MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP IN

TWELFTH-CENTURY POLITICAL THOUGHT

Evan F. Kuehn1,2

Abstract: This article examines the use of Melchizedek as an exemplar for kingship in
the twelfth century, considering interpretations offered in the Norman Anonymous,
Bernard of Clairvaux’s de Consideratione and John of Salisbury’s Policraticus.
While the Norman Anonymous provides a Christological and royalist reading of
Melchizedek’s roles as king and priest, de Consideratione offers a more nuanced
explanation of papal power without significant regard for disputes of secular and
ecclesiastical liberties. The Policraticus, on the other hand, advances a theory of
divinely elected, non-hereditary kingship on the basis of Melchizedek’s being ‘with-
out genealogy’. The interpretation of the Policraticus stands in tension with a promi-
nent rabbinic teaching that Melchizedek is identical to Shem, the son of Noah, and so
possessive of a lineage that raises interesting (though not insurmountable) challenges
for the non-hereditary kingship theory advanced in the Policraticus.

During the twelfth century, a theoretical account of kingship was made

increasingly possible in Latin political thought by a conceptualization of the
royal office as an object of study in itself and independent of actual rulers.3
Yet the investiture contests on the continent as well as the Gregorian reforms
had complicated the sacral or theocratic kingship as it might have been identi-
fied in the Carolingian period; broad themes such as monarchial thaumaturgy4
could not in themselves convey the intricate religio-political stakes of the

1 The University of Chicago Divinity School, 1025 East 58th Street, Swift Hall,
Chicago, Illinois 60637–1543, USA. Email: efkuehn@uchicago.edu
2 This paper was written during the 2009 seminar Medieval Mirrors for Princes, led
by Vasileios Syros at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought. I appre-
ciate the valuable comments and criticisms offered by Professor Syros, which have
served to improve the paper significantly. A version of this paper was also presented at
the Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference at Villanova University in October
2009, and I would like to thank the participants for their helpful critique.
3 ‘A sign of this change is that a generic term, “prince” (princeps), surfaced in [jurists’]
commentaries when they explored the terrain of governmental power.’ K. Pennington,
The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600 (Berkeley, 1993), p. 38.
4 This was the subject of March Bloch’s famous 1924 study, Le rois thaumaturges.
Similar to Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two Bodies, these thematic approaches to medieval
kingship offer helpfully provocative but partial pictures of the tension between spiritual
and secular powers at the time. Henk Teunis offers a useful assessment of some of the
literature in ‘Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power in the Central Middle Ages:
A Historiographical Introduction’, in Negotiating Secular & Ecclesiastical Power,
ed. H. Teunis, A. Wareham and A.-J.A. Bijsterveld (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 1–16.
HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. Vol. XXXI. No. 4. Winter 2010

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
558 E.F. KUEHN

era.5 Alongside political developments, Gratian’s Decretum and the Bologna

school of law introduced a more unified canon law and bolstered the papal
cause in political disputation, while the biblical scholarship of the schools
increased the sophistication of the exegetical tradition.6
Despite these significant developments in the Latin West, twelfth-century
political thought is usually received as an unspectacular transition period; lit-
tle is identified of enduring significance until John of Salisbury’s Policraticus
of 1159 and the translation of Aristotle’s Politics into Latin by William of
Moerbeke in the 1260s. Yet the century’s political theory must be understood
on its own terms and not merely in light of those aspects that would prove
influential for later generations. Insofar as the matrix of exegetical, juridical,
ecclesiastical and political development contributed to a particular conceptu-
alization of thought, it should be examined without undue distraction from the
concepts that were or would become more significant at other times or in other
places.
This paper will undertake such an investigation on a particular point of
political typology. I will consider the biblical figure of Melchizedek as an
exemplum for kingship in twelfth-century Christian political literature.7 I
will first examine the theme in the texts of the Norman Anonymous and in
Bernard of Clairvaux’s de Consideratione, and then in John of Salisbury’s
Policraticus.8 The Norman Anonymous and Bernard will illustrate the pres-
ence of a complex array of political thought ranging from strictly royalist
5 Geoffrey Koziol identifies the century as a shift from the earlier Carolingian moral-
ism to later medieval administrative kingships, and discusses the ambiguity of sacral
kingship during such a transition. See G. Koziol, ‘England, France, and the Problem of
Sacrality in Twelfth-Century Ritual’, in Cultures of Power: Lordship, Status, and Pro-
cess in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. T.N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 124–48.
6 For a general discussion, see B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages
(Oxford, 1984). The scriptural contribution to medieval political thought has received
increased attention; some exemplary studies include: E. Mégier, ‘Otto of Freising’s
Revendication of Isaiah’, Sacris Erudiri, 42 (2003), pp. 287–326; Y. Hen, ‘The Uses of
the Bible and the Perception of Kingship in Merovingian Gaul’, Early Medieval Europe,
7 (3) (1998), pp. 277–90; and P. Riché, ‘La Bible et la vie politique dans le haut Moyen
Age’, in Le Moyen Age et la Bible, ed. P. Riché and G. Lobrichon (Paris, 1984),
pp. 385–400.
7 Robert Lerner’s article on the figural significance of Melchizedek anticipates the
concerns of the present study. R. Lerner, ‘Joachim of Fiore as a Link Between St. Ber-
nard and Innocent III on the Figural Significance of Melchisedech’, Mediaeval Studies,
42 (1980), pp. 471–6. The importance of Melchizedek for assertions of papal power
under Innocent III has been much more widely noted. See B. Tierney, ‘ “Tria Quippe
Distinguit Iudicia . . .” A Note on Innocent III’s Decretal Per Venerabilem’, Speculum,
37 (1) (1962), pp. 48–59, p. 56; B. Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State 1050–1300
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1964, reprinted Toronto, 2004), pp. 127–38.
8 Voegelin has focused on the ‘characterological’ purposes of the Policraticus: ‘The
characterological qualities of the Policraticus require special attention because they
permit us to lay our finger on the point where the Roman-Christian categories are put to

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 559

polemic to what might be considered a mirror for popes.9 Each of these politi-
cal commitments will offer widely divergent interpretations of Melchizedek,
while John of Salisbury will present a more moderate concern for secular kin-
ship as it stood in relation to ecclesiastical power and was represented in the
priest-king of Salem. The Policraticus, however, does introduce an important
reading of Melchizedek with regard to the hereditary and moral bases of royal
authority. This reading stands in constructive tension with the rabbinic
exegetical tradition, and the implications of such a comparison between Latin
Christian political thought and rabbinic tradition have not yet been examined
significantly in the scholarship, either of the history of biblical interpretation
or of medieval political theory.

