In this study I introduce what is likely to be the earliest version of the Sentences yet brought to the attention of scholars. The version in Lincoln Cathedral MS 230 is one of the first fruits of my stated intention to have another look at early manuscripts of the Sentences.Footnote 1 Ignatius Brady relied upon thirteen manuscripts for his edition of the Sentences, eight of which he dated to the twelfth century; of this twelfth-century group, he relied on four as the most important for his edition.Footnote 2 Not one, however, was produced or copied during Peter Lombard's lifetime.Footnote 3
It is noteworthy that none of the thirteen manuscripts relied upon by Brady are English, even though Peter Lombard's teaching career at Paris fell squarely within a century of intensive Anglo-Norman relations. The question should at least be asked whether Brady or any of his Franciscan predecessors who produced editions of the Sentences even had a look at the numerous copies of the works of Peter Lombard in England. In fact, copies of the Lombard's Sentences and of his works on the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles abound in English cathedral libraries even now, centuries after so many were removed following the Dissolution.Footnote 4 A very large number of those that I have examined during the past six months were copied during the twelfth century, and of these quite a few are very early indeed. I would not be at all surprised if some of these English manuscripts containing copies of the Lombard's various works prove to be the earliest in existence.
Lincoln Cathedral Library alone has two manuscripts preserving copies of the Sentences that are demonstrably older than any considered by Brady and his Franciscan editorial predecessors. Lincoln MS 31, donated by Bishop Robert of Chesney to Lincoln Cathedral Library upon his death in 1166, was copied in all likelihood during Peter Lombard's lifetime. Indeed, I show below that Robert, who may have studied with Peter Lombard in Paris before his election to the see of Lincoln in December of 1148, may have received from his former master two copies of the Sentences. The first was Lincoln MS 31, the second, the subject of this study, Lincoln MS 230, which preserves a much earlier copy of the Sentences in three books rather than four.Footnote 5 I show below that the version of the Sentences preserved in Lincoln MS 230 likely dates to the years 1146–48, which would mean that Peter Lombard began teaching the Sentences much earlier than Brady or indeed any other scholar has supposed.Footnote 6
There are two parts to this study. In the first, after examining part of an early chapter of the first book of “Sentences” in Lincoln MS 230, I set forth a text and translation of three full chapters from the same book in what we, the editors, are calling the Versio primitiva of the Sentences.Footnote 7 I juxtapose these chapters, both the Latin text and an English translation, with the corresponding passages in Book II in Brady's edition. I also compare and discuss the sources used in both versions. I include as well a table sent to me by Riccardo Saccenti, which juxtaposes the first chapter from Book II of the Versio primitiva with that in Book III of Brady's edition and thus shows that the story is the same in the other books as well.Footnote 8 My objective is threefold: to leave no doubt that the copy of the Sentences in MS 230 is an early version of the Sentences; to show that the Sentences were composed for lectures; and finally to show that the Sentences were a work in progress, developed to a great degree over time and even within the Lombard's lifetime.
Once the Versio primitiva in Lincoln MS 230 has been edited and made available, we can turn our editorial attention to Lincoln MS 31, which would enable us to trace the development of the Sentences during Peter Lombard's lifetime. There may well be other copies of the Sentences in England or elsewhere that are as early as, or even earlier than, Lincoln MSS 31 and 230.Footnote 9 Certainly Hereford O.VIII.9, which preserves a twelfth-century copy of the Sentences and which may be related to to Lincoln MS 31 through a common Parisian exemplar, will also have to be examined at great length and probably edited. For now, however, we must content ourselves with showing the development of the Sentences from the Versio primitiva to the version edited by Brady.Footnote 10
In the second and briefer part of this study, I discuss the historical circumstances surrounding Lincoln MS 230, both as regards what it teaches us about the Lombard's theological teaching in Paris and its presence in Lincoln Cathedral Library. In particular I set forth and discuss the available evidence that relates to dating the version of the Sentences in Lincoln MS 230. An ancillary benefit of this discussion is that the evidence presented herein for the dates of the lectures Peter Lombard delivered on the text in Lincoln MS 230 also bears upon scholarly estimates for the dates both of Burgundio of Pisa's Latin translation of John Damascene's De fide orthodoxa and the second recension of Gratian's Decretum.
Peter Lombard's Early Lectures on the Sentences: the Versio primitiva
The current first folio of the version of the Sentences preserved in Lincoln Cathedral MS 230, like those at the very end of the codex, is damaged and difficult to read in places, both front (recto) and back (verso). I have, however, been able to read or reconstruct most of its text. This manuscript is, as I show below, a replica copy of a Parisian exemplar in three books, clearly marked throughout on facing folios as L–I, L–II, and L–III. The Lombard's transitions between Books I and II and between Books II and III leave no room to doubt that this proto-version of the Sentences was composed and organized in three books, and not four.Footnote 11 Thus, what we know from Brady's edition as Book I of the Sentences did not yet exist.
Instead, Book I of the Versio primitiva begins with a very brief account of the angelic creation: the so-called treatise on the angels in Book II of Brady's edition did not yet exist either.
Pet. Lomb., I Sent., Versio primitiva (Lincoln MS 230, fol. 1r):
Item Gregorius in libro Dialogorum: quid est quod ibi nesciant qui scientem omnia sciunt? Sed accipiendum est de his quorum cognitio beatum faciunt cognitorem, ut sunt ea quae ad mysterium Trinitatis pertinent et unitatis.
Likewise Gregory in his Book of Dialogues: what is it that they do not know there, who know the truth in everything. But this must be understood about those things the knowledge of which renders the knower blessed, as are those things that pertain to the mystery of the Trinity and its unity.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 11, cap. 2.10 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 383, lines 26–30):
Gregorius quoque in libro Dialogorum ait: quid est quod ibi nesciant, ubi scientem omnia sciunt? Videtur dicere quod omnia sciant angeli et nihil sit quod nesciant. Sed accipiendum est hoc de his quorum cognitio beatum facit cognitorem, ut sunt ea quae ad mysterium Trinitatis et unitatis pertinent.
