will be based thereon, it seems advisable to give a detailed description of a characteristic ms. in each class. Again it will be necessary to tabulate, to visualize, so to speak, this tradition. We must therefore abandon the usual method of grouping the mss. according to the libraries in which they are preserved, and classify them, as far as possible, according to their external family relations.” Ibid., 64.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 65–66.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 66–67.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 67–80.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 69.

⁵¹ Ibid., 80.

⁵² Ibid., 81.

⁵³ Ibid., 85.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 85 and n. 1.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 85: “The evidence does not permit us to affirm whether this dissociation of the Commentary with its fourfold sense of Scripture into its constituent parts was the work of Langton or of a contemporary editor.”

⁵⁶ Ibid.: “It … seems very doubtful.”

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 152.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 167.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 167 and footnote 3.

⁶¹ Ibid., 152.

⁶² Prologues and prefatory materials are by no means predictive of what will be found in the main body of medieval works, but in this case they suffice to make plain the impossibility of Smalley's theory. Moreover, I cite examples from lectures on the biblical books themselves sufficient to show that the prefatory materials in the case of Langton's Old Testament corpus are typical and not atypical in relation to those lectures.

⁶³ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” 167. Smalley lists the other three and their contents as follows: “Brit. Mus. Royal 2 E. 12 has Deuteronomy, Bibl. Nat. 374 Exodus, Bibl. Nat. 384 is a volume containing two mss. bound ogether [sic], the first of these has Leviticus.” Ibid.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 166–69.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 168.

⁶⁶ By “formatting” I mean the place of the lectures on the folios and specifically whether they are written in the main columns on each folio or copied into the margins. Where and how lectures and glosses are copied into a manuscript — and in most cases we are dealing with copies of lectures — reveals a great deal about how the manuscript came to have the form or “formatting” it now has.

⁶⁷ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 109–254.

⁶⁸ For multiple references by Langton to Comestor's History, see Mazarine 177, fol. 7r^b. For Langton's reference to the lectures of the predecessor, whose lectures and identity both he and his students take for granted, see Mazarine 177, fol. 2r^a, where speaking to his students about the four senses of Scripture Langton refers unmistakably to his predecessor's method of lecturing on the senses of Scripture: “et alias tres prosequitur et dupliciter secundum allegoriam.” That the reference refers to the lectures preserved in Cambridge MS, Corpus Christi 55, discussed at length below, is shown both by the practice of that earlier lecturer, which accords perfectly with Langton's description to his students, and with that first lecturer's own description of his practice: “allegorice dupliciter legitur” (Corpus Christi 55, fol. 1v^a). For these and all observations related to these two manuscripts discussed in this study I am indebted to my colleague, Dr. Joshua Benson, with whom I am editing the lectures on Genesis in all the manuscripts attributed to Stephen Langton. He and I, working together with Alexander Andrée of the University of Toronto, are preparing editions of these many lectures.

⁶⁹ The process, therefore, is very much like that displayed in the extant manuscripts of the Historia scholastica. See Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 157–86.

⁷⁰ Smalley says nothing about the relationship of these two manuscripts to Durham MS A. I. 7 and other allegedly identical manuscripts preserving “full” commentaries on the Pentateuch that she names. But careful collation reveals that Mazarine 177 and BNF, lat. 14414 are related to Durham MS A. I. 7 and those other manuscripts in ways that seem to have escaped Smalley's notice altogether.

⁷¹ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 168.

⁷² I provide all she does say below in Part Two, where the importance of this manuscript is treated in detail.

⁷³ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” 168.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 167 and 168.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 168–69.

⁷⁶ A comparison of the material in Corpus Christi 55, at fol. 1r^b with that in Royal 2 E xii, at fol. 2v^a suffices to make this clear.

⁷⁷ In fact, during the time period following my submission of this study and its publication, we have ascertained from preliminary editing of these manuscripts that the lectures preserved in British Library MS, Royal 2 E xii and in BNF, lat. 14415 and 14435 are very early lectures of Stephen Langton on Genesis, which depend upon and incorporate much of the lectures on Genesis preserved in Cambridge MS, Corpus Christi 55. These latter lectures both predate and postdate Comestor's Historia scholastica, since although they are also attributable to Langton, who lectured on Genesis after the Historia scholastica, they also incorporate earlier lectures that predate the History. I discuss some of this earlier lecture material, below in this study, when I set forth the evidence for Peter Lombard's authorship of the original lectures.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 167.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 169–70.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 170. The passage in question has a reference to “magister noster” which, as I show below, is invaluable. I provide, below in Part Two, a transcription of the entire passage as well as a comprehensive summary of Smalley's discussion of it.

⁸¹ Ibid.

⁸² The reading in the manuscript is the grammatically correct noun in the ablative case, “altari.” I provide a full transcription of the prologue to Genesis in Durham A. I. 7, below in Part Two, subsection B.

⁸³ The reading in the manuscript is the correct one: “huic et inde.” Lacombe simply misread the manuscript in these places.

⁸⁴ Here again Lacombe, who must have been working very hastily, misrepresents a manuscript. Paris MS, BNF, lat. 14435, for the portion provided here by Lacombe actually reads as follows (at the top of fol. 147r^a): “In Exodo legitur trigesimo septimo capitulo: facies mihi altare.” I provide a full transcription of this prologue as well, below in Part Two, subsection B. The first two prologues in this manuscript and in BNF, lat. 14415 are closely related to those in British Library, Royal MS, 2 E xii, which I examined in person this summer.

⁸⁵ Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I” (n. 8 above), 80.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 83: “In dealing with prologues and incipits, however, a certain cautiousness is necessary. Prologues are attached to works and detached from them with disconcerting facility; at times different prologues hide the same work.”

⁸⁷ Ibid., 84–85: “It is incomprehensible that Langton himself should have composed a prologue for a purely moral gloss — the mystical sense of number had too strong a hold on the medieval mind.”

⁸⁸ Ibid., 82–86.

⁸⁹ See Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 154, where, speaking of her tripartite classification, she writes: “Conclusive proof however, must start from the inner coherence of the works themselves. We may begin with the prologues. Mgr. Lacombe has noticed the discussion of the double sense of the Scriptures in Langton's prologue to Genesis. This same distinction is drawn in the prologue to almost every one of the books commented. Langton stresses the need for an adequate understanding of the letter, the basis, he says, of the spiritual exposition. As Mgr Lacombe observes, Langton's remark would be pointless if he only intended to comment on the moral, and not both the literal and moral senses. Only the full and the moral commentaries, it may be explained, have this prologue; it does not apply to the literal.”

⁹⁰ Ibid., 154–55.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Ibid., 170.

⁹³ Ibid., 170–71: “Peterhouse 112 and Chartres 294 each give two prologues which I shall call A and B. In Peterhouse 112 f ^o 1^b, B follows A without any break. There is nothing, except the reiteration of ideas, to show that we have two prologues instead of one. Chartres 294 f ^o 1r gives A, only in the text proper; B is written in the breadth of the margin along the foot, in the same hand as the text. The other mss. of group ‘one’ omit B altogether. Of group ‘two,’ Royal 2. E. XII has B only; Corpus 55 has no B, but a variant of A. Durham A. I. 7 also omits B. It has a prologue beginning with ten lines which are peculiar to this MS, the remainder is practically identical with the A of group ‘one.’”

⁹⁴ Ibid., 171.

⁹⁵ I am grateful for the help of my colleagues, Joshua Benson and Tim Noone, who generously agreed to help me sort out the patently complex state of Langton's biblical corpus. Noone's view that Langton's corpus may be even more complicated than that of Duns Scotus, whose extant corpus was so complicated that it took decades to unravel, provides a fair estimation of the difficulties presented by the manuscript tradition preserving Langton's biblical corpus.

