Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture

Abstract

THE curiously fanciful allegory and morality stand for conceptions which have no modern equivalent. They prove a hindrance to our enjoyment of certain types of mediaeval literature; we tend to pass them over as annoying trifles. Yet considerations that to us seem irrelevant have been a cause of infinite painstaking to the authors. If we would understand their thought, we can scarcely neglect what they held to be of fundamental importance, a reflection which leads us to a study of mediaeval exegesis. The multiple interpretation, its technique, and its value to those who used it, are just beginning to be discussed. In a recent number Mr H. Caplan describes the theory of the Four Senses.1 He traces the distinction from early times and explains how it was understood in the middle ages. Cassian gave a clear definition;2 he divided the exposition of Scripture into two classes, literal or historical, and spiritual; the latter includes three senses, allegorical, moral or tropological, and anagogical. Guibert of Nogent, in a treatise on preaching,3 gave a practical illustration from the four senses of the word Jerusalem. We meet with the same example everywhere in the Twelfth Century; I have no proof that Guibert was the originator. Historically, Jerusalem is an earthly city, allegorically she signifies the Church, tropologically the faithful soul, anagogically the Celestial City. History relates the course of events, allegory interprets one event as significant of another, tropology deals with morals, anagogy leads us to contemplation of things above. This method of exegesis became very common, as Mr Caplan shows. He suggests that the multiplication of senses led to confusion and mentions cases of over-refinement upon the four.