I cannot read the few words that precede this passage at the top of what I have called folio 1r, but it seems obvious that one folio at least is missing, for those words, albeit illegible, are nevertheless clearly a continuation of what came before. It seems likely to me that the Lombard's Versio primitiva began earlier in what would ultimately become what we know as Chapter 2 of Distinction 11. Another sign of this is the word Item that begins the passage quoted but not the corresponding passage in the Brady edition. Item translates roughly in English to likewise, and here it is clear that the Lombard, like all twelfth-century lecturers, was using it in standard classroom fashion to signal his interest in another in a series of related points about whatever topic he was addressing, in this case the knowledge of the angels. The substance and format of the five full chapters to be presented herein will make clear that these are not guesses: we have here the end of a full chapter's discussion of angelic knowledge.
One advantage afforded by the juxtaposition of this passage from the Versio primitiva with the corresponding passage in Brady's edition is that the order and direction of the texts are clearly revealed. The former is the primitive version, to which Lombard later added the middle sentence about Gregory's point: “He seems to say that the angels knew everything and that there is nothing that they did not know.” Another advantage is that we get immediate insight into the Lombard's manner of teaching the theological sentences, in this case one from Gregory in the Dialogues, that he was presenting to his students for discussion. The sentence is presented, and then the Lombard gives his view as to how it should be understood.
The basic story is already clear even in this brief excerpt, but to remove any doubt and to accomplish all three of my stated goals, I will here present and discuss four full chapters: three from early in Book I of the Versio primitiva, and the first chapter from Book II. For each I set forth first the full text of each chapter as it appears in Lincoln MS 230, prefixed with the simple headings the Lombard used to introduce his discussion, and then an English translation for the whole. To facilitate comparison of this early version with the version in Brady's edition, I then subdivide the three chapters from Book I, juxtaposing each excerpt with the correlative texts in the version of the Sentences edited by Brady and highlighting in bold keywords, phrases, and sentences in the textual excerpts from Brady's edition. In this way the reader can see at a glance how the Versio primitiva changed, what was added to or subtracted from it, and how the Lombard developed the Sentences over time.
In the first chapter presented, the Lombard addresses the question how to understand the references in the opening lines of Genesis to “heaven and earth” and to the “darkness over the abyss,” always a vexing question as the sun had not yet been created.
Pet. Lomb., I Sent., Versio primitiva (Lincoln MS 230, fol. 1r–v):
… illa temporis corporalia creata sunt … De tenebrarum duplici significatione.
Postquam CREAVIT DEUS CAELUM id est angelicam naturam primo informem, ut superius dictum est, ET TERRAM id est confusam quattuor elementorum materiam. Quam nomine, ut Augustinus Contra Manichaeos, ideo appellavit < Moyses>, quia <inter > quattuor elementa ipsa minus speciosa est. Quam etiam abyssum appellavit dicens: ET TENEBRAE ERANT SUPER FACIEM ABYSSI, sed confusa erat, non habens distinctas species. Super quam FEREBATUR SPIRITUS DOMINI, sicut voluntas artificis super rebus faciendis apud se disponit, quia proponebat ipsam in species distinctas formare. Haec quippe aqua appellatur, quia omnia haec terrena crescentia ab aqua id est ab humida incipiunt nasci et formari. Ita ab illa confusa producuntur. Et tunc erant TENEBRAE id est lucis absentia. Nihil enim sunt tenebrae quas sola lucis absentia facit, sicut silentium omnis sonitus exterminatio, et loci inanitas est absentia omnis corporis. Sed quia TENEBRAE dupliciter dicuntur vel distinguitur, Augustinus pro absentia lucis hoc nomen [L230, fol. 1v] intellexit. Ubi autem dicit, benedicite, lux et tenebrae, Domine, ibi accipitur pro aëris obscura qualitate. TENEBRAE ERANT SUPER FACIEM ABYSSI, quia nondum lux erat, quae postea primo die formata est.
Afterwards GOD MADE HEAVEN, that is, angelic nature, unformed at first, as was said above, AND EARTH, that is the confused matter of the four elements. This Moses called by name, as Augustine says in his Against the Manichees, for the reason that among the four elements the earth is less beautiful. This he also called the abyss saying: AND DARKNESS WAS OVER THE FACE OF THE ABYSS, but it was confused, not having its distinct forms. Over which WAS BORNE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD, just as the will of an artisan arranges in itself over the things to be made, since he was proposing that his will form those things into distinct species. And at that time there was DARKNESS that is the absence of light. For the darkness that the absence of light alone makes is nothing, just as silence is the destruction of all sound, and the emptiness of a place is the absence of every body. But since darkness is said or distinguished in a twofold manner, Augustine understood this name as the absence of light. But where Scripture says, bless the Lord, ye light and darkness, there it is understood as the dusky quality of air. DARKNESS WAS OVER THE FACE OF THE ABYSS, since light did not yet exist, which afterwards was formed on the first day.
A few simple observations can be made before I present this chapter in a fractured form so as to be able to compare it with the corresponding texts in Brady's edition. First, we see right away that Peter Lombard was lecturing, as indicated by his words “ut superius dictum est,” which refer to what “was said above.” Second, the explication is brief and straightforward. The Lombard weaves the scriptural lemmata into his explication in the same fashion as twelfth-century lecturers on the Bible. In fact, he lectured on Genesis himself in precisely this fashion.Footnote 12
When we work through the individual parts of this narrative, the relation to the later version of the Sentences edited by Brady is plain to see.
Postquam CREAVIT DEUS CAELUM id est angelicam naturam primo informem, ut superius dictum est, ET TERRAM id est confusam quattuor elementorum materiam.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 3.1 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 385, lines 12–17):
Quomodo per intervalla temporis res corporales conditae sint. Secundum hanc itaque traditionem, ordinem atque modum creationis formationisque rerum inspiciamus. Sicut supra memoratum est, in principio creavit Deus caelum, scilicet angelicam naturam, sed adhuc informem, ut quibusdam placet; et terram, id est illam confusam materiam quatuor elementorum.
