Literalness and the Sensus Litteralis

from the cultural idiom to get to the truth intended. The function, then, of a historical reading is in part to determine what parts of Scripture are to be read as historical only and which are to be given additional moral and mystical interpretations. But precisely because the moral interpretation of a passage must be done within a cultural idiom, the discrimination between the historical and the moral interpretation cannot employ the cultural idiom as a criterion of that distinction. The advantage, thus, of using dialectic in Abelard's sense as the principal tool of analysis, is that it can both separate the historical from the moral interpretation and provide a way of determining ahistorical sense which, because it is not culturally determined, can be employed by any culture as the basis of a moral interpretation which is culturally appropriate. 16 "Quod genus litterarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate legendum est. Cui tamen ne intercluderetur locus, et adimeretur posteris ad quaestiones difficiles tractandas atque versandas linguae et styli saluberrimus labor, distincta est a posteriorum libris excellentia canonicae auctoritatis Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Ibi si quid veluti absurdum moverit, non licet dicere: Auctor hujus libri non tenuit veritatem; sed aut codex mendosus est, aut interpres erravit, aut tu non intelligis. In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur, si qua forte propterea putantur a vero dissentire, quia non ut dicta sunt intelliguntur, tamen liberum habet ibi lector auditorve judicium, quod vel approbet quod placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit, et ideo cuncta hujusmodi, nisi vel certa ratione vel illa canonica auctoritate defendatur, ut demonstretur sive omnino ita esse sive fieri potuisse, quod vel ibi disputatum est vel narratum est; si cui displicuerit, aut credere noluerit, non reprehenditur. Scripturas itaque canonicas Veteris et Novi Testamenti dicit instrumenta, in quibus a veritate aliquid dissentire haereticum est profiteri" (Abelard, Sic et Non, P.L., CLXXVIII, 1347-1348). 16 "Quoniam ea quae praedicta sunt juxta radicem historiae ac veritatem rei gestae quantum valuimus prosecuti sumus, juvat morali quoque ac postmodum mysticae expositione nos eadem perquirere. Moralis itaque dicitur expositio quoties ea quae dicuntur ad aedificationem morum sic applicantur, sicut in nobis vel a nobis fieri habent quae ad salutem necessaria sunt bona, veluti cum de fide, spe et charitate vel bonis operibus expositione nostra lectorem instruimus. Mystica vero dicitur expositio, cum ea praefigurari docemus quae a tempore gratiae per Christum fuerant consummanda, vel quaecumque historia futura praesignari ostenditur" (Abelard, In Hexaemeron, P.L., CLXXVIII, 770). 17 "Nonnulla etiam in Evangelico juxta opinionem hominum magis quam secundum veritatem rerum dici videntur; veliiti cum Joseph pater Christi a matre quoque ipsius Domini juxta opinionem et morem vulgi appellatur, ita quidem dicente: Ego et pater tuus dolentes quaerebamus te" (Abelard, Sic et Non, P.L., cIxxviII, 1343). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.215 on Wed, 31 Aug 2016 04:26:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 86 Literalness and the Sensus Litteralis By way of contrast, it might be well to point out that verbally Isidore and Abelard have an almost identical aim to get the facts. And they both want to separate truth from opinion. But opinion for Abelard is constituted or influenced by the linguistic and cultural customs of a people, Whereas for Isidore the probablism of an opinion is constituted by the forms of dialectical argumentation. Bernard of Clairvaux, like Isidore and Abelard, recognizes three kinds of Scriptural meaning, of which the first is the historical.'8 Like the others mentioned, Bernard is also concerned that, in specifying the historical content of a passage, extreme care must be taken not to confuse truth with opinion.'9 But here the similarity stops. Bernard's conception of truth is more easily definable in moral terms rather than intellectual. His concern in the search for truth is for the certitude which faith alone can give, and, consequently, for him all of human intellectual endeavor can only amount to the certainty that in faith alone can unqualified certitude be found.20 In different ways Bernard constantly repeats the notion that the letter kills but the spirit vivifies. "The letter" is, of course, not simply a grammatical entity; rather, it is the whole of the human chronicle as seen and organized through the formal devices of human intellectual disciplines. The spirit is the orientation which Providence has given to human history and stated in His Revelation. According to Bernard, God has endowed human history with three times or moments which alone can vivify man's biography: the Creation, the Redemption and the Last Judgment.2' Thus, even 18 "Sit itaque hortus simplex ac plana historia; sit cellarium moralis sensus; sit cubiculum arcanum theoricae contemplationis" (Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione, P.L., cLxxxIII, 895); 19 "Omnino in his cavenda confusio, ne aut incertumn opinionis fides, figat, aut quod firmum fixumque est fidei, opinio revocet in quaestionem" (ibid., col. 790). 