1 The following abbreviations are used throughout: GI = Glossa interlinearis and GO = Glossa ordinaria, Facsimile reprint of the Editio princeps by Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, introduction by Froehlich, K. and Gibson, M. (Turnhout, 1992); Lombard, Peter, I and II. Sent. = Magistri Petri Lombardi Parisiensis Episcopi sententiae in IV libris distinctae , ed. Brady, Ignatius vol. 1, part 2, books 1–2 (Grottaferrata, 1971); RTAM = Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale. Google Scholar

2 The chronicler Godfrey of Viterbo started the resilient medieval legend that Comestor was the brother of Peter Lombard and Gratian, the authors of the two most celebrated works in theology and canon law, respectively. See de Ghellinck, Joseph, Le mouvement théologique du XIIe siècle , 2nd ed., rev., Lessianum, Museum, Section historique 10 (Bruges, 1948; repr. Brussels, 1969), 214 and 285. See also Golish, Marcia, Peter Lombard, 2 vols., Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 41 (Leiden, 1994), 1:16 and n. 5.Google Scholar

3 Smalley wrote that “Langton puts their author on the same level as the author of the theological classic, the Sentences; both are of the fellowship of Wisdom,” citing (in her own translation) Langton: “Blessed is the man … that lodgeth near her house and fasteneth a pin in her walls [Eccles. 14:22–25] as they do who hand down some writing on Scripture, the Manducator who compiled the Histories, the Lombard who established [statuit] the Sentences“ (Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., rev. [Oxford, 1984], 214 and n. 1).Google Scholar

4 “His diebus Petrus Lombardus et Petrus Manducator apud Parisiensum magistri insignes claruerunt” ( Continuatio Sanblasiana , MGH, Scriptores [Hannover, 1868], 20:308, cited by Colish, , Peter Lombard, 1:31, n. 51).Google Scholar

5 De Ghellinck, , Le mouvement théologique , 213–14; and also idem, L'Essor de la littérature latine au XIIe siècle, 2 vols., Museum Lessianum Section historique 4–5 (Paris, 1946), 1:71, 95. For the origins and subsequent fortuna of the legend, see Le mouvement théologique, Appendix 3, 285.Google Scholar

6 Chenu, Marie-Dominique, Introduction à l'étude de saint Thomas d'Aquin , 2nd ed. (Paris, 1954), 205. See also idem, La théologie au douzième siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1966), 69 n. 3, and 328. Henri de Lubac held a similar view of the History. See his Exégèse médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'écriture, 2 pts., each in 2 vols. (Paris, 1961–64), 2.1:379.Google Scholar

7 Ignatius Brady established beyond doubt that Peter Comestor went to Paris prior to the end of Peter Lombard's teaching career in 1158–59, that he witnessed and reported the Lombard's teaching, and that he himself began teaching in the Paris schools after the Lombard's death in 1160. Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , 39–44 and especially 39 (“Non sine scandalo [minimo quidem] quosdam modernos invenimus qui adhuc credant quod Magister Petrus Comestor, decanus Trecensis, Parisius venerit solummodo post mortem Lombardi [3 maii 1160], et quidem anno 1164, quando Magistro Odoni successerit in officium cancellarii Parisiensis Ecclesiae”). See also Brady, Ignatius, “Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard,” Antonianum 41 (1966): 454–90.Google Scholar

8 Grabmann, Martin, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode , 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911), 2:393.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. , 476: “Die theoretische Seite der Theologie … ist im letzten Drittel des 12. Jahrhunderts vornehmlich von Petrus von Poitiers, dem treuesten Schüler des Lombarden.” Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 476–77. Grabmann, , who acknowledged the extraordinary success of Comestor's History in the Middle Ages, hardly paused to consider what he characterized as a popular work: “Die Bedeutung dieses Werkes, welches im Mittelalter unzähligemal abgeschrieben und auch mehrfach übersetzt wurde und seinem Verfasser den Namen Magister Historiarum eintrug, liegt mehr auf populärtheologischem Gebiete” (ibid., 477). Although Grabmann devoted little attention to Comestor and the History, his descriptive label, “biblicalmoral,” proved influential in subsequent discussions of Comestor's work. See, for example, Chenu, , Thomas d'Aquin, 201–2, and Smalley, , Study of the Bible, 196–97.Google Scholar

11 Landgraf, Artur, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur,” RTAM 3 (1931): 292–306. Landgraf's second article followed up on his first. Landgraf, Artur, “Recherches sur les écrits de Pierre le Mangeur: le traité ‘De Sacramentis,”’ RTAM 3 (1931): 341–72. Martin's, article was related to both. Martin, Raymond-M., “Notes sur l'oeuvre littéraire de Pierre le Mangeur,” RTAM 3 (1931): 54–66.Google Scholar

12 Landgraf referred to multiple citations of Comestor in the works of Praepositinus, Peter the Chanter, Peter of Capua, Guy of Orchelles, Stephen Langton, and Godfrey of Poitiers, as well as in such important theological works as the Bamberg Summa and the Sentences attributed to Peter of Poitiers (“Pierre le Mangeur,” 294–305).Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 292. Both scholars, however, acknowledged the centrality of the History in Comestor's fame. Landgraf wrote: “Sa célébrité extraordinaire, il la doit à l'Historia scholastica, qui, dans la scolastique du XIIe et du XIIIe s., compte parmi les ceuvres les plus souvent citées” (ibid.). According to Martin, “Pierre le Mangeur est un grand nom dans l'histoire littéraire de la seconde partie du XIIe siècle…. Ce famosissimus doctor … est surtout connu par son Historia scholastica“ (“Pierre le Mangeur,” 54–55).Google Scholar

14 Martin, , “Pierre le Mangeur,” 55.Google Scholar

15 Martin, concluded: “Et c'est tout. Jusqu'à nouvel inventaire, il n'est plus permis de parler d'un commentaire de Pierre le Mangeur sur les Sentences de Pierre Lombard. Nous en possédons une introduction, un prologue, rien de plus” (ibid., 62). Landgraf, however, wrote: “Il semble cependant que précisément ce court fragment attribué par un ms au Manducator nous fournisse un moyen de lui attribuer un Glose sur les Sentences” (“Pierre le Mangeur: le traité ‘De Sacramentis,”’ 351).Google Scholar

