Theological Distinctions, Their Collections and Their Effects: The Example of In Abdiam and In Na um*

Theological Distinctions, Their Collections
and Their Effects:
The Example of In Abdiam and In Na um*
Csaba Nemeth
Collections of theological distinctions belang to the least investigated
texts of medieval theological literature, even if they are quite common in
twelfth- and thirteenth-century codices of sermons and theological m iscel/
anea. They are neither attractive nor particularly interesting, or even
an easy subject to study. Such collections are copied without title, and
their editors are unknown; their incipits and explicits bear almost no information
because the size and form of these collections may vary item
by item (seemingly according to the mind of their scribes). These collections
are aggregates of numerous shorter texts called here „distinctions.“
The material in the collections has the same pattern but no proper
context: it may derive from identified and unidentifiable sources alike,
which may be also edited and unedited, dated (from patristic times to
the later twelfth century) and undatable, with or without established authorship.
The sheer number of such collections in manuscripts (and the
very Iimited number of printed ones) add to the problern of comprehending
this text type.
The present contribution addresses three main problems raised by
this genre. First it attempts to describe theological distinction as a characteristic
form of thought and text simultaneously, common to many
theological works of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The collection
of theological distinctions is the second subject, a particular text
type of this period. These collections served as repositories of decontextualised
distinctions, and thus can be considered as special, anonymaus
florilegia. The third part investigates the afterlife of two Ionger texts (an
Research for the study has been supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research
Fund project OTKA K81278.
THEOLOGICAL DlSTl:\CTJ0;-15 195
In Abdiam and an In Naum) composed from distinctions. The two texts
are biblical commentaries, and both suffered similar forms of textual
deterioration as their incomplete, differing or fragmented copies show.
Through examples from unedited manuscripts, the study explains the
failures of the manuscript tradition of these works with the influence of
distinction collections as a special, formless and alterable text type.
1. Theological distinctions
„Theological distinction,“ as this paper uses the term, is a structured unit
of thought and text at once, concrete manifestation of an intellectual
technique particular to twelfth- and thirteenth-century scholasticism.
The function of the distinction was to structure and organise the discourse.
A theological distinction is the result of an intellectual act, the
divisio, that orders several things under one aspect, while also marking
the differences between them.1 An author creates a divisio first by „dividing“
(dividere) a concept, that is, „making distinctions“ (distinguere)
between its various aspects, followed by the clarification of these
different aspects.2 The terms twelfth-century authors commonly use to
name this act are dividere, distinguere, distinctio.
For divisio as a technique see the Didascalicon of Hugh of Saint-Victor, !II. x: Modus
/egendi in dividendo constat . … ratione investigamus, ad quam proprie pertinet
dividere, quando ab universa/ibus ad particularia descendimus dividendo et singulorum
naturas investigando; 1!1, xii: Ingenium dividendo investigat et invenit; VI,
xii: Divisio jit et partitione et investigatione. Partiendo dividimus, quando ea quae
confusa sunt, distinguimus (PL 176, cols. 772AD, 809A) („The method of reading
lies in dividing. [ … ) we investigate by using reason, to which particularly pertains
division, when we descend from the universal to the particular by dividing and
investigating the nature ofthe single elements. lll, xii: the ingenium investigates
and discovers by dividing; VI, xii: Division is made by partition and investigation.
We divide things by partition, when we separate the confused elements.“)
See In Naum: Hic nobis suboritur a latere perutilis divisio, hic nobis quadrifariae
divisionis data est occasio. (PL 96, col. 7188) [Here, accidentally, a most useful
division emerges; here an opportunity is given to us to make a four-fold
division.]. For the joint usage of distinguere (hence ‚distinction‘) and dividere
(hence ‚division‘) in a spiritual work of the period, see Richard of St. Victor’s
Beniamin minor lxxiv: Possumus tarnen illa quae in hac vita haberi potest, Dei
cognitionem, tribus gradibus distinguere, et secundum triplicem graduum differentiom
per tres coelos dividere. („We can distinguish by three grades that cognition
ofGod which is possible in this life, and [we can] divide it into three heavens,
196 CSABA NEMETH
The act of divisio roanifested itself in a characteristic text type: the divisio
or distinctio (the present paper refers to it as „distinction,“ or due to
its content, „theological distinction“). ln written form, a divisio produces
an iroroediately discernable, stereotypical pattern. Theological distinctions
always contain a declaration of the nurober of notions drawn together,
usually set at the beginning; then follows the elaboration of each
individual notion. The following example shows all elements of such a
distinction.
Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum [lsa 6,1] etc. Tres
sunt visiones: Prima a creatura mundi, de qua Apostolus: Invisibilia Dei a creatura
mundi [Rm 1,20] etc. Secunda a puritate ftdei, de qua idem: Videmus nunc
per speculum [1Cor 13,12], etc. Tertia a c/aritate Dei et sponsi, de qua idem:
Tune autem facie ad faciem [ibid.j. [ … )3
I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated, etc. There are three visions:
the first from the creation of the world, about which the Apostle [said],
„the invisible things of God from the creation of the world [are clearly seen]“
etc. The second from the purity of faith, about which he [said], „We see now
through a mirror“ etc. The third from the clarity of God and the Bridegroom, on
which he [said], „but then face to face.“
Here the theroe of the distinction, „vision“ ( of God), is given by the biblical
Iemma, and the author „divides“ the notion of „vision“ into three. I n
other words, h e draws tagether three partly similar notions under the
term „vision“-namely, three forms of the cognition of God (froro creation,
from faith, and the eschatological vision). Each notion is supported
by its own biblical reference; even the exegetical origin of the given theological
distinction is clearly visible as the three „visions“ explain the
saroe biblical verse, lsa 6,1.
A remarkable feature of the theological distinction is that it roay be
aroplified. The individual notions (whose nurober is defined by the
divisio) can be elaborated in detail and contrasted to the others, as the
according to the three-fold difference of those grades.“) PL 196, col. 53C. This
distinction of Richard found its way to the Cantieie commentary of Thomas
Cisterciensis, see PL 206, col. 417CD.
Victorine Miscellanea lll, xxii. PL 177, col. 6460. l f the context does not demand
otherwise, the Douay-Rheims translation is used. As the form and extent of
theological distinctions are often subject to reduction, and biblical themata are
often lost, a more typical, later form of this distinction could be something like
this: Tres sunt visiones. Prima a creatura mundi. Secunda a puritate ftdei. Tertia a
claritate Dei.
THEOLOGJCAL DISTl􀁀CTJO􀁁S 197
following example, taken from the rather obscure De contemplatione of a
Ps.-Hugh of St Victor, may demonstrate.4
Beatus vir cuius est auxilium abs te, ascensiones in corde suo disposuit [Ps
83:6]. Tres sunt ascensiones Christi in actu. Nostre quoque tres. Prima in actu.
Secunda in affectu. Tercia in inte/Jectu.
Prius enim ascendit Christus in montem. Demum in crucem. Ad ultimum ad
patrem. in monte docuit discipulos, in cruce redemit captivos, in celo glorificavit
electos.
in monte doctrinam protulit humilitatis. in cruce formam expressit caritatis, in
celo coronam prebuit felicitatis.
in monte docendo mundum ca/cavit, in cntce paciendo infernum spoliavit. Ad
patrem ascendendo ce/um ditavit.
in prima calcavit ignorantiam, in secundo superbiam, in tercio miseriam. Prima
ce/um [read cecum] i/luminavit pulsa ignorantia. Secundo superbum humiliavit
captivata superbia. Tercio humi/iatum felicitavit exterminata miseria. { ..]
