“This

new translation, noteworthy for both its accuracy and its sympathy
for Gregory’s endeavours, will make his thinking on The Song of Songs
far better known. It is extremely welcome.”

—John Moorhead
McCaughey Professor of History, Emeritus University of
Queensland Author of Gregory the Great “This is the most
exhaustive treatment in modern scholarship for the Commentary
on the Song of Songs attributed to St. Gregory the Great and the
legacy of that text for medieval exegetes. The careful translation
and exhaustive commentary of this overlooked text is an
important contribution to Gregorian scholarship and a boon to all
those interested in Biblical interpretation during the Middle
Ages.”
—George Demacopoulos Associate Professor of Historical Theology
Co-Founding Director, Orthodox Christian Studies Program Fordham
University

“Anyone wanting to learn pre-modern exegesis by walking through a

lively example of it should take firm hold of this book. The accessible
translation pays due scholarly attention to the channels through which
Gregory came to us (Paterius, Bede, William of St Thierry). Those
medieval fans of Gregory on the Song show us what a classic it became,
and this should encourage us to see it in the same way. In the full
Introduction we are given both a basic primer in figural reading and
allegorizing which promoted contemplation, and also a platform for
research (not least in footnotes which reflect the state of the question in
patristic-medieval exegesis). Priceless!”

—Mark W. Elliott
Senior Lecturer in Church History, School of Divinity University
of St Andrews
CISTERCIAN STUDIES SERIES: NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR

GREGORY THE GREAT

ON THE SONG OF SONGS

Translation and Introduction

by Mark DelCogliano

Cistercian Publications

www.cistercianpublications.org
LITURGICAL PRESS
Collegeville, Minnesota
www.litpress.org
 A Cistercian Publications title published by Liturgical Press Cistercian Publications Editorial
Offices
Abbey of Gethsemani 3642 Monks Road
Trappist, Kentucky 40051
www.cistercianpublications.org

© 2012 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form, by print, microfilm, microfiche, mechanical recording,
photocopying, translation, or by any other means, known or yet unknown, for any purpose
except brief quotations in reviews, without the previous written permission of Liturgical Press,
Saint John’s Abbey, PO Box 7500, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321-7500. Printed in the United
States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gregory the Great on the Song of Songs /
translation and introduction by Mark DelCogliano.
p. cm. —(Cistercian studies series ; no. 244) Includes bibliographical references and
index.
ISBN 978-0-87907-244-5
Ebook ISBN 978-0-87907-769-3
1. Gregory I, Pope, ca. 540–604. Expositio in Canticum canticorum.
2. Bible. O.T. Song of Solomon—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Early works to 1800. 3. Gregory
I, Pope, ca. 540–604. I. DelCogliano, Mark. II. Gregory I, Pope, ca. 540–604. Expositio in
Canticum canticorum.
English. 2012.

