‘THE UNCOVERING OF THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES Paul Edward Dutton 1 N his Metatogicon John of Salisbury calls Bernard of Chartres the most TD conoiee or accomplisied Platons ofthe twelfth century: Bernardos ‘quogue Carnotensis, perfectssimus inter Platonicos seculi nostri...” Bernard is, as R. W. Southern has said the unobtrusive hero of the Metalogicon. full of literary, pedagogc. and moral virtues? But he has also been the subject of much scholarly confusion and dispute. Until nearly the end of the nineteenth century three Bemards were rolled into one: Bernard of Chartres, Bernard Silvestris, and Bernard of Moélan, later bishop of Quimper. who is possibly the Bernard Brito of the Metamorphosis Goliae.? Clerval was the frst 10 take a critical razor to the question, separating the Bernards and giving each his own ‘dentity.* Southem, though denying the predominant place of the cathedral school of Chartres in the twelfth century, has furthered Clerval's work by a careful examination of some of the assumptions about Bernard of Chartres: we ‘ean no longer assume, for instance, that Thierry of Chartres was the brother of this Bernard’ What we are left with is a starker account of the career of #43, ed. Clement C. 5. Webb, lahannis Saresberienseepicpi Carnoenss Metloicon (Oxfor, 1929), p. 25,1. 21-23 "Humanism ant the Schoo! of Charts in Southern, Medieval Humanism and Other ‘Sudies ew Vor, 1970 9.19 161-85). 2 See 1-0. Ward, The Date of the Commentary on Cts De Insentone by Thieery of Chars (a. 109811609) and the Comifsan Ack onthe Libera Ars Vitor 3 (1972) 26 66, where the question ofthe tree Bernards judicious surveyed. A, Clerval Les ccles de Chars au Mayen Age (i au sel) Pans, 1895: pt Frankfurt, 1968 and Geneva, 1977p, 158-63, Medieval Humanism. pp. 68-70. See also Ward, ‘The Date of the Commentary’, 263-6. and the counterargunet of Nikolas Haring, ‘Charen Paris Revsted-m Essay Honout {of Anton Charles Peis, 0 J. Reginald O Donnell (Toronto, 1974) p. 298.9 1268-525). Mossel Suse (984) 12.21, © Potts Ite f Maino Sai,“TE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEW OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 193 Bernard, but it is one on which scholars have reached some degree of consensus: Bernard, at Chartres by at east 1114 and scholae magister by 1119. ‘became chancellor by 1124 and was succeeded in this position by Gilbert of Poitiers in 1126. Among his students or at least the disciples of his method of teaching, can be countec Gilbert himself, William of Conches, and Richard the Bishop.’ This is, ofcourse, the minimum which can be claimed about the career of Bernard of Chartres. AAfier the recent and perhaps healthy clearing of the Chartrian forest only Bernard still stands tall and in place. Even the most discriminating of critics, ‘could not remove him from Chartres or entirely deny him his importance” Indeed John of Salisbury, himself a man of discrimination and taste, called Bernard "exundantissimus moderns temporibus fons literarum in Gallia.” Despite this high, almost extravagant praise, Bernard has remained a kind of Socratic figure, one whe deeply impressed the men of his time, but who seemed to have left no writings by which he might be judged. In tact, without the Metalogicon of John of Salisbury. Bernard would scarcely warrant a footnote in ‘most studies of the twelfth century. From John we learn virtually everything ‘we know about the literary life of Bernard of Chartres: of his teaching methods." of his favourite expressions." of the few lines of verse which we can * See the dete account of Bernard of Chartres’ careee by Hiring. bid, 269-7 1 For the wines to Ger of Pots 35a student of Bernard of Chartes, see tons et Rakewin! Geta Frideril inperatoris 182, e3. B. von Sinson (MGH.Seriporum rerunt ‘sermanicarum i sun scholauns Hanover 1912), p. 74 On Willa of Canehes and Richard {the Bishop sents of Bernard of Chats, see Joh of Salisbury et, 24, ed. Webb. 5. ‘Asise from "Humanism and the School of Charves. Soutorn has reconsidered the ‘positon of Charrs into nacent works: ‘The Schools of Pris and th School of Chars" in Renaissance and Reneval n he Twelfth Century. 0d. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable with ‘Cate D, Lanham (Cambridge, Mase. 1982) pp. 113-37 and Plato, Scholastic Method and the Sehoa of Charre (Pe Santon Lectre of 1978 Reading. 1979) #Sou Southern, Medieval Humanism, pp 7879 snd The Schools of Paris and the School of Charre, 13 Ter. 124, ed, Webb,» $5.1 1-13, iid, pp 55:57 See on of Salsbury. Polcraticus 2.22, . Clement C- J. Webb, ohannlsSaresteriensis cplscopi CarntensisPolerascas | (Londen, 1909: rp. Frankfurt, 1963) p. 131 1. Set: Met Tit ed Wet, . 29,1 1624; and Met. 3.4 ed. Web . 136.1, 23-27. On the las ofthese hich ste famous image of the moderns as dwarfs perched on the shoulders ofthe giants of Insquty, soe Raymond Kitna. Standing oa the Shoulders of Giant ss 24(1935:36) 107 To9 and Edouard Jeauneau, "Nan! glean Imes isidentes™. Ess dintrpretaton de Bernard de Chartres Viurium 5 (1967) 7959 (pen Jeeuneas, ‘Leet phisophorum Recherches sur Ecole de Chartres [Amstertar, 1973), pp. 53-79. ‘Due to dearth of watings by Bernard of Chars thee has been a tendency to create some. Professor Jeaneal ew my aention to one such. M-D_ Chenu assigns the phrase “Verias fa termporis' (True daughter of ime’ o Berard of Charente epirap © bis insigifl esa, "Consdence de Thistowe et thélopi’. Archives dare docrinate ef194 P.£, DUTTON associate with his name. of his basic teachings and moral attitudes," and of ‘one treatise whch he wrote.” Yet John of Salisbury never knew Bernard personally. Moreover. one does not derive the impression from the Metalagicon ‘hat John was o2 intimate terms with any of Bernard's-writings, Chapter 24 of the frst book of the Metalogicon, in which John describes Bernard's methed of teaching, provides an excellent example of the way in which John probably knew about Bernard, Surely no written account of Bernard as a teacher existed. More likely John had received reports about Bernard's pedagogy from his own teachers, William of Conches and Richard the Bishop, and had witnessed, through them, some of Bernard's techniques in practice. With hindsight John could perceive the importance of the method. Since its stringency served 2s a partial prologue to the Cornifician dispute which hhastened the exit of William and Richard from the scene. The Chartrian method of teaching exemplified by Bernard and of whieh John considered himself to be a product was, doubdess, a much discussed issue and, therefore, from John’s point of view memorable. We should note that John of Salisbury chiefly illustrates Bernard's teachings by means of short poems and pithy phrases. again material that he had likely heard from William and Richard and preserved in his own lecture notes. What he provides are the exempla of Bernard's lectures. and his use of the imperfect tense such as “Aiebat Bernardus Camotensis’ ane “Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis’ suggests that these were things which Berard frequently used to say to his pupils. Several times John places the teachings of Bernard in the context of a speaker and his listeners linraire du Mayen Age 10 (193538) 107 (pt. a Chenu. La thle au dowcéme sete. 38 ston (Paris, 1976p. 62 and wan. Jerome Taylor and Leser Kite ss Nature, Men, and Saciew in she Twelth Comury: Essays ot New Theological Perspectives nthe Lawn West (Chicago, 196), p62). The atibuton ofthe saving to Berard was also repeated by Jacques Le Goffe nllectls au Mayen Age (ars, 1985, rt 1957, 1962. 1976). 19. Vern, fle ‘empors it encore Bernard de Chars. Th ft, his appealing poe paras drives fom the Ante Nights of Aulus Gels. who hima! conveninty claims o be unable to remem the ame of the poet sho fist coined it 4. Gellt Noctum aticoram Ibi xx T2117, €8 P-K Marsal! (Oxford, 1968) “Alas quidam ueterum poetarum, ulus nomen mihi mune 'memriae non est, Veriatem Tempore fam esse dx” "Me. 4.35.04, Webb, p. 208, 24-27 and p 206, I, 26-3: and Fo. 7.13, ed. Webb. 2, P.145. TL 2-14. The three hexamers ound in the Polcatiens were aso quoted snd commented on by Hugh of St Vicor. in Didacaioar 3.12. ed. CH. Butimer, Hagan de Sanco Victore Didasalicn. De studio legend (Stade in Medieval and Reneisance Ltn 10 Washington, DC. 1939) p61, 10-19, 1 Met. 3.17, ed, Webb. pp 93-84; 32, pp. 124, 1.21125, 110; 4.35, pp. 205, 121-206, 13 der 435,08 Webb, p. 206.1, 19-20-"Vt enim atin expositone orp.” This work ns ot oon identifi Mer 32, ed. Webb, p 124, 1,21 and 34, p 136, 1.23,THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES. 195 (auditores}” the listeners whom John knew best were William of Conches and Richard the Bishop, his own teachers, John sees Bernard Unrough their eyes: Bernard was already considered old when William and Richard were his students, and so John refers to him as the Senex Carnotensis.* To repeat this important point, it seems likely that John of Salisbury knew Bernard of Chartres chiefly by reputation and not by a reading of his works. But it would be wrong to assume that other writings by Bernard did not or do not exist just because John of Salisbury does not mention them. We know, {or instance. that William of Conches wrote a number of Works, but his student John names none of them, Even in John’s day works by Bernard may have ‘been difficult to identify. Most tweifth-century commentaries. even by men as famous as William of Conches, Gilbert of Poitiers, and Thierry of Chartres. ‘were published anonymously.” OF all the manuscripts of William of Conches’ losses on the Timaeus, for instance, only one possesses ate fully naming him ‘as author.” Glosses were perceived to be aids to understanding a given text, but they stood second in importance to the text itself. It is not only plausible but likely that Bernard of Chartres wrote glosses on the texts which he regularly taught at Chartres. He was, afterall, the principal proponent in the early twelfth ‘century of a systematic reading of the philosophers, the ecto philasophorum, and the Metalggicon describes. in part, how this was accomplished* The composition of glasses was, as Bernard must have realized along with William. an extension of the art of teaching, ‘for no one ought to write glosses for ‘himself, but for others."® Its not impossible that Bernard glossed some of the works later glossed by ais student William: those of Boethius. Macrobius, and Priscian appear to be reasonable choices. since these were the core texts studied ‘at Charres ‘The Timaeus of Plate, however, is the text which Bernard of Chartres is most likely to have glossed. A man does not gain a reputation as the foremost Platonist of his day. day in which the Timaeus was widely available and was the single work of Plata known to the Latin West, without saying something Mer, 1.11, ed, Webb, p29, 17-18 and 2.17 p.94.1.23, Met 11-68, Webb. 29,1. 