The first sentence corresponds to chapter 3 of distinction 12 in Brady's edition. The Lombard changed the phrase, “ut superius dictum est,” to “Sicut supra memoratum est.” The later version adds an introductory sentence stating the question and his intention — the Lombard speaks in his own voice using the first person, plural (“let us look at”) — to consider the traditional question of the order and manner of creation. But there is no mistaking the correspondence of the Versio primitiva with the version edited by Brady, since the Lombard uses the same words and phrases. Nor is there any doubt about the direction, which the additions make plain.
The correspondence between the Versio primitiva and the edition of the Sentences edited by Brady is not always so easy to see, for in many cases the later version is not only supplemented but reorganized. Moreover, the Lombard not infrequently changed his wording, as in the next section:
Quam nomine, ut Augustinus Contra Manichaeos, ideo appellavit < Moyses>, quia <inter > quattuor elementa ipsa minus speciosa est. Quam etiam abyssum appellavit dicens: ET TENEBRAE ERANT SUPER FACIEM ABYSSI, sed confusa erat, non habens distinctas species. Super quam FEREBATUR SPIRITUS DOMINI, sicut voluntas artificis super rebus faciendis apud se disponit, quia proponebat ipsam in species distinctas formare. Haec quippe aqua appellatur, quia omnia haec terrena crescentia ab aqua id est ab humida incipiunt nasci et formari. Ita ab illa confusa producuntur.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 3.2 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 385, lines 18–20, 22–23 — p. 386, lines 1–4, 6–8):
Quam nomine terrae, ut ait Augustinus, Contra Manichaeos, ideo appellavit Moyses, «quia terra inter omnia elementa minus est speciosa». … 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 formandum perficiendumque inchoaverat». … Haec ideo dicta est aqua, quia omnia quae in terra nascuntur, sive animalia, sive arbores vel herbae et similia, ab humore incipiunt formari atque nutriri.
There is repetition here sufficient to recognize immediately the parentage of the Versio primitiva, as in the first passage highlighted in bold, where the Lombard changed only a word here and there but not the syntax: “Quam” to “Eandem,” “appellavit” to “vocat,” “quia” to “sed,” etc. Yet there is also refinement of wording, as in the next phrase, when the Lombard substituted “specie distincta carens” for “non habens distinctas species” or as in his substitution of “fabricandis rebus voluntas artificis” for his earlier “voluntas artificis super rebus faciendis.”
Instances like the latter help us to see the progression from the Lombard's initial paraphrasing of his source, in this case an interlinear gloss taken from the biblical Gloss (Biblical Glossa, Glossa interlinearis in Gen. 1.2 (Valenciennes 19, fol. 2vb): “ET SPIRITUS DOMINI FEREBATUR SUPER AQUAS Sicut sapientia artificis superfertur faciendo operi”), to his later expression of the same idea. Indeed, comparison of passages in which the Lombard is expressing the same idea reveals the growing precision of his teaching over time. Thus, he starts in the Versio primitiva with the phrase — “Haec quippe aqua appellatur, quia omnia haec terrena crescentia ab aqua id est ab humida incipiunt nasci et formari” — which becomes a more expansive and specific statement of the same: “Haec ideo dicta est aqua, quia omnia quae in terra nascuntur, sive animalia, sive arbores vel herbae et similia, ab humore incipiunt formari atque nutriri.”
As one might expect, the Lombard not infrequently reorganized material over time, as in the next part of this chapter:
Et tunc erant TENEBRAE id est lucis absentia. Nihil enim sunt tenebrae quas sola lucis absentia facit, sicut silentium omnis sonitus exterminatio, et loci inanitas est absentia omnis corporis. Sed quia TENEBRAE dupliciter dicuntur vel distinguitur, Augustinus pro absentia lucis hoc nomen [L230, fol. 1v] intellexit. Ubi autem dicit, benedicite, lux et tenebrae, Domine,Footnote 13 ibi accipitur pro aëris obscura qualitate. TENEBRAE ERANT SUPER FACIEM ABYSSI, quia nondum lux erat, quae postea primo die formata est.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 3.3 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 386, lines 16–21):
Et tunc erant tenebrae, id est lucis absentia. Augustinus: Non enim tenebrae aliquid sunt, sed ipsa lucis absentia. Sicut silentium non aliqua res est, sed ubi sonus non est, silentium dicitur. Et nuditas non aliqua res est, sed in corpore ubi tegumentum non est, nuditas dicitur. Sicut et inanitas non est aliquid, sed inanis dicitur esse locus, ubi non est corpus, et inanitas absentia corporis.
He uses here many of the same words and phrases but changes the order, moving Augustine's discussion of darkness as a privative to earlier in his treatment and expanding, in the final sentence, what had been a concise adaptation (“et loci inanitas est absentia omnis corporis”) of a passage from the biblical Gloss (Biblical Glossa, Glossa marginalis Bedae attributa in Gen. 2.17, Valenciennes 19, fol. 14rb.1: “De ligno autem scientiae boni et malae ne comedas. … Sed ex contrariis contraria noscuntur, ut ex plenitudine inanitas et auditum de silentio iudicamus.”), into a more forceful and complete closing statement based upon the same (“Sicut et inanitas non est aliquid, sed inanis dicitur esse locus, ubi non est corpus, et inanitas absentia corporis”).
In the next chapter of the Versio primitiva, the Lombard treated in concise fashion two questions: why the primordial matter is called unformed in the opening line of Genesis and where it was. He dealt with the first question in one sentence, before posing the second question and dealing with it expeditiously, as we see in reading through this brief chapter:
Pet. Lomb., I Sent., Versio primitiva (Lincoln MS 230, fol. 1v):
Quare illa materia dicitur informis et ubi substiterit aequaliter.
Illa materia dicta est nondum formata, non quia omnino esset sine forma — omne enim corporeum aliquam habet formam — sed quia non distinctam et apertam habebat formam qualem modo videmus. Si quaeritur ubi substitueret tunc illa informis materia, dicimus ubi nunc. Illud terrenum elementum in medio positum erat caeteris circumquaque in medio cuiusdam nebulae oppansis, ut apparere non posset erantque in altum extensa inquantum nunc finitas corporeae naturae pertingit. Pars spissior inferius, levior et subtilior superius existebat. De quo superiori aëre putant quidam aquas quae super firmamentum sunt creatas fuisse.
Why that matter is called unformed and where it subsisted equally.
