Andrew of St. Victor, a twelfth century hebraist : an investigation of his works and sources [thesis]

313 Pages·1972·89.41 MB·English

by  Gerry A. C. Hadfield

Thesis submitted for the degree of iJoctor of Philosophy of the University of
Oxford.
ANBRiffl OP ST. VICTOR, A Tu'hLFIH CKWTURY HrJSR
AN IflV;,STIGATION OF HIS .,GRK£ AND bOUHCLS.
by
GJ-BRY A. c. HADPI^LD.
ABSTRACT
Michaelmas Term 1971 !>«. i*l?il W' ^t. Hugh's College
The aim of this study is to examine the biblical conr entaries
of Andrew of St. Victor, abbot of .ignore (d.1175)jand to pay
particular attention to his Jewish sources.
Andrew wrote commentaries on most of the books of the Old
Testament. His work can be divided into three groups: commentaries
on the historical books, written before 1147; interpretations of the
prophetical books, written shortly after £.1134; and his exposition of
the Song of bongs, Proverbs and >cclesiu.stes, written before 1161 or
1163. ver since Miss ^nalley's articles in the Rech.Theol.anc.med.
of 1938 and 1939 and her book, The ^tudy of the Bible in the Middle
Apes, the importance of Andrew as a comnentator has been recognized,
but the fact that his work exist in manuscript form only, apart from
his corrmentaries on j cclesiastes and Jonah, has prevented his v.ri tings
from becoming more widely known. i^or this reason I originally
intended to prepare an edition of a coiianentary on one of the
Pentateuchal books. However, as it became clear that an edition
would lose much of its value without an examination of the sources
Andrew used, J decided to concentrate on the latter. The large
number of his COOTTIentaries mad- it necessary, all the same, to
select one or two for special study. The interpretations of jcodus
and Isaiah were chosen, first because they v;ere written during
different periods of Andrew's life, thus making it possible to follow
any changes in his extgetical method; and secondly oecause the
different contents of these books present their comi;entators with
different problems.
Andrew, probably an Englishman by birth, began his studies
at St. Victor under Hugh ^d.1141). At the time f>t. Victor was very
much a part of what is so conveniently called f the twelfth century
Penaissance 1 , of which the theological aspects have been so well
described in fere Chenu'a il.a Jheologie au douzieme siecle. The
Victorines, being both claustrales and scholares, played an important
part in transmitting the lectio divina iron the s-cluded atmosphere of
the cloister to the school, the new urban centre of intellectual
activity. The library of St. Victor was well stocked with the pagan
classics; Hugh lectured on the literal sense of the historical books of
the Old Testament and wrote his .De bacramentis <-J.on£ historical rather
than theological lines, and also provided his pupils with maps and a
guide to reading. As far as the study of Scripture was concerned,
he took Gregory's advice seriously, once again, to lay first the
fundamenta historiae before passing to allegorical and tropological
exposition. This new evaluation of the literal sense was, of course,
inspired by Jerome, 'patron de 1'exegese littera]^ , rather than by
Gregory. It is not surprising, therefore, that *uidrew, when he
decided to make the literal interpretation of the uible his special
field of study, regarded Jerome as his great master and precursor.
It may be noted here that, amon£ modern historians of medieval
thought and doctrine, there are some differences of opinion on the
importance of the rediscovery of historia and of the literal sense at
the expense of allegoria; on the influence of Jerome and Hugh in
bringing about this change in biblical studies; and on the role of
this rediscovery in the general emergence of a scientific theology in
the twelfth century. In particular Pere de Lubac, at the beginning
of the second part of his invaluable xegcse medleyale differs from
Miss bmalley, as well as from the ieres Uandonnet, Lpioq, de Ghellinck
and, to a lesser extent, Chenu, on this point. However, it seems
undeniable that there was a renewed interest in the explanation of the
literal sense during that period, as is illustrated by the works of
men like Hugh, ...ndrew, 'the anonymous cocimen tutor on Leviticus'
(of, Lmalley), and Herbert of Bosham's cau. entary on Jerome's Hebrew
Psalter, as well as by the increasing popularity of Andrew's
5.