BS1485.52.G74 2012
223′.907—dc23
2011051221
To the Monks of Saint Joseph’s Abbey
in Spencer, Massachusetts:
fratribus quondam in conversatione,
nunc et semper in Christo
PREFACE
At a certain point in my life I became enamored with the Cistercian
Fathers. For a lengthy period I immersed myself in their writings and
was deeply affected by their thought, particularly their exegesis of the
Song of Songs. Inquisitive about the origins of their ideas, I naturally
gravitated toward Gregory the Great, whose influence on the Cistercian
Fathers, I learned, was pervasive. In Gregory I found a man of rare
humanity and insight whose struggles to integrate the exigencies of his
own life with his spiritual aspirations and contemplative ideals so
resonated with my own. I was attracted to Gregory because of his utter
faith in Christ, because of his honesty about himself and the world he
lived in, and above all because of his deep-rooted nobility of soul that
pervaded everything he said and did.
The translations that appear in this volume are born of my devotion to
Gregory and my desire to share him with others. In his literary corpus
Gregory encapsulated the best of patristic theology and spirituality and
in so doing bequeathed this rich legacy to generations of Christians who
lived after him. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in Gregory’s
exegesis of the Song of Songs. Gregory’s interpretation of this popular
Old Testament book not only owes much to Christian exegetes that
preceded him, such as Origen, but also profoundly influenced later
Western Latin exegetes of the Song, such as Bernard of Clairvaux. In
Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs, then, we encounter a
recapitulation of the best of what preceded and a harbinger of the riches
that were to follow.
This volume includes all that Gregory had to say on the Song of Songs.
It is intended as the major sourcebook for anyone with an interest in
Gregory’s exegesis of this biblical book. Students of patristic and
medieval scriptural exegesis will find in this volume the work of a
master of the exegetical art whose interpretations are methodologically
fascinating, theologically profound, and historically influential. This
volume will also be of interest to students of patristic and medieval
Christian thought more generally, for Gregory frequently uses the Song
of Songs to expound upon some of the classic themes of patristic
theology, and Gregory’s influence on medieval Christianity is all-
encompassing. Those interested in monastic spirituality in general and in
Cistercian spirituality in particular will find in this volume the source
from which many monastic writers such as Bernard of Clairvaux and
William of Saint Thierry developed their own interpretations of the Song
of Songs and their own teachings on the spiritual life. Finally, this
volume will be of particular interest to students of William of Saint
Thierry since it contains a translation of one of the few parts of his
corpus that has remained hitherto unavailable in English, thus enabling
the evaluation of his thought with more accuracy and greater insight.
As I look back over the decade or so it took for this project to come to
fruition, I am awed by the generosity of so many people. Each of the
following helped me in a unique way, and I thank each of them: Bernard
Bonowitz, OCSO; Timothy Scott, OCSO; Bob Power; Edward Vodoklys,
SJ; Gabriel Weaver, OCSO; Peter Schmidt, OCSO; Phillipe Makram,
OCSO; and Lewis Ayres. I offer my thanks as well to Basil Pennington,
OCSO (R.I.P.); Casimir McCambly, OCSO; Albert James, OCSO; and
Maureen McCabe, OCSO, each of whom read an early version of my
translation of Gregory’s Exposition on the Song of Songs and offered
helpful feedback. I would especially like to thank James Palmigiano,
OCSO, who for many years undoubtedly heard me talk about Gregory
more than anyone else yet never gave a hint of boredom, even when I
discussed the intricacies of Gregory’s Latin—no one could ask for a more
supportive, devoted, and caring friend. E. Rozanne Elder was a source of
encouragement from the moment I mentioned the project to her, and I
wish we could have collaborated until its happy conclusion. Thomas
Humphries was my expert reader in the final stages of this project,
graciously reading through the entire manuscript and offering
constructive criticism. I thank him for his help and wish to add that my
own understanding of Gregory has been enriched by reading Gregory’s
writings together with him during our time at Emory. Karen Levad
kindly offered her copyediting services to me, and my prose is more
comprehensible because of her careful attention: thank you. I also owe a
debt of gratitude to Mark Scott, OCSO, who guided me through the
editorial process with care and expertise. I would also like to thank my
parents, Edward and Patricia DelCogliano, for their support throughout
my life but especially in the last twenty years in which I have made one
transition after another. Finally, a thousand thanks to my wife Amy
Levad. Though her feminist sensibilities may make her somewhat
suspicious of patristic interpretations of the Song of Songs, her love and
encouragement have been unwavering.
This book is dedicated to the monks of Saint Joseph’s Abbey in
Spencer, Massachusetts, among whom I spent an unforgettable seven
years in their midst as one of them. Though now separated in way of
life, I remain joined with them longing for “the kiss of his mouth, the
very fullness of interior peace: whenever we attain it, nothing more
remains for us to seek” (Gregory the Great, Exposition on the Song of
Songs 19).
Mark DelCogliano
Minneapolis, Minnesota
ABBREVIATIONS
 A NOTE ON REFERENCES TO
PRIMARY SOURCES

In general, references to primary sources have the following format:

Reg. past. 3.25. The name of work (or its abbreviation) is followed by the
book and section numbers, separated by a period. Works not divided
into books simply have the section number, as in VG 33. When citations
from primary texts are made, the line numbers of the edition are added
(if there are any), separated from what precedes by a comma; for
example, Reg. past. 3.25, 71–72.
Complicating the issue is the fact that writings from the patristic, late
antique, and early medieval periods acquired a variety of divisions in the
course of their editing through the centuries. Each book of the Moralia,
for example, has two separate divisions into sections. One (the older)
breaks each book into larger sections, whereas the other (the more
recent) divides the book into smaller, manageable sections. Yet the
standard edition of this work assigns line numbers according to the older
division. This has necessitated references to the Moralia in the following
format: Mor. 17.27 [39], 24–32. The second number, the one after the
period, refers to the section number according to the older division,
whereas the number in square brackets refers to the section number
according to the more recent division. The line numbers after the comma
therefore refer to the line numbers of sections according to the older
division. All this information is included to make looking up passages as
easy as possible.
A similar, but less complicated, method of division is found in the
standard editions of Gregory’s homilies. Each homily is divided into
sections, but line numbers are assigned consecutively from the beginning
to the end of the homily. Thus references to the homilies take the
following form: H.Ez. 2.2 [4], 95–106. The “2.2” refers to the second
homily of the second book. The number in square brackets refers to the
section number of the homily. Finally, the numbers after the comma
refer to the line numbers. Other primary texts have similar formats for
similar reasons. In general, any number within square brackets refers to
a section that lies outside of the line numbering used in the edition, and
whatever follows a comma refers to line numbers.
INTRODUCTION
I. THE LIFE OF GREGORY THE GREAT AND HIS WRITINGS