[8/essed is the man whose he/p is from thee: in his heart he hath disposed to ascend
by steps [Ps 83:6]. Three are the ascents of Christ in action. Ours are also
three, being the first in action, the second in affect, the third in intellect. For first
Christ ascended the mount, then the cross, finally to the Father. On the mount he
taught the disciples; on the cross he redeemed the prisoners; in heaven he
glorified the Chosen. On the mount he presented the doctrine of humility; on the
Edited by Roger Baron as Hugues de St Victor. De contemplatione et ejus speciebus
(Tournai: Desclee, 1955). Although the edition attributes it to Hugh, the
authorship of the work is uncertain. A Ps.-Hugh of St. Victor is now the consensus,
a student or foliower of Hugh, presumably Victorine himself, see Istvan
Bejczy, „De contemplatione et eius speciebus. A work falsely attributed to Hugh of
Saint-Victor,“ Studi Medievali, 3rd series 45 (2004): 433-43, and R.M.W.
Stammberger, „Die Edition der Werke des Hugo von Sankt Viktor (+1141) durch
Abt Gilduin von Sankt Viktor ( + 1155): Eine Rekonstruktion,“ in Schrift, Schreiber,
Schenker. Studien zur Pariser Abtei Sankt Viktor und den Viktorinern 1, ed. Rainer
Berndt (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), 173. Quotation from De contemplatione,
in Paris, BNF, lat. 13577 (text ‚S‘ of Baron), fol. 65ra, cf. ed. Baron 1954, 47.
Unlike the other family of the text, edited as the main text by Baron and
presented in recent histories of mysticism (see Kurt Ruh, Geschichte der
abendländischen Mystik 1 (Munich: Beck, 1990), 370-80, and Bernard McGinn,
The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, 4 vols., vol. II, The
Growth of Mysticism: Gregory the Great through the Twelfth Century (New York:
Crossroads, 1994), 387-90, in ‚S‘ these lines constitute the beginning of the
treatise. Stammherger (ibid.) gives the most recent census of the known
manuscripts of the work: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Mise. 409, Paris, BNF,
lat. 13577, 14366 14699, and 14872, Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve, 1432,
Cambridge, Pembroke College, 9, and Padova, Biblioteca universitaria, 1225.
1 9 8 CSABA NEMETH
cross he has shown the figure of charity; in heaven offerred the crown of happiness.
On the mount he trod the world, by teaching; on the cross he despoiled hell, by
suffering; by ascending to the Father, he enriched heaven.
In the first [ascent] he trod ignorance; in the second, pride; in the third, misery.
By the first one he enlightened the blind, having dispelled ignorance; by the second,
he humiliated the proud one, having captured pride; by the third, he made
the humiliated happy, by having destroying misery.]
The divisio here, connected to a biblical lemma (Ps 83,6), defines Christ’s
ascents as three, according to three places (the mount, the cross and
heaven). Subsequently, the distinction is amplified turn by turn with new
modules, that is, his various deeds performed at those places, considered
from various aspects. The deeds pertaining to the different places are set
in an artificial order and are presented by gradually elaborated parallels:
elements of the first branch, pertaining to the ascent to the mount
(teaching, trodding the world and ignorance and enlightening), have
their counterparts in the two other branches. In other divisions the parallelism
is more visible, as the definition of the number, e.g. tres sunt …
tria sunt … triplex . .. , is followed by the gradual and parallel elaboration of
the single branches: Prima … secunda … tertia … Prima … secunda … tertia.
These compositional rules are characteristic to theological distinctions
and also set it apart from the so-called biblical distinction. Biblical
distinction and collections of biblical distinctions are well-established
terms in the hist01y of exegesis for a genre emerging in the later twelfth
century.s The biblical distinction makes distinctions between the different
metaphorical meanings of the same word and justifies the different
meanings by biblical (or extrabiblical) references. lt has its own stereotypical
form, similar to a dictionary item (thus different from the
theological distinction): it begins with the given word (e.g. “lion“),
On the development of the concept of distinctio and the evolution of the genre of
(biblical) distinctions, see R. H. and M. A. Rouse, „Biblical Distinctiones in the
Thirteenth Century,“ Archives d’histoire doctrinale et Iittliraire de moyen age 41
(1974): 27-37, and Richard H. and Mary A Rouse, „Statim invenire: Schools,
Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,“ in Renaissance and Renewal in the
Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1982), 201-25. The meaning of (theological) „distinction,“
as the present paper uses, applies to the very earliest examples the Rouses bring
for the term „distinction“ (taken from Peter Lombard and the Comestor), but
does not apply to later examples where the meaning ofthe term is gradually narrowed
to biblical distinctions.
THEOLOGJCAL DISTII\CTJO:–‚S 199
continues with its first metaphorical meaning (e.g. „Christ“), gives its justification
with references ( e.g. „prevailed the lion of the tribe of Juda“
[Rev 5,5]), then presents the second metaphorical meaning with its justification
and so on.6 The first collections of biblical distinctions-the
Summa seu Distinctiones Abel of Petrus Cantor ( d.1 197), the Distinctiones
(or Summa „Quot m odis’1 of Alanus ab Insulis (d.1202), and the Liber
Angelus of Garnier of Rachefort (d.c. l 2 25)7-are contemporaneous with
the anonymaus collections of theological distinctions.
Another substantial difference between biblical and theological distinctions
is that of function. The function of a biblical one is to define the
allegorical meanings of a ward. Theological distinctions have no such
definite function, nor a definite subject, since this kind of distinction is
rather a formula used to organise ideas. This functional difference also
may explain the different means of their preservation: a collection of
biblical distinctions i s usually a well-defined corpus with ordered and
structured content, attached to an identified author; theological distinction
collections are undefined, unordered and often unstructured heaps
without author.
As a typical example of the genre, a distinction of Alan of Lilie gives the following
meanings for the word ‚lion,‘ each justified by biblical references: Christ, the rich
man, the devil, the Antichrist, the righteous man (both in this lifc and aftcr), the
robber, the convertite jew: Distinctiones, PL 2 1 0, col. 835AD. This biblical
distinction with all its material could be transformed into a theological one
beginning Septem (or octo) sunt leones.
A partial edition of the Distinctiones Abel, printed as Meliton’s Clavis, was given
by j.-B. Pitra: Spicilegium Solesmense vol. 111 pars i, 1-307 (1865) and Analeeta
Sacra, Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, vol. II, 6-127 (1884). The Distinctiones of
Alan i s edited in PL 210, col. 685-1101, Garnier’s Liber (qui dicitur) Angelus (also
attributed to Adam Scotus of Dryburgh OPraem) is printed as Rahanus Maurus‘
Allegoriae (PL 1 12, col. 849-1088). On Alan’s work (and also on the problems
concerning the so-called biblical distinctions) see Tuija Ainonen’s article,
„Manuscripts, Editions and Texh1al Interpretation: Alan of Lille’s Distinction
Collection Summa ‚Quot modis‘ and the Meaning of Words,“ in Methods and the
Medievalist, ed. Marko Lamberg, )esse Keskiaho et al. (Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 12-37.