16 Landgraf, , “Pierre le Mangeur: le traité ‘De Sacramentis,”’ 372.Google Scholar

17 The quotation is from Smalley, Beryl, The Gospels in the Schools, c. 1100–c. 1280 (London, 1985), 4 and n. 14. See also Brady, , “Peter Manducator” (n. 7 above) 454–90, and idem, ed., II Sent., 39–44.Google Scholar

18 Luscombe, David, “Peter Comestor,” in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Honor of Beryl Smalley , ed. Walsh, Katherine and Wood, Diana, 109–29 (Oxford, 1985), at 109. Luscombe reviews all of the evidence for Peter Comestor's relationship to Peter Lombard (ibid., 109–10).Google Scholar

19 Landgraf, Artur, Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante , trans. from Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Frühscholastik (Regensburg, 1948), by Geiger, Louis-B., and revised and updated by Landry, Albert-M. (Paris, 1973), 130–48 and especially 140–42. de Ghellinck, Joseph, L'essor (n. 5 above), 1:70–73.Google Scholar

20 de Ghellinck, Joseph, L'essor , 1:93–95. De Ghellinck did mention Comestor on a number of occasions in Le mouvement théologique (n. 2 above) but discussed the Historia Scholastica only in connection with the legend of the fraternity of Comestor, Gratian, and Lombard (Ghellinck, , Le mouvement théologique, 214).Google Scholar

21 Landgraf, , Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante , 140; idem, Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik, 4 vols. (Regensburg, 1952–56). In Landgraf's case, at least, such an outcome is surprising, given that he had earlier taken note of passages in the History that paralleled explicitly theological discussion in other works, such as, for example, on the Eucharist (Landgraf, “Pierre le Mangeur,” 303 and n. 45, and “Pierre le Mangeur: le traité ‘De Sacramentis,”’ 348) and on baptism: “Dans l'Historia scholastica nous lisons en effet une remarque qui semble légitimer la conclusion que, précisément dans la doctrine du baptême, le Comestor a eu sous les yeux les Sentences du Lombard” (ibid., 346). As I show below, Comestor did, in fact, have the Sentences under his eyes in composing the first twenty-five chapters of the Historia Genesis. Google Scholar

22 Beryl Smalley saw the Historia scholastica in the context of the biblical work of the Victorines and in particular the Victorine emphasis on the literal sense of Scripture (Smalley, , Study of the Bible [n. 3 above] 178–80, 196–215; “The greatest triumph for the Victorine tradition was the success of the Histories“ [214]). More recently, Joseph Goering has called into question Grabmann's original classification of twelfth-century theologians into speculative and non-speculative but still characterizes Comestor's work as practical. See Goering, Joseph, William de Montibus (c. 1140–1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies: Studies and Texts 108 (Toronto, 1992), 36–40.Google Scholar

23 Thus, for example, Dahan, in his recent overview of biblical commentary from the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, which includes a comprehensive review of relevant scholarship, accepts without question the conventional demarcation between the Sentences and the History : Dahan, Gilbert, L'Exégeσe chrétienne de la Bible en Occident medieval, XIIe–XIVe siècle , Christianisme, Patrimoines (Paris, 1999), 102–9. In the fall of 2003, the editors of Corpus Christianorum, who were preparing to publish Agneta Sylwan's edition of Comestor's Historia Genesis, asked me to share my own dissertation research on that work. I sent them substantial portions both of my edition of the Historia Genesis and of my thesis, including material documenting my discovery of Peter Comestor's extensive use of the Lombard's Sentences in that portion of the History. Although the apparatus to Agneta Sylwan's just-published edition (CCM, April 2005) of the Historia Genesis records to some extent Comestor's use of the Sentences, I provide comprehensive documentation of Comestor's use of the Lombard in the Historia Genesis both in the Textual Appendix that follows the body of this article (for the first eight chapters of the History) and in my dissertation: Clark, Mark J., “A Study of Peter Comestor's Method in the Historia Genesis“ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2002), Textual Appendix A, 1–55. More importantly, I also provide in this article an in-depth account of the manner of Comestor's use of the Sentences. I give my other reasons for using my text and apparatus in spite of the appearance of Sylwan's edition (see Appendix 1, n. 3 below).Google Scholar

24 For an argument that Comestor's method in the History was, in fact, novel in many respects, see Clark, , “A Study of Peter Comestor's Method.” Google Scholar

25 Landgraf, , “Pierre le Mangeur,” 305–6.Google Scholar

26 Martin, , “Pierre le Mangeur” (n. 11 above), 65–66.Google Scholar

27 For the discussion that follows, I provide at the end of this article a Textual Appendix (cited throughout as “TA”) that consists of a working edition of the first eight chapters of Comestor's Historia Genesis preceded by a list of the manuscripts used.Google Scholar

28 As Hugh of St. Cher puts it in his commentary on the History: “Materia quidem huius libri est eadem quae et totius Bibliae” (Uppsala, University Library MS C 134 [Dominican Convent of Sigtuna, 1233–1248], fol. 3v^a). Hugh exaggerated, but not much. For a description of the manuscripts containing Hugh's commentary on the Historia scholastica , see Lehtinen, Anja Inkeri, “The Apopeciae of the Manuscripts of Hugh of St. Cher's Works,” Medioevo 25 (1999–2000): 3–10.Google Scholar

29 Christian biblical commentators had, of course, occasionally organized their works into chapters, which were themselves divided topically. For Genesis, see, for example, Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber (ed. Zycha, Joseph, CSEL 28.1, 436–503), and Maurus, Rabanus, Commentarius in Genesim (PL 107: 439–670). In many such commentaries, however, headings seem nominal and somewhat arbitary. See, for example, Augustodunensis, Honorius, Hexaemeron (PL 172: 253–66), and Pseudo-Bede, , Expositio in primum librum Mosi (PL 91: 189–286). Nevertheless, what chiefly distinguishes Comestor's, History from these and other such works is the cogency of the narrative that he produced in using a method that was at once faithful to and independent of Sacred Scripture. See Clark, , “A Study of Comestor's Method,” 34–300.Google Scholar