⁹⁶ One such occurrence is fascinating, since we read in BNF, lat. 14435, fol. 147v^a: “FAMOSISSIMA MENSA, ut dixit Magister Iohannes Saresberiensis, legitur in libro Valerii Maximi.” By his own admission, John of Salisbury crossed to France in 1136 to study in Paris. Peter Lombard here refers to him as Magister, which is certainly a reference to be investigated. It is worth mentioning in this context that my colleague Tim Noone and I are tracing the scholastic trail of the logical theory of supposition, discussed at some length in this study, which makes its first known appearance in the lectures on the Bible of Peter Lombard and which was developed in the logical schools founded by Peter Abelard. John of Salisbury is a central figure in that scholastic trail that leads directly from Peter Abelard to Peter Lombard, and so the Lombard's reference to his oral teaching here is especially valuable.

⁹⁷ I discuss this passage, which is found in the same two manuscripts just cited, BNF, lat. 14415 and 14435, below in Part Three.

⁹⁸ For the former, see Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 157–253. I document the latter, below in Part Three, subsection A.ii.

⁹⁹ This nuances Jaeger's view that oral culture died in the twelfth century. Jaeger, C. Stephen, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950–1200 (Philadelphia, 1994), 325–26Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ This manuscript is available online through the Parker Library. I am very grateful to Elizabeth Dumas and Steven Archer of the Corpus Christi Library in Cambridge, who graciously provided me with access, personal and digital, to this manuscript.

¹⁰¹ Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I” (n. 8 above), 65.

¹⁰² Ibid., 81.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 80. That he did not do so is paradoxical in the light of his own salutary advice to “make due allowance for variations in the incipits which mislead us into thinking that a difference in incipit indicates a different work.” Ibid. Presumably he himself was misled by an incipit, “Tabernaculum Moysi,” shared in common with other manuscripts. We shall never know, but what is certain is that Lacombe gives no indication that he is aware of the unique contents of this manuscript.

¹⁰⁴ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 168.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid.

¹⁰⁶ Bataillon, Bériou, Dahan, and Quinto, eds., Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien (n. 15 above).

¹⁰⁷ Rainer Berndt, SJ, “Étienne Langton et Les Victorins ou L'Embarras des Lacunes,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, 125–63, at 159. I would be remiss not to point out that this particular study must be approached with considerable caution, since the author seems to ascribe to Stephen Langton lectures on the Gospels known to have been given by Peter Comestor. Ibid., 142, 145, 150, 151, and throughout.

¹⁰⁸ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” 161, where, speaking of Langton, Smalley observes: “It is rather interesting to note that he seems to have expounded the Sacred Books in much the same order recommended by Hugh of St. Victor to those who would study their allegorical significance.” Smalley repeats the same observation in her monograph. Quoted and translated by Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd rev. ed. (Oxford, 1984), 198 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Ignatius Brady, ed., Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi sententiae in IV libris distinctae (n. 6 above), vol. 1, Prolegomena, 20*, quotes it verbatim: “Insuper habuimus omnes libros eius glosatos, scilicet: Novum Testamentum totum; in Vetere Testamento: Psalterium, quinque libros Moysi, quatuor maiores Prophetas, duodecim minores, Cantica, Iob, Hester, Thobiam, Iudith, librum Sapientie, Ecclesiasticum, Sententias eiusdem et Decreta Gratiani.”

¹¹⁰ The manuscript reads “temperiem,” which would mean temperance or moderation. The context, however, clearly requires “intemperiem,” and the copyist of this manuscript, or another copyist somewhere up the line, made a simple mistake. Whenever that mistake was made, the lecturer clearly meant “intemperiem.”

¹¹¹ The manuscript reads “aereum,” which would mean of bronze or copper.

¹¹² The copyist substituted “croco,” from “crocus,” saffron of a yellowish-orange color, for the scarlet-colored berry named in Exodus.

¹¹³ The copyist again substitutes “crocus/m” for “coccus/m,” and in the manuscript we find: “crocum bi sticum.” This is an indication either that the copyist of these lectures could not understand what he was reading, or it could mean that the original reporter was not able to hear what was said.

¹¹⁴ The “quia” and the “cum” are both found in the manuscript, even though they duplicate each other in meaning “since.” This is almost certainly a vestige of the original lecture, which would have had such imprecisions in it.

¹¹⁵ The reference here is to Christian status as sojourners on earth.

¹¹⁶ The reference here is to the heavenly homeland.

¹¹⁷ Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.

¹¹⁸ The lecturer here recalls the ten curtains, which were joined together in five pairs to cover the huge tent of Moses, described in Exodus 26:1–3 and 36:8–10.

¹¹⁹ The manuscript reads “pinet.” The copyist evidently could not read the grapheme.

¹²⁰ I am grateful to my colleague, Joshua Benson, who noticed this omission by homeoteleuton in the text preserved in Corpus Christi 55, which I have rectified with a text approximating that of the original. This was easy to accomplish from the context, which makes perfectly clear what is missing. The emended text, therefore, makes much better sense than that preserved in Corpus Christi 55, which would otherwise be unintelligible.

¹²¹ I have supplied “quinque,” the correct reading, since the manuscript has only a vacant space (a spat. vac. in editorial parlance). The copyist could not read the grapheme here and left the space blank as a result.

¹²² I supplied here the correct reading, “spiritus,” since the manuscript has “patris.” What happened is clear enough: the copyist made a mistake that all copyists make, an eye-skip error, and repeated “patris” after “persona.” In this case, his eye skipped backwards.

¹²³ Lambertus Marie De Rijk, Logica Modernorum: A Contribution to the History of Early Terminist Logic, 2 vols. (Assen, 1962).

¹²⁴ Ibid., vol. 2, pt. 1, The Origin and Early Development of the Theory of Supposition, 229–34, citing here and throughout the volume Hunt, Richard William, “Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, I: Petrus Helias and His Predecessors,” Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1941–43): 194–231 Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Ebbesen, Stan, “Early Supposition Theory (12th–13th century),” in Histoire Épistémologie Langage 3 (1981): 35–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Iwakuma, Yukio and Ebbesen, Stan, “Logical-Theological Schools from the Second Half of the 12th Century: A List of Sources,” Vivarium 30 (1992): 173–210 Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Kneepkens, Corneille Henri, “ Suppositio and Supponere in 12th-Century Grammar,” in Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica Modernorum: Actes du septième symposium européen d'histoire de la logique et de la sémantique médiévales, Poitiers 17–22 Juin 1985, ed. Jolivet, J. and de Libera, Alain (Naples, 1987), 325–51, at 341–42Google Scholar. Pinborg and Nielson had already advanced the same hypothesis, as did Alain de Libera in the same volume in which Kneepkens argued that the trail led back from the grammarian of the later twelfth century, Petrus Helias, who used the word “supponere,” to Gilbert of Poitiers. See Pinborg, Jan, “Review of L. M. de Rijk, Logica Modernorum II,” Vivarium 6 (1968): 155–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter: Ein Überblick (Stuttgart, 1972), 47–49 Google Scholar; Nielsen, Lauge Olaf, Philosophy and Theology in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Gilbert Porreta's Thinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130–1180, Acta Theologica Danica 15 (Leiden, 1982), 105 Google Scholar; Alain de Libera, “Logique et théologie dans la Summa quoniam homines d'Alain de Lille,” in Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica Modernorum, 437–69, at 455.