The Melchizedek Tradition

The figure of Melchizedek, ‘king of Salem’ and ‘priest of God Most High’,
was less prominently featured in political writings than Saul, David, Solo-
mon, and other biblical rulers. While it was common for Christian political
thought to appeal to Hebrew exemplars,10 the figure of Melchizedek in
particular brought the dilemmas of the twelfth century into sharp relief. It is
also worth noting that in some political treatises (the Norman Anonymous
will present a good example of this), Melchizedek is portrayed as a type rather
than an exemplum. While an exemplum is recognizable by its narrative char-
acter and used as an illustration, typology is a schematic genre where a fixed
type correlates to an antitype. Typology also must have a strong predicative
a new use in the description of the intramundane structure.’ E. Voegelin, History of
Political Ideas v.11, in The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, ed. P. von Sivers (Colum-
bia, MO, 1997), Vol. 20, p. 114. For exempla in John of Salisbury, see P. Von Moos,
Geschichte als Topik: Das rhetorische Exemplum von der Antike zur Neuzeit und die
historiae im ‘Policraticus’ Johanns von Salisbury (Hildesheim, 1988); P. Von Moos,
‘The Use of Exempla in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury’, in The World of John of
Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1984), pp. 207–61; and L. Scanlon, Narrative, Author-
ity and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition (Cambridge,
1994), pp. 88–105. For a helpful description of political exempla and a summary of the
secondary literature, see V. Syros, ‘Absalom’s Revolt and Value-Neutral Advice in
Profiat Duran’, History of Political Thought, 30 (2009), pp. 60–74, pp. 67–8.
9 On this characterization of de Consideratione, see W. Ullmann, The Growth of
Papal Government in the Middle Ages (New York, 1955), pp. 426–7.
10 The New Testament provided scant basis for a political theory, making it natural
for Christian writers to focus on examples from the Hebrew Bible. Where government
was discussed (Rom. 13, 1 Pet. 2:13–20, etc.), it usually reflected a Church persecuted or
limited by ruling powers, not one that wielded or played a part in ordering power. Abra-
ham Melamed argues that this difference was a primary reason why Christian political
thought was receptive of Aristotle’s Politics while Jewish and Islamic political thought
was more receptive of Plato’s Republic. See A. Melamed, The Philosopher-King in
Medieval and Renaissance Jewish Political Thought, ed. L.E. Goodman (Albany, NY,
2003), pp. 3–4.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
560 E.F. KUEHN

rather than merely a suggestive sense; so David’s life may be used as an

exemplum for various virtues of the ideal ruler, but David is himself a type of
Christ (Ps. 31:5 and Luke 23:46; Mark 11:9–10), or perhaps of particular
kings.11 Melchizedek was in a similar fashion identified as a type of Christ by
the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, who applied Psalm 110 as a prophecy
of Christ, ‘for it is attested of him, “You are a priest forever according to the
order of Melchizedek.” ’12 Through this christological office, it was a short
conceptual development to extend the Melchizedekian type to the princeps
Christianus. The dual identity as rex and sacerdos meant that not only royalist
theory, but also papalist thought (keen to apply christological formulas to the
vicar of Christ) was informed by the biblical king motif in polemical works on
the respective powers of temporal and spiritual authority. Indeed, ‘in most
medieval tracts on political questions it is difficult to isolate theories on king-
ship from theories on two-power relations, since an extension of royal author-
ity usually resulted in contacts with ecclesiastical liberties’.13
Melchizedek had been a contentious figure throughout the patristic period.14
The mystery surrounding his genesis in Christian thought gave rise to specu-
lations that he was an angelic, celestial or even divine being. While the
mainstream Jewish and Christian commentary tradition (with the notable
exception of Origen) understood Melchizedek to be a human king, gnostic
groups as well as adoptionist, and what came to be known as ‘Melchizidekian’
groups asserted a unique theological significance for the priest-king of Salem.
During the fourth century, Epiphanus, Mark the Hermit, and especially
Jerome established what became the orthodox reading of Melchizedek as a
human priest and king more or less decidedly, so that this reading was not in
question during the medieval period.15 Throughout the early Middle Ages,
occasional appeals were made to Melchizedek in descriptions of the sacral
11 For a fuller exploration of the use of typology in secular literature, see R. Hol-
lander, ‘Typology and Secular Literature: Some Medieval Problems and Examples’, in
Literary Uses of Typology from the Late Middle Ages to the Present, ed. E. Miner
(Princeton, 1977), pp. 3–19.
12 Heb. 7:17, Ps. 110:4.
13 T.J. Renna, ‘Kingship in the Disputatio inter Clericum et Militem’, Speculum, 48
(4) (1973), pp. 675–93, p. 675.
14 The important studies remain: G. Wuttke, Melchisedech der Priesterkönig von
Salem: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Exegese (Giessen, 1927); F.L. Horton Jr., The
Melchizedek Tradition (Cambridge, 1976); M. Simon, ‘Melchisédech dans la polémique
entre Juifs et Chrétiens et dans la Légende’, Recherches d’Histoire Judéo-Chrétienne
(Paris, 1962), pp. 101–26; and G. Bardy, ‘Melchisédech dans la tradition patristique’,
Revue Biblique, 35 (1926), pp. 496–509 and Revue Biblique, 36 (1927), pp. 25–45.
15 Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, pp. 105–13. See Saint Jerome’s Hebrew
Questions on Genesis, trans. C.T.R. Hayward (Oxford, 1995), pp. 47, 156–9; also,
‘L’opinion ecclésiastique, en effet, du IVe au VIIe siècle, s’est vraiment passionnée pour
cette question de Melchisedéch. Ange? Saint-Esprit? La liste est longue des textes
patristiques, grecs et latins, qui en discourent. L’!tude en a été faite. A la fin du VIe

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 561

kingship. The sixth-century king Chilperic16 was compared to Melchizedek,

while Gelasius I set forth a forceful papal argument against the Melchizedekian
conception of the emperor as rex et pontifex.17 The Byzantine emperor also
adopted a joint title of priest and king, more explicit and distinct from ecclesi-
astical power than in the Western situation.18 During the Carolingian Renais-
sance, the programme of biblical scholarship enacted under Charlemagne
reinvigorated the concept of rulership through the liturgical rite of anointing,
and at the same time laid the foundations for investiture disputes between
clergy and ruler. Hincmar of Rheims is exemplary of the way that theological
structures were conceived as informing the conceptualization of secular
power; in this sense he foreshadowed the sort of impact that Bernard of
Clairvaux would exert during the twelfth century.19 Germanic kingship was
also understood with reference to Melchizedek and the combined roles of rex
et sacredos until the desacralizing effects of the Investiture Contest weakened
the spiritual role of the office in the eleventh century.20
Political thought during the twelfth century was thus not unique in its
appeals to Melchizedek as priest and king. In fact, even the biblical episode
itself is often understood to have been written with a particular political inten-
tion in mind.21 The Gregorian reform and the resolution of the Investiture