That matter was called not yet formed, not because it was altogether without form — for every bodily thing has a certain form — but because it did not have a clear and distinct form such as we now see. If the question is raised where that unformed matter then subsisted, we say where it is now. That earthly element had been placed in the middle of the others spread around it on all sides in the middle of a certain cloud, so that it could not appear, and the others were extended into the upper atmosphere to the full extent that the finitude of corporeal nature now stretches. The thicker part emerged lower, the lighter and subtler part higher. From which higher part of the upper atmosphere certain thinkers suppose that the waters that are above the firmament had been created.
Just how concisely the Lombard treated these two questions in his early lectures on the Sentences is seen from a comparison with distinction 12, chapter 5 of the later version edited by Brady.
The Lombard's introduction to this chapter in the Versio primitiva (“Quare illa materia dicitur informis et ubi substiterit aequaliter”) becomes in the version edited by Brady chapter 5, section 1 of distinction 12:
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 5.1 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 387, lines 9–14):
Duo hic consideranda sunt: quare illa materia confusa sit dicta informis, et ubi ad esse prodiit quantumque in altitudine ascenderit. De qua priusquam tractemus, duo nobis discutienda occurrunt: primum, quare illa materia confusa informis dicatur, an quia omni forma caruit an propter aliud; secundo, ubi ad esse prodierit et quantum in altum ascenderit.
The same words and questions are repeated, albeit at greater length and with, it must be said, a good bit of repetition. Brady thought that this first section of chapter 5 in distinction 12 bore some resemblance to one of the first passages in Hugh of St. Victor's De sacramentis, which could be true in some remote sense.Footnote 14 The proximate source, however, is obvious.
The Lombard developed at some length the first sentence of this chapter in the Versio primitiva, incorporating the same words, phrases, and ideas into what in Brady's edition is section 2 of chapter 5 in distinction 12:
Illa materia dicta est nondum formata, non quia omnino esset sine forma — omne enim corporeum aliquam habet formam — sed quia non distinctam et apertam habebat formam qualem modo videmus.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 5.2 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 387, lines 15–26):
Ad primum brevis responsio*. Ad illud igitur quod primo positum est breviter respondentes, dicimus illam primam materiam non ideo dictam fore informem quod nullam omnino formam habuerit, quia non aliquid corporeum tale exsistere potest, quod nullam habeat formam; sed ideo non absurde informem appellari posse dicimus, quia in confusione et permixtione quadam subsistens, nondum pulchram apertamque et distinctam receperat formam, qualem modo cernimus. Facta est ergo illa materia in forma confusionis ante formam dispositionis. In forma confusionis prius omnia corporalia materialiter simul et semel sunt creata; postmodum in forma dispositionis sex diebus sunt ordinata. — Ecce absolutum est quod primo in discussione propositum fuit, scilicet quare illa materia dicatur informis.
In the later version we see clearly that the Lombard developed the Versio primitiva through lectures: “To that issue, therefore, that was first taken up briefly responding, we say that. … ” Peter Lombard is talking, and the later version edited by Brady, just like that in Lincoln MS 230, preserves his oral speech in a text. Why would it not develop in this way over time, given that, as I show below, he lectured for at least thirteen or fourteen years on the Sentences? Indeed, the repetition that is here once more seen in the later version edited by Brady — three times consecutively Peter Lombard hammers home the central point of the confused state of the unformed matter — points to oral discourse, for writers are more precise.
By this point in our comparison it will likely come as no surprise to learn that the rest of this chapter in the Versio primitiva, in which as noted above the Lombard addressed the question of the location of that primordial matter, constitutes the third section of chapter 5 in distinction 12 in Brady's edition:
Si quaeritur ubi substitueret tunc illa informis materia, dicimus ubi nunc. Illud terrenum elementum in medio positum erat caeteris circumquaque in medio cuiusdam nebulae oppansis, ut apparere non posset erantque in altum extensa inquantum nunc finitas corporeae naturae pertingit. Pars spissior inferius, levior et subtilior superius existebat. De quo superiori aëre putant quidam aquas quae super firmamentum sunt creatas fuisse.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 5.3 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 387, line 27–p. 388, line 14):
Hic ad id quod secundo quaerebatur respondet. Nunc superest quod secundo proponebatur explicare, ubi scilicet illa materia substiterit et quantum in altitudine porrigebatur. Ad quod, nihil temere asserentes, dicimus quod illa prima rerum omnium moles, quando creata est, ibidem ad esse videtur prodiisse, ubi nunc formata subsistit. Eratque terreum hoc elementum in imo loco, eodemque medio subsidens, ceteris in una confusione permixtis; eisdemque circumquaque in modo cuiusdam nebulae oppansis, ita obvolutum erat, ut apparere non posset quod fuit. Illa vera tria in una permixtione confusa, circumquaque suspensa, eousque in altum porrigebantur, quousque nunc summitas corporeae naturae pertingit. Et sicut quibusdam videtur, ultra locum firmamenti extendebatur illa moles, quae in inferiori parte spissior atque grossior erat, in superiori vero rarior et levior atque subtilior exsistebat; de qua rariori substantia putant quidam fuisse aquas quae super firmamentum esse dicuntur. Talis fuit mundi facies in principio, priusquam reciperet formam vel dispositionem.
The language of lecturing remains, as we find the same “dicimus” in both versions. And, if we break both versions into component parts, we can trace with exactitude the Lombard's use of the same words and phrases, sometimes paraphrased and frequently elaborated, from one version to the next.
Si quaeritur ubi substitueret tunc illa informis materia, dicimus ubi nunc.
. .. ubi scilicet illa materia substiterit et quantum in altitudine porrigebatur. Ad quod, nihil temere asserentes, dicimus quod illa prima rerum omnium moles, quando creata est, ibidem ad esse videtur prodiisse, ubi nunc formata subsistit.
Illud terrenum elementum in medio positum erat caeteris circumquaque in medio cuiusdam nebulae oppansis, ut appareri posset erantque in altum extensa inquantum nunc finitas corporeae naturae pertingit.