A. ROME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

Gregory the Great lived in a time of acute crisis in the West.1 The city
of Rome, once the center of the Roman Empire, had ceased to be the
capital of Western civilization when Constantine relocated the imperial
government to Constantinople in 330. Yet through the fourth century the
city’s politics remained heated, her economy booming, and her
intellectual activities vibrant. The imperial promotion of Christianity led
to a program of building in Rome on a scale not seen since the days of
Trajan in the early second century, but it was churches that were built,
not forums, markets, and other civic structures. Rome became, at least
externally, a Christian city.
After the reign of Theodosius the Great (379–95), the Roman Empire
was definitively split into Western and Eastern halves, each governed by
its own emperor. The Western emperors were for the most part too
young, too short-lived, or simply too incompetent to devise creative
responses to the new problems that faced the Western empire. The most
pressing of these were the barbarians—peoples from the periphery of the
Roman world not fully integrated into the empire but desiring to be so.
Barbarian peoples were not the invading marauders they are sometimes
portrayed to be but rather groups joined together by common interests
struggling to share in the advantages and opportunities that
accompanied being part of the economic, military, and political systems
of the Roman Empire. The sack of Rome by Alaric and his Visigoths in
410 epitomizes the failure of Western emperors to deal effectively with
the barbarians.2
With the weakening of imperial power in Rome, the Western empire
became increasingly ruled piecemeal by the leaders of various barbarian
peoples. Typically these leaders had been given high military commands
by the imperial government. They headed armies made up of soldiers
loyal to them, not to the empire. At times they fought for the Romans, at
times against them, not out of fickleness, but because of political
expediency and the need to make a living. Their military lifestyle was
not so much due to an innate martial character but rather to the
lucrative nature of a military career. It was also the best way to reach
the upper echelons of power within the Roman political system.
Successful barbarian generals were assigned (or simply took over) the
security of various regions, eventually establishing independent rule in
them when imperial authority evaporated. In 418 the Visigoths, after
leaving Italy, founded a kingdom in Gaul centered at Toulouse. By 442
the Vandals, after moving through Gaul and Spain, had established a
kingdom in North Africa, depriving the Western empire of one of its
most wealthy and cultured regions. In the latter part of the fifth century,
the Franks fought the Visigoths for control of Gaul. In 507, the Frankish
king Clovis won a decisive battle at Vouillé, securing Frankish
supremacy. The Visigoths fled to Spain and slowly recouped, establishing
a kingdom centered at Toledo in 568. The Western Roman Empire had
become dismembered into several successor kingdoms.3
In this period Italy was ruled de facto by a series of barbarian military
commanders. They set up various puppet emperors who represented the
last gasp of imperial power in the West. But the line of Western
emperors came to an end when, in 476, one of these barbarian military
commanders, Odoacer, deposed the last emperor, the boy Romulus
Augustulus, who was in fact a usurper not recognized by the Eastern
emperor. Odoacer set himself up as the rex (king) of Italy. Though his
bid for recognition by the court in Constantinople was rejected, he had
the support of the Roman senate and presented himself as ruling in the
stead of the emperor. Odoacer ruled ably and peacefully until 487/8
when his invasion of Illyricum gave the Eastern emperor Zeno a pretext
for invading Italy. The task was entrusted to Theoderic, a Roman
patrician, one of Zeno’s military commanders, and the leader of the
Ostrogoths in Pannonia. Here is a prime example of how difficult it is to
draw sharp distinctions between Romans and barbarians in this period.
Theoderic had his foot in both worlds, or rather, in him the Roman and