In this study Andrew's method of interpretation is examined,
his knowledge of Hebrew is discussed, and his Jewish sources are
analysed as far as possible. An attempt is made to discover Andrew's
own attitude towards Jewish exposition - how far was he prepared to go
in accepting their interpretations, and how did he try to avoid the
risk of beinj accused of judaizin^ by his contemporaries. As his
work had much in cannon with the twelfth century French Jewish schools
of biblical exegesis, a chapter is devoted to these schools and to their
most prominent representatives. borne attention is also paid to the
controversy between Jews and Christians from early times onwards over
the interpretation of Is.vii.14, since -oidrew's explanation of this
particular verse, an important part of his commentary on Isaiah, is
a good illustration of his evaluation of Jewish exposition^ and also
because it was to attack Andrew's comments on this verse in particular
that Richard of St. Victor -wrote his De /nnanuele. Lastly, the
Jewish interpretation of the servant passages in Isaiah are discussed in
some detail, again as a background against which to sec -ndrew's
explanation of the prophecies concerned. In studying the commentaries
I have adopted the method of examining selected passages, while some longer
extracts are printed in an Appendix.
One of the main problems in the examination of Andrew's
commentaries is his vagueness, and his refusal, in good medieval
tradition, to commit himself firmly to one or the other interpretation.
This did not prove much of a hindrance as regards his commentary on
jcodus, as in the interpretation of a book of this kind it is often
quite informative to have several possible explanations put forward.
In his conments on Isaiah, however, it means that it is often difficult
to decide whether he understands certain prophecies as referring to the
actual historical situation of the people of Israel, or to an eagerly
6.
awaited messianic future. It seemed to me theit this ambiruousness
reflected partly the Jevdsh approach to ^cripture, which often likes to
insert a note of messianic hope into its interpretations, partly
Andrew's fear of coundtting himself too firmly to Jev/ish (messianic)
explanations, and partly the sometimes enigmatic character of the words
of the prophet himself. Another problem is the anonyndty of his
sources, another medieval vice, and the fact that all Jewish
explanation came to him at second hand. Also, his own ambiguous
concept of the 'literal sense' and the fact that he tended to regard
all Jewish interpretation, whatever its content, as 'literal', makes
his comments at times somewhat confusing^ and leads him to state
occasionally that seme prophecies of Isaiah can be understood as
referring to 'our' Messiah as well as to the Jewish one.
The comparison of the two commentaries shows that one of the
differences between them is that in ijcodus much stress is laid on the
linguistic information Andrew received from the Jews, while in Isaiah
it is the Jewish exposition he was most concerned with. Another
striking difference in .Andrew's interpretational method in exodus and
Isaiah is that in Ixodus he showed himself a keen collector of information
on the literal sense, both from Jewish and con-Jewish sources, which he
used rather indiscriminately. In Isaiah, on the other hand, he is
more selective in the choice of his material and he shows a much
greater measure of independence towards his sources, especially Jerome,
while his conments are of a more thoughtful and substantial character.
Most important, however, is the change which was beginning to emerge in
his recording of Jewish information. While in xodus he took the
teaching of the Jews as it came, in Isaiah he began to sense that it
was sometimes necessary to distinguish between Jewish spiritual and
Jewish literal explanation. It was in the chapter on the suffering
Servant that this new attitude made its first noticeable appearance.
7.
Andrew's conrrentaries, therefore, constitute a significant
stage in the development of medieval biblical studies. Not only did
their author look back to Jerome, and followed him in going to the
Jews for the literal explanation of Scripture, he also prepared the
way for Hebrew scholarship in the following centuries, and contributed
to a new evaluation of the literal sense and Jewish interpretation.
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the
University of Oxford.
ANDBM OF ST. VICTOR, A TWiJi-TH ChNTURY HEBRAIST.
AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS uQRKS /JjD SOUBCFS.
GERRY A.C. HADFIMD.
Michaelmas Term 1971. bt. Hugh's College,
EKEFACE
The works of .Andrew of St. Victor take a unique place among
medieval biblical commentaries, partly because they give a purely
literal explanation of ScriptureT partly because they demonstrate
that references to the Hebrew text and contemporary Jewish exposition
had already found a place in Christian commentaries more than a
century before the Fostillae of Nicholas of lyre.