¹²⁷ See Ebbesen, Stan, “Early Supposition Theory II,” in Medieval Supposition Theory Revisited, ed. Bos, E. P. in collaboration with Braakhuis, H. A. G., Duba, W., Kneepkens, C. H., and Schabel, C. (Leiden, 2013), 60–78, at 61Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Valente, Luisa, Logique et Théologie: Les écoles parisiennes entre 1150 et 1220 (Paris, 2008), at 275–96Google Scholar. Valente has produced many fine studies on logic and language during the second half of the twelfth century. See for example: Valente, Luisa, “Langage et théologie pendant la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle,” in Sprachtheorien in Spätantike und Mittelalter, ed. Ebbesen, Stan (Tübingen, 1995), 33–54 Google Scholar; eadem, “Fallaciae et théologie pendant la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle,” in Medieval Analyses in Language and Cognition: Acts of the Symposium, The Copenhagen School of Medieval Philosophy, January 10–13, 1996, ed. Ebbesen, Stan and Friedman, Russell (Copenhagen, 1999), 207–36Google Scholar; eadem, “‘Cum non sit intelligibilis, nec ergo significabilis’: Modi significandi, intelligendi ed essendi nella theologia del XII secolo,” Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 11 (2000): 133–94Google Scholar; eadem, “Aequivoca oder Univoca? Die essentialen Namen in der Trinitätstheologie um die Wende des 12. Jahrhunderts,” in Logik und Theologie: Das Organon in arabischen und im lateinischen Mittelalter, ed. Perler, Dominik and Rudolph, Ulrich (Leiden and Boston, 2005)Google Scholar; idem, “La théologie grammaticale: Pierre le Chantre, Alain de Lille, Prévostin de Crémone,” in Philosophie et Théologie au Moyen Âge, vol. 2, ed. Boulnois, Olivier (Paris, 2009), 177–92Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ See also Valente, Luisa, “Logica et teologia trinitaria in Pietro Lombardo e nel trattato porretano Summa Zwettlensis,” in Pietro Lombardo: Atti del XLIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8–10 ottobre 2006 (Spoleto, 2007), 23–50 Google Scholar; eadem, “Talia sunt subiecta qualia praedicata permittunt: Le principe de la suppositio et son évolution dans la théologie du XIIe siècle,” in La Tradition médiévale des catégories (XIIe–XVe siècles), ed. Biard, Joël and Rosier-Catach, Irène (Louvain, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2003), 289–311 Google Scholar; eadem, “Praedicaturi supponimus: Is Gilbert of Poitiers’ Approach to the Problem of Linguistic Reference a Pragmatic One?” Vivarium 49 (2011): 50–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁰ He did so in a study published in 1993 centered around Walter of Chatton's discussion in his Lectura of the question posed by Peter Lombard in the fourth distinction of the first book of the Sentences, namely, whether God begot God. Brown, Stephen F., “Medieval Supposition Theory in Its Theological Context (with an Edition of Walter Chatton's Lectura, I, d.4, q.1, aa.1–2),” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 3 (1993): 121–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing at 122 and in n. 5 Lombard, Peter, Sententiae 1.4.1, ed. Brady, Ignatius (Grottaferrata, 1971), 77, line 21Google Scholar. After reviewing the little that was known about the twelfth-century origins of supposition theory from De Rijk's magisterial research, Brown suggested that scholars interested in tracing those origins would do well to investigate discussions of Trinitarian and Incarnational theology in twelfth-century theological literature. Ibid., 121–23. This study confirms the prescience of Brown's insight.

¹³¹ According to Ebbesen, Langton “had developed a fairly complex theological theory of supposition in the 1180s/1190s, with a distinction between suppositio essentialis and suppositio personalis at its centre. I wondered aloud whether this meant that the logical distinction between simplex and personalis had its origin in theology. If this were so, the logical use of the notion of suppositio might be as late as the 90s, or possibly even later, depending on how many of De Rijk's early dates of logical treatises could be raised, and by how much. Of course, if simplex and personalis were artists’ creations from the 70s or early 80s, Langton might have been inspired by the artists.” Ebbeson, “Early Supposition Theory II,” 65. See also Luisa Valente, “Logique et théologie trinitaire chez Étienne Langton: ‘res,’ ‘ens,’ suppositio communis et propositio duplex,” in Étienne Langton: Prédicateur, bibliste, théologien (n. 15 above), 563–85.

¹³² Valente, Luisa, “Supposition Theory and Porretan Theology: Summa Zwettlensis and Dialogus Ratii et Everardi,” Vivarium 51 (2013): 119–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Medieval Supposition Theory Revisited.

¹³³ Stan Ebbesen, “Early Supposition Theory II,” 72, n. 43: “I am inclined to think that the Summa Zwettlensis is a work from about the 1170s. Häring's date ‘before 1150’ rests on his very doubtful attribution of the work to one Peter of Poitiers/Vienna…. If I am right, the Summa is approximately contemporary with Peter of Poitiers's Sententiae, in which supponere is used in a relevant way, but without any developed system of types of supposition,” citing Valente's reliance on Häring's date.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 68–72.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 72.

¹³⁶ Since these latter have to do directly with the lectures on Frater Ambrosius that follow the prefatory materials treated in this study, I shall say nothing about them here other than to note their evident diversity and orality. We shall publish in the near future a study featuring all of these prologues and clarifying their authorship, purpose, and relationship one to another.

¹³⁷ Dahan provides a transcription of this prologue, taken from BNF, lat. 355, as an addendum to his study of Langton as exegete. Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique” (n. 18 above), 237–39. He lists it as and considers it to be Langton's prologue to the so-called Moral Commentary on the Pentateuch, doubtless since in BNF, lat. 355 it precedes lectures on the moral sense. Ibid., 237. But the fact is that this prologue is no such thing. It is, as I shall now show, Langton's introduction to the Pentateuch, founded upon the introduction to the same of his distinguished predecessor, contained in Corpus Christi 55.

¹³⁸ I have not yet collated enough material to know which is true, although I will know for certain once I have gotten well into the lectures on the Pentateuch.

¹³⁹ I supply here the correct reading, “spiritus,” since the manuscript has “patris.” What happened is clear enough: the copyist made a mistake that all copyists make, an eye-skip error, and repeated “patris” after “persona.” In this case, his eye skipped backwards.

¹⁴⁰ Different versions of these same three “Langton” commendations are found in the lectures preserved in Durham A. I. 7, at fol. 1r^b. This manuscript preserves the prologue entitled “Volavit ad me,” which for the same reasons adduced herein must also be by Langton. Durham A. I. 7, therefore, preserves a different set of lectures by Langton introducing the Bible. Our oral tradition is not only multilayered in the sense that it consists of lectures by different masters, but it is also complicated owing to the preservation of different sets of lectures by the same master, in this case Langton.

¹⁴¹ Since I have already provided translations for each part of the prologue that heads Corpus Christi 55, I re-present here only the Latin text for ready comparison with that in Langton's version.

¹⁴² The word “munimentum” used by the lecturer in Corpus Christi 55 is worth noting here, since it is also a favorite word of Peter Comestor in constructing his prologues. It appears prominently in Comestor's explication of the prologues to John's Gospel, with which Comestor begins his own lectures on the Glossed John. Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris” (n. 1 above), 100. Comestor may have picked it up from this lecturer, since as I show below the lectures preserved in Corpus Christi 55 are also the basis for Comestor's Historia scholastica.