20 The point to be stressed is that Bernard holds very strongly to the notion of believing in order to understand, and has no sympathy whatever for the attempts to approach as far as possible through analysis the very mysteries of faith. For example, in his De Consideratione where concerned with the contemplation of the Trinity, he says: "Hoc sacramentum magnum est, et quidem venerandum, non scrutandum (P.L., CLXXXII, 799). Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense to Bernard to talk or behave as if one could isolate the human effort from its divine origin, conservation and purpose. For to do so would be to invest in the letter something which properly belongs to the spirit. ("Ita quod sonat littera, illius est; quod signat [alias, designat], meum est; ac per hoc illi ministratio mortis in littera, mihi vita in spiritu. Nam spiritus est qui vivificat (Joan. vi.64) dat quippe intellectum"" (Sermones in Cantica, P.L., CLXXXIII, 1135). Finally, Bernard has little patience with those who do not see that holiness rather than argumentation is the only source of comprehension. "Novimus haec. [Quid Deus est]. Num ideo et arbitramus nos comprehendisse? Non ea disputatio comprehendit sed sanctitas: si quo modo tamen comprehendi potest quod incomprehensibile est. At nisi posset, non dixisset Apostolus: Ut comprehendamus cum omnibus sanctis (Ephes. iii.18) Sancti igitur comprehendunt. Quaeris quomodo? Si sanctus es comprehendisti, et nosti: si non, esto et tuo experimento scies"" (Bernard, De Consideratione, P.L., CLXXXII, 805). 21 "Est ergo historia hortus, et ipsa tripartita. Continetur namque in ea coeli et terrae creatio, reconciliatio et reparatio. Creatio quidem, tamquam horti satio sive plantatio. Reconciliatio autem, quasi germinatio satorum vel plantatorum. Tempore nempe suo rorantibus coelis desuper, et nubibus pluentibus justum, aperta est terra et germinavit Salvatorem (Isai. xlv,8) per quem facta est coeli terraeque reconciliatio . .. Porro reparatio futura est in fina saeculi ... Habes igitur tria tempora in horto historici sensus" (Bernard, Sermones in Cantica, P.L., CLXXIII, 886). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.215 on Wed, 31 Aug 2016 04:26:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Literalness and the Sensus Litteralis 87 to grasp the historical sense, faith is required, faith which in the last moment of human history can lead to the understanding in vision. No wonder, then, that Bernard insists that truth is more easily and more properly reached through prayer than through inquiry. Seen in these terms, the very purpose of an historical reading is the increase in the life of truth and the life of charity.22 The life of charity is increased by finding examples of virtuous men whose lives ought to be emulated; the life of truth, by coming upon the articles of faith which demand intensified belief rather than rigorous analysis. This certainly explains why Bernard was so violently opposed to Abelard's method and the apparent results of that method. Moreover, I think that Bernard was just as opposed to a grammatical analysis as he was to the dialectical. To be sure, the grammatical method in its insistence on the need for faith seems to agree more with Bernard's method than does that of Abelard. Yet the agreement is not real. As Isidore conceived his method, the need for faith arose out of the historical reading, whereas for Bernard an historical reading without antecedent faith is worthless. What must be stressed is, that for St Bernard, Creation and Redemption are as factual as the earth and the sky, no matter that our knowledge of these events is had on faith. Bernard, like Abelard and Isidore, wants to get the historical facts, and if the important facts are available only by faith, then faith must be considered a normal historical mode of knowledge. In short, Bernard regards the knowledge held on faith as the essential kind of literal or historical knowledge, and simply denies that one could be literally accurate about the world if the world were not believed to be Created and Redeemed.