200 CSABA NEMETH
2. Uses oftheo/ogical distinctions: sermons, co/lections and individual
works
In a twelfth· and thirteenth-century context, theological distinctions
were a powerful means to organise ideas. The way the distinction was
constructed granted it clarity, brevity and contrast, that is, those elementary
features which make something memorable. Distinctions were useful
and popular: they appeared in various theological works which
demanded effective communication, including didactic works, sermons,
and works devoted to the edification of the faithful. In the manuscript
material of the period, there are three particular text types where they
abound: sermons (usually copied in groups), collections of theological
distinctions, and a handful of works composed exclusively from distinctions.
a) Sermons
A typical milieu of theological distinctions are collections of twelfth-century
sermons preserved usually in later twelfth- and thirteenth-century
codices. The most favoured authors of these collections are, besides the
unidentified and anonymaus ones, Peter Comestor ( or Manducator,
d . l l 79), Peter Lombard (d.1160), Gebuinus Trecensis (Gebuin of Troyes,
d.ll SO), Gaufridus Babuin (Geoffroy Babion, d . 1 158), sometimes Bernard
of Clairvaux (d.ll 53), and Maurice de Sully (d.1196). Unlike the
later scholastic (or thematic) sermons where the mechanic and systematic
division of the thema defines the structure, many of these twelfthcentury
sermons use theological distinctions as the organising principle.
In such sermons, distinctions are embedded into a !arger context, being
anchored with biblical references; they often evolve from the biblical
thema of the sermon, and the points of division are supported by biblical
references.
b) Co/lections oftheologica/ distinctions
Collections of theological distinctions belang to an ambiguous genre.
They often appear tagether with sermons, and present a classification
problern for the librarian-manuscript catalogues name this type of text
sometimes „theological distinctions,“ but also „themes de sermons,“ „distinctions,“
„notes,“ “extracts,“ „sententiae“ or even „commonplaces.“ Distinction
collections are, basically, mere accumulations of numerous
shorter texts (literally dozens to hundreds) which usually have a similar
structure. These collections Iack everything that made a text structured
THEOLOG!CAL DISTl:-ICT!O:–:S 201
at that time: they have neither chapter division nor preface, and no alphabetical
or thematical order can be observed. The sole ordering principle
seems to be, in better cases, the number: distinctions beginning
with the divisio based on the same number are grouped together, followed
by distinctions beginning with another number. Neither the collections
nor their distinctions are linked to any author; the size and
quality of these collections vary. The status of these collections also varies:
sometimes they receive a prominent place, sometimes they are copied
just to fill blank spaces.
The content of these collections is the same: distinctions in a „processed“
form, grouped together, often according to the number they are
built on. The following sample can represent the entire dass: it is taken
from a relatively well-ordered collection, containing exclusively distinctions
based on the number three, from a thirteenth-century manuscript
(London, British Library, Royal l O C 111).8
(168va) Tria sunt hominum genera per tres viros i/los designata, sci/icet Abraham,
Ysaac et lacob . . .. 1! Tres sunt ascensiones Christi in actu … 1! A
f
fectualis
ascensio est trip/ex … 1! Triplex est sensus scripturarum, hystoricus, moralis,
misticus. Secundum habet triplicem sensum; triplici introductione introducitur
anima ad Christum … (169ra) 1f Trio sunt turborum genera, una bona, altera
ma/a, tertia media. Prima virtutum, secunda vitiorum, tertia hominum … (169rb}
1f Trio hominum genera sub habitu re/igionis degentia psalmista ponit ubi dicit,
‚Audiam quid loquatur in me deus‘ (Ps 84,9] … (169va) 1[ Triplex est avaricia.
Prim um ergo avaricie est im moderate facu/tatem propriam retinere … 1f Triplex
est misericordia. Prima species est misericordie facultatis erogatio … 1f Tres species
habet fervor dilectionis. Prima est compassio … 1f Tria sunt bona coniugii,
f
ides, spes prolis, unitas sacramenti… (169vb) 1! Tria sunt servorum genera.
Quidam sunt
f
ideles, quidam pruden tes, quidam fideles pariter et prudentes … 1!
Practica vita in tres dividitur species, in solitariam, in domesticam, in politicam
… 1f Tres sunt Christi adventus, primus hystoricus qui precessit in humilitate.
Secundus moralis … 1! Tres sunt cause persecutionis, ter siquidem in causam
ducinwr. Primo statur ante hominem. Secundo ante angelum. Tercio ante deum .
… (170ra) … 1[ Tribus modis omnis culpa perpetratur sicut in prima Adam didi·
cimus, suggestione, de/ectatione, consensu … 1f Per tria peccavit Adam, per mulierem,
per serpentem, per arborem .. (170rb) 􀅠 Tres sunt cause cur ange/us sine
spe recuperationis est dampnatus … 1f Triplex est paupertas. Est paupertas sensus,
est census, est Spiritus. … 1f Trio sunt genera electorum. Alii e/iguntur ad of
f
icium et regn um, alii ad officium tantttm, alii ad regnum tantum … 1[ Tres sunt
quibus reconciliari debemus, hominibus, angelis, deo . … (170va) .. . 1[ Triplici
The description of the manuscript can be accessed at the homepage of the British
Library (http:/ jwww.bl.uk).
202 CSABA NE’vtETH
morbo /aborat genus humanum, principio, medio, fine, id est nativitate, vita, et
morte. Nativitas erat immunda, vita perversa, mors perniciosa.9
Three are the kinds of men, marked by those three men, namely Abraham,
Isaac and jacob … ‚\f Three are the ascents of Christ in action … ‚\f The affectual
ascent is three-fold … ‚\f Three-fold is the sense of the Scripture: historical,
moral, mystical. The second one has a three-fold sense; by a three-fold introduction
is the soul introduced to Christ … ‚\f Three are the kinds of crowds: one
is good, another is evil, the third is neutral. The First [ crowd] is of virtues, the
second is ofvices, the third is of men … ‚\f Three kinds of men wearing religious
habits marked the Psalmist where he said, I will hear what the Lord God will
speak in me . … ‚\f Three-fold is greed. The first feature of greed is to obtain
one’s own possessions without restraint … ‚\f Three-fold is mercy. The First
kind of mercy is paying out supplies … ‚\f Three are the kinds of passion of Iove:
the First being compassion … ‚\f Three goods has marriage: faith, hope for a
child, unity of the sacrament … ‚\f Three are the kinds of servants: some are
faithful, some are prudent, some are both faithful and prudent … ‚\f The active
life is divided into three kinds, into the solitary, into the domestic, into the political.
. .. ‚\f Three advents has Christ: the First is the historical one which went
before, into humility; the second one is the moral one … ‚\f Three causes has
persecution, as three times we are dragged into court. The First time we stand
in front of man; the second time, in front of an angel; the third time, in front of
God . … ‚\f ln three ways are all sins perpetrated, as we Jearned from the case of
the First Adam: by suggestion, by enjoyment, by consent … ‚\! Through three
things did Adam sin: by the woman, by the serpent, by the tree . … ‚\f Three are
the reasons for which the angel is condemned without hope of restitution … ‚\!
Three-fold is poverty: there is a poverty of eyes, of wealth, of spirit. … ‚\f Three
are the kinds of the chosen. Some are chosen to bear office and reign; others
only to bear office, others only to reign … ‚\f There are three things with which
we must be reconciled: men, angels, God . … ‚\f From three illnesses does mankind
suffer: from the beginning, the middle, the end-that is, by birth, life and
death. Birth was unclean, life [is] twisted, and death (is] dangerous.
Although these collections are always copied without name, and the distinctions
bear no sign of their origin, in some cases their source can be
identified. From the text above, Triplex est sensus scripturarum and Triplici
morbo laborat are from Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153);10 Tria sunt
turbarum genera seems to be derived from an inedited sermon by an
The Iist gives only the incipits from the First Folios of the collection (which is the
fourth such collection in the codex according to the catalogue}. lt covers five
folios and consists of 51 distinctions: London, British Library, Royal 10 C iii, fol.