barbarian worlds were blended together. After the final defeat of
Odoacer in 493, Theoderic was proclaimed “king of the Goths” by his
troops. Like Odoacer, Theoderic sought to establish good relations with
the Eastern empire and in 497/8 was recognized by Emperor Anastasius
as ruling in the emperor’s stead. Theoderic’s strong rule over the
Ostrogothic kingdom that he had established in Italy lasted until his
death in 526. He presented his government as a legitimate continuation
of the Roman Empire in the West and saw himself as the ruler of two
nations, Goth and Roman, who were nonetheless one people, joined
together, mutually interdependent, and ruled by Roman law.4
In the two hundred years after Constantine’s relocation of the capital
of the Roman Empire in 330, the city of Rome itself was utterly
transformed. No longer the center of power in the Roman world, a
diminished Rome had increasingly become solely a Christian city. As
imperial power faded in the West, Rome came to be ruled by barbarian
kings who nonetheless brought stability in otherwise uncertain times.
Theoderic’s long reign definitively transformed Italy from empire to
kingdom with minimal disruptions to its social, political, and economic
stability. It is only after the death of Theoderic in 526 and the ensuing
dynastic instability of the Ostrogothic royalty that Italy entered into a
time of severe crisis.
When Justinian became the Eastern emperor in 527, he resolved to
reconquer the provinces of the Western empire that had been lost to
barbarian kings in the last century. After the Vandals were easily driven
out of North Africa in 533–34, Justinian began a war for the reconquest
of Italy in 535. If he had expected another quick victory, it was gross
miscalculation. The war lasted for twenty years, devastating Italy in the
process. Further degrading an already dire situation, in 542–43 plague
broke out in Italy and elsewhere around the Mediterranean, killing off
about a third of the population. In 550, for the first time in its history,
Rome was abandoned when the Ostrogothic king Totila drove the city’s
population to the Campanian countryside. Italy south of the Po River
was restored to imperial rule only in 555, with the new administrative
center at Ravenna, headed by a new official called the exarch. Italy
north of the Po was not secured until 562. Twenty years of war had
destroyed the economy and regular government in Italy. The senatorial
order, its members now either dead, dispersed, or impoverished, played
a vastly reduced role in Italian civic life and eventually ceased to be an
active force in it altogether. Most of the functions of civil government
were gradually taken over by military and clergy. Many Italians resented
being “liberated” by imperial forces, since it had come with so much loss
of life and property.
 The slow process of rebuilding had only begun when in 568 another
barbarian people, the Lombards, occupied northern Italy, first
conquering cities such as Milan and Pavia. A depleted Italy lacked the
means to resist. During the next few years, the Lombards took over areas
south of the Po, so much so that by 584 they controlled most of the
Italian peninsula except for the southernmost tip of Italy and a swath of
land that ran from Aquileia to Ravenna and then to Rome. Tensions ran
high between the imperial administration and the Lombards as each
government jockeyed for control of Italy by encroaching upon the
territories of the other. The civil government was no more; Italy,
whether imperial or Lombard, was ruled by a military aristocracy whose
governmental centers were essentially strongholds. The loyalties of
Italians were divided in this time of political instability. Areas loyal to
the empire, which included Rome, lived in near-constant fear of attack
by the Lombards. Such was the situation when Gregory became bishop
of Rome in 590. A homily Gregory delivered in 593 during a period of
Lombard attacks paints a bleak picture. “Everywhere we see weeping,”
writes Gregory, “on all sides we hear groaning. Our cities are ruined; our
fortresses are overthrown; our fields are ravaged; our land is reduced to
a desert. No one lives in the country; there remains hardly anyone living
in the cities.”5