siècle, l’exégèse retourne à l’interprétation orthodoxe: Melchisédech figure du

Sauveur.’ J. Bignami-Odier, ‘Une lettre apocryphe de saint Damase à saint Jérôme sur la
question de Melchisédech’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 63 (1) (1951),
pp. 183–90, p. 185.
16 Hen, ‘The Uses of the Bible’, p. 284.
17 Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 23–6.
18 A. Bordeau, ‘How Christian was the Sacralization of Monarchy in Western
Europe (Twelfth–Fifteenth Centuries)?’, in Mystifying the Monarch, ed. J. Deploige and
G. Deneckere (Amsterdam, 2006), pp. 25–34, p. 29.
19 W. Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London,
1969), pp. 71–110. For Hincmar of Rheims and the liturgical aspects of the theory of
kingship, see J.L. Nelson, ‘Kingship, Law and Liturgy in the Political Thought of
Hincmar of Rheims’, The English Historical Review, 92 (1977), pp. 241–79; and J.L.
Nelson, ‘National Synods, Kingship as Office, and Royal Anointing: An Early Medieval
Syndrome’, in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G.J. Cuming and D. Baker (Cambridge,
1971), pp. 41–59.
20 P. Healy, The Chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny: Reform and the Investiture Contest
in the Late Eleventh Century (Burlington, VT, 2006), p. 141. This assertion should be
made with some restraint, however. Healy cites Morrison, although Morrison also says
of the Salian dynasty, ‘they were fully kings and partially priests; Therefore, they were
not “after the order of Melchisedech” ’. Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Cen-
tury, trans. T.E. Mommsen and K.F. Morrison (New York, 2000), p. 18.
21 Michael Astour writes: ‘The figure of Melchizedek . . . personifies the longings of
the sixth-century priestly hierarchy of Jerusalem: its rivalry with the secular power of the
king and its claims toward directing the entire life of the nation. Thus Genesis 14 fits
completely into the framework of the Deuteronomistic didactic and moralizing essays,

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
562 E.F. KUEHN

Contest had introduced new complexities, however, with which theorists had
to wrestle in order to assert their claims during the twelfth century.22

The Norman Anonymous

The Norman Anonymous refers to the early twelfth-century author of a number
of royalist tractates, probably written in Rouen.23 The tractate De Consecratione
Pontificum et Regnum, on secular and sacred power (though not especially
focused on consecration itself except as a part of the wider point about king-
ship and priesthood), has generally been considered the most important, and
is the subject of the current examination.24
The argument of De consecratione is primarily christological, and it only
employs a Melchizedekian typology in service to the christological discus-
sion. The Norman Anonymous presents an innovative discussion25 of Christ’s

which were never written merely for the sake of writing, but always with a definite atti-
tude and as illustrations of the authors’ religious and political principles.’ See M. Astour,
‘Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in its Babylonian Sources’, in Bibli-
cal Motifs, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA, 1966), pp. 65–112, p. 74. See also
D. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel (Oxford, 2000), pp. 80–103. On Ps. 110, see M.W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The
Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (Leiden, 2005), pp. 72–3.
22 Stanley Chodorow assesses these complexities with particular interest in the role
of Gratian. In contrast to Ullmann’s hierocratic view and Stickler and Kempf’s dualistic
view, Chodorow points out with Tierney that ‘no medieval writer committed himself
to such extreme theories as hierocracy and dualism’. S. Chodorow, Christian Political
Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian’s
Decretum (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 211–14, p. 214. For the classic critique of Ullmann, see
F. Oakley, ‘Celestial Hierarchies Revisited: Walter Ullmann’s Vision of Medieval Poli-
tics’, Past & Present, 60 (1973), pp. 3–48. A helpful recent assessment is given by
C. Nederman, Lineages of European Political Thought (Washington DC, 2009),
pp. 3–12, and a bibliographical summary is available in V. Syros, ‘Political Treatises, C.
The Christian/Western Tradition’, in Handbook of Medieval Studies: Concepts, Meth-
ods, and Trends in Medieval Studies, ed. A. Classen (Berlin and New York, forthcom-
ing).
23 The standard authority on the provenance of the tractates is G.H. Williams, The
Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D. (Cambridge, MA, 1951).
24 I will be using the translation in From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Chris-
tian Political Thought, ed. O. O’Donovan and J.L. O’Donovan (Grand Rapids, 1999),
pp. 251–9, and Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de Lite Imperatorum et
Pontificum (Hannover, 1897), Vol. 3, hereafter cited: De consecratione, O’Donovan
page number (Libelli de Lite page number). On De consecratione, see Williams, The
Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., pp. 127–203; E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies
(Princeton, 1957), pp. 42–61; R.W. Carlyle and A.J. Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval
Political Theory in the West (New York, 1928), Vol. 3, pp. 135–6.
25 Although, see C.D. Wright, ‘The Prouerbia Grecorum, the Norman Anonymous,
and the Early Medieval Ideology of Kingship: Some New Manuscript Evidence’, in
Insignis Sophiae Arcator, ed. G.R. Wieland, C.R. Arthur and R.G. Arthur (Turnhout,

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 563

humanity and divinity as well as his priestly and kingly office, and thus distin-
guishes the roles of king and pontiff in a way that privileges kingship.26 While
both secular and ecclesiastical authority represent a divine source, kingship
was tied to the status of equality with the Father: ‘The king stood for the
higher nature in which Christ was equal to God the Father, the priest for the
lower nature in which he was subordinate to the Father.’27
In addition to the relationship between Christ and the Father, Christ’s
divine and human natures are associated with kingship and priesthood. Christ
is ‘king by virtue of his eternal divinity’ but ‘priest by virtue of his assumption
of humanity, made so according to the order of Melchizedek’. The Anony-
mous concludes:
Christ’s royalty is superior and of greater moment than his priestly power,
just as his divinity is superior and of greater moment than his humanity.
This explains the view held by some that in human affairs, too, kingly
power is superior and of greater moment than priestly power, and the king
of greater moment than the priest, since it reflects that nature of Christ, and
imitates that power, which is superior and of greater moment.28
The reference to the order of Melchizedek specifically concerns Melchizedek’s
status as a priest, even though Melchizedek was also a king. The Anonymous
recognizes a joining of priesthood and kingship (‘king and priest have some
privileges in common and the same grace’,29 ‘the king may properly be called

2006), pp. 193–215, for a recent study of earlier traditions employed by the Norman
Anonymous.
26 Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., pp. 127–203. Kantorowicz
expands on the divine dignity present ‘by nature’ and ‘by grace’, tracing these concepts
to early Christian and classical pagan sources in E.H. Kantorowicz, ‘Deus Per Naturam,
Deus Per Gratiam: A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology’, Harvard Theological
Review, 45 (1952), pp. 253–77. Dabbs notes that the dei gratia reference in royal titles
tended to be carried over from ecclesiastical usage. J.A. Dabbs, Dei Gratia in Royal
Titles (The Hague, 1971), pp. 76–7.
27 ‘Sacerdos quippe aliam prefigurabat in Christo naturam, id est hominis, rex aliam,
id est Dei. Ille superiorem qua equalis est Deo patri, iste inferiorem que minor est patre.’
De consecratione, 254 (666). To opposite effect, Dickinson notes that in Hugh of Fleury,
‘the union of Father and Son in the Trinity was used to explain the coexistence in the
“body” of the Church of the temporal and priestly powers’. The Statesman’s Book of
John of Salisbury, ed. J. Dickinson (New York, 1963), p. xx.
28 ‘Rex est, sed ex eternitate divinitatis’, ‘Sacerdos vero est ex assumptione humanitatis,
factus secundum ordinem Melchisedech’, ‘Hinc igitur apparet maiorem esse in Christo
regiam, quam sacerdotalem potestatem, et prestantiorem, tanto scilicet, quanto divinitas
eius maior est humanitate atque prestantior. Quare et a quisbusdam estimatur, ut in
hominibus similiter maior sit et prestantior regia potestas, quam sacerdotalis, et rex
maior et prestantior, quam sacerdos, utpote melioris et prestantioris Christi nature
imitatio sive potestatis emulatio.’ De consecratione, 255 (667).
29 ‘Habent tamen rex et sacerdos communia quedam privilegiorum karismata et
eandem gratiam’, De consecratione, 256 (667).