1617, and Po. 222, e6. Webb, 1.131.1.9 and 7.13, ef woop, 2148, 18. 1 Gee Nikolaus Hiring, Commentary an Hermeneutics in Renatsonce and Renewal the Towel Cennry,p-175 {113-2001 “See Edouard Jeaunen, ed, Guillaume de Cones, Glasae super Pleonem (Texts pllosopiques du Moyen Age 13: Par, 1968). pp 15-16, 32 BNer 124, ed, Webb. pp 55:57 2 Wiliam of Conches Gosee super Pricianum, ed. & Jeaunea, Deux réaction des Joeas de Guile de Conshe ur Drs’. Recherches de loge arcenne et medvale (1960) 212-47; pen Lect phlosphorun.p- 947 (838-70 "Nal enim si sed als glosare196 DUTTON. About it. Indeed. inthe Meralogicon, John of Salisbury furnishes ample evidence ‘of Bernard's Platonism and of his specific interest in the Timaeus. Bernard has long been secognized, in fact. as the founder of the Platonic tradition at Chartres. Where else but at Chartres in Bernard's presence did such future Platonists as Gilbert of Poitiers and William of Conches firs intensively study the Timaeus? The case against a distinctive Chartrian Platonism, argued with sreat verve and eloquence by Southern, has really been made in the absence of texts Without 2 genuine work of Bernard in hand, no Chartrian tradition of | reading Plato could be fully demonstrated. For nearly a century. scholars have formed opinions about Bernard's Platonism based on the descriptions of it to be found in the Meralogicon.* What has been wanting since Clerval first discovered the true identity of Bernard of Chartres has been a work which could be surely attributed to him. Among twelfth-century glosses on the Trmaeus perhaps suck a work ts ¢0 be found. Aside from Wtliam of Conches’ glosses, virtually all twelfthcentury glosses (on the Thnaeus. of which there are a considerable number, remain anonymous. ‘The most popular ofthese was the set which begins with the words ‘Socrates de re publica decem libris disputaut’ and ends ‘substantia quattuor prineipalium corporum quod superius promiserat.%* This work, Which shall henceforth be cited as the Glosae super Plaronem.2 runs to about 20,000 words. It contains a 2» See especialy Potonism, Scholes Method, an the Schl of Chartres, where Southern ‘evel his fullest aumens agains the Plaansm’of Cartes % See. for instance. Cleval. Les ccoles de Chartres. pp 162-63; Euenne Gilson, ‘Le platonsme de Bernard Je Charts. Revue névscolostiue de phlsophie 28 (1929) 3-15 4. Parent. La derine de aeration can sole de Chartres (Pableatons de asi dues ‘étievales dOttwa 8; Pars, 1938). pp. 45-48, $485: Eugenio Garin, Stud sul platontma ‘metieate (Quaderi di letwratara ¢ darte 17. Forence, 1958) pp 3033: Tlie Gregory “Anion ord’ La flosoia dt Gugeto dl Conches¢ la Scuola di Charrs Florence, 1933, 2p. 16-79 and Pltotumo mostevae> stud e Heerohe Rome, 1988, pp 113-13, Jean Jolt, "Elements pour une Ede des rapports ene la grammaire et Fontologic aw Moyen Age in Sprache und Erkeminis im Mivelater (Miscellanes mediaevala 131, Bertin, 1981) 9p. 13639 {135:6i) and Armand A. Maurer. fedeval Piosphy, 2nd eda The Etienne Gison Series 4: Toronto, 1982) pp. 11-75, % On this work, se Paul Edward Dutton. ‘lustre cao et papal exemplum: Plato's Timaeus an the Trsasmision fem Cali othe End ofthe Twelkth Cenary oe Ppa Scheme of Society Mediaeval Stdies 45 (1983) 98-96 [9-119] Raymond Kilansky. The Gontnuty of the Ploonie Tradton during the Mile Ages: Otis of a Corps Planicurt Met Aev London, 1939, rp 1950: rp wth anew preface and four Supplementary chapters BL: pe. 30,82, corey refers o hs work a 9“comantary on Chea Although hist does not accompany the tex, isthe prefered tle for such a work in the twelth century: ee lennea. ed. Gullaune de Conehe, lose. pp. 1617 and Haring, “Conimentary and Harmeneutes. 17880, Moreover, te fourteenth conti able of cates ‘be found on fl Ir ofthe ws. sed as D below cal thi work, ‘Close super Paton{THE GLOS4E SYPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 197 ‘complete set of glosses on Plato's Timaeus as it exists in the shortened version translated into Latin by Calcidius. The Glosae super Platonen, at least in its ‘main manuscript traditon, does not accompany the text of the Timaeus as ‘marginal glosses, but stends on its own with lemmata which refer the reader to the Timaeus, The Ghsae super Platonem has been identified in five manuscripts” D =Durham, Cathedral Library CIV-7, fols 42ra-49vat™ (M-=Munich, Bayeriche Staatsbiliothek Clm S408, fls. 1-380 (© = Orléans, Bibiottéque Municipale 260 (216), pp. 175-214 P =Pommersfelden, Grilich Schonborn'sche Bibliothek 76 (2663), fols. 42r 60. V =Vienna, Osterrechische Netionabiblothek 2376, fos. 19r-31v. In all but V, the text is complete. V ends prematurely at Timaeus 428 with a ‘loss on the word acturis. D and M are followed by notes on Plato which derive, at least in part, from the Glosae.™ > Kiibansky, The Conny 9.30, noted the five ces which have copes of he work and on p.55 the appropriates! mrs: Buin the Conspectus appended to The Conny. P52. Ne listed only four nex. See alse Marguet Gibson, ‘The Study ofthe Timaeus inthe Eleventh and ‘Twelfth Centos, Pensamioto 28 (199) 18818394) A fll description ofthese manscrp Wille supplied in my frteoming eaison of the Glose super Pate 1 on iss see RA: 3. Myra. Durhan Cathedral Monasrits othe End af the Twelfth Century (Onfvd. 1939), p. 3; EA Lowe. Coes lain antquiores 2 (Oxford. 1935). p11 {no 190. RW. Hunt, Stusies on Prican inthe Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Mediaeval land Renaissance Studies 1941-43) 207 n 3; and Gibson, id, 188 “Fora desrigtion, ee Jeauneas, Gulloume de Canohes, ase, pp. 41-2. ™ See the Caulogue general dev manners des biblohigues publigues de France. ‘Département (Octave Serie) 12 Orleans Par, 1889), p. 125, See also L- Delisle, Notice sor Dlisurs manus de a Bbiotteque dOrkeans ia Nouees ef exalts es mame 3.1 Essa 390091, A. Cordliar, ‘La login de Garland de Besangon’ Revue du Moyen Age ain 5 (1949) 4347; and L-M. de RUE. o, Garlandus Componia Dialcca (Assen, 1989) pp x= av 3 On this ws see JH. Wasink, 2, Tomacus 2 Caleaio ranslams commentarigue insiructs,2n6 ebion (Pap Latinus 4: London. 1979) ext id. p. con 5 The references fo Caeidus’' translation of the Timaeus wil be cited by editor, page umber, and line numer, curs, foe iestance curs at Waszink 37.10. V ends on fl 31V ia Ini page with the words sonpore ries eterna itu bettie’ OE vac and Mt 3¥39v poses he same Mist six nots, having the following Unis: (0) Nova es figuras in compostoneanimse {Q) Nota Pht conseare hebrecum (3) Nota in oni rotund {) Nota clu verso modo @ phlosophis sept (5) Nota dum planetenituntur (6) Now uetestom annum 1 49, however, continues witha seventh note, absent in Mi (9) Platonic sententa et ignem ineriorem “The second of these notes ay be found enrely and exacy in the Glaze super Plamen, while198 P-€. DUTTON All ofthe above manuscripts date from the twelfth century." Two (Mand P) ‘reveal palaeographical characteristics proper to the end of the twelfh century: P Dossesses little separation between letters and a consistent use of diacrtical ‘marks over i, while M also employs the majuscule form of s in @ wide variety of positions and uses such abbreviations as § for sunt. and V should probably’ be dated closer to the middle of the twelfth century. since they both possess a ‘mich clearer separation of letters. yet have the majuscule s at the ends of ‘words, a consistent use of the diacritical marks over i, and a marked preference fore cedilla. Dis, doubtless the oldest of the manuscripts. Mynors had placed it in the first half of the twelfth century in his comparative study’ of the ‘manuscripts of Curham Cathedral Library. D lacks diaeritieal marks over i fand has an orthography in which both ae and e cedilla are employed. The ‘majuscule form of s is restricted to use, and this irregularly. at the ends of complete lines of writing. In a few eases the » at die end of @ Word forms a ligature rising up above the last letter (as, for example, porentias on fol. 44th. These are all features characteristic of manuscripts from the early twelfth century. On palacographical grounds alone, itis not impossible to date D. and therefore the manuscript tradition of the Glosae. to the first quarter of the towelfth century, Additional evicence forthe early date of the composition of the Glasae super Plaionem is prov-ded by its wide and early reception in the twelfth century. ‘Tullio Gregory. who edited a few passages ofthe Glosae from M and V." noted that some were related to another set of Timacus glosses to be found in two ‘manuscripts; one of these dates to the twelfth century. In a recent article, 1 Pointed out dependent passages in four other sets of glosses on the Timacus, all Of them from the twelfth century.” In all, twelve sets of glosses which reflect. rts ofthe others aho deriv from this text. On the copy ofthe notes in M, se Jesu, Gulloue de Conches Glasae. #1 For evidence fer dating ws. fom this period on palscogrephical grounds, sce Armando Perucsi‘Censiment de odie dei sec xa stron! perl detrione' Sad! medieval ed Ser. 9.2 (4968) 1118-26, [would like to tank Professor LeonaréE Boyle Yor his help in atin theses % Durham Cathedral Manuserins . 58 2 See Gregory. Patonismo meitevle. pp. 66-11. 16 9.1, 103, and 120-21. Another shor usa from the lose was edited from M by Peter Dronke, abu: Explorations tthe set fat Medico Phtonsm (Leiden. 1974p. 89 {Lastly se the passages ede Daton, ‘Msre cuts e poral exempun’. 95-96 nn. 6263. >» The two ws. ave Vienna, Otereichische Naionalbibithek 278. fos. 18 from the {weit century and Vatican Ciy. Bowen Apastoion Vateaa Vat lat 3063, fle 1-680 from the foutenth century. On the dats and reation ofthese two es of dene lose Gregory. Plaontno medevale. pp 8-91: and compar the ext edited on pp. 73-76 with the fone taken Rom the Gesae: pm Dutton,‘ hati et popu exemplun’. 9-96.97 n, 67‘THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 19 to a greater or lesser degree, the Glosae super Platonem have come to light. Nine of these are found in twelfth-century manuscripts. The set of glosses contained in London, Sritsh Library Royal 12.B.xxii, fols. 2r-9r. 36r-41W. ‘which one scholar dated to ‘circa 1100", reveals, for instance. a heavy, though rot exclusive, dependence on the Glasae.