168va-172va.
JO The first is from Sermo 92 de diversis, the other is Sententiae series II sent. 31
(SBO vol. 6/1, 346 and 6/2, 32).
THEOLOGICAL DlSll􀀧CTIO:-JS 203
anonymaus author.ll Tres sunt ascensiones Christi and Affectualis ascensio
est triplex are distinctions excerpted from the already mentioned Oe
contemplatione, while Tres sunt cause persecutionis is taken from In
Naum:l2 both works Iack convincing authorship and acceptable dating.
The identification of the sources of these distinctions (and of the
sources in other collections) permits one to draw a few conclusions. The
first and the most obvious is that (at least some of) these distinctions are
not autonomaus texts created in order to form such collections, but are
rather results of the disintegration of preexistent texts. Many of these
short texts are extracted from Christian theological sources of various
periods (from Patristic times to the late twelfth century); their sole
common point is that they convey an idea which is (or can be) formuIated
in the form of division. Therefore, such collections can be considered
as special jlorilegia, transmitting the once usable thoughts without
crediting the authors.
A comparison to the originals shows that in such collections distinctions
appear in a „processed“ form: taken out of their original context,
they are reduced to an acceptable theological idca. The Ievel of reduction
may vary. The introducing biblical lemma often disappears; although the
basic structure (given by the divisio) is kept, less important clauses and
biblical references may be abbreviated or entirely jettisoned. The Jength
of such distinctions ranges from one paragraph down to a single sentence;
in some cases, different collections preserve variants of the same
original distinction, reduced in length or simplified in structure to different
degree.
These features outline weil thc typical problems concerning the entire
„genre“ of such collections. The question of authorship cannot be
posed: instead of an „author“ here one can see, without clear contours,
excerptor, scribe and editor. Dating is also problematic: a systematic
study of the sources of the distinctions may result in a terminus a quo
and the codex perhaps can give a terminus ante quem. Most often, however,
such investigations can confirm only what was known already:
these collections are usually mid- or late-twelfth-century texts, based on
the theological literature written until then, preserved in Jate twelfth- or
early thirteenth-century codices. Another difficulty is the inaccessibility
11 Cf. sermon 15 (sermo ad populum) of Oxford, Bodleian Library, 807, fol. 105v-
106r.
1 2 Cf. ln Na um 45, PL 96, col. 727 AC.
204 CSABA NEMETH
of these texts. H undreds of such collections remain in manuscripts, without
any classification or census; manuscript catalogues classify them under
various names, and offer little or no help. Distinction collections are
usually inedited (to modern editors they may seem to be texts without
structure or any particular use). One of the very few printed texts which
is comparable to this kind of source is the immense, presumably Victorine
collection edited as Miscellanea.13 lts distinctions ( called titulus and
capitulum in the edition) show many similar features to the unedited
theological distinctions in other collections-some of them can be identified
as extracts from sermons,14 and many of them are also present in
distinction collections (sometimes in variant forms).15 Another example
is the collection edited as the Sententiae of Bernard of Clairvaux, and an
anonymaus collection edited among his works by Migne.16
c) Individual works
Sermons may contain a few theological distinctions, ingrained in their
texts; collections contain them by dozens, j uxtaposed and decontextualised,
without any particular structure. To a third category belang those
individual works which are composed exclusively from distinctions, and
13 Published in seven books among the works of Hugh of St. Victor, PL 177, col.
469-900 (books V and VI partly overlap). The first book and perhaps the second
are regarded now as Hugonian; the other ones are now seen as anonymous.
14 E.g. Mise. lll. 2 7 (PL 177, col. 649CD) derives from the popular sermon with the
incipit Viditjacob in sompnia scalam … triplex est visio, edited by Jean Chätillon as
Sermo 2 anonymi de dedicatione, in Galteri a Saneta Victore et quorumdam
aliorum Sermones ineditos trig inta sex, CCCM 30 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975); Mise.
VI. 58 and V. 9 (PL 177, col. 842D and 756A) are created from a Sermon 125 (PL
171, col. 905B/906C).
1s For example, the collection of London, BL, Royal 10 A xii, fol. 123r-127r, gives
considerable material from Mise. IV, V and VI. For an example of textual variants
see Mise. V. 89, Triformis est sanetarum dolor, quia distant de paradiso, quia
detinentur in exsi/io, qui<a>i differuntur a regno. („Three-form is the sorrow of
the saints: because they stand apart from Paradise, because they are kept in
exile, because they are separated from the Kingdom (of God),“ PL 177, col. 802)
and its manuscript variant: Triformis est sanetarum dolor. Quia eeeiderunt ab
eterno. Quia tenentur in exilio. Quia difef runtur a regno („Three-form is the
sorrow of the saints: because they fell out of eternity; because they are kept in
exile, because they are separated from the Kingdom [ of God],“ Paris, BNF, n. a. lat.
658, fol. 44v).
16 For Bernard’s Sententiae see PL 184, cols. 1135-56 (also in SBO Vl/2); for the
other collection see PL 183, cols. 747-58.
THEOLOGICAL DISTI:-;CTIO:XS 205
have a particular intention. There are remarkably few works among
those that have been edited which have the distinctive and unmistakable
style given by the mass of theological distinctions.
One such work is the Cantieie commentary of Thomas Cisterciensis
(or Thomas of Perseigne). The immense work, filling a good half of a
Patrologia volume by itself, was finished sometime between 1 1 70 and
1189. The sturlies of D.N. Bell have revealed its compilatory character
but its relation to theological distinction collections is uninvestigatedY
Besides Thomas‘ commentary there are four more texts composed in a
similar way, but without a firmly established authorship or dating. These
are the already mentioned treatise De contemplatione, and three commentaries
on the Minor Prophets: an In Naum, an In joelem and an In
Abdiam.ts All three commentaries borrow from Hugh of Saint-Victor’s
17 See Maur Standaert, „Thomas le Cistercien,“ in Dictionnaire de spiritualite ascetique
et mystique, doctrine et histoire, ed. Marcel Viller, Ferdinand Cavallera, and
). de Guibert (Paris: G. Beauchesne et ses fils, 1937), 15, 796-800, and D.N. Bell’s
articles, especially his „The Commentary on the Song of Songs of Thomas the
Cistercian and his Conception of the Image of God,“ Citeaux 28 (1977): 5-25. The
commentary, being the only printed work of Thomas, is edited in PL 206, col. 9-
859.