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
564 E.F. KUEHN

a priest and the priest a king. For it is a priestly function to rule the people in
the Spirit of Christ, and a royal function to offer sacrifice and burnt offerings
in the Spirit’30), but he is also careful to distinguish the two roles in articulat-
ing his political theory. While Melchizedek embodies both of the functions of
a priest-king without distinction, Christ may be distinguished into human and
divine natures (or God into Father and Son), and so kingship and priesthood in
the Christian era must also be distinguished even though they are mutually
informing.
The political theory that results is clearly somewhat circular; elsewhere the
Anonymous uses the ‘order of Melchizedek’ of Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 to
describe not priesthood, but kingship:
Christ was told, ‘You are a priest for eternity,’ and the words go on, ‘after
the order of Melchizedek’ [. . .] the priesthood conferred on him was not
from the Levitical order but from that of the king of righteousness. Christ’s
priesthood, then, is clearly modeled on the order of the king of righteous-
ness, since Christ himself is king of righteousness who reigns from eternity
and shall reign for eternity and aye [in eternum et ultra].31
The priestly order is ‘from that of the king of righteousness’, though when it
was used to describe the actual priesthood it was ‘by virtue of [Christ’s]
assumption of humanity’. The order could just as easily have been reversed,
with the ecclesiastical hierarchy being the foundation of the temporal role
held by Melchizedek and the temporal role being associated with the more
mundane and ‘human’ aspect of the christological antitype; indeed, such logic
was pursued in the sort of papalist arguments against which the Anonymous
was writing. The ambiguity of the Melchizedekian office is what allowed for
such vastly differing applications of the biblical figure in the twelfth century,
when the claims of temporal and spiritual power were already in so much flux.
It is also worth noting how the Norman Anonymous distinguishes the extent
of the kingly reign as opposed to the priestly. In the last quoted passage, the
Anonymous states of Christ, ‘regnabit in eternum et ultra. Qui sacerdos dicitur
in eternum, non ultra. Neque enim in eterno vel ultra eternum sacerdotium erit
necessarium.’ The royal role, therefore, goes into eternity while the priestly

30 ‘et rex sacerdos et sacerdos rex, in hoc quod christus Domini est, iure potest
appellari. Nam et sacerdotis est in spiritu Christi regere populum, et regis est sacrificare
et immolare in spiritu’, De consecratione, 254 (665).
31 ‘Nam et cum ad Christum dicitur: Tu es sacerdos in eternum, additur secundum
ordinem Melchisedech, id est regis iusticie. Melchisedech enim interpretatur rex iusticie.
Non enim secundum ordinem leviticum, sed secundum ordinem regis iusticie factus est
sacerdos. Unde manifestum est, quod sacerdotium Christi ab ordine regis iustcie ducit
exemplum, quoniam et ipse Christus rex est iusticie, qui ab eterno regnat, et regnabit in
eternum et ultra.’ De consecratione 252 (663).

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 565

role extends to eternity, but no further.32 This ironically grants a greater dig-
nity to kingship even though it is based on the scriptural claim that ‘you are a
priest forever’. It is also notably in contrast to other contemporary exegetical
traditions that are not so much ‘papalist’ or anti-royalist as they are simply
anti-hierocratic. Philippe Buc has described what he calls ‘pro-egalitarian’
exegetes who rejected the hierarchical conception advocated by Isidore of
Seville whereby the domination of humanity over creation was allegorized
into an explanation of temporal rule. In contrast to the kingship existing into
eternity that the Norman Anonymous presented,
their early Gloss on the Pauline Epistles incorporated a startling denial of
the permanence beyond the end of history of any form of hierarchical
authority. On 1 Corinthians 15:24, ‘When He will abolish every principal-
ity, every power and every virtue,’ the masters commented: ‘As long as the
world lasts, angels govern angels, demons govern demons, and human
beings, human beings, to serve or deceive the living. But when all shall have
been gathered, then all power (prelatio) shall cease, for it will no longer be
necessary.’33

Bernard of Clairvaux
Bernard of Clairvaux’s use of Melchizedek in his De consideratione was less
extensive than the Norman Anonymous. The work itself was not even strictly
a political treatise, but rather a book of advice for Pope Eugenius III, a former
pupil. The reference comes amidst an extended list of papal identities in Book
II, chapter viii:
Come, let us investigate even more diligently who you are; that is, what part
you play in the Church of God at this time. Who are you? The high priest,
the Supreme Pontiff. You are the prince of the bishops, you are the heir of
the Apostles; in primacy you are Abel, in governing you are Noah, in patri-
archate you are Abraham, in orders you are Melchisedech, in dignity you
are Aaron, in authority you are Moses, in judgment you are Samuel, in
power you are Peter, by anointing you are Christ.34
32 Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., pp. 128–9, Libelli de Lite, Vol. 3,
p. 663.
33 P. Buc, ‘Principes gentium dominantur eorum: Princely Power between Legiti-
macy and Illegitimacy in Twelfth-Century Exegesis’, in Cultures of Power: Lordship,
Status, and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. T.N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995),
pp. 310–28, p. 316.
34 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration, trans. J. Anderston and
E. Kennan (Kalamazoo, 1976), p. 66. ‘Age, indagemus adhuc diligentius quis sis, quam
geras videlicet pro tempore personam in Ecclesia Dei. Quis es? Sacerdos magnus,
summus Pontifex. Tu princeps episcoporum, tu heres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel,
gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate
Moyses, iudicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, unctione Christus.’ De consideratione ad