¹⁴³ Here we see the nexus between the original orality and the layers of orality embedded in the surviving texts, copies of lectures available to Langton and other masters. Editors and interpreters of such texts must be aware of multiple levels of error, some attributable to orality and some to copying. It is a complex reality, much more so than has been realized to date.

¹⁴⁴ “Le seul point sur lequel il faudrait s'interroger (et ma communication essaiera d'apporter une réponse à cette question) est celui de la typologie des commentaires proposée par Beryl Smalley: commentaires complets, commentaires littéraux, commentaires spirituels. Certes, la tradition manuscrite montre que cette typologie reste juste, mais elle ne concerne que les livres historiques de l'Ancien Testament. Pour les autres, il faudrait sans doute reprendre celle que propose George Lacombe d'une manière non systématique et non sans exprimer lui-même bien des doutes.” Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique,” 203.

¹⁴⁵ To establish this here would double the length of an already lengthy study, since the evidence is copious. Let it suffice to note here simply my distinct impression that these lectures, together with the biblical Gloss, constitute one of Comestor's most important sources for the History.

¹⁴⁶ My colleagues, Joshua Benson at CUA and Alexander Andrée at Toronto, and I have already begun to edit Comestor's Historia Pentateuchi and the many versions of Langton's lectures on the Pentateuch.

¹⁴⁷ Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” 81–113.

¹⁴⁸ For the latter two manuscripts, while in Durham I profited from the personal assistance of Richard Gameson, who graciously shared with me his catalog descriptions as well as the following bibliographic information: Richard Gameson, The Medieval Manuscripts of Trinity College Oxford: A Descriptive Catalogue (Oxford, forthcoming); and idem, The Medieval Manuscripts of Durham Cathedral Library: A Descriptive Catalogue (in progress).

¹⁴⁹ Langton's lectures on Genesis manifestly presuppose those of an earlier master, but to say more we shall have to edit the lectures on the other books preserved in Corpus Christi 55: the remainder of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four Books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles or Paralipomenon, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, Maccabees, and Isaiah.

¹⁵⁰ Comestor takes over verbatim many of the glosses contained therein and systematically mines the teachings. The lectures preserved in Corpus Christi 55 may prove to be his principal source for the History, as important as the biblical Gloss. All those that ultimately prove to be lectures of Peter Lombard must predate his death in 1160.

¹⁵¹ The number of unknown authors who claimed the name of a famous author for their own work is very high, and the business of self-identification is a well-known cottage industry for the vast literature produced by “pseudos”: Pseudo-Dionysius, the many Pseudo-Bedes and Pseudo-Langtons. But there is internal evidence and self-identification that can be verified, which is precisely what will be presented here.

¹⁵² Apart from the evidence presented in this section, proof of this statement must await another study, which will be of necessity as lengthy as this one. The reason for this is that we now know from our editing the order of the many layers of the lectures, at least for Genesis and all of the prefatory materials, that constitute the School of Paris. As I indicate below, the lectures preserved in the main columns of Corpus Christi 55 are the primitive, although the biblical Gloss on Genesis is the principal source for these lectures and could thereby be deemed the primitive. Comestor's Historia Genesis is next in chronological line, and this supplants the biblical Gloss as a source for the literal/historical sense, as the marginalia in Corpus Christi 55 make plain. It should be noted that Comestor's History is invaluable precisely because the lectures preserved in Corpus Christi 55, attributed to Langton, preserve two layers of lectures: those predating and serving as the foundation for Comestor's History, which as I show in this section are the Lombard's; and those that postdate and presuppose the History, which are Langton's. Langton continues to use the Lombard's lectures in multiple sets of lectures, on Genesis as on other Old Testament books, that build upon each other starting in the 1170s and continuing up to 1200. There are at least ten discrete layers of oral lecturing, all of which constitute one Parisian tradition, between the 1150s and 1200, and owing to our editing we can now show their authorship, order, and chronology. Hence the length of the study to come of this biblical material that constitutes the principal theological bridge between the death of Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor in 1141 and the work of Praepositionus and others that launches the thirteenth century.

¹⁵³ Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Isidore Hilberg (Vienna, 1910), Epistula 53, 449.16–19. Note that the Lombard had the version of this text, documented in the apparatus of the CSEL edition, that includes the word “doctus.” Jerome concludes by citing 1 Corinthians 1:19 to make his point.

¹⁵⁴ In both BNF manuscripts, we find “dixi,” first-person singular, whereas in the British Library manuscript, we find “dicit,” third-person singular. My reason for choosing the former over the latter is simple and straightforward: all three manuscripts depend on the lectures on Genesis preserved in Corpus Christi 55, which is the primitive. The direction, therefore, runs from Corpus Christi 55, the primitive, which has abundant and first-person language, to those three, which preserve that language, and as a consequence it is evident that “dixi” was the original lecturer's language, such that “dicit” is a routine copying error made by a scribe who misunderstood the minims in the exemplar. Further evidence for this line of reasoning is the fact that BNF, lat. 14435 is on one branch of the stemma, while BNF, lat. 14415 and Royal 2 E xii are on the other. Both branches, therefore, have “dixi,” which must mean that this was the reading up the line in the common exemplar. It is also probative that all three manuscripts preserve the first-person plural “dicimus” of the original lecturer in this passage. Finally, the fact that the context of the whole passage, which makes clear that the Lombard is referring to his own earlier lectures, confirms decisively my choice of this reading.

¹⁵⁵ In all three manuscripts “contra” appears, which could stand for the adverb “contra,” as I present it here, or as an abbreviation for the noun, “contrarium.” In either case, the meaning is clear. Langton, whose lectures on this passage refer clearly to those presented here, speaks in terms of a “contrarium.”

¹⁵⁶ I am grateful to my colleague in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at CUA, Joshua Benson, who first discovered this passage while transcribing and who authorized me to cite it herein.

¹⁵⁷ I provide here an eclectic text based on two manuscripts to ensure that the text is accurate and complete, since each manuscript contains errors. I make use of these two manuscripts, rather than providing the edition of the Lombard's lectures on Colossians reproduced in the Patrology (“In Ep. ad Colossenses,” PL 192: 270D–272B, at 267A et seq.) for the sake of scholarly probity. The Lombard's lectures on Colossians have never been edited critically, and although the text reproduced in the Patrology serves perfectly well the purpose of supporting my arguments in this study (since it reports the Lombard's engagement with Augustine's reading of the books of the Platonists as regards the mystery of the Incarnation), nevertheless it differs sufficiently from that found in the manuscripts to warrant caution about presenting either as in fact the Lombardian original. As is well known, those who cite the texts reproduced in the Patrology as authoritative do so at their peril. For this reason, I present here the text found in the manuscripts, since that in the Patrology is readily available to any interested reader.

¹⁵⁸ Like Augustine, the Lombard provides this quotation from the Gospels (Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21), but, unlike Augustine, the Lombard places the quote in the middle, rather than at the end, of his explication.

¹⁵⁹ Here the Lombard quotes Augustine, apparently from memory, since although there are substantial portions that are verbatim, the whole quotation is a capsule summary of a much longer passage taken from book 7, chapter 9 of the Confessions.

¹⁶⁰ For ease of comparison, I have highlighted in bold letters the words and phrases “borrowed” from Augustine by the Lombard. I do not provide a translation of the Augustinian original, since readers can see at a glance the Lombard's appropriation of Augustine's own language. Translations of the Confessions are in any case readily available elsewhere.

¹⁶¹ Smith's recent summary is typical of all recent scholarship on the Lombard. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria (n. 4 above), 78.

¹⁶² Lacombe, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part I” (n. 8 above), 84.

