ie nie
ties
. “4:
sie en es siehesiate EL
Me ed
ae oe Mex Te mb
% 1 i ‘ Why Vite } | 'y Pane oe wi wi ci) VB Betas bs guts Ma =" ae et re | j hi > Mee f | KF » Ys i 4 ra on a A’ bd | | cA tin) } y j vid eh { ’ f a) ig + é ’ CET he. : ; ce ‘ \ i S 4 ‘ \ i
wn OF PRINGE > SS 9
a MAY yA? ae Caan aw |
I be , le techs
Jo PUBLICATIONS IN MEDIAEVAL STUDIES Y THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME :
EpiTror: PHILIP S. MOORE, C.S.C.
THE WORKS of PETER of POTTIERS
MASTER IN THEOLOGY AND CHANCELLOR OF PARIS (1193-1205)
BY
PHILIP S. MOORE, Ph.D., Archiviste-paléographe Priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA 1936
Nihil Obstat: Gulielmus M. McNamara, C.S.C., Ph.D. Censor Deputatus
Nostrae Dominae, die XXXI Mati, 1936
Imprimatur : + Johannes Franciscus Noll, D.D. Episcopus Wayne Castrensis
Wayne Castris, die XX XI Maii, 1936
Imprimi potest: Jacobus A. Burns, C.S.C., Ph.D. Provincialis Congregationis a Sancta Cruce
Nostrae Dominae, die XX XI Maii, 1936
Copyright 1936 By THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Copyricut, 1936 By THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
MASTER IN THEOLOGY AND CHANCELLOR OF PARIS (1193-1205)
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2024 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/worksofpeterofoo00moor
PREFACE
During the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries a number of masters in theology were teaching and writing in the intellectual centers of Europe, especially at Paris. To their work is in large measure attributable the high perfection attained by scholastic thought and method in the course of the thirteenth century. But despite the importance of these men for the de- velopment of mediaeval philosophy and theology, scholars have only recently given serious attention to them. We still have little accurate knowledge of their lives, their writings, and their in- dividual contributions to intellectual advancement.
Before a complete and accurate history of philosophy and theology can be written for this period, roughly between the years 1150 and 1250, the many gaps in our present knowledge must be filled in. Preliminary research of critical, literary, and historical nature is indispensable. Questions of chronology, provenience, inter-dependence, and authenticity, which attach to the works of most of the authors of the time, must first be thoroughly studied and adequately answered. The nature, content, and method of these writings must be investigated. The MSS containing them, scattered throughout the libraries of Europe, must be searched out, in the view to their publication in critical editions, which will be available to students everywhere. And finally, our knowledge of the lives of these mediaeval authors must be enlarged.
This preliminary work is being carried on by a number of scholars, among whom are a few Americans. La vie et les oeuvres de Prévostin, a critical investigation of the life and writ- ings of Prepositinus of Cremona by the late Monsignor George Lacombe, is an excellent example of this research. The present study is also part of this preliminary work. Its purpose has been to answer as adequately as possible the questions of chronology, provenience, dependence, and authenticity as they pertain to the writings of one of these authors of the later twelfth century, Peter of Poitiers, master in theology and chancellor of Paris between the years 1193 and 1205. It treats also of the nature,
vi
vi PREFACE
content, and method of these works and lists the MSS in which they are known to have come down to us. This manuscript tradition has been collected by long personal researches in several libraries of Europe, especially in the Bibliothéque nationale of Paris, and by a study of the catalogues of those libraries which the author was unable to visit.
A biographical sketch of Peter of Poitiers precedes the critical investigation of his writings. This biographical sketch has been drawn for the most part from printed sources: chronicles, car- tularies, catalogues, literary histories, etc. On the other hand, the study of the works of Peter of Poitiers is based almost ex- clusively upon manuscript sources, dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
This study, which is now offered as the first volume of Publi- cations in Mediaeval Studies sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, was presented in November, 1932, as dissertation to the faculty of the Ecole Nationale des Chartes, Paris, from which school the author received the diploma of Archiviste- paléographe in February, 1933. During his resident study in Paris (1929-32) the author held a Penfield Scholarship from the Catholic University of America. In 1936 this work, translated into English and in large part revised, was presented as disserta- tion to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the Catholic University in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The author acknowledges his gratefulness to the Catholic University for the transfer of copyright and the permission to print this study under its present form.
The author acknowledges deep gratitude to his Excellency, the Most Reverend James Hugh Ryan, bishop of the diocese of Omaha, Nebraska, to the late Right Reverend Monsignor George ‘Lacombe, formerly Research Professor in History of the Catholic University of America, to M. Henri Omont, Honorary Conserva- tor of Manuscripts of the Bibliothéque nationale, and to M. Georges Tessier, Professor of Diplomatics at the Ecole des Chartes, whose valuable counsel and aid were generously given during the preparation of this study. He thanks also his col- leagues in France and in America who in any way contributed to the completion of this task.
GON TebaNa lis
PREFACE
CONTENTS .
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS . Birth and Education . Teaching Career Chancellorship
CHAPTER I, SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE Origin and Development of Sentencebooks The Manuscripts Editions Authenticity Date and Place of Wonne. Content and Method SN PEE HY MN ae le Relation of Peter of Poitiers to Peter eed
CHAPTER II. ALLEGORIAE SUPER —TABERNACULUM Movysis
Nature of the Work
The Manuscripts
Authenticity :
Content and Method . Saar GME Luan Peter of Poitiers and the Four Senses of Scripture
CHAPTER III. DisTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM Nature of the Work . Two Forms of the Work . The Manuscripts
Vii
PAGE
vV-Vi
vi1--1%
1-24 1-5 6-10 10-24
25-50 25-27 28-36
36 36-39 39-41 41-48 48-50
50-77 50-54 54-57 57-61 61-64 65-77
78-96 78-81 81-84 84-89
CONTENTS
Viil
Authenticity . : Date and Place of Writing
Comparative Study of the Distinctiones in the Works of Peter of Poitiers, Peter the Chanter and Prepositinus of Cremona .
CHAPTER IV. COMPENDIUM HISTORIAE IN GENEA- LOGIA CHRISTI . Nature of the Work . Three Forms of the Work . The Manuscripts Editions Authenticity .
Utilization of the Com sendin in ae Universal Chronicles
CHAPTER V. Historia ACTUUM APOSTOLORUM The Work and Its Authenticity .
CHapPTER VI. SERMONES : Preaching in the Mediaeval Unvericel The Manuscripts : Alphabetical List of Incipits Authenticity .
Date of Writing
Some Observations on the Technic of the AMeainecal Sermon Found in the Sermons of Peter of Poitiers
CHAPTER VII. GLossaAE SUPER SENTENTIAS . : Nature of the Work and Summary of Recent Re- searches into Its Manuscript Tradition The Manuscripts Date of Writing
PAGE 89-91 91
92-96
97-117 97-100 100-101 101-106 106 107-110
111-117
118-122 118-122
123-144 123-125 125-131 131-135 135-136 137-139
139-144
145-164
145-148 148-151 151-153
CONTENTS
Authenticity . LA Eh il Fa he RS Some Observations on the Importance of the Glossae super Sententias
CHAPTER VIII. Works oF DOUBTFUL OR SPURIOUS ATTRIBUTION TO PETER OF POITIERS .
Glossae in divi Pauli et Jacobi Epistolas .
De Mysteriis Ecclesiae, De Fide et eius Partibus, and Instructiones erga Divinum Officium
Summa de Sacramentis . tu os 6 Summa de Mysteriis Incarnationis Christi Tractatus .
Poenitentiale . : :
Tabula de Vitiis et inetibue
Epistolae
Repertorium Morale .
CONCLUSION
APPENDICES ;
I. Excerpts from Hie Nace Text of the 5 en- tences of Peter of Poitiers .
II. Comparative Study showing that fe Gae mentarium super Psalmos in MS lat. 455 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris is not the Distinctiones super Psalterium of Peter of Poitiers . : BA aie
III. Original Text of tHe Capnenaitn roe Genealogia Christi compared with two Inter- polated Texts for the Biblical Period .
TABLE OF MANUSCRIPTS . TABLE OF INCIPITS . BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
ix PAGE 153-162
162-164
165-170 165-166
166-167 167 167-168 168 168 168-169 169 170
171-173 174-196
174-177
178-187
188-196 197-203 204-210 211-214 215-218
KEY TO [ABBREVIATIONS
MGH. SS. Monumenta germaniae historica. Scriptores.
BGPM
ied
RBMES
Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters.
Patrologia latina.
Rerum britanicarum medii aevi scriptores.
Bento ls io WUC Ob RR PER ORS POLLIERS
1. BrirTH AND EDUCATION
From the Chronicle of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines,! written between the years 1227-1251, we learn that Peter of Poitiers succeeded to Peter Comestor’s chair of theology at Paris in 1169. This is the earliest fact in the life of this master to be found in mediaeval historical sources; we have no documentary infor- mation concerning his birth and early years.
It seems certain, however, that he was born at Poitiers or at least in the Poitou. All MSS in which works are attributed to him bear the name Petrus Pictaviensis,?, Petrus Pictavensis,3 or, rarely, Petrus Pictavinus.t| Hence the manuscript tradition agrees in fixing his birth at Poitiers or in the Poitou. Literary tradition too has always been at one on this point. The year in which Peter was born is not known. We may, however, fix the date of his birth conjecturally ca. 1130, or between 1125-1135.5
*Chronica Albrict Monacht Trium Fontium, MGH. SS. XXIII, 853, 15, anno 1169: Parisius post magistrum Petrum Manducatorem magister Petrus Pictavinus cathedram tenuit theologicam.
* Grenoble, 289; British Museum, Royal and King’s 10 A XIV; Wor- cester Cathedral, F. 54.
*Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 13435, 15736, 15735; British Museum, Roy. and
316
King’s 11 B IV; Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, 712 ‘Troyes, 1371.
°This conjectural date is based on the chronology of Peter of Poitiers which we know. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines informs us that at the date of his death in 1205, Peter had taught theology during thirty-eight years, or since 1167 (MGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20). Hence he must have become master in theology in 1167 or some short time before, for he would not have taught theology as a bachelor. True, no definite age was required of the master in theology at this early date, definite legislation, requiring that the master be at least thirty-five years old and have had at least eight years of general study and five years of theological study, being enacted for the first time in 1215 by the papal legate, Robert of Courgon, (Denifle-
1
2 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
We know nothing directly of his years of study, nor of where he pursued his early education. We may presume, however, that Peter of Poitiers was schooled in the seven liberal arts, the ordinary preparation for the study of theology in the twelfth century.®
Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Paristensis (Paris, Delalain, 1889- 1897), I, no. 20). Still, Peter of Poitiers two years later, in 1169, was to take the chair of theology of Peter Comestor, who was chancellor of Notre Dame. (B. Guérard, Cartulaire de lEglise de Notre Dame de Paris (Paris, 1850), III, 438-439 and II, 503 cites acts given by the hand of Peter Comestor in 1168 and 1178 respectively, the extreme dates of Comestor’s chancellorship). Consequently, it seems reasonable to suppose that Peter of Poitiers was no longer a young man in 1169, and that he must have been between thirty and forty years of age when he became a master in theology. This calculation accords well with another fact, namely, that Peter of Poitiers studied some time under Peter Lombard. And since the Lombard’s teaching career ended in 1159, we can suppose that eight or nine years later his pupil was between thirty and forty years old.
°M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode (Freiburg im Br., Herdersche Verlagshandlung, 1909-1911), II, 47 ff.; A. Luchaire, La société francaise au temps de Philippe Auguste (Paris, 1909), p. 71; S. D’Irsay, Histoire des universités frangaises et étrangéres (Paris, Picard, 1933), I, 53-58. G. Paré, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, La renaissance du XII® siécle: les écoles et lenseignement (Publications de I’Institut d’Etudes Mediévales d’ Ottawa, 3) (Paris and Ottawa, 1933), p. 97 ff. In the twelfth century philosophical interest replaced the older grammatical interest in the arts, and hence grammar ceded the place of honor to dialectics and the other philosophical studies, which included psychology, natural sciences, and some metaphysics. At Chartres philosophy always held first place, and all the arts ministered to its perfection. Hence Thierry of Chartres in the prologue to his Heptateuchon wrote:
Nam cum sint duo precipua philosophandi instrumenta intellectus eiusque interpretatio. Intellectum autem quadrivium illuminet, eius vero interpretationem elegantem, rationabilem, ornatam, trivium submi- nistret, manifestum est Eptateuchon totius philosophie unicum et singulare esse instrumentum. Philosophia autem est amor sapientie, sapientia vero est comprehensio veritatis. (Chartres, MS 141, fol. 1. Cited from J. A. Clerval, Les écoles de Chartres au moyen age du V-XVI siécles (Chartres, 1895), p. 11).
Ordinarily, however, the arts and philosophy were regarded merely as preparation for theology. Cf. Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis christianae Fidet, Prologue, c. 6, PL. 176, 185C; Sententiae divinitatis, Prologue, BGPM, VII, 2, 6*-7*.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 3
Although his works contain but two or three passing refer- ences to the subjects of the quadrivium—arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music,’ they contain ample evidence of his keen interest in the trivium—grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics. In his principal work, the Sententiarum libri V, Peter of Poitiers frequently applies the rules of grammar to theological questions.§ In this he is not alone, and a complete study of the influence of grammar on twelfth century theology is still to be written. This same work of Sentences reveals that no theologian of the period was more the dialectician than Peter, while his love for Aristotle merited him a place among “the four labyrinths of France” in the violent polemic of Walter of Saint Victor.®
Rare citations from Persius, Juvenal and Virgil?® show that
"A brief mention of astronomy occurs in his Sentences, I, c. 13, PL. 211, 841C: Sicut ego habeo notitiam de astronomia, non tamen scio astro- nomiam, nec est subjectum scientiae meae; quia Deus sola illa scit quae fuerunt futura.
He makes a passing reference to music in the same work, III, c. 25, tbid., col. 1116B-C: Et dicitur perfectus quicumque habet aliquam istarum perfectionum, ne si dicatur imperfectus videatur ab illo tolli omnis perfectio, sicut qui scit aliquam istarum scientiarum grammaticam, musicam, rhetoricam, dialecticam dicitur sciens, ne si dicatur inscius videatur ab eo tolli omnis scientia.
® Sentences, I. c. 12, ibid., col. 8383C: Non enim punitur (Judas) quantum meruit, justitia exigente, sed potius indicativus ponitur pro subjunctivo, ac si diceretur, Deus justus hoc exigeret, si omnia ejus merita attenderet, sicut dicitur: Justum est illum damnari qui ad tempus dignus est morte, id est, justum esset si sic decederet. Et bonum est mihi accipere medicinam et bonum esset si acciperem.
Op. ctt., I, c. 15, tbid., col. 853A: Deus gratia temporali vel aeterna praedestinat quia ibi ponitur hoc nomen gratia quasi adverbialiter ut sit gratia id est gratis.
Op. ctt., I, c. 5, tbid., col. 802A: Objectionis solutio pendet ex arte grammatica. The objection in question is that the verb sunt in the sentence Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt implies that its subject includes several essences.
° Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae. This work exists in manuscript at Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal, 379, fols. 37ra-79ra; Bibl. nat., lat. 17187 (modern). Published in part in PL. 199, 1129-1172. Extracts also found in Du Boulay, Historia Universitatis Partsiensis (Paris, 1665-1673), II, 629-670; BGPM, VII, 2, 175*-198*.
*PL, 211, 944A: O Jane, a tergo quem nulla ciconia pinxit (Persius, Bat. t58) .
4 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
Peter of Poitiers had some knowledge of Latin authors. Whether or not he knew these authors directly, J am unable to say, for these citations may have been taken from florilegia or from gram- matical treatises. He likewise discusses the meaning of several Greek theological terms, when he finds them more precise than the corresponding Latin terms.14 But I do not believe we are obliged to see in this an extensive personal knowledge of Greek. Father G. Théry has shown that authors of the early Middle Ages liked to insert Greek words in their writing, without there- by indicating any profound knowledge of the language.* Peter of Poitiers may very well have taken these terms and their mean- ings from the works of his predecessors. It is to be noted, how-
Ibid., col. 1023B: Terra malos homines nunc educat atque pusillos
(Juvenal, Sat. XV, 1. 70).
[bid., col. 1278B: Forsan et haec olim nobis meminisse juvabit (Vergil, Aeneid I, 1. 207).
™ Sentences, I, c. 6, PL. 211, 806-807: Ad cuius rei intelligentiam sciendum quod et hoc nomine substantia implicata est aequivocatio apud Latinos quae in duobus vocalibus explicata est apud Graecos, id est, hypostasis et ousia.
Ibid., col. 808: Quidam autem aliter distinguunt substantiam dicentes tria significari hoc nomine substantia, hypostasis, ousia, et ousiosis. Hypo- stasim dicunt rem prout participat individuali proprietate ; ousiosim vocant omnem substantialem formam; ousiam vero rem prout participat generali vel speciali statu, id est, proprietate faciente quid.
Op. ctt., II, c. 21, ibid., col. 1026D: Dicitur ergo serpens suggerere sine consensu viri et mulieris quando motus sensualitatis concipit illecebram peccati absque omni cogitationis delectatione et talis motus est culpa levissima quia primi motus non sunt in prima hominis potestate, et per generalem confessionem delentur dicendo Confiteor et a Graecis dicitur propatheia, a nobis vero propassio.
Op. cit., II, c. 21, ibid., col. 1030B: Haec est enim scintillula rationis quae etiam in Cain non potest extingui quae a Graecis dicitur synderesis et ita dicitur ratio consentire voluntati quia voluntas ad id quod cupit non potest per se tendere sine rationis adminiculo et dicitur non consentire quia hoc facit invita.
““Scot Erigéne, traducteur de Denys,’ Bulletin Du Cange, VI (1931) 2422)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 5
ever, that he is one of the first mediaeval writers to use the Greek term synderesis.13
Peter of Poitiers most probably studied law. In any case, he had a practical knowledge of this subject, especially of procedure, that was far from rudimentary, for, as we shall see further on, the Holy See several times named him judge-delegate in ecclesias- tical trials. In his Sentences, however, he scrupulously avoids questions belonging to the canonists rather than to the theolo- gians.1* In this he is an exception to the rule, for in most works of the period is found a mixture of canon law and theology. This is true not only of the writings anterior to the De concordia discordantium canonum (1140) of Gratian and the Sententiarum hbri IV (1145-1150) of Peter Lombard, but also of these two works and of later works by Gandulph of Bologna, Robert of Courcgon, and others.!®
Peter of Poitiers’ theological studies were probably made entirely in Paris. At any rate they were completed there, for his close dependence in his Sentences on Peter Lombard, a depend- ence which has merited him the title of the Lombard’s most faithful pupil, gives ample proof that he studied some little time under the Master of the Sentences.1® Probably, then, he arrived in Paris several years before 1159, the date of Peter Lombard’s election to the bishopric of Paris, which brought to a close this master’s teaching in the schools.1”
* QO. Lottin, “Les premiers lineaments du traité de la Synderése au moyen age,” Rev. neoscol., XXVIII (1926): 425.
4 Sentences, V, c. 14. PL. 211, 1257B: De quinto, id est de ordinibus, nil hic dicendum, eo quod decretistis disputatio de his potius quam theologis deservit. Cf. also op. cit., V, c. 17, tbid., col. 1264A.
* J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique du XII® siécle, (Paris, Gabalda, 1914), pp. 277-346.
*C. Oudin, in his Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis (Lipsiae, 1722), II, 1499, was probably the first to indicate Peter of Poitiers’ close dependence upon Peter Lombard.
*P, Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Regensburg, 1873. Reprinted, Leipzig, Karl Hiersemann, 1931), p. 596 gives 1158-1159 as the date of Peter Lombard’s episcopal consecration. The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny (MGH. SS. VI, 510) places this event in 1159, as does the Gallia christiana, VII, 68C.
6 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS 2. TEACHING CAREER
We know very little of the strictly professorial life of Peter of Poitiers. We may suppose that he taught first in the faculty of arts, but no writing has been preserved to us from this period of his teaching. According to Alberic of Trois-Fontaines he began to lecture in theology in 1167, for Alberic says that he had taught theology in Paris thirty-eight years at the time of his death in 1205.18 It is very doubtful, however, that Peter of Poitiers continued to teach after his appointment to the chancel- lorship of Paris in 1193. Stephen D’Irsay says that the chancellor supervised the classes but did not share in the teaching.” We know, furthermore, that Peter Comestor gave up his chair of theology in 1169, shortly after his being named chancellor. We may suppose, therefore, that Peter of Poitiers quit the classroom in 1193. This agrees with the statement of Odo of Cheriton (7 1247), that our author taught theology “more than twenty- four years’.2° The twenty-four years referred to by Odo were the years between 1169, the date of his succeeding to the chair of theology of Peter Comestor, and 1193. Odo knew, however, that he had been a member of the faculty of theology for some time before he replaced Comestor. Consequently, Odo writes that Peter of Poitiers taught theology “more than twenty-four years.” Alberic of Trois-Fontaines was most probably wrong in thinking that Peter continued to teach until 1205, but we can accept the date 1167 as the first year of his theological teaching.
The works of Peter of Poitiers show. that he was interested in three branches of theological study: theology properly so called, or the dogmatic and moral questions to which the study
*MGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20, anno 1205: Obiit magister Petrus Picta- viensis, cancellarius Parisiensis, qui per annos duodequadraginta theologiam legerat Parisiis.
*® Histoire des universités, I, 61.
”“P, Pictavensis, qui plusquam xxiiii annis de theologia rexerat, in fine oravit, dicens: ‘Bone Jhesu, ex quo per tantum tempus de te cantare non cessavi, fac mihi quod suis ioculatoribus solent divites facere; de paradiso non me expellas, saltem retro hostium me permanere permittas’.” (Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 16506, fol. 268vb. This passage occurs in Odo’s Exposttio in orationem dominicam, which begins: Eloquia Domini eloquia casta.... Eloquia Domini ad tria precipue sunt utilia.... ).
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 7
of Scripture and the Fathers of the Church gave rise; sacred his- tory; and the spiritual or allegorical interpretation of Holy Writ which constituted mediaeval exegesis. His Sententiarum libri V, a systematic, comprehensive work on dogmatic and moral ques- tions, is the product of his teaching in theology proper.
In the field of sacred history, Peter of Poitiers composed a Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi.24 The work is con- ceived in general under the form of a genealogical tree of Christ. This explains, no doubt, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines’ attributing to him an invention in use during the Middle Ages by which biblical history was taught with the aid of genealogical trees painted on skins. 72 These skins were seemingly hung on the walls of the classroom. Furthermore Peter of Poitiers is most probably author of another historical treatise, the Historia actuum apostolorum, which forms the last part of the Historia scholastica. It is certain that this last part of the famous mediaeval History does not belong to Peter Comestor, to whom the entire work has always been attributed, and certain manuscript evidence points to Peter of Poitiers as its author.*8
Finally, the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Movysis and the Distinctiones super psaltertum represent his teaching in the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. At least I think that the matter contained in these works was taught by him in the class- room and not preached from the pulpit. The second work especially would have been too dry and academic even for a twelfth century congregation. Peter of Poitiers, however, must have been a preacher of some renown, for no fewer than fifty- nine of his sermons have come down to us.
But the life of our master was not passed entirely in the quiet of the classroom. I have remarked that he was the devoted pupil of Peter Lombard. His Sentences, which at the latest appeared
* This title is found in Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14435 and expresses better than any of the many titles which have been given it the content of this little work.
*MGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20, anno 1205: Obiit magister Petrus Picta- viensis ... qui pauperibus clericis consulens excogitavit arbores histo- riarum veteris Testamenti in peliibus depingere. ...
™ Cf. infra, pp. 118-122.
8 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
near the end of 1175, clearly show him to be a partisan of the Lombard’s doctrines. This work likewise manifests a great love for the dialectical method, which would give to reason a greater role in theological study, instead of depending almost entirely on the authority of the Fathers of the Church, as had the traditional theology.
But the doctrines of Peter Lombard were already the object of violent attacks on the part of a number of contemporary theologians.24 These adversaries of the Lombard were also op- posed to the introduction of dialectics into theology. In this they followed the example of St. Bernard, who, in bringing about the condemnation of Abailard at the Council of Sens (1141), was as much concerned with Abailard’s method of teaching theology as with the unorthodoxy of his opinions. Peter of Poitiers was consequently drawn inevitably into the intense struggle between the partisans and adversaries of Peter Lombard and of the dialectical method in theology.
But what active part did he take in this academico-ecclesi- astical conflict? Du Boulay asserts that he warmly championed the Lombard’s cause, and that his own enemies became so num- erous he felt it impossible to remain in the schools without a powerful protector. For this reason he dedicated his Sentences to William of Champagne, known as William of the White Hands, archbishop of Sens (1168-1176), the Maecenas of the time.” I can readily believe that Peter of Poitiers came to the defense of his old teacher, but I know of no mediaeval document which supports Du Boulay’s assertion. First of all, Peter of Poitiers was not the only author who dedicated his work to William of the White Hands.”® Besides, no one, to my knowledge, has recorded his being either at the Council of Tours (1163) or
“Gerhoch of Reichersberg (+ 1169), John of Cornwall, Walter of Saint Victor, Joachim of Flore (+ 1202), and the unknown author of the De vera philosophia, are among those who wrote against Peter Lombard.
” Historia Univ. Paris., II, 403.
* Other works known to have been dedicated to this same William, who became bishop of Chartres in 1165, archbishop of Sens in 1168, and finally archbishop of Rheims in 1176, and who died in 1202, are the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor, the Alexandreid of Walter of Chatillon, and the Microcosmographia of a certain William.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKE TOHMIORIPETER OF POTTIERS 9
at the Third Council of the Lateran (1179), where the Lombard’s doctrines were heatedly discussed. Finally, no writing in which Peter of Poitiers defends either his own or his teacher’s position is known to us.
This is true, despite the fact that these masters, together with Abailard and Gilbert de la Porrée, were attacked in a violent polemic, known today as the Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae, written around 1180 by Walter of Saint Victor.27 In this work, Walter is ostensibly concerned with the teachings of these “four labyrinths of France,’ but at bottom his attack is inspired by hatred for their dialectical method.*8 The vehemence of his prej- udice leads him to exaggeration and sometimes to lamentable misunderstanding, and thus jeopardizes in large measure what is just in his accusations.
At present, however, it is not my intention to discuss the doctrinal rightness of Walter’s attack. I wish merely to remark the fact that Peter of Poitiers was considered by a contemporary as one of four twelfth century theologians whose influence had gone far in undermining the traditional theology by introducing dialectics into the theological domain, for it is particularly his role in this new movement which gives him importance in the history of theology. To Peter Abailard is largely due the incep- tion of this movement, while the arrival of Aristotle’s complete logical works in the West sometime before the middle of the
7 Cf. supra, note 10. Historians have dated this polemic ca. 1180, because the author, referring to the IIJ Lateran Council (1179), says it was held nuper (cf. Bibl. de l’Arsenal, 379, fol. 39r). I have not verified this fact, but it is at least a curious coincidence that, referring to the Council of Tours (1163), the author employs this same adverb nuper: “.. quia et in concilio quod nuper Turon celebravit, Alexander papa damnavit haeresim, videlicet qua Christum nihil esse secundum hominem, imo nec Deum nec hominem” PL. 199, 1136B.
The title Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae is of recent date, and drawn from these words of the prologue: “Quisquis hoc legerit, non dubitabit quatuor labyrinthos Franciae, id est, Abelardum et Lombardum, Petrum Pictavinum et Gilbertum Porretanum....” Bibl. de l’Ars., 379, fol. 39r.
*° J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique, p. 151. Walter frequently showed his hatred of philosophy and dialectics. Thus he says: “Obstu- pescite omnes non dialecticam sed plane diabolicam artem ....’ PL. 199, 1140C.
10 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
twelfth century assured its triumph. Furthered by Peter of Poitiers and others, it “led straight to the scholastic method of the thirteenth century.” *®
3. CHANCELLORSHIP
Monsignor Grabmann has remarked that the attack of Walter of Saint Victor did not result in serious prejudice to Peter of Poitiers, since the pope was to name him chancellor of the chapter. of Notre Dame of Paris a few years later.3° Bartholemy Hauréau expresses the same thought in saying that “the libel, in which Walter treats him so shamefully, appeared in 1180, and it is some four years later that the pope named him chancellor.”*! But Hauréau is mistaken on the date of his nomination to the chan- cellorship, and I think that the source of his error is the Histoire hitéraire, where we read :32
Since the right to direct the schools of the diocese had been attached to the office of the chancellor of a cathedral, the theologian of whom we are speaking (Peter of Poitiers) is indifferently called Ecclesiae or Academiae Parisiensis cancellarius, both in the MSS of his works and by the writers who have mentioned him. He signed several acts in this capacity, for example a charter of the archbishop of Paris, Maurice, in 1184.
Without insisting on the fact that Maurice of Sully was bishop and not archbishop of Paris, I want to call attention to the error concerning the role of Peter of Poitiers in this act of
*¥F. Powicke, Stephen Langton (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1928), p. 54.
° Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth., II, 127. Since the chancellor was a mem- ber of the cathedral chapter and a representative of the bishop in the direction of the schools, I do not know on what authority Monsignor Grabmann, as well as Hauréau before him, attributes to the pope Peter of Poitiers’ nomination as chancellor. And I have found no act of Celestine IIT (1184-1198) in which he names Peter to the chancellorship.
™ Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits de la Bibliothéque nationale (Paris, 1890-1893), II, 243.
™XVI, 489.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 11
1184, which is the earliest act in which his name occurs.°3 The act ends with the words: ‘‘Astantibus testibus: Mauricio Pari- siensi archidiacono, Petro diacono sancti Germani Autisiodorensis, Magistro Petro Pictavensi, fratre Daniele . . . etc.”** Hence Peter of Poitiers appears in this act as a simple witness and not as chancellor.
Although erring himself, Hauréau pointed out a still more serious error in Casimir Oudin.®> Writing of the date of the composition of the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers (i.e. before 1176) Oudin says: “Erat autem eo tempore cancellarius Academiae Parisiensis.”°* Perhaps, however, one should not interpret the expression eo tempore too narrowly.
The true date of Peter of Poitiers’ accession to the chancellor- ship of Notre Dame is 1193, in which year he succeeded Hilduinus,?* who had been chancellor since 1185.38 This date is confirmed by two acts, the first of which was written in 1192, the second in 1193. In the first act Hilduinus is still chancellor and a master Peter (whom I believe to be Peter of Poitiers) is a
* In his edition of the Cartulaire de lEglise de Notre Dame de Parts, Guérard has placed under the name of Peter of Poitiers several acts anterior to this act of 1184. These acts in chronological order date from 1168, 1171, 1173, and 1178. There is also one undated act. All the dated acts, which bear simply, Data per manum Petri cancellaru, fall within the extreme dates of Peter Comestor’s chancellorship, and hence certainly belong to him (Chart. Univ. Paris, I. Pars Introductoria, 8 no. 1). The undated act also belongs to Comestor, because its witnesses are the same as in the above dated acts, whereas entirely different witnesses have signed the acts given by the hand of Peter of Poitiers.
* Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 5413, fol. 23v-24r: Cartulaire de Saint Magloire de Paris.
*B. Hauréau, op. cit., II, 242-243.
*% Commentarius de scrip., II, 1500.
*H. Denifle in the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, Delalain, 1889-1897), I, p.61, says in a note: “Qua occasione privilegium Philippi Augusti concessum sit (vide Chronicon magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. Stubbs IV, 120). Evenit sub cancellario Parisiensi Petro Pictavensi qui successit Hilduino et anno 1193 primum ut cancellarius nominatur.”
* Hilduinus was named chancellor for the first time in 1185 and for the last time in 1191. Cf. Guérard, Cart. de Notre Dame, II. 311 and I. 45.
12 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
simple witness.2® In the second act Peter of Poitiers appears for the first time as chancellor.*°
The office of chancellor during the Middle Ages was charged with a two-fold function. As one of the first dignitaries of the cathedral chapter, the chancellor saw to the redaction of the official acts of that body, which he later sealed and delivered ;** as representative of the bishop, he shared with another dignitary of the chapter, the chanter, the direction of instruction throughout the episcopal jurisdiction. The chanter was charged with the supervision of the elementary schools, the chancellor with that of the higher schools.4* And therefore, when “the University was established at Paris, the chancellor naturally found himself at its head; he continued to exercise on the corporation of masters and students the disciplinary and judiciary power which he possessed over all the schools of the diocese.” *8
But was the University yet established at the time Peter of Poitiers was chancellor (1193-1205)? Beginning with Denifle, historians have traced the development of academic life in Paris during the later years of the twelfth and the first years of the thirteenth centuries, and the transformation of the cathedral schools into the University.44 This transformation was due primarily to a cause operative within the schools themselves—
* Paris, Arch. Nat. S. 890A:... Actum publice in capitulo nostro Parisius anno Verbi incarnati M° CXCII°. Signum Mychael decani, sig- num Petri precentoris; signum Mauricii archidiaconi; signum Hosmundi archidiaconi; signum Haimerici archidiaconi; signum Galonis succentoris presbyteri; signum Leonii; signum Mathei; presbyterorum; signum magistri Petri; signum Hugonis Clementis; signum Bosonis, diaconorum; ... Data per manum magistri Hylduini Parisiensis cancellarii.
“B. Guérard, Cart. de Notre Dame, II, 468: De domino Nicholao sacerdote canonico Parisiensi.
... Actum publice in nostro capitulo anno Verbi incarnati M®° CXC° III®. S. Michaelis decani; S. Petri cantoris; S. Mauretii; S. Osmundi; S. Haymerici, archidiaconorum; S. Galonis succentoris, Data per manum magistri Petri Pictavensis cancellarii.
“A. Luchaire, La société francaise, p. 95.
“ Ibid., p. 68.
“ [bid., p. 95.
“H. Denifle, Die Entstehung der Universititen des Mittelalters bis 1400 (Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1885), pp. 40-132; 655-694. This was the earliest and probably the most important study on the origin
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 13
the development of the several faculties, especially the faculty of theology, which attracted to Paris an unprecedented number of students. Still it is true that “each step taken in the way of formal organization of the Parisian corporation was conditioned by an external event; each new measure was provoked by some incident ; the University was organized under pressure of circum- stances; it had need of a series of trials to become conscious of its situation, to be confirmed in its unity, and to acquire a juridic personality.”*° These “external events’ were most frequently conflicts between the students and the authorities, civil and ecclesi- astical, which resulted in privileges being granted the student body. As early as 1174, Pope Celestine III had granted certain privileges.4® Much more important were the celebrated privileges given by Philip Augustus in 1200,*7 and renewed by Saint Louis in 122948 Then there were the statutes drawn up for the Parisian corporation in 1215 by the papal-legate Robert of Courcon,*? and the new statutes contained in the famous bull Parens scientiarum of Gregory IX in 1231.°°
But whatever some may have thought, no one of these privi- leges or statutes, not even the charter of Philip Augustus in 1200, can be considered an act of foundation. Consequently the Uni- versity had no official beginning, but gradually, almost imper- ceptibly, developed out of the previously existing schools. And this is why historians have never been able to fix the precise date of its beginning.
For A. Luchaire, “the University appears as a body already formed and even provided with a head, designated under the vague term capitale,” in the charter of Philip Augustus.°! Rash-
and development of mediaeval universities. Since then Rashdall has written his classic work, which I shall have occasion to cite. Quite re- cently Stephen D’Irsay has published another study on the same subject.
*S. D’Irsay, Histoire des universités, I, 66.
“Chart. Univ. Parts., I, Pars Introductoria, nos. 7 and 8. Cf. D’Irsay, op. cit., I, 66, note 3.
“Thid., I, no. 1; L. Delisle, Catalogue des actes de Philippe Auguste (Paris, 1856), p. 146, no. 629; Du Boulay, Hist. Umv. Parts., III, 2.
“Chart. Univ. Paris., I, no. 66.
“Ibid., I, no. 20.
pied. I,-no, 79.
* La société frangatse, p. 91.
14 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
dall, however, takes issue with this interpretation of capitale, which he maintains, “merely means chattels or property, which, like the persons of the scholars, was protected from sequestration, except by process of the ecclesiastical court.”°* For him, a uni- versity of masters existed as early as 1170, but there was nothing like a legal corporation, recognized by ecclesiastical and civil authorities, until several years after 1200.%°
The latest writer on mediaeval universities, Stephen D’Irsay, says that this legal recognition, or the legal and formal definition of the status of the University of Paris is contained in the Parens scientiarum of Georgory IX in 1231, which he considers as a sort of Magna Charta for the University. But this institution had attained its juridic personality some years previous, between 1221 and 1229, since during that period it was definitely constituted with its courses, independent masters, and faculties. These faculties, however, did not receive their definitive constitution until 1255, the date of the bull Quasi lignum vitae of Alexander IV. And only six years later, in 1261, did the term university receive the meaning we give to it today.™
I may point out that an act of Innocent III in 1208-1209 seems to recognize the University of Paris as already existing. In fact, the term wmiversitas in this sense appears for the first time in this same act.5> In calling attention to this act I do not intend to question D’Irsay’s conclusions, but wish simply to emphasize the fact that the transformation of the cathedral schools into the University of Paris was a slow and gradual process, and that consequently it is hard to fix dates exactly. Nevertheless it seems clear that this transformation was accom- plished during the last quarter of the twelfth and the first third
= The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1895), I, 297-299. C. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard Univ. Press, 1928), p. 383, interprets capitale as chattels, but says that in the act of Philip Augustus “there is no suggestion of a new creation, but merely the recognition of a body of students and teachers which already exists... .”
“H. Rashdall, op. cit., I, 294 and 300.
bed. LULTSay, 0 paictt. a Als73:
“Chart. Univ. Parts I. Introduction p. iv.; I, no. 8
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 15
of the thirteenth centuries. Peter of Poitiers’ years as chancellor, therefore, came in the middle of this period of transition. They saw the granting of the privileges to the academic corporation by Philip Augustus in 1200. And consequently the years of Peter’s chancellorship were of great importance for the nascent University.
I have been able to find only seven acts of the chancery of Notre Dame given by the hand of Peter of Poitiers.°® The earliest of these acts dates from 1193, as we saw above; the latest dates from 1204. On the strength of this latest act, Denifle asserts that Peter of Poitiers was named chancellor for the last time in 1204.57 We shall see, however, that he was still chancellor on April 1, 1205.
The dates of these acts help us in correcting two errors found in the writings of earlier historians. Thus Hemereus, remarking certain letters signed by one Theobaldus in 1200, on the occasion of the anniversary of Godfrey, Count of Brittany, supposes that Theobaldus was replacing Peter of Poitiers as chancellor of Notre Dame.*® Guérard, however, has pointed out that this Theobaldus was in reality the chancellor of the Count of Blois.*®
* These acts in chronological order are: 1193 (Guérard, Cart. de Notre Dame, II, 468); 1195 (tbid., III, 358-59) ; 1196 (Layettes du Trésor des Chartes I, 190, no. 453 (Paris, 1196. J. 153 Paris, IV, no. 1)); 1198 (Guérard, op. cit., I, 72). This act is not given by the hand of Peter of Poitiers, but he is mentioned as chancellor. 1201 (ibid., II, 69); 1203 (ibid., II, 259-260) and 1204 (ibid., II, 513). Hemereus in his De Aca- demia Parisiensi, p. 115, says that another act, settling a dispute between the monks of Saint Eloi and the canons of Saint Victor at Paris, was given by Peter of Poitiers in 1196, and in the XVIII century still bore his seal, with the inscription: Sigillum Petri Pictaviensis cancellaru Parisiensis. This act, which I did not succeed in finding, terminated a charge imposed on Peter of Poitiers and Hugh Clement, dean of Paris, by Celestine ITI in a letter of January 14, 1196. Cf. Jaffe-Wattenbach, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (2ed. Leipzig, 1885-1888), II, 619, no. 17325.
"Chart. Univ. Paris., I. p. 61. (in the note): Evenit sub cancellario Parisiensi Petro Pictaviensi, qui successit Hilduino et anno 1193 primo ut cancellarius nominatur; ultimo vero anno 1204.
* Cl. Hemereus, De Academia Parisienst (Lutetia, 1637), p. 115: Theo- baldus signat litteras de anniversario Gaufridi, comitis Britanniae, anno 1200, implens, ut ego puto, vices hac in parte Petri Pictavensis.
* Cart. de Notre Dame, I, 296.
16 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
A much graver error would have Peter of Poitiers elected archbishop of Embrun in 1201. This error originated in the mistaken reading of a passage in the Chronicle of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, which says that Bertrand, successor to Peter of Poitiers as chancellor, became archbishop of Embrun in 1206.** The Bertrand or Bernard in question is Bernard Chabert, chan- cellor of Notre Dame between the death of Peter of Poitiers in 1205 and the nomination of Prepositinus of Cremona in 1206. Furthermore, the historians who misread Alberic of Trois- Fontaines were also mistaken in the date 1201, for the Chronicle gives the event as of 1206. In reality, Chabert was named to the See of Geneva in 1206 and then transferred to Embrun around ios
Further light is thrown on the activities of Peter of Poitiers by a few papal letters naming him judge-delegate in certain judicial processes. In the earliest of these letters, which dates from January 14, 1196, Celestine III names Peter of Poitiers and Hugh Clement, dean of Paris, arbiters of a dispute between the monks of Saint Eloi and the canons of Saint Victor at Paris, con-
©The brothers Sainte Marthe were the first to make this error in their Gallia christiana (1656), II, 1499. Oudin, Comment. de script., II, 1502; Fabricius, Bibliotheca latina mediae et infimae aetatis (ed. Mansi, Patavii, 1754), III, t.v., 272 col. 1; Du Boulay Hist. Univ. Paris., III, 704, all followed this mistaken reading. ‘The error was corrected in the Benedictine edition of the Gallia Christiana, III, 1075. Also Dom Ceillier in his Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques (2ed., Paris, 1859-1869), XIV, 568 and the Histoire littéraire, XVI, 489-490 have pointed out this error.
* MGH. SS. XXIII, 887, 10, anno 1206: Bertranus qui erat cancel- larius Parisiensis post Pictavinum factus est archiepiscopus Ebredunensis et magister Prepositinus factus est cancellarius.
“Two notes by Denifle in the Chart. Univ. Paris., I, pp. 61 and 66 inform us that Bernard Chabert, whose obituary notice is given in the Cart. de Notre Dame, IV, 62, succeeded Peter of Poitiers as chancellor, and that Prepositinus of Cremona became chancellor ca.1206 upon the elevation of Bernard Chabert to the episcopal See of Geneva. This Ber- nard is the same personage as the Bertrand who in Alberic of Trois- Fontaines (MGH. SS. XXIII, 887) is said to have been elected bishop of Embrun in 1206.
“Cf. Gallia christiana, XVI, 405E.; C. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medu aevi (Regensberg, 1901-1913), I, 260 and 233.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 17
cerning tithes of wine and grain at Vitry.®* A similar delegation was confided to him by Innocent III on November 4, 1202.8 A second letter of this same Pope to the chancellor is undated, but Potthast believes that it was most probably written in 1204.%
These three letters indicate that Peter of Poitiers had a prac- tical knowledge of law and judicial procedure. A fourth and final letter, however, has an added importance, in that it gives evidence that Peter of Poitiers was still chancellor of the cathedral of Paris on April 1, 1205. In this letter Innocent III charges John, abbot of Sainte Genevieve, Hugh, dean of Paris, and Peter, chancellor of Paris, to examine and to bring to an end litigation between Catherine, countess of Blois, and the cathedral chapter of Chartres concerning a thief, whom the officers of the countess had arrested and tried, although the canons had claimed the right to conduct the trial, since the thief had been apprehended within the limits of their jurisdiction. This letter was written on April 1, 1205, and Peter of Poitiers is therein designated chancellor of aris,
It is in this same year that Alberic of Trois-Fontaines places his death.** The Chronicon anglicanum of Ralph of Coggeshall,® and the Chronicle of Bernard Itier’ agree in giving this same date. The Catalogus tllustrium academicorum says Peter of Poitiers died about 1206.% In the Cartulaire de l Eglise de Notre Dame de Paris is found this obituary notice :”
III Non. Septembris. De domo sancte Marie obiit magister Petrus Pictaviensis, diaconus et cancellarius, qui dedit nobis quadraginta libras Parisiensium, positas in emptione decimi Viriaco.
* Jaffe-Wattenbach, Regesta Pont. Rom., 11, 619, no. 17325.
* A. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin, 1874-1875), no. 1749,
“ Ibid., no. 2361.
*" Tbid., no. 2467.
®SMGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20, anno 1205; Obiit magister Petrus Pictavinus cancellarius Parisiensis. . .
° Rerum britannicarum medu aevi scriptores, 66, p. 661; Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, XVIII, 103C.
Recueil des histortens, XVIII, 226D.
™ Du Boulay, Hist. Univ. Parts., Il, 767.
@IV, 142. In the margin opposite this notice is found the date circa 1210. But the manuscript Guérard edited—Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 5185 C.C., fol. 267 rb—does not have any indication of the year in which the death recorded in the obituary took place.
18 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
According to this notice, then, Peter of Poitiers died on Septem- ber third, and since this notice occurs in the cartulary of the very house in which the death apparently occurred, we are justified, I think, in accepting this date as correct. This evidence, then, along with that of the above mentioned chronicles, enables us to con- clude that Peter of Poitiers died on September 3, 1205. This is further confirmed by the fact that his name does not appear aitenatiataate:
The above notice says also that Peter of Poitiers died a deacon. This fact has never been remarked, though it is worthy of note, for in the twelfth century “the episcopal dignity crowns the career of many theologians of France ...as Anselm of Canterbury, Ivo of Chartres, William of Champeaux, Walter of Montagne, Gilbert de la Porrée, John of Salisbury, Peter of Blois, Adam du Petit Pont, . .. and, to conclude, Peter Lombard.” Incidentally, I have found no reason for supposing that the term diaconus is to be here understood as archidiaconus or as decanus.
But could a deacon have held the office of chancellor in a cathedral chapter? There is no reason for supposing that he could not. Speaking of the chanter, another officer of the chapter, Gueérard says that it was necessary that this personage be ordained deacon within the year of his election, in case he had not pre- viously received this order.“* From this we may suppose that the chancellor also was not obliged to take orders above the diacon- ate. We know furthermore that in the Middle Ages there were no fixed rules governing admission among the canons. To have voice in the chapter it sufficed to be subdeacon (Clem. X, 2. De aetate et qualitate I, 6). Much later the Council of Trent re- quires that half the canons be priests, while the other half may be deacons and subdeacons (Session 24, c. 12: De Reform.)™ Consequently, Peter of Poitiers could well have been deacon and chancellor, and further indications confirm the truth of the obit- uary notice.
® J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique, p. 111. ™ Cart. de Notre Dame, I, cii.
* P, Hinschius, System des Katholischen Kirchenrechts mit besonderer Ricksicht auf Deutschland (Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Prot- estanten in Deutschland) (Berlin, 1869-1897), II, 66.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 19
Thus in an act which I have already cited we find the follow- ing list of witnesses :*6
Signum Mychael, decani; signum Petri, precentoris; signum Mauricii, archidiaconi; signum Hosmundi, archidiaconi; signum MHaimerici, archidiaconi; signum Galonis succentoris presbyteri; signum Leonii; signum Mathei, presbyterorum; signum magistri Petri; signum Hu- gonis Clementis; signum Bosonis, diaconorum; signum Bartholomei; signum Suggerii; signum Philippi, subdiacanorum; signum Henrici; signum Odonis; signum Willelmi, puerorum.
In this act the witnesses have signed according to ecclesiastical ranking and among the deacons is found a magister Petrus. It is true that the qualifying Pictaviensis is wanting, but I believe the witness is certainly Peter of Poitiers, because this act dates from 1192, and in two other acts given by his hand in 1193 and 1195 respectively’” appear almost identical lists of witnesses which do not include the magister Petrus. This belief is further con- firmed by the fact that in the act of 1192 the signum magistni Petri is followed by signum Hugonis Clementis, and we have seen this Hugh Clement associated with Peter of Poitiers in two papal letters cited above.
In one of the sermons of Peter of Poitiers, written most probably during his chancellorship, is found a text which seem- ingly indicates that he was a deacon, or at least that he was not a priest, at the time of its writing. Preaching to an assembly of priests Peter says: “Absit ut qui corpus Domini cotidie manibus contrectatis et ore suscipitis eadem membra Spiritu sancto con- secrata turpitudine luxurie vel passione aliqua ignominiose in- quinetis.”
In this text, he uses the second person. But if he had been a priest, he would most likely have employed the first person, contrectamus, suscipimus, inquinemus, thereby associating him- self with his fellow priests. And it is especially worth remarking that a little further on in the same sermon he thus includes him- self among the clerics: “Qui stat videat ne cadat. Omnia reti-
% Archives nationales, Paris, S. 890a.
™ Cf. Cart. de Notre Dame, II, 468 and III, 358-359.
® These papal letters are of Celestine III and Innocent III and date from January 14, 1196 and April 1, 1205. Cf. supra, notes * and ™.
® Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14593, fol. 6vb-7ra.
20 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
bus diaboli plena sunt, et hec sunt in quibus diabolus nobis clericis insidiatur, avaricia, gula, luxuria.”®°
It seems permissible to conclude, therefore, that at an ad- vanced age, Peter of Poitiers was still a deacon. Since he was already in major orders some twenty years earlier (before 1176) there is little likelihood that he ever entered the priesthood. That he did not is witnessed to by the obituary notice in the cartulary of Notre Dame: Obtit magister Petrus Pictaviensis, diaconus et cancellarius.
The obituary notice says finally that Peter of Poitiers left forty pounds of Paris to the church of Notre Dame. Leopold Delisle has called attention to another bequest whereby “a master Peter of Poitiers left several volumes to the Abbey of Saint Germain, his name being found on the Latin MSS 11945, 11954, 13175, and 13176” of the library of that Abbey.8* This master, as Delisle remarks, was most probably the chancellor. On the other hand, Guérard was mistaken in believing the Peter, one- time chancellor of the church of Paris, of whom mention is made in an act of sale in 1248, to have been Peter of Poitiers.33 The Peter in question is Petrus dictus Parvus,’* as we learn from another obituary notice of the same church.®® A. Franklin was
“1bids tole ra.
