Progress in the study of the life and works of the Venerable Bede (672/3-735) has long been driven less by the monograph and more by the individual scholarly article or the honorary lecture, the steady flow of which has been punctuated by important essay collections (e.g., Thompson's Bede: His Life, Times and Writings [1935], Bonner's Famulus Christi [1976], and more recently Houwen and MacDonald's Beda Venerabilis [1996]). The present volume continues that tradition, bringing together ten leading scholars both to summarize recent advances in the field, and to point the way forward for future studies. As the editor notes (1-2), with the exception of his own and Walter Goffart's contributions, the essays in this volume are derived from papers delivered in the annual Bede sessions at the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, a forum that has been highly productive for the field, and for which DeGregorio himself, who has been its primary organizer, deserves much credit. The contributions to this volume display the field's increased emphasis on Bede's exegetical works, its focus on his body of work as a unified literary and educative program, and the recognition that this program as a whole, while operating within the received tradition of orthodoxy, was nonetheless bold and creative (2- 7).
The volume's first two essays focus on Bede's understanding of his own literary program, and between them provide an overview of his oeuvre and helpful context for the other contributions. In the first, entitled "Who Did Bede Think He Was?" Roger Ray begins with Bede's oft-quoted words "patrum uestigia sequens" (following the footsteps of the fathers), a phrase that will be invoked frequently in the subsequent contributions. This statement has at times been interpreted as an authorial admission of unoriginality, but as Ray demonstrates, it is better understood as a simple statement of humility and deference to authority. Far from being just a simple compiler, Bede is a sophisticated rhetorician--indeed, what better proof is there of his rhetorical skills than the fact that generations of readers have taken his self-deprecation at face value? While always concerned to remain impeccably orthodox, Bede often ventured into territory left unexplored by his predecessors, especially in his later works. When given a reason, moreover, he did not shy away from correcting the fathers on particular points. Ray shows that, contrary to the popular image, Bede probably had a high opinion of his own work, and "following the footsteps of the fathers" meant being, in some sense at least, their peer.
In "Bede and the Ordering of Understanding," Alan Thacker examines not only how Bede approached the learning that he sought to transmit, but also how he integrated that learning into a sophisticated "educative framework" (62) that served to unite what at times may seem to be disparate fields of knowledge (especially exegesis, history, and computus). He thereby created a new system of monastic learning that served his concern for the reform of the Northumbrian church and the conversion or rejection of the obdurate (which included Jews, heretics, and to some extent the Britons as well). In Thacker's view, a central concept for Bede was the "doctor," a sort of super-teacher who was capable of preparing the clergy (preachers and bishops alike) to fulfill their pastoral duties. This preparation was to be accomplished by initiating them into, not the rudiments of learning, but rather the deeper mysteries of the faith. Thus, Bede saw himself as much more than a simple "magister" or author of textbooks, and it is in this light that his literary efforts, especially those of his later years, are best understood.
The subsequent six essays have much in common, not least in that they are all written by scholars who have translated works of Bede. Perhaps this accounts for their common concern with the precise meaning of particular words and phrases, and for their common approach, namely the close reading of Bede's works. In "Si naturam quaeras: Reframing Bede's 'Science'," Faith Wallis seeks a new understanding of Bede's science, not by evaluating it through a modern lens, and not by dissolving the boundaries between his scientific works and the other distinct genres in which he worked, but by placing his science in context and connecting it to his overall program. Central to Wallis' efforts are the terms "natura" and "ratio." Natura had many meanings for Bede, but at least two were key: it denoted the characteristics of things, and also the regular cycles observed in computus. Parallel to "natura" is "ratio," which for Bede meant "regularity" and "cause" as well as the measurement of that regularity. Bede's description of the miraculous (phenomena outside the order of nature) helps to further place his use of these terms in context, and this in turn illuminates the role of his science--which fused cosmology, exegesis of Genesis, and computus--in his broader intellectual program.