IS Editions: in Na um: PL 96, col. 705-58 (as Julianus Toletanus); in }oelem: PL 175,
col. 321-71 (as Hugh of St. Victor); in Abdiam: PL 175, col. 372-406 (as Hugh of
St. Victor); Goy gives a census of the known manuscripts (Rudolf Goy, Die Überlieferung
der Werke Hugos von St Viktor. Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte
des Mittelalters (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1976)); so far, in Naum is
known to exist in eight manuscripts (seven medieval, one modern), In joelem in
four (2 lost copies attested), In Abdiam in five. For further information on these
commentaries, see: Andre Wilmart, „Le commentaire sur Je prophete Nahum attribue
a julien de Tolede,“ Bulletin de Iitterature ecclesiastiaque 23 (1922): 253-
79 (attributing all to Hugh); Damien V an den Eynde, „Les Commentaires sur joel,
Abdias et Nahum attribues a Hugues de Saint-Victor,“ Franciscan Studies 17
(1957): 363-72 (attributing ln}oelem and ln Abdiam to Richard, /n Naum to neither
Hugh nor Richard), Roger Baron, „Richard de Saint-Victor est-il l’auteur des
commentaries de Nahum, )oel, Abdias?“ Revue Benedictine 68 (1958): 118-22
(attributing to a pupil of Hugh other than Richard, transmitting the oral teaching
of Hugh); H. ). Po !litt, „The Authorship ofthe Commentaries on )oel and Obadiah Attributed
to Hugh of St. Victor,“ Recherehes de theo/ogie ancienne et medievale 32
(1965): 296-306 (reiterating Van den Eynde). While these authors observed
many parallelisms and divergences among the three texts and discovered quotations
embedded in the texts, they still failed to consider that whoever (even a
Cistercian or Benedictine) possessed the (otherwise quite popular) works of
Hugh could have created these texts.
206 CSABA NEMETH
works, and some of the manuscripts [usually by later hands) attributed
them to Hugh (d. 1 141) or Richard of Saint-Victor (d.l173). Research Iiterature
is occupied mostly with confirming or invalidating these attributions.
The present paper has a limited scope: it considers these works
merely as texts constructed from distinctions, and investigates how the
theological distinction and its collections [as text types) might have influenced
both the perception and the afterlife of these writings.
The three works share a number of unusual features. As commentaries,
they are atypical of medieval exegesis. A commentary devoted exclusively
to Joel, Nah um or Abdias and copied individually strikes the eye
in any manuscript catalogue, since the minor prophets [quite marginal
texts for Latin exegesis) were usually commented on together. The size
of these commentaries is also unusual. While the minor prophets belong
to the shortest texts ofthe Bible, their commentaries here are disproportionally
long: in their edited form, both the In joelem and the incomplete
In Naum are more than 50 columns, and the In Abdiam is around 30 columns.
The unusual size is partly a result of the exegetical technique: the
In ]oelem and In Abdiam attempt to give a threefold explanation to every
line of the text [literal-historical, allegorical and moral-tropological), and
the In Naum often gives alternative explanations (aliter). The explanations
of the biblical text in all three commentaries are built from distinctions.
3. Disintegration due to distinctions? The fate of In Abdiam and In Na um
All three commentaries had different but equally irregular textual traditions.
The edited texts are printed versions of one single manuscript
each, and the manuscripts were never collated, so the following outline
of their history can be only conjectural; however, it may reveal some
tendencies.19 Even a small-scale comparison of the printed text and a few
manuscripts shows the irregularity of the manuscript tradition of the
three commentaries. Copies of the same work differ significantly, their
text is sometimes fragmentary and shows such features of deterioration
that were clearly not intended by the author.
19 Information on aJI the textual research done can be found in Wilmart’s article of
1922, so the history must be conjectured from the manuscripts and catalogues.
See the preface to In joelem edited by Wilmart, „Le commentaire,“ 276-78.
THEOLOGICI\L DISTI:-ICTIO:-.:S 207
Of the three works, the In joelem presents the smallest problem: it
has a prologue which in some manuscripts has been lost. The In Abdiam
and In Na um show more signs of deterioration and changes. Even without
a full-scale comparison of the texts, features leading to defective
copies are visible: fragmentation, displacement or omission of parts, and
the inclusion of different parts instead all occur.
a) In Abdiam
In the case of In Abdiam, the ending of the text is especially problematic,
since it has various explicits in different manuscripts.zo Information on
the ending of the text is crucial, and the discrepancy of explicits in the
catalogues may signal the uncertainty of the scribes ( or the Ii brarians)
concerning the boundaries of the texts. The ending of In Abdiam, in a
way, has already been subject to investigations. I n the printed edition,
the text of In Abdiam ends in a commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. lt is
largely transcribed from the De quinque septenis of Hugh of Saint-Victor,
but, as Van den Eynde pointed out, the comment on the seventh petition
deviates from the Hugonian text: it gives a distinction starting ut alibi
diximus multiplex est malum, and points to a text attributed to Richard.21
The manuscripts Iook much different than the printed text. One
manuscript, Paris, B N F, lat. 14519, breaks after the sixth petition so it is
shorter than the edited text. Another manuscript is considerably longer:
Clm. 6 3 1 continues with the Hugonian text on the seventh petition
(unlike the edition); then a long unit follows, without any transition,
which gives etymologies and tropological interpretations on Old
Testament names (most of them, like Efraim, Beniamin, Galaad, Samaria
appear in Abd 19-20). Then, without any transition again, follows the
author’s call to observe the „order of divisions;“ this call is followed by
2o The explicits of the known manuscripts are e�re as follow: Avignon, BM, 591 fol.
8 1-95v, domino filios suos filios arieturn (saec. XIII; the Cat gen. dep. XXVII, 315
misrepresents the end and the explicit of tl:e work); edition in PL 175, col. 4060:
per donum sapientiae liberari petimus dicentes, libera nos a malo; Paris, BNF, Jat.
583, fol. 1-22: convenienter servus … filios ariet!lm. (saec. XIII I XIV, described in
Cat. gen. ms. /at. I, 205 as „Prophetia Abdiae cum commentario … avec additions“);
Paris, BNF, lat. 14519, fol. 291-300 (saec. XII I XIII): mundat i/lud atque purificat
(= PL 175, col. 4040); Munich, Clm, 631, fol. 3-15: jilios dei filios arietum. For
Bruxelles, BR, 1422, fol. 1-9 (saec. XIV) catalogues give no explicit.
2 1 Van den Eynde, 371, Pollitt, 304; the text is the Allegoriae II, ii (PL 175, col.
773BC = Liber exceptionum, ed. Chätillon, pars II, lib. XI, cap. xii, 455).
208 CSABA NEMETH
the gradual elaboration of the theme of four „divisions,“ and a closure
with Abd 21.22 Readers of this manuscript cannot know what the „order
of divisions“ and the four „divisions“ refer to. Since there is no previous
reference to „division“ in the text, something must be missing-certainly
contrary to the author’s intention. The continuation gives a clue to what
happened to the text when the expression terrae divisio appears (with
the idea of a three-fold judgement).23 The author’s call and the elaboration
of four „divisions“ are remnants of an elaborated but decapitated
distinction, based on a four-fold divisio of the word divisio itself. What is
lost is the most important element of the structure: the divisio itself, that
is, the opening formula (like quattuor sunt divisiones) which establishes
the distinction and creates coherence among the various elements.
The following example from the very end of In Abdiam helps explain
why works composed from distinctions might have suffered such fate at
the hands of incompetent scribes. The commentary, at least in the fuller
manuscripts, ends with a triplet of short distinctions connected to the
idea of three judgements, and the variant of Ps 2 8 : 1 (what Ieads to the
explicit filios arieturn ). The left column is the ending of the text according
2z Clm. 631, fol. lSr (saec. XII): Diligenter intuere Ieetor ordinem divisionum …. ln
prima namque divisione … exercitamur … in secunda … in quarta … feliciter letamur.
ln prima ergo erudimur, in secunda provocam ur, in tercia perficimur, in quarta
g/orificamur. … Prima ergo divisio libertatem nobis contulit discipline, secunda
libertatem iusticie, tercia libertatem gracie … Hiis ita compositis ascendent
salvatores in montem Syon iudicare montem Esau (Abd 21]. („Carefully observe,
reader, the order of divisions … In the first division thus we are exercised … in the
second … in the fourth … we happily rejoice. In the first, therefore, we are
instructed; in the second, we are called forth; in the third, we become perfect; in
the fourth, we become glorified . … The first division, therefore, brings us the
freedom of discipline; the second, freedom of justice; the third, freedom of grace .
