Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
It we were to choose the two most important allegorists of the twelfth century in Western Europe, one of them would certainly be Bernard of Clairvaux, and the other would probably be Hugo of Saint-Victor (1096–1141); for they are the two most influential mystical exegetes of their time. While these two men have points of contact, their careers and their writings offer many contrasts. Both are mystics: both seek after the vision beatific. But the one is a true monk, who shuns secular learning, is blind to the natural beauty about him; the other, as a canon-regular teaching in a busy Paris school, lives on the threshold of the outside world; and finds an important, if ancillary, place for the secular learning of the day in his program of studies. Each had his part to play in the quickening of piety and learning which characterized the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Western Europe.
1 Coulton, G. G., Five Centuries of Religion (Cambridge 1923–1936), I, 283, 291.Google Scholar
2 For bibliography see Vernet, F., “Hughes de Saint-Victor, “Dictionnaire de Théologie Cathotique, VII, cols. 240ffGoogle Scholar, and especially cols. 305–308.
3 de Wulf, Maurice, History of Medieval Philosophy, tr. Messenger, E. C., (London 1925), I, 171.Google Scholar
4 Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941), 61ff.Google Scholar
5 Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 290.
6 De Wulf, , Medieval Philosophy, I, 172Google Scholar: “Psychology was his (Hugo's) favorite study, as we should expect in a mystic. His system was inspired by Augustine and pseudo-Augustinian theories.”
7 Eruditio Didascalica, 5.7, PL. 176.794; cf. Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 290.
8 Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 290, states that Hugo praises the Vulgate, and “ordinarily follows him (Jerome) in the interpretation of the Holy Books.”
9 Ibid., col. 290. He believes that Hugo borrowed the names of the ancient classical authors from Isidore's Etymologies, and like compendia.
10 For Hugo's apparent knowledge and use of Plato, cf. Taylor, H. O., The Medieval Mind, 4th edition (London, 1930), II, 90.Google Scholar
11 Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 291, thinks that Hugo accepted from Pseudo-Dionysius only the nine orders of angels.
12 Ibid., col. 291: Bede is supposed to have provided views on the creation and on the terrestrial paradise. A slight influence of Anselm is likely.
13 Ibid., col. 292: Bernard wrote the Tractatus de Baptismo at Hugo's request. Bernard's treatise De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio also influenced him. He also borrowed Bernard's three classes of readers of Scripture from the Sermons in Cant. 36.3.
14 Smalley, , Bible in the Middle Ages, 62–64.Google Scholar
15 Eruditio Didasoalica, 5.7, PL. 176.794. Smalley, , Bible in the Middle Ages, 70Google Scholar, holds that Hugo of Saint-Victor gives emphasis to the ‘literal’ sense of Scripture (in which she includes metaphor); and that thus he “is criticising the Gregorian tradition with its sublime disregard for the letter of Scripture.” Actually almost all the exegetes (including Gregory the Great) do lip service to the literal meaning. Hugo draws freely upon the allegorical traditions which Gregory had helped to form, and leans far more on the mystical senses than upon the literal meaning of Scripture.
16 Eruditio Didascalica, 5.7, PL. 176.796.
17 Origen, , In Cant., 3Google Scholar (Cant 2.9), Lommatzsch's edition, XV, 48f. Cf. Bigg, C., Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Oxford, 1886), 134f.Google Scholar
18 De Sacramentis, Prologue, P.L. 176.183f.
19 De Wulf, , Medieval Philosophy, I, 214.Google Scholar
20 Cf. Windelband, W., History of Philosophy, tr. Tufts, J. H. (New York, 1895), 303–306.Google Scholar
21 De Area Noe Morali, 4.7, PL. 176.672f.
22 Hugonin, , Prolegomeima, PL. 175, col. LXXXVI.Google Scholar
23 De Quinque Septenis seu Septenariis, cap. 2, PL. 175.405f.
24 Ibid., col 406.
25 Ibid., col. 407.
26 Ibid., caps. 3–4, cols. 407–410.
27 Ibid., cap. 5, col. 414.
28 Eruditio Didascalica, 5.7, PL. 176.794.
29 Ibid., col 795.
30 Ibid., col. 795.
31 Ibid., 5.7, cols. 794f.
32 Ibid., 6.5, col. 805.
33 De Institutione Nouitioruin, PL. 176.926–952; Expositio in Regulam B. Augustini, PL. 176.881–924. See Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 287.
34 Barton, G. A., Ecciesiastes, International Critical Commentary (New York, 1908)Google Scholar, 20: “The allegorical method was employed in its most developed form, especially by Jerome, who wrote his commentary to induce Basilica, a Roman lady, to embrace the monastic life. According to him, the purpose of the book is ‘to show the utter vanity of every sublunary enjoyment, and hence the necessity of betaking one's self to an ascetic life, devoted entirely to the service of God! ’”Hugo follows in the tradition of Jerome.