Eratque terreum hoc elementum in imo loco, eodemque medio subsidens, ceteris in una confusione permixtis; eisdemque circumquaque in modo cuiusdam nebulae oppansis, ita obvolutum erat, ut apparere non posset quod fuit. Illa vera tria in una permixtione confusa, circumquaque suspensa, eousque in altum porrigebantur, quousque nunc summitas corporeae naturae pertingit.
Pars spissior inferius, levior et subtilior superius existebat. De quo superiori aëre putant quidam aquas quae super firmamentum sunt creatas fuisse.
That the Versio primitiva is the basis for the later version is patent. It may not be in fact the earliest version of the Lombard's Sentences, although given what we know for sure about its dates, discussed below, it would be quite difficult to imagine a version of the Sentences that preceded it. But that its text served as the basis for the Lombard's fashioning of the version edited by Brady cannot reasonably be disputed.
That the Versio primitiva is a text closely related to lectures is also patent. It is manifestly a text pregnant with the language of the classroom. The Lombard is raising questions and then addressing them concisely, considering alternative positions and then stating his own. It reads very much like a transcript of an in-class lecture. Was it a text that came about from transcriptions of lectures? Or was it a text composed by Peter Lombard for lectures and then subsequently influenced by lectures? It is hard to say for sure one way or the other. The editors will have to sift through all available evidence (codicological, textual, etc.), before any such questions can be answered, even tentatively. For now, though, it suffices to point out the obvious: the language of the Versio primitiva leaves no doubt that it was connected in some essential fashion to lectures: through the Lombard's composing it for lectures, through his delivering lectures using its text, or through both.
It is also worth pointing out that, although Brady found many sources used by the Lombard in the Sentences, the Versio primitiva enables us to be even more precise in locating those sources, and even ones recognized by Brady. Thus, for this passage Brady specified not only the beginning of Hugh's De sacramentis but also resonances with certain passages in the biblical Gloss.Footnote 15 The more concise language in the Versio primitiva confirms the Lombard's use of the Gloss as a source of first resort but helps us to locate what are likely to have been the very passages the Lombard drew upon in the first instance.Footnote 16
One more chapter from Book I should suffice for a large enough sample and basis for comparison with the version of the Sentences edited by Brady, at least to accomplish the very modest aims of this study. In the next chapter of the Versio primitiva the Lombard continues his investigation of standard questions arising from the hexameral narrative in Genesis, in this instance the fundamental question of whether creation took place over six days, as described in Genesis, or whether God created everything at the same instant.
Pet. Lomb., I Sent., Versio primitiva (Lincoln MS 230, fol. 1v–2r):
De distinctione operum sex dierum et requiete septimae diei.
Sex diebus distinguens Deus cuncta quae materialiter creaverat in species proprias perfectoque opere die sexto die septimo requievit id est cessavit novam facere creaturam nihilque postea fecit quod non continetur in aliquo generum quae tunc distinxit. Operatur tamen cotidie non nova genera sed novas res faciendo ex seminibus iam rebus tunc insitis. Unde in Evangelio: Pater meus usque modo operatur. Qui tamen creavit omnia simul. Operatur enim Deus quattuor [L230, fol. 2r] modis, ut Alcuinus ait Super Genesim: primo disponendo in Verbo; secundo in informi materia quattuor elementorum de nihilo eam creando. Unde: qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul; tertio per opera sex dierum distinguendo varias species; quarto ex primordialibus seminibus non novas sed notas naturas facit, ne pereant.
About the distinction of the works of the six days and the rest of the seventh day.
Distinguishing over six days all that he had created materially into proper species and, once the work of the sixth day had been completed, God rested on the seventh day, that is, he ceased to create any new creature and indeed afterwards he created nothing that is not contained in one of the genera that he then distinguished. Nevertheless, he continues to work daily, not new genera, but by creating new things from the seeds that had already at that time been sown into things. Whence in the Gospel: my Father works right up to the present moment. God the Father, however, created all things at once. For God works in four ways, as Alcuin says in On Genesis: first, by arranging in the Word; second, by creating it from nothing in the unformed matter of the four elements. Whence: He who lives for ever created all things at once; third by distinguishing through the works of the six days the various species; fourth, from the primordial seeds he creates, not new but already known natures, lest they perish.
The twofold organization of this brief chapter is plain to see. Peter Lombard addresses the question in a straightforward fashion, first explaining how the creation over six days in Genesis, and second how creation simul, should be understood.
The former exposition would become at some point the fourth and final section of chapter 5 of distinction 12 in the version of the Sentences edited by Brady, as the following juxtaposition of texts makes clear:
De distinctione operum sex dierum et requiete septimae diei.
Sex diebus distinguens Deus cuncta quae materialiter creaverat in species proprias perfectoque opere die sexto die septimo requievit id est cessavit novam facere creaturam nihilque postea fecit quod non continetur in aliquo generum quae tunc distinxit. Operatur tamen cotidie non nova genera sed novas res faciendo ex seminibus iam rebus tunc insitis. Unde in Evangelio: Pater meus usque modo operatur.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 5.4 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 388, lines 15–24):
Ostenso qualis fuit mundi facies in ipso primordio, incipit prosequi operum sex dierum distinctionem. 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; perfecitque opus suum die sexto et sic deinde die septimo requievit ab omni opere id est cessavit novam creaturam facere. Sex enim diebus sex rerum genera distinxit, nihilque postea fecit quod in aliquo illorum non contineatur. Operatus est tamen postea, sicut Veritas in Evangelio ait: Pater meus operatur usque nunc, et ego operor illud.
Apart from the substitution of different words with the same meaning in several places, such as the Latin “formas” for the Greek “species” and the more classical word for creation, “fecerat,” for the more common word in medieval Latin, “creaverat,” the wording is the same. The syntax too remains largely the same, although there are minor differences, such as the Lombard's substitution of “distinxit Deus” for “distinguens Deus” and the change in verb tense in the final sentence from “Operatur” to “Operatus est.”
The main differences in this first half of this chapter consist in the Lombard's making explicit reference to Genesis in the later version (“sicut docet Scriptura Genesis”) and in his one-sentence summary and repetition of the very points that he had just made: “For over six days he distinguished six kinds of things, and afterwards he created nothing that is not contained in one of those kinds of creations.” One could question whether the repetition was necessary, but in a classroom context repetition is frequently employed by the best teachers.
