International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 13 July 2004
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND MNEMOTECHNICS IN MS VERONA, BIBLIOTECA CAPITOLARE XXII
The codex Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare XXII, in semi-uncial, copied in the mid sixth century for the most part by two contemporary hands, contains three distinct pieces: the so-called 'Laurentian Fragment' (only surviving part of the catalogue of Roman pontiffs, quite different from the lives recorded in the Liber Pontificalis, De viris inlustribus ('About distinguished men') by Jerome, continued by Gennadius of Marseille, and a dossier of thirteen documents written for the most part by Pope Gelasius in the matter of Achacius, bishop of Constantinople. Gennadius and Gelasius flourished at the end of the fifth
century, the Laurentian fragment dates from the beginning of the sixth. The codex Verona XXII attracted the attention of scholars because of its 'sehr deutlich ausgedrÿckte chalkedonische Gesinnung' (this is Jean-Marie Clé
ment in his preface to the Corpus Christianorum edition of Facundus of Hermia). About a century ago Louis Duchesne, still considered an authority on the Liber Pontificalis, published the fragment in his edition of the Liber pontificalis as a record of the "Laurentian schism" - a schism, we might say, that never was.
In the din of ecclesiastical disputes other features of Verona XXII (dating, attribution, script, and marginalia) were hardly ever considered. One marginal annotation on fol. 55v (biography of Theophilus) was not mentioned by Lowe in CLA IV. It is a note in what I believe to be the hand of Cassiodorus [reproduced in the handout distributed at Leeds]. Other annotations, the mnemotechnical-exegetical ones that are the topic of this paper, are duly, but somewhat inaccurately noted in CLA.IV: indeed they exist on fols. 92, 93, 95, but they are not all in cursive. There is also a companion one on fol. 95v, not noted by Lowe; the ink, which is now extremely pale, makes its reading difficult [marginalia on the handout at the session]. In all marginalia but one the script is contained in a frame with a contour similar to a grape-bunch.
The marginalia are mnemotechnical in layout and exegetical in content, and we will consider them under both aspects. First the frame (the grape-shaped
silhouette on your handout). I do not have slides from Verona, but fortunately we have a good number of copies (though for the most part still unpublished) of similar marginalia in a shape familiar to anyone who has studied Cassiodorus and the production of manuscripts at Vivarium: the isosceles triangle that symbolizes, and occasionally reproduces quite accurately, a bunch of grapes.
The slides that you are about to see contain such copies from Vivarian archetypes, reproduced from two codices now at the Vatican Library: MSS Vat. lat. 4950, and Vat. lat. 1348. A third codex at the BAV, Vat. lat. 5730 (from Ripoll) contains the same marginalia with referrence to the same text of St. Paul, albeit in simplified form. They all have the same grape-motif, but the text that written inside the grape-figures differs from that in Verona XXII: Vat. lat. 4950 contains the commentary to the Letters of Saint Paul drawn from various works of St. Augustine by Peter of Tripoli and commonly attributed to Florus of Lyons; Vat.lat.1348 is a xii-century copy of the chronicle of Mellitus, an edition of the Chronicle of Isidore of Seville prepared at Vivarium under the sponsorship of Mellitus (ca. A.D. 615).
Both works (with the respective grape-shaped marginalia) come from Vivarian archetypes. For palaeographical and other evidence on Mellitus I may refer you to my paper read at Kalamazoo in 2003, now approved for publication on the APICES website; for a discussion of grape as opposed to triangle and its symbolic connotations, see Vivario: I libri, il destino by Fabio Troncarelli (Turnhout 1998). Here I will mention three Vivarian symptoms: first, the isosceles triangle representing a bunch of grapes, distinctive of Vivarium; second, the hand of Cassiodorus in Verona XXII; third, the initial A of 'Augustinus' with the fish-motif. As you well know, the fish in itself is by no means distinctive of Vivarium; but in Verona XXII there is a fish-thread combination, which (as far as we know) is indeed typical of that school. If the fish in question can be identified as an anchovy, we have another mnemotechnical device, because in the Latin word aphua ("anchovy") the initial 'a' is the same as in 'Augustinus.'
From the beginning of such devices ca. A.D. 550 to their exploitation by Mellitus in A.D. 614/615 there was a shift that allows us to date the marginalia in Verona XXII toward the end, rather than the middle, of the sixth century and possibly in the beginning of the seventh: Cassiodorus used marginalia mainly to cite the sources of a given passage in the text, while Mellitus, though occasionally giving the sources, used the grape-shaped marginalia for summaries of important points in the text. A drawing of any kind will remain fixed in memory more easily than plain text, and it is easier to remember two lines of summary than two pages of text. In this sense, the marginalia in Verona XXII are excellent mnemotechnical devices. At the same time, because these summaries of the text stress certain biblical citations in the text in preference to others, they are also brief pieces of biblical exegesis.
The main point is, of course, the purpose of it all. What, in the text and its biblical citations, was considered so important as to be summarized and remembered, and why? And now I have to ask you to kindly follow me on a perhaps tortuous path, which will reward us with a fascinating glimpse into the intellectual life shared between Verona, possibly Rome, and Vivarium at the turn of the sixth century, and some little known details on the schism of Three Chapters in northern Italy.