30 “De prima creatione caeli et terrae” (TA 40).Google Scholar

31 “De prima mundi confusione” (TA 82).Google Scholar

32 As Langton says in his first commentary on the History: “In hoc autem capitulo nihil ultra hanc clausulam exponit Magister: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram” (Paris, BNF MS Lat. 14417, fol. 129r^a ).Google Scholar

33 It is beyond the scope of this paper to situate Comestor's hexaemeral account within the broader context of the twelfth century as a whole. That Comestor was both aware and distrustful of the issues and controversies associated with Chartrian thinkers is patent from his numerous references to Plato and his errors. See, for example, TA 57–64, 99–101, 256–61, etc. Nevertheless, I restrict my efforts herein to establishing the connection of Comestor's hexaemeral account with the Lombard's. I do, however, provide, in the critical apparatus, extensive documentation of the sources Comestor used. For a recent and thorough overview of twelfth-century hexaemeral developments, from the various Chartrian theories of creation up to and including the Lombard's account, as well as up-to-date scholarly bibliography, see Colish, , Peter Lombard (n. 4 above), 1:303–97.Google Scholar

34 The title and remarks preliminary to Book II make this plain: “INGIPIT LIBER SECUNDUS: De rerum creatione et formatione corporalium et spiritualium et aliis pluribus eis pertinentibus. Quae ad mysterium divinae unitatis atque trinitatis, licet ex parte, cognoscendum pertinere noscuntur, quantum valuimus, diligenter exsecuti sumus. Nunc ad considerationem creaturarum transeamus” (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 329.1–6]). In Book I, of course, the Lombard dealt only with God and the Trinity.Google Scholar

35 Lombard, Peter, II. Sent. , dist. 1, chap. 1.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 329.9–10).Google Scholar

36 Brady notes this in his apparatus (ibid.). Bede, Compare, Libri quattuor in principium Genesis 1:1 (CCL 118A, 3.1–6) with GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^a.3).Google Scholar

37 Brady notes this as well (“ex eius Prothematibus seu ex verbis Strabi”). Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 1, chap. 1.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 329, apparatus to chap. 1.1).Google Scholar

38 Lombard, Peter, II Sent . (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 329, apparatus to dist. 1 and throughout for individual instances). Colish too takes note of this “one feature of Peter's treatment of creation that is, for him, unusual.” Colish, , Peter Lombard, 1:336. Indeed, noting Brady's clear documentation of the Lombard's “dependence on intermediary sources,” she observes that such dependence “is quite atypical of his methodology more generally” (ibid.). It must be admitted then that, in exploiting systematically his Master's hexaemeral account, Comestor to some extent relied on the Lombard at his most atypical. This admission, however, has no bearing on my thesis in this paper. Indeed, it may be, as Landgraf's observations (n. 21 above) suggest, that Comestor also made use of the Lombard at his most typical. Nonetheless, my purpose is not to show Comestor as a faithful Lombardian — quite the contrary, the structure and substance of the History clearly show otherwise —but rather to document the fact, overlooked by scholars until now, that, in composing his History, Comestor made extensive use of the Sentences. Google Scholar

39 In contrast to the Lombard, Comestor carefully consulted original sources in his hexaemeral account. See, for example, Clark, , “A Study of Comestor's Method” (n. 23 above), 93–94.Google Scholar

40 TA 57–58.Google Scholar

41 TA 56–57. I have emended the text to accord with the obviously correct reading in Jerome's gloss of Genesis 6:2: “Videntes autem filii dei filias hominum quia bonae sunt. Verbum hebraicum eloim communis est numeri: et deus quippe et di similiter appellantur” (Jerome, , Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Genesis , Gen. 6:2 [CCL 72, 9]). Cf. Sylwan, , ed. (CCM 191, 7.22); this edition has the correct reading, but it is not clear from the apparatus which manuscript supports it.Google Scholar

42 “Moyses dicit: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, per Deum significans Patrem, per principium Filium. Et pro eo quod apud nos dicitur Deus hebraica Veritas habet Elohim, quod est plurale huius singularis quod est El. Quod ergo non est dictum El, quod est Deus, sed Elohim, quod potest interpretari dii sive iudices, ad pluralitatem personarum refertur” (Lombard, Peter, I Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 4.5 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 65.26–31]). One early manuscript of the History, BL Royal MS 4 D.VII (hereinafter “S” for St. Albans), adds iudices, additional evidence that the Lombard was Comestor's principal source for this passage. The Lombard's likely source was Abelard, Peter, Theologia scholarium, 1.69 (CCM 13, 345.765–346.775).Google Scholar

43 TA 57–64.Google Scholar

44 Basil, for example, devoted significant attention in the first homilies of his Nine Homilies on the Hexaemeron to refuting these and other heterodox views of the philosophers on creation (Basil, , Homiliae IX in Hexaemeron , horn. 1.1–7, 2.1–3; Amand de Mendieta, E. and Rudberg, S. Y., eds., Eustathius: Ancienne version latine des neuf homélies sur l'Hexaéméron de Basile de Césarée, 66 [Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958], 4–13, 18–22). Ambrose, who followed Basil closely, began his Exameron with a passage similar to Comestor's (Ambrose, Exameron, sermo 1, 1.1.1–3 [CSEL 32.1, 3.1–4.8]). In the twelfth century, renewed acquaintance with the Timaeus focused attention on Plato's identification of three eternal first principles in that work: “Haec est meae quidem sententiae mens esse et ante mundi quoque sensilis exornationem fuisse tria haec: existens locum generationem” (Timaeus 52d; Plato, , Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus , ed. Waszink, Jan Hendrik [London, 1962], 51.6–7). See also the commentary of Chalcidius: “Sunt igitur initia deus et silva et exemplum, et est deus quidem origo primaria moliens et posita in actu, silva vero ex qua prima fit quod gignitur” (ibid., 308.14–309.2). John of Salisbury, introducing the Platonism of Bernard of Chartres, restated the position clearly in the Metalogicon: “Hanc autem veram existentiam partiebatur in tria quae rerum principia statuebat, Deum scilicet, materiam, et ideam. Siquidem haec in sui natura immutabilia sunt” (John of Salisbury, Metalogicon 4.35 [CCM 98, 173.22–25]).Google Scholar

45 John of Salisbury gives a summary of the views of Epicurus similar to that presented by Comestor in his Metalogicon (ibid. 58.11–12): “sicuti Epicurus qui ex athomis et inani mundum sine auctore Deo constituit.” Google Scholar