… With these things so arranged shall saviours aseend to mount Sion to judge the
mount ofEsau.“)
23 Clm. 631, fol. lSv: Post terre igitur divisionem et papularum spiritualium
professionem ascendunt salvatores, id est apostoli vel apostolici viri in monte Syon
in arcem scilicet speculationis, iudicare montem Esau, id est ut iudicent mundi
superbiam, carnis concupiscenciam, peccati immundiciam, diaboli versuciam.
(„After the division of the country and the declaration of the spiritual people,
saviours shall ascend, that is, apostles or apostolical men, to mount Sion, namely
to the stranghold of speculation, to judge the mount of Esau, that is, in order to
judge the pride of the world, the concupiscence of body, the impurity of sin, the
cunning ofthe devil.“)
THEOLOGIC’AL DISTI’ICTIO:“S 209
to Clm. 6 3 1 ; the right one is the same text from a hitherto unknown24
manuscript ofthe same work, Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55.
Clm. 631, fol. 15v
in hoc triplici iudicio illuminantur, proprio
scilicet humano divino. Tripfici miseria
docentur, materiali scificet, spirituali
intel/ectuafi. Tripfici soficitudine
erudiuntur, mundana scilicet, humana,
divina; quod erit deo [read del] regnum
Cana: quia sie illuminat1􀕂 conati, armati,
afferent domino filios [ read fi/ii] dei filios
arieturn [Ps 28,1].
ln this three-fold judgement they become
illuminated, that is, by [their] own judgement,
by human, and by divine judgement.
They are taught by three-fold
misery, that is by a material, a spiritual
and an intellectual [misery]. They are instructed
by three-fold concern, that is by
a mundane, a human one and a divine
one: that will be Cana, the kingdom of
God, because illuminated, tried and
armed in this way, the sons of God will
bring to the Lord the offsprings oframs
(Ps 28,1].
Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55, fol. 226r
Triplici iudicio illuminamur, proprio,
humano, divino. Triplici miseria docemur,
materiali, scilicet, spirituali intellectuali.
Tripfici sollicitudine erudimur,
mundana, humana, divina. EXPLICIT. 1f
In verbo tria attenduntur; strepitus,
forma, intellectus. Strepitus percussionis,
forma vocis, intellectus dictionis.
Percussio ad vindictam, vox ad leticiam,
dictio refertur ad gratiam. Siquidem
vindicta percutit, vox consolatur, dictio
erudit
By three-fold judgement we become
illuminated: by [our] own judgement,
by human, and by divine judgement. By
three-fold misery we are taught: that
is, by a material one, a spiritual and an
intellectual. By three-fold concern we
are instructed: a mundane, a human
and a divine one. Explicit. 1! Three
things are observed in the word: the
sound, the form, the meaning. The
sound of percussion [ of the air], the
form o f the voice, the meaning ofthe
utterance. Percussion refers to vengeance,
voice to happiness. utterance to
grace: since vengeance strikes, voice
consoles, utterance instructs.
The first sentence of the Clm. text gives In hoc triplici iudicio since it refers
back to iudicare montem Esau (Abd. 2 1 ) ; the Rein text gives Tripfici
iudicio, a stereotypical beginning for processed distinctions. The Rein
text cuts off the closure of the work (the last lines with the Psalm refer-
24 ln December 2008 I bad the luck to identify in Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55, the
following, hitherto unknown texts: a version of In Naum (fol. 168v-215r),
followed by a confused selection from the praefatio of the same text (fol. 215rv);
a version of In Abdiam (fol. 2 1 Sv-226r) and a fragment of In joelem (fol.
226r-228r). I would like to thank here the generosity of Dr. Walter Steinmetz,
librarian of the cloister, for his help in accessing the manuscript.
2 1 0 CSABA NEMETH
ence) so that it ends with three distinctions ( triplief iudicio … triplici
miseria … triplici sollicitudine); after the ward explicit (and the paragraph
mark) another distinction follows, beginning In verbo tria. Its source can
be identified. This is the first distinction of the In joelem, another commentary
based on distinctions. It explains the first ward of the book of
Joel, Verbum, but usually appears in a different way in the ln joelem:
“ Verbum Domini, quod factum est ad ]oel filium Phatuel“ (Joel l,l]. HISTORI CE.
In verbo tria attenduntur: strepitus,forma, intellectus. …2 s
„The word ofthe Lord that came to )oel the son of Phatuel.“ (According to the)
historical sense, three things are observed in the word: the sound, the form,
the meaning.
The text above is a fragment from the beginning of the In joe/em. lts actual
form shows that the scribe who copied the text might have already
seen a defective copy in front of him. The texts of the two commentaries
are copied without intermission: there is no empty space left for the biblical
verse or a titulus whatsoever. In this form, the commentary is missing
the biblical lemma commented: the first distinctions of the ln joelem
(commenting on the first words of the Iemma) lose their function and
their text becomes an incoherent series of distinctions.
Not only this section but the entirety of the Rein manuscript shows
the consequences of careless scribes. The three commentaries-variants
of the In Na um and ln Abdiam and a fragment of In joelem-copied here
tagether form a sixty-folio Ieng, almost undivided textz6 The monotony
of the text is unbroken, even visually. The three texts are copied continuously:
no lines left blank between them, no tituli, colour initials or miniated
Iemmas of the commented text break the scrolling distinctions.
Copied in this way, the three commentaries are turned into an immense
mass of distinctions. It is hard to conceive nowadays what reward there
zs PL 1751 col. 321. 26 The nineteenth-century description of the text, by Anton Weis, reads: „BI. 1 68v-
228r. (Tractatus, ut videtur, exegeticus super quosdam prophetas) Anf. Sicut in
diuino eloquio cantica simpliciter. Das Ganze ist ohne Aufschriften, doch mit
einigen ersichtlichen Unterbrechungen geschrieben, z.B. auf BI. 215r Explicit.
Onus Niniue, mundi conflagratio. BI. 21Sv wieder Explicit. Visio Abdie. Abdias
interpretatur domini seruus,“ in Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der CistercienserStifte.
Erster Band, Xenia Bernardina 11/1 (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1891), 38.
Notice the classification of the text by an unbiased reader.
THEOLOG!CAL DtSTI!’CT!O:-.IS 2 1 1
might have been i n copying these texts i n such a sinister format that
works against readability.
Thus, the commentaries In joelem and In Abdiam at least reach their
goal: the edited form of In joelem covers the entire book, and the two
mentioned manuscripts of In Abdiam (both Ionger than the edited versions),
even if they show signs of textual deterioration, give interpretation
to the end of the biblical text. The fate of In Na um was worse.
b) In Naum
The last linc of the Book of Nahum in the Bible is 3,19. None of the hitherto
known seven medieval manuscripts of In Naum reaches that point.
Following the fundamental insights of Wilmart (based on five manuscripts
and the printed text), the status of the text and the manuscripts
can be formulated in the following way.27 There had been a master
manuscript in front of a scribe (or scribes) who copied it carefully to a
certain point; this point is rather early compared to the biblical text itself
(it is at the end of a distinction explaining tempestas from Naum 1,3c
Dominus in tempestate, „The Lord in tempest“). After this point the scribe
changed his strategy: instead of copying, he started to extract the text.
These extracts form „une serie des notes inedites“ (that is, distinctions).
This abbreviated recension of In Naum, consisting of a partial copy and
extracts of the original, exists in two Cistercian manuscripts.zs Another
recension of In Na um extends only to the point mentioned; instead of extracts
from the text it continues with a collection of theological distinctions.
29 ln the printed edition of In Naum (based on a Bavarian
manuscript), the commentary proper ends with comments on Naum 1,4;
27 This account still demands caution for the manuscripts have not yet been
collated.
29 See Wilmart, „Le commentaire,“ 258-60; the manuscripts are Troyes, BM, 227,
fol. 1 10r-117v (saec. XJI), and Auxerre, BM, 10 fol. 78v-91v (saec. XJI ex.). The
point is the last words of section 66 (silentium animi, et sponsi laetitia) of the
edition, PL 96, col. 7370, marked in Troyes, BM, 227, fol. 1 1 7r, by a
contemporary hand by the note, Huiusque ordo expositionis excepta de re/iquo.
The first „note inedite“ given by Wilmart (prima namque confttendo) is yet In
Naum 85 (col. 7520), a distinction to Naum 1,4b (/Iumina ad desertum deducens). 29 This recension, together with the subsequent distinction collection (using
materials from the Victorine Miscellanea), is present in Paris, BNF, lat. 15694, fol.
194vb-202rb (saec. XIII) and Paris, BNF, n. a. lat. 658 fol. 1-43r (saec. XII). Wilmart
notes the presence ofthe collection in Troyes, BM, 838 („?); a similar collection
is in Paris, BNF, lat. 14927.
2 1 2 CSABA NEMETH
the text continues with extracts from Petrus Chrysologus (d.450).30 A
fourth form of the text, so far the most complete, was discovered by
Wilmart in an English codex (containing also In joelem).31 It gives the edited
text to its end (that is, including the Chrysologus extracts) and something
more. After the explicit of the edited text, written continuously, and
without any transition, the reader finds a fragment of the commentary to
Naum l , l l a to 1 , 1 4c. lts text begins with an allegorical interpretation of
1 , 1 1a (Ex te exibit cogitans contra Dominum malitiam, „from you shall
come forth one that thinks malice agairrst the Lord“), followed by the
moral interpretation of the Iemma. This beginning is still an abrupt one,
for the Iemma and the first part of its allegorical explanation is missing
(but can be conjectured from internal references).
Judging from these manuscripts, the In Na um clearly had a disastraus
afterlife. What can be obtained are two !arge fragments from the beginning
of the commentary, explaining Naum 1,1-1,4 and 1 , 1 la-1,14c,
interspersed with extracts from Chrysologus. We may only speculate
about the size and extent of the lost master copy of In Na um which laid
open in front the scribe(s). Before the scribe(s) started to extract the
text, a considerable amount has already been copied: first the exposition
of the „titulus“ (meaning Naum 1,1, six words altogether in the Vulgate)
then the commentary on Naum 1,2-1,3c (meaning three sentences, with
33 words altogether). The commentary written on these four sentences
cover full 32 columns (!) of the PL edition. The text of the commentary is
inproportionally !arge if compared to the biblical text explained, and the
known manuscripts still preserve only the beginning of the commentary,
to a certain point: the remainder is lost.
The scribes of the known manuscripts chose the strategy of copying
in full: their efforts ended in incomplete copies. Another possible strategy
was extracting or selective copying the entire work. The manuscript
Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55 contains an unknown copy of In Naum whose
30 The commentary proper ends with section 88 (a moral distinction on numbers 4-
5-7-10, PL 96, col. 754C). lt is remarkable that two manuscripts also have the
explicit of the printed edition (de mercede dispendium, de remissione peccatum):
Manchester, john Rylands Library, lat. 454, fol. lr-16v (saec. XJII), and Basel,
Universitätsbibliothek, B IX 34, fol. 75v-128v (saec. XII ex.).
3l London, British Library, Harleian 658, fol. 1 3 8r-163v (saec. XIII), transcriptions
in Wilmart, „Le commentaire,“ 262-65.
THEOLOGICAL DISTl;\CTJO:\S 213
scribe followed this latter strategy.32 The text in t h e codex seems to be a
selective copy made from a manuscript that probably contained the integral
text of the ln Na um. This selective redaction of the ln Na um covers
almost the entire text of Naum (up to 3,18a) with continuous commentary
and-contrary to other manuscripts where the text ends abruptlyends
with the ward explicit. The text of this redaction is not identical
with the known ones, though they partly overlap: the extracts from
Chrysologus are missing, the commentary on 1,4 to 1 , 1 1 is present and
so is the commentary to the book from 1,14. Compared to the edited
texts, it seems that the scribe-editor sometimes made cursory excerpts
from the same model, leaving out much material preserved in the other
manuscripts. Excerpting sametim es goes so far that the text is reduced to
a mere series of distinctions.33
The comparison of two passages may demonstrate the difference of
the two scribal strategies, the selective copying (or extracting) and copying
in full. The text commented is Naum 1 , 1 1, ex te exivit cogitans contra
Dominum malitiam mente pertractans praevaricationem („from you shall
come forth one that thinks malice against the Lord, contriving treachery
in his mind“); the left text is its commentary from the H arleian, the right
one from the Rein manuscript.
London, British Library, Harleian 658, i Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55, fol. 184v
fol. 158r = Wilmart 262 (interpolations 1
by Wilmart)
<Scismatici> sofern perspicue refulgentem,
luna<m> c/are incedentem …
intueri … Carnales … deos sibi faciunt …
Malitiam ergo contra dominum cogitavit
gentilis et hereticus, praevaricationem
carnalis et scismaticus … primus
ma/itiam cogitavit adorando ydo/a,
secundus venenot conjingendo symbola,
Sequitur, Ex te exibit contra dominum cogitans
malitiam [Naum 1,11a], siquidem de
ecclesia heretici, scismatici, ypocrite, carnales
exierunt, qui contra dominum
malitiam cogitarent. Primi et secundi exeunt
I mcme et corpore, tercii et quarti non corpore
sed mente. Nunc moraliter de anima.
Ex te exibit contra dominum cogitans
32 Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55, fol. 168v-215v. lnc. Sicut in divino e/oquio cantica
simpliciter et cantica canticorum (= PL 96, col. 711C); expl. Sequitur: Dormitaverunt
pastores tui rex Assur [Naum 3,18] … multiplex miseria, ad ultimum gehenna,
Hec ordine descenditur ad inferna. Explicit
33 See fol. 171 v-172r: Quatuor modis consolatur nos deus [In Na um 1,44] … Tres sunt
nobis necesarie advocationes [1,45] … Tria sunt bona coniugii [1,50] … Quatuor
modis servitur deo [1,52] … Quatuor sur1t quibus firmatur probatur decoratur conservatur
ecclesia [1,57].
2 1 4 CSABA NEMETH
tercius praevaricationem salvatoris
scindendo tunicam, quartus mundi
sequendo concupiscentiam. Haec
allegorice dicuntur de ecclesia. Nunc
moraliter de anima. Ex te exibit …
Malitia est mali affectata scientia. Haec
autem ex boni …
<Schismatics> Iook at the Sun clearly
shining and the Moon brightly rising …
Carnal men … make gods for themselves
… Therefore, the heathen and
the heretic thought malice against the
Lord, the carnal and the schismatic
(thought] treachery . … the first thought
malice by adoring idols; the second
made poison by fabricating creeds; the
third (thought] treachery by tearing
the tu nie of the Saviour; the fourth by
following the concupiscence ofthe
world. These are said in the allegorical
sense about the Church. Now in the
moral sense about the soul. „From you
shall come forth“ … Malice is
knowledge aiming at evil.
malitiam etc. Malitia est mali affectata scientia.