*! The numerous dependent twelfth- “© Revealing heavy but not exclusive, dependence on the Glaze super Patonem are the fotlowing st of Timaeus Bosses “Vatican City, Biiwecs Aposilica Vaticana Vat. at. 3815, fs. 1-32 xi Florence, Biota Nizionsle Conv. sop. 3.2435 fol. t-27w xi London, British Lieary Royal 12B.xx fos 218 36-4 (5. London. British Libary Adit 22613, fas. 4.38 (id Oxford. Bodleian Library Auet F315, fb. 11-19 (xh None of thse repeats exaciy the sequence of glosses as found in any of the others thei ‘NRtanta writin in leon of gles would seem to suasest tat they do nek depend on ich other, bot more drssty upon the Glae. Another group of Timacus gases reveals © ‘Seana deb othe Glosr, bu indvidal glosses are often reworked: Paris, Bibothoqve Naina lat. 16579, fs. 1-534 xi) Pommetsflden. Crafch Sehanborn ste Natonalbiblbsk 76 (2663), ols. 21-39 er ‘Vienna Oseréehische Netionalbbioek 278, fls 1-84 (5. and Vat. lt 2063, fle. 1-685.) Cvoinauc, Stn archi OD 36S ols 325-60 sx ‘The influence ofthe Glaze wpon this group of losses was probably Fess iret, perhaps diving ftom one ofthe many glowed copies ofthe Tinaeus refling the Gowe, Lay the ws Contain but a ace ofthe sluence of the Giese Avranches, Bibjotbique Municipal 226 fol 96-1131 (ib {Eondon. British Libary Arunde) 339, os. 110¥-1207, ai Cambrige. Trnty College R923 Uaenes 828), fl. 751920 (xi) Doubles these slosies represent he last stags inthe difsion of he infuence ofthe lone: a ‘ore general eieulation of te eachings without direct reference to the Glas sl Dats end deserpioe for thee ws may be fod in Waszink, Timaeus a Caleto translans, p. evict, ci, The des given brackets, however, reer tthe lose aber than the main text ofthe Tmaers, In ost eases, tbe hanes for both are the same and hus ‘Weak dates are fairly liable but Cambrage Tiny College ws. 8.23 ames 824) as tweli-century Timaeus exompanied by foareentvcentry glasses, It should also be noted tt ‘Pommesstiden 16 (266) i actually foliated twice in the bs. withthe text of the Timaens fanning ether om fls. 38 or 21-39. Waseink, bid p a. has given the folios aI Sov The prefered foliation is Ir J8v Oo the Olomouc ws. see Juneau, ‘Plato apud obemon Mesiacvol Studies 41979) 166.68. its thanks to Profesor Jeunes that | wes able tomate the connection been thts andthe Glase, since he generously puchis transcription ofthe at my dispest 1 See Gide, “Phe Stay ofthe Tinaeu 185. for the dae ofthe ws. which has the same than for both the main tek ofthe Times and te Badly rubbed and often legible glosses. 10 Dutton, ‘Maire cians ° popu esenplum’. 98-96 and nn 6-64, one example of the ‘Sipendence of thew gluse on the Gilaue is given. Azotber can now be brought forward Gaines Post. Sales. In Medieval Lepal Though. Public Low and the Stare, 1001322 (Princeton, L968) p. $07 and 30, wrote:200 PE. DUTTON century glosses af the Timacus altest to a process of diffusion of the Glasae super Plaionem which must have begun in the frst quarter of the century. In its own right, the popularity of the Glosae is quite remarkable. Even the losses of William of Conches. whom Marsilio Ficino included in the circle of ‘reat Platonists, would not seem to have been more popular.*® Occasionally. in fact, the influence of William and our Glosae super Platonem ean be found in the same set of glosses. Edouard Jeauneau, for instance, was able to demonstrate the dependence of one set of glosses in British Library. Addit. ws 22815 on William, but noted that some others could not be accounted for. (One of these, ast now turns out, drives directly from our Glosae. and would seem to be prior to William's. Recognition of the importance and extensive influence of the Glosae super Platonem would seem to be a necessary frst step towards the clarfication ofthe tradition of medieval Timacus glosses. We have Probably had. besause ofa lack of comparative aialysis, an Inflated view of the ‘number of independent glosses of the Timaeus. Margaret Gibson, after @ Survey ‘of the medieval material, identified what she thought were seven distinct ‘commentaries on the Timaeus; three of these can be shown to depend on the 8 alossior ofthe Tinzeus. who probably belonged fo the schoo of Chats. Stressed he word pairia in declaring tat the guaran or magtsteriv Should 9 ‘pediy aginst destroyers endiutre) ofthe patria. IN. 30] Brit Ms. ms, Royal 12 B. nh, fol.2¥. ad vx noturae mogisern: “Quasi. endeores pate Ut roti sit ad Inborem et afaiesoteentibus 1 ws unable to Fed the word ot words before endratores: but possibly one Word is adver a in the words of Socrates. above, n.28,aduersum.. hosts” As for endrutre, Ido hot find he ‘word in any Latin ditonary: but i probably a coinage fom dere. itn AtTimacos 18a, Waszink 8.16, the Gore reads ‘Huis acini ext eupics aarrae. quash fig mutriendi sunt toes pring ut prompt a laborem et affable sin obedienus-(D Ses, ‘My. 0178, P4iv. V21n ta nutiendh tors And inde. the hoe referved toy Post ‘when examined unde trv igh actully end. Qua unt atid ures pie romtl sin a labocem et affable cooesentibus. ‘Nam Apuleius. Caledus. Contus. Pokamgus, Platonic nobiles eo. quem bre Teferam, modo Platnis senientam obscurisimis tn Tineo uerts posta snferpretatur (Masito Feito, De vlupire 7 in Opera omnia | (Base. 1576). pp. 997-98) Jeasnese. Who ‘made an extensive sich, found eleven whol or fragmentary copies of Witla’ glosses om the Timaeus: see Ieaunest. Gullaume de Conches, Glosae, pp 3-88 and Plato aped Boner 189.96, A lesser numberof dependent loses. however have bon found. On Tout of these ee ‘Jesuneat: Gulloume de Conches.Gleae. pp. 319-22 snd ‘Gloses su i Tacs, ds pamcon Digby 217 de Is Baaienne. a Oxford. Socrisernit 17 (1960) 165-400 igh in Lec Plilsophorun’. pp. 239-64 “Exide Gisae super Plaonem de Guillaame de Conches Gans un manuseré de Londres Journal of tie Warburg ond Courtauld Instutes 40 (1999) 212-22. “ iid 215 eauseay separated the hands ito, in which he gests dawn fom Wiis ‘of Conches ae write, and . which he Suspected of being prot (213 n 8). is fact te Jnand off thatthe sioses drawn ffom our Close super Paton are waite“THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES. 201 Glosae and, thus, her list of distinet works can be reduced to atleast four. One is left with the distinct impression of both the popularity ofthe Glosae and of its centrality to an incipient twelfth-century interest in the Timaeus. ‘The philosophical, rater than grammatical, character of the Glosae makes the early twelfth century likely time for its composition. Moreover. the Glosae ‘can be connected with Chartres ina number of ways. V and M both, for instance, contain works of William of Conches which follow the Glasae. There is also the matter of the Timacus commentary contained in Uppsala. Universitetsbiblioteket ns. C 62." Scholars have been quick to note its many resemblances and exact parallels in the works of William of Conches. particularly in his glosses on the Timacus- This has led some, among whom Southern is the most recent proponent, to argue that the Uppsala commentary represents an early version of William’ glosses on the Timaeus. Jeauneau, ‘Who does not employ this text in his edition of William's glosses. thought that the hypothesis was unprovea and propuxed wt alternative explanation, the scribe of the Uppsala manuscript was a compiler, extracting material randomly. from among many of William's works.® What has not been realized, and what ‘must surely be taken into consideration, i that the Uppsala commentary 1 The Stuy ofthe Times’ 188, gives the following st of seven dine? commentaries on the Timaeus 1. Wiliam cf Conches commentary I. Avranches 26 fo, 113 Grapment on) IIL Vienna 2996 ih four other manvscrps) WV. Oxford Deby 23, V. Paris In 16879 VIL Vienna 28 (with Vat. lat 2063) VI London Royal 12.B.x4 1 (Wiliam of Coneher glosses) and II fur lose sper Plata re, indeed ‘stint works Ils bus fogment and. therefore, elficalt to judge: se Jeaunea,"Gloses marginals sur le ‘Tonds de Plato du maser 226 de la Bibliotheque municipal AVranches. Saers erudt \7 966) 7-89 (et in Jenne, ‘ecto phlsanphoram’. pp 20827) 1V remains to be cially Studd Te temaining tre, V. Vi, and VI al show heavy, Bt nt excusve, dependence on Tl auc Gone super Parone: se above nn. 38 ‘A Sony contains tee fragments from Wilian’s losses on the Times: see Seaunent, Guiloume de Coches, Cosa. p42. V 32064V contains « copy of William’ Phisophi, od. Gregor Mavrach (Pretoria 1980 also ed, in PL172.S10-1024 othe tent as been eis or rather ranscribed as it siands with few emendations, by Toa Schinids “Ein Tinaicekonimentar in Signa’ Classica et mediaevalia: Revue danse de Dillagi td Nsire 10194931) 22066, The edition hasbeen much cried, but itshould be ‘ementbored tha the texts corrupt see Brian Stock, Mou and Seence inthe Twelfth Centar: A ‘Study of Berard Sister Prsncton. 1972), p. 36 0.42. 4 See Schmii ibad 221-25 and Gregory Anima ue. pp. 15-16 Soe Southern, Plaonim. p16 2.17 and pp. 22-23. 1 See Jeauneus, Guilaume’ de Conches. Glosae. pp. 13-14 and ‘ecto philsophorum ps0 a202 P.&. purto ‘contains as much of our Glosae super Platonem as it does of William's, To take ‘but one of many cases of dependence: Epulwn: Timacus V7, Waseink 7.2 Glosce super Platonem ‘Uppsala Timaeus commentary | est conuiuium citar disputatio philo- id est conuiitum distur disputacio philo- sophorum per simle* quia sict in con-sophorum per simile, quia sicut in com. ‘wiuio mult habentar fercula ita in eorum uo habentur fercla ita in dsputacione isputatone multae et uariae tactantur philosophorum mute et uarie tracantur Sententiae. Mos enim erat philosophorum sentencie. Cardo: id est materia circa lt in conuentu? de rebus necessriis quam uersaturintencio, sicutestium ctea Aifferrent. quod ir conuenty isto factum cardinem cst. Narmulam (Tmacus 178, Waszink 7.10% uocat rem publicam quam depinxit secundum posts ines, Cardo hnesterae disputatonis Timaews 7c. Waszink 8.1) id est materia circa quam wersiturintentio, ut hestium cirea cardi ‘The Uppsala commentary, in this case, repeats exactly. though not entirely, ‘What isto be found in the Glasae; in other cases passages from the Glosae are Teworked. But with the Glosae in hand. one can reconstruct many ofthe badly ‘mangled passages in the Uppsala manuscript It seems likely that the scribe of the exemplar of the Uppsala commentary or the Uppsala manuscript itself was in possession of a copy of the Timaeus which had at least two sets of glosses, fone deriving from the Glosae super Plaionem and another from William of Conches. We have already noted that some manuscripts possess both these losses side by sice, Thus the scribe would have transferred these glosses into fn independent commentary, mixing both and reworking as he went. We must ‘wonder, moreove: if scholars have not seen so much influence of William in this commentary because of a common influence of the Glasae on both the Uppsala commentary and on William's glosses on Plato. Tt seems highly likely that William of Conches himself was aware of our Glosae super Platonem. Twice, for instance, William quotes lines of Virgil also Guoted at the same point in the Glosae, even though neither the Glosae nor William introduces many such lines of poetry into their respective glosses on. the Timaeus.