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
566 E.F. KUEHN

There is no significant explanation of what it means to bear the orders of

Melchizedek, or even any mention of Melchizedek’s priestly and kingly roles
(although these functions are of course implied). Elizabeth Kennan has even
said provocatively of the reference: ‘Many of the formulas which he uses in
the De consideratione to describe the papal authority are unclear. To say, for
example, that the pope is Melchisedech by order is not really to say anything
at all.’35 What has become clear, however, is that Bernard was not the radical
papalist of previous characterizations. Walter Ullmann’s and Augustin Fliche’s
focus upon hierocratic and Gregorian tendencies in Bernard have been coun-
tered decisively by Elizabeth Kennan and Bernard Jacqueline;36 in this
particular passage, for instance, it is clear that whatever Bernard means by the
‘order’ of Melchizedek, it concerns the ecclesiastical role of the papacy rather
than any secular role. Further, the passage must be understood within the
context of the rest of the treatise. J.W. Gray has deftly analysed the various
perspectives from which Bernard engaged questions of papal power, and his
comments on the rhetorical purpose of Books II and III within de Consideratione
are worth quoting at length:
This passage has been so frequently quoted, and plays such a large part in
the argument of ‘Gregorian’ interpreters of Bernard’s thought, that it is
hardly necessary to repeat it verbatim; suffice it to say that in its exposition
of the papal plenitudo potestatis, and in its ascription to the papacy alone of
that ‘Vicariate of Christ’ which Bernard had previously ascribed to all
bishops, it speaks — even more clearly than the letter to Milan — the lan-
guage of the Dictatus Papae. But it is the exordium, not the whole of
Bernard’s argument, and as we read on we find him first modifying and then
contradicting it.37
This point is borne out in examination of later quotations from De
consideratione II.viii by other medieval thinkers. This passage on the pope’s
identity became a political commonplace that found its way into a number of
divergent works. The influence of De consideratione in the later Middle Ages
is demonstrated by its publication in Utrecht, Augsburg and Paris during the

Eugenium papam, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais (Rome,
1963), Vol. 3, p. 423.
35 E. Kennan, ‘The “De consideratione” of St. Bernard and the Papacy in the
Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review of Scholarship’, Traditio, 23 (1967), pp. 73–115, p. 84.
36 See Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 262–72;
A. Fliche, ‘L’influence de Grégorie VII et des idées Grégoriennes sur la pensée de Saint
Bernard’, in Saint Bernard et son temps (Dijon, 1927); B. Jacqueline, Papauté et
épiscopat selon St Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris, 1963); and Kennan, ‘The “De consideratione”
of St. Bernard’.
37 J.W. Gray, ‘The Problem of Papal Power in the Ecclesiology of St. Bernard’,
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 24 (1974), pp. 1–17, p. 11.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 567

late fifteenth century.38 Marsilius of Padua quotes the passage in his Defensor
Pacis39 and does not seem concerned by any possible hierocratic implications;
specifically, he uses Bernard in this section for quite the opposite purpose —
to affirm through Bernard that the pope maintains a spiritual though not a
temporal power. The passage was also used by Gabriel Biel, Theodoro Laelio
and Pius II in support of the fifteenth-century curialist cause, though again not
to emphasize any temporal power for the pope but rather a strong teaching on
primacy within the Church against the conciliarists.40 It is clear that, at least in
the diverse political and ecclesiastical traditions that drew from Bernard, a
strong sense of papal primacy may have been derived from the order of
Melchizedek without any assertion thus being made about the supremacy of
priesthood over kingship. While Bernard certainly affirmed such a spiritual
primacy throughout his work, his concern remained within the ecclesiastical
sphere rather than with any claims to temporal authority. Priestly dignity over
kingship served more a theoretical than a practical purpose, and it was not in
any way drawn from the royal priesthood of Melchizedek.

John of Salisbury
If the Norman Anonymous represented a strongly royalist interpretation of
Melchizedek and Bernard of Clairvaux an interpretation more ambiguous yet
certainly papalist in sympathy and concern, John of Salisbury was somewhat
of a mean between the two. In Policraticus IV.3 he writes:
Inspection of such [exemplary] persons is common to all prelates, both
those who administer care in spiritual matters and those who exercise tem-
poral jurisdiction. Consequently, we have Melchizedek, the first whom
Scripture introduces as king and priest (making no mention at present of the
mystery by which he prefigures Christ, who was born in heaven without a
mother and on earth without a father). It may be read of him, I say, that he
had neither father nor mother, not that he was deprived of either one, but
because according to reason, kingship and priesthood are not generated of
flesh and blood, since in founding either one, respect for lineage should not
prevail apart from respect for the merits of the virtues, but the desire for the
benefit of faithful subjects should be prevalent. And when someone ascends
to the summit atop either mountain, he must be oblivious to carnal desires
and must do only what is demanded for the welfare of those subject to him.41

38 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration, p. 213.

39 Defensor Pacis, II.xxvii.11.
40 Defensorium Obedientiae Apostolicae et Alia Documenta, ed. and trans. H. Obermann,
D. Zerfoss and W. Courtenay (Cambridge, MA, 1968), pp. 92, 294, 362.
41 Unless otherwise noted, I will be using John of Salisbury, Policraticus, trans. C.J.
Nederman (Cambridge, 1990), and Policraticus I–IV, CCCM 118, ed. K.S.B Keats-
Rohan (Turnhout, 1993), hereafter cited: Policraticus, Nederman page number (Keats-
Rohan page number). ‘Quae quidem inspectio communis est omnium praelatorum, et

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
568 E.F. KUEHN

With regard to the relationship between temporal and spiritual power, John
of Salisbury is not concerned to vindicate the preeminence of one or the other.
Melchizedek is not cited to present a theory of kingship against priesthood as
in the Norman Anonymous; rather he speaks of a neutral comparison: ‘king-
ship and priesthood are not generated . . .’ and ‘when someone ascends the
summit atop either mountain . . .’. John of Salisbury’s concern is with the gen-
eration of priesthood and kingship, or the means by which either is achieved,
rather than with a theory of investiture or hierocracy. On the other hand, John
of Salisbury’s use of Melchizedek as an exemplum is rather distinct from Ber-
nard’s as well. Both would affirm that the ecclesiastical hierarchy holds a
more lofty position than the temporal hierarchy. John of Salisbury even
makes this very point in IV.3 itself, immediately preceding his discussion of
Melchizedek: ‘the prince is therefore a sort of minister of the priests and one
who exercises those features of the sacred duties that seem an indignity in the
hands of the priests’.42 This point sounds quite Bernardine; though superior to
temporal power, the Church is too secure in its dignity to be bothered by the
‘indignity’ of secular rule, and so while a hierocratic view is theoretically
present, it ends up being on a practical level more or less Gelasian.43 This is
precisely the situation that is presented in Bernard’s De consideratione. Yet,
in distinction from Bernard, none of this is theoretically justified by an appeal
to Melchizedek. The emperors Constantine and Theodosius are cited as
exempla when John of Salisbury discusses the submission of the prince to the
priests. Melchizedek, on the other hand, is recognized as an example for both
priestly and kingly rule, where in Bernard he represented only the pope and in
the Norman Anonymous he represented pope and king, though with a heavy
theoretical weight upon the superiority of the secular power. John of Salis-
bury remains concerned with legitimate authority more generally, and applies
it equally to the sacred and the secular.44