Hec autem ex boni oritur ignorantia. Ignorantia
vero duplex est …
Follows, „From you shall come forth one that
thinks malice against the Lord,“ that is, from
the church heretics, schismatics, hypocrites
shall come forth, who think malice against the
Lord. The first and second ones come forth by
mind and body, the third and fourth ones not
by body but by mind. Now in the moral sense
about the soul. „From you shall come forth
one that thinks malice against the Lord“ etc.
Malice is knowledge aiming at evil. It rises
from the ignorance of good. Ignorance is twofold
…
The Harleian version gives a full copy of a broken distinction (this is also
the beginning of the !arger fragment preserved in the codex). lts
beginning with the biblical Iemma is missing; the four members of the
divisio (gentilis, hereticus, carnalis, scismaticus) can be only conjectured.
The selectively copied Rein text gives the Iemma, then a similar Iist with
four members of those who „shall come forth: “ heretici, scismatici,
ypocrite, carnales (giving ypocritae instead of gentiles), then continues
with an identical text (Nunc moraliter … ). Seemingly the Rein copy gives a
structural extract from the beginning of the same distinction, preserving
only the core of the idea (and omitting its later ramifications); the
Harleian manuscript gives a fuller copy of the original, but it is just a
fragment. The Harleian gives, practically, the very end of an elaborated
distinction: scismaticus et carnalis are the third and fourth member
(tercius et quartus) of that four-fold divisio which is (in abbreviated
form) preserved in the other manuscript.
The scrutiny of the two commentaries composed from distinctions
permits us to draw some conclusive remarks. Manuscripts of the In
Na um and In Abdiam show similar forms of textual corruption: the texts
THEOLOGJCAL DISTI􀁺CTJO􀁻S 2 1 5
exist in variants which significantly differ; the existing text often has
omissions, unexpected transitions, and the single manuscripts may include
materials absent from other ones. It seems plausible that the same
techniques of divisio and distinction observed in the composition of these
texts led to defects in their transmission.
The authors of these commentaries attempted to explain a short biblical
text by the means of distinction, but that technique, howsoever
useful in creating sermons and treatises, proved to be i neffective in
commenting on pre-existing and coherent texts. Divisions establish
structure, and distinctions form a module of text. Sermons and treatises
are free creations where such structures and modules can be kept under
the author’s control. The present commentaries, by choosing distinctions
as a means of commenting, give up some control over the exposition. As
distinctions are connected to words of the actual biblical Iemma, the
!arger context of the text commented on easily may be blurred, especially
without clear indications. In such cases, the texts constructed from distinctions
as modules can fall apart to bare modules: the eyes of the unguided
reader perceive the commentaries created from distinctions not
as commentaries (which had some inherent structure) but as distinction
collections (which have no particular structure).
Divisio, as it creates a concentration of attention, originally was a particularly
apt means for teaching and learning. The texts discussed in this
paper-the in Abdiam and In Naum, the Cantieie commentary of Thomas,
the in joelem, and to a certain extent even the De contemplatione as
well-overuse this technique by employing it almost exclusively. The
result is a slight sense of confusion and loss of orientation and attention.
This may be an experience common to both the modern and the
medieval reader (as the mistakes of the scribes, who executed the existing
copies, show).
Even such a cursory investigation of the in Abdiam and in Na um can
detect in the manuscripts innumerable Features contrary to any likely
intention of an author. Incomplete and non-identical copies, „scribal recensions,“
ruptures in the text, broken distinctions, texts which are present
only in one particular manuscript: these Features must be due to
scribal intervention (not to a malignant intervention, I assume, only to a
clueless one). Manuscript copies ever attest to what the scribe (or the
chain of the scribes of subsequent copies) understands of the text of the
master copy in front of him.
The Faults of manuscripts indicate problems in the perception of the
two commentaries as texts. The in Abdiam and in Naum were copied in a
216 CSABA NEMETH
milieu where distinction collections were not uncommon, and where
texts included in such collections were seen as raw material, freely alterable.
The two commentaries, built of distinctions but without a strong
and clear indication of structure probably looked too similar to distinction
collections. The likeness of the two text types (and the freedom
granted by distinction collections) might have encouraged the scribes to
act not as scribes proper but as users and creators of such collections
(that is, excerptors or „editors“). This seems to be the most plausible explanation
why, instead of copying, extracting and selective copying occurs
in the manuscripts of the two works.
4. Conclusion
Collections of theological distinctions belang to the „period style“ of the
theology of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. These anonymaus florilegia
of theological content document a milieu where divisio, a particular
technique of treating theological subjects, was common and theological
distinction-as the concrete, written result of that technique-was a
popular means to organise effective communication in writing.
Theological distinctions have a characteristic pattern; based on a
number which „subdivides“ the subject, followed by parallel elaboration
of the subdivisions. While in twelfth-century sermons such distinctions
often organise the development of thoughts, theological distinction collections-
often preserved in codices of theological miscellanea or sermons-
contain masses of decontextualised distinctions. These collections
are unstructured heaps of distinctions, varied in size and constitution,
and without any indication of their authorship or sources. It
seems also that the actual form and content of an individual collection
depended on the scribe.
There exist also a few edited theological works which are constructed
from distinctions. Such are the treatise called De contemplatione of a Ps.Hugh
of Saint-Victor, and four biblical commentaries written on shorter
books of the Old Testament-the Cantieie commentary of Thomas Cisterciensis
and three commentaries on minor prophets, an In Naum, In ]oelem,
and In Abdiam without firmly established authorship. A small-scale
comparison of the accessible printed text of these three commentaries
and a few manuscripts of them shows 1rregularity in the transmission of
their texts. This is the most visible in the case of In Abdiam and In Naum.
As a hitherto unknown copy of the three texts in Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55
THEOLOGIC AL DlSTl:'<CTlO:\S 2 1 7
confirms, copies of the same work differ significantly, their text i s sometimes
fragmentary and shows such features of deterioration that were
clearly not intended by the author. The most unusual moment of transmission
can be observed in the case of In Naum. From the earlier known
manuscripts, only improportionally !arge fragments of the In Naum can
be obtained, covering just the beginning of the biblical book (Na um 1,1-
1,4 and 1, 1 1 a- 1 , 14c). By contrast, Rein, Stiftsbibliothek, 55 contains a
different version of In Naum that covers almost the entire Book of Nahum,
although it must be a selective copy from a fuller master copy. The
two cases show two unusual and different scribal attitudes: instead of
copying the work in its entirety, one copies its beginning in full, then
quits copying; the other makes extracts from the full work. In the case of
both commentaries, confused or mutilated portians of the text show that
some of the scribes of the master copy had already not comprehended
the structure and order of these texts.
A plausible explanation for these various attitudes leading to deteriorated
texts may be a problern in the perception of these texts. The problern
emerged on behalf of the scribes and, I think, it may be explained by
the influence of theological distinction collections as a genre or text type.
These commentaries were constructed from theological distinctions in a
period when theological distinction was a usual form of expression, and
when excerpting distinctions from other works, creating and copying
distinction collections was not uncommon. The changes made by the
scribes to the two texts suggest that the commentaries constructed from
distinctions were not perceived as integral, individual works but rather
freely alterable raw material-like distinction collections themselves.