* More striking evidence of influence could be obtained if one subjected to systematic study all of William's references to anonymous 8 D 42va M 4: 0:178; P43v: V 20y oper simudinem Yom, ¥. ® Schmid. Ein Trmioskommenta 230 AtTinacus 17e, Waszik 8.10, both quote Vigil, Aeneid 6853 and at Tinaeus Me ‘Westink 2617, both cite Viel enetd 6731‘THE GLOSAE SYPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 203 contemporary sources. William almost never names modern authors, but buries their ideas in his glosses with such phrases as “quidam dicunt’ and “quidam dissentiunt. Arrong these nameless others. the author of the Glosae is, probably to be found. William notes. for instance, that certain men argued that Pythagoras had maintaized that the same soul passes from man into woman, into the brute animals, and finally into the worms. In his edition of William's _losses on Plato, Jeauneau was unable to locate a source for this reference to Pythagoras, but the author of the Glosae was one of those who knew of this Pythagorean doctrine and perhaps passed it along to William: Timacus 428, Waszink 37.11 Glosae super Plaronem ‘William of Conches Vietas uero ab iis passinnibus mutare Non enim credendum est eamdem ani- sexum. Sententia Picagorae fuit_ quod mam prus ese in uiro et post transite in fealteranimae® hominumt in alia anima- mulierem, deinde in brutaanimalia wsaue fia transrent. Sed. Plato, teste Calcidi, in uermes ut affirmant quidam Pitagoram hane mutationem incorporations noluit, uoluisse. Nec eredendum est quod ipsa immo. quod in eodem eorpore diversi anima in se aliguem sexum habeat, sed snimatia uiverent, ut si quis molltus secundum mores hec mutato est tenend. Uiuat, mulierem uiuat: si immunde pot- Dum igitur uiriiter agit anima, pro uiro coum et sina * reputatur, Sed dum uoluptatibus quibus- dam molly, aliquid tamen rations ad ‘nue rtinens. mulier ereditur#* [Notice that William's explanation ofthe same passage in the Timaeus seems to bee simply a sophisticated amplification of the opinion found in the Glosae. ‘On almost every page of William's glosses on Plato, one finds parallels of the same kind, The following are but a few examples: Glosae syper Patonem ‘Wiliam of Conches quart: Timacus 7a, Waszink 7.1 lune quartom dicunt fubse in re Plato- Quartus ille Plato fut qui quasi ab hoe rem, gui pro magisietreuerentia se sub- _opere se subtraxit” traxit* Inllectu: Timaeus 270, Wastink 20.17 ct rationeinuestigata* ducente nos ad illud Et sic, ducente ration, ad intellectum vel ad intelectum * ‘incorporeorum homo peruenit®* 4D d6ea M 267, 0 19%; P S4r om. Ybonum 0. 4 Jeauneav, Guillaume de Conces. Gasae,p.218, and on the unidentified sours, soe p38 OD Adve: M dr 0 178. P Be. V 20 Teauneas, Gullume de Coches, Gtsae. 72 TB aSy, V 234 investigate M. ume $e Cones, Glosae, p01204 Pf, DUTTON alterum: Timaeus 284, Wastin 20.18 id ext quod caret generatione semper est id est quod semper est carens genera- idem. tone ‘Nam si: Fimaeus 29a, Waseinke 21.15 probat mundum fictum esse ad immute- Probst exemplum mundi fuisseimmuta- bile exemplar #8 bile t aequirermune: Fimacus 348, Waszink 26.15 {ext equaliter* in omni parte se mouen- id est equaliter se mouentem ~et est trac- ‘em: hoe dicitur ad simiitudinem nauis tum a naui in qua, si sint equi ordines quasi habeat® equos remost ex utraque remorum equalter se mouet*™ parte equate pronouetur riores .. posterioribus: Timaeus 45a, Waszink 41.9 ‘Vuttus feo ceiur persona, quia sO? sunt propter instrumenta sensuum .. Et nots instruments omniurs senswuns quod eadem pars diuersis causis dicur persona, uults, faces" ‘ulus specu: Timaeus 6c, Wastink 434 id ext oblongi et concau iW est concaui et oblongi ® Visus enim: Timaeus 474, Wastink 44.4 Vere uttitas operis oculorum est pracci- Hic ostendit precipuam utilitatem iss ‘Pua, quia confert nobis philosophiam.” cuivs precinua uilitas est philosophia.” lu gui dora: Timacus $0, Wastink 49.1 ‘lia simittudo in wedicina quod nulla est Aliam similtudinem quare ile propriam propria forma ites" ‘non habeat foram. early William's glosses are not exact quotations from the Glosae super Platonem, but the use of vocabulary, images, and arguments is strikingly D 434b: M 82:0 182: P45, V 2, Jeauneau. Gutlaume de Conches,Gosa. 9.102. © Dadden M 9v,0 183, Poy. V 2. © Seauneau. Gulaume de Conches, Glos SD edfva:M Lav sr O 188; P 81a: V 26r-¥ slice add, DMP ‘pares rem, i est equs P. Sennen Guaume de Conches, Glos. p. 148 Dra: M 291-0 203: PS5v. "Ubi P fom. © eaunea, Guftaume de Conches, Gora. 9.236 11 Date M 31x 0 206, P Sov Seauneau, Gullaume de Concer, Glsae 9.288 % Deb, M 324 0207. P Ste * Jemuneau, Gullaume de Cones, Glesae, 252 PD a8ve, M364 0.211, P Sr, ° Jeauneau, Guilaume de Conces, Glas, 277‘THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 205 similar, Even when William does change terms, what he is talking about often ‘remains the same. Willizm preferred, for instance. to employ the word figura, ‘where the Glasae Would have used forma: eogue: Tomaeus Sta, Wastin 49.7 ‘quia nullam habet propriam formam” — Quandoquidem ile nee propriam figuram nee proprias habet quslitates* Moreover, the individual words glossed by both William and the author of the Glosae correspond closely, which suggests a common tradition of reading the Timaeus and explaining specific difficulties. "The structure of presextation in the two texts is also similar: on many points, in other Words, the two glossators follow the same line of argument: quae nec locum ogtnentsillabarum: Tieaeus $81, Weastink 45.25.26 ‘via si uere uoluimus exarvinare, cut in In humana enim uoce litera optinet Constitutione uocis litera est primum primum locum, sillaba secundum, dct ‘eementum, secundum slab, dctio tr- _terium, ortio quartum. In composiione ‘io loco constitute], tan huius mundi mundi Deus optinet primum locum, se- ‘constitutione ile est primum clementur, cundum archetipus mundus, tecium pri- secundum ila quattuor dementa* para, mordialis materia, quartum elementa, EL tercium haee quattuor mista. ita non optinent locum secundum. Vel quantum ad materias: ile primum optinet locum, pura elementa secundum, ‘sta uisibiiaelementatercium” In this case, as in many others, William’s gloss is somewhat fuller. He was, it ‘would seem, aware of the Glasae super Plaronem, but preferted to add to its basic outline, heaping 3p examples in an effort to attain completeness and extending what the Glowe had begun For a variety of reasons the Glasae super Platonem seems to have been prior to William's own glosses and, indeed, to have influenced his. William's mature Timaeus glosses were written in the second quarter of the tweifth century,” ‘whereas our Glasae super Platonem dates from the first quarter of the twelfth ‘century and certainly net later than 1125. Additional evidence for these dates is supplied by the different sources employed by the glossators, One of the chief virtues of William's treatment of Plato in the 1130s was to have been one of the first to have introduced new sources such as the /sagoge ad Thegn Galen! of D a9eas M 36,0 21l 59 deauneav, Gutlaume de Conches,Glosae,p- 278. YD ava: M 34: O 205 PS8e "om DMP. Jeaunens, Gullume de Coches. Gls. p. 264 and see note See Jeanent,Gullane de Cones, Glsue. pp 1-16206 ». 6 DUTTON Johannitius and the Pantechn’ of Constantinus Africanus.” No evidence ‘whatsoever of these sources is to be found in our Glasae. The glessator of this work invokes authorities familiar 1o men at the start of the twelfth century Boethis, Macrobius, Martianus, Augustine, and Aristode (as known through the Logica wetus) are his sources. Moreover, William's additive approach to elossing the Timacus suggests a prior tradition into which our Glosae super Plazoners falls. William felt called upon to update his generation's understand ing of the Timaeus, but he could not hide his fundamental debt to the Glosae. Indeed he says as much in the prologue to his set of glosses. In acknowledging a prior tradition of commenting on and glossing the Timaeus, William claims that he will prure the unnecessary parts ofthe others, add what they have left ‘out, elucidate their obscurities, remove what has been badly said, and imitate What has been ell said.’ ® The Glosae super Platonem is one of the sets of losses which William knew and set out to improve apors, Writes is He frst {quarter ofthe twelfth century and connected with Charires, the Glosae isa text ‘which exerted a formative influence on William of Conches' own approach to the Timacus. mm But who wrote this important and influential set of glosses on the Timaeus? William of Concies was not alone, as we have seen, in employing the Glosae super Platonem. A series of twelfth-century scribes also knew and copied the Gosae. One of these names his source. Oxford, Bodleian Library Auct.F.3.15 is 4 manuscript writen entirely by twelfth-century Irish hands."' The text of the Timacus (fol. 16-19v) is written in a large and elegant Irish seript from around See Jeauneau ullaume de Conches, lose, p.29 and n. 3. On the plac of Wiliam and (Chartres inthe recep of these now text sce Helrich Schippers, Di Salen von Chartres unter ‘dem Einfluss des. Araismus. SudlalS rch fir Geshichie der Mesin und der ‘Nanurvssenschaten 40 (1956) 193-210 and Die Asnilation der arabiscen Mediin durch das latetnsche Winelter Suabotls Archiv fu Geschichte der Medizin und de Naturwisensca ten, Beiete., Het 3; Wiesbaden, 1964) pp. 111-2; and Peter Drone, New Approaches the School of Charts Anuario de exude mediates 6 (1969) 12427 [117-0 eaunens, Guilaume de Canches, Glas. protogss, p57: ‘airum superfin reciente, pretermisaaddntes obscura elucidates, mae diss remouentes, bene di imitates On this ws. se F. Madan eta. Summary Catalogu of the Wesern Manuscripts i the Bodleian Library at Oxford 22 (Oxford. 1987. pp. 666-57 (0.3811) This us. a8 me ae informed on fol 1. came tothe Bodleian by way of Thomas Allen. the materatelan se Andrew G. Watson, ‘Thomas Allen of Oxford and His Manuscript in Medcna Scribes, Manuscrinss and Liteares: Essays Presented to N-R. Ker, ed. M.B. Parkes and Andre G Watson (London, 1778). pp.298 and 310 (279-313. Soe alo E-A. Lowe, Cadiey lin’ ntqoiores 2. 