35 In Ecclesiasten Homiliae XIX, Hom. 1, PL. 175.116f.
36 Ibid., col. 117.
37 De Sacroimentis, 1.102, PL. 176.329. See Vernet,“Hughes,” col. 264.
38 Ibid., col. 265.
39 In Ecciesiasten, Horn. 1, PL. 175.117.
40 See above, notes 24–25.
41 Misceflanea, PL. 177.469–900; Sermones Centwm, PL. 177.889–1210.
42 E.g., Vernet, “Hughes,” col. 247; Vernet lists some of the general catalogues of Hugo's works at cols. 243f.
43 This passage is quoted by Hugonin, , Pro1egomena, FL. 175Google Scholar, col. L, and is cited by Bourgain, L., La Chaire française au dourième siècle (Paris, 1879), 115.Google Scholar
44 Vernet, “Hughes,” cols. 248f.
45 Bourgain, , La Chaire franhçaise, 115.Google Scholar
46 Hugonin, Prolegomena, col. L.
47 Vernet, “Hughes,” cols. 248f. Vernet bases his view upon the balance of the passage from Vitry: “… exemplo sanctae conversationis multos ad honestam incitavit et melliflua doetrina ad scientiam erudivit, multos autein aquaruin viventiuin puteos effodiens libris suis quos de fide et moribus tam subtihter quam suaviter disserendo edidit.”
48 Bourgain, , La Chaire Fran çaise, 119f.Google Scholar
49 On the medieval reportatio or lecture notes see the interesting discussion of Smalley, , Bible in the Middle Ages, 160ff.Google Scholar
50 See Origen, Selecta in Threnos, PG 13.605–662; Lommatzsch 's edition, XIII, 167–216; Klostermann's, edition in Die Griechisehen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Berlin Corpus), VI, 235–278.Google Scholar
51 See Smalley, , Bible in the Middle Ages, 66f, 71.Google Scholar
52 Adnotatiunculae Elucidatoriae in Thernos Jeremiae, PL. 175.258.
53 Origen, , Selecta in Threnos, Lam. 1.10, Fragment 28, ed. Klostermann, 248Google Scholar;PG. 13.623; ed. Lommatzsch, XIII, 181f.
54 In Threnos, 175.258.
55 Ibid., col. 277.
56 Ibid., col. 282.
57 Origen, In Jesu Nave, Horn. 15.1, ed. Lonunatzsch, XI, 130.
58 Miscellanea, 3.20, PL. 177.645.
59 Ibid., col. 645.
60 Ibid., co1. 645.
61 Sermones Centum, Sermo 39, PL. 999–1003.
62 Ibid., cols. 999–1003.
63 Cf.Eucherius, Formulae, 9Google Scholar, CSEL. 31.55 (Rev. 21.21).
64 Sermones Centum, Sermo 39, PL. 177.1001f.
65 Ibid., Sermo 38, PL. 177.994–999.
66 The first three stages are the Augustinian (and Gregorian) steps of the temptation, suggestio, delectatio, consensus.
67 Sermones Centum, Sermo 39, PL. 177.1002f.
68 Misceflanea, 5.66, PL. 177.794; 5.41, PL. 177.767f.
69 Sermones Centuin, Sermo 39, PL. 177.999.
70 E.g., the traditional interpretation of Jesus' parable of the Two Horses, for which consult Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen, 1910), II, 265.Google Scholar
71 Cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 2, De domo mundanda, ornanda, implenda, PL. 183.417–421.
72 De Area Noe Morali, Prologue, PL. 176.617f.
73 Notable among the earlier treatises on the Ark is that of Ambrose, of which Rand, E. K., Founders of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, U. S. A., 1929), 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, says: “… the treatise … on ‘Noah and the Ark’ is worth reading in the light of that most intricate of Medieval mystics, Hugo of St. -Victor, who likewise wrote two little works on the ark of Noah, De Area Noe MoraZt and Dc Area Noe Mystica. The allegorizings differ. Hugo has introduced many modern improvements in the ancient craft, but it is the same old boat, patiently carrying whatever spiritual cargo was put aboard.”
74 De Area Noe Morali, 1.2, PL. 176.621.
75 Ibid., 4.1, PL. 176.663–665.
76 Ibid., col. 663.
77 Ibid., cols. 663f.
78 Ibid., col. 664.
79 Ibid., cols. 664f.
80 Ibid., col. 665.
81 Ibid., 4.2, col. 665.
82 E.g., the De Templo Salamonis of Bede, and the treatise of Ambrose on Noah's Ark (mentioned in note 73, above).
83 These treatises have been the subject of a special study of the author.
84 Sermones Centum, Sermo 5, In Advenu Domini, PL. 177.911–913.
85 Ibid., col 911.
86 Ibid., cols. 911f.
87 Ibid., col. 913. Cf. Miscellanea, 5.65, De multiplici ingressu Christi, PL. 177.793, where the “allegory of entering” is fully developed. Jesus enters the city (Mt. 11) as a king (Is. 35:22); the castle (Lk. 17) as a defender (Is. 19:20); the house (Lk. 7:36) as a paterfamilias; the temple (Lk. 19:45) as a priest (Ps. 109:5). Crown, arms, food, and sacraments pertain to these four aspects of Christ. Hugo's picture of the relationship may be set down diagrammatically:
