Petruccione, 'Doctrine and Exegesis in Biblical Latin Poetry', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9408
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9408-petruccione-doctrine
D.J. Nodes, Doctrine and Exegesis in Biblical Latin
Poetry, Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1993 = ARCA Classical and
Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, vol. 31. Pp.133 +
bibliog. and index. #20. ISBN 0905205863.
Reviewed by John Petruccione -- The Catholic University of
America
In this monograph D.J. Nodes sets out to demonstrate how the
epic Latin poets of the fourth and fifth centuries used their
verse to expound and teach orthodox Christian theological and
cosmological doctrine. N. argues that every work, regardless of
how closely it may follow the bible story, must rest on some
presuppositions regarding the meaning of scripture and thus of
"fundamental points of doctrine" (p. 6). He, therefore, purposes
to elucidate the poets' doctrine by studying their reception,
rejection, or elaboration of exegetical tradition. Focusing
exclusively on the narratives of creation and patriarchal
history, he takes within his purview only those poems relating
the events of Genesis: Proba's Cento (ca. 360), the
Heptateuch of Cyprianus Gallus (early fifth c.), the
Metrum in Genesim of Ps.-Hilarius (440-61), the
Alethia of Marius Claudius Victor (ca. 450), the
Laudes Dei of Dracontius (late fifth c.) and the De
Spiritalis Historiae Gestis of Avitus (490-507). Thus the
better-known practitioners of New Testament epic, including
Juvencus, the founder of biblical epic and of all Christian
poetry (Evangeliorum Libri IV, ca. 325), Sedulius
(Paschale Carmen, ca. 470), and Arator (Historia
Apostolica 554) are excluded. N.'s selection is, however,
remarkably broad, in the number of works discussed, the variety
of social and cultural contexts in which they originated, and
their enormous differences of style and manner of composition.
N. studies these poets as heirs to and late-antique
participants in the patristic enterprise of clarifying the
beliefs of Christianity in agreement with and opposition to other
theological and philosophical movements of the Mediterranean
world. His work is, therefore, a necessary supplement to earlier
studies, including that of Michael Roberts, Biblical Epic and
Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity (1985 = vol. 16 of
this same series). While showing considerable interest in their
Christian ethos, Roberts' work concentrates on the authors' debt
to classical rhetorical and poetic tradition; he does not
consider their interest in teaching points of dogma and only
occasionally refers to their use of earlier biblical exegesis.
Analyzing programmatic passages from Victorius, Proba, and
Avitus, N. points out (pp. 10-20) that these poets insist on
their desire to instruct and on the significance and correctness
of their teaching. In their handling of doctrinal themes, he
perceives (pp. 129-30) a spectrum ranging from "the purely
allusive" (Cyprian's Heptateuch) to the "overtly
explanatory" (e.g., Victor's Alethia). Although N.
fails to make this point, his decision to treat only O.T. poetry
increases the controversial interest of his work, for previous
scholarship has consistently emphasized that teaching and
exegesis play in O.T. epic a role much less prominent than in
poetry based on the N.T. (e.g., Roberts, p. 181).
To equip himself for this task, N., already the editor of an
abbreviated edition of Avitus (Avitus: The Fall of Man, De
Spiritalis Historiae Gestis Libri I-III, Toronto, 1985 =
Toronto medieval Latin texts, vol. 16), has made himself master
of the various streams of the exegesis of Genesis that had become
traditional by the fourth and fifth cc. He has read not only the
most important commentaries by Origen, Basil, Ambrose, and
Augustine but has also searched for relevant material in
theological and exegetical works not primarily concerned with
Genesis. He can thus draw on many lesser as well as more
influential exegetes: Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr,
Commodian, Novatian, and Maximus of Turin alongside of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Hilary. His reading embraces medieval exegetes
such as Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, and Peter
Comestor, and the poet, Odo of Tournai. In addition to Christian
authors, he has consulted Philo and the rabbinical tradition
where these are relevant. The chronological scope and breadth of
his erudition impart authority to his judgements.
N. devotes the bulk of his work to explicating the
Trinitarian, Christological (ch. 2, pp. 21-73), and cosmological
doctrines (ch. 3, pp. 75-127) of the biblical poets. In the
first section, N. shows how the poets evinced an interest in
teaching such doctrines as the transcendence of God, the activity
of the Logos in creation and salvation history, the unity of the
Godhead in a Trinity of persons, and the hypostatic union of the
two natures of Christ. To those who know anything about the
development of doctrine in early Christianity, some of this
chapter will seem to belabor the obvious. N.'s exposition
becomes more interesting when he is able to argue that a poet has
opted for one of several exegetical and doctrinal possibilities.