eorum qui spiritualium curam gerunt et qui saecularem iurisdictionem exercent. Vnde et
Melchisedech quem primum Scriptura regem introducit et sacerdotem, ut ad praesens
misterium taceatur quo praefigurat Christum qui in caelis sine matre et in terris sine patre
natus est, ille, inquam, nec patrem nec matrem legitur habuisse, non quod utroque
caruerit, sed quia regnum et sacerdotium de ratione non pariunt caro et sanguis, cum in
alterutro creando parentum respectus citra uirtutum merita praeualere non debeat sed
salubria subiectorum fidelium uota, et, cum alterutrius culminis apicem quisque
conscenderit, obliuisci debet affectum carnis et id solum agere quod subiectorum salus
exposcit.’ Policraticus IV.3, 33 (238).
42 ‘Est ergo princeps sacerdotii quidem minister et qui sacrorum officiorum illam
partem exercet quae sacerdotii manibus uidentur indigna.’ Policraticus, IV.3, 32 (236).
43 For a characterization of John of Salisbury’s views as a balance between hierocratism
and humanism, see Scanlon, Narrative, Authority and Power, p. 89.
44 Nederman and Campbell write, ‘he was satisfied neither with the fanatical spiritu-
alism of the hierocratic mind-set nor with an equally extreme authoritarianism (such as
might be found in the Anglo-Norman Anonymous) rooted in the literal interpretation of

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 569

The significance of John of Salisbury’s use of Melchizedek lies in this con-

cern for the criteria of legitimate authority. Twelfth-century England had
experienced its share of political strife at the hands of factions intent upon
temporal power,45 and the fact is not lost in John of Salisbury’s theoretical
concerns. One of the most studied aspects of the Policraticus has been its doc-
trine of tyrannicide, invoked in response to the problem of illegitimate rule.46
Just as important as such a corrective measure, however, is John’s under-
standing of the basis for legitimate rule.
Speaking of the succession of Joshua son of Nun over the Israelites, John of
Salisbury writes, ‘plainly there was never popular acclamation here, never the
rationale of blood ties, never was there contemplation of nearby relatives . . .
relatives are to be left the hereditary lands and estates and as many public
functions as possible. Still, governance of the people is handed over to him
whom God has elected’.47 The prince is also, ‘obedient to law, and rules his
people by a will that places itself at their service . . . while individuals merely
look after individual affairs, princes are concerned with the burdens of the
entire community. Hence, there is deservedly conferred on him power over all
his subjects’, and a distinction is established between kingship and tyranny.48
Nederman and Campbell note that John sees virtue as the basis for ‘true’
priesthood, ‘of the tribe of Levi’; this is comparable to his discussion of royal
succession as dependent on virtue rather than upon heredity.49 For John, ‘both

the king as imago Dei’. C.J. Nederman and C. Campbell, ‘Priests, Kings, and Tyrants:
Spiritual and Temporal Power in John of Salisbury’, Speculum, 66 (1991), pp. 572–90,
p. 589.
45 See C.W. Hollister, ‘The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126: Prelude to
Stephen’s Anarchy’, Journal of Medieval History, 1 (1975), pp. 19–41; W.L. Warren,
The Governance of Norman and Angevin England, 1086–1272 (Palo Alto, 1987).
46 See C.J. Nederman, ‘The Changing Face of Tyranny: The Reign of King Stephen
in the Political Thought of John of Salisbury’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 33 (1989),
pp. 1–20.
47 Policraticus V.6, 70. Ioannis Sacesberiensis Episcopi Carnotensis Policratici:
sive de nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII, ed. C.C.J. Webb (2 vols.,
Oxford, 1909), p. 549: ‘Hic autem plane nulla est populi acclamatio, nulla consanguinitatis
ratio, nulla propinquitatis habita contemplatio est [. . .] propinquis namque agrorum et
praediorum hereditas relinquenda est et ut plurimum actionum. Gubernatio uero populi
illi tradenda est, quem Deus elegerit.’
48 ‘legi obtemperat et eius arbitrio populum regit cuius se credit ministrum [. . .] cum
singuli teneantur ad singula, principi onera imminent uniuersa. Vnde merito in eum
omnium subditorum potestas confertur’, Policraticus IV.1, 28 (231–2). On the differ-
ence between a prince and a tyrant and an evaluation of various interpretations of IV.1
and its implications for the prince’s relationship with God, see N. De Araujo, ‘Le prince
comme ministre de Dieu sur terre. La définition du prince chez Jean de Salisbury
(Policraticus, IV,1)’, Le Moyen Âge, 112 (2006), pp. 63–74.
49 Nederman and Campbell, ‘Priests, Kings, and Tyrants’, pp. 579–80.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
570 E.F. KUEHN

the church and the secular government derive their authority and legitimacy
directly from divine ordination’.50
Arthur Monahan gives a description of the basis of kingship in the election
of God, distinguishing it both from previous theories of succession as well as
from elective kingship of the sort that might be implied by democratic theory:
‘He actually employs the terms “election” (electio) and “to elect” (eligere),
but the context shows that he is speaking of the ruler as chosen (elected) by
God. The fact of the ruler being designated by God is what constitutes the real
foundation of his authority.’51 Monahan’s assessment is, however, somewhat
coloured by a concern for later developments of democratic thought and mod-
ern social contract theories. He says: ‘[John’s] handling of [consent], how-
ever, shows only a slight advance in sophistication of theory.’52 Yet there is
nothing lacking in the sophistication of John’s theory; he simply does not
advocate a theory of public assent in the same way that a democratic elective
kingship would. The basis of his understanding of divine consent, however, is
quite sophisticated as it relates to the biblical narrative upon which it is based.
Melchizedek presents a natural exemplar for John of Salisbury’s theory of
elective kingship. He ‘had neither father nor mother’, in the same way that
‘kingship and priesthood are not generated of flesh and blood, since in found-
ing either one, respect for lineage should not prevail apart from respect for the
merits of the virtues, but the desire for the benefit of faithful subjects should
be prevalent’.53 The focus on serving the common good reflects the previous
distinction between kingship and tyranny in IV.1.
Yet this reading of the Melchizedek narrative, while perfectly acceptable
within a Christian interpretive tradition, rests upon exegetical assumptions at
variance with prevailing rabbinic teaching on Melchizedek. John’s use of
Melchizedek does not involve his royal priesthood, as the Norman Anonymous
and Bernard of Clairvaux had emphasized, but rather his lack of genealogy.
This tradition is absent in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, and first emerges in the
midrash of Hebrews 7, where the priest-king is described as, ‘without father,
without mother, without genealogy’.54 John specifically mentions the ties to
Christ’s lack of earthly father and heavenly mother, making it clear that this
biblical interpretation is in particular based upon the Christian biblical canon
and history of exegesis. A longstanding rabbinic tradition, however, had

50 Ibid., p. 587.
51 See A.P. Monahan, Consent, Coercion and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parlia-
mentary Democracy (Montreal, 1987), pp. 65–7, p. 65.
52 Ibid., p. 65.
53 Policraticus, IV.3, 33.
54 Hebrews 7:3. For a recent argument that the status of Melchizedek as ‘without
genealogy’ was derived not from an extra-biblical speculative tradition, but rather from
hermeneutical techniques common to Jewish and Christian readers, see G. Granerød,
‘Melchizedek in Hebrews 7’, Biblica, 90 (2009), pp. 188–202.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 571

differed from the Christian innovation and identified Melchizedek with the
biblical character of Shem, the son of Noah.

Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis

Fred Horton discusses the rabbinic interpretation at length, attempting to
locate precedents for the identification of Melchizedek with Shem. He has
demonstrated by way of the biblical genealogies that Shem was indeed said to
have lived during the time of Abraham. He also points out the similarities
between the blessings of Shem and of Abraham, and the unique sense in
which God was ‘the God of Shem’ up until the Melchizedek narrative:
Yahweh in Gen. ix.26 is called the ‘God of Shem’, and in Gen. xiv.18
Melchizedek appears as priest of El Elyon, which deity the Rabbis as well
as Philo and Josephus identified with the true God. Between Gen. ix.26 and
Gen xiv.18 there is no other passage in which Yahweh is said to be the God
of anyone other than Shem . . . It would be natural to see in the narrative of
Gen. ix the blessing of Shem which is passed on directly to Abraham by
Shem in Gen. xiv.55
This understanding of Melchizedek would have been problematic to a
kingship theory asserting the idea that heredity was not central to the legiti-
macy of a prince elected by God to rule. As demonstrated above, the blessing
of Shem was tied to its being passed on to Abraham through a human line of
succession. Even the Christian interpretation of Christ as being in the ‘order
of Melchizedek’ depended upon a challenge to the traditional Aaronic priest-
hood, so that a Melchizedekian order not associated with a divine mandate but
rather tied to the inheritance of authority through a human genealogy would
be devastating to the coherence of the exemplum. Giles of Rome later noted in
his de Ecclesiastica Potestate that Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica
identified the beginning of juridical management of land-owning and ruler-
ship with Noah’s sons, as the population of the world grew.56 Codified
governance of this sort would stand contrary to John of Salisbury’s theory of
kingship as elect by God on the basis of virtue and attention to the common
good over against hereditary right, and it would do so at the very point (the
generation succeeding Noah) where the Melchizedek exemplum was put in
question by the rabbis.

55 Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, pp. 114–24, p. 117. For a more recent discus-
sion of the identification, see M. McNamara, ‘Melchizedek: Gen. 14,17–20 in the
Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature’, Biblica, 81 (2000), pp. 1–31,
pp. 10–16.
56 Giles of Rome, On Ecclesiastical Power, ed. R.W. Dyson (New York, 2004),
pp. 195–7; and Scolastica historia, CCCM 191, ed. A. Sylwan, (Turnhout, 2005), pp.
72–3. See n. 67 below for more on the significance of Noah’s sons and the negotiation of
land and rule.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
572 E.F. KUEHN

While it is difficult to prove with any certainty, it is likely that John of

Salisbury was aware of this rabbinic teaching on Melchizedek as being
identified with Shem. Within Jewish biblical scholarship, the theory had
existed for some time, and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries it was men-
tioned by the prominent rabbinic schools on the continent. Rashi (d.1105)
writes: ‘A Midrashic explanation is that he is identical with Shem, son of
Noah.’57 Abraham Ibn Ezra (d.1164) also acknowledges the teaching: ‘some
identify Melchizedek with Shem’.58 Although John of Salisbury was not a
Hebraist, Christian hebraists such as Herbert of Bosham (who was a part of
the Becket circle)59 would have been aware of rabbinic scholarship.60 As the
studies of Beryl Smalley and others have shown, Christian biblical scholars
were eager to question the rabbinic schools both to ascertain the correct read-
ing of the Hebrew Scriptures and to learn about the traditional interpretations
based on the sensus literalis.
Honorius of Autun, in his Summa Gloria, recognizes a variation of the tra-
dition tying Shem to Melchizedek, though Melchizedek is depicted here as a
descendent rather than identical with Shem. Shem is also described as the
father of priestly rule, while Japheth is the father of kingly rule:
from Shem is said, by very learned men, to have descended Melchizedek,
who (it is written) was the priest of the Most High. We also read that
Melchizedek was king of Salem, because the ruler (rector) of any state used
then to be called ‘king’ (rex). It is also written that he was the first-born,
because true priestly rule is said to have started from him. Now, we find that
the Roman empire proceeded from Japhet.61

57 Pentateuch, with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashi’s Commentary, trans.

M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann (New York, 1934), p. 58.
58 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch: Bereshit, trans. H.N. Strickman and
A.M. Silver (New York, 1988), p. 167.
59 A. Grabois, ‘The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in
the Twelfth Century’, Speculum, 50 (1975), p. 630.
60 In addition to the above study, see T.F. Glick, ‘ “My Master, the Jew”: Observa-
tions on Interfaith Scholarly Interaction in the Middle Ages’, in Jews, Muslims, and
Christians In and Around the Crown of Aragon: Essays in Honour of Professor Elena
Lourie, ed. H.J. Hames (Leiden, 2004), pp. 164–73; B. Smalley, Study of the Bible in the
Middle Ages (Oxford, 1984); and G. Dahan, ‘Les Interpretations Juives dans les
Commentaires du Pentateuque de Pierre le Chantre’, in The Bible in the Medieval World:
Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood (Oxford, 1985),
pp. 131–55, p. 147. It is worth noting, however, that much of Christian knowledge of the
Jewish interpretative tradition probably came from St Jerome and other early church
fathers, rather than from direct interaction with rabbinic scholarship. Samuel Lachs’s
comment on the Historia Scholastica in response to Esra Shereshevsky is instructive
here: ‘The Source of Hebrew Traditions in the Historia Scholastica’, Harvard Theologi-
cal Review, 66 (3) (1973), pp. 385–6.
61 From Irenaeus to Grotius, 262. ‘Sem namque a doctissimis Melchisedech fuisse
traditur, qui sacerdos altissimi scribitur; qui etiam rex Salem legitur, quia rector cuiusque