¹⁶³ We find this same evidence in lectures on Frater Ambrosius preserved in BNF, lat. 14415 and 14435, the contents of which are as we have seen related not only to Corpus Christi 55 but also to Royal 2 E xii.

¹⁶⁴ On the very next column we find the phrase, “Magister vero dicit quod credit istud dictum esse …”: BNF, lat. 14415, fol. 2r^b; BNF, lat. 14435, fol. 148r^a.

¹⁶⁵ The texts and folio numbers are provided above in n. 96.

¹⁶⁶ This is clearly seen from the lemmata, which are taken directly from the Lombard's Gloss on Colossians. This transcription is from the manuscript Olomouc 146, near the bottom of fol. 81r^b: “secundum dispensationem quae data est mihi in vobis gentibus mihi in Actibus Apostolorum … quod A MEIS DISCIPULIS respondet glosa tacite obiectioni UT IMPLEAM et ID EST IMPLETUM OSTENDAM etc. praeordinavit dico hic vos scilicet gentes PER CHRISTI INCARNATIONEM SALVARI hoc ut philosophis secretum fuit et absconsum NON ESSE PROMISSA GENTIBUS acquisitis SED NOTUM ERAT aliquibus IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBUM NUSQUAM ERAT LECTUM VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST ETC. QUAE AD SACRAMENTUM INCARNATIONIS PERTINENT quasi et si deitatem (dup. et corr. ex divinitatem in cod.) philosophi noverunt, non tamen Christi incarnationem nec eius … nec eius humanitatem. Unde nomen continens et explicans mysterium incarnationis et passionis dictum est ineffabile.”

¹⁶⁷ The reading in the manuscript is “Latina,” which I have amended for obvious reasons.

¹⁶⁸ The reading in the manuscript is “ubi,” which I have also amended.

¹⁶⁹ Corpus Christi 55, fol. 1r^b.

¹⁷⁰ See Paris MS, BNF, lat. 14415, fol. 3r^b, Paris MS, BNF, lat. 14435, fol. 148v^b, and British Library MS, Royal 2 E xii, fol. 10r^b. Comparison of the lectures on Genesis preserved in these three manuscripts with those in Corpus Christi 55 show that this transition is one of the few words omitted by Langton. Benson and I will shortly publish a study setting forth the comprehensive evidence that establishes the order and relationship between the lectures on Genesis in Corpus Christi 55, Peter Comestor's Historia Genesis, and Langton's first lectures on all four senses of Scripture.

¹⁷¹ “Item: nota quod quattuor sunt partes Sacrae Scripturae: historia quae narrat rem prout gesta est, allegoria quae per unum factum aliud figurat, tropologia quae quid faciendum sit ostendit. Et illas tres prosequitur et dupliciter secundum allegoriam (emphasis supplied). Anagogice refertur ad supernam ciuitatem. Ista quattuor inueniuntur in hoc nomine Ierusalem: historice est ciuitas illa materialis, allegorice Ecclesia militans, tropologice anima fidelis, anagogice Ecclesia triumphans.” Text quoted from Bodleian MS, Trinity College 65, fol. 3v^b and from Cambridge MS, Trinity College 86 (B. 3. 7), fol. 8r^a–b.

¹⁷² “Allegorice dupliciter legitur istud: de Ecclesia, de Sacra Scriptura. De Ecclesia sic: In principio , id est in Filio, creavit c aelum et terram id est Ecclesiam.” Cambridge MS, Corpus Christi 55, fol. 1v^a.

¹⁷³ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 179. The full passage, which is found at fol. 1r^b of this manuscript, makes plain that Langton is lecturing and also makes plain to his students the context for Lombard's objection: “Qui captus esset in diebus Salmanasar regis Assiriorum etc. Per istud patet quod ante captivitatem factum est istud quod hic dicitur. Nota quod hic obicit Magister de quodam contrario, quod ad praesens praetermittimus.” I am grateful to Joanna Bowring, College Librarian for Exeter College, Oxford, for helping me to obtain digitial photos of this manuscript.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid.

¹⁷⁵ Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris” (n. 1 above), 82–88.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid.

¹⁷⁹ The beginning of the Historia Tobiae, in which this episode is explicated, may be found at Vienna MS, fol. 133r^b and at Paris MS, BNF, lat. 16943, fol. 111r^b. These are the two earliest extant manuscripts of the History. The former closely approximates the text that Langton used for his lectures before 1176. See Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 157–86.

¹⁸⁰ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II,” 178.

¹⁸¹ Ibid., 178–79.

¹⁸² My text is based on Corpus Christi 55, fol. 208r^a and Peterhouse 112, fol. 155r^b. In the interests of brevity, I will not here note the variants, many of which clearly indicate copying errors that show the lectures in both manuscripts to be copies. The text that I present is eclectic by necessity, since it should be as easy to understand as it was in the lectures, defective copies of which were subsequently made. I do, however, provide the references for the biblical passages quoted in the lecture.

¹⁸³ The quotation is from Isaiah 9:1.

¹⁸⁴ Tobit 13:11.

¹⁸⁵ Actually a different ruler, Shalmanezer V.

¹⁸⁶ The reference is to the “history of Tobit,” which interestingly enough anticipates the structure of Comestor's Histories.

¹⁸⁷ Here again, I present an eclectic text, based on Vienna MS 363, at fol. 133r^b, and on Paris MS, BNF, lat. 16943, at fol. 111r^b.

¹⁸⁸ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 84–156.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. Tobit 14:5–6: “In hora autem mortis suae vocavit ad se Tobiam filium suum, et septem iuvenes filios eius nepotes suos, dixitque eis: prope erit interitus Ninivae. Non enim excidit verbum Domini, et fratres nostri, qui dispersi sunt a terra Israel, revertentur ad eam. Omnis autem deserta terra eius replebitur, et domus Dei, quae in ea incensa est, iterum reaedificabitur.”

¹⁹⁰ I have to note this variant, “sic,” since I am reading against both manuscripts, which have “si.” But I do so since it is obvious that the reading in these two manuscripts is a copying error.

¹⁹¹ I omit this final portion of Comestor's explication as irrelevant to the question before us.

¹⁹² Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 187–253.

¹⁹³ Ibid.

¹⁹⁴ For the convenience of the reader, I again present here an eclectic text based on that found in both of these manuscripts: BNF, lat. 14414, starting at fol. 99v^b, and Mazarine 177, starting at fol. 79v^a.

¹⁹⁵ Here we find the one major variant between the two manuscripts in this section. For the text just highlighted in bold, “Sexto anno enim Ezechiae captivatus est; sunt decem tribus cum quibus captivatus est Tobias et filius eius,” Mazarine 177 has instead: “Sexto enim anno Ezechiae captivatae sunt decem tribus cum quibus captivatus est Tobit et filius eius.” This may mean two different branches of the same lecture.

¹⁹⁶ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 179.

¹⁹⁷ Ibid., in n. 1.

¹⁹⁸ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 231–50.

¹⁹⁹ As always, I here present one text based on both manuscripts: Corpus Christi 55, starting at fol. 211v^a, and Peterhouse 112, starting at fol. 157r^b.

²⁰⁰ See Vienna 363, at fol. 134v^a, or BNF, lat. 16943, at fol. 112r^b–v^a.

²⁰¹ The text here presented is eclectic, taken from BNF, lat. 14414, at fol. 100v^b, and Mazarine 177, fol. 80r^b.

²⁰² Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica, 205–13.

²⁰³ The transcription that follows of Langton's lecture is taken from BNF, lat. 14417, at fol. 147r^a.

²⁰⁴ BNF, lat. 14417, at fol. 147r^a: “Et tunc dicenda fuit eius historia in captivatione illa vel statim post, sed quia nimium incidens esset, nolumus irrumpere tractatum Regum, sed ad finem tanquam spiritualem tractatum reservavimus quod ex libro Tobiae perpenditur, cum vidisse eversione Templi et ruinas Ierusalem, allegorice determinabitur in libro vel alio modo, nam ad litteram stare non potest, etiam si fiat prorelatio annorum filii quanta fieri possit rationabiliter a tempore captivitatis decem tribuum de filio habetur in libro quod scilicet annos vixerit.”

²⁰⁵ Langton is equally familiar with Comestor's prologues. At the start of his lecture on Judith, Langton identifies for his students the author of the prologue that introduces the Historia Iudith in Comestor's History. Langton provides first the incipit of the prologue and then says who authored the prologue: “HANC HYSTORIAM praefatio est magistri. Paula, inquit, mulier fuit Romae.” (The text here transcribed is taken from Arsenal 177, at fol. 107v^a.) The reporter again interposes, signaling Langton's speech, but the crucial detail is Langton's statement that the prologue that begins “Hanc historiam” is that of the “magister.” The question of course is whom he means. Langton refers to Comestor frequently as “magister” or “magister historiarum” — in his course on the History the former is much more frequent — and as we have seen in his lectures (on Frater Ambrosius and on Tobit) Langton also speaks frequently of a master. In this case, the reference to his master in Judith is invaluable, because we find the prologue beginning “Hanc historiam” in both of the earliest extant manuscripts of the History, both of which predate 1183: in BNF, lat. 16943, beginning at the bottom of fol. 124r^a, and in Vienna 363, at the top of folio 147r^b. We know, therefore, that in referring to the master here at the start of his lecture on Judith, Langton means Comestor.

²⁰⁶ Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris” (n. 1 above), 81–110.

²⁰⁷ Ibid., 88–110.

²⁰⁸ My colleague, Joshua Benson, has already transcribed many of the prologues introducing the Bible by both the Lombard and by Langton, an enormous corpus in itself. I am profoundly grateful for the help that he has given me in unlocking this treasure.

²⁰⁹ Given that Comestor also had the Lombard's prologue to John's Gospel, it is likely that he also had the Lombard's lectures on the New Testament at his disposal for his own lectures on the four glossed Gospels.

²¹⁰ Smalley and Gregory, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton, Part II” (n. 8 above), 168. The reference noticed by Smalley, which refers to the state of the moon at its creation, is at Durham A. I. 7, fol. 9v^b.

²¹¹ Ibid.

²¹² “Item queritur quota fuerit luna quando creata est? Dicimus secundum glosam quod quarta decima id est quota est quando est quarta decima, sed quando est quarta decima recto diametro apponitur soli, et in mane creata est cum sole, ergo tunc apponebatur recto diametro soli, non ergo in nocte sequenti plena erat, quia non opponebatur soli, sicut et mane. Propter hoc dicunt quidam quod sol creatus est in mane et luna in nocte sequenti. Aliter potest dici quod simul creata sunt, et in nocte sequenti fere opponebatur recto diametro soli, et ille de sanctis; quantum ad theologos non impedit.”

²¹³ “FACTA ergo LUMINARIA POSUIT DEVS UT LUCEANT IN FIRMAMENTO C AELI ET ILLUMINENT TERRAM, sed non semper, ET DIVIDANT LUCEM AC TENEBRAS. Quod autem luna in plenilunio facta sit ex alia translatione perpenditur, que sic habet: Et luminare minus in inchoatione noctis. In principio autem noctis non oritur luna nisi pansilenos, id est rotunda. Inde perpenditur quia sol factus est mane in oriente, et facto uespere luna in initio noctis similiter facta est in oriente. Volunt tamen quidam quod simul facti sint, sol in oriente, luna in occidente, et sole occidente luna sub terram rediit in orientem in inchoatione noctis.” Comestor here takes language directly from the Lombard's lectures.

²¹⁴ Langton's other lecture is preserved in Cambridge, Peterhouse College 112, at fol. 3v^b, BNF, lat. 14414, at fol. 100r^b, Mazarine 177, at fol. 3r^a, and in Bodleian, Trinity 65, at fol. 8r^a. Langton's discussion, the style of which is by now recognizable, is as follows: “Item: quota sit luna luna cum creata est? Quaestio: videtur quod plena sit creata sed decima quarta et mane diei fuit creata. Ergo tunc fuit opposita soli. Tunc enim est plena, quando soli directe opponitur, ergo in nocte sequente sole et luna non fuerunt oppositi, ergo luna non fuit tunc plena scilicet in initio noctis. Sed si luna tunc fuit plena, ut dicitur, potest quaeri quare potius debuit esse prima quam in creatione sua? Item: tanta fuit creata quanta ipsa est nunc in inchoatione noctis. Ergo plena. Ergo tunc fuerunt oppositi, sol in oriente et luna in occidente, ergo etiam in sero non fuit plena. Respondeo: luna creata fuit in occidente et plena, et in nocte sequenti non fuit plena, sed pene plena, nec Ecclesia laborat circa huiusmodi minutias. Tamen posset dici quod fuit creata in principio noctis scilicet in principio principatus sui, sicut sol, et non fuit mane creata cum sole.”

²¹⁵ We find this passage in Cambridge, Peterhouse College 112, fol. 2r^b, which we know preserves one of Langton's lectures, in contrast to the other lectures preserved therein, which are by the Lombard. Langton quotes the same passage but in a different content in the body of his lectures preserved in Durham A. I. 7, at fol. 3v^b, bottom. This shows that Langton made various use of the Lombard's teaching.

²¹⁶ Brady hypothesizes that this division into distinctions was accomplished early in the thirteenth century and guesses that this was done by Alexander of Hales. Brady, Ignatius C., “The Distinctions of Lombard's Book of Sentences and Alexander of Hales,” Franciscan Studies 25 (1965): 90–116 Google Scholar. See also idem, “The Rubrics of Peter Lombard's Sentences ,” Pier Lombardo 6 (1962): 5–25 Google Scholar. Brady's hypothesis, however, is no more than a guess, especially since he was wholly unfamiliar with the twelfth-century teaching tradition founded on the Lombard's lectures that forms the basis for this study. It is of course possible that Brady's guess will be proven right, but much editing remains to be done before anything definitive is known.

²¹⁷ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 157–86.

²¹⁸ For the Lombard on the Sentences, see Colish, Marcia, Peter Lombard, 2 vols., Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 41 (Leiden, 1994)Google Scholar. For more recent, general introductions to the Lombard and his Sentences, see Rosemann, Philipp W., Peter Lombard (New York, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard's “Sentences” (Toronto, 2007)Google Scholar. See also the magisterial introductions in Silano's recent translations of all four volumes of the Sentences: Peter Lombard, The Sentences, trans. Silano, Guilio, 4 vols. (Toronto, 2007–2010)Google Scholar.

²¹⁹ Grabmann, Martin, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1911)Google Scholar, where Grabmann spoke of a biblical-moral direction in theology that originated with Peter the Chanter: “Die von Petrus Cantor ausgehende biblisch-moralische Richtung der Theologie.” Ibid., 2:476–77.

²²⁰ Ibid.

²²¹ Chenu, Marie-Dominique, Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d'Aquin, 2nd ed. (Montreal and Paris, 1954)Google Scholar; Smalley, Study of the Bible (n. 108 above), 196–97; Baldwin, John, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1970), 1:25–29 and 43–46Google Scholar.