Brady looked once more to Hugh's De sacramentis for the Lombard's inspiration here.Footnote 17 But in fact the biblical Gloss was obviously the proximate source, not only for the substance and framework of the discussion but also for its language:
Biblical Gloss, Glossa marginalis in Gen. 2.2 (Valenciennes 19, fol. 9vb.1):
Potest autem intelligi Deum requievisse a faciendis generibus creaturae, quia ultra nova non condidit. Usque nunc tamen operatur administrationem eorundem generum, quae tunc instituta sunt. Creatoris enim virtus causa subsistendi est omnis creaturae. Quod enim dicitur, Pater meus usque modo operatur, universae creaturae continuam administrationem ostendit. Die ergo septimo requievit, ut novam creaturam ulterius non faceret, sed usque nunc operatur, ut quod condidit continere et gubernare non cesset.
Comparison of the second half of this chapter in the Versio primitiva with its counterpart in chapter 6 of distinction 12 in Brady's edition reveals that the Lombard changed very little of his account of God's creating all things at once:
Qui tamen creavit omnia simul. Operatur enim Deus quattuor [L230, fol. 2r] modis, ut Alcuinus ait Super Genesim: primo disponendo in Verbo; secundo in informi materia quattuor elementorum de nihilo eam creando. Unde: qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul; tertio per opera sex dierum distinguendo varias species; quarto ex primordialibus seminibus non novas sed notas naturas facit, ne pereant.
Pet. Lomb., II Sent., Dist. 12, cap. 6 (ed. Brady, 1971, p. 388, line 26–p. 389, line 6):
De quatuor modis divinae operationis. Quatuor enim modis, ut ait Alcuinus Super Genesim, operatur Deus: «Primo in Verbo omnia disponendo; secundo in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo eam creando, unde: Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul, omnia scilicet elementa vel omnia corpora materialiter simul creavit; tertio per opera sex dierum varias distinxit creaturas; quarto ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur naturae, sed notae saepius reformantur ne pereant».
Apart from the addition of the explanatory heading (“About the four modes of divine operation”) and the usual word changes (“creaturas” for “species” etc.) and minor changes in syntax, as from active to passive voice in the last line, these two versions differ minimally. Evidently, the Lombard was content to reproduce here in large part his original source, which Brady in this case correctly identified as one of the glossae prothematicae from the biblical Gloss.Footnote 18
At the risk of tedium I provide here one more chapter, but this time from the start of Book II of the Versio primitiva, to show that the chapters just seen are indeed representative of the relation between this proto-version of the Sentences and the version edited by Brady. Riccardo Saccenti, as noted above, sent this table and his transcriptions, which I have modified only to keep the orthography consistent with my own transcriptions. We do not here translate the passages, as the crucial point, rendered obvious at a glance in the table, is the dependence of the later version on the earlier preserved in Lincoln MS 230:
The texts juxtaposed in this table make plain that Book II of the Versio primitiva corresponds to Book III in the version of the Sentences edited by Brady and that the former is the primitive, the latter a later and related version. In this case, the first paragraph in the former is taken over in its entirety, although we encounter the usual alterations in wording and syntax.
The final phrase in Brady's edition (“De quo supra sufficienter dictum est”) provides a fitting conclusion to this comparison of versions, early and late, for it reminds us once more that the universal notion among scholars that Peter Lombard composed the Sentences as a “book” must be nuanced. If one understands that view to mean that Peter Lombard sat down to write a book in the modern sense, which he began writing and then finished, then this view would be quite mistaken. If on the other hand, one means that he composed a text that would be used for lectures and be modified by lectures over time, then it is correct. The evidence of lecturing is ubiquitous in the Versio primitiva, as it is in the every version of the Lombard's Sentences. The reason for this is that lecturing was the primary duty and activity for Peter Lombard, like virtually every theological master in the High Middle Ages from Abelard to Ockham, with the salient exception of Thomas Aquinas, who did write some actual books.
By contrast, one searches in vain for scripsimus or scripsi or scribimus or scribo or any word that could reasonably indicate that the Lombard “wrote” the Sentences. He did not. He lectured on theological sentences, as had predecessors such as Anselm of Laon.Footnote 19 These texts, whether earlier or later versions, are in some fashion integrally connected with lecturing. Whether the Lombard first wrote a text for lectures, or whether the text was the result of lectures, is impossible to say at this point. And in one sense, the question is irrelevant, for the whole raison d’être of the text was the classroom. Modern scholars have anachronistically imputed to the Middle Ages the book culture of the Renaissance. There was no book culture during the High Middle Ages: its culture had more in common with Homer than with the Renaissance, at least in terms of orality as the ordinary means of transmitting learning.
The examples cited have already established the simple goals of this study, namely that Lincoln MS 230 preserves in fact a Versio primitiva of the Sentences, which the Lombard used in some fashion for lectures and which was subsequently developed into later versions of the Sentences. The risk of stopping at this point is to understate the extent of the difference between the Versio primitiva and the version edited by Brady. Indeed, there are very many instances where it is no simple matter to find correlative texts in Brady's edition, but the task of establishing the extent of the differences between the two versions, early and late, will have to wait for another study. This one aims merely at documenting the discovery of a proto-version of the Sentences, and that task is done. It is now time to pass to the historically significant question of the dates of the Versio primitiva. Fortunately, that is a question for which we have some helpful evidence.
A Brief Discussion of the Historical Circumstances surrounding Lincoln MS 230
This study is not the place to present all of the evidence of whatever kind (codicological, historical, textual, etc.) surrounding Lincoln MS 230 and its connection both to Peter Lombard and to Lincoln Cathedral Library, for even to gather together such preliminary evidence as is now available would far exceed the limitations of an article.Footnote 20 What is, however, feasible is to present briefly the main outlines of such evidence and to note questions that are likely to be of great importance for understanding the Versio primitiva and its relation to later versions of the Sentences, including that edited by Brady. I shall address the question of the dates of the Versio primitiva, which of necessity introduces some discussion of the Anglo-Norman context.
The key factor in Brady's dating of the Sentences, as in all subsequent scholarly discussions of the matter (by Colish, Rosemann, et al.) has always been Burgundio of Pisa's translation into Latin of the De fide orthodoxa of John Damascene. Brady and all of the scholars following him assumed that the Lombard could not have obtained Burgundio of Pisa's translation of John of Damascus before the death of Pope Eugenius III on 8 July 1153, since in contrast to Burgundio's two prior works even the older manuscripts preserving his translation have Burgundio's letter of dedication to Pope Eugenius III: “of blessed memory.”Footnote 21 Brady thus assumed that Burgundio's translation became available sometime in 1154 and that Peter Lombard, who in Brady's view must have acquired it somehow on a trip to Italy in 1154, started writing the Sentences — like everyone else, Brady was thinking in terms of “books” in the ordinary sense — during the 1155–56 academic year, given the presence in Books I and III (of the final version edited by Brady) of Damascene's De fide orthodoxa.Footnote 22
Such an assumption is on several grounds a mistake. First, it is obvious that Burgundio could have begun and even have completed his translation long before the death of Pope Eugenius III in 1153. Just because the manuscripts now available to us refer to the pope as “beatae memoriae” does not make it certain that Burgundio did not initially dedicate the work to “Eugenius papa.” Second, even the absence of dedicatory epistles in a later work is inconclusive at best, for Burgundio could have changed his practice or it may be that we do not know from the extant manuscripts what his practice was during the twelfth century. Brady and the scholars who accepted his reasoning treated negative evidence as decisive, when such evidence could never compare with positive evidence.
Like everyone else, Riccardo Saccenti agreed with Brady that Burgundio of Pisa's translation was not available in the Latin West until 1154 at the earliest.Footnote 23 He changed his mind, however, and for two reasons: his discovery in a thirteenth-century copy of Burgundio's translation (Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 2) of a reference to a much older manuscript formerly in Pisa, which contained what Saccenti believes may have been Burgundio's original; and his contemporaneous study of the Dialogi of Anselm of Haverberg. Pope Eugenius III asked Anselm not only to attend a meeting of Greek and Latin theologians convened by the pope in Tusculum in 1146 but also to write down his experiences.Footnote 24
Saccenti now believes that Burgundio, who like Eugenius was from Pisa and who accompanied the papal court as Iudex sacrii palatii, translated De fide orthodoxa at the request of the pope following the unsuccessful Greek-Latin dialogue in 1146, and that this translation went with the papal court to France shortly thereafter. Saccenti now dates the Pisa manuscript provisionally to between 1146 and 1148.Footnote 25 Whatever the ultimate outcome of what is sure to become a lively and interesting discussion of the dates of Burgundio's translation of the De fide orthodoxa restarted by Saccenti's finds, his revised estimate of those dates has the virtue of opening up what was long considered a settled question. The evidence that I shall now present would have opened up that discussion in any case, for in Book II of the Versio primitiva, which as we have seen became Book III in later versions, Peter Lombard discusses Burgundio of Pisa's translation of the De fide orthodoxa.
The first, and arguably most important, such evidence is the connection to Peter Lombard of Robert Chesney, whom Theobald of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury, consecrated bishop of Lincoln on 19 December 1148, one day after Robert's ordination to the priesthood and six days after his election.Footnote 26 Very little is known of Robert's earlier life, although from the fact that he was addressed as magister scholars have inferred a serious education, perhaps at Paris.Footnote 27 His possession of Lincoln MS 31, however, which he donated to Lincoln Library upon his death in 1166, is a fact of great relevance to our inquiry. As noted above, Lincoln MS 31 was possibly the second gift of a version of the Sentences given to Robert by Peter Lombard. The first may have been Lincoln MS 230, seemingly an exact replica of a copy that the Lombard used for lectures on the Sentences.Footnote 28 There is good reason, therefore, to suppose that before he was elected to the see of Lincoln, Robert of Chesney was a student of Peter Lombard's in Paris, for it would be very hard indeed to explain in any other fashion his possession of one (and perhaps two) versions of the Sentences almost certainly copied during the Lombard's lifetime.
Moreover, Lincoln Cathedral Library, which also contains early copies of the Lombard's lectures on the Pauline Epistles and on the Psalms, is at the center of a large network of English cathedral libraries that had extraordinarily rich collections of Peter Lombard's works during the twelfth century. In some cases, at Hereford for sure, whose Lombard collection is also early and quite obviously related to Lincoln's, local masters may have taught theology, lecturing on the Lombard's various theological works.Footnote 29 The story of the Lombard in English cathedrals during the twelfth century is likely to revise not only what scholars have long believed about twelfth-century cathedral schools in England — the longstanding consensus is that, in spite of ancient rumors of learning, they were no more than grammar schools — but also everything that is known about the schools in Paris after the death of Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor in 1141. The simple but compelling basis for this surprising and paradoxical statement of fact is that, whereas very little early manuscript evidence exists in Paris, the treasury of early manuscripts containing Parisian scholastic works in English cathedral schools is filled to overflowing.Footnote 30
A hypothesis, therefore, according to which Peter Lombard lectured on an early version of the Sentences in the years before Robert's election to the see of Lincoln in December 1148 is justifiable, given Robert's evident relationship with Peter Lombard himself. Such a hypothesis fits everything that is known about the works preserved in these manuscripts and about Robert's career. It also fits everything known about the career of Stephen Langton, who grew up in Lincolnshire not far from Lincoln cathedral, who may have spent time in bishop Robert's familia, and who was certainly sent to Peter Lombard and his circle around or before Peter Lombard's death in 1160.Footnote 31 Finally, it accords with the reality of the sizeable discrepancy between the Versio primitiva and later versions of the Sentences, even within Peter Lombard's lifetime.
In this study, I have shown clearly the relation between the Versio primitiva and the version edited by Brady, but the fact is that there are many important differences, not least the absence in the Versio primitiva of what would be in later versions Book I. To get from the Versio primitiva to the version in Lincoln MS 31, especially given that we now know that Peter Lombard was lecturing on the Sentences during his Parisian teaching career, would take a long time, not a little.