B. GREGORY’S EARLY YEARS

Nothing definite is known of Gregory’s childhood, as he rarely speaks
of his life before becoming pope. He was born around 540, in the midst
of the empire’s war of reconquest in Italy, and his earliest childhood
would have been marked by the outbreak of the plague in 542–43 and
by Totila’s depopulation of Rome in 550.6 He was the scion of a wealthy
and prominent Roman family that had a long reputation for Christian
piety. The family owned large estates in Rome, in her environs, and in
Sicily. Gregory’s great-great-grandfather (atavus) was Pope Felix III
(483–92),7 and Pope Agapitus (535–36) may have been a distant relative
of his.8 Gregory’s father, Gordianus, was an official in the Roman
Church, serving in an administrative and legal capacity.9 Three of his
paternal aunts (named Tarsilla, Æmiliana, and Gordiana) adopted the
ascetic life, though Gordiana later abandoned it for marriage,
scandalizing Gregory.10 His mother, Silvia, also adopted the ascetic life
after the death of her husband, retiring to Cella Nova near the Basilica of
Saint Paul.11 Gregory also mentions a maternal aunt named Pateria,12
and had at least two brothers, Palatinus and another whose name is not
known.13 Gregory’s earliest biographers assumed that Christian piety
was strong in him from his childhood. Gregory of Tours, a contemporary
of Gregory, wrote that he was “devoted to God from his youth.”14 A later
biographer, Paul the Deacon, expresses a similar sentiment when he
writes, “His devotion to God and yearning with all desire for the
homeland of the life above began in his youthful years, a period of life in
which young men usually enter upon the ways of the world.”15
While Justinian’s war of reconquest and the invasion of the Lombards
made a classical literary education harder to attain, it was still possible,
and Gregory was well trained in grammar and rhetoric.16 He does not
display the sheer erudition of the educated elite in Italy from earlier in
the century, such as that of Boethius (ca. 480–ca. 525) or Cassiodorus
(ca. 490–ca. 585), but still stands out as one of the greatest literary
figures in the West at this time, both in output and in rhetorical skill.
Indeed, Gregory of Tours, writing around 593/4, beamed that Gregory
“was so learned in grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric that he was regarded
as second to none in the City.”17 His works evince a knowledge of
classical authors such as Cicero, Vergil, Seneca, and Juvenal, though he
hardly ever mentions them by name. He also shows an interest in the
natural sciences, astronomy, history, arithmetic, medicine, and music.
Gregory was less interested in philosophy and refers to philosophical
tenets most often to denounce them. It was the Christian literary
tradition that had the most influence on him, and no text more
profoundly than the Scriptures. Gregory’s grammatical and rhetorical
education had a decisive influence on how he interpreted the Bible (his
exegesis is discussed in part 3 of the introduction). His thought is also
deeply imbued with the writings of Latin Christian authors such as
Ambrose, Jerome, John Cassian, and especially Augustine. It seems that
Gregory knew some Greek, though to what extent it is hard to say.18
Nonetheless, Gregory had some contact with Greek patristic writers,
whether in translation or in the original.19
Gregory first embarked upon a career of public service, attaining by
573 high political office, most likely that of urban prefect.20 In this
capacity Gregory would have been responsible for law and order in
Rome and her environs and would have overseen the defense and
provisioning of the city. The Roman government in Gregory’s day was
loyal to the emperor in Constantinople and the exarch in Ravenna;
however, the exarch was often preoccupied with the Lombards
elsewhere in Italy and the emperor with other concerns far from Rome.
Despite good intentions, they could manage little tangible support for
the Romans, who were more or less left to their own resources. As urban
prefect, Gregory would also have been the president of the senate when
it convened, which was rare, since that august body had long been on
the wane in civic life.
Gregory was in office as urban prefect in the dying days of the Roman
senate, on the verge of extinction after existing for nearly one thousand
years. His political career spanned a time in which the traditional
verities of civilian life and government in Rome were quickly fading
away. The transitoriness and unreliability of the world and its failure to
provide security made a deep impression on Gregory. The longer he
pursued a career of public service, the more distant he felt from God and
the more anxious he grew over the salvation of his soul. He was torn
between his sense of obligation to serve others and his own desire to
focus on the eternal realities of God in contemplative retreat. After much
inner torment, Gregory resolved to abandon his secular career and enter
a monastery. Long after the decisive event, Gregory reflected on his
conversion to the monastic life in this way:
For a very long time I delayed the grace of conversion, and after I had
been inflamed with a desire for heaven I thought it better to wear
secular clothing. For what I should seek concerning the love of eternity
was already being revealed to me, yet long-established custom had so
cast its chains upon me that I could not change my outward attire. And
while my mind still obliged me to serve this world in outward activity,
many of the cares for this same world began to threaten me so that I was
in danger of being engulfed in it no longer in outward activity alone,
but, what is more serious, in my own mind. At long last being anxious to
avoid all these dangers, I sought the haven of the monastery, and having
left all that is of the world, as at that time I vainly believed, I came out
naked from the shipwreck of this life.21
Gregory never fully resolved this tension between action in the world in
service of others and the life of contemplation. Gregory recognized the
need for both, and it is a theme that frequently recurs in his writings.22
Because he had the faculties to dispose of his family property as he
pleased, we know that Gregory converted to the monastic life soon after
or concurrently with the death of his father.23 Gregory built six
monasteries on the family estates in Sicily and a seventh at his family
home within the walls of Rome on the Caelian Hill, at the Clivus Scauri
near the Basilica of Saints John and Paul.24 This monastery was
dedicated to Saint Andrew. The foundation of monasteries by wealthy
men and women was a common enough event in late antiquity, but
unlike most, Gregory actually entered the monastery he founded as a
simple monk. Gregory was never the abbot but served under two
different abbots during his monastic career, first Valentio, then
Maximian.25 Gregory always looked on his initial years in the monastery
with great fondness. But his contemplative repose was not to last.