46 By contrast, Andrew of Saint Victor relied not on Peter Lombard but rather on the Gloss, from which he borrowed verbatim and extensively to explicate the same material. Cf. Andrew of Victor, Saint, Expositio super Heptateuchum, In Genesim 1:1 (CCM 53, 8.92–9.99).Google Scholar

47 Ibid., Prologus (CCM 53, 4.20–23).Google Scholar

48 Basil, , Homiliae IX in Hexaemeron , horn. 1.5–7 (De Mendieta, and Rudberg, , eds., Eustathius: Ancienne version latine des neuf homélies sur l'Hexaéméron de Basile de Césarée , 9–13).Google Scholar

49 “Sed etiam angeli, dominationes et potestates etsi aliquando coeperunt, erant tamen iam, quando hic mundus est factus. omnia namque creata et condita sunt, visibilia et invisibilia, sive sedes sive dominationes sive principatus sive potestates …” (Ambrose, , Exam. , sermo 1, 1.5.19 [CSEL 32.1, 15.23–27], also citing Col. 1:16).Google Scholar

50 For the key passages in the theory, see Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim , 4.21–22, 26 (CSEL 32.1, 120.8–122.25, 125.3–126.8), in which Augustine argues for understanding the days and nights spoken of in the hexaemeron as movements interior to the spiritual creation, namely the angels, first with respect to their own creation and subsequently with respect to the remainder of creation. I discuss Augustine's theory below in connection with the retreat from, and adaptation of, his position on the part of other thinkers, the Lombard and Comestor included, down into the twelfth century.Google Scholar

51 One can see this readily in such important sources as Bede's commentary on Genesis and, in the twelfth century, the biblical Glossa ordinaria. Google Scholar

52 Andrew of Victor, Saint, In Gen. , 1:1 (CCM 53, 6.15–25).Google Scholar

53 Ibid. (6.26–28, 7.36–38).Google Scholar

54 Ibid. (7.42–52).Google Scholar

55 Hugh of Victor, Saint, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pentateuchon 4 (PL 175: 245–64).Google Scholar

56 The Lombard discusses angels in all thirteen distinctions dealing with the first day of creation. From distinctions two through thirteen, there is copious and detailed analysis of their role and destiny. See Lombard, Peter, II Sent. (Grottaferrata, 1971, 336–90). See also Colish, , Peter Lombard (n. 4 above), 1:347–53.Google Scholar

57 By mundus he meant world in the broadest sense.Google Scholar

58 TA 42–43.Google Scholar

59 TA 51–53.Google Scholar

60 The Glossa interlinearis, for example, has “spiritualem et corporalem creaturam” as the first interlinear gloss given for “heaven and earth” (GI, Gen 1:1 ad loc. [Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^a]). Andrew of Saint Victor's gloss is identical (In Gen. 1:1 [CCM 53, 6.15]). The marginal Gloss reproduces an excerpt along the same lines from Remigius of Auxerre: “Creavit enim coelum et teram [sic]. Coelum non istud visibile firmamentum accipere debemus, sed illud empyreum, id est igneum, vel intellectuale coelum quod non ab ardore, sed a splendore igneum dicitur.” (Rem. Aux., Commentarius in Genesim 1:1 [PL 131: 54D–55A]). Cf. GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^a.3).Google Scholar

61 Christian commentators on Genesis as widely cited as Bede and as unconventional as Andrew of Saint Victor did so. See Bede, , In Gen. , Gen. 1:1 (CCL 118A, 3.4), and Andrew of Saint Victor, In Gen. 1:1 (CCM 53, 6.1).Google Scholar

62 Comestor actually inverted the standard approach to glossing Genesis 1:1. The word mundus, which prompted his initial comment on the angelic heaven, was not just part of his commentary but rather the final word of his opening paraphrase of the beginnings of Genesis and John's Gospel. It was, together with the remade scriptural text, a part of the lemma that had to be glossed. Moreover, as a result of his atypical approach, Comestor did not gloss heaven until he had fully explained the possible understandings of mundus and introduced the actual text of Genesis 1:1 as part of his commentary.Google Scholar

63 TA 66–68.Google Scholar

64 TA 109–11. Cf. Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 1.1 (CSEL 28.1, 11.15–20). See also, for example, Bede, , In Gen., 1:1 (CCL 118A, 12.292–95); GI, Gen. 1:4 ad loc. (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10^a) and GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10^a.1).Google Scholar

65 TA 111. According to Augustine, this was a literal reading of Scripture, since the hexaemeron refers not to actual days but rather to a succession of interior recognitions by angels of creation. See my discussion, below, of Augustine's literal understanding of the hexaemeron, where I show Comestor's hexaemeral account to be part of a long Christian retreat from Augustinian idealism.Google Scholar

66 “VIDERI FECIT angelis, qui iam erant creati” (BNF MS Lat. 14414, fol. 115v^a).Google Scholar

67 TA 111, 115–16.Google Scholar

68 TA 128–29.Google Scholar

69 Bede, , In Gen. , Gen. 1:2 (CCL 118A, 4.34–47).Google Scholar

70 GO (Turnhout, 1992, Gen. 1:2 ad loc., vol. 1.9^a.11).Google Scholar

71 GO (Turnhout, 1992, Gen. 1:2 ad loc., vol. 1.9^a.3). The excerpt reproduced in the Gloss is a slightly modified version of the text of Remigius of Auxerre cited in n. 60 above.Google Scholar

72 Lombard, Peter, II Sent ., dist. 2, chap. 4.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 339.11–12).Google Scholar

73 See Brady's note to chapter 4.1 at Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 4.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 339). The Lombard's source reads: “Ubi facti fuerunt quaeritur…. Nec appellamus hic coelum firmamentum quod secunda die factum est, sed coelum empyreum; id est, splendidum quod statim repletum est angelis” (Summa sent., 2.1 [PL 176: 81C]).Google Scholar

74 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 4.2–3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 339–40 and apparatus), where Brady provides the relevant citations.Google Scholar

75 Cf. TA 51–55 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 1.2–4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 336.20, 337.16–17, 22–23).Google Scholar

76 Cf. TA 64–72 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 1.2–4, chap. 3–4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 337.1–338.18).Google Scholar