20d elon. p.2 (eo. 252), Kthanshy. The Contin. p30, and. Wastin, Timaews a Colido rates 088{THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATOVEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 207 1100 and the name of the individual who was probably the scribe, ‘Salmon’, is found at the end of the text. Around the middle of the century, the text of the Timacus was joined together with a work De temporibus (ols. 211-30v) and a series of extracts from Jchn Scotus Eriugena’s Periphyseon (Fols. 311-68, but ‘composed of two separate sections: fos. 3l-53v and S4r-68y) which have been extensively studied by I. 2. Sheldon-Williams.” The land of one scribe is to be found in all four sections of the manuscript: he corrected the main text of the Timaeus. added the glosses which interest us, and made comments throughout the other sections, In Old Irish. he may even tell at one point where he wrote a certain leaf, though the place (Ciialge?) las not been identified.” It has been suggested that the name of this scribe, and the director of the combined manuscript, may well be a certain Tuilecnad, since another scribe laments the absence of his teacher and later rejoices atthe return of his teacher Tuilecnad on the feast of Saint Benedist™ ‘Whatever the name ol this Irish seribe, he knew some interesting texts, bot of the Periphyseon and of glosses on the Timaeus. When glossing the latter in the left margin of column a of fol 9r, he concluded with the statement: “Lege Bernardum et Calcidium et multas formas inuenies’. The longer gloss in the right margin of column t of the same folio finishes with a similar acknowledge- ‘ment of his source: “Hic lege Bernardum et adhuc inuenies.” And indeed the losses which prevede these statements derive direcly from the Glosae super Platonem under consideration here. The frst i a gloss of lague (Timaeus 34c. Waszink 27.6) Glosae super Platonem Oxford, Bod. Auct. F3.15, left margin, fol Sra significa, Secundum quosdam ero Secundum quosdam significa triplicem ‘tiple animge substantiam, seilicetin- substantiam animae, siiet indiuiguum, An Epitome of Irth Provenance of Esugans’s De diuitne nanvrae (ss. Bod. Aut [F187 Proceedings ofthe Rol Irish Academy $8, Section C (1956) 116 2 The Oia Irs posses were fist eed by Whiley Stokes in Zeitschrift r verltchende Sprachforachung 291887) 972-80. They were rede an translated by F- Shaw in an append to Sheldon. Wiliams article The irsh Glosses and Mrinal in Bod. ws. Aust F315 1720 For the reference to Calg, se Shaw, 19 and 20 no. 23. On the lsh character ofthe ws ee IF. Kenney, The Sources fr the Ear History of Irland. An Introduction and Guide | (New ‘York, 1929 spt 1968), p. 679 tno. $39. For the eeferences to Tuleenad, see Shave. bid 19-20 (nos. 2728. Inthe ctalogve A ‘Thousand Yours a ish Sri: An Evhion of Irish Manesriots in Oxford Lirares Arranged, {bp Francis Jon Byrne (Oxford 1979). pp 16-18 ao. 5, Tllecnadis dentine ste ‘rector of the volume I should here like to thank Dr B.C. Borker-Benfield, Assistant Librarian ofthe Bodleian or arranging, uncer unucua circumsances, for me o spend some time with ws uct F3.15 and Digby 23,208 P. DUTTON ividuam, dividwam, median, et wifor- dividuum. medium, et wifrmem nati- ‘mem naturam, easdem sect, diversam, ram, eandem scilicet,divesam, mixtam. rmixtam considerst. Quae sex tandem miset in efficienia animae. Individuae Indiuiduae substamiae dicitur snima in substantiae dctur anima in prima crea- prima creatione atenta, selicet ane cot- lione atienta, siicet ante incorporatio- porationem; dividuse, secundum quod nem; dviduae,sevundum? quod dstrahi-distrahitur ‘ad incorporandum; mediae, ‘rad incorporancum: mediae, secundum secundum quod ait non dicitur incorpo {quod attenctur insorporata, Eiusdem na- rata. Eiusdom naturae, secundum quod turae putatur, secundum quod tract! de tractat de divins: diverse, dum appetit livin; diversae, dum appett haec ca- quae caduca: mixtae, secundum quod duca; mixta, secundum quod utrorum- _utrorumque habens notitiam pracerthaec ‘que habens noticia praefert nace is uel iis uel Hla sti Et ita substantiam ad ese ila its. Ee ita substantia ad ese animae animac respcit, naturae ad dscretionem espcit: natura ad diseretionem quam quam habet in yebus. Lege Bernardum et habe in rebus. (Caleidium et multas formas inuenies, The gloss of the Oxford manuscript has been transcribed exactly as it stands with its omissions, incorrect case endings, and grammatical confusions ‘Though itis possible that the scribe simply possessed a faulty text of the Glosae. it is equally plausible t suppose that his errors arose from some difficulty he ‘may have had in reading a manuscript written in a late Caroline script. We know that in reversed circumstances continental scribes were often sorely pressed when it came to copying Insular manuscripts. Tt seems likely. for instance. that when the Irish scribe wrote the nonsensical ‘ait non dicitur’ he was looking at an abbreviated form of ‘attenditur' which he could not unravel Even though the scribe also directs us to Calcidius’ commentary. the passage in question does not derive from Calcidius." but, as demonstrated, directly from ‘our Glosae super Platonem. In the case of the second gloss, no doubt at all can be left about either the source or the scribe's acknowledgement of it. Here the word portionem (Timaeus 350, Waszink 27.19) is being glossed: Glosae super Platonem Oxford. Bodl. Auet. F315, interinear and right margin fol. 9 Portio propre dicitar de rebus incorporeis Id est portio dicitur proprie de rebus in quibus non est uere pars, sed instar incorporeis in quibus uere non est par, Parts. Pars propris es’ in* rebus corpo- sed instar parts. Pars proprie in rebus "eis. Per integumentum huius divisions. corporis. Per integumentum huis diui- D dsva: M 151.0 199: P43eb:V 264A odd. 0, idestadd, P= hoc add. ‘reputatur ¥eictata D end D. "Ch Caius, Commentarias 1-27-28, Waseink 772-80THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATOVEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 209 notantur diuersie wires et actus animac. sions, nolantur diversae wires et actus Per unitatem in principio positam, quae animue. Per unitatem in principio poss'= ‘ucem puncti obtinet et est adem ef tam, quae wicom punctioptineteadem et inuisibis, notatur anima consimils ue- _indiuisbls, notatur anima consimilis ue- foe identitai, quia acterna est, et ab eo rae identitat, quia aeterna est, et ab eo creata a quo procedunt omnia uariabili® creata a quo procedunt omnia inuariabi- Per lineares. supeficiles t cubicas nu- lia. Per lineales. superficiles et cubicos| meros qui subduntur, noltur animae et numeros qui subduntur, notatur animae corporis coniugium, sclisst quia ipsa et corporis coniugium, ssilcet quia ipsa penetratura erat corpus, ir quo longum, —peneratura erat corpus. in quo longum, Tatum, atm consideratu: et ideo anima latum, altum consideratu; et ideo anima x longo, lato. alto composi dictur. quia ex longo. lat, alto componi dicitur, quia ‘Simibus similia facile iunguntur. Septem si tibus II simiia facile iungantur. 1de0 limites ideo pont, ut per septenarium ponit, ut per sanarium puritatem et digni- puritatem et dignitatem anmae notet# tem animae note. Pe sepienarium enim Septenarlo enim concepdo pueroruim et cxpliy pusrorasn et procica & eeas procreatio et aetas homirum et cursus homiaum et cursus siderum et multa alia syderum et multa alia distnguntur'" —cistinguntur. Hic lege Beroardum et si hue inuenies ‘Again a comparison of ‘he two texts reveals omissions and confusions in the Oxford manuscript, some of which may have been misreadings on the part of the Irish seribe Despite the imperfect state of his gloss, the Trish scribe is not in any doubt about the first name of the author of the Glosae. He directs readers who wish to Find the full text of the gloss to read Bernard. Thus the author of our Glosae super Platonem isa certain Bernard. Although he acknowledges his dependence ‘upon Bernard for only the «wo long glosses, he draws upon the Glosae extensively, but not exclusively, Even on the same folio, for instance, many of the interlinear glosses can be located in Bernard's Glasae at the same point. It is tempting, albeit premature, to wonder whether the corrections to Salmon’ copy of the Timacus made by the Irish scribe do not also derive from the same manuscript in which he found the Glosae. How exactly this scribe came by Bernard's Glosae is ot easy to say. He might, indeed, have had direct access to ‘a copy of the separate Glasae, as in the main manuscript tradition, or to a copy fof the Timaeus which possessed Bernard's glosses in the margins. Or perhaps this seribe or his teacher had frequented the continent and there come into contact with the newest ideas which the schools had to offer and which he hoped to carry home. Inthe fist of the two glosses transcribed above, the scribe © D4tve:M 16y:0 1909 S0r;V 2040.0 Ne Suites posin add SinuarabiiaO‘iniiudnibus Mowe esgnanturV210 .&. DUTTON. throws out Bemard’s name alongside Calcidius’ as though both would be equally recognizable to his readers. Moreover, the scribe, who was writing around the midcle ofthe twelfth century, is another withess to the fact that the Bernard he names lived in the first half ofthe ovelfth century. But who was this famous Bernard, whose name was known and whose glosses on Plato were both popular and authoritative by the mid-twelfth century’? Of the few Platonising Bernards who were active in the early twelfth century, one who obviously deserves consideration is Bernard Silvestri, and {even he could not have written a set of glosses by 1125. The reason he merits Consideration at all is that it is possible that he wrote a commentary on the Timaeus. In ar. article of 1964, Edouard Jeauneau demonstrated that a commentary on the De nuptis of Martianus Capella found in Cambridge, University Library Mm.1.18. fols. [ra-28ra was probably writen by the author of the celebiatal commentary on the frst six books of Virgil's Aeneid. Although the latter work had long been attributed to Bernard Silvestis, some Goubt about his authorship of the work has recently arisen. Scholarly consensus on this question is still wanting and probably will remain so until some additional piece of the puzzle is supplied. The author of the commentary fon the De nupris. whoever he might be, does provide us with some tantalizing information. In five different places in the commentary. he refers his readers to 4 commentary on the Timaeus which he had written® What had allowed Jeauneau to draw a firm connection between the Aeneid commentary and the De nupiits commentary was that references in the latter to the former could be exactly found in it* Nothing of the kind exists with respect to the Glasae super Platonem. In spite of the specific nature ofthe references to the Timaeus in the De nuptiés commentary, none of these references finds any correspondence in ‘the Glosae.”