Scholion
Commentarius in Ecclesiasten · Scholion
SCHOLION
I. In hoc Commentario componendo S. Bonaventura praeter Glossam interlinearem et ordinariam (quae plerumque derivata est ex Commentario S. Hieronymi in Ecclesiasten) usus est tum ipsa memorata Hieronymi expositione tum altera Hugonis a S. Victore, quae, saltem in editionibus, non se extendit nisi usque ad cap. 4, 7. Ecclesiastae. Ab Hugone ipse mutuatus est praecipuam illam divisionem triplicis vanitatis, scilicet mutabilitatis, iniquitatis, poenalitatis. Quod autem cognoverit etiam Expositionem mysticam in Ecclesiasten Salonii, episcopi Viennensis (vide Migne., Patrol. Latina tom. LIII. col. 993 seqq.), qui floruit circa 453, quidam locus a nobis citatus insinuare videtur, nisi forte illam sententiam ab aliis auctoribus relatam acceperit. Nec invenimus certum vestigium, quod adhibuerit Commentarios Alcuini et Ruperti, abbatis Tuitiensis, qui in exponendo Ecclesiaste presse sequuntur Hieronymum. — Ceterum haec expositio est opus seraphico Doctori prorsus proprium eiusque indolem nativam referens. Ipse, adhibitis nonnunquam aliis versionibus, praesertim Hieronymi et Septuaginta, textum Vulgatae exponit secundum sensum litteralem, ita ut plurimis locis Scripturae parallelis, quasi ipsa Scriptura explicans Scripturam, sensum illustret. Exposita secundum sensum litteralem parte non exigua textus, subiungitur plerumque brevis expositio sensus mystici sive spiritualis eiusdem partis. Adduntur porro suis locis ultra octoginta quaestiones more scholastico compositae, quibus speciales difficultates, circa doctrinam vel sensum obscuriorum locorum occurrentes breviter et dilucide solvuntur.
II. In sententiis gravibus ex verbis S. Scripturae eruendis, dividendis et ordinandis S. Commentator comprobat ingeniosissimam subtilitatem. Plurimi quidem huius libri expositores recentiores negant, determinatum ordinem et logicum progressum in ipso inveniri. Quidquid de hoc sentiendum sit, pro vera nostri auctoris circa ordinem ab ipso dispositum sententia intelligenda servire potest id quod in Collationibus in Hexaëm., collat. 14. n. 5, respectu omnium librorum Scripturae profert de ordine, ut ita dicam, organico S. Scripturae, sive de diversitate, quae est inter ordinem illius et ordinem humanorum librorum, quod scilicet in Scriptura non ponatur sic sententia post sententiam: « Non est, inquit, ita; quia ordinatissima est, et ordo eius est consimilis ordini naturae in germinatione terrae » etc. — Difficile quidem est praegrandem numerum divisionum et subdivisionum mente retinere. Ne igitur lector confundatur, iam in textu ordinando pro viribus providimus, tum titulis, quos maioribus partibus superscripsimus, tum notis marginalibus et typis, quos cursivos vocant. Non autem superfluum esse nec lectori ingratum putamus, quod multitudinem divisionum et principalium sententiarum, quae sunt in expositione litterali, his quatuor schematibus adumbratam in uno conspectu ponamus. Similia schemata in codicibus Commentariorum S. Scripturae passim inveniuntur ad marginem scripta.
SCHOLION
I. In composing this Commentary St. Bonaventure, besides the interlinear and ordinary Gloss (which is for the most part derived from the Commentary of St. Jerome on Ecclesiastes), made use both of the aforesaid exposition of Jerome itself and of another, that of Hugh of St Victor, which, at least in the editions, does not extend further than chapter 4, 7 of Ecclesiastes. From Hugh he himself borrowed that principal division of the threefold vanity, namely of mutability, of iniquity, of penalty. That he also knew the Mystical Exposition on Ecclesiastes of Salonius, bishop of Vienne (see Migne, Patrol. Latina vol. LIII, col. 993 ff.), who flourished about 453, a certain passage cited by us seems to suggest, unless perhaps he received that sentence as reported by other authors. Nor have we found any certain trace that he made use of the Commentaries of Alcuin and of Rupert, abbot of Deutz, who in expounding Ecclesiastes closely follow Jerome. — For the rest, this exposition is a work wholly proper to the Seraphic Doctor and bears his native character. He himself, bringing in at times other versions, especially those of Jerome and of the Septuagint, expounds the text of the Vulgate according to the literal sense, in such a way that by very many parallel places of Scripture, as if Scripture itself were explaining Scripture, he illustrates the sense. When a part of the text, and no small one, has been expounded according to the literal sense, there is for the most part subjoined a brief exposition of the mystical or spiritual sense of the same part. Moreover, there are added in their places more than eighty quaestiones composed in the scholastic manner, in which special difficulties occurring concerning the doctrinetr. or the sense of the more obscure places are briefly and clearly resolved.
II. In drawing out, dividing and ordering weighty sentences from the words of holy Scripture, the holy Commentator shows a most ingenious subtlety. Very many recent expositors of this book indeed deny that a determinate order and a logical progression are to be found in it. Whatever is to be thought of this, there can serve for understanding the true view of our author concerning the order disposed by him that which, in the Collations on the Hexaemeron, collation 14, n. 5, he puts forward with respect to all the books of Scripture concerning the order — the organic order, so to speak — of holy Scripture, or concerning the difference that there is between its order and the order of human books, namely that in Scripture sentence is not set after sentence in that way: « It is not so, he says, because it is most ordered, and its order is like the order of nature in the sprouting of the earth » etc. — It is indeed difficult to keep in mind the very great number of the divisions and subdivisions. Lest, then, the reader be confused, we have already provided for this, as far as we could, in ordering the text, both by the titles which we have set above the larger parts and by marginal notes and by the type which they call cursive. But we think it neither superfluous nor unwelcome to the reader that we set the multitude of the divisions and of the principal sentences that are in the literal exposition, sketched in these four schemata, within a single view. Similar schemata are found here and there in the codices of the Commentaries on holy Scripture, written in the margin.
- tr.Translator's note: the Latin doctrina holds together what English divides among doctrine, teaching and learning. Its one site in this Scholion is the editors' own, circa doctrinam vel sensum obscuriorum locorum, where it stands beside sensus as the matter of the Quaestiones — what the text teaches, as against what a dark passage means — so the English takes "doctrine" here, where the commentary chunks mostly take "teaching" for what is handed on.