* Sentences, III, c. 23; PL. 211, 1110B: Ergo servitute constituta teneor magis servire Deo uno tempore quam alio, quia tempore vesperarum debeo dicere vesperas, quod non alio tempore teneor. This obligation of reciting the Divine Office indicates that Peter of Poitiers was in major orders when this passage was written, i.e. before 1175.
” Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la bibliothéque impériale (Paris, 1868- 188i el ieaZ:
* Cart. de Notre Dame, II, 258: Aubertus de Pooli, miles, et Heloysis, ejus uxor, medietatem indivisam decimae de Chateleinnes in territorio de Coognoliis capitulo Parisiensi vendunt pro centum et decem libris Paris- iensibus; e quibus librae centum ad opus anniversariorum Petri, quondam cancellarii ecclesiae Parisiensis, et Petri de Fontaneto, in eadem ecclesia Vicarii, imputantur. Datum anno Domini M° CC° quadragesimo octavo, mense Julio.
* Petrus dictus Parvus was named chancellor of Notre Dame, Paris in 1244. Denifle, Chart. Univ. Paris., I, pp. 179-180, note 1.
* B. Guérard, op. cit., IV, 142: Eodem die obiit magister Petrus de Fontaneto, presbiter canonicus sancti Germani Antisiodorensis et vicarius in ecclesia Parisiensi. De cuius elemosina recepimus quinquaginta libras Parisiensium, que, cum aliis quinquaginta libris, quas de elemosina Magistri
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 21
similarly mistaken in supposing the chancellor to have been the donor of twenty volumes to Saint Victor of Paris.8* We shall see further on that the benefactor was in reality Peter of Poitiers, canon regular of Saint Victor.
Of this Peter of Poitiers, and also of a twelfth century monk of Cluny bearing the same name, a word must be said in conclu- sion, for these persons are not to be confused with the chan- cellor.8?
We know nothing of the early life of the monk of Cluny.*® He entered Cluny while Ponce de Melgueil (1109-1122) was still abbot, but made his religious profession under the successor of Ponce, Peter the Venerable (1122-1156). He soon became the secretary of this illustrious abbot, and indeed was looked upon by the latter as a cherished spiritual son.®® With the abbot he made a tour of Aquitaine in 1134 and a trip into Spain seven years later.°° He was possibly grand prior of Cluny, though the only evidence of this is the address written in a letter sent him by a fellow monk.®*! He died in 1160.%”
dicti Parvi, cancellarii Parisiensis, habuimus, implicate fuerunt in decima de Chatelenes in parrochia de Ciconeliis. Quorum reddituum medietas debet distribui in anniversario dicti Petri vicarii et parentum suorum.
Les anciennes bibliothéques de Paris (Paris, 1867-1873), I, 139. Cf. infra note 109.
These three Peters of Poitiers were first clearly distinguished by C. D. Du Cange in the first edition of the Glossarium infimae et mediae latinitatis (Paris, 1678). Cf. 4ed., Paris, 1840-1850, VII, 416.
* For Peter of Poitiers, monk of Cluny, cf. C. Oudin, Comment. de script., II, 1273-1274; Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés, XIV, 571; Histoire littéraire, XII, 349-356; Manitius, Geschichte der lateints- chen Literatur des Mittelalters (Munchen, 1911-1931), III, 900-903.
*° Among the letters of Peter the Venerable, several are written to Peter of Poitiers, who is addressed as dilecto filio (1, ep. IX, PL. 189, 77A); praecordiaht filio (I, ep. X, ibid., col. 78D); speciali amore charissimo fratri et fito (1, ep. XXVI, tbid., col. 106C). Elsewhere the writer men- tions Peter as notarius noster (I, ep. XXIV, tbid., col. 106B; IV, ep. XVII, tbid., col. 339C).
° Histoire littéraire, XII, 350.
* Petri venerabilis abbatis Clumiacensis IX epistolarum libri sex IV, ep. XXXI, PL. 189, 360-361: Charissimo seni societatis nostrae priori Petro Pictavensi, frater Arnulahus eremita novitius coeremitarum suorum minimus salutem mentis et corporis.
"U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age. Bio- bibliographie (2ed., Paris, 1905-1907), II, 3737.
22 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
This Peter of Poitiers was a poet and of him the Histoire littéraire says: “In justice it should at least be said of him that he was one of the poets of the century who composed in verse with the greatest facility and elegance.’
One of his poems is a panegyric of Peter the Venerable, written on the occasion of the first visit of this abbot into Aqui- taine®4 Certain contemporaries were of the opinion that he had therein sung too highly the praises of the abbot, and one of them wrote a criticism of the author which must have been severe. At any rate it brought forth a reply, Ad calummitorem,® in which this Peter of Poitiers justifies himself by citing the examples of Christ praising John the Baptist and of the saints extolling one another during their lifetimes.
This Peter of Poitiers wrote several letters to his spiritual father, Peter the Venerable. Of these letters two have been published in the Patrologia latina.°® He also cooperated in a Latin translation of the Koran.®%* Two epitaphs, one of Gela- sius II, the other of Adephonsus or Alphonsus, bishop of Sala- manca (1130-1131), are also attributed to him.
Finally U. Zwingli, the younger, in 1592 published under his name a compendium of bible history: Genealogia et chronologia sanctorum patrum. The Histoire littéraire, however, in its article on the monk of Cluny remarked: “It is certain, as will be seen in its place, that this work belongs to another Peter of Poitiers, chancellor of the Church of Paris, who died toward the end of the twelfth century.’’°8 But later the Histoire littéraire does not affirm as certain the attribution of this work to the chancellor.%® Nevertheless, we shall see while studying this compendium that it should be attributed to him, and not to the secretary of Peter the Venerable.
The third Peter of Poitiers was a canon regular of Saint
PALI S50:
* PL, 189, 47-58.
*° Ibid., col. 57-60.
* Ibid., col. 47 and 59-62.
"Petri venerabilis ... epistolarum libri sex, II, ep. XVII, PL. 189, 339B. ; * PLL 4396,
a UWE AIS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF PETER OF POITIERS 23
Victor’s in Paris. Almost nothing is known of him except that he was a canon regular and the author of a Pemtential which begins: Compilatio presens materiam habens confessionem. . . 1° Thanks to Fabricius he has been rather generally confused with another Peter of the time, known as Peter the Chanter.
Another work which most probably should be attributed to him is the De mystertis incarnationis Christi, which begins: Qu parce seminat, parce et metet.4°% ‘This treatise is attributed to a Brother Peter of Poitiers in Paris, Bibl. nat., lat., 14886,1° and Hauréau has pointed out that the Brother Peter of Poitiers is the canon of Saint Victor.1
Finally, a work De septem sacramentis ecclesiae is also per- haps from the pen of this canon. It is expressly attributed to him ina MS of the fourteenth century, MS 206 of the library of Dijon.t°%° On the other hand, it is found under the name of Innocent III in MS 983 of the Bibliothéque Mazarine, a MS dating from the thirteenth century.1
7° For Peter of Poitiers, canon regular of Saint Victor, cf. C. Oudin, Comment. de script., II, 1273; Fabricius, Bibl. lat., III, t.v., 250-251 and 270; Histoire littéraire, XVI, 484-485.
71 MSS of this work are Avignon, 1100; Laon, 338; Munich Staatsbibl.,, fateeeozie ye aris, Bibl. nat., lat. 13455, 14525, 14886; and Bibl, “Maz. 774; Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat. Reg. lat. 983; Vienna, Nationalbibl., 1520 and 1653. Cf. A. Teetaert, “Le Liber Poenitentialis de Pierre de Poitiers,” in Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters (BGPTM, Supplementband, III, 1) (Munster i.W., 1935), pp. 310-331.
7 For Peter the Chanter and the clearing up of this confusion, cf. F. Gutjahr, Petrus Cantor—sein Leben und seine Schriften (Graz 1899) and B. Hauréau, Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits de la Bibhothéque nationale, II, 5 ff.
78MSS of this work are: Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14886, fol. 85 and 16506, fol. 32.
4 Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14886, fol. 273vb: In isto libro continetur... summa fratris Petri Pictavensis .... This attribution is not in the same hand as the work itself, but dates most probably from the XIV century or from the extreme end of the XIII century.
Notices et extratts, III, 264.
#6 Dijon, 206 (XIV cent.), fol. Ir: De septem sacramentis ecclesie ... Totus homo in culpa fuit ...; fol. 78v: Explicit hoc opus magistri Petri Pictavi apud sanctum Victorem.
7 Paris, Bibl. Maz., 983 (XIII cent.), fol. 55r: Summa Innocentii pape. In Avignon, 592 (476), which dates from the first half of the XIII cent., this work is anonymous.
24 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
The year of his death is not known. By reason of the con- fusion with Peter the Chanter, Fabricus mistakenly places this event in the year 1197.1°S Hauréau says it is certain that he composed his Penitential after 1216 and before 1230.1 If this be true, we are safe in saying only that he was still living some-
time after 1216.11°
108 Bibl. lat., III, 272: Petrus Pictaviensis, canonicus Sancti Victoris Parisiensis et cantor, defunctus anno 1197, de cuius Poenitentiali atque aliis scriptis, supra 250.
SUG rrlalureallMOpmctr nll wo,
0 Whatever may have been the year in which he died, his death ap- parently occurred on October 3, for in Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14673, fol. 246v is given under this date the following obituary notice: “Commem- oratio parentum et benefactorum fratris Petri Pictavensis de cuius bene- ficio habuimus viginti volumina librorum.” Cf. L. Delisle, Cabinet des manuscrits, II, 221. A. Franklin in his Les anciennes bibliothéques de Parts, I, 139 was mistaken in believing that there was question in this obituary of Peter of Poitiers, the chancellor. The error is obvious because this notice expressly says Brother Peter of Poitiers, and since the chancel- lor was not a religious he would not have been called brother.
CHAPTER [|
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE
Several excellent studies have been made of the origin, the nature, and the development of mediaeval Sentencebooks.1 In its primitive and strict sense the term “Sentencebook” applied to impersonal collections of exegetical interpretations and doctrinal teachings taken from the writings of the Fathers of the Church. These collections fall into three classes according to the method by which they were arranged.
In the first class of these collections, the authors seem simply to have jotted down, in the course of their reading, certain sen- tentiae of one or several Fathers. These sententiae follow no apparent order. The Sancti Prosperi lhber sententiarum ex Augustino delibatarum,* written by St. Prosper of Aquitaine about the middle of the fifth century, was one of the earliest and best known of this type of Sentencebook.
In the second class of these collections the patristic excerpts are given according to the order of the books of the Bible, that is, the sententiae of the Fathers, which are interpretative of scrip- tural texts, are arranged in the sequence of these texts from Gene- sis to the Apocalypse. The Liber de expositione veteris et now testamenti de diversis libris sancti Gregori concinnatus,? com- piled about the year 600 by Paterius, secretary to St. Gregory, served as model for this type of Sentencebook. This ordering of the sententiae was particularly suitable for the study and
*G. Robert, Les écoles et lenseignement de la théologie pendant la premiere moitié du XIIe siécle (Paris, Gabalda, 1909); M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols.; G. Paré, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, La Renaissance du XII°@ siécle: Les écoles et lenseignement. This is a complete re-writing of Robert’s study. Also to be consulted: J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique du XII° siécle, and H. H. Glunz, History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1933).
* PL. 51, 425-496.
* PL. 79, 683-1136.
25
26 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
teaching of scriptural exegesis, and from it developed the rich gloss literature of the Middle Ages.
And finally, in the third class of these collections, the excerpts taken from patristic and ecclesiastical writings are grouped under doctrinal headings, arranged in logical sequence—God, angels, man, etc. The Sententiarum libri tres* of Isidore of Seville (+ 636) was the first example of this type of Sentencebook. This method of arranging the patristic sententiae lent itself espe- cially well to the study and teaching of theology, or of dogmatic and moral questions, and from it developed the large Sentence- books and Summae of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Though far superior to the compilations of St. Prosper and of Paterius methodologically, the earliest works of this third class of Sentencebooks were of an impersonal nature. The excerpts from the Fathers were given in them one after another with little or no personal comment on the part of the compiler. Gradually, however, a change began to take place. These works became increasingly more personal. This personal character is evident even before the time of Abailard.® From the middle of the twelfth century, however, the development is more rapid, and the Sentencebooks dating from the second half of this cen- tury are no longer “arrangements of excerpts disposed in system- atic order in the manner of Isidore and of Taio,’® but “compendiums containing a brief, systematic, comprehensive, and well thought out exposition of the principal truths of Christian doctrine.”* Hence the works of the later twelfth century, which are still entitled Sentencebooks (sententiarum libri) in the manu- scripts, are in fact Summae, though this latter term, which desig- nates the changed nature of these works, did not begin to be
¢ PIE T838 03/2730;
°Of the Sententie divine pagine, attributed to Anselm of Laon (critical ed. by F. Bliemetzrieder, BGPM, XVIII pt. 2), Monsignor Grabmann has written: “The foundation stones of Anselm’s work are the Fathers, espe- cially Augustine, but it is no impersonal stringing together of texts. There is in this treatise a noticeable touch of independent, personal work” (Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth., II, 162).
°*J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique du XIIe siécle, p. 83. The Taio, to whom reference is made, was Taio of Saragossa (+ ca. 651) who wrote Sententiarum libri quinque (PL. 80, 727-990).
"G. Robert, Les écoles et l’enseignement, p. 132.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 27
commonly used in the titles and incipits until the end of the twelfth century, and only in the thirteenth century did it replace the term Sentencebooks.2 In other words, this latter term continued in use throughout the twelfth century, “when in the wake of Abailard the collectores began adding their personal reasonings to the excerpts taken from tradition,”? and when, consequently, “the term no longer corresponded to the principal character of these works.’’°
The work of Peter of Poitiers, which we are to study in this chapter, was written, as we shall see, toward the end of the third quarter of the twelfth century. It well exemplifies the change to which I have just referred. A personal, systematic, and comprehensive exposition of Christian theology, it is in reality a Summa. I have retained the title of Sentencebooks, however, because this traditional title was still the term used in the manu- script rubrics at the time the work was written.
Of the works of Peter of Poitiers which have come down to us, his Sentences are most important. They assure him a promi- nent place among the speculative theologians of Paris. That they were extensively copied and used in the Middle Ages is proved by the fact that in their original form they have come down to us wholly or partially in thirty-three MSS, and in an abridged form in four manuscripts. These MSS date mostly from the thirteenth century, but also from the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries. After the fourteenth century the Sentences were no longer copied. We shall begin our study of this work with a list of these MSS.14
®M. Grabmann, op. cit., II, 24. °G. Robert, op. cit., p. 131. Tbid., p. 132.
™ Dole, 98; Lambeth Palace, 142; Rheims, 509; Worcester, Library of the Cathdral Chapter, F. 50 contain an abridged edition of the Sen- tences of Peter of Poitiers. Cf. Appendix I to this study.
"In listing the MSS of the various works of Peter of Poitiers, I shall describe at length only those preserved in the Bibliothéque nationale of Paris, for which there is as yet no adequate catalogue. For other MSS, with a few exceptions, I shall merely follow the catalogues in which a more or less satisfactory description of them is to be found.
28 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS 1. THe MANUSCRIPTS
A. ATTRIBUTED MANUSCRIPTS
XII Century PARIS Bibl. nat., lat. 3154, fol. 111ra-131lva. fol. 2ra-9vb: (Fragmentum tractatus theologiae) Beg.: Utrum Filius sit Sapiens sapientia genita vel ingenita. fol. 10ra-17vb: (Fragmenta theologica) Beg.: Homo enim sic creatus
CStraedeiss fol. 18ra-25vb: (Sermones de festis)
1) Completi sunt dies purgationis Marie. In hoc evangelio tria principaliter continentur. . .. fol. 18ra.
2) Iustus ut palma florebit. ... Vita beati Johannis Babtiste. ... fol. 18 va.
3) Beati qui habitant in domo tua, Domine etc. . . . Festum istud omnium Sanctorum instituit beatus Bonefatius. . .. fol. 19va.
4) Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Tres sunt adventus Christi. ..» fol. 19vb.
5) Intravit Ihesus in quoddam castelum. . . . Quid ad gloriosam Virginem Dei genetricem. fol. 20ra.
6) Statuit Moyses terminos circa montem. ... Descenderat Dominus in nube et caligine. . . . fol. 20vb.
7) Factum est autem vertente anno eo tempore quo solunt reges. ... Fra- tres, nolite queso moleste accipere.... fol. 2lva. Sermon of Peter of Poitiers.
8) Benedictus Deus quoniam mirificavit. . . . Vereor, fratres mei, ne vobis tociens convenientibus. ... fol. 22vb. Sermon of Peter of Poitiers.
9) Varietatis diabolice rota prudentie ut sciamus demonis insidias cavere. Wie tObieava,
10) Locutus est Dominus ad Moysem dicens: Homo qui fuerit leprosus
de semine Aaron. ... Quicumque maculatus fuerit lepra separatus ad arbitrium sacerdotis. ... fol. 25ra.
11) Sint lumbi vestri precincti. .. . Notandum est, fratres reverendissimi, aliud est precingi aliud accingi. ... fol. 25rb.
fol. 26ra-27vb: (Commentarius in Job) Beg.: Moraliter per Iob Christus, id est, caput et corpus designatur. ...
fol. 28ra-32va.: (Fragmenta moralia) Beg.: De penuria et tenuitate NOS(TAy waa.
fol. 32r-110v. Summa magistri Johannis Bellethi de ecclesiasticis officiis currens per anni circulum.
Beg.: In primitiva ecclesia. ...
fol. 11lra-131va: Incipit prefacio magistri Petri.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 29
Beg.: In deserto manna colligentes. . .. Invisibilia Det a creatura mundi. .. . Creatura mundi homo dicitur... .
Ends: Ideo et columba magis dicitur fuisse signum missionis Spiritus sancti quam Patris et Filii.
XII—Parchment, 310x210 mm., 135 fol., full lines on folios 32r-110v, other folios have two col., several hands, rubrics, blue and red initial letters. On fol. 13lvb: Reverendus in Christo pater et dominus, dominus Jacobus Jouviondus abbas huiusmodi monasterii tradidit istum librum (XVI cen- tury writing).
MS lat. 13435, fol. lra-250vb., fol. lra: Sententie magistri Petri Pic- taviensis.
Beg.: In deserto manna colligentes. .. . Invisibilia Det a creatura mundi .. . Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 250vb: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
XII—Parchment, 250x165 mm., 250 fol. of two col., red initial letters, rubrics from fol. 72 on, formerly Saint Germain-des-Prés, 884.
tROYES
1371, fol. 1ra-87vb.
fol. lra: Magistri Petri Pictavini summula disputationum que in scolis theologorum versantur. Beg.: Invisibilia Dew... . Creatura mundi homo dsciturs i.
fol. 87vb: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
XIII Century CAMBRIDGE ;
Gonville and Caius College, 316/712, fol. 1r-113r.
fol. ir: Incipit prologus in distinctiones sive sententias magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: In deserto manna colligentes. ... Invisibiia Det. . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. .. .
fol. 113r, ends: Quidam codices habent in quo positi sunt... .
GRENOBLE
289 (665), fol. 1r-152r.
fol. lr: Summa magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: In deserto manna colligentes. . . . Invisibilia Det. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. .
fol. 152r: Ends: angelis Persarum, angelis Grecorum, et angelis Heb- reorum.
LONDON
Lambeth Palace, 82, fol. 1r-133r.
fol. ir: Incipit prologus in distinctiones sive sententias magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: In deserto. ... Invisibilia Det... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. ... (fol. lv).
30 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
fol. 133r: Ends: hoc est omnis homo. Timentibus enim.
MS 142, fol. 1r-95r.
fol. ir: Summa magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: Dictionum alie Deo conveniunt ab eterno. .
fol. 95r: Ends: vermis eorum non moritur.
LONDON
British Museum, Roy. 10 A XIV, fol. 1ra-120ra.
fol. 1ra: Questiones magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: In deserto.... Invisibilia Dei. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 120ra: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo. MS Roy. 11 B IV, fol. 1ra-152va.
fol. lra: Sententie M. Petri Pictaviensis doctoris egregis. Beg.: Invisibilia Dei... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 152va: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa; hoc est omnis homo.
OXFORD Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 161, fol. lra-136va. fol. lra: Magister Petrus Pictaviensis. Beg.: Invistbilia Det. . . . Creatura
mundi homo dicitur. . fol. 136va: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
OXFORD
Merton College, 132, fol. lra-103va.
fol. lra: Beg.: In deserto. .. . Invwisibilia Det. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitii tua
fol. 103va: Ends: Time Deum et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo. Explicit summa beati Anselmi super libros sententiarum. This attribution is in a second hand, but seemingly of the thirteenth century.
PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 3116, fol. 1ra-78vb.
fol. Ira: Summa magistri Martini de Fugeriis.
Beg.: Vocabulorum que de Deo dicuntur. . .
fol. 78vb: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
fol. 78vb-80vb: (Fragmentum questionum). Beg.: Deus a nemine erigit quod ipse non potest... .
XIlI—Parchment, 315x225 mm., 82 fol. of 2 col., rubrics from folio 7 to folio 47,
MS lat. 15736, fol. 8rb-72vb.
fol. lra-8ra: (Questiones theologicae). Beg.: Queritur utrum Iudeis licitum fuerit aliquando dare mutuum ad usurum. A collection of theo- logical questions in a hand of the fifteenth century, which are found scat- tered in four separate places in this manuscript and in MS lat. 15735,
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 31
which forms one volume with MS lat. 15736. In this MS these questions are found on fol. lra-8ra and 73ra-78vb; in MS lat. 15735 on fol. lva-5vb and 70ra-76ra. The reason for this separation of these questions is that the folios were used by the binder of these MSS to protect the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers.
fol. 8r-72vb: Liber editus a magistro Pictaviensi ad declarationem libri sententiarum. Beg.: In deserto.... (fol. 8rb). Invisibilia Det. . . . Crea- tura mundi homo dicitur. ... (fol. 8va).
Ends: ad quod dicendum quod hic propositio aliquis homo (fol. 72vb). Only the first two books of the Sentences are contained in this MS. The last three books are found in MS lat. 15735, which forms one volume with this MS.
fol. 73ra-78vb: (Questiones theologicae). Beg.: Queritur utrum sit homini utile vel expediens astringere se per votum?
XIII and XV—Parchment, 270x172 mm., 79 fol. of 2 col., 2 or 3 hands, red and blue initial letters, rubrics, formerly Sorbonne, 1548: Iste liber, scilicet liber editus a magistro P. Pictaviensi ad declarationem sententiarum est pauperum magistrorum domus de Sorbonio ex legato Magistri Johannis Claranboudi de Gonnessia quondam socii domus, pretio XX sol., et alia pars eiusdem pretio eidem. Anno Domini M°CC° LXXX°VI° in adventu Domini, que incipit in secundo folio queritur, in penultimo, sed. Liber editus scilicet prima pars a magistro P. Pictaviensi ad declarationem sen- tentiarum ex legato magistri Johannis de Gonnessia pretio XX sol., qui incipit in secundo folio queritur, in penultimo, sed (fol. 79v).
MS lat. 15735, fol. 6ra-68vb.
fol. lva-5vb: (Questiones theologicae). Beg.: Notandum quod fraterna correctio est admonitio fratris....
fol. 6ra-68vb: Hic incipit tercia distinctio libri magistri Petri Picta- viensis editi ad declarationem aliquam libri sententiarum. Beg.: Quid sit virtus.... (fol. 6ra). Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo (fol. 68vb).
fol. 69v: (Tabula apostolorum et martyrum).
fol. 70ra-76ra: (Questiones theologicae). Beg.: Queritur utrum de necessitate debuerunt institui sacramenta? These questions in a hand of the fifteenth century are found in four separate places in this MS and in MS lat. 15736: on fol. lva-Svb and 70ra-76ra of this MS and on fol. lra-8ra and 73ra-78vb of MS lat. 15736.
X1il and XV—Parchment, 270x183 mm., 77 fol. of 2 col., 2 or 3 hands, red and blue initial letters, rubrics, formerly Sorbonne, 1547: Iste liber super sententias a P. Pictaviensi est pauperum magistrorum domus de Sorbonio studentium in theologia ex legato magistri Johannis Claranboudi de Gonnessia quondam socii domus pretio XX. Anno Domini M°CC° LXXX°VI° in adventu Domini, qui incipit in secundo folio quod non, in penultimo si sic. Item alia pars eiusdem libri editi ab eodem P. ad declara-
32 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
tionem sententiarum que incipit in secundo folio guod non. in penultimo si sic, ex legdto eiusdem magistri Johannis de Gonnessia, pretio XX sol. (fOLSLL)e
ROME
Bibl. Apost. Vat., Vat. lat. 1101, fol. 1r-66v.
fol. Ir: Opus domini Linconiensis supra librum sententiarum subtilis valde. (This attribution is in a fourteenth century hand.) Beg.: In deserto. ... Invisibilia Dei. ... Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 66v: Ends: Time Deum et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo. Explicit opus Linconiensis super sentencias magistri Petri Lombardi (Fifteenth century hand).