Since Miss Smalley first called attention to Andrew* s work, now
more than 30 years ago, in a series of articles in Recherches de
Theologie ancienne et medievale and later on in ' The Study of the
Bible in the Middle Ages, the importance of Andrew as an exegete has
been generally acknowledged; but the absence of a detailed study of
his writings and above all of a critical edition of some of his more
influential commentaries has prevented full recognition. Apart from
an edition of his commentaries on Ecclesiastes and Jonah his works are
/
accessible in manuscript form only. This circumstance has led me to
elaborate on Miss Emalley's 'impressionistic studies', as she likes to
call them. Although I initially intended to prepare an edition of
Andrew's commentary on one of the Pentateuchal books, it became clear
that an edition would lose much of its value without a thorough
examination of the contents of his work and of the sources used. An
investigation of these /thereforef seemed of primary importance, leaving
an edition to some later time perhaps. This approach has the advantage
that, by not being limited to the study of one commentary in particular,
it is possible to follow Andrew's exposition over a longer period of
time.
All the some, the number of his coirmentaries made some selection
necessary,! have paid particular attention to the interpretation of
Exodus and Isaiah, because these date from different periods of his
ii
life, thus making it possible to detect any changes in his method of
interpretation. I'urthermore, the different contents of these books
make diffei-ent demands on a coi.znentator of the literal sense. I have
used MS.B.Nat.Lat. }$6f Paris (microfilm), collated with MS.Laud.Lat. 1Q5
(Bodleian Library), for Andrew on the Pentateuch, o.ran.45,
Cambridge (partly the actual Mb, partly microfilm), collated with
MS.Maz.l75> Par-is (microfilm) for .aidrew on Isaiah.
In this study I have attempted to elucidate Andrew's method of
interpretation and to investigate his sources, I have concentrated
especially on his references to Jewish exposition, since the latter
fonn the most striking, but at the same tajme the most neglected aspect
of his work. In the examination of his Jewish sources I had to rely
much on translations and the help of other scholars,as ray knowledge of
Hebrew did not allow for reading the medieval commentaries independently.
I have discussed Andrew's knowledge of Hebrew, and the type of
information he derived from the Jews. This information was found to be
influenced to a large extent by contemporary Jewish schools of biblical
interpretation, although Andrew himself may not have been aware of this.
Another point of interest was that not all of Andrew's references to
Jewish exegesis could be accounted for. Although someone more
experienced than I in the field of medieval Jewish biblical interpretation
would most certainly be able to allocate most of these, some may point
to Jewish oral tradition and deserve further investigation. Also
Andre\vl s own unsystematic approach to his work came to light, and his
lack of distinction between Jewish literal and spiritual interpretation,
*
which led him to incorporate all Jewish exposition rather indiscriminately
as belonging to the literal sense. I found one notable exception to
this rule.
Ify- basic method has been to analyze Andrew* s most relevant comments
on a particular chapter or group of chapters, selected for their
special interest, and to follow this examination with a discussion of the
results of the investigation. I-xodus, however, retired a somewhat different
ill
approach because of Andrew's own treatment of the text, which involved
were consulted
the use of a greater variety of sources thanfvfor his commentary on
Isaiah, Moreover, I thought it necessary to pay more attention to
the general characteristics of his manner of interpretation in the
diacussion of iocodus, bein£ the first commentary dealt with, than in
the chapters on his exposition of Isaiah. In order to form some idea
of the kind of Jewish interpretation /jidrew was likely to come acroes,
a chapter on the contemporary Jewish biblical schools and one on the
Jewish treatment of the servant passages of Isaiah have been added.
Some longer extracts of his commentaries on Ixodus and Isaiah can be
found in the A jpendix.
I would like to express here my gratitude to my supervisor/
Miss Beryl Smaller,for the encouragement she gave me throughout the
preparation of this thesis, and for the v<ay she made hex wide knowledge
of the subject available to me. Without her help and suggestions and
above all, her initial studies of Andrew this thesis would have been
inconceivable, I also like to mention here Professor C.W. Monnich
of .Amsterdam, who av^akened my interest in the Middle .Ages by his
enthusiastic and thoughtful appreciation of the period. Much of his
own love for the subject has been reflected in his students, I am
grateful to Lir, Hayim ^oloveitchik who has helped me with the tracing
of some of the Hebrew material, and to Dr. Paul Hyams for his critical
reading of much of the manuscript.
For generous financial assistance I have to thank the Johanna van
Tussenbroek Fund, the Netherlands Organisation for the advancement of
Pure Research (Z.W.O.) and St, Hugh's College, Oxford, which awarded me
the Yates Senior Scholarship,
Finally, I want to acknowledge my debt to my parents and my husband/
David, for the opportunity they gave me to embark on and finish this
research.