* The words glossed and the terms employed are different. More * See Jeauneas, "Note sur fBeole de Chartres, Std medieval 3rd Ser. $ (1960 844-65 (821.65) (rin Lae phiesophorum’, pp. 28-36 (549). Halo Jan Westva has prepared exitcl eden of ths work. "Stock, yh and Sctence, p38 n. 42. cxginlly questioned the atibution and has been followed by Julian Ward Jones and Elzabeth Frances Jones, eds. The Commentary onthe Fis ‘Six Books ofthe Mereld of Vert CommonlyAdbuted to Bernards Sivesrs-A New Creal Eun (Lines, Né.. 1977. pp. sex. Peer Dronke ed, Bernards Sven, Camorra (extusminores $3: Leiden, i978). pp. 3S. and Edouard Jeaunea ina review of ths cation which appeared in Mdm aevuer 49 (980) 112-13 [I1I-6], however. argue thet he commentary on tho domed fil Work of Bernard or. te they see no eso st pest for devin the stebutn, See Jeauneau, Note sur Ecole de Chas in ‘Leto phfosophoruo’ p. 3, where the references ae waned in fll id, pp. 29-3, "For instance, on fl. 17 of cis sone finds the following, ed. Jeunen, ids “Vint ‘Mercuri spud Egos. Tempore enim exit exuterat Nie cus rl causa super Pltonem.‘THE GLOSAE SYPER FLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES au important. the interests of the two authors are strikingly different: the Bernard of the Glosae is interest in technical philosophical questions which did not appear to concern the author ofthe De nuptis commentary. Even ifthe author of the commentary on Martianus were Bernard Silvestri, itis unlikely that he could be identified with the Bernard of the Glosae. For one thing, no substantial parallels can be drawn between the Glosae and the many direct references made to the Timaeus in the Aeneid commentary and in the Casmographia of Bernard Silvestrs® One must, therefore, conclude that the Timaeus commentary “written by the author ofthe commentary on the De nus of Martianus Capella stil remains to be identified, it is not our Glosae super Plaronem. v Since the Glosae super Platonem was composed by 1125 by a Bernard of considerable fame whose work had connections with Chartres and was known, to William of Conches, he only plausible candidate for author" would seem to be the most famous Platonistof the first quarter of the twelfth century: Bernard fof Chartres. As suggested in part I above. itis extremely likely that Bernard of Chartres composed a set of glosses on the Timacus. In addition, if Berard of Chartres is the author of the Glasae super Platonem, William of Conches intimate knowledge of this work becomes understandable. Not only would ‘William have probably owned a copy of Bernard of Chartres’ glosses. but he ‘would certainly have followed Bernard's lectures on the Timaeus as one of his students. Since William's first exposure and solid grounding in the Timaeus had come in Bernard's class-oom, the similarity oftheir fundamental approaches to Plato would not be surprising. The circle between Bernard of Chartres and John of Salisbury is complete when we realize that John himself probably. learned of Bernard's Platonism in the classroom of William of Conches. pervs: The euthor of te lone super Paton doesnot ets nto an explanation of the ‘immer Nooding of the Neat Timacus 22 The other erences in the De nips commentary fem to refer to specifi plas inthe Tinaes: the comment on fa. Bato Timaens 40e.0n 13V0 fo dlp, on T8vb to 364m, and on 2270 to Séa-38u. Nelo at these poins inthe Gsce super Pletonem ror troughout the work could any correspondence be found "For detailed relerence othe chaons ofthe Timaeus a the Leneid commentary, which ‘were compared in vain withthe Glesae, see Dutton, ste cua et opal exemplar 13 0s: For westments of the influence of the Timacus oo Berard Sivesrb. te Mary F Metuimmon. The Clasico! Philosophical Sources of the ‘De snd unluerse’ of Berard Sivesis (Diss Yale, 1952 and Sock, My and Science, pp. 106-12. No corespondence was ‘dscovered 3 Hrng, ‘Chares anc Pars Revisited, 295.99, reviews in another contexte various Bernards whe were sholastally active in the with century. With te exception of Bernard of ‘Chartres. ishotld be noted. al of tase appeared on the scene tole to have bee the author of 2 major Timaeus commensy fom te fist quater of the welt century,212 P. &, DUTTON If much of theevidence up until this point for tying together the Glasae super Platonem and Bernard of Chartres has been circumstantial, final proof must rest in the correspondence between what John of Salisbury tells us about Bernard's, Platonic doctrines and what the Glosae actually says. We should not, however, ‘expect Johin to be a mere reporter: he was, afterall, one of the great Latin prose Stylists of the twelfth century and his Metalogicon is a carefully conceived tapestry, in which Bernard is only a bit of background detail. Moreover, as suggested earlier. John was most likely only a second-hand recipient of Bernard's Platone teachings. If he once knew the Glasae directly. nothing in the Mezalogicon suggests that he consulted it while writing. Rather. he provides lus with only a fragmentary account of Bernard's Platonism, especially with reference to What Was considered distinctive about it. But in the Metalogicon. ‘which was composed by the fall of 1159, John sees such issues as the Platonic ideas in the mere highly chaiged and voutaversial circumstances. which surrounded this notion in the 1130s and 40s. At certain points, he relates Bernard's teachirgs in terms of new combatants. Bernard's ideas are, further ‘more, portrayed ‘Yom John's later standpoint as somewhat old-fashioned. John himself preferrec to take a more moderate Aristotelian position, and openly. disagreed with some aspects of Bernard's philosophy2® Indeed, if we understand by the phrase ‘Bernardus quoque Carnotensis, perfectissimus inter Platonicos seculi nostri that John considered Bernard of Chartres to be the most complete or thoroughgoing Platonist of the age, we may be dealing with a rather pointed epithet: Bernard, John may have been suggesting, was too deeply committed to a Platonic view of the world which in the late 1150s seemed somewhat uninformed. But, in spite of these cautionary qualifications of the value of John's witness to Bernard's philosophy. the degree of correspondence between John’s cescription and the actual Glosae is quite striking. In the chapter of the Meralagicon which chiefly deals with Bernard's Platonism, John writes that Plato divided true existence int its three principles: God, matter. and ides Each of these, in its own nature, is immutable, God absolutely so, while the other two are unchangeable, but vary from each other in effects. Bernard of Chartres’ two elegiae distchs on the idea and hyle, which John includes after a discussion of forms, express the same division into three ‘rst principles: % See Met. 2.20, ed. Webb, pp. 97-116, See alo Gion, ‘Le platonisme de Bernard de (Chartres. where Jai’ disagreement with apets of Bernard’ Platoust i investigated. Met. 4.35, ed. Webb, p. 208 6-4 ‘Hane autem uerem exitentam partial in i ‘que rerum prinsipiasatuebat, Dov slice teria, tea{THE GLOS4E SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 213 [Non dico esse quod est, gemina quod parte coscturn ‘materi formam continet implicit: sed dio esse quod est, una quod constatearum: hoe uocatIdean,illud Acheus jen” In the Glosae super Platomens. the same distinct Platonic division is preserved! “principia prima .. tra, scilicet deus. hile, et ideae.' * Curiously enough. both John and the author ofthe Glasae present the three principles inthe same order: God, matter or hyle, and the ideas, This Platonic scheme of three kinds of existence is the fundamental and working concept of the Gosae. but with a ‘novel twist: the introdu-tion of the formae natiuae. First we should note that John of Salsbury particularly identifies the doctrine ‘of the Platonic ideas with Bernard of Chartres. He tells us that Walter of Mortagne, emulating Plato and imitating Bernard of Chartres, had taken up the doctrine of the ideas and maintained that genus or species was nothing other than the ideas: “Ille ideas ponit, Platonem emulatus et imitans Bernardum Camotensem, et nichil preter eas genus dicit esse uel speciem."®® And, indeed, the Bernard of the Glasae holds the same opinion: Augue ut mens hominis contemplatur genera idearum (Timacus 398, Waszink 3218-20) id est ideas quae sunt genera omnium rerum tr intelligill mundo, Sicut sensu compreienderemust ea quae sunt in hoe sensil.™ “Thus the generic essences ofall things are the ideas, but genus is more perfect than species because it is more self-contained." Now, according t0 John, Bernard of Chartres believed that the ideas were eternal, but not coeternal with God. for this costernity was restricted to the three persons ofthe Trinity." The eid 24.27 > Soci Fll quotation nn, 122 below. Note thatthe same weparte scheme ito be ound in the gloss on p. 215 below. Offer 217 ed. Webb, p 93.1. 1416, fn adton. when John of Salisbury says at Met 220, ed Webb. p 115, 1.2527. "Vade lit Plato cote philosophorum grandem et “Auustnum quam aie ples nostrorum in statendis ides habe sertores .. be probably tad Berard of Cares lens with his followers in ming Ve Mer 217, ed. Webb p. 981 14-16, Before ths Toba informs us, Walter of Mortage sed to hold diferent noton of the wniversas see Me. 217. p93 Il 9-13, De geertbus Ipevicbus, a work which conte this previous positon. has been atributed to Waller sex B Houreau cd. Nonces er extrait de quelques nausritftins del Bibirheque Nationale § (Paris, 1891, pp. 298.325, "8D aSea M ly: O 195; PS2r.V 29v: comprehendemus D. © Note the following gloss on Tinaeus 30e. Wasink 2311: ‘Speci: ideo dit unc! mundum facum similem genera oa spel siurae. ut ex generis simlitudine doceat eum (hur prfectun, Genus eis perfects et specie qa contenus D 43vb. M 11v. 0185: P47 Vide sense od 7 yor 435,08, Webb, p 206, 1h 1-1524 ». &. DurTos idea, for Bernard, was posterior in nature to the divinity and remained in the inner recesses ofthe divine mind: thus Bernard dared to call it eternal. but not octernal."