²²² See Long, R. James, “The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: Edition of the Prologue to His Commentary on the Sentences,” Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 71–98, at 71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, relevant text of Fishacre at 96–97.

²²³ Ibid., 72.

²²⁴ My colleague at Catholic University of America, Dr. Bradley Gregory, a specialist in Old Testament Wisdom literature, tells me that Smalley's monograph was required reading for graduate students studying the Bible in the Department of Theology at Notre Dame during his time there.

²²⁵ “Je me demande si cela en vaut vraiment la peine, tant la publication de Lacombe et Smalley est riche et ne paraît comporter que peu de lacunes.” Dahan, “Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: Exégèse et herméneutique” (n. 18 above), 202.

²²⁶ Suzanne LaVere, Out of the Cloister: Scholastic Exegesis of the Song of Songs (n. 41 above); van Liere, Frans, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (Cambridge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria (n. 4 above). Smith is candid about the fact that she presents no original research but rather gathers together the research and findings of Smalley and those scholars who have founded their studies on those of Smalley. Ibid., 15.

²²⁷ Ocker, Christopher and Madigan, Kevin, “After Beryl Smalley: Thirty Years of Medieval Exegesis, 1984–2013,” Journal of Biblical Reception 2 (2015): 87–130 Google Scholar.

²²⁸ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 172–98.

²²⁹ Marcia Colish, Peter Lombard (n. 220 above), 1:336.

²³⁰ Lombard, Peter, II Sent. (Grottaferrata, 1971), 329 Google Scholar, apparatus to dist. 1 and throughout for individual instances. This finding, however, is subject to a caveat, namely, that Brady relied on a very late version of the biblical Gloss. We must acknowledge the possibility that the Lombard's lectures on the Bible influenced many other books of the Gloss than the Psalms and the Pauline epistles and that we may find the order of borrowing and influence to be the other way around. Brady's treatment of the Lombard's sources and in particular of his use of the Gloss in his magisterial edition may have to be redone.

²³¹ Ibid., I Sent. (Grottaferrata, 1971), 65 Google ScholarPubMed. Peter Comestor relies upon this very passage for his own hexameral treatment in the History. See Mark J. Clark, “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed” (n. 7 above). In saying that the Lombard in this section of the Sentences is using “straightforward Augustinian fare,” I do not mean to imply that Augustine was his immediate source. There are any number of proximate sources through whom the Lombard could have received this teaching. See, for example, the following passage from Hugh of Amiens, a near contemporary of Peter Lombard: “Inde per Moysen scriptum est: ‘Creavit Deus.’ Pro hac voce quam dicimus Deus, in hebreo ‘elohim’ scribitur. Elohim vero apud Hebreos vox est pluralis, sed idioma linguae latinae hoc transferre non potuit. Sic est enim apud Hebreos, ‘bara elohim,’ ut si verbum ex verbo transferas, latino sermone contra morem porteat dici ‘creavit dii.’ Unde sciendum est, quia vox illa elohim Deum significans enunciatione plurali, non tamen plures deos ponere potuit, quod determinat apud Hebreos vox adiecta singularis, ed est ‘bara,’ quod est apud latinos ‘creavit.’ Hunc sermonem hebraicum catholici nostri recte si postium pie defendunt, qui trinitatem quae Deus est in unitate simplici predicant adorari, quam representat eis vox singularis adiecta pluarli, id est ‘bara elohim.’” “Hugonis Archiepiscopi Rothomagensis Tractatus in Hexaemeron Libri Tres in Genesim I–III,” in Lecomte, F., “Un commentaire scripturaire du XIIe siècle: Le ‘Tractatus in Hexaemeron’ de Hugues d'Amiens (Archevêque de Rouen 1130–1164),” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 25 (1958): 227–94Google Scholar, edition at 235–94 and text presented here in part 6 at 240.

²³² Mark J. Clark, “The Commentaries on Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica of Stephan Langton, Pseudo-Langton, and Hugh of St. Cher” (n. 34 above), 342–63. See also idem, “The Fortuna of the Prologue to the Gospel of John in Four Important, Twelfth-Century Texts: The Glossed John, Peter Comestor's Lectures on the Glossed John, Comestor's Historia scholastica, and Langton's Course on the History ,” Archa Verbi, Subsidia 11, ed. Amerini, Fabrizio (Münster, 2014), 111–28Google Scholar, and especially 113–16.

²³³ For the convenience of the reader I provide here again the relevant texts and translations.

²³⁴ I supplied here the correct reading, “spiritus,” since the manuscript has “patris.” What happened is clear enough: the copyist made a mistake that all copyists make, an eye-skip error, and repeated “patris” after “persona.” In this case, his eye skipped backwards.

²³⁵ Ebbesen found references in Langton's lectures on the Bible to the personal supposition and signification relied upon in this passage but dated them to much later in the twelfth century. Ebbesen, “Early Supposition Theory II” (n. 128 above), 65, referring to his earlier study: idem, “The Semantics of the Trinity according to Stephen Langton and Andrew Sunesen” (n. 127 above).

²³⁶ De Rijk, The Origin and Early Development of the Theory of Supposition (n. 125 above), 19.

²³⁷ “Conclusio ergo nostra est quod compositio Sententiarum certissime annis 1155–1158 assignanda est.” Brady, ed., Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi sententiae, vol. 1, Prolegomena (n. 6 above), 126*. Before coming to that conclusion Brady reviews all evidence known to him. Ibid., 122*–26*.

²³⁸ Doyle, Matthew, Peter Lombard and His Students (Toronto, 2016), 97 Google Scholar.

²³⁹ These scholars are by no means wrong, since in his prologue to the Sentences, the Lombard refers clearly to them as a written work: “in labore multo ac sudore volumen Deo praestante compegimus ex testimoniis veritatis in aeternum fundatis in quattuor libris distinctum.” Lombard, Peter, Prologus, Sent. (Grottaferrata, 1971), 4, lines 13–15Google Scholar. His description, however, is not in the least inconsistent with his delivering lectures on the Sentences over a period of time, nor with a theory of oral provenance.

²⁴⁰ Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 157–253.

²⁴¹ “Il ne s'agit pas d'un commentaire de celle-ci: à la fin du XIIe siècle, nous trouvons des œuvres qui sont de vrais commentaries de la Glossa ordinaria, surtout sur les épîtres pauliniennes (il s'agit en fait de la Magna glossatura de Pierre Lombard) mais aussi sur d'autres livres.” Dahan, Gilbert, “Une leçon biblique au XIIe siècle: Le commentaire de Pierre le Mangeur sur Matthieu 26, 26–29,” in Ancienne Loi, Nouvelle Loi, ed. Bordier, J.-P., Littérature et revelation au Moyen Âge 3 (Paris, 2009), 19–38, quotation at 23Google Scholar.

²⁴² Benson, Noone, and I know this from our editing of a number of the principal sources for Albert, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas on the Sentences, namely, John of La Rochelle, Hugh of St. Cher, and Odo Rigaldus, among others.

²⁴³ Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria (n. 4 above), 78, citing in n. 93, among other authorities, Brady, Prolegomena to Sent. 2, 46*–93*.

²⁴⁴ Glunz, Hans Hermann, History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933)Google Scholar.

²⁴⁵ See Smalley, Beryl, “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa ordinaria’ I,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935): 235–63Google Scholar; eadem, “Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34) and the Problem of the ‘Glossa ordinaria’ II,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1936): 24–60 Google Scholar; and eadem, “La Glossa ordinaria: Quelques prédécesseurs d'Anselme de Laon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1937): 24–60 Google Scholar.