In "The Responsibility of Auctoritas: Method and Meaning in Bede's Commentary on Genesis," Calvin B. Kendall delves into Bede's understanding of the Biblical exegete's role, responsibilities, and working methods, using his commentary on Genesis as a case study. Like Wallis, Kendall focuses on Bede's use of certain key terms, in this case "mysterium," "allegoria," "arcanum," and "sacramentum" (for Bede these are overlapping terms for those divine truths that are veiled in scripture and ritual) as well as "signum" and "figura" (which Kendall shows betray Bede's rather sophisticated understanding of processes of signification). As Kendall demonstrates, understanding the various ways Bede employs these terms is essential to apprehending the subtleties of his exegesis, and his sense of the heavy burdens borne by one wishing to explicate the Bible.
It is well known that many of Bede's works achieved a wide circulation both in England and the continent from the Carolingian period onwards. In "Bede's Neglected Commentary on Samuel," George Hardin Brown comes to terms with a work that did not achieve such success, and which has consequently been neglected even in modern scholarship. As Brown makes clear, even though the commentary is long, heavily allegorical, and at times quite difficult, none of these factors alone can explain its neglect, for there are other works of Bede whose dissemination was not hindered by these same characteristics. Much more than just an exploration of transmission and influence, however, Brown's essay serves as a critical introduction to all aspects of this work, including sources, method (as noted heavily allegorical, but also tropological), and style and rhetoric. Ultimately, Brown hypothesizes that the most likely explanation for its lack of success has more to do with the vagaries of transmission than with any medieval perception of its shortcomings. There was, in effect, a window of opportunity in the Carolingian period when the work could have achieved a wide dissemination if it had made its way to the right centers--a hypothesis made all the more intriguing by Joyce Hill's treatment, later in the volume, of the role of the Carolingians in establishing Bede's authority (about which see below).
In "Footsteps of His Own: Bede's Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah," Scott DeGregorio focuses on one of Bede's more popular and, the author argues, one of his most original commentaries. Given that the Biblical book (for Bede, Ezra and Nehemiah constituted a single book) is concerned with the construction of the second temple, there is a strong case to be made for seeing this work as part of a trilogy- -together with De tabernaculo and De templo--on the Jewish temple in its three phases. And if DeGregorio is right in placing the composition of In Ezram toward the end of Bede's life (approaching, or even in, the 730s), then the concern for the reform of the church that Bede exhibits in this work takes on a new significance for our understanding of both the Historia ecclesiastica and his letter to Ecgberht. As DeGregorio points out, these concerns are most clearly revealed in Bede's literal/historical interpretation, and also in his understanding of the priest/scribe Ezra's role as not unlike that of a eighth-century "doctor" of the church or an archbishop. In this essay, as much as in any of the contributions, the value of an integrated reading of Bede's works is made clear.
Arthur G. Holder's "Christ as Incarnate Wisdom in Bede's Commentary on the Song of Songs," focuses on Bede's exegesis of a text that was for him to be interpreted exclusively in the allegorical mode. The Song of Songs was a frequent subject of medieval exegesis, but for Bede at the time of writing the only relevant source that seems to have been available to him was the Pelagian interpretation of Julian of Eclanum, which, as Holder points out, he rejected and used primarily as a foil for his own reading. The focus of Bede's interpretation of this text is, not surprisingly, Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride, though there are also times when the focus turns to another common theme of Bedan exegesis, "Ecclesia" and "Synagoga." Perhaps the most unexpected turn in this commentary comes in those passages in which Bede attributes feminine characteristics to Christ. Bede (unlike commentators who went before him) defends his interpretation by assembling scriptural precedents. Holder also examines how Bede's exegesis of the Song of Songs places his descriptions of saints Cuthbert and Hild in the Ecclesiastical History in a new light. Throughout, Holder's close reading of Bede's work reflects the sensitivity of an experienced translator (his forthcoming translation of Bede's commentary on the Song will be his third volume of Bedan translations).