MS Barb. lat. 647, fol. 1ra-167va.
fol. Ira: Beg.: In deserto. .. . Invisibilia Dei. . . . Creatura mundi homo Cicitiire. ssn;
fol. 167va: Ends: Time Deum. . .. Summa vel sententie Alcuini.
XIII—Parchment, 282x198 mm., 167 fol. of 2 col., rubrics and red initial letters.
XITI-XIV Centuries ROME
Bibl. Apost. Vat., Pal. lat. 377, fol. 103r-186r.
fol. 103r: Magistri Petri anglici liber super sententias divisus in quat- tuor tractatus. Beg.: In deserto. .. . Imvisibilia Dew. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. ...
fol. 186r: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
B. ANONYMOUS MANUSCRIPTS
XIII Century
BARCELONA
Archivo de la Corona de Aragén, Ripoll 76, fol. 1ra-62vb.
fol. 1ra-62vb: (Sententiarum libri quinque Petri Pictaviensis).
Beg.: In deserto.... Invisibilia Dei. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. ... (fol. Ira). Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo. (fol. 62vb).
fol. 63ra-64vb: (Allegoriae super lamentationes Jeremiae). Beg.: Fac- tum est postquam in captivitatem ductus. .
fol. 65ra-86vb: (Glossa super sententias). Beg.: Summa divine pagine in credendis consistit et agendis. ... (fol. 65ra). Ends: ad licitam satis- factionem inponat. ... (fol. 86vb). The Gloss on books II and III of the Lombard’s Sentences is wanting; the Gloss on books I and IV is incom- plete.
XIII—Parchment, 86 fol. of 2 col., 2 hands, red initial letters, rubrics.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 33
DOLE
98, pp. 3-275.
p. 3: Beg.: Vocabulorum alia Deo conveniunt ab eterno....
p. 275: Ends: Vermis eorum non morietur. Laudis ducta scribat scriptor letus alia. Amen.
DURHAM Cathedral, B. I. 28, fol. 3r-80r. fol. 3r: Beg.: Invisibilia Det. ... Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 80r: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa; hoc est omnis homo.
ERFURT
Stadt-bibl., Amplon. Q. 117, fol. 1-43.
fol. 1: Beg.: In deserto.... Invisibiia Det... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur.:....
fol. 43: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
HILDESHEIM Beverinsche Bibl., 656, fol. 74r-184r. fol. 74r: Beg.: Invisibiia Det. ... Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
A modern hand has written in the margin: “Hanc summam questionum magistri Pet. Pict. dedit Hylarius decanus Hildescheimensis ecclesie.” fol. 184r: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa; hoc est omnis homo.
LONDON
British Museum, Roy. 9 E XIV, fol. 134-141v.
fol. 134: Beg.: Invisibilia Det. . . . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. .. . fol. 141v.: Ends: verbo novit superius. ... This is only a fragment of the Sentences, the first fifteen chapters of book I.
OSMA
Burgo de (Cathedral), 173, fol. 1ra-102va.
fol. lra: Summa theologica est de armario Oxoniensi. Si quis eum furatus fuerit, etc. (XIV century hand). Beg.: In deserto. . . . Invisibilia Dei... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 102va: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 3572, fol. 236ra-243vb.
fol. 1r-16v: (Sermones de festis).
fol. 17r-16vb: (Sermones et Tractatus). A number of sermons and theological treatises in several hands dating from the twelfth to the four- teenth centuries inserted in the MS without order.
fol. 107ra-120vb: (Tractatus de officiis divinis). Beg.: Quare septua-
34 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
gesima celebratur. . . . This work is found also in Metz, 91, 149, 608; Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 11579, 12312, 13576, 14417, 14500, 14808, 16369, 18216; and Poitiers, 299 (24).
fol. 121ra-128vb: (Tractatus de logica). Beg.: Et speciebus non etsi aliquis diceret. . . .
fol. 129ra-156vb: (Questiones theologicae et explicationes super sacram Scripturam ).
fol. 157ra-164vb: (De consuetudinibus ecclesiae). Beg.: Hebdomada priori ante initium quadragesime. .. .
fol. 165ra-200r: (Miscellanea). A heterogeneous collection of short treatises in several hands of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
fol. 202r-204r: (Aristotelis ethica nova). Beg.: Omnis ars et omnis doctrina. . .
fol. 204r-208r: (Aristotelis ethica vetus). Beg.: Duplici autem virtute in omnia existente....
fol. 210ra-216rb: (Tractatus de castitate). Beg.: Eadem est virtus con- tinentie coniugalis et vidualis. ...
fol. 218ra-235ra: (Tractatus de passionibus). Beg.: Tunc exultabunt. Ligna silvane sunt gentes....
fol. 236ra-243vb: (Sententiarum libri quinque Petri Pictaviensis). Beg.: In deserto. ... Invisibilia Det... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur.... (fol. 236rb). Ends: Deus est Deus omnium, sed. ... A fragment, break- ing off near the end of the thirteenth chapter of book I.
fol. 244ra-295vb: (Sermones). These sermons are in several hands and thrown together with no apparent order.
XII-XIV—Parchment, 220x170 mm., 300 fol. of 2 col. and full lines, more than ten hands, red initial letters and rubrics rare, origin Saint Martial of Limoges.
MS lat. 13576, fol. 1ra-7ra. fol. lra-7ra: (Sententiarum libri quinque Petri Pictaviensis). Beg.:
Invisibiia Det... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur.... Ends: si unum sumatur secundum inferiorem causam.... The first eight chapters of book I.
fol. 9ra-56vb: (Sermones).
fol. 56ra-vb: (Sententiae breves et parvum poema). The poem begins: Nummus agit lites... .
fol. 57ra-128vb: (Petri Pictaviensis Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis). Beg.: Decretum (cor. Secretum) Dei intentos debet facere. .. . (fol. 57ra). Ends: ei autem qui potens est in nobis (fol. 128vb).
fol. 129ra-140va: (Simonis Tornacensis super symbolem sancti Athan- asii. Beg.: Apud Aristotelem argumentum est ratio faciens fidem. .. . fol. 140vb-154ra: (Tractatus de officiis divinis). Beg.: Quare septua- gesima celebratur. ... cf. supra, MS lat. 3572 fol. 107ra-120vb.
fol. 154ra-165ra: De sacramentis (vel) Speculum ecclesie. Beg.: Ab sac- ramentis ecclesiasticis ubi tractarem. .. .
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 35
fol. 165ra-168rb: (Sermones).
XIII—Parchment, 235x170 mm., 168 fol. of 2 col., several hands, red and blue initial letters, formerly Saint Germain-des-Prés, 880?.
RHEIMS
509, fol. 79r-135v. fol. 79r: Beg.: Vocabulorum alia Deo conveniunt ab eterno... . fol. 135v: Ends: vermis eorum non morietur.
ROUEN 665 (A. 417), fol. 3ra-134ra. fol. 3ra: Sententie que sic incipiunt: In deserto. .. . Invtsibtlia Det. .
Creatura mundi homo dicitur.... fol. 134ra: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
not LO
Biblioteca de Cabildo Primado, 18-20, fol. 1r-143.
fol. lr: Beg.: In deserto. ... Invisibilia Dei... . Creatura mundi homo SICAUTS ss
fol. 143: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
XIJI—Parchment, 330x220 mm., 143 fol. of 2 col., some rubrics.
APA S Is Gi cle
909, fol. 1lra-174vb.
fol. lra: Beg.: In deserto. .. . Invistbilia Det. . . . Creatura mundi homo CaCitirecers
fol. 174vb: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
MS 969, fol. 205ra-209rb.
fol. 205ra: Beg.: Invisibilia Dei... . Creatura mundi homo dicitur. . . fol. 209rb: Ends: Omne quod de natura vel. ... Fragment, breaking off in the midst of the ninth chapter of book I.
WORCESTER
Chapter Library of the Cathedral, F.50 (fol. not given). Beg.: Dic- tionum alie Deo conveniunt ab eterno. ... Ends: vermis enim eorum non moritur.
MS F. 54, fol. lra-99rb.
fol. lra: Beg.: Invisibilia Dei. .. . Creatura mundi homo dicitur....
fol. 99rb: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
36 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
XIITI-XIV Centurtes KLOSTERNEUBERG
Stiftsbibl., 322, fol. 85r-166v. fol. 85r: Beg.: In deserto. . . . Invisibilia Dei. . . . Creatura mundi homo
dicittir. .. fol. 166v: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis
homo.
XIV Century
BRUSSELS
Bibl. Roy. de Belgique, 1717 (3694), fol. 1-108.
fol. 1: Beg.: In deserto. ... Invisibilia Det. ... Creatura mundi homo Cicititn-y cm
fol. 108: Ends: Deum time et mandata eius observa: hoc est omnis homo.
VIENNA
Nationalbibl., 2355 (U.714), fol. 1-118.
fol. 1: Beg.: In deserto.... Invisibilia Dei... . Creatura mundi homo dicitinwee)
fol. 118: Ends: Gaudebit Deus ut sponsus super sponsam et declinabit super eam.
C. EDITIONS
Dom Hugh Mathoud, Paris, Piget, 1655. Reprinted by Migne, Patrologia latina, 211, 789-1280.
D. FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS
ZWETLU
Bibl. des Stiftes, 109, fol. 3v-81v; 82r-12I1r.
fol. 3v: Beg.: Religio est debiti finis rectitudo in agendis officiis. This work, to my knowledge, is anonymous.
fol. 82r: Beg.: Omnis scientia suis nititur regulis, velud propriis funda- mentis. ... This work belongs to Alan of Lille. Cf. Saint Gall, 770; Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 41; Bruges, 97; Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 16084; PL. 211, 621-684.
2. AUTHENTICITY
The question of authenticity scarcely need be raised for the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers. The Chronicle of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (1227-1251) under the year 1169 attributes to this writer a book of theological Sentences dedicated to William,
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE afi
archbishop of Sens.?® In the prologue to our work, which begins, In deserto manna colligentes, we find this dedication to William."* The old literary historians Du Boulay’® and Oudin’® repeat the testimony of Alberic.
We have, however, no need of this testimony, which dates from several years after the death of our master. I have already remarked that Walter of Saint Victor included Peter of Poitiers in his Contra quatuor labrynthos Franciae, written about 1180, or during the lifetime of Peter of Poitiers. Walter borrows extensively from these Sentences, which he attributes to this author.!7
Then too the manuscript tradition strongly confirms the fact that Peter of Poitiers was the author of these Sentences. Almost all the attributed MSS bear his name, and with the exception of MS Roy. 11 B IV of the British Museum, the attribution is in the same hand as the text of the MS. In this regard, the MSS lat. 3154 and 13435 of the Bibliothéque nationale are of special importance, since they date from late in the twelfth century.
Single MSS, however, attribute this work to Alcuin,® to Saint Anselm,!® to a certain Petrus Anglicanus,*° to a master of
*MGH. SS. XXIII, 853, 15: Parisius post magistrum Petrum Mandu- catorem magister Petrus Pictavinus cathedram tenuit theologicam. Qui Manducator cum esset Trecensis decanus, scolasticam hystoriam edidit ad Senonensem archiepiscopum Guilelmum, qui postea fuit Remensis archie- piscopus. ... Predictus vero Pictavinus fecit librum de _ theologicis sententiis ad eumdum archiepiscopum Guilelmum.
“PL. 211, 789-790: Huius autem operis tibi, pater inclyte Willielme, praesul Senonensis, limam reservavimus, cui et scientia ad discernendum, et facundia ad erudiendum, et mores exuberant ad exemplum. Tuae igitur bonitatis erit, sicut tuus est mos, humilibus favere, opus humiliter elaboratum multisque vigiliis causa communis commodi elaboratum, paterna manu suscipere; susceptum splendore correptionis illustrare, correptis auctoritatem praebere.
*% Historia Universitatis Partstensis, II, 403.
% Comentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis, II, 1499.
™ Compare PL. 199, 1147BC and PL. 211, 1167B. for example of Walter’s borrowing from the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers.
* Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Barb. lat. 647.
*” Oxford, Merton College, 132.
Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Pal. lat. 377.
38 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
Lincoln,?2 and, finally, to Martin of Fougéres.?? Of these attri- butions, those to Alcuin and to Saint Anselm of Canterbury are evidently false, for these Sentences were written long after their deaths. The attribution to Petrus Anglicanus* is in a second and much later hand. It is not clear what master of Lincoln is meant in MS Vat. lat. 1101. If we may suppose Robert Grosse- teste to be this master, it is clear that he could not have been the author of this work, because Robert was bishop of Lincoln from 1235 to 1253, some sixty to seventy-five years after these Sen- tences were written. The attribution to Martin of Fougeres has, I believe, helped us toward the identification of another twelfth century author of a book of Sentences.
This author has previously been known simply as Magister Martinus. His Sentences exist in several MSS: Cambridge, St. John’s College, 57, fol. 9-146; Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14526, fol. 6lra-144va; 14556, fol. 267r-364v; Toulouse, 209, fol. 1r- 235r; and Troyes, 789. Monsignor Grabmann knew of these Sentences and their author Magister Martinus.** Consequently, when he discovered in MS lat. 3116, fol. lra the rubric: Summa Magisirt Martini de Fugerus, he recognized that this Summa was not the work of Magister Martinus. He noted also the close connections between this Summa and the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers, but he failed to recognize that this Summa was in reality the Sentences of our author, minus the prologues, and with cer- tain modifications in the text. Monsignor Grabmann therefore
7* Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Vat. lat. 1101.
Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3116. Father Glorieux in his Répertoire des mattres en théologie de Parts au XIII siécle (Paris, J. Vrin, 1933-1934), I, 230 and 269, says that these Sentences are attributed to Martin of Fougeéres also in Dole, 98, Rheims, 509, and Worcester, Chapter Library of the Cathedral, F. 50. These MSS, however, are all anonymous.
** Two mediaeval masters were known as Petrus Anglicanus. The first was Peter of Tewkesbury, a Franciscan, who was minister of Cologne ca. 1250. The second, also a Franciscan, lived during the last half of the thirteenth and first quarter of the fourteenth centuries. MS Vat. lat. 932, fol. 175-218 contains three Quodlibets by him and also biographical data. The Quodlibets date from 1303-1306. It is clear that neither of these masters was author of our Sentences, which were written before 1176.
*M. Grabmann, Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth., 11. 524-530.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 39
concluded that there was question of two distinct works written by two distinct Masters Martin.”®
Dom Lottin was, I believe, the first to point out the falsity of the attribution of the Sentences in MS lat. 3116, while Father Glorieux recently suggested that Martin of Fougéres and Magister Martinus might be the same person.?8 Meanwhile, I too had noted the falsity of the attribution in the Paris MS, and before learning of the work of Father Glorieux, had become convinced of the identity of the Martins. A detailed comparative study of the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers and of Magister Martinus revealed to me that the latter had copied ver- batim column after column of the former’s text. Consequently, the thirteenth century rubricator, familiar with Magister Marti- nus work, noted, while reading the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers in MS lat. 3116, passage after passage which he had seen in the Sentences of Magister Martinus. In his haste, however, he failed to remark the differences in the two works, and hence he con- cluded that the Sentences he was reading were those of Martin. This Martin he knew as Martin of Fougéres. Consequently, the Magister Martinus known to us and the Martin of Fougéres known to the thirteenth century rubricator were the same person.
3) DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
In his preface to the Sentences, Peter of Poitiers, as we have seen, dedicates his work to William, archbishop of Sens, some- times known as William of Champagne, and again, as William of the White Hands. He became archbishop of Sens on Febru- ary 3, 1168.27 Eight years later, at the beginning of 1176, he was named archbishop of Rheims, where he was received on August 8 of that year.28 Hence we have the extreme dates within
**M. Grabmann, op. cit., II, 524: Wir haben hier ein von der Summa des Magisters Martinus de Fugeriis verschiedenes Werk vor uns und diirfen auch in dem Verfasser einen von Martinus de Fugeriis verschiede- nen Martinus erblicken.
**P. Glorieus, Répertoire, I, 269.
* Gallia christiana nova, XII, 50D.; P. Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae, p. 608.
*® Gallia christiana nova, 1X, 95AB: Guillelmus de Campagnia, dictus ad albas manus, vernacule aux blanches-mains, . . . donec electus Carno-
40 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
which our author finished his Sentences. Since he still addresses William as archbishop of Sens, his work must have been com- pleted before the beginning of the year 1176.
But is it possible to ascertain still more precisely the date of its writing? On May 28, 1170 Alexander III sent to William of Sens a strong letter in which he charges the archbishop to convoke at Paris a reunion of his suffragans for the purpose of stopping further teaching of Peter Lombard’s false doctrine that Christus secundum quod est homo, non est aliquid, and of assur- ing the students that they would henceforth be taught that as Christ is perfect God so is He perfect man, truly composed of body and soul.?® This letter, it is true, did not put an end to the teaching of the Lombard’s doctrine.®® Still, it seems improbable
tensis episcopus, transiit primo ad ecclesiam Senonensem, deinde, ineunte anno 1176, ad ecclesiam Remensem. Durocortori statim ac receptus est (receptus autem dicitur VI id. aug.) statuit dignissimus antistes per annum integrum in choro adesse. .
* J. Mansi, Sacrorum conctliorum nova et amplissima collectio (New ed. and continuation, vols. 32-53, Paris, 1901-), XXII, 119-120: Alexander episcopus servus servorum Dei Willelmo Senonensi episcopo salutem. €um in nostra olim esses praesentia constitutus, tibi viva voce injunximus ut suffraganeis tuis Parisiis tibi adscitis, abrogationem pravae doctrinae Petri quondam Parisiensis episcopi, qua dicitur quod Christus secundum quod est homo non est aliquid, omnino intenderes, et efficacem operam adhiberes. Inde siquidem est quod fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, quod tibi cum praesens esses, praecepimus, suffra- ganeos tuos Parisius convoces et una cum illis et aliis viris religiosis et prudentibus praescriptam doctrinam studeas penitus abrogare: et a magis- tris et scholaribus ibidem in theologia studentibus Christum sicut per- fectum Deum sic et perfectum hominem ac verum hominem ex anima et corpore consistentem praecipias doceri: universis firmiter et distincte iniungens quod doctrinam illam de caetero nequaquam docere, sed ipsam pentitus detestentur. Cf. also: Jaffe-Wattenbach, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ad annum 1198 (2ed. Berlin, 1885-1888), no. 11806; Gallia christtana nova, VII, 73 Instrumenta 88; PL. 200, 685BC.
* Alexander III definitively condemned the Lombard’s teaching that Christus secundum quod est homo, non est aliquid in a letter to William of Champagne, become archbishop of Rheims, dated February 18, 1177 (Mansi, XXI, 1081; Jaffe-Wattenbach, op. cit. no. 12785). But the question was still heatedly discussed in the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179. There is no proof, however, that the Council condemned the doctrine. (Cf. J. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique, p. 158).
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 41
that a member of the theological faculty of Paris would have had the hardiness to dedicate to this same William of Sens a work sustaining this doctrine after the convocation of the bishops at Paris in 1170. I think it probable, therefore, that these Sentences were written before this convocation.
Peter of Poitiers wrote his Sentences at Paris. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines informs us that at the date of his death (1205), Peter of Poitiers had taught theology there for thirty-eight years, or since 1167.31 Hence it was during the first years of his theological teaching at Paris, that he wrote this work. Two references to the river Seine and one to Paris in the Sentences confirm the fact that the author was writing in Paris.3?
4. CONTENT AND METHOD
The Sentences of Peter of Poitiers are composed of five books, the content of which the author announces in his preface.*® The first book is devoted to the Trinity, or more specifically to five treatises which are in order: De Deo uno, De attributis divinis, De proprietatibus divinis, De Deo trino, De operationibus ad extra. The second deals with creation—angels, the works of the six days, man. The treatise on the creation of man introduces other treatises on De mandatis, De peccato actuah, De peccato originali, and De libero arbitrio. The third book treats of grace, the virtues, the gift of fear. In this book is inserted .also the
* MGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20: Obiit magister Petrus Pictaviensis, can- cellarius Parisiensis, qui per annos 38 theologiam legerat Parisius.
Peter of Poitiers twice uses the river Seine as an example in the explaining of dialectical and grammatical difficulties (PL. 211, 887D and 921C). In the second reference he says Sequana est hic et alibi. The reference to Paris points strongly to his being in that city at the time he was writing: “... non enim dicitur quod iste velit ire ad Romam, licet post decem annos iturus sit Romam, nec iste magister velit desinere legere Parisius, qui nondum incoepit, sed voluntatem habet desinendi legere post decem annos postquam incoepit.” (PL. 211, 990C).
* PL. 211, 789-790: Ordinem quoque quinque partitionum distinximus: in prima agendo de fide Trinitatis; in secunda, rationalis creaturae; in tertia, de reparatione que facta est per virtutum restitutionem; in quarta, de ea quae semel facta est per Incarnationem; in quinta, de ea quae quotidie fit per sacramentorum participationem.
42 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
treatise De poenitentia, which is joined with the general consider- ation of repentance and contrition. The fourth book is taken up mostly with christological questions. It contains also two treatises on the sacraments of the Old Law, De circumcisione et De caeremonialibus, and six treatises on the commandments, De deis alienis, De occisione, De furto, De moechia, De mendacio, De perjurio. Other precepts are mentioned but not treated. Finally, the fifth book deals with the sacraments and with eschato- logical questions. But only four sacraments are here considered, De baptismo, De confirmatione, De eucharistia, and De maitri- monio. Penance, as we have seen, was discussed in the third book. Orders, and Extreme Unction are omitted. Orders are left out because their consideration belongs rather to the canon- ists than to the theologians,?* and Peter of Poitiers never tres- passes upon the domain of Canon Law. Extreme Unction is passed over because this sacrament offers practically nothing for discussion,®®> and we shall see that our author was primarily interested only in disputabilia or in questions disputation accommodata. For this reason also the treatise on Confirmation is very short.
In his Sentences, therefore, Peter of Poitiers departs from the fourfold division of subject matter found in the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Since his work depends so largely upon that of his old teacher, as we shall see, the author must have had reasons for preferring his fivefold division, but what his reasons were, I dm unable to say, unless it can be supposed that he felt this division and presentation of his subject-matter psychologi- cally and pedagogically better. On the other hand, the principles which determined the choice of treatises and questions within each book are fairly clear.
First of all, Peter of Poitiers passes over questions which seemed to him to have been sufficiently discussed elsewhere, espe-
“Tbid., col. 1257B: De quinto, id est de ordinibus, nil hic dicendum, eo quod decretistis disputatio de his potius quam theologis deservit.
“Ibid., col. 1264B: De ultimo igitur septem sacramentorum, id est, extrema unctione, ultimo loco esset agendum nisi quia fere nulla dis-
putabilia circa ipsum audivimus, et si quae sunt, alibi sufficienter scripta continentur.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 43
cially in the Sentences of Peter Lombard.°® He also avoids scrupulously questions belonging to the canonists rather than to the theologians.3’ Then questions which he thought to be frivo- lous or motivated by curiosity rather than by serious enquiry after truth are left unanswered.*® These are negative and sec- ondary principles of selection. If, however, we would understand the choice of treatises and questions made by the author, we must study his method and his purpose in writing the Sentences.
In his preface Peter of Poitiers writes: “With the view to presenting the elements of Holy Scripture to those approaching its study, we are setting forth in orderly sequence those questions of Scripture which are open to discussion (disputabilia).’’® Later on, in the second book, he again writes: “Because certain points concerning the division of the works of the six days seem doubt- ful and open to debate, we are devoting a short treatise to them.’’4° His purpose, therefore, is to choose questions open to discussion, and in the last book, as in the first, he omits treatises, or stops short in the midst of them, whenever disputabilia are wanting.*4
*° Tbid., col. 921B: Quibus quia sufficienter respondet magister in libro sententiarum. .. . necessarium non duximus hic respondere.
Ibid., col. 1229B: Haec autem omnia in libro sententiarum magistri Petri plenius sunt determinata; hic tamen oportuit memorare, ut ad sequentia facilior fieret transitus.
*Tbid., col. 1152A: Circa usuras autem plura dubitabilia sunt, quae potius reservamus ad disputationem decretistorum quam theologorum. Ibid., col. 1257B: De quinto, id est de ordinibus, nil hic dicendum eo quod decretistis disputatio de his potius quam theologis deservit. Jbid., col. 1264A: Haec de multis quae circa conjugium inquiri solent sub compendio perstrinximus, non ignorantes quin et alia multa circa idem sint dubitabilia et inquisitione digna, sed pleraque ex illis revolentium decreta potius quam sacram paginam tractantium disputationi sunt accommodata.
% Tbid., col. 887A: ... quod tam frivolum est quod etiam indignum sit responsione. And col. 1232B-C: Sunt qui hic ridiculam movent quaestionem etc.
*® Tbid., col. 789-790: Disputabilia igitur sacrae Scripturae ut rudimentis ad eam accedentium consulamus, in seriem redigentes inordinate in ordinem redigimus,
” Thid., col. 958B: Sed quoniam quaedam videntur circa distinctionem operum sex dierum dubitabilia et disputationi accommodata, illa brevi lectione perstringamus.
“ Tbid., col. 949B: Sed haec magis lectionis quam disputationis sunt,
44 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
But why did Peter of Poitiers limit his work to controversial matters? Monsignor Grabmann has put forward one explanation for this limitation in saying that Peter of Poitiers preferred disputabilia in Holy Scripture because the formulating and solv- ing of questions gave him opportunity to use dialectics, and also favored a systematic presentation of subject-matter.*7 A love of dialectics was certainly one of the reasons, perhaps the funda- mental reason, which led our author to deal only with matters open to discussion. His method in this work is pre-eminently dialectical.*
From the time of Peter Abailard, dialectics, or the science of rational speculation, began to be extensively applied to theology. Before his time the traditional theology had depended almost exclusively upon the authority of the Fathers of the Church.
et ideo praetermittenda. And col. 1241B: De confirmatione nil aliud invenio dubitabile, nisi quod quaeritur an sacramentum hoc dignius sit quam baptismus.
@ Die Gesch, d. schol. Meth., II, 509 ff.
“Peter of Poitiers multiplies dialectical subtleties at times to such extent that it becomes almost impossible to follow his thought or to determine his own opinion on a given question. A good example of this is found in book II, c. 12 (PL. 211, 973-986) : An peccatum sit aliquid, et st aliquid, an natura, an vitium naturae? Our author begins by citing several patristic definitions of sin. Then he adds: “De essentia peccati diversorum diversae sunt opiniones,’ of which he enumerates three (col. 974A). His discussion of the first opinion opens with the remark: “Primam opinionem prius prosequamur probando, postea improbando,” (col. 974A) and closes with the words: “Primam opinionem de essentia peccati hucusque exsecuti sumus et eam suis auctoritatibus et rationibus confirmavimus” (col. 986A). The opening remark reveals the nature of the discussion to follow—a sic et non discussion, which consists of twelve long columns of argument and counter-argument, assertion and counter- assertion. And when the end is finally reached, the reader is not at all sure that the writer has established this first opinion by both authority and reason. Monsignor Grabmann, who cites this example, rightly says:
Mit der Hypertrophie der Dialektik hangt auch der Mangel an Uber- sichlichkeit und Klarheit des Gedankenganges in vielen Kapiteln der Sentenzen des Petrus von Poitiers zusammen.... Es ist in der Regel bei langeren Kapiteln nicht gut mdglich, schon aus der ausseren Anordnung sich rasch iiber den Standpunkt des Petrus von Poitiers in des betreffenden Frage zu orientieren. (Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth. TLp7522)3
ee ee
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 45
Abailard, in trying to harmonize real or apparent contradictions in the writings of the Fathers, arrived at a new theological method, in which both patristic authority and rational speculation have their proper places. In this method, reason is assigned the legitimate task of bringing into accord real or apparent doctrinal differences among the Fathers, without thereby minimizing the importance of their authority or jeopardizing the unity of the faith.*#
Among the theologians of the later twelfth century, none was a more enthusiastic follower of this new method than Peter of Poitiers. His Sentences show that he was completely won over to the dialectrical spirit, the success of which had been recently assured by the introduction of Aristotle’s complete Organon into
On the other hand, Peter of Poitiers sometimes refuses to apply dialectics to theological questions. Thus in a difficulty concerning the sacrament of Baptism he says: “Circa hunc articulum multae probabiles possunt fieri argumentationes, quae omnes ad dialecticam pertinent facultatem, et ita scrupulosam constituunt disputationem; et ideo preterimus’ (PL. 211, 1239-1240).
“Modern scholarship has discredited the opinion of G. Reuter, Geschichte der religidsen Aufklarung 1m Mittelalter (Berlin, 1875-1877), I, 220 and 335, and S. M. Deutsch, Peter Abaelard, (Leipzig, 1833), pp. 115 ff., that Abailard’s intention in writing his Stc et Non was to under- mine the authority of the Fathers of the Church and to awaken in the minds of his readers doubts about the stability and unanimity of the ecclesiastical tradition. The prologue to the Sic et Non reveals no such intention. On the contrary its opening sentence expresses great reverence for the Fathers, (PL. 178, 1339), while the rules of concordance which Abailard gives, rules which have their origin in St. Augustine and which were developed by the canonists Bernold of Constance (De excommuni- catis vitandis, (PL. 148, 214) and Ivo of Chartres (Preface to the Panormia, PL. 171, 236 ff.) entirely justify the appreciation of Clemens Baeumker:
He (Abailard) sets one patristic text against another, not that he may show all authority to be vain, by calling attention to the contradictions, but rather that he may solve these contradictions and harmonize these texts, by re-moulding the ideas, making proper distinctions, and giving due consideration to differences of time, place, and context. (Die europiische Philosophie des Mittelalters (2ed., Berlin, 1913), p. 325 (Kultur der Gegenwart, I, v).
46 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
the West.*® And for this reason, it seems to me, he deliberately chose the questions in which dialectics could be used to best advantage.
But was there also a scholastic reason for the choice of those questions? In two of the citations to which I have already referred, our author speaks not only of disputabilia but also of dis putationi accommodata,** and in the prologue to the treatise on the Incarnation, we again meet this expression.*7 These terms disputabilia and disputation: accommodata may very well be synonymous, but may we not see in this latter expression an allusion to the scholastic exercise known as the disputatio?
The origin and evolution of this exercise in the mediaeval theological curriculum has been much studied of late.*® All are agreed that the disputatio had its origin in the quaestiones, which continued to multiply throughout the twelfth century during the lectio or the explanation by the master first of Holy Scripture, and later of the Sentences, the Historia Scholastica and the Maior Glossatura. But students disagree on the time at which the disputatio became separated from the Jectio to form a distinct scholastic exercise. Monsignor Lacombe and Professor Landgraf believe that this separation had taken place by the fourth quarter of the twelfth century and that difficult questions of the lectio were held over for the disputatio, which most probably followed immediately after the Jectio.*® This belief is based on the fact that in the Gloss of Stephen Langton upon the Maor Glossatura
* C,. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, p. 98: “The reception of Aristotle’s New Logic toward the middle of this century (twelfth) threw a heavy weight on the side of dialectic in the balance of the liberal arts and the disparity grew with the further recovery of the Aristotelian corpus.”
“Cf. supra, notes 37 and 40.
“PL. 211, 1161-1162: ... quae disputationi sunt accommodata, ipso juvante, tractabimus, et in medium, prout nobis Spiritus sanctus admin- istrabit, proferemus.
*G. Robert, Les écoles et lenseignement, pp. 170 ff.; M. Grabmann, Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth., II, 213-221; G. Lacombe and A. Landgraf, “Questiones of Cardinal Stephen Langton,’ The New Schol., TV (1930) : 161-163; G. Paré, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, Les écoles et lenseignement, pp. 128-132.
®G. Lacombe-A. Landgraf, loc. cit.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 47
of Peter Lombard, the master frequently says, Sed de hoc in disputatione.°° On the other hand, the authors of Les écoles et lenseignement think the Lacombe-Landgraf hypothesis a “pre- mature anticipation” and believe that the disputatio did not be- come a distinct exercise until very late in the twelfth century or early in the thirteenth century.*! They admit, however, that the Disputationes of Simon of Tournai (f ca. 1201) are the product of a distinct, organized scholastic exercise.”
The Sentences of Peter of Poitiers represent no doubt his teaching during the Jectio. The expression disputationt accommo- data, which we find in them, may be synonymous with the term disputabilia, but I am inclined to think that it refers to the disputatio, in view of which the author prepared his lectio. By this I mean that in his /ectio Peter of Poitiers chose controversial matter, which would give rise to questions, the discussion of which would furnish material for the disputatio. Against this theory, however, is the fact that no collection of Quaestiones, the literary fruit of the disputatio, has come down to us from our author.
Order and unity are found throughout these Sentences. Peter of Poitiers frequently places at the beginning of his chapters a list of the questions he is going to treat, and ordinarily his plan is closely followed.°? Sometimes he replaces the list of questions by a résumé of the matter to be considered.** If a question is not found in its normal place, the author is careful to call atten- tion to this fact.°® Finally, he several times refers the reader to
maaris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14443, fol: 37r.
1G. Paré, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, op. cit., p. 129, note 1.
Tbid., p. 130, note 1. The Disputationes of Simon of Tournai have been edited by J. Warichez (Louvain, 1932) (Spicilegium Sacrum Lova- niense, 12).
meer. 211, 951); 958B; 972A *987B: 1025A, etc: Once Peter of Poitiers calls attention to the fact that he has followed his plan: “Praece- dentem tractatum consideranti nos ordine superius assignato non etiam modicum aberasse patet” (col. 1078C).
* Tbid., 885BC.
*° Ibid., col. 1257A: Septem sunt sacramenta de quorum tribus hucusque dictum est, id est, de baptismo et confirmatione, et eucharistia. Nunc esset agendum de quarto, id est, de poenitentia, nisi supra, ubi de prima gratia tractabatur, quantum ad propositum attinebat, dictum fuisset.
48 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
another part of the Sentences, either to find a question or to acquaint himself with a distinction already made which will enable him to understand the point under discussion.*®
The systematic presentation of the Sentences evidenced by this order and unity shows definitely that this is a personal work by Peter of Poitiers and not a reportatio or the class notes of a student. Moreover, the expressions, nobis videtur, videtur miha, non video etc., are frequent and indicate that it is the author himself who speaks. On the other hand, Peter of Poitiers is never mentioned in this work under the formulae, magister dixit, magister dicit, or dicit magister Petrus, which are characteristic of the reportatio.
5. RELATIONS OF PETER OF POITIERS TO PETER LOMBARD
Writing of the Summa of Prepositinus of Cremona, Mon- signor G, Lacombe observes that, though this work in both matter and presentation depends largely upon Peter Lombard, it is, nevertheless, not a commentary upon the Sentences.®* This ob- servation is true also of the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers. They are not a commentary upon the Lombard’s work. In them is found no analysis nor explanation of the Lombard’s text. Neither does their author indicate in his preface that it is his intention to write a commentary on the Master’s Sentences. On the contrary, he proposes to write a personal compendium of theology for the use of those beginning the study of Scripture.°® And con- sequently, his Sentences are a personal work into which are in- troduced many questions not treated by Peter Lombard.
In the writing of his Sentences, however, Peter of Poitiers proposes to reformulate many old questions, the answers to which he will seek “wherever they have flowed from the midst of the mountains.” Pursuing this intention, he goes not only to Scrip- ture but also to the writings of the Fathers and to the works of his immediate predecessors. Of these works, the Sentences of Peter Lombard are the most complete and best organized. Con- sequently, Peter of Poitiers turns frequently to these Sentences.
Ibid., col. 797B; 834A; 855C. “La ve et les oeuvres de Prévostin, p. 167. * PL. 211, 789-790.
SENTENTIARUM LIBRI QUINQUE 49
The result is a close dependence of his work upon that of his old teacher. |
This dependence is found in the large number of questions common to the two works, in doctrinal agreement, and in textual similarities. Considerably more than half the questions treated by Peter of Poitiers are contained also in the Sentences of Peter Lombard. In all important doctrines these two authors are in agreement. Peter of Poitiers rarely disagrees with the teaching of his master. Textual similarities occur frequently, but the text of Peter of Poitiers is for the most part personal, even where he is treating questions borrowed from the Lombard.
This dependence is not limited to the subject matter of these Sentences but extends also to their systematic presentation. True, Peter of Poitiers divides his work into five books, instead of following the fourfold division of the Lombard, and within each book inverts the order of some of the tracts, but in general the two works follow the same plan. There are, however, two im- portant modifications to this plan introduced by our author. In the first book he separates the treatise De Deo trino from that of De Deo uno and places the treatises De attributis divinis and De proprietatibus divinis between them. This may have influenced three subsequent writers of the twelfth century, Simon of Tournai, Prepositinus of Cremona, and Martin of Fougeéres to arrange these treatises in the following order: De Deo uno, De attributis divinis, De Deo trino, and De proprietatibus divinis. This last arrangement is the most logical, because the divine attributes refer to the unity of nature, the divine properties to the trinity of Persons in God.
The second departure of Peter of Poitiers from the plan of his master was very important for the development of the syste- matic presentation of theology. The treatise on the virtues, which the Lombard places after the De Incarnatione, Peter of Poitiers places before this tract. In the arrangement of the Lombard the tract on the virtues is sandwiched in between the important treatises on the Incarnation and the Sacraments. In consequence of this unhappy position, the importance of the moral part of theology was minimized. For this reason Denifle,°® and later Monsignor Grabmann,® thought that Abailard’s three- fold division of theology (fides, sacramentum, caritas (moral) )
50 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
was preferable to the fourfold division introduced by Peter Lombard.
In placing the virtues before the Incarnation our author cor- rected this important defect in the Lombard’s order. Later writers followed Peter of Poitiers in this correction, which as- sured to moral theology its proper importance and development.®! But was the pupil wholly independent of his master in this im- portant re-ordering of the treatise on the virtues? In the Lom- bard’s Sentences the tract on grace precedes the De Incarnatione. In this tract, however, there is a definition of virtue and a con- tinual association of virtue and grace.®* It seems possible, there- fore, that Peter of Poitiers noted this definition of virtue and its association with grace preceding the De Incarnatione in his master’s work, and was thereby inspired to place his complete treatment of the virtues with that of grace before the treatise on the Incarnation.
° 'H. Denifle, “Die Sentenzen Abaelards und die Bearbeitungen seiner Theologia vor Mitte des 12 Jhs,’ Arch. fur Litt. und Kirchengesch., I (1885) : 600.
°M. Grabmann, Die Gesch. d. schol. Meth. II, 228-229.
*In a later study I hope to show that Peter of Poitiers was far superior to Peter Lombard as a moralist.
’ Cf. Sentences of Peter Lombard, II, dist. XXVII, cc. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12; ral ae 9, GD, Gites 4
CHAPTER ell
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS
The work which is the object of our study in this chapter has several different titles in the MSS: Tractatus super tabernaculum Moysi, Commentarium super Exodum, De materio tabernaculi (modern hand), Allegoriae super Exodum, Leviticum, et super lhibrum Numerorum+ (super Exodum etc. added by a second hand). Of these titles, the first and third are most exact, because this work is an allegorical treatise on the tabernacle, which Moses was commanded to build while the Jews were journeying from Egypt to the promised land. The title Commentarium super Exodum is too broad, for the work is based upon only the last fifteen chapters of Exodus (cc. 25-40). Finally the last of the manuscript titles is incorrect, because it includes treatises on the books of Leviticus and Numbers, which we shall see are distinct works. To indicate best the character and scope of this treatise. I have compounded from these manuscript titles that of Allegoriae super taberna- culum Moysis.
A discussion of the nature of these Allegoriae will follow later in this chapter, but to understand their place in mediaeval literature, a word must be said of the theological curriculum at the time this work was written. Theological teaching in the schools of the twelfth century was concerned first of all with dogmatic and moral questions, to which the study of Scripture and the writings of the Fathers gave rise. The discussion of these questions forms the large systematic works of theology— Sententiarum libri, Summae, Collectiones—which have come down to us, especially from the latter half of the twelfth and from the thirteenth centuries. The Sentences of Peter of Poitiers, which we examined in the first chapter of this study, contain his
* These titles are found respectively in Cambridge, Pembroke College, 96, fol. lv, Trier, Seminar Bibl., 90, fol. 20v, Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. lv, and lat. 15254, fol. 169v.
51
52 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
discussion of these questions. But besides this teaching of dog- matic and moral theology, there were at least two other branches of scriptural study taught in the theological curriculum, sacred history and allegory or the historical and allegorical interpretation of Holy Writ.
Guy of Bazoches, in a letter written about 1180, has left us an interesting description of the academic life in Paris at the end of the twelfth century. In this description we see the histor- ical and allegorical disciplines forming an integral part of theological study :?
The Petit-Pont belongs to the dialecticians (logicis), who walk to and fro upon it, while engaged in their discussions. On the island (in the cité) beside the palace of the king, which dominates the entire city, one sees the palace of philosophy, where study reigns as sole sovereign, citadel of light and of immortality. ... It is there finally, that bubble forth the springs of religious science, whence flow the three limpid streamlets with which are watered the fields of the mind (prata mentium), that is, theology under its triple form, his- torical, allegorical, and moral.
It is interesting to note that Guy also mentions the moral inter- pretation of Scripture, or tropology, and gives us to understand that it too was a subject taught in the classroom and not from the pulpit, as some have thought.
These branches of scriptural study, history, allegory, and tropology, had their origin in a threefold sense which the com- mentators of the time distinguished in the biblical text: an his- torical, an allegorical, and a tropological sense. Most authors added a fourth sense, the anagogical.4 The first of these senses
* Cited from J. A. Clerval, Les écoles de Chartres au moyen Gge, p. 79. For the date of this letter, ca. 1180, cf. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, Pars Introductoria, no. 54.
*G. Robert, Les écoles et lensetgnemant de la théologie pendant la premiere moitié du XII* siécle, pp. 103-104.
*“Quisquis ad sacre scripture notitiam desiderat pervenire, primo con- sideret quando historice, quando allegorice, quando tropologice, quando vero anagogice suam narrationem contextat.” Garnier de Rochefort, Prologue to Distinctiones, Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 599, fol. Ira.
“Sacra Scriptura habet quatuor partes: hystoriam, que res gestas loquitur; allegoriam, in qua aliquid ex alio intelligitur; tropologiam, id est, moralem locutionem, in qua de ordinandis moribus tractatur; anago-
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 53
was simply the evident, historical meaning of any given passage of Scripture. The last three were spiritual, figurative senses, over and above the evident, historical signification of the text. From this point of view they were all allegorical senses. The tropological sense, however, was a figurative or allegorical inter- pretation having to do with moral actions, while the anagogical sense was a similar interpretation relating to the future life.
Considerable interest has recently been manifested in these four senses of scriptural interpretation, which played so impor- tant a role in mediaeval exegesis. H. Caplan has given us an excellent historical study of them, particularly from the view- point of the influence of Jewish thought on the Fathers.® Pro- fessor E. Gilson has studied them in the sermons of Michael Menot, a fifteenth century preacher. Miss Beryl Smalley has shown the part these four senses played in the writings of Stephen Langton.’ Three Dominican scholars, Fathers Blanche, Synave, and Zarb, have presented the doctrine of Saint Thomas on them, and discussed the question of the unity or multiplicity of literal senses in the Bible. And H. H. Glunz has some excellent pages on these senses of Scripture in his History of the Vulgate in England.®
giam, id est, spiritualem intellectum, per quem de summis et celestibus tractatur et ad superiora ducimur. MHiis quatuor quasi quibusdam rotis tota Scriptura volvitur” Petri Cantoris Summa Abel, Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 10633, fol. 113.
*H. Caplan, “The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation and the Mediaeval Theory of Preaching,” Speculum, IV (1929) : 282-290.
SE. Gilson, “Michel Menot et la technique du sermon médiéval,” Revue dhistotre Franciscaine, II (1925): 301-350. “Notes pour l’explica- tion de quelques raisonnements scriptuaires usités au moyen age,” ibid.; pp. 350-360.
™B. Smalley, “Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture,” Speculum, VI (1931) : 60-76.
*F. A. Blanche, “Le sens littéral des Ecritures d’aprés St. Thomas d’ Aquin,” Revue Thomiste, XIV (1906): 192 ff.; P. Synave, “La Doc- trine de St. Thomas d’Aquin sur le sens littéral des Ecritures,’ Revue Biblique, XXXV (1926) : 40 ff.; S. M. Zarb, O. P. “Unité ou multipicité des sens littéraux dans la Bible,” Rev. Thom., XX XVII (1932) : 251-300. Re- viewed and criticized in the Bulletin de théologie ancienne et médiévale, (avril, 1933): no. 117.
*H. H. Glunz, History of the Vulgate in England, from Alcuin to Roger Bacon, cc. III and V.
54 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
In taking. up the study of the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis, which together with the Distinctiones super psalterium represents the teaching of Peter of Poitiers in allegorical inter- pretation, I want, therefore, to consider these four senses of Scripture as our author defines them in this work, to show the relations they have one to another, and to discuss the rules which govern their use. But before entering upon these con- siderations, it is necessary to list the manuscripts of this work, to establish its authenticity, and to set forth its content and method.
1. THe Manuscripts!
A, ATTRIBUTED MANUSCRIPTS
XII-XIII Centurnes CAMBRIDGE
Pembroke College, 96, fol. 1r-76r.
fol.. Ir: Tractatus magistri Petri Pictaviensis super tabernaculum Moysi. Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere. .
fol. 76r: Ends: et qui vident, ceci fiant.
XIII Century TRIER
Seminar Bibl. Trierisches Arch., 90, fol. 20v-70r.
fol. 20v: Comment(ari)um magistri Petri Pictaviensis super Exodum. Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere. . .
fol. 70r: Ends: et qui vident, ceci fiant.
XITI-XIV Centuries PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 15254, fol. 169ra-185va. (Fragmentium sententiarum). Beg.: Cum venerit Paraclitus arguet mun- dum de peccato...
* Eight MSS of the Allegoriae are here listed. I recently learned that another MS of this work was in the possession of P. Goldschmidt, bookseller of 45 Old Bond Street, London. Meanwhile, however, this MS has been sold, and I have thus far been unable to learn the name of the present owner or to obtain any information about the MS, except that it is apparently of the twelfth century and begins: Decretum Det intentos debet facere.... The Decretum, in place of Secretum, indicates that it may be the MS from which Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 13576 was copied.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 55
(Fragmentum distinctionum). Beg.: in spiritualibus bonorum Dulcedo in eternis malorum
(Tabula materiorum).
fol. lra-2rb: (Petri Pictaviensis compendium historiae in genealogia Christi). Beg.: Considerans hystorie sacre prolixitatem. ... Adam in agro Damasceno formatus. ... A small fragment of this work with inter- linear and marginal glosses.
fol. 3v: (Candelabrum septem brachiorum). A drawing of the seven- branched candlestick, accompanied by a short text which begins: Tres calami, id est, tria brachia ex uno latere prodeunt... .
fol. 4va-9rb: (Petri Pictaviensis compendium historiae in genealogia Christi). Beg.: Considerans hystorie sacre prolixitatem. . . . Adam in agro Damasceno formatus. ... Ends: passus eodem die quo et Petrus. Work is attributed in the table of contents to St. Hilary of Poitiers. A note of September 20, 1684, corrects this attribution: Non est Hilarii Pictaviensis sed Petri Pictaviensis. The work is glossed especially at the beginning. fol. 10r-23r: (Annales breves). Arranged in eight columns to the folio (four on each side), are listed the years 1 to 4020 (in ascending order) before the Christian era, and the years 13-1400 A.D. The first event given is of the year 1: Adam primus homo est; the last event is of the year 1300 A.D.: Annus jubileus instituitur a Ludovico. Flandria redditur regi Francorum. .
fol. 24ra-27va: (Concordantie hystoriales ad concordandum hystorias veteres ad novas). An alphabetical table of the rubrics of the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor correlated with the chapters of the work, Beg.: Rubrica 51, capitulo XVIII: Ab Abram suscepti tres angeli....
fol. 28r-31r: (Capitula historie scholastice Petri Comestoris). A list of the chapters of the Historia scholastica. First chapter: De creatione empirei celi et IIII°° elementorum; last chapter: De Ascensione. The work ends here with the histories of the Gospels. The history of the Acts of the Apostles was certainly not written by Peter Comestor; it is most probably the work of Peter of Poitiers, the chancellor.
fol. 32r-39cv: (Tabulum capitulorum historie scholastice). A second table of the chapters of the Historia scholastica, and on fol. 39r-v a second concordance of rubrics, given in alphabetical order, with the chapters.
fol. 40ra-147ra: (Petri Comestoris historia scholastica). Beg.: Rever- endo patri ac domino suo Gulielmo. ... Imperatoris majestatis est... . In principio... . Mundus quatuor modis dicitur.... Ends: et in loco magis honorabili, scilicet in catacumbis. Interlinear and marginal glosses on the first few folios.
fol. 147rb-168ra: Breves allegorie compilate a Ricardo de Sancto Vic- tore canonico regulari. Beg.: In precedentibus premissa descriptione. ...
56 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
In principio creavit Deus celum et terram. Celum designat summa, terra yma. ... Ends: Deus conversatur et non peribit.
fol. 169ra-185va: Incipiunt allegorie magistri Petri Pictaviensis. A later hand has added: super Exodum, Leviticum, et super librum Numerorum.
Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere.... Ends: et qui vident, ceci fant.
fol. 185va-210ra: (Allegoriae super Leviticum). Beg.: Tercia distinctio ebraice vaiecra a principio libri... . Ends: sanctificamini hodie et omnes
estote parati usque in tercium diem. Explicit feliciter in nomine Domini. fol. 210ra-232vb: (Allegoriae super Numeros). Beg.: Hec quatuor in hoc loco sunt consideranda. ... Ends: superant sancti diabolum et omnia temperamenta mundi.
fol. 233ra-333ra: (De concordantia novi et veteris Testamenti Joachim abbatis libri V). Beg.: Qui labentis et perituri seculis.... Ends: ad regna celestia perveniret.
fol. 334rb-335vb: Incipit tractatus de Verbo compositus a fratre Thoma de Acquino ordinis fratrum predicatorum. Beg.: ... circa naturam Verbi intellectus. ... Ends: de Verbo dicta sufficiant.
fol. 335vb-336rb: (Fragmentum). Beg.: Videndum est quod sit hoc quod dicitur Verbum....
XIII-XIV—Parchment, 365x250 mm., 5+338 fol., mostly of 2 col., 4 or 5 hands, rubrics, red and blue initial letters, and a miniature on fol. 233ra, formerly Sorbonne, 68: Iste liber pauperum magistrorum de Sorbona ex legato magistri Girardi de Traiecto, quondam socii domus, pretio IIII librorum Parisiensium (fol. 4r of unnumbered folios at beginning of MS.
B. ANONYMOUS MANUSCRIPTS XII Century PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. lra-53rb. fol. lra-53rb: De materio tabernaculi (modern hand). Beg.: Secretum
Dei intentos debet facere. .. . Ends: et qui vident, ceci fiant. fol. 53rb-134va: (Allegoriae super Numeros). Beg.: Hec quatuor in hoc loco sunt consideranda. . . . Ends: superant sancti diabolum et omnia tem-
perament mundi.
XII—Parchment, 275x185 mm., 2+134 fol. of 2 col., red and purple initial letters, formerly Codex Telleriano (sic), Remensis, 9. In a XIV century hand on fol. Ir: Liber est Fernandi Tellii et dominus Cantor habet eum acomodatum.
TOLEDO Bibl. de Cabildo Primado, 10. 11, fol. 1ra. fol. Ira: Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere. . . . Ends: (fol. not
given): ut sciat unusquisque vas suum possidere in sanctificatione et honore....
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 57
XIII Century PARIS Bibl. nat., lat. 13576, fol. 57ra-88vb. fol. 57ra-88vb: Beg.: Decretum (sic) Dei intentos debet facere.... Ends: et qui vident, ceci fiant. fol. 89ra-128vb: (Allegoriae super Numeros). Beg.: Hec quatuor in hoc loco sunt consideranda. ... Ends: ei autem qui potens est in nobis... . Complete description of this MS to be found among the MSS of the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers.
PARIS
Bibl. Maz., 1005 (941), fol. 1ra-35rb.
fol. lra: Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere. ...
fol. 35rb: Ends: et qui vident, ceci fiant. Complete description of this MS to be found among the MSS of the Sermons of Peter of Poitiers.
XIV Century ERFURT Stadt-bibl., Amplon. Q. 104, fol. 121v-176v. fol. 121v: Beg.: Secretum Dei intentos debet facere. .. fol. 176v: Ends: concutitur, sed species ad maiora se. ... Work is attributed to Hugh of Saint Victor by the catalogue, most probably because it is found between two works of Hugh in the MS.
C. FALSE ATTRIBUTION
BARCELONA Archivo de la Corona de Aragon, Ripoll 76, fol. 63 ra. fol. 63ra: Beg.: Factum est postquam in captivitatem ductus. ... The
catalogue gives this short allegorical treatise as: Allegoriae Petri Picta- viensis super Tabernaculum Moystis, but in reality it is a treatise on the Lamentations of Jeremias. Complete description of MS Ripoll 76 to be found among the MSS of the Sentences of Peter of Poitiers.
2. AUTHENTICITY
In his recently published Répertoire des maitres en théologie de Paris au XIII* siécle (a work of invaluable service to students of mediaeval philosophy), P. Glorieux lists the Tractatus super tabernaculum Moysis among the doubtful works of Peter of Poitiers, the chancellor.11 Father Glorieux, however, seems to have known only of one MS of this work, which was formerly at Cambridge, Pembroke College, 75. He further says that this
eA. 50.
58 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
treatise is perhaps to be identified with the Distinctiones super psalterium, which he gives as an authentic work of our master.
There is, however, no doubt that the Allegoriae super taber- naculum Moysis and the Distinctiones super psalterium are two completely distinct works. Furthermore, we have just seen that the Allegoriae have been preserved not in one MS but in at least nine MSS. Of these MSS only three bear attribution, but in every case a Peter of Poitiers is named as author of the work.” The mansucript tradition is, therefore, constant in attributing the work to a Peter of Poitiers, and I see no reason to cast doubt upon this attribution, since these Allegoriae are not ascribed to any other writer. In no MS, however, is it said that the author of this work was the chancellor of Paris, and hence, since there were two other twelfth century Peters of Poitiers, the monk of Cluny and the canon regular of St. Victor’s in Paris,'* the question may be asked, to which of these writers does the work belong?
In answer to this question I may say that there is nothing which indicates either the monk of Cluny or the canon regular of Saint Victor as probable author of these Allegoriae. We have here a treatise representing allegorical interpretation of Scripture in the schools, and, as far as is known, neither one nor the other of these Peters of Poitiers was professor of theology. Further- more, the works of these writers which we know are of a nature quite different from the Allegoriae.
On the other hand, the chancellor, as theologian and teacher, was interested in the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, which we find in this treatise. His Distinctiones super psalterium is a work of the same kind. It may be noted, moreover, that MS 96 of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and MS. 90 of the Seminar Bibliothek of Trier attribute this work to a magister Peter of Poitiers, and this term magister would have been used in re-
“The attribution of this work to Hugh of Saint Victor which is found in the catalogue of the Amplonian MSS of Erfurt, Amplon. Q. 104, fols. 121v-176v, is made by the compiler of the catalogue and is not found in the manuscript.
*For these Peters of Poitiers, the monk of Cluny and the canon regular of Saint Victor’s, cf. the concluding pages of the Biographical Sketch of Peter of Pottters.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 59
ferring to the chancellor rather than to the religious of Cluny or to the canon regular of Saint Victor’s.
From this discussion of the authenticity of the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis and of the identity of the Peter of Poitiers, to whom the manuscript tradition attributes the work, we may safely conclude, I believe, that this treatise belongs to the chancellor of Paris.1* But another problem still confronts us. What is the extent of this treatise? Is it an allegorical interpre- tation of the tabernacle of Moses as found in the biblical text of Exodus, or does it also include allegories on the books of Leviticus and Numbers?
This problem presumably has its origin in a rubric, found at the beginning of the Allegoriae in Paris, Bibl. nat. lat., 15254, fol. 169ra, which reads: Incipiunt allegoriae magistri Petri Pictaviensis super Exodum, Leviticum, et super lhbrum Numerorum. A thirteenth century hand wrote the first part of this rubric, and then a later hand added the super Exodum etc. In the MS are found immediately following one another allegorical treatises on the tabernacle of Moses as found in the text of Exodus, on Leviticus, and on Numbers. Historians have therefore some- times referred to the work we are studying in this chapter as Allegoriae super Exodum, Leviticum, et Numeros, and compilers of catalogues of MSS have considered these treatises, when
*B. Hauréau has written that we do not know whether the Peter of Poitiers, to whom these Allegoriae belong, was chanter or chancellor of Paris (Les oeuvres de Hugues de Saint Victor. Essai critique, nouvelle édition (Paris, 1886), p. 46). The chanter to whom he refers was Peter the Chanter (+1197), who is sometimes designated Petrus Pictaviensis Cantor Paristensis. This designation, however, is not found in the MSS but in literary historians, and especially in catalogues of MSS. The source of this designation is Fabricius, who confused the Chanter with the Peter of Poitiers of Saint Victor’s (Bibl. lat. med. et infim. aetatts, III, t.v., 250-251 and 272). This error on the part of Fabricius has been pointed out by Gutjahr in his Petrus Cantor-sein Leben und _ seine Schriften, p. 6. Consequently, in the manuscript attribution of the Allegoriae to a Peter of Poitiers, there is no reason to believe that the author in question was the Chanter, and Gutjahr makes no mention of this work, not even among the works which have been falsely ascribed to this writer.
* The incipits and explicits of these treatises are to be found above in the description of this MS.
60 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
found together, to be one work. This, however, is an error, for these treatises are, I think, three distinct works.
Of the nine MSS of these Allegoriae, I have been able to study six carefully. Of these six MSS, three—Cambridge, Pem- broke College, 96, fol. Ir-76r; Paris, Mazarine, 1005(941), fol. lra-35rb; and Trier, Seminar Bibl., 90, fol. 20v-70r—contain only allegories on the text of Exodus (cc. 25-40) ; two—Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. 1lra-53rb ; 53rb-134va, and lat. 13576, fol. 57ra- 88vb ; 89ra-128vb—contain the treatises on Exodus and Numbers; while Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 15254, fol. 169ra-185va; 185va-210ra ; 210ra-232vb, is the only MS containing the three treatises on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I do not know the exact con- tents of Erfurt, Amplon. Q. 104, Toledo, Bibl. de Cabildo Pri- mado, 10, 11, and the MS which until recently was in the posses- sion of P. Goldschmidt.
From the study of the six MSS which have been available to me, I concluded that it was little probable that these treatises on three books of the Pentateuch were one work. Besides the facts that all three treatises are found together in only one MS and that in only three MSS are two treatises contained—those on Exodus and on Numbers, with the middle treatise on Leviticus wanting—there are indications that each treatise is a distinct work. Thus in Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 15254, fol. 210ra, at the end of the treatise on Leviticus, we find: Explicit feliciter in nomine Domim. This seems inexplicable, if the allegories on Numbers, which follow immediately, form part of one complete work. Then, I may recall here that the original thirteenth century rubric on fol. 169ra of this same MS reads: Incipiunt allegorie magistri Petri Pictaviensis, and that a later hand added: super Exodum, Leviticum, et super librum Numerorum.
But it has been from a study of the prologue to the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis, in which the author sets forth the plan and content of his work, that I have decided definitely that these three treatises are distinct works, or at least that the allegories on Leviticus and Numbers do not belong to the allegories on Exodus. I shall consider at length in the next sec- tion of this chapter the plan and content of the work, as set forth by the author in his prologue. Suffice it to say here that its
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 61
entire content is contained within the allegories based on the last fifteen chapters of the text of Exodus.
The Allegoriae super Leviticum and the Allegoriae super Numeros, the treatises distinct from the Allegoriae super taber- naculum Movysis, are they the works of Peter of Poitiers, or are they to be ascribed to one or two other writers? To this question I have as yet no certain answer. The method followed seems to be the same in all three treatises, and hence they may all have the same author. Then the fact that the Allegoriae super _Numeros are associated with the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis in several MSS may be an indication that the former is also a work of Peter of Poitiers.
3. CONTENT AND METHOD
In the prologue to these Allegoriae, the author announces the division and scope of his work: “. . . quam in quatuor capitula distinguimus, ut primo modo dicamus de materia tabernaculi, secundo de forma compositionis, tercio de efficientibus materiam, quarto de operantibus ex materia.’’1® The treatise, then, is to be divided into four parts: 1° the materials of the tabernacle; 2° the form of composition, which is later subdivided into objects within the tabernacle, the construction of the tabernacle, and objects without the tabernacle ;17_ 3° those making the materials, that is, those offering or furnishing the materials;#® 4° those working with the materials, that is, the builders of the tabernacle, Ooliab and Beseleel.?9
This plan is logical, and with one or two small exceptions, the author follows it faithfully. He begins with the materials and gives allegorical interpretations of the gold, the silver, the wood, the skins, etc., of which the tabernacle and its appurtenances were made. This first part of the treatise is based upon the biblical
% Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. Irb.
Tbid., fol. Irb: Forma in tribus consideratur, in his que intra taber- naculum, et his que in eius constitutione, et his que extra. Cf. also infra, note 20.
%7bid., fol. lva: Offerentes fuerunt filii Israel, opifices, Doliab (sic) et Beseleel.
* Cf. supra, note 18.
62 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
text of Exodus, XXV, 1-9, and is found on fol. lva-22va of Barisibiplanat ati oloo:
Peter of Poitiers then announces the second part of his work, which he subdivides into three parts, as I said above.2® Under the first of these sudivisions, the objects within the tabernacle, he treats allegorically of the ark, the cherubim, the table, the vases, the candelabrum. This subdivision of part two is based on Exo- dus, XXV, 10-40, and goes from fol. 22ra to fol. 28vb of the Paris MS. Then the second and third subdivisions are an- announced :
Si memoriter predicta tenemus, IIII°* capitula proposuimus, in quorum primo tract(at)um de materia tabernaculi, in secundo diximus nos esse tractaturos de compositione, quod etiam capitulum in tria distinximus, de quorum primo dictum est, id est, de his que erant intra tabernaculum. Nunc dicendum est de ipso tabernaculo, tandem de his que extra ad eius ornatum pertinentia.
Under the second subdivision, the author treats of the curtains, the boards, the pillars, the entrance, etc. This part is based on Exodus, XXVI and extends from fol. 29rb to fol 32va. The third subdivision then follows, in which the altar of sethim wood, the vases, the forceps, the court, the vestments and con- secration of the priests, and, finally, the altar of incense are dealt with. This last subdivision of part two is based on Exodus, XXVII-XXX, 10 and goes from fol. 32va to fol. 42va in the Paris MS.
The third part of the Allegoriae is not announced. Appar- ently, it is limited to a brief allegorical interpretation of Exodus, XXI, 12-16, which is found in our MS on fol. 42va-43ra. Then the author adds comments on Exodus, XXX, 18, 23 and 34. These comments extend from fol. 43ra to fol. 44ra.
Returning to his rule of announcing the divisions of his work, our author introduces the fourth and last part with these words: “Memoriter teneri ordinem supradictum patet, quia ultimo loco dicendum qui fuerunt compositores tabernaculi, scilicet Beseleel
” Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. 22ra: Prosecuta prima parte operis incoati, que est de materia tabernaculi, quoad spiritualem intelligentiam congruit, accedendum est ad secundam, que est forma compositionis, in qua tria attenduntur: ea que sunt in tabernaculo, thus scilicet, et ea que in ipsius sunt constitutione, et ea que sunt extra.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 63
et Doliab (sic).” This part is also very short. It is based upon Exodus, XX XI, 2-6 and is contained in two columns of the Paris MS, fol. 44ra-44va. The work, as announced in the prologue, should end here. The author, however, continues to comment a few texts of the remaining chapters of Exodus (cc. XXXII- XL). These comments or allegorical interpretations extend from fol. 44ra to fol. 53rb in the Paris MS.
In accordance with the plan and divisions of the work as announced in the prologue, the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Movysis are based on the biblical text of Exodus from c. XXV, 1 toc. XXXI, 6. This plan is followed faithfully, except for the allegorical interpretations at the end. It is evident, therefore, that the allegories on Leviticus and on Numbers, to which I re- ferred earlier in this chapter, and which have been considered as parts of one work, do not belong to these Allegoriae, but are distinct allegorical treatises.
The transitions from one division of the work to another, which we have just seen, testify to the unity and coherence of these Allegoriae. Only once does the author fail to announce the beginning of a new part or chapter, namely, the third, which treats of those who furnished the materials for the tabernacle. Then within each division are found indications of unity.”?
In this work Peter of Poitiers proposes to set forth the spiritual senses or allegorical interpretations of Scripture.2* He chooses, therefore, things and events, which lend themselves best to allegory.78 But he does not neglect the historical basis, upon
7 At the end of the third subdivision of part two, Peter of Poitiers treats of the altar of incense. He introduces this treatment with the words: “Quatuor sunt consideranda in hoc altari, quantitas, materia, forma, usus vel officium” (Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. 40vb). Then three columns further on (fol. 4lva) he remarks: “Postquam dictum est de quantitate altaris, et materia, et forma, agit de usu vel de officio.” Again on fol. 51rb he writes: “Hec omnia supra prosecuti sumus per ordinem, unde nil de his repetendum.”
* Ibid., fol. 22ra: Et in his omnibus non historia(m) prosequi pro- posuimus sed spiritualem sensum, nisi quod interdum breviter historie in- sistere oportet, ut sic super quo spiritualis sensus innitatur.
*%Ibid., fol. 47rb: Postea proposuit Dominus quedam iudicia Moisi, quorum quedam prosequemur, que magis allegorie idonea videbuntur.
64 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
‘which all allegorical interpretation should rest.4 He recognizes the necessity of this firm historical foundation for the super- structure of allegory.2> Consequently, he always gives the his- torical text, without, however, insisting upon it. Then he pro- ceeds immediately to the spiritual interpretation.
Peter of Poitiers in these Allegoriae weaves the figurative meanings into one continuous discourse. I remark this fact, because in his Distinctiones super psalterium, which we are to study in the following chapter, he gives a great many allegorical senses arranged according to what may be called the distinctiones method, as we shall see, but without these senses being fitted into a connected discourse. Consequently, these Allegoriae may have been preached from the pulpit. On the other hand the Distinc- tiones super psalterium seem to be a sort of thesaurus of spiritual senses, written for either exegetical or homiletic purposes.
In conclusion I cite a passage from the Allegoriae which well exemplifies Peter of Poitiers’ method in this work :*6
Locutus est iterum Dominus ad Moisen: Cum laveris patrem cum filtis aqua (indue Aaron) indumentis suis, id est, linea tunica, tacinc- tina superhumerah, et rationalt quod constringes balteo, et tiaram in capite eius ponens et laminam sanctam (Ex. XXIX, 4). In hac recapitulatione nil additur de feminalibus. Unde intelligitur quod antequam Aaron accederet ad consecrationem indutus erat feminalibus, sed Moises induit eum ceteris. Per quod significatur quod qui sacerdocii gradum vult optinere continentiam sponte debet assummere. Non si lex debet quasi in iugum proponere; deinde lex congaudens sponsioni quomodo vivere et alios decere debeat, instruit, et ita induit eum ceteris ornatibus: tunica linea, id est, continentia membrorum corporis; tunica iacinctina, id est, spe celestis beatitudinis; super- humerali, id est, pondere operis; rationali, id est, sapientia mentis et virtutum varietate; unde et Isaias ait: Et erit wstitia cingulum lumborum ets et fides cinctorium renum etus (Is. XI, 5); cidari, id est, continentia v sensuum capitis; lamina aurea, id est, fide christiane professionis. Et postea unget capud eius oleo, id est, mentem dono. gratie, quia capud Christi,’ Deus; capud viri, Christus @iieague mulieris, vir.
* Cf. supra, note 22,
*Tbhid., fol. 72rb-va: Historie fundamentum substernendum est, ut ei innitatur firmius edificium allegorie.
* Ibid., fol. 40va.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 65 4. PETER OF POITIERS AND THE FouR SENSES OF SCRIPTURE
In the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis Peter of Poitiers distinguishes the four senses of Scripture commonly recognized by mediaeval commentators, the historical, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological or moral senses.** For him the last three of these senses are the secrets which God has willed to hide under figurative veils, that by their sublimity He might mock the proud and stir up the indolent, by their profundity sustain a keen interest in the diligent (strenuos), and finally, by the aid of visible things lead the simple to a knowledge of invisible realities, which are more precious for being more hidden.?8
But what did Peter of Poitiers understand by these different senses of Scripture? What principle of interpretation permitted him to discern these spiritual meanings or allegorical senses in Holy Writ? These questions are answered in the first sub- division of the second part of the Allegoriae, where the author, arriving at the table of four legs which the Lord commanded Moses to have placed in the tabernacle (Ex. XXV, 23-26), sees in the four legs of the table a figure of the four senses of Scrip- ture. This interpretation of the text, which is itself a good example of allegorizing, gives him occasion to discuss these different senses.”
* Ibid., fol. 26rd: Mensa Domini IJII°* pedes habere dicitur, quia IIII°* intelligentiis sacra Scriptura fulcitur, istorica, alegorica, anagogica et tropologica vel moralis.
* Tbid., fol. lra: Secreta autem sua voluit Deus sub velamine figurarum tegi ut eorum altitudine superbos irrideret, desidiosos excitaret, strenuos profunditate acutos teneret, rudes per visibilia ad invisibilium noticiam exercitatos promoveret, que magis essent occulta preciosiora faceret.
* Tbid., fol. 26rb-vb: Mensa Domini IIII°* pedes habere dicitur, quia IIII° intelligentiis sacra Scriptura fulcitur, istorica, alegorica, anagogica, et tropologica vel moralis. Que omnia, ut liquidius appareant, sciendum est quod quandoque voce significatur res in sacra Scriptura, quandoque re res. Et quando voce significatur res, aut ita quod nec facta est nec facta esse videtur, et tunc est fabula; aut ita quod facta non est, fieri tamen potuisse videtur, et tunc est argumentum; aut ita quod facta est et fieri potuisse videtur, et tunc dicitur historia. Fabulas non admittit sacra pagina, nec per argumenta non recipit, sed parabolas loco eorum quales in evangelio sepe invenis. Historiam celebrat, sed hec duobus narratur, vel plano sermone vel verbis metaphorice et transumptive positis. Item quandoque re signantur res, sed hoc dupliciter, vel re temporali eterna
66 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
He begins his discussion by remarking that in the biblical text words signify realities, and then in their turn these realities some- times signify other realities. In these words is expressed the fundamental principle of mediaeval exegesis—the basic principle
vel temporali temporalia. Si re temporali significatur eterna, species est allegorie que dicitur anagoge, id est sursum ducens. Si re temporali significatur temporalis diverso modo potest hoc fieri, nam quandoque persona datur intelligi alia persona, ut cum dicitur quod David Christum significat; quandoque qualitate qualitas, ut cum per candorem vestium angeli apparentis in die resurrectionis intelligitur splendor glorificandi humani corporis; et loco locus, ut quando per Jerusalem ecclesia intelligi- tur; et tempore tempus, ut cum per annum iubileum tempus gratie sig- nificatur ; et per numerum quandoque solet aliud significari, ut per senarium perfectio et per centenarium. Sed alia et alia consideratione; quandoque facta factum, sed hoc duobus narratur, nam quandoque ita per factum significatur aliud factum, ut ostendatur per idem quod factum est quid fieri debeat sive fiat sive non, et dicitur tropologia, id est, sermo conversus ad instructionem morum; quandoque per id quod factum est vel fit vel fiet et dicitur specialiter allegoria, nam alcon grece alienum est latine et gorie subiectum quasi sermo pro alia re quam ex superficie verborum intelligas sermo subiectus, ut cum loquendo de David, Christum intelli- gendo. De omnibus his facile est ad manum exampla supponere ut ita IIII°* pedes mense de ipsa mensa supponi demonstrentur. Historia plano sermone narrabatur cum dicitur: Populus(a) de Egipto liberatus in deserto tabernaculum erectum, metaphorice acceptis verbis cum dicitur: In principio creavit Deus celum et terram, quia nomine celi per transum- tionem intelligentur angeli, nomine terre, confusa elementorum machina. Allegoria est cum verbis misticis occulta aperi et ecclesie sacramenta significantur verbis ita:Egredietur virga de radice lesse et flos de radice ews ascendet (Is. XI, 1) quod est nascetur Virgo Maria de stirpe David et Christus de ea. Quidam tamen dicunt hoc esse historiam per metaphorice transumpta verba narratam rebus ut cum populus de Egipto per sanguinem agni salvatus, ecclesiam significat passione Christi a dominatione diaboli liberatam. Tropologia ad morum informationem apertis vel figuratis verbis respicit; apertis ita: Fuliol, non diligamus verbo et lingua, sed opere et veritate (I John III, 18); figuratis ita: Omm tempore sint vestimenta tua candida et oleum de capita tuo non deficit (Eccl. IX, 8). Anagoge dicitur cum de futura vita in celo occultis et apertis verbis tractatur; apertis sic: Beati mundo corde quoniam ipst Deum videbunt (Math. V, 8); misticis sic: Beati qui lavant stolas ut sit ills potestas et in ligno vite et per portas intrent in civitatem (Apoc. XXII, 14); quod est beati qui mundant cogitationes et opera ut possint Deum videre, qui ait: Ego sum via, veritas et vita, ut per doctrinam et exempla precedentium patrum intrent in regnum celorum. (a) MS lat. 3186/popule.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 67
which permitted Peter of Poitiers and other commentators in the Middle Ages to give to Holy Writ a multiple interpretation.®°
These commentators saw in Scripture, first the text, in which words signified things. Our author gives as examples the word David which signifies the person of the king, and the word Jerusalem, which denotes the historical city. In the measure that words signify things or realities, we are within the limits of the historical sense of the text. In fact, Peter of Poitiers’ definition of history is found herein under the heading: et quando voce significatur res. But these realities designated by the words can in their turn signify other realities; they can be the signs or figures of other things. Thus the person of King David can be the sign or figure of Christ; the city of Jerusalem the figure of the Church, or the Celestial City. And because these realities can be the signs or figures of other realities, there are in Scripture senses Or meanings over and above the historical meaning ex- pressed by the words of any given text. These are the spiritual or allegorical senses of Scripture.
These various spiritual senses are the same in that they are all figurative, allegorical meanings. But sometimes the figurative sense relates to eternal life, or, as our author says, a temporal reality signifies, or is the figure of, an eternal reality, and this eternal reality lifts our minds to celestial things. In this case the spiritual sense is anagogical. Elsewhere Peter of Poitiers says that anagogy pertains to the comprehensive knowledge of God in the celestial fatherland (in patria), because it makes known to us what God will bestow on us in the future life.4 Sometimes the figurative sense has to do with moral action, or the action (factum) signified by the words is the figure of another action which one should do, In this case the figurative sense is tropological. Except for these two special cases, whenever a reality is the figure of another reality, the figurative sense is
*® Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon V, c. 3, PL 176, 790C: Sciendum est etiam quod in divino eloquio non tantum verba, sed etiam res significare habent, qui modus non adeo in aliis scripturis inveniri solet.
Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 3186, fol. lra: Cognitio autem de Deo aut enigmatica aut comprehensiva; enigmatica in via, comprehensiva in patria. Ad comprehensivam pertinet sensus anagogicus per quem cognoscitur quod in futuro nobis collaturus sit Deus.
68 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
allegorical, properly so called. Thus the examples given by Peter of Poitiers, the person of King David signifying Christ and the city of Jerusalem, the Church, are allegorical interpretations.
Peter of Poitiers, however, goes on to tell us that the trop- ological and anagogical senses of Scripture are not always hidden, figurative senses, but are sometimes openly expressed. An example of openly expressed tropology he finds in the words: “My little children, let us not love in word nor in tongue but in deed and in truth” (I John, III, 18). On the contrary, the tropological sense is hidden under the veil of figures in the text: “At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oil depart from thy head” (Eccles., IX, 8). Here, the garmentsiarestne deeds which one should always keep pure, so that the oil of grace will not be wanting to the soul.
Anagogy is openly expressed in the beautitude: “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God” (Math. V, 8). It is figurative in the text of the Apocalypse: “Blessed. are they that wash their robes (in the blood of the Lamb) that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city’ (Apoc. XXII, 18). The tree of life here signifiesteterua: life and the city, the Celestial City.22 Evidently, whenever the tropological and anagogical senses are openly expressed, there is no question of an historical meaning in the text.
I have found but one definition of history in the Allegoriae. Peter of Poitiers distinguishes it from fable and from what he terms argumentum, a sort of parabolic exposition. Fable he defines as the account of an event which never occurred and which no one would suppose to have taken place; argumentum, the account of an event which never really occurred, though it seems plausible and might have taken place; history, the account of an event which not only seems plausible but actually took place.*%
* The last three of these examples of open and figurative tropological and anagogical senses in Scripture are found in a much later treatise, written by an anonymous Dominican. Cf. Incunabula of Cornell Univer- sity, Press no. 2964, E. 51. Cited by H. Caplan, “The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation and the Mediaeval Theory of Preaching,” Speculum, 1V (1929) : 283.
* Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. 26rb: Et quando voce significatur res aut ita quod nec facta est nec facta esse videtur, et tunc est fabula; aut
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 69
In these definitions of the four senses of Scripture, Peter of Poitiers has not added to our knowledge of mediaeval exegesis, except by his observation that the tropological and anagogical senses are sometimes openly expressed. It remains, however, for us to see a further remark of our author, which may throw some new light on the problem of mediaeval scriptural inter- pretation.
After giving his definition of history, our author remarks that biblical history is recounted in a twofold manner: sometimes in plain terms (plano sermone), sometimes in metaphorical language (verbis metaphorice et transumptive positis). A bit further on he gives as an example of metaphorical history the opening sen- tence of Genesis: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” This is history recounted metaphorically, for though the text has a proper historical sense, we are further to under- stand by heaven the angels and by earth the confused mass of the elements.** In reading this example we are tempted to ask the question, what then is the difference between allegory, as we have seen it defined above, and history narrated metaphorically? This very question presented itself to twelfth century commen- tators, and they did not agree in their answers to it.
Their divergence of opinion is revealed by what immediately follows in our text, for Peter of Poitiers proceeds to exemplify allegory by citing from Isaias: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root” (Is. XI, 1), that is, the Virgin Mary will come from the race of David and Christ will be born of her. Then he re- marks: “But some say this is history recounted in metaphorical language, as is the case when the deliverance of the people from Egypt by the blood of the lamb signifies the deliverance of the
ita quod facta non est, fieri tamen potuisse videtur, et tunc est argumen- tum; aut ita quod facta est et fieri potuisse videtur, et tunc dicitur historia.
*“ Tbid., fol. 26va and vb: Historiam celebrat (sacra pagina) sed hec duobus narratur, vel plano sermone vel verbis metaphorice et transumptive positis ... Historia plano sermone narrabitur cum dicitur populus de Egipto liberatus, in deserto tabernaculum erectum; metaphorice acceptis verbis cum dicitur: Jn principio creavit Deus celum et terram, quia nomine celi per transumtionem intelligentur angeli, nomine terre, confusa elementorum machina.
70 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
Church from the domination of the devil through the passion of Christ.’
Here we see divergence of opinion among the commentators of the time, since what Peter of Poitiers held to be allegory, others held to be history recounted metaphorically. There was, conse- quently, no clear, unanimous answer to the question of the dif- . ference between the two. And this lack of unanimity presents a difficulty to our understanding of mediaeval exegesis.
This difficulty could no doubt be settled, had Peter of Poitiers told us what these other commentators accepted as allegory, but he merely says that they rejected the example which he proposed. Hence from the text of Peter of Poitiers we have no positive knowledge of what they understood by allegory. But taking into consideration the examples which our author has cited, and adding to this our knowledge of mediaeval spiritual interpretation of Scripture gained elsewhere, it may be possible to ascertain the complete thought of Peter of Poitiers in this matter and also the concept of allegory of those commentators whom he tells us were not in agreement with him. In undertaking to interpret the obscure thought of Peter of Poitiers, however, I wish frankly to admit that my solution of the problem to which his text gives rise is here set forth only as a probable explanation of the views of our author and of other mediaeval writers regarding the text of Scripture and its interpretation. In presenting this solution, therefore, it is my hope that the attention of other students of mediaeval thought will be attracted to this question and that further study of it will follow.
These writers seem to have distinguished at least three dif- ferent classes of texts in Scripture. First, there are purely figurative texts, which have no proper historical meaning. We may call these texts pure biblical metaphor. Peter of Poitiers cites a good example of such a metaphor: “And there shall
*Tbid., fol. 26vb: Allegoria est cum verbis misticis occulta aperi et ecclesie sacramenta significantur verbis ita: Egredietur virga de radice Jesse et flos de radice ews ascendet (Is. XI, 1) quod est nascetur virgo Maria de stirpe David et Christus de ea. Quidam tamen dicunt hoc esse historiam per metaphorice transumpta verba narratam rebus ut cum populus de Egipto per sanguinem agni salvatus, ecclesiam significat passione Christi a dominatione diaboli liberatam.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 71
come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root” (Is. XI, 1). Secondly, there are texts which recount historical events, and which therefore have a proper historical sense. The events recounted in these texts, however, have been generally considered as prefigurative of later, more important scriptural events, either because of their intrinsic simi- larity to these later events, or because elsewhere in Scripture they are expressly said to be prefigurative of the events.°* An example of such a prefigurative event, as cited by Peter of Poitiers from his anonymous contemporaries, is the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt by the blood of the lamb, which is pre- figurative of the deliverance of the Church from the domination of the devil through the passion of Christ. And thirdly, there are the vast majority of biblical texts which contain neither pure metaphors nor historical events prefigurative of other events. Consequently it is not at all apparent that these texts are either figurative or prefigurative. Still mediaeval commentators read into these texts figurative, spiritual meanings.
Returning now to the Allegoriae of Peter of Poitiers, we have the first two classes of these texts mentioned. Our author con- siders the first class, or pure biblical metaphor, as allegory, and the second class, or historical events prefigurative of other events, as history recounted metaphorically. Other commentators, how- ever, differ from him in that they hold both these classes of texts to be metaphorical history. We quite naturally ask: what then did these other commentators understand by allegory? As we have seen, Peter of Poitiers does not answer this question for us, but by a process of elimination we can reply that possibly their concept of allegory was restricted to our third class of texts, namely, those texts which are not purely figurative nor even clearly prefigurative of anything, but into which each commenta- tor was more or less free to read his own spiritual meaning.
* St. John, III, 14-15: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
Ep. to Gal. IV, 22-24: For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of
the free woman, was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments.
72 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
Peter of Poitiers would not have objected to including the inter- pretation of’ these texts in his concept of allegory, for though he makes no mention of these texts here, the fact remains that his Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis and also his Distinc- tiones super psalterium are made up of precisely this sort of interpretations, which he calls allegorical. Consequently, the only point of disagreement between our author and these other commentators is that he considered pure biblical metaphor as allegory while they held it to be history recounted metaphorically. Hence his concept of allegory was broader than theirs, while their concept of metaphorical history was broader than his.
Whatever be the value of this explanation of the thought of Peter of Poitiers and of his anonymous contemporaries, it seems quite clear that none of them considered all biblical texts as having equally a figurative, spiritual meaning. For all of them there were some texts in which were recounted historical events of a definite prefigurative nature. Hence they called such texts history recounted metaphorically, not that they would thereby deny the proper historical character of the events narrated, but in order to emphasize the fact that the prefigured event was of primary importance. Those who classed pure biblical metaphor as history recounted metaphorically and not as allegory very probably had in mind this same idea of the primary importance of the truth concealed in the metaphor. And Peter of Poitiers himself would certainly have held that the allegorical character of pure biblical metaphor was vastly superior to that of the great majority of scriptural texts into which each commentator was more or less free to read his own allegorical meaning—more or less free, for there were rules governing all spiritual inter- pretation of Scripture, as we shall now see.
Saint Augustine, in saying that all spiritual interpre teen of Scripture should conform either to faith or to charity, enunciated a general rule which should guide biblical commentators in their search for hidden meanings.3”, We find this rule restated in the prologue of the Allegoriae. Peter of Poitiers says that the study
* St. Augustine sets forth his teaching on the spiritual interpretation of Scripture in books II and III of his De doctrina christiana. Cf. G. Robert, Les écoles et lensetgnement de la théologie pendant la premiére moitté du XII® siécle, pp. 96-99.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 73
of the mysteries of God has to do either with the contemplation of truth or with good morals. The contemplation of truth is founded in the knowledge and love of God. This knowledge of God is obscure or enigmatical in this world, full and clear (com- prehensiva) in heaven. The allegorical sense of Scripture relates to our present enigmatical knowledge, the anagogical to our future full, clear knowledge, since through it we glimpse what is in store for us in the life to come. On the other hand, good morals are judged of and valued in reference to the love of God and neighbor. To this charity pertains the moral or tropological sense of Scripture.3® The enigmatical knowledge, of which our author here speaks, is nothing other than faith; hence he refers the three spiritual senses of Scripture to faith and to charity. And consequently the spiritual interpretation of any biblical text should conform to one or the other of them.
Besides this general rule, several special rules governed medi- aeval scriptural interpretation. Of these the first was basic. It required that the proper historical sense of the text be the indis- pensable foundation of the spiritual senses. Hugh of Saint Victor says it is impossible to allegorize well without first under- standing the historical sense, and he frankly labels as asinine those who would start off elaborating spiritual meanings of Scrip- ture without first grounding themselves in the historical sense of the text.3° Peter of Poitiers is scarcely less emphatic, and declares that without the foundation of history the whole super-
* Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. lra: Omne igitur sacramentum cum intelligitur vel ad contemplationem veritatis vel ad bonos mores refertur. Contemplatio veritatis in solius Dei cognitione et dilectione fundata est. Cognitio autem de Deo aut enigmatica aut comprehensiva; enigmatica in via, comprehensiva in patria. Ad enigmaticam scientiam pertinet sensus allegoricus, quia per eum utrumque cognoscitur Deus. Ad compre- hensivam pertinet sensus anagogicus per quem cognoscitur quod in future nobis collaturus ‘sit Deus. Boni mores ad dilectionem Dei et proximi perpendentur in quibus duobus tota lex pendet et prophete. Ad hanc refertur moralis intellectus.
*® Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon VI, c. 3, PL. 176, 799C: Neque ego te perfecte subtilem posse fieri puto in allegoria nisi prius fundatus fueris in historia. Noli contemnere minime haec. ... Scio quosdam esse qui statim philosophare volunt, fabulas psuedo-apostolis relinquendas, aiunt. Quorum scientia formae asini similis est. Noli huiusmodi imitare.
74 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
structure of spiritual interpretation is unstable. Consequently, he always gives the historical text before developing the figurative sense.2° He is careful to keep the historical and the allegorical senses distinct, and one always knows when he passes from one to the other. Nevertheless we find in his work no such expres- sions as, “Viso hucusque litterali intellectu, nunc allegoricum a principio videamus, deinde moralem,”’ which Miss Smalley has pointed out in Stephen Langton.*
A second special rule governing mediaeval exegesis required that the commentator follow in general the interpretations already received, or, if giving new interpretations, that he make these conform to orthodox tradition.42 Hence we find frequent mention in the allegorical treatises of the period that in such or such an interpretation the author is but reechoing his predecessors.*? However, I have found nowhere in the works of Peter of Poitiers any such express mention of tradition. From this it does not follow that he disregarded this rule of scriptural interpretation. In fact we shall see that in the Distinctiones super psalterium he followed in large part either the interpretations of Peter the Chanter, or a tradition which was common to him and to this master.
A third rule of the spiritual interpretation of Holy Writ was that obscure texts of the Bible are generally exposed clearly in other texts. Hence the commentator should search out these
“Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 3186, fol. lra-rb: Verumtatem quia non sup- posito historie fundamento, super quo parietas allegorie debent erigi et tectum tropologie, id est, moralis et anagogice intellectus debet collocare, totum spiritualis intelligencie edificium nutat, breviter series historie tangenda est earum rerum quarum misteria exponere suscepimus.
“B. Smalley, “Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture,” Speculum, VI (1931): 64.
“Cf. G. Robert, Les écoles et lenseignement, p. 111 ff.
* Miss Smalley has called attention to the fact that Stephen Langton often says that he is following the Gloss (usually the Glossa ordinaria commonly attributed to Walafrid Strabo, but sometimes the Glossa inter- linearts of Anselm of Laon) or some earlier master, or that he is simply giving the interpretation known to all. (B. Smalley, loc. cit. pp. 66-69 and 70). Peter the Chanter in his Summa Abel makes frequent mention of the Gloss. Also I have found this mention made repeatedly in a com- mentary on the Psalms contained in MS 217 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. This commentary is anonymous.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 75
clearer texts in support of allegorical interpretations given to dif- ficult passages. In doing this he will avoid falling into error.“ Peter of Poitiers does not mention this rule expressly. His method, however, seems to exemplify it, for he always cites another text of Scripture to confirm the allegorical interpretation he is giving, though it is not always evident that the second text is clearer than the one under consideration.
A final rule of scriptural exegesis was by far the most fertile for the multiplication of the figurative senses of the text. Ac- cording to this rule, the spiritual interpretations should be based on the qualities or properties of the prefigurative reality. Thus Peter of Poitiers says :*
Quelibet enim res quot habet proprietates tot habet linguas aliquid spirituale nobis et invisibile insinuantes, pro quarum diversitate et ipsius nominis acceptio variatur. Verbi gratia, leo rex est ferarum, animal indomitum, avidus sanguinis, omnibus feris volens dominari. Similis est ei diabolus, quia rex est super universos filios superbie. Propter quod nomine leonis quandoque intelligitur ut ibi: Adversarius vester diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit querens quem devoret (1 Pet. V, 8)... . Leo fortissimus bestiarum ad nullius pavebit occur- sum, id est, Christus, fortior diabolo, cuius arma abstulit, eius occur- sum non pavet.
Each reality, therefore, has as many tongues for the announc- ing of allegorical senses as it has properties or qualities. Conse- quently, our author is ever diligent in his search for these quali- ties. If he comments on the reality oleum, for example, he re- marks that material oil illuminates, cures sickness, floats on the surface of other liquids, and serves as condiment for other foods. The olive from which it is extracted is the symbol of peace.4® Or if the wood of Sethim is under consideration, he remarks that it is solid, light, incorruptible, similar to the white pine, and suitable material for the construction of the house of
“St. Thomas, Quodlibet VII, a. 14 ad. 3. gearis. Bibl. nat., Jat. 3186,; fol. lvb.
“ Tbid., fol. 15ra: Porro oleum corporale illuminat, egritudines sanat, ceteros liquores supernatat, ceteris cibis est condimentum. Oliva de qua extrahitur pacis est indicium et signum. Hec omnia in oleo spirituali per quod fructus caritatis et misericordie, id est, opera in caritate facta in- telligimus, reperies.
76 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
God.47 Or again if there is question of the altar of the taber- nacle, he considers its quantity, its materials, its form, its use or office.*8 All these qualities permit the commentator to spin out his spiritual interpretations.
It is evident that an ingenious commentator could multiply indefinitely allegorical meanings based on the qualities of a thing. A single reality, moreover, could be the sign or figure of several realities of very different natures. Thus in one of the texts I have cited, Peter of Poitiers has the lion signifying both the devil and Christ. To be sure, the context frequently reveals what figurative sense was intended, but not infrequently it is impossible to know what spiritual meaning should be drawn from the text. In this case, there is no danger incurred, according to St. Augustine, in giving several allegorical meanings to a text, pro- vided they are all in harmony with truth as expressed elsewhere in Scripture.*9 It goes without saying, however, that these alle- gorical interpretations cannot be invoked, except perhaps as arguments ex convenientia, in dogmatic teaching.®
In concluding these considerations on the four senses of Scripture in the Allegoriae super tabernaculum Moysis, we may ask what was for Peter of Poitiers the principal end or purpose of Scripture study? Was it to understand and interpret the proper historical sense of the text? Or was it to search out the hidden, spiritual meanings of Holy Writ? Unfortunately, he has not answered these questions in this treatise. In the Alle- goriae super Numeros, however, we do find their answer, and
“Tbid., fol. 13va: Est autem Sethim nomen regionis et montis, sed hic arboris, cuius ligna solida sunt et levia et incorruptibilia et albe spine similia, et edificio domus Dei apta. Et hec omnia deserviunt misterio.
“Tbid., fol. 40vb: Quatuor sunt consideranda in hoc altari, quantitas, materia, forma, usus vel officium. .. .
“St. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, III, c. 27, PL. 34, 80A: Quando autem ex eisdem Scripturae verbis non unum aliquid sed duo vel plura sentiuntur, etiamsi latet quid senserit ille qui scripsit, nihil periculi est, si quodlibet eorum congruere veritati ex aliis locis sanctarum Scripturarum doceri potest.
*° Miss Smalley has pointed out that Langton never used the spiritual senses of Scripture as dogmatic argument when there was question of a doctrine still under discussion. Peter of Poitiers does not enter upon the discussion of doctrine in these Allegoriae.
ALLEGORIAE SUPER TABERNACULUM MOYSIS 77
if Peter of Poitiers was not the author of this allegorical work on the book of Numbers, we can at least suppose that he shared the opinion of the mediaeval master, who wrote :°!
If from the foregoing list of princes no other fruit was forthcoming than that we knew who these princes were and from what tribes elected, it would be madness to teach such things: useless and fruit- less labor to give ourselves to such pursuits. What edification for the mind, what progress in virtue, what joy could be derived simply from knowing who has been prince of a certain tribe? But great and profound mysteries are herein concealed, because the law is secret (specialis), and from its secrets (specialibus) spiritual truths are to be taught. Knock then, that the door be opened; strike the rock that water may flow forth; break open the shell that the kernel may be extracted; clear away the straw that the hidden grain may be found. For this is the wisdom of which it is written: Think of the Lord in goodness, and seek him in simplicity of heart. For he is found by them who tempt him not (Wisd. I, 1-2).
* Paris, Bibl. nat. lat. 3186, fol. 59vb: Si de premisso principum decalogo nullus alius fructus oriatur, nisi ut sciamus qui principes et de quibus tribubus sint electi, demencia erit talia docere; labor inutilis et infructuosus talibus operam dare. Que enim edificatio mentibus, quis profectus in moribus, que iucunditas instillatur auribus, si sciamus quis in qua tribu princeps fuerit. Sed magna et profunda latent misteria, quia lex specialis est, et specialibus spiritualia proponenda. Pulsetur ergo ut aperiatur; percutiatur petra ut aqua oriatur; frangatur testa ut nucleus eliciatur; removeatur palea ut granum latens inveniatur. Ipsa enim est sapientia, de qua dictum est: Sentite Domino in bonitate et in simplici corde querite eum; quoniam invenietur ab hiis qui querunt illam.
CHAPTER III
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM
In his study of the Summa super psalterium of Prepositinus of Cremona, Monsignor G. Lacombe writes that this work, the Distinctiones super psalterium of Peter of Poitiers, and the Summa Abel of Peter the Chanter, form a trilogy of works which mark a new point of departure in scriptural exegesis They differ entirely from earlier commentaries on the psalms, of which Lacombe distinguishes three types from the patristic period to the time of Peter Lombard.”
These earlier types of commentaries, though differing from one another in purpose and method, have a common character,
*G. Lacombe, La wie et les oeuvres de Prévostin (Bibliothéque Thomiste, XI), (Le Saulchoir, Kain, Belgique, 1927), p. 112.
* Ibid., pp. 113 ff. These types are a monastic type of which the com- mentary of John of Rheims is an example; a type represented by the Glossa ordinaria or marginalis and the Glossa interlinearis; and a type found in the Commentarium super psalmos of Peter Lombard. The first type had a moralizing purpose, and the term of its development is found in mediaeval Moralia in psalmos. The second and third types of glosses do not greatly differ, except that “the Lombard’s intention in the Mator Glossatura (of which his Commentarium super psalmos is a part) was to combine seemingly contradictory patristic authorities and to reconcile them by dialectical discussion” (H. H. Glunz, History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1933), p. 214). For recent discussion of the authenticity and interdependence of the Glossa marginalis and the Glossa interlinearts, cf. H. H. Glunz, op. cit., pp. 103-105, 201-208, 213-217; and the excellent article of Miss B. Smalley, “Gilbert Universalis, Bishop of London (1128-34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria,’ Rech. de théol. anc. et méd., VIII (1936): 24-60. Both writers agree to the unity of the marginal and interlinear glosses, which heretofore have been considered as separate compositions. They agree also that the old attribution of the Glossa marginals to Walafrid Strabo is a myth and to be discarded once for all. Miss Smalley, however, challenges very effectively Mr. Glunz’s attribution of these glosses to Peter Lombard, and shows that Anselm of Laon, to whom the Glossa interlinearis has long been ascribed, was their precipuus auctor.
78
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 79
in that they all make use of patristic tradition. Citations from Saints Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory abound in them. On the contrary, citations from the Fathers are rare or disappear altogether in the Distinctiones of Peter of Poitiers and in the works of Prepositinus and Peter the Chanter. A new ele- ment, the distinctio, replaces the patristic citation, and gives to these commentaries a new and decidedly different character. What then is the distinctio?
We saw in the preceding chapter that commentators in the Middle Ages distinguished a four-fold sense in scripture, namely, the historical, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical senses. The distinctio is the interpretation of a text or a word of the text according to this four-fold sense, or the sum total of senses “‘dis- tinguished” in a given word or text.2 Let me illustrate by an example taken from the Distinctiones of Peter of Poitiers. For this purpose I have chosen his distinctio on the word lectus isunV,./) <*
Est lectus scripture ut in Cantico: Lectus noster floridus, tigna domorum nostrarum cedrina (Cant. I, 15-16); contemplationis, ut: Erunt duo in lecto uno, unus assumeter et alter relinquetur (Luke, XVII, 34); ecclesie, ut: Lectum Solomonis ambiunt LX (a) fortes (Cant. III, 7); conscientie, ut: Lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum (Ps. VI, 7); carnalis voluptatis, ut ibidem secundum aliam lectionem; item: Qui lascivitis in lectulis eburneis (Amos VI, 4); item: St ascendero in lectum strati mei (Ps. CXXXI, 3); eterne dampnationis, ut: In tenebris stravi lectulum meum (Job, XVII, 13) ; eterne beatitudinis, ut: Pueri met mecum sunt in cubith (Luke, XI, 7), faoebars, Bibl, nat., lat. 425, fol. 5rb/LXXta.
In this example lectus scripture is the historical sense; Jectus contemplationis and lectus ecclesiae are the allegorical senses; lectus conscientie and lectus carnalis voluptatis are the tropo- logical or moral senses; and, finally, lectus eterne dampnationis and lectus eterne beatitudinis are the anagogical senses. I may add that not all these senses are given in every distinctio in this work, for not infrequently only two or three of them are found.
There is no doubt that the method of exegesis in the com-
*Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 425, fol. Irb: Psalmus dicebatur modus qui decantabatur in psalterio, et inde translatum est ad has distinctiones, says
Peter of Poitiers at the outset of his Distinctiones super psalterium. “Tbid., fol. Srb.
