Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages

Rating:
Summary: Ian Myles Slater on: A Pioneering Effort
Review: This book,"The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages," was first published around 1940, in wartime Britain; I have seen conflicting statements on the actual, as against the scheduled, date. It was revised in 1952, in an edition from the Oxford publisher, Blackwell and reprinted by the University of Notre Dame Press (Indiana) in 1964, with a new Preface and some bibliographic updating; which is the date given by Amazon. The title is a little misleading, as I shall explain below.

Through the late 1990s, at least, it was being cited at *the* standard work in English; departures from its positions had to be justified, agreements did not. But, with new editions of texts, and new ways of reading them, it is getting old.

I first read it in the 1970s, and was glad to find a paperback copy (of the 1978 third Notre Dame printing) some years later. I have been waiting for an equally comprehensive successor to appear, in English. In the meantime, I have found that it remains amazingly useful, amidst an abundance of much more advanced, much more technical, and much more specialized, studies. An example would be Ann W. Astell's "The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages," a fine work of criticism which I would have found baffling on the most superficial level without having read Smalley's book, and recognized the contexts of commentators she analyzes.

The late Norman Cantor expressed high approval of Beryl Smalley's book in "Inventing the Middle Ages," and lamented the neglect of its author by British academic circles, which he attributed to sexism. (He was probably right; but I have no independent source on her life.) He also suggested that the organization of "The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages" leaves much to be desired. I understand what he means, but I am not sure that I could suggest a better one.

The fact is, Beryl Smalley (1905-1984) chose to cover a huge amount of territory, which could be mapped in many ways; and she seems to have tried out more than one. "The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages" was, by her original intent, restricted to Latin Christian writers interpreting what they called the "Old Testament" -- "New Testament" studies were considered "Theology," and those who had any sense of self-preservation stayed away from unapproved speculation. Explaining the words of Ezekiel in ever-finer detail, or debating the exact length of the reign of a king of Judah was one thing. Touching on specifically Catholic doctrines, seen as arising from a Gospel or Epistle, was another.

Smalley in fact wrote on medieval Gospel interpretations, as well as medieval political thought; areas in which she found herself describing views that came to be deemed heretical. Some of these writings do not seem to have been collected until the 1980s.

But she found that this limitation to the Latin Old Testament was, perhaps unexpectedly, too restrictive, and gave a false sense of a closed system of ideas. It may have seemed a safe assumption that St. Jerome was the last important direct contact with Jewish Biblical scholarship until the Renaissance. (Aquinas reading Maimonides on how to reconcile Aristotle and Scripture was a somewhat different matter.) In the course of her work, she came to agree that there was, in fact, a distinct and significant influence from medieval Jewish commentators on Christian writers at certain periods. She had to extend her coverage; but, of course, medieval Hebrew had not been part of her education, so skipping the whole problem must have been a temptation.

Instead, she got considerable help from a Hebraist who had been looking into the relation of European Jewish commentators, from Rashi to Kimhi, to their Christian environment. But she still had to spend a disproportionate amount of space explaining basic facts about them to other medievalists, whereas "the Benedictine Reform" could pretty much take care of itself. (And if you don't recognize the commentators, but at least know the name of the Benedictines, you are in the same position as many of her original readers.) Since her associate was also a congregational Rabbi, she lost his direct assistance by the time of the revised edition; he assumed a new position out of the country. (And the whole picture of Jewish commentators has since been altered by later scholarship; although I don't think that this would make much difference at the level of detail she provided.)

But it was a valiant effort. And it was typical of her industry and enthusiasm. And also of the resulting sprawling, and seemingly disproportioned, nature of her account. In the end, the book seemed to me much too short; much of it already needed to be replaced, but I could think of nothing that should have been cut.

The issues she raises concern not only religion, but the entire nature of literacy and interpretation of the written world in medieval society. I would strongly urge anyone seriously interested in medieval European intellectual culture to try it; and not only those with a special interest in religion or biblical studies.

Although it was not Beryl Smalley's only book, it is the only one in print; and for the moment apparently only in the U.S. Amazon UK offers it among a wider selection of Smalley titles, all unavailable except used. That list includes "The Bible in the Mediaeval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley (Studies in Church History)" (1985).