* This i the exact line of argument to be found in the Glosae super Platonem, where the archetypal ideas are said to be eternal and to exist in the ‘mind of God." although all things in time are born and die and, therefore, are temporal, the works of God are not temporal for they have neither beginning nor end and do not suffer from the things brought about by time: ‘Omnia in ternpore nascuntur et ocidunt, et ideo dicuntur®temporatia, Est iitar ‘mundus opus* de: opera uero det non sunt temporalia, quia nec prinepium nee finer haben: in tempore. Vocantur quidem eausatiua qui habentcabsas ante {tempus soli deo et non nobis cognitas. Quae! ita sunt fundamenta dei operum Sout semina naturae operum® naturalium, et ideo nihil patiuntur ex his quae infer tempus, scilcet nec motbum nee senium nee simila, sed sunt sine ‘eonsitnn incommodi. Por exemplum quogue propagatur niundus seer, ‘gui cum archetipus qui est eius exemplum st aeterus ex ipso similitdinem aeteritetis wait By ternal. the 3ernard of the glosses denotes what is perpetual and in- dissoluble.” ‘Thus the Bernard of the Giosae super Platonem draws an essential distinction ‘between those things which precede time and those which follow it the works of God exist cum tempore, the works of nature and of man ex tempore." The fdeas are, moreover. the eternal reasons of all things." But our Bernard is 1 sbi I 18-19 Tdeam wero, qua ad hane parlistem non consurg. se quodammodo natura posterior ete: velut quidam effects, maneas in arhan con extrinses ests bon ingens, sicut eterna aucebat dere, sc eocternam ese negaba 1 AtTimaeus Sle Wasting 21.23 one finds the folowing los iui aeternae uae: id {st idearum quae acter consisiunt CD 49ra; M 36r. 0211s P91) Stil later at Thmacas Sts, Wasik 50.10 cne read ued cum a, cet ula intlligibila semper sun eh ers atone nes permutantir.Faendum et exe” speci, prope elie seman etcetera. hic aciiuntur pura archetipa, quae consistunt in mente de (D 4%" M 37v. O 213 Poy dose in “8 Timgeus 26. Westin 2020. D43rb: Mv; O 182-183: PA46xe V 280 sount Yopusom. DMPY —"squac Sed quae D”Sapeis. opeisP “haben el rh M ‘bids “Nee gids actermum quod. careat principio, sed ineligimus, perpen. jublea”(D 4¥b-v, M 9.018%. dow: V 250), Tinaeus 280, Wastink 21.1: Operibus el dei non convent ese ex tempore sed cura tempore. Operibus ue‘ naturae et hominis non content cut tetpore. sed ex tempore. Quit 2 praccedunt tempus, hace sequuntur WD 43va, M Irv. O18 Paews Vase, fon Spraceit "© gloss a Tinaeus 29, Wastnk 21.23 reads ‘Er quoniam. Dist hune mundum ese ‘maginem arehetn. Veet ater aliquis sib red rane wirique, Peto vero extent srchetpo se non poss reddererationes.qulacums omni rer ations rebus ish cognate Sin, seu archepusacernos est ta lus ealiones aterae set Keo Rominum’ ingle equeunt comprehenct (D 43¥acM 9102.0 184: P 6 ¥ 2:0. raionernP ind‘THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATOVEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 215 careful, as was Bernard of Chartres, o state that the ideas are in the mind of God which is inferior or, if you will. posterior to God [Nova archetipam nee prineipium noc finem habere et tamen secundum pio sophos® diversum esse a deo et inferorem: diversum quia coligit in se omnivm rerum ideas, quae sunt unum de tibus prinipis a Platone consideratis; est ‘quippe unus deus omni opifex;allerum ideae. dest originals formae omnium (quae numquam admisoentur ereaturis;ercium? hil materia, seiicetcorporum, Inferior es, cum Mcerobius dicat ideas esse in mente dei quae inferior est deo. Later the author of the Glosae remarks that Plato speaks of the birth of the soul in order that no one might assert that the soul is coeternal with God. For both Bernard of Chartres and the Bernard of the Glosae only God can be coeternal ‘with himself: everything else is in some sonse posterior and inferior, even the ‘eternal ideas in the divine mind. ‘The most original element of Bernard's philosophy was doubtless the concept of the formae nativae. According to John. the forms entering into matter dispose it and make it subject to change. Since the ideas are immutable and remain separate from matter, which is incapable of self-movement, an intermediate form was necessary. From the ideas proceed the native forms, ‘which are the images ofthe exemplars or ideas, and these are created together ‘with individual things by nature, According to John, Bernard of Chartres subscribed to this Boethian philosophy of forms."* Indeed, Bernard may well be, as some have suggested, the inventor ofthe actual formulation of the ormae hnatiuae.!® At the very Kast. he was its chief proponent in his day. With Gilbert of Poitiers, Bernard argued that the native forms were universals or. rather. that they were original examples which inbered in created things. not in the mind of God. The native form is related to the idea asthe example isto the exemplar." In addition, John informs us that, in commenting on Porphyry. Bernard drew a distinction between the twofold work of the divine mind: one created from ‘subjected matter or created with itand the other made and contained within the “yorum 0). Pers this puzage wit it denicaton ofthe reasons with the causes shows the Jnnuence of John Scots Ertigena. an influence often suspected because of what John of Salisbury tls usin Mer 435, Forte reference ia queson. seen. 115 below. i Pues 3s. Wasink 242, D ra: M II¥-120, 0 188. PAT¥, V 251: Msophos MO ‘nium 0 "H Timacus 34a, Wastink 27.1: "Nee tamen .. Animas genitoram ideo docet* ne quis eam fhise doo eoaeternan contendere (D 44a M 18x; 188; P49 V 260: teat Y, di. Si Mer. 435.0. Wet, p. 208, 21-28 10) David Knowles, The Evtlon of Medievel Though (New York, 1962, 132 speaking of Berard of Chartres Tt nas he svho orsinate the phrase “native forms” (nattuae forma) The John of Salsbury, Mt. 217, ed, Wet, pp. 94,1. 2695.17216 P-&. DUTTON divine mind, requiring no external support. Here the difference is again between the native forms and the ideas or between two aspects of being: one Outside of God. the other inside. In the Glosae super Platonem, the doctrine of the formae natiuae assumes a predominant importance. The phrase itself is employed nineteen different times ‘which is remarkable for a set of glosses written in the fist quarter of the twelfth ‘century, Its difieult to believe that anyone but Bernard of Chartres, the chief Proponent of the formae natiuae, could have laid such great stress on the doctrine of the native forms early inthe twelfth century. The definition of the Jormae natiuae provided by both Jobn of Salisbury and the author of the Glosae is virtually identical: Glosae super Platorem John of Salisbury, Metaogicon 4.35, ed Webb, p. 205, 15.19 AL wero unde oben (Timaeus 50D, Ideas tamen, quas post Deum primas Wastink 48.16) id est atchetipus mun- essentias ponit,negat in sepsis materi dus’, uicem pairs. nen quod? idese admisceri st aliguem sortri motum sed commisceantur hile in efficient sensils, ex his forme prodeunt native, sclicet Sed natiaae* formas quae sunt imagines imagines exemplarium. quas natura rebus idearur. singuls concreauit ‘The formae natiuae are imagines of the exemplary ideas. Since the ideas are ‘hot mixed with matter, itis the native forms which, created together with individual things. allow matter to reflect the ideas. ‘The Bernard of the Glosae distinguishes between three modes of things: res formata (the body), informis materia (hyle), and the idea which remains un- changed in the divine mind.” Without the formae natiuae bodies could not, in Bernard's philosoahy, exist at all, since the stuff of which they are made is unformed matter. Hye was a creation of God, but existed asa chaotic mass in a State of pure potency. In hyle, however, God introduced through the native forms a nursery ef bodies (seminartum corporurt 1 Mot. 4.35.8, Webb, p. 206 19-23: "Vt enim ait in expotone Porpiti. duplex et ‘pus une ments, aerum quod de subicta materia crest at quod el oncteatut aterm qd es fact contnetin se, externo non eens tminicle 1D 48yb; M 35%. 0 311eP 30r %m P aia At Timaeus Sic. Wastink 412-13 one reas the flowing gloss: Ar wero: dit quod ‘stendemas qvomod sint inde forma, sed mune pris iim gens. id es es manetie? erum sumendoe sunt animo, slice res formats, quae ex corps, informis materia, slice® hile, et ides, qua semper mane eader in mente: dun (D 4¥vor M 35¥,0 211, P mater © fom P_sminente O). John of Salsbury. Mer. 2.17, Webb, p. 95k 1818, sors the moder, and he thinks unusual. use of the word maneriet: "Hoe autem nomen it que suctorum ituenect ws! hae ditincioner, incertum haben, nisl forte in glosemaib. at ‘modernorum lisguis cctrum,“THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONBM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 217 ‘hud uero seminarium natiuis formis deus formaut, per quas disereta a se ipsat ‘quattuor elementa quida et elimata inventa sunt, nondum sensu comprehensibi- lia, Et inde dicunt prlosophi non ex nichilo deum fecise mundum, sed tantum According to our Bernerd, hyle is a divisible substance because of the native forms, while the ideas remain indivisible and untouched by the contamination of bodies: Item quidam philosophi dicunt Platonem intellexisse per individuam substan tiam, ideas; per diuiguam, hilen; per haee duo mits, natives formas, per quas item notaur anima sensu haber et inelecturn. Natuae enim ides siiles sunt, ‘quia ex earum simieudine in substantia®processerunt. Affines etiam sunt hile, ‘ia incorporantu eb mutantusicut hie, Merto wero dicitur anima constare ex natius!formis, quis secundum Aristotelem anima est endeichia, id est forma corporis ae corps uiifcando quodammodoinformat. Ali autem philosophit ‘dicunt Platonem inellexsse per indiuiduam substantiam® ideam animae, quae! {st purus intellects et mens, euius weneranda puritas mulls corporis contagione tiolatue ‘The native forms, therefore, mediate between the pure ideas in the mind of God tnd hyle or unformed matter. Its, indeed, the native forms which lead hyle to enter into sensible bodies." The native forms are said to descend into hyle, but ‘withdrawing from it hyle stil persists" In order not to posit more than the first three principles, namely, God, hyle, and the ideas, the Bernard of the Glosae asserts that before the creation of the world all the native forms which ‘would later enter into ale existed potentially in it!™™ tis by the formulation of the doctrine ofthe formae natiuae that the Bernard. of the Glasae super Piaionem tries to reconcile Plato and Aristotle: hyle is, 1 Tomaeus 30s, Wastsk 2223. D 4Bvb; M Ie, 0 185: P47 ¥ 24¥ pss 0 1 Tomacus He, Wastink 27.6. Da. M 1S¥, 0 199; P49¥: V27r-oper hace duo mia com. 0. ula incorporantar add. Ssbsantiam Vib motvantur om. 0, nmutantur V Shaul ueesin PW fanimam Ptpee lem Sam. "guia. "a Timacus S34. Wasdnk $0.14 Quidam hoe secundum vocant natiuas formas, ae sicuntur series» quia af hoe ducuntflen, ut possi sear. et sustenabies, ia ab hile Sustenantu (D 4570, M37¥; 0 213: P89: senses O "2 Timacus 82s, Wastin $0.16. erty gorus et loc: dest lle que ctr lous, qu in gam descend nase formae,quibs ecegetbus, hile non intr (D 49 M 37¥: 0 213: Poon. ™ Timaeus $20, Wasznk $1.7: ‘hace 1a fuse exstens: i et achatipas formes, loc sclctfilen, generoioers. id natas. Et nol quoniam. bce? ante consttutonem mun ‘mes natvas formae quae postin ilen venerunt in ipsa hile tantum potentaliter exit fui amen quae ina a quate mun elements prosteanéaformabant actu ante {mundi exorationem in ipa consiterut, non tamen ut cents orgie. ne sin pura princiia prima quam tie scliee devs, hie, et dene” (D4Ovas M38 O21: PDC “om. MP sitet actuate dee)218 P.