77 TA 127–28.Google Scholar

78 Lombard, Peter, II Sent ., dist. 2, chap. 4.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 339.11–12).Google Scholar

79 TA 72–75.Google Scholar

80 Lombard, Peter, II Sent ., dist. 14, chap. 9.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 390.25–399.13). As Brady notes, the Lombard's principal source for this passage was Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis Christianae fidei, 1.1.24–25 (PL 176: 202D–203A). Comestor too, of course, read Hugh carefully and would have recognized the Victorine as the Lombard's source.Google Scholar

81 The Lombard's outline was thoroughly traditional. Bede, for example, provided a concise outline similar in all respects (Bede, , In Gen. , Gen. 1:14 [CCL 118A, 15.398–413]). Moreover, one could argue that for this hexaemeral framework Hugh of Saint Victor was as much a source for Comestor as the Lombard. Let this be granted. The important point for my argument is that Comestor used the Lombard as a point of entry into the tradition and, more importantly, to frame the whole of his own treatment of creation.Google Scholar

82 “Ex materia informi” (VL, Wisd. of Sol. 11:17). Augustine and other patristic authors cited this text. See, for example, Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber 2–3 (CSEL 28.1, 464.22–23). The reading of the Vulgate was different: “quae creavit orbem terrarum ex materia invisa” (Wisd. of Sol. 11:18).Google Scholar

83 “Quamvis nihil de aëre vel igne vel aqua dictum sit” (Basil, Homiliae IX in Hexaemeron, horn. 1.7 [De Mendieta, and Rudberg, , eds., Eustathius: Ancienne version latine des neuf homélies sur l'Hexaéméron de Basile de Césaré'e (n. 44 above), 12.26–27]).Google Scholar

84 “Non ergo quaeras de singulis rationem, sed illa quoque, quae silentio scriptura praeteriit, ex his quae relata sunt debebis advertere” (ibid., 13.14–15).Google Scholar

85 Ibid., 12, 27–31.Google Scholar

86 “Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.” Google Scholar

87 “Sex enim diebus fecit Deus caelum et terram et mare et omnia quae in eis sunt et requievit in die septimo” (Exod. 20:11).Google Scholar

88 Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 1.1 (CSEL 28.1, 4.7–8).Google Scholar

89 Silvestris, Bernard, Cosmographia, Microcosmus , 13.1 (ed. Dronke, Peter [Leiden, 1978], 146.1–5).Google Scholar

90 See, for example, Augustine, , De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1, 2, 3–4 (PL 34: 178): “Primo ergo materia facta est confusa et informis, unde omnia fierent quae distincta atque formata sunt, quod credo a Graecis chaos appellari.” Google Scholar

91 The best concise explanation, on which I have relied, and which provides references to the key passages, is found in Augustine, , La Genèse au sens littéral en douze livres , trans. and comm. Agaësse, P. and Solignac, A., de saint Augustin, Oeuvres 48–49 (Paris, 1972), 48.646–47.Google Scholar

92 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 2, 1.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, apparatus to 384–85), citing Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis, 1.2–3 (PL 176: 187CD–188AB). Brady, who provides relevant citations, questions the inclusion of Jerome in the list and also notes that the Lombard was relying not on original sources but on excerpts from the Gloss. Google Scholar

93 Lombard, Peter, II Sent ., dist. 12, chap. 2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 384.17–385.20).Google Scholar

94 It is important to note that neither the creation account of the Lombard nor that of Comestor can be regarded as embracing the whole spectrum of twelfth-century hexaemeral developments. For a good orientation to and overview of twelfth-century discussion of Augustinian doctrine of creation, see Gross, Charlotte, “Twelfth-Century Concepts of Time: Three Reinterpretations of Augustine's Doctrine of Creation Simul,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 23 (1985): 325–38.Google Scholar

95 TA 40. The rubric is omitted in one of the five early manuscripts upon which I base my working edition of the Historia Genesis, namely BL MS Royal 7 F.III (hereinafter “E”); I adopt the text in BNF, MS Lat. 16943 (hereinafter “C”).Google Scholar

96 The word prima is omitted in three early (before 1215) manuscripts: Vienna, NB, MS Lat. 363 (hereinafter “M”), Durham Cathedral MS B I 34 (hereinafter “F”), and BL MS Royal 4 D.VII (hereinafter “S”), and in six others that I have examined: Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 566 (hereinafter “u”), Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 567 (hereinafter “v”), Graz, Univ. MS 141 (hereinafter “w”), Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek 272 (neu 390) and 273 (neu 402) (hereinafter “x”), Linz, Bundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek 26 (neu 490) (hereinafter “y”), and Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS Lat. 1205 (hereinafter “z”). For full descriptions of these eleven manuscripts as well as catalog references, see Clark, “A Study of Comestor's Method” (n. 23 above), Introduction to the Textual Appendices, 10–21.Google Scholar

97 “Terram materiam omnium corporum id est quattuor elementa in est mundum sensilem ex his constantem” (TA 53–54). He follows this with another: “Quidam caelum superiores partes mundi sensilis intellegunt, terram inferiores et palpabiles” (TA 54–55). Both glosses are in the Glossa ordinaria: “caelum et terram id est spiritualem et corporalem creaturam; omnem scilicet creaturam corporalem superiorem et inferiorem” (GI, Gen. 1:1 ad loc. [Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^a]).Google Scholar

98 TA 72–73.Google Scholar

99 TA 68–72, citing Ps. 101:26.Google Scholar

100 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 1.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 337.1–5).Google Scholar

101 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 5 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 336–340 and, for the quotation, 340.19–25). To account for this formlessness of the spiritual creation, the Lombard cited Augustine's theory that spiritual being remains unformed unless turned towards its creator for the temporarily unformed state of the initial spiritual creation (ibid., 341.1–5), citing Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (n. 50 above), 1.1, 5 (CSEL 28:1, 4.14–17, 8.22–9.11).Google Scholar

102 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , distinctions 3–11 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 341–84).Google Scholar

103 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 1.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 384.3–4).Google Scholar

104 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 1.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 384.10–16).Google Scholar