Thus, he shows (pp. 30-31) that when Cyprianus presents
(Gen. 611) the appearance of the three guests at Abraham's
tent as a revelation of the Trinity, he agrees with Augustine
rather than with Justin, Origen, or Novatian. When Dracontius
avers (Laudes 1.584-605) that it is the Holy Spirit who is
manifest in the wind, the vitality of vegetation, and the
life-breath of man and animals, he is following a pneumatology
espoused by Tertullian but rejected by Augustine (pp. 53-55).
Throughout this section, N. notes how the various authors treated
Gen. 1.2, 26-27, and ch. 18, all key texts in patristic
discussions of unity and distinction in the Godhead.
In chapter three dealing with the cosmological doctrine of the
epic poets, N. examines issues that will be less familiar even to
patrologists: the distinction, inferred from the apparent
contradiction of Gen. 1.1 by 1.2-31, between the instantaneous
creation of undifferentiated matter and the gradual organization
of the elements of the cosmos, the various theories as to the
nature and purpose of the waters above the firmament (Gen.
1.6-7), and the speculations on the significance of the Creator's
rest on the seventh day (Gen. 2.1-3). N. devotes a rather
extensive essay (pp. 97-107) to the ingenuity with which Victor
treated this last question (Alethia 1.171-204). This
discussion, based on an article published in VigChr 42
(1988), is the most interesting in the monograph. Here N.
demonstrates that the fifth-century poet did not just repeat what
he had learned from earlier tradition but himself displayed
considerable originality and subtlety as biblical scholar and
theologian. Drawing perhaps on direct knowledge of Jewish
exegesis, definitely on Augustine (e.g., De Gen. ad Litt.
6.3) and on Jerome's rendition of Genesis 2.2, Victor presented
the formation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2.7 as the providential
activity by which God, active even on the Sabbath, "completed"
what He had "created" on the first six days. Throughout this
chapter N. is able to perform for those less intimately familiar
with patristic exegesis the dual service of revealing the
theological depth of passages that may have seemed
straightforwardly narrrative or descriptive and of explicating
the compressed language of others where the theological interest
was apparent but its precise purport unclear.
N. has not, however, written with proportion, clarity, grace,
or a concern for the convenience of his audience. The reader is
likely to become as impatient as poor Alice, compelled to listen
as one creature after another recites at her from the beginning
to the end of her sojourn beyond the looking glass. A typical
section (Parts IV-V of ch. 1) contains 244 lines of Latin
quotation and translation, from both poets and prose exegetes,
within just seventeen pages. And that without counting more
quotations in the footnotes! Often the discussion amounts to no
more than a short paragraph or a few lines sandwiched between
lengthy excerpts, and what there is is the harder to follow
because the lack of marginal line numbers makes it difficult to
refer back from discussion to text. Since N. provides few
summaries of his conclusions, the reader, having reached the end
of a section, is sometimes left wondering just what he was
supposed to have made of the cup of quotation seasoned by the
spoonful of analysis. The last chapter entitled, "Scriptural
Interpretation in Late Antiquity," does not recapitulate the
preceding discussion or draw conclusions from the mass of detail.
Most of this very brief section (five pages) deals with various
Christian attitudes toward allegorical interpretation of
scripture, a matter that would have been more appropriately
addressed in the introduction. Since there are no indices of
passages from scripture, poets, and prose exegetes, scholars will
be less inclined to turn to this book for orientation on discrete
points.
Two failures particularly diminish the scholarly perfection,
if not the final cogency, of N.'s discussion. First, N. too
frequently neglects to provide essential references or other
information. For example, he quotes (pp. 18-89) translations of
Juvencus and Sedulius without indicating book or line numbers,
the critical edition, or the translation. Despite his indulgence
in excessive quotation, he sometimes cites mere chapter and verse
where the quotation of a couple of biblical verses would make his
discussion much easier to follow (e.g., pp. 44, 66).
A far worse failing is the frequent mistranslation of Latin.
Sometimes this is translationese that, though reproducing the
syntax, fails to apprehend the semantic value of words and
phrases; sometimes the mistake rests on a failure to construe the
syntactical structure, and often enough it derives from a
combination of both. For misleading translationese v.,
e.g., p. 116: Dracontius, Laudes Dei 1.282, describes
a wild boar striking a defensive posture, "ne Massyla fames duros
descendat in armos," which N. renders "lest African hunger
descend upon its hard shoulders." This conceals the sense of the
periphrasis, which refers to lions. For Numidia as the breeding
ground, and Massylians as hunters, of these proverbially ravening
beasts v., e.g, Ovid, Ars 2.183; Martial 8.55.1-2,
9.71.1; Stat., Silvae 2.5.8, and Dracontius himself
3.188-200 with Arevalo's note (PL, vol. 60) ad
189. Though vague, "la faim de la bete massylienne" offered by
C. Camus in Dracontius, Oeuvres, vol. 1, Louanges de
Dieu, bks. 1-2, ed. C. Moussy and C. Camus (Paris 1985), at
least points in the right direction. For translationese combined
with mistaken syntax, v. e.g., p. 72. Gregory the Great,
Hom. in Ezech. Lib. 1, Hom. 8 (CChr.SL, vol. 142, p. 119)
who, in discussing the cloud holding the rainbow that appeared
after the Flood, says "Nubem . . . Redemptoris carnem non
inconvenienter accipimus," which N. translates "We do not accept
inconveniently the flesh of the Redeemer as a cloud." whereas the
passage means We are fully justified in taking the cloud to
represent (i.e. as a type of) the body of the Redeemer.