£. DUTTON indeterminate and passive, yet the native forms, these images ofthe ideas. lead it into particular things. In the Metalogicon, Jobn of Salisbury informs us that. in fact, Bernard of Chartres and his students had laboured to reconcile Plato and Aristotle.” This programme in part, of course, reflects the Chartrian debt to Boethius, Despite John’s vagueness about just how they tried to accomplish this reconciliation, itis worth noting that John immediately follows this statement with a description of the doctrine of the formae natiuae of Bernard of Chartres ‘and his student Gilbert of Poitiers. Thus for both Bernard of Chartres and the Bernard of the Glosae super Platonem the way to reconcile the two Greek philosophers was by the formulation of the concept of the formae natiuae ‘Throughout the Glasae super Platonem, one finds numerous references to and sensitive trea:ments of the ideas, hyle, and the native forms, These do not lisagree in any particular with what John of Salisbury describes of Bernard’s Philosophy, though sliades of meaning remain to be studied. In addition, one finds a series of less tangible but still suggestive links with Bernard of Chartres in the Glosae. Several times in the Glosae, for instance, the author uses the colour white a6 8 way of demonstrating some truth about bodies, and this is reminiscent of Bernard of Chartres’ famous analogy of the white virgin." ‘Moreover. even from John’s account, we should expect a strong infusion of ‘moral values into any work of Bernard of Chartres, and, indeed, references of this kind, particularly to the vices and virtues, dot the Glosae." The author of the Giosae has as well areal concern with the moral upbringing of boys. At one Point, he somewtat humourously says that boys think that the greatest goods are things that please them." One senses that the author of the Glasue is a teacher, particularly when he says of ‘amatorem intellectus et disciplinae (Timaeus 460, Waszink 43.19.20} id est eum qui amat ita docere, ut plene* intelligatur." Like Chartrian thinkers of the early twelfth century, our Berard utilises such explanatory techniques as per inuolucrum and per integumentum, particularly when faced with some of Plato's more obscure or outrageous doctrines.’ He also points out rhetorical igures and types of genre as they pertain to his material. a feature which John again associates with the 5 Met, 2.17, ed. Webb, p.94, 122-26. Egeront operons Rernardus Carntersis et ‘autores cius ut comoonerent inter Arsotlem et Pltonem, sed eos tarde ues ator et laborase in uanum u reconclarent mortuos qu. quamdks in uli casenserunt "8 See John of Salisbury. Mfr. 3.2. Webb pp. 124, 21-1251 10, "AC lest six maior references fo the virtues and vices are tobe fot in the Glsze, 1 Tinaeus 4a, Wasznk 406; Puen putant summa bon exe guascumgue Hi plscent (D Ara: M28v: 0 20% PSS. tpi. Bona dest in Ph. ED Tube M 31s: 0 206; P 56x "om Per invluerun is employe Tour different times in the Gose; per imesumentm tree times, and fabula is mentioned ec,THE GLOSAE SVPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 219 teaching of Bernard of Chartres." Our Bernard also speaks at several points in the Glosae about the quaariviu and trivium as one would expect of the master ‘of Chartres." Moreover, there is a similarity between what John tells us about Bernard's teaching of texts and what we actually encounter as a system of reading an actual text in the Glosae."" Subjects such as the ideas and formae rnatiuce are dealt with gradually, never abruptly, so that the student might in his ‘own time acquire understanding of dificult matters. And although the izera of the Timacus is carefully treated, the Bernard of the Glasae prefers, as we know Bernard of Chartres dic, to concentrate on key themes such as the formae nariuae rather than to exhaust himself and his listeners in exhausting the text." In conclusion, the evidence for attribution is as follows. Inthe first quarter of the twelftn century, a eatin Bernard wrote the Glosae super Plaionem which commences ‘Socrates de re publica decem libris disputauit’. This work was extremely popislar in the twelfth century as ts influence isto be found reflected in a number of dependent glosses, in the commentary found in the Uppsala ‘manuscript, and in Wiliam of Conches’ own set of glosses on the Timaews. Indeed the Trish scribe, who names Bernard, puts him on equal footing with Calcidius as a recognized authority on Plato. Few Bernards with this authoritative and popular voice on the Timaeus can be found in the first quarter of the twelfth century. But Bernard of Chartres. whom John of Salisbury called “the most complete Plalonist of his time, was surely one of these. On both codicological and doctrinal grounds, the Bernard of the Glesae can be linked ‘with Chartres: not only i the Glosae found with William of Conches’ works in some early manuscripts, though always in first position, but it shares a concern ‘with central Chartrian concepts. Furthermore, the degree of consonance between what John of Salisbury tells us in the Metalogicon about Berard of Chartres’ Platonism ane what we actually discover in our Bernard's Glosae is ‘very high, To take but ane point mentioned by John: Bernard of Chartres is the ‘chief proponent and perhaps the original formulator of the doctrine of the See Met 124, 0d. Wet p. 58 L419. The author of the Glesae begins at Tas 175 by identifying ea genera poematurs:enarrativum, quando ex popes persona autor quit. fetisum, quando per introduce! ag commune, quando per utasque. Hic Pato insist ctiuum genus’ (D 42fovie M3, 0177, P4Se V20r- personas add V1 nat est sin differen: places in the Gna one fads references to the various iberal ats, with specifi references to he guadriiun and trum occuring inthe glosses on Caliiur Tena peface (Wasink 5.89. 1a er 24. ed. Webb, pp. 5557. 1 See Met 124, Wad, p. 561.2857, 1.6220 ». E. DUTTON formae natiuae. Although it was a concept derived from a sensitive reading of Boethius. it was not a widely held idea even in the early twelfth century. John leads us to believe that the idea was developed by Bernard of Chartres and adopted by his student Gilbert of Poitiers. Since the idea of the formae natiuae holds a predominant position in the philosophy of the Bernard who wrote the Glosae, the conclusion seems inescapable: the Bernards are one and the same. The author of the Glosae super Plaronem is Bernard of Chartres. ‘What a real text of Bernard of Chartres will do to our conception of the school of Chartres and its central concern with Platonism remains to be seen, Bernard of Chartres lias for so long been spoken of in reverential tones that a genuine work may come as either @ revelation or a disappointment." An edition of the Glesae super Plaronem is presently being prepared by the author of this article and, then, Bernard of Chartres who has for so many centuries been heard only through the words of Folut of Salisbury will speak for himself, Admittedly, extravagant claims have been made about the school of Chartres, 8 Southern argues, in the absence of facts, but by the same token extravagant Criticism has been levelled in the absence of texts. Inthe recent discussion about the importance ofthe school of Chartres, one does not have to strain very hard to detect a renewed debate between Platonists and Aristotelians, argued in the present, but set in the past! In Bernard of Chartres and William of Conches, we have the two most influential medieval commentators on the Timaeus. Together they lead us back to the early years of the twelfth century and to Chartres, where one was the preeminent masts of his day and the other an enthusiastic student being exposed forthe first time to the profound teachings of the Timaeus. No wonder, then, that William, in the prologue to his own set of glosses on the Timaeus. acknowledges a previous tradition of Timaeus glosses and presents himself as its corrector. Perhaps it was because Bernard was the original metaphysician of Ifthe conclusion drawn here is correct, others should fallow. Bernard of Chartes| «anno, for instance be te autor ofthe eommeniary’on the dened of Wire and the one on the _Dempitsof Marinas, 5 was cen speculated. se ones and Jones. Te Commentary the First Sic Books ofthe end p.X, Who quote André Verne oti effec. "On the one sc, there i R-W. Southern, who has not only questioned the importance of| the school of Charts, but hak als agg that he Tne Wass hindrance tothe opening UP of medieval perspec, one which could only be speed with he advent of uew Arstotan text see especialy Medieval Humans, p. 77 and Pratonism. pp. 8-10, On the othe, stands 3 sige larger numberof scholars, the defeades ofthe School of Cartes o at let the ea of it ‘ho ss init an almost magical Nending of Platoise and poetry. Char sbod. according to Peer Dronke, forte fees in thought andthe mest adventrous in leering thatthe wlth ‘entury had to fe. And the Timaeus stood, without dour, atthe centre of Chartran Patonism, See Drone, New Approaches I17 nd Winthrop Wetherbee, Pltonism ond Poet) (nthe Twelfit Cenuy: The Literary Inflacnce ofthe School of Chartres (Princeton, 197).{THE GLOS4E 3VPER PLATONEM OF BERNARD OF CHARTRES 201 Chartres, a8 the Glosae clearly reveals him, that William charted a new course for himself, one which led him to investigate the world of nature and to acquire new texts in the field of natural philosophy. In this regard. itis Gilbert of Poitiers who more clearly followed in the footsteps of his master. Its William, however, who devoted himself, as his master had done, to understanding the Timacus, Ifa master anda generation of his students may make a tradition and define a school, then this was one of the richest, for Bernard and Gilbert posed in afresh and stimulating way a Platonic view of the world and Bernard and William touched and transformed the way in Which men up until the Taian Renaissance would read the Timaeus. ‘Simon Fraser University 1 Twoul lke once ais to thank the Social Scenes and Humanities Kesearch Counc of ‘Canada without whose generous support my many and varied researches Tocont and in the Tears of Europe couldnt have Ben caved Ou.