Literary Theory in Discussions of Formae Tractandi by Medieval Theologians

Abstract

A RISTOTELIAN EPISTEMOLOGY, as interpreted in the thirteenth century, gave the human faculties and the human perception a new dignity. The scriptural exegetes of that period afforded the of Scripture, the sensus litteralis (literal sense), a corresponding dignity. As Miss Smalley says: Transferring his view of body and soul to 'letter and spirit', the Aristotelian would perceive the 'spirit' of Scripture as something not hidden behind or added on to, but expressed by the text. We cannot disembody a man in order to investigate his soul; neither can we understand the Bible by making a separate study of each.' The literal sense of Scripture was then regarded as the expression of the inspired human authors of the Bible. Different authors could express themselves in different ways. A single author might express himself in different ways in different places. Sometimes the author might speak plainly; sometimes he might speak in a metaphorical or figurative way. Scriptural exegetes became concerned to provide meticulous analyses of the diverse literary styles or forms of writing (formae tractandi or modi agendi) which were supposed to be part of the literal sense. My interest is in the critical idiom employed in late-medieval discussions of biblicalformae tractandi. This idiom received its main impetus and its most comprehensive definition in the course of thirteenth-century debate on the stock question, Is theology a science? Because all the major theologians of the day had much to say about the nature of theologia, they had something to say about the multiple mode of Scripture, and this discussion proved very propitious for the emergence of literary theory. Scriptural exegetes were thereby provided with a sophisticated critical idiom which did justice to the stylistic complexity of each and every sacred text, and with a theoretical justification for their sensitive analyses of literary devices.2 The investigation of the nature of theologia found in the Summa * I am most grateful to Mr. M. B. Parkes, Professor A. Fowler, Professor J. McEvoy, and Miss P. Robinson for reading earlier drafts of this article and making many helpful comments and suggestions. Dr. Brian Scott rendered invaluable assistance in the translation of Latin passages.