I am inclined to think that Peter Lombard did so from early in his career. I am also persuaded that he did so in opposition to the theology of Abelard. A quick read through Brady's footnotes will suffice to show how often Peter Lombard had Abelard in mind in the Sentences, and there are many such instances that Brady did not catch. The well-known episode of Bernard of Clairvaux's introducing Peter Lombard to Hugh of St. Victor and assisting him with securing a teaching post in Paris will, I believe, be seen in an altogether new light following the discovery of the Versio primitiva, for one can readily imagine both Bernard and Hugh of St. Victor urging the brilliant young theologian from Lombardy to meet the challenge to Christian theology posed by Abelard. My hunch is that he started to do so right away, early in his teaching career.
There is one last little but persuasive bit of evidence to consider, but some preliminary background is needed to understand its importance. Brady's edition lists three places in Book IV where the rubric or heading that precedes a decretal is “Innocentius papa.”Footnote 32 There is, however, also a reference in Book IV of Brady's edition to “Innocentius secundus,” which precedes the first portion of Canon 22 of the Second Lateran Council, convened by Pope Innocent II in 1139.Footnote 33 This decretal and this heading in the Sentences have been much discussed by scholars in connection with the second recension of Gratian's Decretum. The relevant texts are as follows:
Pet. Lomb., IV Sent., (ed. Brady, 1981), Dist. 15, c. 7.6, p. 335, lines 9–13:
Innocentius secundus*. Item Innocentus II: «Admonemus fratres nostros, ne falsis poenitentiis laicorum animas decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem poenitentiam esse constat, cum spretis pluribus, de uno solo poenitentia agitur; vel cum sic agitur de uno, ut non discedatur ab alio.»
Gratian's Decretum, Tractatus de poenitentia (C. 33, Q. 3), De pen., Dist. 5 c. 8:Footnote 34
Item Innocentius II. [in concilio Romano, c. 22] IV. Pars. Fratres nostros et presbiteros ammonemus, ne falsis penitenciis laicorum animas decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem poenitentiam esse constat, cum spretis pluribus de uno solo penitencia agitur, aut cum sic de uno agitur, ut ab alio non discedatur.
Historians have assumed, given Brady's chronology (1155–56) for the initial appearance of the Lombard's Sentences, that the second recension of Gratian's Decretum was Peter Lombard's source for this papal decretal and rubric, since it is the last of a series of rubricated canons added to Distinction 5 of the Treatise on Penance.Footnote 35 Scholars date the second recension of Gratian's Decretum to sometime before 1150.Footnote 36
The key bit of evidence, internal to Lincoln MS 230, is the presence in Book III of the same first part of Canon 22 of II Lateran. This papal decretal, however, appears in the Versio primitiva under the different and older rubric (“Pope Innocent”):
Lincoln MS 230, fol. 123v:Footnote 37
Innocentius papa. Ammonemus fratres nostros, ne falsis poenitentiis laicorum animas decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem poenitentiam esse constat cum spretis pluribus de uno solo poenitentia agitur vel cum sic agitur de uno, ut non discedatur ab alio.
Given that the later form of the rubric (“Innocent the Second”) dates to 1149 at the latest, and given that the rubric in the Versio primitiva (“Pope Innocent”) is manifestly earlier, we have additional support for our hypothesis of lectures delivered between 1146–48, since the later form found in Brady's edition dates to sometime before 1149 at the latest.
All of this discussion is of course provisional, for we are just at the start of a new line of research, founded on manuscripts that have evidently never been studied, into Peter Lombard's teaching career and the evolution of his thought. We have to edit not only Lincoln MS 230 but also Lincoln MS 31 and doubtless other early copies of the Sentences and of the Lombard's works on the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles, at Lincoln, Hereford, and elsewhere. Scholars have assumed for so long that Brady edited a version of the Sentences that was standardized early on, that an enormous treasury of manuscripts containing very early versions of the Lombard's works, certainly in England and likely elsewhere too, was seemingly overlooked altogether. I am persuaded that the contents of Lincoln MS 230 and of other manuscripts still to be examined will almost certainly revise much, if not most, of what scholars have long assumed they knew about Peter Lombard, about his career, about the Sentences and his other works, and finally about the trajectory and importance of his thought, even within his own lifetime. To my knowledge no scholar has ever paid any attention to the diffusion of his thought apart from mentioning the fact. It is, however, certain that we have a great deal yet to learn not only about the evolution of Peter Lombard's own thought but about its reception as well. England with its vast treasury of manuscripts preserving early copies of all of the Lombard's extant works is a good place to start.
In this connection I would be remiss not to mention the importance of Stephen Langton, the brilliant young Englishman who was sent by his countrymen in Lincolnshire to Peter Lombard in Paris, with whom one of them at least had studied right around the time that Langton was born. The Lombard's ubiquity in twelfth-century England was no accident but was rather born of personal connections between the Lombard and Anglo-Normans who studied with him in Paris. Neither was Langton's decision to devote his career to the theological legacy of Peter Lombard accidental.
Thanks to six months spent in English libraries I have now moved far beyond my findings in the article cited at the start of this study, in which I announced the discovery that Stephen Langton lectured throughout his career not only on the Bible and the various prologues of Jerome attached to it but also on Peter Lombard's lectures on the Old Testament, long thought to be lost apart from the Psalms.Footnote 38 I can now trace with confidence the number, order and method of Langton's many and various lecture traditions on the Bible. I can also show with great precision the influence on Langton's corpus of the Lombard's lectures on the Bible, which formed the core and foundation of Langton's own. Langton's corpus too thus promises to shed much light on Peter Lombard's theological enterprise, even during the Lombard's own lifetime.
These twin discoveries, namely that, on the one hand, Robert of Chesney and his Anglo-Norman peers and associates brought back early versions of the Sentences (and other of the Lombard's works) to England from Paris, and on the other, that Stephen Langton lectured throughout his Parisian teaching career on the biblical lectures of Peter Lombard, open up altogether new avenues for research. Together they make it possible for the first time to understand the development of Peter Lombard's theological teaching during his lifetime and his enormous influence, both in Paris and in England, during the four decades following his death in 1160. This would take us right up to the cusp of the formal founding of the University of Paris. That opportunity now lies open to any scholar who can read and edit manuscripts. Let us, therefore, hasten to train those who would do so.