Lawrence T. Martin, in "Bede's Originality in his Use of the Book of Wisdom in His Homilies on the Gospels," likewise demonstrates the translator's deep familiarity with the text under consideration. As Martin notes, the Homilies are part of the group of works that has led to the perception of Bede's lack of creativity. The reasons for this are not hard to uncover. In the exegesis of the Gospels, the fathers had already blazed a trail, and in following it, Bede incorporated numerous verbatim extracts from their works into his own commentaries. Naturally, his homilies on readings from those same books cover much of the same ground, and even though they do not contain many verbatim extracts from the fathers, they do borrow freely from them. As Martin shows, however, even if Bede does not seek to reinvent the wheel, he does often innovate by offering his own interpretation. The examples Martin discusses here all derive from Bede's use of the Book of Wisdom, which he employed in particular to underscore the contrast between "simplicity of heart," and "malevolence" or "deceit." Where for Augustine, "simplicitas" was primarily used in the sense of "singleness" in opposition to Donatism, for Bede the emphasis is on simplicity as the opposite of duplicity. Bede's use of chapter two (on the oppression of the weak by wicked men), is of particular interest in light of Thacker's and DeGregorio's conclusions about Bede's reformist ideals.
Walter Goffart's contribution, "Bede's History in a Harsher Climate," stands apart from the other essays in the volume, being focused less on Bede himself, his self-image, and his literary program, and more on the modern-day critical debate surrounding the Historia ecclesiastica. This debate was, if not sparked, at least greatly fueled by Goffart's seminal The Narrators of Barbarian History (1988; repr. 2005), in which he argues that the Historia ecclesiastica is best understood as the product of the social context in which it was written, and (this is where controversy really begins) that its author was not above "spinning" the history he recorded to suit his own agenda, an agenda which was, in part but not exclusively, anti-Wilfridian. The Narrators of Barbarian History has been much discussed by historians of the early Middle Ages, but Goffart, for his part, has largely remained above the fray. Particularly notable responses to his treatment of Bede have come from D. P. Kirby, Alan Thacker, and Henry Mayr-Harting, whose remarks Goffart here reflects upon. Despite the fact that it stands somewhat apart from the other contributions to this volume, this essay will be of the greatest interest for students of the Historia ecclesiastica.
The final essay in the volume, Joyce Hill's "Carolingian Perspectives on the Authority of Bede," explores territory into which none of the other contributors ventures (with the exception, briefly, of Brown), namely the evidence for the afterlife of Bede's works. At issue is how Bede became such an authoritative figure, one who could be quoted alongside the Latin fathers. It is well known that the Anglo-Saxon missionaries sought manuscripts of Bede's works, and that many of his works would eventually become standard components of Carolingian libraries. But Hill also points out that Bede was often invoked as an authority in Carolingian church councils, the canons of which quote Bede's Gospel exegesis, homilies, and the Historia ecclesiastica. M. L. W. Laistner's Hand-list of Bede Manuscripts, which Hill relies upon, is now badly out of date, and as a result the figures cited for the number of ninth-century copies of In Lucam and In Marcum (241-42), are far too low (there are at least thirty of the former and twenty of the latter). But these more accurate figures only serve to make her larger point--that these were among the most popular of Bede's works--all the stronger. Finally, Hill examines how Bede's authority as established by the Carolingians came home to roost in the English Benedictine reform and especially in the writings of Aelfric, for whom Bede was not only an authority in his own right, but also a conduit through which one could access the fathers.
West Virginia University Press has produced an attractive volume at a reasonable price. While there are perhaps more typographical slips than would be hoped (to mention a few examples, at the top of p. ii the volume number is wrongly given as VI; p. 39, n.9 has a problem with a short title that could be misleading; the block quotation on p. 163 should be a regular paragraph), these are really only cosmetic flaws. A check of a random sampling of citations and quotations revealed no errors. It goes without saying that this volume will be required reading for any scholar working on Bede, but its audience could and should be much wider than that. Scholars of medieval exegesis, and those working on later Anglo-Saxon and Carolingian intellectual culture will find much of value here, as will students wishing to know more about exegesis or Bede. Some twenty-six years ago, Roger Ray asked in the title of an important article, "What Do We Know About Bede's Commentaries?" (Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 49 [1982]: 1-20). This volume answers that question, and it is a substantial answer indeed.