105 TA 83–84. Comestor used the word machina two more times in the History's second chapter (TA 85, 95). His likely source was chapter nine, distinction fourteen, Book Two of the Sentences — “disposita est universitatis huius mundi machina” — the same chapter from which he took his tripartite hexaemeral framework (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 399.1]). Christian commentators used the word machina frequently enough to stand for the newly created world that it was incorporated into the Glossa interlinearis for Genesis 1:2: “aquas … id est totam corporalem machinam quia ex humida natura formantur quae videmus in species varias” (GI, Gen. 1:2 ad loc. [Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^b]).Google Scholar

106 TA 84–86. In this passage Comestor put together a text from chapter five of distinction two with another from distinction twelve. Cf. Lombard, Peter, 77 Sent. , dist. 2, chap. 5 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 340.19–22) and dist. 12, chap. 1.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 384.9–12). I translate Graecus as “the Greeks,” since the word chaos is a common term in Greek philosophy and since Christian commentators had long discussed it generally as a Greek term and position. See, for example, Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber 2–3 (CSEL 28.1, 466.11–12). Comestor elsewhere refers to Plato and Aristotle by name.Google Scholar

107 TA 91–97.Google Scholar

108 See, Augustine, , De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1, 2, 3–4 (PL 34: 177–79), idem, De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber 4 (CSEL 28.1, 467.1–16,27–468.1–27), and idem, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 1.13–15 (CSEL 28.1, 19.23–20.19, 20.22–21.6, 22.15–24).Google Scholar

109 “Quare illa confusa materies vocetur terra, abyssus, aqua. … Eandem etiam vocat abyssum dicens: Et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi, quia confusa erat et commixta, specie distincta carens. Eadem etiam materia informis dicta est aqua, super quam ferebatur spiritus Domini, sicut superfertur fabricandis rebus voluntas artificis, quia subiacebat bonae voluntati Creatoris quod formandae…. Haec ideo dicta est aqua. … His omnibus vocabulis vocata est illa informis materia ut res ignota notis vocabulis insinuaretur imperitioribus; et non uno tantum, nam si uno tantum significaretur vocabulo, hoc esse putaretur quod consueverant homines in illo vocabulo intelligere. Sub his ergo nominibus significata est materia illa invisa et informis” (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 3.2 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 385.18–386.13]).Google Scholar

110 TA 86–89. The second originated with the Manichees (Augustine, , De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1, 2, 3–4 [PL 34: 176]). Bede also discussed the position in his In Gen., 1:1 (CCL 118A, 5.76–84), and the compilers of the Gloss included his discussion in shortened form. See GO, Gen. 1:2 (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^b.3).Google Scholar

111 TA 89–91, citing Dan. 3:72.Google Scholar

112 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 3.3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 386.16–21), quoting Augustine, , De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1, 2, 3–4 (PL 34: 176–77). Brady also notes similar language in the Confessiones 12.3.3.Google Scholar

113 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 3.3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 386.22–387.4).Google Scholar

114 TA 111–13. Cf. Ambrose, , Exam. , 1.2, 5 (CSEL 32.1, 33.13–34.6).Google Scholar

115 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 5.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 387.9–10). Brady notes that the Lombard's interrogative chapter heading simply rephrases the language of Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis (PL 176: 190A).Google Scholar

116 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 5.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 387.9–26). The Lombard repeated his position, citing Alcuin through the Gloss, in chapter 6 (ibid., 1.2, 388.25–389.6). As Brady notes, all of chapter 5.2 is based upon Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis, 1.1.4 (PL 176: 189C–D).Google Scholar

117 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 5.3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 388.1–9). The Lombard added that certain thinkers — Brady names Augustine in the De Genesi ad litteram and Bede, and gives the relevant citations — thought that this formless mass extended above the firmament, but in a lighter and more rarified state (ibid., 1.2, 388.9–13).Google Scholar

118 In the fifth chapter, for example, the gathering of the waters into one place and the consequent appearance of dry land led Comestor to discuss the various names for earth. For one name, Comestor used the earth's position relative to the other elements to supply the etymology (TA 171–76).Google Scholar

119 TA 137–41.Google Scholar

120 TA 192–95.Google Scholar

121 TA 127–28.Google Scholar

122 Bede, , for example, in explicating Gen. 1:2 (“Terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi”) mentioned numerous other biblical passages (Bede, , In Gen., 1:1 [CCL 118A, 4.34–5.89–100], citing Ps. 148:4–5). A concise version of Bede's text was reproduced in the Gloss (GO [Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^b.3]). Comestor would also have seen reproduced in the Gloss an unattributed excerpt, actually the solution of Pseudo-Remigius of Auxerre, in which the problem of the four elements in creation was addressed in connection with the opening line of Genesis: “In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. … Et nota tria hic commemorari elementa. Nomine caeli aerem intelligimus [sic]. Nomine terrae ipsam et ignem qui in ea latet. Quarti id est aquae in sequentibus fit mentio” (GO [Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.9^a.3]). Cf. Rem. Aux., Commentarius in Genesim 1:1 (PL 131: 55A).Google Scholar

123 “Talis fuit mundi facies in principio, priusquam reciperet formam vel dispositionem” (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 5.3 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 388.13–14]).Google Scholar

124 “Nunc superest ut dispositionem illam, qualiter perfecta sit, ordine prosequamur. Sex diebus, sicut docet Scriptura Genesis, distinxit Deus et in formas redegit proprias cuncta quae simul materialiter fecerat” (ibid., 388.16–19).Google Scholar

125 Cf. TA 103–4 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 13, chap. 6 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 393.6–16). As Brady notes, the Lombard's source was the Gloss adaptation and excerpt from Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram: GO, Gen. 1:3 (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10.1).Google Scholar

126 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 13, chap. 2.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 389.21–390.9). As Brady notes, the Lombard's source was the GO, Gen. 1:3 (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10^a.3).Google Scholar

127 Cf. Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 13, chap. 2.3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 390.10–14) and TA 104–8.Google Scholar

128 TA 120–25. Dawn and morning in the strict sense never happened on the first day, so that a full natural day, i.e., twenty-four hours, was completed only with the coming of the dawn and morning that followed evening and the first night. In the words of the Vulgate (Gen 1:5): “factumque est vespere et mane dies unus.” As Brady notes, the Lombard relied on excerpts in the Gloss attributed to Augustine but actually from Bede (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 13, chap. 4.2, 5.2 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 391.12–26, 392.11–18]).Google Scholar