C. Morel provides the correct French translation in Gregoire le
Grand, Homelies sur Ezechiel, vol. 1 = SC, vol. 327 (Paris
1986), p. 323.
Other passages where mistranslation was particularly
striking.include Avitus: De Spirit. Hist. Gest., 5.709-12
(N. 56-57), 3.384-86 (73) and Contra Arrianos 20,
21 (ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA, 6.2) In Christo . . . mediator
(68); Dracontius: De Laud. Dei 1.287 (116) and
2.60-62(48-49); Gregory the Great: Hom. in Ezech. Lib. 1, Hom.
8 (ed. M. Andriaen, CChr.SL, vol. 142, p. 119) Et post
Mediatoris . . . ad propitiationem ponitur (71-72); Proba:
Cento Virgil., 1.62-63 (80) and 1.99-101 (81-82); Victor,
Alethia, 1.7-8 (42), prec. 57-58, (92-93), 1.48
(94), and 1.183 (97). Since good translations were often
available--N. himself cites Camus and Moussy's Dracontius, Clark
and Hatch's Proba, and Hovingh's Victor--many such errors were
easily avoidable.
There are several points of fact in which N.'s discussion is
wrong, misleading, or inadequate. He twice (p. 26 and n. 17, p.
84) refers to the substitutions for the text of the Vetus
Latinus introduced by Cyprianus Gallus into his rendition of
Genesis. The reference in his bibliography to the work of W.
Hass (Studien zum Heptateuchdichter Cyprian mit Beitraegen zu
den vorhieronymianischen Heptateuchuebersetzungen, Berlin,
1912) may suggest that N. is aware of the difficulty in
establishing the pre-Vulgate forms of the biblical text, but he
nowhere acknowledges the complexity of these issues or tells the
reader which text of the V.L. he is using. He ought to
have provided at least a brief discussion such as that offered by
Roberts (ib., pp. 93-94). For a more ambitious treatment,
he might have followed the example of J.-L. Charlet,
Prudence et la Bible, Recherches Augustiniennes 18, 1983
(esp. pp. 8-40), a work absent from his bibliography. N. never
refers to the indispensable Beuron edition of the V.L.
texts of Genesis produced by B. Fischer (Die Reste der
Altlateinischen Bibel, vol. 2, Freiburg, 1951-54), where one
would expect him to have found many references to relevant
patristic exegesis. Second, without referring to the
considerable controversy on the question, N. dates Commodian to
the mid-fourth century. J. Martin, Commodian's editor in the
CChr.SL (vol. 128), the text N. quotes, favors (pp. x-xiii) a
date a century earlier. Finally, N. twice (n. 1, p. 22 and n.
10, p. 78) reports that Jerome and Pope Gelasius criticized
Proba's Cento. One should note that neither the so-called
Decretum Gelasianum nor Jerome mentions Proba by name.
Jerome's criticisms of Proba (Ep. 57.3, not Ep. 130
wrongly cited by N.) are, at most, very indirect and do not
impugn the orthodoxy of the Cento. The criticism of the
Decretum is obvious and direct, but according to E. von
Dobschuetz who edited the Decretum Gelasianum (TU
38.4), this document is not Gelasian, not a decree, not papal
(v. esp., pp. 343-44, 352).
The book is accurately printed. I noticed only a few
typographical errors: p. 63, n.100: deliniation; p. 119, n.76:
Testamentis; p. 143, in ref. to Staat: von, in ref. to
Wehrli: europaeischen and mittelalterliche(r). On p. 100, the
numbers 178-83 are a false reference. Should it be "188-93"?
Despite its defects, this work will be useful to classicists,
patrologists, and medievalists as well as to anyone, specialist
or non-specialist, interested in the Latin literature of Late
Antiquity. The specialist will miss indices of scriptural
passages, poetic works, and patristic prose texts; the
non-specialist will be puzzled or misled by the mistranslations;
both specialist and non-specialist will miss more frequent
summaries of important conclusions and may very well find the
reading of this book to be an unpleasant labor. Nonetheless, in
addition to many illuminating remarks on individual passages,
N.'s work shows how a wide-ranging knowledge of the Bible and the
traditions of exegesis may help unearth the many layers of
meaning in these exceedingly complex, though often apparently
simple narratives, constructed, after all, by poets whose culture
was scriptural and theological as well as classical.