80 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
mentaries on the psalms by Peter of Poitiers and his contempo- raries is decidedly different from that found in earlier mediaeval works of the same nature, and hence Monsignor Lacombe was right in regarding these commentaries as a new point of departure in the exegetical literature of the psalter. This does not mean, however, that they are entirely independent of tradition. Mon- signor Lacombe recognized the genesis of the Summa super psalterium of Prepositinus in a combination of the method em- ployed in the Glossa interlinearis with the distinctiones, which derived from the Clavis of Melito of Sardis® and the writings of Gregory the Great.6 It is my own belief that the distinctiones of these later writers came primarily from the Clavis, since the method of distinguishing the different figurative senses of Scrip- ture followed by Melito of Sardis is especially similar to the method found in the works of Peter of Poitiers and his con- temporaries. In the works of Gregory the Great, as for example in the Expositio in psalmos poenitentiales," we do not find the distinctio, but we do find in them the figurative senses of Scrip- ture, which are the elements of the distinctio. Hence these works may also be rightly regarded as having played a part in the genesis of the new method of scriptural exegesis. Furthermore, the elements of the distinctio are found in other patristic writings, such as the Enarrationes in psalmos of St. Ambrose and the Breviarium in psalmos of St. Jerome.
To illustrate how the genesis of the distinctio may have taken place, I cite a passage from the Enarrationes of St. Ambrose, and endeavor to show how it would have evolved in the com- mentaries we are studying :§
Igne nos examinastt dicit David (Ps. XVI, 3). Ergo omnes igne examinabimur. Et Ezechiel dicit: Ecce ventt Dominus omnipotens; et quis sustinebit diem introttus ejus, aut quis sustinebit cum appa- ruerit nobis? Quoniam ipse introibit sicut ignis conflatorit et sicut alveus lavantwum, et sedebit conflans et purgans sicut aurum et argen- tum; et purgabit filios Levi, etc. (Malach. III, 2-3). Igne ergo pur-
* Edited by J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense (Parisiis, 1852-1858), II and III, 1-308.
COP ep. Lo:
“PL. 79, 549-658.
* Ibid., 14, 980BC-981A.
—
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 81
gabuntur filii Levi, igne Ezechiel, igne Daniel. Sed hi etsi per ignem examinabuntur, dicent tamen: Transivimus per ignem et aquam (Ps. LXV, 12). Alii in igne remanebunt; illis rorabit ignis, ut Hebraeis pueris, qui incendio fornacis ardentis objecti sunt; ministris autem impietatis ultor ignis exuret. .. . Sequamur ergo hic positi columnam ignis, quae nos in hoc corpore positos illuminet et viam monstret, ut in futurum nobis nebula refrigeret noctis: quo saeva incendia revelare possimus,
In the hands of Peter of Poitiers or one of his contemporaries this passage would have given the following distinctio:
Est ignis qui examinat: Jgne nos examinasti; purgat: Ecce ventt Dominus, etc.; rorat et exurat: Transivimus per itgnem et aquam; illuminat et viam monstrat: Dominus autem precedebat eos ad osten- dendam viam, per diem in columna nubis, et per noctem in columna tons. ...
As a matter of fact, we find most of these interpretations of ignis in two distinctiones of Peter of Poitiers.®
Before giving the list of MSS of the Distinctiones super psalterium, it is necessary to point out that this work has come down to us in two forms. In some MSS the distinctiones are given in the body of the text, while in others, they are arranged in schematic form, that is, the scriptural word which is being interpreted according to the different senses of Scripture is placed to the right of the text and red lines radiate to the different senses. In order to distinguish between these two forms of this work I shall henceforth refer to the first as the continuous text and to the second as the schematic text. To illustrate the difference between these two forms of the Distinctiones, let me cite the distinctio on the word lectus. We have seen above how this distinctio is given in the continuous text. In the schematic text it becomes :1°
scripture—Lectus noster floridus,... (Cant. I, 15-16). contemplationis—Erunt duo in lecto uno... (Luke, XVII, 34). Est | ecclesie—Lectum Salomonis ambiunt LX fortes (Cant. III, 7). lectus | conscientice—Lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum (Ps. VI, 7). carnalis voluptatis—Qui lascivitis in lectulis eburneis (Amos VI, 4). eterne beatitudinis—Puert mei mecum sunt in cubili (Luke XI, 7).
*Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 454, fol. 7r and 33v. On fol. 7r is found ignis purgationts; on fol. 33v we read: “Ignis consumit, examinat, probat.” * Tbid., fol. 5r.
82 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
Given these,two forms of this work, the question of their relation arises. Is the schematic text a preliminary draft of the Distinctiones, and the continuous text its final form, or is the schematic text an abridgment of the continuous text, in the sense that a scribe extracted from the body of the text the scriptural words on which the distinctions were built in order to bring these words into greater evidence?
I examined several MSS of this work in both its forms in the hope that a comparative study of the distinctiones they con- tain would enable me to answer this question. The results of this study, however, were too negligible to permit me to draw a definite conclusion from them. ‘There are, however, at least three indications that the schematic text of this work is an abridgement of the continuous text:
1) Monsignor Lacombe has pointed out that the new method of commenting upon the psalter, which we find in the works of Prepositinus, Peter of Poitiers, and Peter the Chanter, had its origin in the fact that the older commentaries were of little service to those engaged in preaching, though of great value for the theologians. At the end of the twelfth century preachers were making great use of the figurative senses of Scripture in their sermons, and hence the need was felt for a new kind of exegesis which would place these senses at their disposal. Col- lections of distinctiones therefore began to appear.1! Neverthe- less, Monsignor Lacombe believed that the commentaries on the psalms of Prepositinus, Peter of Poitiers, and Peter the Chanter were written primarily to be preached, and not to serve as col- lections of distinctiones for preachers.1? This belief may be well founded for the work of Prepositinus, but I seriously doubt that it is true for the works of Peter of Poitiers and of Peter the Chanter. These works are much more succinct and dry than the work of Prepositinus and seem to me to be simple compila- tions of distinctiones.®
%G. Lacombe, op. cit., pp. 114-115.
* Tbid., pp. 120-121.
* Despite the succinctness and dryness of Peter of Poitiers’ Distinc- tiones, there is, nevertheless, a possibility that they were preached. This possibility is found in the use of the term karissimi which occurs once in the Distinctiones: “Communiter igitur, karissimi, Deum deprecemur ut
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 83
However this may be, nothing prevents us from supposing that the work of Peter of Poitiers was utilized as a collection of distinctiones by the preachers of the time. But in the continuous text of the work, it would not have been easy to find a given distinctto, concealed in the body of the text. Hence it would have been quite natural to abridge this continuous text and to place the scriptural words in the margin, that the distinctio of any given word might be more easily found. That this is what actually took place seems to be confirmed by the fact that in Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 14423 and 14424, which contain the con- tinuous text of the Distinctiones, we find most of the scriptural words written in the margin, although the red lines radiating to the different senses are lacking. These words were written in the margin, I believe, so that they might be more easily found. It was only another step to draw the whole work up in schematic form, and to place the scriptural words, the senses of which were to be “distinguished,” to the right of the text with red lines radiating to the various senses.
2) There are at least five thirteenth century MSS containing the schematic text of this work.‘* But if this were a mere first draft or preparatory sketch of the Distinctiones, would it have been copied so often?
3) Of these five MSS, I was able to examine three: Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 454; Evreux, 46; and Rheims, 161 (B66). This examination revealed that the Paris MS differs considerably from the other two. It contains twenty-six distinctiones which are not found in the MSS of Evreux and Rheims. These dis- tinctiones are likewise wanting in MSS lat. 14423 and 14424 of the continuous text. Then, the scriptural word placed to the right of the text in the Paris MS is frequently not the same as in the other two MSS for a given distinction. The first dif- ference shows that MS lat. 454 cannot contain an original draft of the Distinctiones, for if it did, the absence of these twenty-six
post vite huius septenarium numerum, cum eiusdem venturi iudicis tuba novissima in solidissimo fixorum tabernaculo iustorum, nobis indeficientem sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur” (Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 425, fol. 118rb).
“ Exreux, 46; Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 454; Rheims, 161 (B. 66): Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Barb. lat. 522; Troyes, 1365.
84 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
distinctiones in the final form of the work would be inexplicable. These additional distinctions, however, might have been inserted by a scribe, whether he was abridging the continuous text or copy- ing an earlier MS of the schematic text, which did contain an original draft of the Distinctiones. Consequently, this difference alone:in our MSS does not enable us to decide our problem one way or the other. The second difference, however, is more help- ful. Since the words to the right of the text in MS lat. 454 are frequently not the same as the words to the right of the text in Evreux 46 and Rheims, 161 (B66), it seems clear that the Paris MS was not copied from either of these other MSS nor from a common schematic source. It seems, therefore, to be an abridg- ment of the continuous text. But if this MS of the schematic text is an abridgment of the continuous text, we can reasonably suppose that the other MSS of the schematic text—or at least the original from which they were copied—also derived from the continuous text. This, therefore, is another indication that the schematic form of the Distinctiones super psalterium is an abridgment of the continuous text and not a preparatory draft of the work.
With these introductory and explanatory observations made, we may now list the MSS in which this work of Peter of Poitiers has come down to us. These MSS fall into two groups: (A) MSS of the continuous text; (B) MSS of the schematic text.
1. THe MANUSCRIPTS
A. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE CONTINUOUS TEXT
XIII Century CAMBRAI 977 (875), fol. 2ra-86vb. fol. 2ra: Distinctiones super psalmos psalterii. Beg.: Facies mihi tento- rium in introitu tabernacult. ... Cum omnes prophetas. ... Homines in Adam sunt deformati. . . fol. 86vb: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
LONDON British Museum, Roy. 4 A VIII, fol. 162ra-188vb. fol. 162ra: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium. . .. Cum omnes prophetas....
Beatus vir. Hic homines sunt in Adam deformati. ...
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 85
OXFORD
Bodleian Library, Laud. Misc. 499, fol. 1r-88r.
fol. ir: Distinctiones magistri Petri Pictaviensis. Beg.: Facies mihi ten- torium. ...
fol. 88r: Ends: sue propiciacionis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
OXFORD
Corpus Christi College, 48, fol. 91r-143v.
fol. 91r: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium.....Cum omnes prophetas.... Beatus vir. Omnes homines in Adam sunt deformati... . .
fol. 143v: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc:
OXFORD Queens College, 322, fol. 1r-106v. fol. ir: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium. ...Cum omnes prophetas. . .
Beatus vir. Quot modis homines deformati sunt... . fol. 106v: Ends: perfecte Deum laudare non potest.
PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 425, fol. lra-118rb.
fol. lra: Distinctiones super psalterium edite a magistro Petro Picta- viensi, cancellario iuris. Beg.: Facies miht tentorium. ... Cum omnes prophetas. ... Intentio homines in Adam deformat. Homines in Adam sunt deformati. .
fol. 118rb: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc;
fol.118va-182rb: Incipit summa magistri Johannis Belet de officiis eccle- siasticis. Beg.: In primitiva ecclesia prohibitum erat.... Ends: summe scriptoris et patroni. Amen.
fol. 182v-184v: (Tabula distinctionum). The beginning is effaced. The second distinctio is adventus.
XIII—Parchment, 255x185 mm., 184 fol. of 2 col., rubrics and red, blue, and green initial letters, formerly belonged to the library of John Bigot.
MS lat. 14423, fol. lra-40va. On back of fly leaf: Distinctiones psalterii magistri Petri Pictaviensis.
fol. lra: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium. ...Cum omnes prophetas.... Intentio homines in Adam deformat. Homines in Adam sunt de- Tora)... .
fol. 40va: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc. fol. 41ra-119rb: Glose super sententias (title on back of fly leaf). Beg.: Summa divine pagine in credendis consulit et agendis. ... Ends: qui est via duce, id est ducatu et iter monstrante. Explicit.
X11I—Parchment, 320x245 mm., 1+119 fol. of 2 col., red initial letters up to fol. 41ra. The distinctiones are written in the margins, but not in schematic form on fols. lra-4lva, formerly St. Victor, 246.
86 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
MS lat. 14424, fol. 1ra-48va.
fol. lra: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium. ... Cum omnes prophetas... . Intentio homines in Adam deformat. Homines in Adam sunt de- TOTMatign. .:
fol. 48va: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc. fol. 49ra-98rb: (Michaelis Meldunensis Expositio in psalterium). Beg.: Quisquis ad divine pagine lectionem. ... Ends: sola enim perseverantia accipit bravium. Finis distincionum post Meldensem collectarum. Amen. This work has been edited among the works of St. Bonaventure, ed. Vatic. I, 76-162.
fol. 99ra-160rb: (Stephani Langtoniensis Postille super Matheum). Beg:.: Fecit Deus duo luminaria. ... Per firmamentum celi satis eleganter.... (S. Langton In Mattheum). Ends: in opus ad quod sumpsi eos.
fol. 161ra-18lvb: (Postille super Genesim). Beg: Sicut in principiis artium. ... Ends: aparet in dentibus.
XIII—Parchment, 295x210 mm., 181 fol. of 2 col., a few red initial letters up to fol. 48, Distinctiones written in the margin with red ink, formerly St. Victor, 434.
PARIS Bibl. Mazarine, 777 (681), fol. 1ra-95ra. fol. lra: Beg.: Facies miht tentorium. ...Cum omnes prophetas....
Homines sunt in Adam deformati. . . fol. 95ra: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
PARIS
Bibl. de Université, 185, fol. lra-76rb.
fol. lra: Distinctiones psalmorum secundum magistrum Petrum Picta- viensem. Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium. ... Cum omnes prophetas.... Homines sunt deformati in Adam... .
fol. 76rb: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc. fol. 77ra-140vb: (Liber de celesti hierarchia S. Dionysii Areopagitae). Beg.: Liber iste qui inscribitur de celesti ierarchia. ...Omne datum optimum. ... Sed et omnes patre moto. ... (fol. Irb.)
fol. 140vb-14irb: (Dicta beati Albini levitae). Beg. Tanta dignitas hu- mane conditionis cognoscitur....
XITI-XIV, Parchment, 340x237 mm., 141 fol. of 2 col., 2 hands, one of the XIII century (fol. 1-76), the second of XIV century (fol. 77-141), rubrics and red and blue initial letters in the second part of MS, formerly belonged to Collegium Ludovict Magni.
ROME
Bibl. Apost. Vat. 4304, fol. 93r-100v. fol. lv-83v: Summa Petri Capuani. Beg.: Vetutissima veterum come- Chis yanks
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 87
fol. 70v-83v: (Alphabetum in artem sermonandi Petri Capuani cum prologo). Beg.: Parvuli petierunt panem. . . . Incomplete text.
fol. 84r: (Epistola dedicatoria Petri Capuani missa Gualtero archie- piscopo Panormitano). Beg.: Reverendo patri et domino Gualter(o) Dei gratia venerabili Panormitano archiepiscopo.... The Summa of Peter of Capua was addressed to Walter, archbishop of Palermo (1201- 1202). Cf. M. Grabmann, Die Gesch. der schol. Meth., II, 532.
fol. 84v: (Exceptum de sex partibus orationis dominicae). Beg.: No- tandum quod oratio dominica sex habet partes... .
fol. 85r-92v: (Sententiarum fragmentum). Beg.: Es notat usiam, per- sonam proprietatem....
fol. 93r-100v: (Fragmentum Petri Pictaviensis distinctionum super psalterium). Beg.: Facies miht tentoriwm. .
Ends: et qui justus est, amplius justus fiat.
fol. 101v-122v: (Prepositini summa contra hereticos). Beg.: Inane quidem ac perniciosa cura.... On fol. 122 in a XIV or XV century hand is written: Libellus theologie innominatus.
XIII, Parchment, 255x165 mm., 122 fol. of 2 col., red and blue initial letters.
XITI-XIV Centuries
Osma, Burgo de (Cathedral), 82, fol. 1r-84v.
fol. ir: Expositio allegorica psalmorum. This title is followed by two illegible leaves.
fol. 3r: Beg.: Facies mihi temptorium. ...Quare David sit eximius prophetarum. ... Beatus vir.
fol. 84v: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
B. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SCHEMATIC TEXT
XIII Century EVREUX 46, fol. 2r-83v. fol. 2r: Magistrales distinctiones super psalterium. Beg.: Factes miht
tentorium. ... fol. 83v: Ends: sue propitiationis abundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 454, fol. 1r-72v.
fol. ir: Beg.: Facies mihi tentorium....
fol. 72v: Ends: sue propitiatonis abundantiam largiatur, qui vivit etc. fol. 73r-136v: Summa super psalterium secundum magistrum Preposi- tinum. Beg.: Egrediemini filie Syon.... Ad vos, viri litterati et con- templativi. . . . Ends: oblitus prioris vite vel oblitus mea. . . . Work ends in midst of psalm 59.
88 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
XIII, Parchment, 245x165 mm., 136 fol. of long lines, red and blue initial letters.
RHEIMS
161 (B.66), fol. 1r-91v.
fol. ir: Incipiunt distinctiones super psalterium magistri Petri Lom- bardi. Beg.: Facies mihi tentortum. ...
fol. 91v: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, etc.
ROME
Bibl. Apost. Vat. Barb. lat. 522, fol. 1r-109r.
fol. ir: Incipiunt distinctiones super psalterium. Beg.: Facies mtht in introitu tabernaculi temptorium. .. .
fol. 109r: Ends: non obscurat mundana iniquitas. ...
XIII, Parchment, 243x149 mm., 2 + 109 fol. of long lines, rubrics and red initial letters.
TROYES
1365, fol. 246r-321v. fol. 246r: Beg.: Factes miht temptorium. . fol. 321v: Ends: sue propitiationis habundantiam largiatur, qui vivit, ete.
C. FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS AUXERRE
4 fol. 48r-269r.
fol. 48r: Incipiunt distinctiones magistri.... Beg.: Beatus wr. Sciendum est quod intentio psalmorum est facere homines. ...
fol. 269r: Ends: qui abscondit talentum domini sui. Fenel, a former dean of Sens, has inscribed a note in the front of this MS in which he conjectures that these Distinctiones belong to Peter of Poitiers. But this work belongs beyond doubt to Eudes de Chateauroux (Odo de Castro). Cf: Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 548, 3715, 12417, (fol. 83), 14425, 15568). 1s5Gg: Arras, 324, 733, 734, 762; Oxford, Balliol College, 37; Paris, Ste. Genéviéve, 1195 and 1199; Troyes, 1089 and 1369.
PARIS
Bibl. nat., lat. 455, fol. lra-37rb.
fol. lra: Infra quinquaginta David psalmos centumque notavit, versus bis mille sex centum sex canit ille.
Beg.: Ait Dominus ad Moysem: Facies mihi tentorium. ... Beatus Vir. Beatus est cui omnes optata succedunt....
fol. 37rb: Ends: in dextera eius, hoc est in electis meis ignea lex.
fol. 37v-39v: (Sermones). 1° Gaudium erit in celo. ... Inventt sunt sermones tut. ...Ita dicit Jeremias....2° Elizabeth impletum est tempus. ... Isaias in persona Ioannis. ... 3° Preparare in occursum Det... . Rorate ceil desuper.. ... Per celum intelligitur sancta Trinitas.
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 89
... 4° St morum fecerit, expecta. ... Legitur in libro Iudicum. ... 5° Postquam consumati. sunt dies octo.... Ignis missus desuper. .. . Ignis verbum Dei... .
fol. 40ra-47vb: Incipit liber de contemptu mundi quem Innocentius papa III edidit. Primus liber tractat ad quod sit natus homo. Beg.: Do- mino patri karissimo Petro Portuensi episcopo.. .
fol. 48ra-57vb: De resurrectione mortuorum. Beg.: (D)icit Dominus in evangelio, Regina Austri surget....
fol. 58ra-94vb: Liber distinctionum. Beg.: Abel dicitur principium ecclesie. .. . Summa Abel of Peter the Chanter (+ 1197).
fol. 95r-98v: Liber proprietatibus rerum. Beg.: Angelus purus na- 1b he: Ra
fol. 99ra-10lva: (Sermones). 1° Verbo Domini celi firmati sunt. Licet
non incongrue forsitan dici possit....2° Estote factores verbt....In epistola precedentis dominice. ... 3° Recumbentibus XI discipulis.... In hiis verbis quod Dominus. .. . 4° Inquit apostolus Paulus: Mihi absit gloriart. . . . Hac auctoritate nos monet apostolus. ... ; 5° Surge aquilo vent austert. ... Audivistis in epistola hodierna....6° Nos dtligamus Deum quomam Deus prior dilexit nos. Exortatio beati Iohannis.... 7° Bonum certamen certavt.... Bene scitis ex quo primus homo....
fol. 10lvb: (Brevis epistola). Dilectissimis et precordialibus patri suo P. ac matri sue Io. suus filius frater Io. de ordine fratrum predicato- Paty ous.
XIII, Parchment, 365x245 mm., 5 + 101 + 5 fol. of 2 col., rubrics and red initial letters on fol. 40r-57r, 2 or 3 hands, of which the first extends from fol. Ir to fol. 39v, the second from fol. 40r to 98v, and the third from 99r-10lv. Hands 1 and 3, however, may be identical. Formerly belonged to Sancta Maria de Vercellis.
Note: MS Alcobaca 62 (XIII cent.) of the Bibl. nac. of Lisbon contains an Expositio super psalmos, the prologue to which begins: Facies mt in introitu tabernacul tentorium. ... The beginning of the commentary on the first psalm: Psalmus iste est prologus et titulus totius libri... ., and likewise the explicit of the work at the end of the twenty-fifth psalm: in regione vivorum, show that this Erpositio is not the work of Peter of Poitiers. An eighteenth century hand attributes it to Fra Lucas da Pederneira. This attribution, however, is very late, and most probably of no value. (Cf. Inventario dos Codices Alcobacenses (Lisboa, 1930- 1932), p. 210).
2. AUTHENTICITY
Both literary and manuscript tradition agree in attributing the Distinctiones super psalterium to Peter of Poitiers. In his Chronicle, written between 1227-1251, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines includes a work of Distinctiones sive Postillae among the writings
90 THE WORKS OF PETER OF POITIERS
of this master.° The work to which Alberic refers is no doubt the Distinctiones super psaltertum. Of the sixteen MSS which I found of these Distinctiones, three, dating from the thirteenth century, bear the name of Peter of Poitiers in a rubric title.1* In a fourth MS—Paris Bibl. nat., lat. 14423—the attribution to our author is written in a thirteenth century hand on the re- verse side of the fly leaf: “In libro isto continentur distinctiones psalterii magistri Petri Pictaviensis. . . .’” One MS, on the other hand, ascribes this work to Peter Lombard. It is Rheims, 161 (B. 66), in which on fol. Ir. we find: “Incipiunt distinctiones super psalterii magistri Petri Lombardi.” ‘This single attribution of these Distinctiones to the master of the Sentences, however, may be regarded as a scribe’s error and does not seriously challenge the claim of Peter of Poitiers to the authorship of this work. This error is not surprising in view of the reputation as a commentator which the Maior Glossatura had won for the Lombard.
I call attention at this point to the fact that Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 455, which is commonly given among the MSS of the Distinctiones super psalterium, contains not this work, but an anonymous commentary on the psalms. This work has many similarities to the Distinctiones of Peter of Poitiers, upon which it undoubtedly depends. It begins with the prologue to the Distinctiones, introduced with the words, “Ait Dominus ad Moysem: Facies mihi tentortum in introitu tabernacul, .. .” But the prologue to the commentary on the psalms of Peter Lombard, which begins, Cum omnes prophetas, is not inserted into this work. Coming to the text of this commentary, we find that the sequence of the scriptural words, on which the Distinctiones are built, follows closely the work of Peter of
* MGH. SS. XXIII, 886, 20: Obiit mag. Petrus Pictaviensis, cancellarius Parisiensis, . . . cuius habentur Sententie et Distinctiones sive Postille. ...
** Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Misc. 499, fol. Ir: Distinctiones magistri Petri Pictaviensis; Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 425 fol. Ir: Distinctiones super pSalterium edite a magistro Petro Pictaviensi, cancellario iuris; Paris, Bibl. de l’Université, 185 fol. Ir: Distinctiones psalmorum secundum magistrum Petrum Pictaviensem. The title in MS lat. 425 is not in the same hand as the text, but it replaces the original title, today illegible, which was no doubt in the same hand as the text.
DISTINCTIONES SUPER PSALTERIUM 91
Poitiers, but the distinctions themselves are completely different in the two works. In Appendix II to this study, I have compared the prologues to both works, the distinctions of the first psalm, and the first distinctions of psalms two to ten. This comparative study shows that we have here two distinct commentaries on the psalter.
3. DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
While discussing the meaning of the seventh year of the seventh decade toward the end of his Distinctiones super psalterium, Peter of Poitiers says that the bishop of Paris, Mau- rice of Sully, is in full agreement with the interpretation of this text, which he has given.17 This remark enables us to place the terminus ad quem of the writing of this work sometime before September 11, 1196, the date of the death of Maurice of Sully at Saint Victor, whither he had retired about the same year.}§
But though the terminus ad quem date of the Distinctiones is certain, we have no definite information on which to establish the terminus a quo date of its composition. Maurice of Sully had succeeded Peter Lombard as bishop of Paris at the end of 1160, seven years before Peter of Poitiers began teaching theology. Consequently, the reference to Maurice, does not help us to fix a precise terminus a quo date. If we may suppose, however, that a young teacher would not have undertaken a work of this nature, an interpretation of th