129 “Duo sequentes dies attributi sunt supremae et infimae parti mundi, firmamento scilicet, aëri, terrae et aquae” (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 9.2 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 399.2–4]).Google Scholar

130 TA 129–34. See Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 2–4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 395.15–23–396.1–12), which was based on GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.11^a.1), which was itself based on Bede, , In Gen., 1:6–8 (CCL 118A, 10.241–68), who, as Brady notes, was relying at least in part on Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 2.5 (CSEL 28.1, 38.18–39.17). See also: GI, Gen. 1:6 ad loc. (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10^b).Google Scholar

131 TA 146–47. For relevant sources please see preceding note.Google Scholar

132 Cf. TA 168 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 7 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 397.19–398.1). Immediately following his quotation of the standard scriptural wording, the Lombard reverted to his own: “Tertii diei opus est congregatio aquarum in unum locum” (ibid.).Google Scholar

133 TA 168–73. Cf. Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 7–8.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 397.20–398.13), which is based on GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.11^b.5), which was itself taken from Bede, , In Gen., 1:6–8 (CCL 118A.12.325–13.342).Google Scholar

134 Cf. TA 192–95 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 9.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 398.25–399.13).Google Scholar

135 “Quarto die quae disposuerat coepit ornare rebus illis quae infra mundum uniuersum congruis motibus aggerentur. Plantae enim, quia terrae haerent, ad dispositionem terrae quasi magis spectant, et sicut dispositionem, sic et ornatum inchoavit a superioribus” (TA 197–200). Comestor's most likely source was chapter 9.3 of distinction fourteen of Book Two (Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 9.3 [Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 399.14–16]), which was itself based on the Gloss (GO, Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.12^b.1), which was itself based on Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 2.13 (CSEL 28.1, 53.1–14). The Lombard, however, also made the same point in II Sent., dist. 13, chap. 1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 389.9–15).Google Scholar

136 TA 200–201.Google Scholar

137 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 9.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 399.9); and Flavius Josephus, The Latin Josephus I: Introduction and Text — The Antiquities: Books I–V , ed. Blatt, Franz, 1.31 (Copenhagen, 1958), 127.12–13.Google Scholar

138 Cf. TA 205–9 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 14, chap. 10 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 399.17–25); TA 209–11 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent., dist. 13, chap. 5.3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 392.19–24), which was itself a reworking of the GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.12^b.1), which originated with Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 1.1 (CSEL 28.1, 16.8–23); and finally TA 211–14 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent., dist. 13, chap. 5.4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 393.1–4), which was taken both from Hugh of Saint Victor, De sacramentis, 1.1.15 (PL 176: 198D–199A) and the Gloss (GO, Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.10^a.3), which was itself based on Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 1.1 (CSEL 28.1, 16.8–17.16).Google Scholar

139 Cf. GI, Gen. 1:14 ad loc. (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.12^b) with TA 215–16.Google Scholar

140 Cf. TA 252 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 400.15–20).Google Scholar

141 Cf. TA 284–92 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 401.16–27), and TA 292–304 with Lombard, Peter, II Sent., dist. 15, chap. 3 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 401.6–15). For both Peters, and in particular the treatment of animals harming other animals, see GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.14^b.4–5).Google Scholar

142 Cf. Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chapters 3–4 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 401.6–27, and the notes provided in the apparatus by Brady) with GO (Turnhout, 1992, vol. 1.14^b.4–5).Google Scholar

143 Comestor, for example, addressed the question for what purpose animals harm other animals, which, although it is part of the Gloss excerpt of Augustine, is nevertheless omitted in the Lombard's treatment. Other details, such as, for example, Comestor's discussion of the question why animals harm the corpses of dead men, which neither Augustine nor the Gloss nor the Lombard addresses, show that Comestor also consulted other sources.Google Scholar

144 The first and main text, which I translate above, is at Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 12, chap. 2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 384–85).Google Scholar

145 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 5.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 402.6–18).Google Scholar

146 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 6.1 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 402.19–403.8). Brady, who provides in the apparatus the series of relevant citations to Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram and the De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber, nevertheless also notes that the Lombard himself relied on the Gloss for his information.Google Scholar

147 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 6.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 403.9–15) and accompanying references provided by Brady.Google Scholar

148 Lombard, Peter, II Sent. , dist. 15, chap. 6.2 (Grottaferrata, 1971, 1.2, 403.15–19).Google Scholar

149 As always, Comestor rearranged the Lombard's material to suit his purposes. He started off chapter nine with a reworked version of Book Two, distinction sixteen, chapters 1, 2, and 3.1, 5, and 6. In chapter ten, he went back to distinction fifteen, chapter 9.1. In chapter eleven, he made use of chapter 9.2 of distinction fifteen as well as chapters 7, 8.1 and 2, and 10.1. He did the same through the twenty-fifth chapter of the Historia Genesis, where Comestor's systematic use of the Lombard ended with the twenty-third distinction of Book Two. Up to that point, Comestor's use of the Sentences was comprehensive in that the Lombard's work provided not only a principal point of entry but also raw material and a rough outline. Comestor did not use everything that was in the Sentences, but his treatment of the first three chapters of Genesis was pregnant with the Lombard's ideas and material. As with chapters three through eight, Comestor's work in subsequent chapters can be traced directly to particular distinctions and chapters in Book Two of the Sentences. For evidence of and precise references documenting Comestor's use of the Sentences in chapters nine through twenty-five of the Historia Genesis, consult the second level of the apparatus to Textual Appendix A, 26–54, in Clark, , “A Study of Comestor's Method” (n. 23 above).Google Scholar

