Nicholas of Lyra's literal and moral postillae on the Book of Esther

Thesis

Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270-1349) wrote two commentaries on the entire Bible: one according to the literal, the other according to the spiritual (what he called the 'moral') sense of scripture. In keeping with tradition, the Franciscan declares that the literal sense is the foundation for any other sense; what he meant by literal and moral senses and what relationship exists between them are questions which have no clear answer. Nicholas's exegesis is also remarkable for an unprecedented use of Jewish sources in his literal commentary. Most of the scholarly engagement with Nicholas's work centres around this first commentary, and explores Nicholas's attitude toward his Jewish sources. I am interested in understanding the relationship between the two commentaries. Did Nicholas's unprecedented use of Jewish sources in his literal commentary lead to any serious innovations in his spiritual commentary? In what sense is the literal a 'foundation' for the moral?

These are question not yet addressed by scholars of his work, but answers to these questions would provide insights into the development of the senses of scripture, and a more complete picture of Nicholas himself as a Franciscan exegete. I am using Nicholas's literal and moral commentaries on the book of Esther to explore the relationship between the two commentaries. Esther is an interesting context in which to explore these questions because Nicholas was the first Christian exegete to write a literal commentary on this book, which had traditionally been allegorised to contrast Jews and Christians.

I will argue that the content and methods of Jewish sources are used by Nicholas in his innovative literal commentary as part of an effort to provide the literal sense of Esther with a religious and spiritual value in its own right, a value rooted in the perceived historical truth of the events. This theological attitude toward history increased the importance of the literal/historical sense of Esther, which no longer needed to be allegorised to have significance for Christians. This same theological and historiographical interest shapes Nicholas's moral commentary also. He does provide an allegory for the book of Esther, but his allegory has its value in being historical, rather than doctrinal. Ultimately, I believe Nicholas is best understood as a Church historian, with a deeply theological understanding of history. My study contributes to our understanding of later medieval Christian Hebraism, Franciscan historiography, and changing perceptions of the fourfold senses method.

Authors: Crabtree, EG

• DOI: 10.5287/ora-mnjgjm5qb
• Type of award: DPhil
• Level of award: Doctoral
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: Nicholas of Lyra
• Subjects: Bible--Influence--Medieval civilization