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 573

The association of Noah’s sons with the beginning of secular rule stands in
agreement with the Historia Scholastica. In his De imagine mundi, Honorius
actually speaks of Melchizedek and Shem as the same person: ‘Shem the son
of Noah is himself the same as Melchizedek; he lived six hundred and two
years.’62 There was also material available to Christians detailing the non-
canonical literature of the Jews, and John of Salisbury has been noted to have
employed this source.63
John of Salisbury’s personal ties on the continent varied widely in their
interaction with Jewish learning, from Bernard’s relative lack of interaction to
the more involved career of others.64 It is safe to assume that, given the schol-
arly interaction across religious boundaries and the general prominence of the
rabbinic interpretation of Melchizedek in Christian literature, this tradition
was sufficiently well-known for Policraticus IV.3 to be considered in light of
its critique. Not only was the exegetical tradition aware of the identification,
but the most prominent encyclopedic chronicles of the twelfth century were
aware of the Jewish tradition and even made the political implications of such
biblical heredity quite explicit. Of course, there is no immediate reason why
the rabbinic interpretation would discount John’s use of Melchizedek for his
theory of kingship. The Christian reading of Melchizedek distanced itself
from the contextualization of human genealogy in a way that Jewish readers
had not, and John of Salisbury was certainly writing as a Christian rather than
a Jewish political thinker. There was no onus to use the exemplum otherwise.
But the close ties between the Christian and Jewish scholars during the
twelfth-century renaissance, and even the occasional agreement of Christian
witnesses with Jewish interpretation, compel some consideration of the ten-
sion presented by the disagreement. In the thirteenth century, Nicholas of
Lyra readily criticized Rashi’s discussion of Melchizedek in his Psalms com-
mentary,65 and it may be that a political debate also sat beneath the surface of
the disagreement over Melchizedek’s identity as Shem.

civitatis illo tempore rex dicebatur; qui quoque primogenitus scribitur, quia ab hoc
verum sacerdotium inchoasse dicitur [. . .] De Iafeth autem Romanum imperium
processisse invenitur.’ Libelli de lite, Vol. 3, p. 67.
62 Honorius Augustodunensis, De imagine mundi, PL 172, 166A. See also 168C,
‘Sem, qui Melchisedec.’
63 A. Saltman, ‘John of Salisbury and the World of the Old Testament’, in The World
of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1984), pp. 343–63, p. 353.
64 See D. Berger, ‘The Attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, Pro-
ceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 40 (1972), pp. 89–108;
M. Lemoine, ‘Abélard et le Juifs’, Revue des Études Juives, 153 (1994), pp. 253–67.
65 H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh, 1963), pp. 155–6.
Rashi sets the Davidic kingship above Melchizedek in his Psalms commentary, arguing
with the Norman Anonymous for the superiority of secular power over priesthood,
although he differs in refusing to recognize Melchizedek himself as an exemplum for
such secular power: ‘It is royalty which is higher than priesthood by thirty degrees. It is

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
574 E.F. KUEHN

A return to the text of Policraticus IV.3, however, reveals that the differ-
ence does not constitute an outright contradiction. Melchizedek, ‘had neither
father nor mother, not that he was deprived of either one [non quod utroque
caruerit], but because according to reason, kingship and priesthood are not
generated of flesh and blood’.66 The non-hereditary kingship theory is not
dependent on the historical persona of Melchizedek being without heredity —
Melchizedek’s being without heredity is rather dependent upon the kingship
theory, or upon his own status as king and priest rather than his person. In this
sense, Melchizedek as an exemplum reflects some aspects of typology. The
significance of the type (Melchizedek/being without genealogy) is grounded
in its anti-type (kingship/non-hereditary legitimacy) even though it precedes
the anti-type on a historical level. Further, it should be seriously considered
whether non quod utroque caruerit signals an openness to a heredity for
Melchizedek similar to that which Honorius is willing to affirm.
It is not even clear that Melchizedek’s genealogy in Shem would suggest a
justification for hereditary kingship that is incommensurable with divine elec-
tion. There was some ambiguity as to whether Shem or Japheth was the first-
born of Noah, or even whether Shem was younger than his brother Ham,
whose descendents were cursed.67 Yet in Wuttke’s study of the Melchizedek
tradition, the right of the firstborn is shown to be immaterial (as John of Salis-
bury himself understands it to be): ‘Melchisedech war Sem. Auch dann, wenn
Sem wirklich nicht der Erstgeborene war, konnte er ex ordinatione patris oder
de voluntate Dei das Priesteramt erhalten.’68 The legitimacy achieved ex
ordinatione patris or de voluntate Dei is the same concept as ‘election’ of the
prince by God that John of Salisbury discusses in Policraticus V.6. The bibli-
cal figure of Melchizedek therefore remains a potent exemplar of divinely

above the priesthood of Malkizedek who was a priest to the El Elyon. And should you
retort, he too, was a king — the kingship of Malkizedek is no kingship as far as Israel is
concerned.’ E. Shereshevsky, ‘Rashi’s and Christian Interpretations’, The Jewish Quar-
terly Review, 61 (1) (1970), pp. 76–86, p. 86. See also E. Shereshevsky, Rashi: The Man
and His World (New York, 1982), pp. 128–9.
66 Policraticus IV.3, 33 (238). Emphasis mine.
67 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch: Bereshit, p. 135. Rashi relates a note-
worthy tradition about the curse of Ham where Ham does not merely uncover his father’s
nakedness, but actually seeks to castrate Noah to prevent further potential sons from
challenging the hereditary right of himself, Japheth and Shem. Rashi on the Pentateuch:
Genesis, trans. J.H. Lowe (London, 1928), p. 133. For a discussion on rabbinic views of
the order of sonship and the crime of Ham, see J.P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of
Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden, 1978), pp. 151–4;
N. Koltun-Fromm, ‘Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah’s Righteousness in Light of the
Jewish-Christian Polemic’, in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian
Interpretation, ed. J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (Louvain, 1997), pp. 57–71,
pp. 66–7.
68 Wuttke, Melchisedech der Priesterkönig von Salem, p. 60.

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction
 MELCHIZEDEK AS EXEMPLAR FOR KINGSHIP 575

elective kingship, despite the tension produced by a complex situation of

different reading and oral traditions of interpretation for the biblical text.
John of Salisbury is often recognized for the literary achievement of his
Policraticus, and has been perceived as the last great medieval political
thinker before the introduction of the Aristotelian political tradition into Latin
translation. While John’s use of biblical and classical exempla is well attested,
the mysterious figure of Melchizedek has tended to be a less prominent
object of study. This is unfortunate, given that the interpretive history of the
Melchizedek episode presents so many conflicting political and religious doc-
trines, all of which shed crucial light on the intellectual history of Christian
and Jewish communities and the secular and ecclesiastical disputes of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. Melchizedek is used as a model for numerous
conceptions of kingship, with each drawing upon a different aspect of the
scriptural or oral accounts in order to justify competing political structures.
John of Salisbury appeals to the Melchizedek without genealogy and advances
a contrasting view to both the Norman Anonymous and Bernard of Clairvaux
that is also helpfully considered alongside the differing accounts offered in
contemporary rabbinic scholarship. I have argued that the Policraticus pres-
ents a Christian interpretation of the priest-king of Salem as an exemplar for
kingship and in doing so makes appeal to divine election as the basis of politi-
cal legitimacy. While Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy contributes to the
typological justification for non-hereditary kingship and thus stands in ten-
sion with rabbinic identification of Melchizedek with Shem, the differences
between rabbinic exegesis and Christian political thought are not insurmount-
able, and should rather be noted as a unique and revealing specimen of
twelfth-century conceptions of secular kingship.

Evan F. Kuehn UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2010

For personal use only -- not for reproduction