150 It is beyond the scope of this paper not only to inquire into the details of Comestor's complex and novel method in composing the History but also to attempt to classify Comestor's work in the context of twelfth-century theology. It would, however, be worthwhile to point out what Comestor was not. He was not an abbreviator of the Sentences, as were, for example, Bandinus, Magister, Sententiae libri quatuor (PL 192: 964–1111), and Gandulphus of Bologna, Sententiarum libri quatuor (ed. de Walter, J. [Vienna, 1924]). For a good orientation to these men, as well as secondary literature on the works that they produced, see Colish, Marcia, “From the Sentence Collection to the Sentence Commentary and the Summa: Parisian Scholastic Theology, 1130–1215,” Manuels, programmes de cours et techniques d'enseignement dans les universitiés médiévales , ed. Hamesse, Jacqueline (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994), 9–29, and eadem, “The Development of Lombardian Theology, 1160–1215,” Centres of Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East , ed. Drijvers, Jan Willem and MacDonald, Alasdair A. (Leiden, 1995), 210. Lombard's, Peter abbreviators consciously imitated the Sentences, following his division of theology into four books, and retaining his structure of distinctions and questions as well. Their debt to the Lombard's Sentences is both conscious and instantly recognizable. Comestor's, by contrast, has remained latent in all probability since the mid-thirteenth century, when the two greatest commentators on the History, Stephen Langton, who produced two complete commentaries on that work, and Hugh of St. Cher, both used the Sentences to revise and correct Comestor's use of the Sentences. For an up-to-date orientation to their commentaries on the Sentences , see Clark, Mark J., “The Commentaries on Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica of Stephen Langton, Pseudo-Langton, and Hugh of St. Cher,” Sacris erudiri (forthcoming, 2005). Moreover, as Colish notes, Gandulph and the other abbreviators intentionally simplified the Sentences, dispensing with the Lombard's careful evaluation of sources, in order to render them “more accessible to beginners” (Colish, , “Parisian Scholastic Theology,” 17–19 [quoted text at 19]). Comestor, by contrast, even though he too simplified the material that he took from the Sentences, produced a work that bore no resemblance whatsoever either to that of the Lombard or to those of his abbreviators. Indeed, a cursory comparison of Comestor's hexaemeral account in his Historia Genesis with that of Magister Bandinus, for example, reveals the gulf between the aims and methods of the two men. There is, to be sure, common material, as one would expect from two authors relying heavily on the Lombard. Cf., for example, Bandinus, , II Sent., distinctions 11–14 (PL 192: 1040B–1043BC) with TA 40–313. Nevertheless, in stark contrast to the Lombard's abbreviators, Comestor's use of his master's work lies hidden beneath a carefully constructed historical narrative.Google Scholar

151 In this regard, the words of George Lacombe about Comestor's, History , written in 1930, remain apt today: “There was a time when the Historia Scholastica was one of the most widely used books in Christendom. Today it is almost a miracle to find any one who has read it” (Lacombe, George, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton,” pt. 1, Archives d'histoire et littéraire du môyen age 5: 5–151, at 24). More recently, Jacques LeGoff lamented the fact that, in spite of Comestor's exalted medieval reputation, he remains “little studied and poorly known” (LeGoff, Jacques, La Naissance du Purgatoire [Paris, 1981], 213; Engl. trans: The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).Google Scholar

152 A portion of the dedication is reprinted at Denifle, H. and Chatelain, A., eds., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1889), 473–74. Bacon's complaint was passionate:Google Scholar Quartum peccatum [studii theologie] est quod prefertur una Summa magistralis textui facultatis theologice, scilicet liber Sententiarum, nam ibi est tota gloria theologorum, que facit onus unius equi. Et postquam illum legerit quis, jam presumit se de magistro theologie, quamvis non audiat tricesimam partem sui textus. Et bacalarius qui legit textum succumbit lectori Sententiarum Parisius et ubique, et in omnibus honoratur et prefertur. Nam ille qui legit Sententias, habet principalem horam legendi secundum suam voluntatem, habet et socium et cameram apud religiosa. Sed qui legit Bibliam, caret his et mendicat horam legendi, secundum quod placet lectori Sententiarum. Et ille qui legit Sententias, disputat et pro magistro habetur; reliquus qui textum legit, non potest disputare, sicut fuit hoc anno Bononie et in multis aliis locis, quod est absurdum. Manifestum est igitur quod textus illius facultatis subjicitur uni Summe magistrali (ibid., 473).Google Scholar Although Bacon uses the term Biblia once in this passage, he mainly refers to the Bible as “the Text” and emphasizes repeatedly that the Bible is the text par excellence of a theological faculty. Bacon's language shows his impatience with a situation in which those who read the Sentences rather than the Bible enjoyed all theological prerogatives.Google Scholar

153 “Nam omnis alia facultas utitur textu suo, et legitur textus in scolis, quia statuto textu suo solum statuuntur omnia que pertinent ad facultatem, quia propter hoc sunt textus facti, [et] hic longe magis, quia textus hic de ore Dei et sanctorum allatus [est] mundo” (ibid.). Bacon's argument seems unanswerable, since unlike other faculties, which must produce their own texts to establish the proper objects for study in their respective schools, a theological faculty is unlikely to improve on one given by God.Google Scholar

154 “Et est ita magnus quod vix sufficeret aliquis lector ad perlegendum eum in tota vita sua…. Deinde sancti doctores non usi sunt nisi hoc textu, neque sapientes antiqui, quorum aliquos vidimus, ut fuit dominus Robertus episcopus Lincolniensis et frater Adam de Marisco, et alii maximi viri” (ibid.). The word magnus can be understood to refer to the size and extent of the Bible, as I have here rendered it, or it could instead be meant to convey that text's greatness. Either meaning makes sense in context. Bacon's eyewitness testimony — “some of whom we have seen” — underscores how recent the transition away from theology based solely upon the Bible had been.Google Scholar

155 “Alexander fuit primus qui legit et tunc legebatur aliquando, sicut liber Historiarum solebat legi, et adhuc legitur rarissime. Et mirum est quod sic est exaltatus liber Sententiarum, quia liber Historiarum est magis proprie theologie. Nam prosequitur textum a principio usque in finem, exponendo ipsum. Et liber Sententiarum non adheret textui, sed vagatur extra textum per viam inquisitionis. Si igitur aliqua Summa deberet preferri in studio theologie, debet liber Historiarum factus vel de novo fiendus; ut scilicet aliquis tractatus certus fieret de historia sacri textus” (ibid., 473–74).Google Scholar

156 Research into the History's place in developing theology would be interesting in this connection. See Chenu, Marie-Dominique, La théologie au douzième siècle (n. 6 above) and idem, La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1948), and more recently, Evans, G. R., Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar

157 Smalley, , Study of the Bible , 214 (n. 3 above), where she provides the translation and a citation.Google Scholar