²⁴⁶ Andrée makes it clear that the question of the origins of the biblical Gloss is much more complicated than Smalley and her followers have suspected and that scholarship on the Gloss needs to be redone. Andrée, Alexander, “Anselm of Laon Unveiled: The Glosae svper Iohannem and the Origins of the Glossa Ordinaria on the Bible,” Mediaeval Studies 73 (2011): 217–60Google Scholar. See also his review of Smith's monograph: Andrée, Alexander, “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century,” Journal of Medieval Latin 22 (2012): 257–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴⁷ Langton, Stephen, Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, ed. Saltmann, Avrom (Ramat-Gan, 1978)Google Scholar.

²⁴⁸ Joshua Benson, Timothy Noone, and I are well into editing Book I, Distinctions 3 and 4, and Book II, Distinction 24 of the lectures on the Sentences of these three masters. Since Noone has discovered a thirteenth-century manuscript preserving Book II of Bonaventure's lectures on the Sentences, which not only has pecia markings but also has a note indicating that it was copied ex originali, which means that it was copied from the original at the stationer's in Paris, our plan is to reedit that same distinction in Bonaventure's work as well. Thereafter, we intend to do the same for Books I, III, and IV as well, in order to establish a stemma codicum for each book.

²⁴⁹ We are grateful to Riccardo Saccenti, who has graciously shared with us his Repertorium of works on the Sentences, which is intended to replace that of Stegmüller.

²⁵⁰ For recent introductions to the commentarial tradition on the Lombard's Sentences, see Mediaeval Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, vol. 1, ed. Evans, Gillian R., and vol. 2, ed. Rosemann, Philipp W. (Leiden, 2002 and 2010)Google Scholar.

²⁵¹ Mark J. Clark, “Peter Comestor and Peter Lombard: Brothers in Deed” (n. 7 above). This article, while correct in its findings, will have to be revised to this extent. The Lombard's Sentences were only the remote source for Comestor's hexameral treatment; the proximate source were the Lombard's lectures on Genesis, which themselves depended greatly on the Sentences.

²⁵² Clark, The Making of the Historia scholastica (n. 32 above), 15–22.

²⁵³ These borrowings seem at first glance to be of such an extent that the Lombard's lectures may prove to be one of the principal foundations of the Historia scholastica. I do not wish to say more here. Once I have worked my way through most of the Pentateuch, I will be in a position to speak with certitude. For now, all I can say for sure is that Comestor seems to have made liberal use of these lectures.

²⁵⁴ See Brady's comments in Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi sententiae (n. 6 above), 2:39*–44*, esp. 39* (“Non sine scandalo [minimo quidem] quosdam modernos invenimus qui adhuc credant quod Magister Petrus Comestor, decanus Trecensis, Parisius venerit solummodo post mortem Lombardi [3 maii 1160], et quidem anno 1164, quando Magistro Odoni successerit in officium cancellarii Parisiensis Ecclesiae”). See also Brady, “Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard,” Antonianum 41 (1966): 454–90Google Scholar.

²⁵⁵ Alexander Andrée and I are collaborating on this project. The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies is scheduled to bring out the first volume, on the Pentateuch, in 2019.

²⁵⁶ On the medieval legend started by Godfrey of Viterbo that made Peter Lombard, Peter Comestor, and Gratian brothers, see de Ghellinck, Joseph, Le mouvement théologique du XIIe siècle, 2nd rev. ed., Museum Lessianum, Section historique 10 (Bruges, 1948), 214, 285Google Scholar. See also Colish, Peter Lombard (n. 20 above), 1:16 and n. 5.

²⁵⁷ In editing the Pentateuch, for example, Alexander Andrée, Joshua Benson, and I are already making daily use of the History as a chronological divide to determine whose lectures we are editing, the Lombard's or Langton's.

²⁵⁸ de Sancto Caro, Hugonis, Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, 8 vols. (Venice, 1754), 1:2, in Gen. 1:1Google Scholar.

²⁵⁹ Lombard, Peter, II Sent. (Grottaferrata, 1971), 336 Google Scholar, where the Lombard discusses the creation of the angels.

²⁶⁰ Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris” (n. 1 above), 60–81. By the Lombard's Old Testament lectures, I do not of course mean to refer to his well-known Great Gloss on the Pauline epistles and the Psalms, which survive in many manuscripts, but rather to his lectures on most of the glossed Old Testament.

²⁶¹ Ibid.

²⁶² Ibid., 58.

²⁶³ Ibid., 110.

²⁶⁴ Brady, Prolegomena to 2 Sent. (n. 6 above), 2:7*.

²⁶⁵ Ibid., 22*–23*.

²⁶⁶ Colish, Peter Lombard, 1, 29, citing in n. 44 Brady, Prolegomena to Sent. 2, 22*–23* where she notes that the sale of the Lombard's books might have been connected to Maurice of Sully's need for funds to build Notre Dame cathedral.

²⁶⁷ Clark, “The Biblical Gloss, the Search for Peter Lombard's Glossed Bible, and the School of Paris,” 107–8.

²⁶⁸ The extent to which his views on the literal sense are in any way unique remains an open-ended question: the lectures preserved in Corpus Christi 55, which Langton adopted as the basis for his own and which may all prove to be by Peter Lombard, alternate between explication of the literal and moral senses of Scripture. Many of the lectures attributed to Langton do the same. We shall have to edit the corpus of the School of Paris that came out of the cathedral before we have any idea how unique Andrew was, if in fact he was.

²⁶⁹ The following editions have appeared to date: Expositio super Heptateuchum, ed. Lohr, Charles and Berndt, Rainer, CCM 53 (Turnhout, 1986)Google Scholar; Expositio super Danielem, ed. Zier, Mark, CCM 53F (Turnhout, 1990)Google Scholar; Expositio in Ezechielem, ed. Signer, Michael Alan, CCM 53E (Turnhout, 1991)Google Scholar; Expositiones historicae in libros Salomonis, ed. Berndt, Rainer, CCM 53B (Turnhout, 1991)Google Scholar; Expositio hystorica in librum regum, ed. van Liere, Frans, CCM 53A (Turnhout, 1996)Google Scholar; and Super duodecim prophetas, ed. van Liere, Frans and Zier, Mark, CCM 53G (Turnhout, 2007)Google Scholar.

²⁷⁰ See Giraud, Cédric, Per verba magistri: Anselme de Laon et son école au XIIe siècle (Turnhout, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Alexander Andrée's review essay, “Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century” (n. 248 above).

²⁷¹ It is likely that the decade 1330–40, when paper finally becomes cheaper, represents a turning point in this regard. Duba notes the number of quickly produced reportationes made possible by the ready supply of paper that is much less expensive than parchment. William Duba, “The Forge of Doctrine: The Academic Year 1330–1331 and the Rise of Scotism at Paris” (Habilitation thesis, Fribourg, 2016), 45–50, 179–82, and cites on the subject of “the diffusion of paper codices” at 29, n. 10, the study of Neddermeyer, Uwe, Von der Handschrift zum gedruckten Buch: Schriftlichkeit und Leseinteresse im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit; Quantitative und qualitative Aspekte, Buchwissenschaftliche Beiträge aus dem Deutschen Bucharchiv München, Band 61, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1998), 256–67Google Scholar.

²⁷² “L’élément commun est un texte qui servait de base aux élaborations ultérieures.” Landgraf, Artur, Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante, trans. Geiger, Louis-B., revised and updated by Landry, Albert-M. (Paris, 1973), 26 Google Scholar. Originally published as Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Frühscholastik (Regensburg, 1948)Google Scholar.