Category Archives: Medieval Stuff

An Interesting Carolingian Reading List

Many of the readers here will know the name of Notker Balbus (the Stammer). He is the monk of St Gall who is famous for his chant sequences. Upon reading through de Lubac, I’ve learned that he’s also the author of an interesting little treatise called On the Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. The scan from the PL may be found here. Fascinating stuff—it goes a quick glimpse into how these folks went about the study of Scripture, who they turned to first and how they categorized who they read. Here’s a quick paraphrase of his section on the Gospels:

…For Matthew, Jerome[‘s Commentary] should be sufficient for you. As Mark is the abbreviator of Matthew, so Bede is the abbreviator of Jerome [referring to Bede’s commentary on Mark]. So the unique Luke by the broadminded Bede so much so that everything one discovers in the Gospel is touched upon in his one volume. The cloud-soaring Augustine (among* others) pursues the heaven-seeking John [Tractates on John]. After these is the book of Augustine On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount according to Matthew. Also his Questions on the whole Gospel. Furthermore also the Collection of Eugippus. Furthermore the homilies of John Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, Gregory, Maximus [of Turin], Leo, Bede, and the responses of Jerome to the questions of Algasia and Denobia.

* I wonder if this should be “above” or “without equal”…

(The high-flying rhetoric around John is a trope of Augustine’s explanation of John’s symbol of the eagle at the start of Augustine’s De Consensu which, interestingly, doesn’t get a mention…)

Clearly, I’m interested in the list of recommended homilies. Does the line-up sound familiar to anyone? It’s practically the table of contents of Paul the Deacon. Also interesting is the fact that Paul doesn’t get a mention—nor does Smaragdus’s collection on the Gospels and Epistles.  Bede is the only author who could enough roughly be considered a contemporary (and even that’s a stretch).

Benedict of Aniane: A Convert to the Rule

This is the first of possibly several posts on Benedict of Aniane, reformer and teacher (750-821).

Benedict of Aniane is one of those figures in history of whom the general population is blissfully unaware, but who made great and significant changes in the way things were done. It’s not an exaggeration to say that he defined the landscape of Western Monasticism as it moved through the Early Medieval period and into the High Middle Ages.

St Benedict of Nursia gave us the Rule, but it was Benedict of Aniane who gave us Benedictine monasticism as a theological and organizational entity. In the early medieval West there were a host of monastic rules floating around, some written by famous doctors of the church—like those of Isidore and Caesarius of Arles—as well as others by lesser known or now anonymous authors. The most common was the so-called regula mixta which was a combination of the Rule of Benedict and the Irish Rule of Columbanus. English monks like Bede and Boniface were the first to push for an exclusive Benedictine observance but it remained a hard row to hoe. Without Benedict of Aniane, Benedict’s Rule would likely today occupy a place similar to where John Cassian, known by the interested but utilized piece-meal rather than whole-cloth.

Benedict of Aniane started out as one attracted by Benedict’s Rule but with the ascetic chip on his shoulder. Age brought wisdom. In chapter 2, Ardo tells us of his mortifications:

His face through gaunt with fasting; his flesh was exhausted by privation; his shriveled skin hung from his bones like the dewlaps of cows. Not so much taming a young but ungovernable animal, as mortifying the body, although he was compelled by the abbot to exercise rigor against himself more sparingly, he gave assent reluctantly. Declaring that the Rule of blessed Benedict was for beginners and weak persons, he strove to climb up to the precepts of blessed Basil and the rule of blessed Pachomius. However much the Benedictine Rule might regulate possible things for paltry people, our Benedict perennially explored more impossible things. Dedicating himself wholly to penance and lamentation, he could not be imitated by anyone or only by a few. But divine favor decreed that he was to become an example of salvation for many and would be enflamed with love for the Rule of Benedict, and like a new athlete just back from single combat enter the field to fight publicly. In the meanwhile he undertook to correct the manners of some, to scold the negligent, exhort beginners, admonish the upright to persevere, and upbraid the wicked to turn from their ways. (Ardo’s Vita 2.5, 68-9)

Students of the Rule will recognize the trope that Ardo is drawing on here. The first chapter of the rule, drawing on John Cassian Conf. 18.4ff, uses a martial motif to present the cenobites as soldiers who fight together in a battle-line, side by side. The anchorites are the champions who are strong enough to fight on their own, after hard training in the battle-line. Here, Ardo presents the asceticism of Benedict of Aniane as defacto anchorite training, who then returns to teach the rest of the monks rather than remaining elsewhere as a solitary. Ardo then continues to detail Benedict’s full conversion to the Rule:

After that it was enjoined on him to supervise the cellar. There he committed to memory the Rule of the aforesaid Father Benedict. He sought with all his might to comport himself according to its regulations and then without delay to be generous to those seeking lawful things, to deny those seeking in a bad way, and courteously to excuse those inquiring for impossible things. Because he did not freely provide them cups, he was not regarded with favor by many. The care of guests, children, and poor folk he exercised with assiduity. The abbot also esteemed him with supreme fondness, because he was beneficial in everything, circumspect in his own life, solicitous for the salvation of others, prompt in ministering, infrequent in speaking, ready to obey, good-natured in serving. Divine piety conferred upon him, among other virtues, the gift of understanding and a supply of spiritual eloquence. (Ardo’s Vita 2.6, 69)

I find this passage fascinating especially when read in parallel with the section just before it. the reversal on possible/lawful and impossible things is interesting. I note that in the first Benedict seems to do an awful lot of talking—memorization and internalization of the Rule leads to a lot more doing and a lot less talking. I don’t think Ardo wrote it this way on accident… And what a wise abbot! It seems like the move to cellarer (cf. RB 31) was quite a wise move. Benedict could no longer be peripheral to community life, holding himself above it, but was required to be fully integrated into themost mundane details of life together. I don’t think it’s an accident that it was this move that triggered his turn to the Rule.

That’s it for now—the next post will probably look at Benedict’s reforming work and the councils at Aachen.

Back to the Blog…

We’ve returned from Christmas and associated festivities at the in-laws. The up-coming days will probably see a number of postings on a number of new acquisitions for the library. In looking over the books I received from parents and sister-in-law I was amused at by the simultaneous breadth and coherence of the items: a taichi book and a taichi dvd, a collection of essays by Plutarch, the new Book of Common Prayer from Lancelot Andrewes Press, Ardo’s life of Benedict of Aniane, and Hymn Introits for the Liturgical Year.

I’ll say more about most of these later, but just wanted to comment on something that jumped out at me from Ardo’s life. In his discussion of Benedict of Aniane’s full output in Ch 38 he writes:

To demonstrate to contentious persons that nothing worthless or useless was set forth by blessed Benedict [of Nursia], but that his Rule was sustained by the rules of others, he compiled another book of statements culled from other rules. To it he gave the title, Harmony of the Rules [Concordia Regularum]. Statements in agreement with blessed Benedict’s book were added to show that the latter was obviously foremost. To it he joined another book from the homilies of holy teachers. These were presented for exhortation of monks and ordered it read all the time at the evening assemblies. (p. 101)

I knew of the Concordia Regularum, but this is the first I’d heard of a book of homilies along with it. I’m curious to see the Latin to see which book was being specified here for which occasion. Furthermore, there’s another interesting throw-away reference earlier. As Benedict of Aniane traveled around he: “spent days in Arles with many bishops, abbots, and monks, explaining the mysteries of the canons and expounding the homilies of the blessed Pope Gregory to the ignorant.”  What was going on here? Which homilies were these—the Moralia in Iob, Homilies on Ezekiel, or the Forty Gospel Homilies?

Not in Philly

I hadn’t said anything about it because it had been looking increasingly likely that a building set of crises and family obligations would make it impossible for me to go to Philly and present at the conference there.

Unfortunately, I was right… So I’m not there. I’m very bummed about this.

I was *really* looking forward to Jorge’s paper as well and the opportunity to meet him in the flesh. Alas, next year perhaps… (And send me a copy of your paper, Jorge–I stil want to read it!)

I did send in a copy of my own paper and handouts. Hopefully it will get to the right people by the right time and someone will be able to read it in my place.

That’s about the story of my life at the moment.

Diss Selection on Paul the Deacon

I figured I might as well throw this into the mix—it’s a selection from the diss on Paul the Deacon. The context is a discussion of “critical conversations”; that is, formalized, stylized and (most importantly) bounded discourses common to both modern biblical scholarship and the early medieval monastic situation:

——————————-

Paul the Deacon (†799)

The next point in the tradition is the great homiliary of Paul the Deacon. Appointed by Charlemagne to pluck flowers from amongst the Catholic Fathers,[1] Paul collected 244 items representing 125 liturgical occasions for the Night Office. Following the needs of the Night Office, Paul supplied most Sunday and festal occasions with two texts: a “sermo” for the second nocturn and an “omelia” for the third.[2] For his texts, Paul used homilies of the Fathers whenever possible, preferring works from Bede, Gregory the Great, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, and using passages from commentaries or other works when an appropriate homily was not available. For instance, of the fifty-six works attributed to Bede in the original collection, thirty-six are homilies and twenty are sections drawn from Bede’s commentaries on the two less popular gospels, Luke and Mark.

