COMMENTARIES ON THE *SENTENCES*. — During the 13th and 14th centuries, the textbook in the Faculty of Theology was the Bible, the *sacra pagina*, from which the regent master would "read" one or another book at his discretion. The bachelor, to whom the master entrusted much of his teaching and responsibility, instead commented for the younger students on the four books of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences* (v.).
This was required by the statutes of the Faculty of Paris, which were followed in this regard by all other universities. No one could attain the magisterium or receive the *licentia docendi* without having fulfilled this duty to the satisfaction of the students and the master, who vouched for II. The *Sentences* thus became the textbook or the *Scriptum*, in *Scripto*, and Peter Lombard the master. The importance of the text continued to grow as masters, taking less interest in their teaching, relied too heavily on their bachelors, and initiation into theology consisted above all in the study of an entire work rather than in capricious commentaries on different books. It is therefore necessary to refer to commentaries on this text if one wishes to follow the various phases of theological thought; all the more so because each commentary did not neglect any theological problem, and the number of such commentaries that survive is very large. In F. Stegmüller’s *Repertorium*, there are 1,407 entries, even if not all are strictly commentaries or are complete; this figure gives an idea of the importance of the material possessed, most of which remains unpublished.
Peter Lombard’s work was only one of many attempts to gather in a complete and organic treatment all the problems discussed in theology. Others are known, both earlier and later, that share this character, from Abelard, Hugh of Saint-Victor, Roland Bandinelli, Gandulf of Bologna, to the *Sententiae Parisienses*, *Florianienses*, *Sententiae Divinitatis*, Robert of Melun’s *Summa Sententiarum* (v.), POLITEISMO (v.), and others. But Peter Lombard’s work prevailed over the others due to its clear and logical exposition, its well-chosen and abundant patristic documentation, and the balance of its solutions. The interest of the commentaries on the *Sentences* lies in the common element provided by the textbook to which all had to refer, and in the relatively wide scope allowed for personal thought and initiative; in this way, through the individual books, the respective authors reveal themselves, along with the movement of theological thought, whose various currents manifest themselves, especially when grouped within the different schools and compared in their chronological succession.
According to the statutes of the University, each bachelor and *sententiarius* was required to lecture on all four books of Lombard in two years, but from the mid-14th century onward, it appears, this was done in one year. Dates were also fixed for the inauguration of each book, the beginning of which was celebrated with a kind of solemn feast, especially the first (between the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and St. Denis); the second took place in early January, the third in early March, and the fourth in early May. The general order of Peter Lombard was usually followed; however, for various reasons, it could often be changed. For example, Peter Auriol lectured on Books I and IV in 1316–17 and on Books II and III the following year; Duns Scotus also lectured on Books I and IV in the same academic year. St. Bonaventure had lectured on Book IV before Book III. St. Albert the Great, it seems, lectured on Books I and III first, then on Books II and IV. The four books were to be read without lingering on particular questions, which would have taken too much time, as many were tempted to do in the 14th and then in the 15th centuries. From the outset, attention was given to a question in the prologue or in Book I, explaining which took so many lessons that the rest of the book or even the other books suffered as a result. Thus, the commentary on Peter Lombard’s *Sentences* ended up serving as a pretext for some unusual questions that had only a tangential connection to it, questions that could have been addressed without any reference to the *Sentences*. To comply with the statutes, some passages of the text of the *Sentences* were finally read or summarized very quickly.
This practice, contrary to university statutes, ran counter to the spirit and initial practice. In reality, an evolution occurred, which, starting from the very structure imposed by the *Sentences* (common, moreover, to all other commentaries)—namely, the *divisio textus*, the *quaestiones* attached to the text and provoked by it, and then, at the end of the lecture, the *expositio litterae* or *dubia in litteram* (explanations of the text of Lombard)—slowly shifted toward an amplification of the second point, the question, at the expense of the other points, which were sacrificed. Soon, the question remained alone, and following the order of the distinctions and problems of Lombard, it assumed such vast proportions that it nullified its function and led to the excesses mentioned above. In the ordinary lectures, as seen in the great authors of the 13th century, the questions raised in the course of each distinction and subdivision could be more or less numerous. Here, the initiative of the reader, the bachelor, and the *sententiarius* emerges, along with his desires, preferences, and personal thought and position. It is sufficient to compare the treatment of the same distinction by four or five nearly contemporary authors to discover the extreme variety in genre, number of questions, character, and solutions given to the same issues. Within the fixed frameworks, a certain freedom was permitted: one could skip a problem that Lombard had posed or introduce other questions he had not considered. It was permissible to depart from his way of thinking, criticize his solutions, and propose others; without disrupting the general plan, particular questions could be shifted, and the order of the treatises could be rearranged quite freely. There is, moreover, a whole series of opinions of the Master of the *Sentences* that officially *non tenentur*.