I transcribed the annotations within the grape-shaped frames on your handout. The identification of the script is still in progress. It is not the Verona cursive known from Lowe's studies (though it might be an earlier script from Verona); there are two hands at work, and one of them has some points in common with known glosses by Vivarian scribes. The working hypotheses are that a Vivarium-trained scribe annotated the text for Verona readers, or that a
Verona scribe familiar with Vivarian techniques annotated that codex originally from Vivarium. Either way, Verona Biblioteca Capitolare XXII attests to intellectual exchange between two cultural areas, one in northern Italy, the other in the deep south, one Byzantine, the other nominally Lombard. As regards the contents, the emphasis is on sin and remission of sin by the Holy Spirit. Sin, penance, and forgiveness have a very familiar ring for anyone who has studied Pope Gregory. Those were themes dear to Gregory's heart and may well be a sign of his influence on the monks of Vivarium (there are many others, but we shall discuss them on another occasion). Sin, penance, and remission may well be the main points in the annotator's eyes, but were they the main points of the text when it was first written, about one century earlier? I think not. If we place Gelasius' text, shorn of grapes and annotations, in its pristine historical context, we will get a different picture.
Gelasius wrote about the anathema cast by him upon Achacius, bishop of Constantinople, ca. A.D. 495. Such disciplinary action was not appreciated by the Eastern emperor Anastasius and Gelasius proceeded to justify his action; and he did so by a rational process, with a brilliance that could be the envy
of many lawyers. Yes, Gelasius did say in the end that it was his right to anathemize Achacius; but he said that only after a sequence of thoroughly intriguing remarks, which I shall sum up for you in three points: (a) nothing should be accepted - or rejected - indiscriminately, and truth and error are not always all on one side. The Bible, which is the word of God, contains many less-than edifying passages; conversely, heretical writings contain many pieces of truth. Our duty is to follow Saint Paul's advice: test everything, hold on to what is good, (b) any anathema or excommunication is directed to sin, not to the sinner. Consequently when a sinner repents, thereby ceasing to be a sinner, the anathema is no longer in force. No excommunication is perpetual, and none is irrevocable, if only the sinner ceases to sin - otherwise, what would be the point of Christ's coming, of Him who came to save sinners?, (c) when the Scripture invokes the death of a sinner, this is not to be understood in the sense that the sinner (literally) should drop dead, but in the sense that he dies to sin. When he ceases to be a sinner, he is in fact dead as such, but
alive and kicking as a righteous person, (d) the emperor is the sole ruler in temporal matters and the pope must respect his rights. Conversely, the emperor must respect the rights of the pope: as the pope has no right to rule in temporal affairs, that are the purview of the emperor, so the emperor has no right to rule in the spiritual realm, which is the purview of the pope. The right of excommunication belongs to the pope, and excommunications by emperors or bishops are null and void.
These being Gelasius' sentiments, it is quite understandable that Cassiodorus, half a century later, saw fit to publish them in what is now Verona Biblioteca Capitolare XXII. In the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553-555) tempers flared between proponents and opponents of the Three Chapters - and Gelasius'
fine remarks on discernment between right and wrong (not always neatly divided) could contribute to quiet down ebullient waters. Justinian's penchant for intervention in ecclesiastical affairs is well known, and Gelasius' sober remarks that emperors should confine themselves to secular matters were quite à propos. It is, then, understandable that shortly after A.D. 555 Cassiodorus should resurrect the Achacian records. Yet, all this was not what the annotator had in mind: his marginalia focus on sin, penance and remission of sin. Thus we gain a double perspective on the work of Gelasius: first, that of the author and of Cassiodorus (intellectual discernment among various theories and autonomy from secular powers), then that of the annotator (sin against the Church and forgiveness by the same Church).
Historical circumstances at Verona in the time of Pope Pelagius II (578-590) and Gregory I (590-604) may explain the purpose of the marginalia. In those years the northern Italian bishops in and around Aquileia were not in communion with Rome. Letters by Gregory attest to that pope's efforts to call the dissident bishops to unity, one lengthy letter by the dissident bishops attests to their fidelity to the emperor Maurice, though they were all in Lombard territory (but the letter states repeatedly their loathing of the
'pagans' - gentiles - not named, probably because considered unspeakable). Neither side seems too concerned with intellectual discussion of the theological issues involved: the letter of Gregory required submission rather than reconciliation, assuming that the bishops knew full well that they did not have a theological leg to stand on; the letter by the bishops contains loud protestations against Gregory's methods of persuasion (summoning the bishops to Ravenna, where they naturally refused to go). These documents do not indicate reconciliation between Aquileia and Rome, and indeed, the schism did not end officially at Aquileia until A.D. 698. Some bishops, however, returned to communion with Rome in the time of Pope Gregory. Their names were recorded by Paul the Deacon (hist. lang. 3.27) and we have evidence that at least one of the bishops who signed the letter to Maurice eventually returned to the Roman Church.
His name is Junior, bishop of Verona, mentioned as a bishop in good standing in the 'Velo di Classe' and in the 'Pippinian Poem' that accompanied it. It is therefore possible that the marginalia on sin, repentance, and remission, were meant for him and his neighboring confrères, to show them the path of reconciliation with Rome. We know that Pope Gregory was anxious to bring the dissident bishops back to the fold, but, apart from his own letters, we know little on how this was actually done. Gregory's method was direct and he favored the practical, no-nonsense approach: you know you are wrong, now do what now do what is right and you will be forgiven.
Verona XXII opens up a different perspective. As originally written, the letters of Gelasius sought to define the areas of power, and ultimately the relationship, between Constantinople and Rome. One century later the same text was used to define the relationship between Gregory and the northern Italian bishops. The marginalia with their interpretation of the Bible focused on sin and repentance are Gregorian indeed, but the body of the text discusses rationally the limits and the possibility of a person being not all good and not all bad, also interpreting the Bible, but with a humanistic approach in the spirit of Gelasius and Cassiodorus. Thus, Codex XXII may be an attempt at reconciliation in the spirit of Vivarium and in the time of Gregory - an attempt that, at least in the case of Bishop Junior, was crowned with success.
(Luciana Cuppo)
For some views of the site of Vivarium (now Coscia di Staletti, Catanzaro, Italy): Site of Vivarium