In each case, the source was identified so that those hearing would know from whom the teaching came and that it stood within the tradition. Inevitably, though, some of these attributions were incorrect. In fact, of the fifty texts attributed to Maximus, modern scholarship believes that only fourteen of them are actually his;[3] of the nineteen attributed to John Chrysostom, only one is certifiably the work of Chrysostom.[4] In addition, other material was added as the centuries passed[5]—and included more dubious material: many of the so-called Augustinian sermons added later were not written by Augustine.[6]

In one sense, Paul only transmits materials previously written by others and introduces no changes. In another, he exercises important editorial power by shaping the transmission of the tradition. Paul provided all of these texts with a new and uniform context—the Night Office. Each homily or commentary pericope selected by Paul was newly contextualized by the sermon paired with it and the responsories that would interrupt it two or three times in the course of its reading. Furthermore, he was, for all practical purposes, drawing the bounds of the critical conversation by what he included and excluded. For many monasteries with limited libraries, Paul’s homiliary served as the primary repository of patristic wisdom. While more texts were added as the centuries passed, Paul the Deacon’s homiliary passed into the heart of the tradition and became the source for the readings in the Roman Breviary.[7] Like Bede, Paul the Deacon’s work was intended to remain within the critical conversation as well as establishing its foundation. It is directed specifically to the clergy and monastics participating in the Night Office.

Neither the works of Gregory nor Bede were in any way “official.” They were widely read and eagerly sought out,[8] but had no official standing. Paul the Deacon’s work was different. The prefatory letter originally accompanying it documents Charlemagne’s commission to Paul and authorizes the homiliary as the official text for the Frankish kingdom. Charlemagne demanded the establishment of a purified core tradition, and Paul’s homiliary was an important aspect of that program of reform. The texts were to be strictly orthodox, coming from the recognized Fathers, and compiled by one whose orthodoxy and commitment to the tradition was known to the authorizing powers.

[1] Idque opus Paulo diacono, familiari clientulo nostro, eliminandum iniuximus, scilicet ut, studiose catholicorum patrum dicta percurrens, veluti e latissimis corum pratis certos quosque flosculos legeret, et in unum quaeque essent utilia quasi serum aptaret. (Wiegand, Homilarium, 16).

[2] Smetana notes that there are 151 texts identified with the title sermo, 93 identified as omelia and that the distinction in the texts closest to Paul’s original work seems to have accurately reflected the difference between the two. (Cyril Smetana, “Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Anthology” in The Old English Homily & its Backgrounds, Ed. Paul E. Szarmach and Bernard F. Huppé.  (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1978), 75-97, 78. See the discussion of the difference between the two in the discussion of the Night Office in Ch. 3.

[3] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 80.

[4] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 83.

[5] Migne’s edition in PL 95 is representative of the expansion of the collection—it contains 298 texts, up 54 from the original scope.

[6] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 82.

[7] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 75.

[8] The letters of Boniface constantly request copies of Bede’s works from his English patrons and relatives.

Early Medieval Monastic Libraries

In filling out a footnote in the diss, I ran across a new and fascinating study by one of the current Great Masters of Anglo-Saxon Studies, Michael Lapidge’s The Anglo-Saxon Library. Here’s his conclusion on page 127 of the content of monastic libraries:

Evidence of various kinds indicates that Anglo-Saxon libraries were not large, at least in comparison with ninth-century Continental libraries, as we know these from surviving inventories, or with later medieval cathedral and monastic libraries in England, as we know these from the catalogues printed in CBMLC. . . . The typical Anglo-Saxon monastic library probably owned fewer than fifty volumes, all of which could be housed in a simple book-chest.

To judge from the combined evidence of inventories, surviving manuscripts, and citations, as set out in the Catalogue below, the typical Anglo-Saxon library housed a small core of staple patristic texts, scarcely exceeding twenty titles:

  • Gregory, Dialogi [Dialogues—book 2 being the life of Benedict], Hom. .xl. in Euangelia [The 40 Gospel Homilies], Moralia in Iob, and Regula pastoralis [Pastoral Care];
  • Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis, De natura rerum, Entymologiae [His 20 volume encyclopedia], and Synonyma;
  • Jerome, Epistulae [Letters] and possibly the Comm. in Euangelium Matthaei; and
  • Augustine, De civitate Dei [City of God], De trinitate, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Enchiridion, and the Epistulae and Sermones in selections.

To these works of the four major patristic authors (at least as suggested by the Anglo-Saxon evidence), one may add several individual works: Cassian, Conlationes [Conferences] and Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, as translated by Rufinuis . . .