Provided one did not stray from the path of orthodoxy, quite original and even bold opinions were permitted. It was known that one was always under the watchful eye of the master, who had to guarantee the value of his bachelor’s teaching, as well as under the scrutiny of students, colleagues, and adversaries; from time to time, denunciations forced retractions, or even compelled one to abandon or prematurely interrupt a teaching career.
The commentary on the *Sentences* remained, without doubt, a youthful work to a certain extent; only those who had reached the age of 30 were admitted to lecture on the *Sentences*. In religious orders, an even greater age was often required, after a sufficiently long apprenticeship of seven or eight years of previous theological studies, during which the candidate had attended the reading of the four books of Peter Lombard at least three times. Thus, he had been able to reflect, make comparisons, and choose one or another opinion. From his commentary on the *Sentences* (1254–56), St. Thomas Aquinas drew his most important preferences, and he did not easily return to them; for St. Thomas, as for his contemporaries, it remained the foundation on which later works were composed and constituted, in the career of a master, the most useful starting point and point of comparison, inasmuch as it was very extensive and had compelled the author to pronounce on almost all the great themes of theology.
From this arises the singular importance of commentaries. Sometimes the final drafting occurs, for various reasons, many years after the oral teaching. Such, for example, is the case with Giles of Rome, whose first book appeared around 1276–78, that is, almost immediately after the lectures, while the second and third were not written until 1309. The same happened with Richard of Middleton (v.), whose books, delivered in 1284–86, were published around 1295. It is not uncommon to encounter multiple drafts, either because the author gave his teaching on the Sentences in successive installments in different places, as did Scotus, Vital du Four (in Paris and Montpellier), Peter Aureol (in Paris, Toulouse, Bologna, and again Paris), or because, prompted by criticism or a desire for revision, the author took up a first draft already completed (as with Durand of Saint-Pourçain, of whom three drafts survive, or John of Mirecourt, who offers two). St. Thomas Aquinas had intended, during his stay in Italy, to revise his Commentary, reworking the first book, but he later abandoned this plan in order to devote himself instead to composing the Summa Theologica.
These drafts are, in general, quite polished in their exposition and style. However, it sometimes happens that a text was hastily scribbled down by a listener (as in the case of reportata) or that the notes were not completed by the author himself. Thus, for example, the various Reportationes (Parisiense, Oxonienses, and within these, the variants of this or that manuscript) of Duns Scotus’s Commentary (v. Talis), such as the notes taken day by day by Richard of Bazoches during the lectures given by Peter Plaoul in 1392–1393, enriched moreover with piquant annotations on the affairs of the University and the kingdom, or even the text, probably original, of Gerard of Abbeville’s Commentary on Book III of the Sentences. More vivid and picturesque than the others, such drafts are sometimes less reliable. To form an accurate judgment on the author’s doctrine, one must take into account the deficiencies of the reporter.
Through these numerous commentaries, which span the 13th to the 15th centuries and come from all schools and major universities, it is possible to trace the history of theology, its uncertainties, and its progress. After the commentaries, but on a far lesser scale, one must mention the summaries of Lombard (some of which were versified), the recapitulations of commentaries on the Sentences, the school notes and handouts, and finally the more or less extensive compilations based on commentaries, such as that of Prosper of Reggio Emilia, contained in ms. Vat. lat. 1086 on the prologue and distinction 1 of Book I, or the anonymous compilation from Münster, Univ. 257, on the treatise *De virtutibus*.