[Needless to say, the patristic material would also be filled out by the homiliaries which are essentially patristic anthologies.]

His discussion continues from here, but this is the section that particularly caught my eye. I find this list fascinating because, when I ponder what books and what ecclesiastical learning is most needful, this list isn’t too different from what I’d pick—certainly as the core of a patristics section. The one major change would be the Isidore block. Isidore was the major encyclopedist of the early medieval world and the items included here would be more properly replaced by modern rather than medieval reference works: Hatchett, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc.

Radio Silence: K’zoo Edition

I’ve not written a lot in past days; I’ve been staring down some serious deadlines at work (which I met) and I’m now trying to finish off my K’zoo presentation. M is coming too and it should be fun, but it’ll be a whirlwind trip. Between financial and baby-sitting concerns, we’ll be driving out Wednesday, I’ll present on Thursday, then we’ll drive back on Friday.  It won’t give us much hanging out time, but hopefully I still get to see a few folks and ratchet up my covetousness to new heights in the splendor of the book room…

If you’re going to be there on Thursday, stop by and heckle me.

Some of the academically and liturgically inclined readers—especially those in the Northeast—might find this of interest: the call for papers from this year’s Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Studies conference at Villanova. Note this bit:

The PMR committee this year makes a special invitation to scholars from all disciplines in these fields to address our plenary theme : Ora et Labora. Pray and Work.

On Wise and Foolish Virgins

The Postulant wonders about the Gospel appointed for St Cecilia. Here’s the best and most complete answer I can give…

————-

In the lectionaries of the Benedictine Revival, Matthew 25:1–13 was utilized for a general class of occasions: feasts of multiple virgins. By Ælfric’s time, there was a fairly well defined set of saints venerated in common by the Western Church. This sanctoral kalendar was born from attempts to standardize liturgical practice across the West—particularly by Charlemagne and the rulers after him—but does not represent in any way the establishment of a centralized control or process over who was named a saint and how it occurred. As a result, the addition of new saints to the kalendar was not an uncommon occurrence in an early medieval monastery.

As the new saints were added to the yearly round, they required liturgical texts so that they could be properly venerated. Thus a generic set of texts were appointed to cover a variety of saintly classifications: apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, abbots/abbesses, and virgins. These appeared in both singular and multiple configurations. Practically speaking, the multiple appeared most often in the case of groups of martyrs who were killed together. The various liturgical books had a set of the most necessary of these—though not necessarily standardized—referred to as the Commons of the Saints.[1] The Leofric Missal, for instance, contains commons for the vigil and feast of one apostle, a feast of multiple apostles, vigils of holy martyrs, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, vigils of holy confessors, a feast of one confessor, a feast of multiple confessors, a feast of virgins and martyrs, and a feast of several saints in common.[2] Paul the Deacon includes similar categories including materials for a vigil of one apostle, a feast of one apostle, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, a feast of multiple confessors, and a feast of multiple virgins. Ælfric, in turn, provides in the Catholic Homilies for a feast of one apostle, a feast of multiple apostles, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, a feast of one confessor, a feast of multiple confessors, and a feast of multiple virgins.[3]

The parable of the wise and foolish virgins is appointed for a general kind of liturgical occasion, the common of multiple virgins, and also appears early at the feast of some virgin martyrs, most notably Agatha. The logic here is not too hard to trace—but is more interesting than it first appears. The obvious correlation is that the occasion celebrates virgins who, by virtue of their sanctity, have entered into the final consummation and stand now in the presence of God and the Lamb as intercessors on behalf of the faithful; the passage itself features multiple virgins who enter into the marriage banquet that is surely a symbol of eschatological rejoicing.

This interpretation is well attested in the liturgical variety of the church. Hesbert’s great collection of antiphons and responsaries from medieval Europe contains four antiphons[4] and twelve responsories[5] that use this passage. Most of them connect it explicitly to virgin saints. Sometimes exegetical decisions are already encoded into these texts. Responsary 7228 which circulated with two different verses, is a prime example:

You will not be among the foolish virgins, says the Lord, but you will be among the wise virgins; taking up the oil of gladness in their lamps, going out to meet him they will meet the Bridegroom with the palms of virginity.
(Verse 1a): But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the Bridegroom comes, go out to meet him.
(Verse 1b): But coming they will come with exultation, carrying their sheaves
Response: Going out to meet him they will meet the Bridegroom with the palms of virginity.[6]

The interpretation identifying the oil as “the oil of gladness” is interesting and has two complementary possible sources. The early medieval church read VgPs 44 narrating the marriage between Christ and women religious—“the oil of gladness” is mentioned in v. 8. The gloss may be a direct reference to the psalm. Alternatively, Augustine made the connection between the psalm and Matt 25 in De Div Quaest. 83.

Verse 1b represents another exegetical option. While Verse 1a uses a text from the Matthean parable, Verse 1b introduces a passage from the Psalms (VgPs 126:6). According to Augustine, the psalm refers to almsgiving; the sowing of the seed is the giving of alms, returning with sheaves speaks of the eschatological rewards of the almsgiving.[7]

Another antiphon also with two options for the verse explicitly cites VgPs 44 in one of them while in the midst of using the image of the lamps from Matt 25:

The five wise virgins took oil in their vases for their lamps. But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the bridegroom comes, go out to meet Christ the Lord.
(Verse 1b): Listen, daughter and see, and incline your ear, for the king has desired your beauty.
But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the bridegroom comes, go out to meet Christ the Lord.[8]

This responsaries specifically identifies the bridegroom as Jesus and stitches together VgPs 44:11a, 12a into a harmonious whole. This move mutually reinforces the interpretative connections between Matt 25 and virgin saints and VgPs 44 as well.

However, there is a second correlation that could be masked by the more obvious relationship between the virgins in the passage and the ascetical class of virgins in the Western Church. Indeed, this second correlation only becomes visible when lectionary selections are viewed across categories. The parables of the gospels are found in various places in the most prevalent Anglo-Saxon lectionaries, but the parables of Matt 13 and 24–25 are particularly appointed for the saints. In a representative Anglo-Saxon lectionary, the Gospel list contained in London, BL, Cotton Tiberius A.ii,[9] Matthew 13:44-52, a cluster of three kingdom parables, is appointed eight times, all for feasts of virgins and their companions.[10] Likewise the parable of the industrious servant in Matt 24:42-47 is appointed six times, generally for feasts of popes and bishops.[11] Our parable of the wise and foolish virgins is appointed for five occasions—again, virgin saints.[12] Finally the following parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-23) appears just four times also on feasts of bishops and popes.[13] Thus, there is an overwhelming preference to assign the Matthean parables of the kingdom to saints. As a result, there would be no doubt in the early medieval mind that the protagonists of the parable would be saints of some kind.

[1] This Commune Sanctorum is typically found after the listings for the temporal and sanctoral cycles. Sometimes the dedication of a church is included with these as well.

[2] Vigilia sive natali unius apostoli [f. 204r.], natali plurimorum apostolorum [f. 204v.], vigiliis sanctorum martirum [f. 205r.], natali unius martyris [f. 205v.], natali plurimorum martyrum [f. 206r.], vigiliis sanctorum confessorum [f. 206v.], natali unius confessoris [f. 207r.], natali plurimorum confessorum [f. 208r.], natali virginum et martyrum [f. 208v.], and natali plurimorum sanctorum communiter [f. 209v.].

[3] These are homilies CH II.33-39.

[4] Antiphons 3730, 4543, 4953a, 4953b.

[5] Responsaries 6151, 6760, 6806, 6807, 6809, 7139, 7228, 7496, 7667, 7668, 7803, [“Ecce” is unnumbered].

[6] Non eris inter virginis fatuas, dicit Dominus, sed eris inter virgins prudentes; accipientes oleum laetitiae lampadibus suis, obviantes obviaverunt Sponso cum palma virginitatis.

[7] NPNF1 8.605-6 Enn. Ps. 126.10-11.

[8] COA 7496: Quinque prudentes virgines acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus. Media autem nocte clamor factus est: Ecce sponsus venit, exite obviam Christo Domino.

V. B. Audi filia et vide et inclina aurem tuam, quia concupivit rex speciam tuam. – Media.

[9] This is Lenker’s Qe.

[10] St Lucia (Dec 13), St Prisca (Jan 18), Octave of St Agnes (Jan 28), St Pudentiana (May 18), St Praxedis (Jul 21), St Sabina (Aug 29), and Sts Eufemia, Lucia, Geminianus (Sep 16) and for the Common of Several Virgins.

[11] St Marcellus (Jan 16), St Urban (May 25), St Eusebius (Aug 14), St Augustine of Hippo (Aug 28), St Calistus (Oct 14), and the Common of One Confessor.

[12] St Agnes (Jan 21), an alternate for the Octave of St Agnes (Jan 28), St Agatha (Feb 5), St Cecilia (Nov 22), and the Common of Several Virgins.

[13] St Leo (Apr 11), St Martin (Nov 11), St Silvester (Dec 31), and Common of One Confessor.