C. DEACON AND PAPAL APOCRISIARIUS

Gregory was too talented to remain sequestered in a monastery. Either
Pope Benedict I (575–78) or his successor Pope Pelagius II (578–90)
made Gregory one of the seven deacons of Rome. Gregory missed the
monastery acutely, but his sense of obedience to the Church left him
unwilling to let the pope’s call go unheeded. Soon after his ordination as
deacon, in 579 or 580, Pope Pelagius II sent Gregory to Constantinople
as his ambassador (apocrisiarius). He may have traveled with a Roman
delegation sent to the emperor to seek help against the Lombards.26
Desiring only to be a monk, Gregory was thrust into the cauldron of
ecclesiastical politics in the imperial capital.
Gregory spent about six years in Constantinople representing the
interests of Rome and the papacy (579/80–585/86). From the shreds of
evidence from this period in Gregory’s life, we know that his duties
included requesting help against the Lombards. The emperors in the
period of Gregory’s tenure as apocrisiarius were largely preoccupied with
campaigns against the Persians in the east and the Avars and Slavs in the
north and were thus unable to allocate substantial military support for
Italy. Gregory managed to wrangle only a small contingent of soldiers
from Emperor Tiberius (578–82), which proved to be of little help.27 He
had even less success at securing help from Tiberius’s successor Maurice
(582–602), who preferred diplomacy and attempted to enlist the Franks
to combat the Lombards.28 Gregory’s inability to reverse this entrenched
imperial policy toward Italy and Rome highlights his unproductive
tenure as apocrisiarius. “His tenure as papal representative,” according to
Andrew Ekonomou, “appears to have accomplished few, if any, of the
things for which Pelagius II had sent him to the imperial city.”29
During his tenure as apocrisiarius Gregory also became embroiled in a
controversy with Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, over the
status of the resurrection body. In doing so, Gregory was sucked into a
theological debate that had been raging in Constantinople for several
decades.30 In brief, Gregory defended the notion that the resurrection
body was a truly corporeal reality, just like the mortal body, except that
it was made immortal. Eutychius was accused of denying this and of
arguing instead that the resurrection body would be lighter and more
beautiful, that is, essentially different, from the mortal body. According
to Gregory, the debate was resolved only by the intervention of Tiberius.
Debating before the emperor, Gregory refuted his enemy simply by
citing Christ’s word in Luke 24:39: “Touch and see; a ghost does not
have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” In Gregory’s mind, this verse
proved that all resurrection bodies, on the model of Christ’s resurrection
body, are corporeal in the same way that mortal bodies are. Gregory
says that the affair left both parties seriously ill, with Eutychius dying
shortly thereafter, recanting on his deathbed.31
Andrew Ekonomou has rightly suspected the veracity of Gregory’s
account and has suggested that Gregory used and tailored it for
ideological purposes.32 First of all, Gregory depicted Eutychius as a
simpleminded heresiarch; from other sources we know that Eutychius
was an intelligent theologian and pastorally minded patriarch, despite
his tendency to controversy. Second, no Eastern source records Gregory’s
refutation of Eutychius and the deathbed recantation. Ekonomou
proposes that one purpose of the account was to demonstrate the
orthodoxy of Rome against “the East’s unremitting tendency to lapse into
heresy through vain speculation.”33 In his account of the controversy,
Gregory’s distaste for theological speculation and debate is clear. The
affair also enabled Gregory to boast of at least one success in an
otherwise unproductive tenure as apocrisiarius. Finally, Ekonomou
suggests that Gregory used the story “to show that a simple appeal to the
Bible, which for him was the ultimate repository for all virtues and the
final defense against all vices, was able to achieve what all the treatises
and disputations of the religious philosophers could not.”34 Recounting
this incident in some detail affords us an opportunity to see perhaps the
earliest example of Gregory’s thoroughgoing biblicism.
During his stay in Constantinople, Gregory also made useful political
contacts, perhaps in the hope of advancing Rome’s interests through
their influence, given his own ineffectiveness before the emperor.
Though these contacts appear to have done nothing to help Gregory in
his role as apocrisiarius, they would later serve him well after he became
pope. He developed intimate friendships with Constantia, the wife of
Emperor Maurice; Theoctista, Maurice’s sister; Narses, the patrician and
general; and many other elites in the East. In 584 Gregory was also the
baptismal sponsor of the imperial couple’s son, Theodosius.35
Gregory’s residence in Constantinople was not entirely consumed with
political turmoil, doctrinal controversy, and socializing. At some point
an entourage of monks from Saint Andrew’s arrived in Constantinople in
order to provide him a haven of peace and contemplation in the midst of
his burdensome activities at the imperial court. Other clerical visitors to
Constantinople joined him, such as Leander of Seville, the elder brother
of Isidore, who was on a diplomatic mission from the Visigothic
kingdom in Spain; they became lifelong friends. Gregory and his
companions lived in common away from the court at the Placida Palace;
in this way he was able to maintain a modicum of contemplation in the
midst of his duties. Once again, Gregory’s account, written years later to
Leander, best captures how valuable this “traveling monastery” was to
him:
Many of my brethren from the monastery followed me there, bound by
their brotherly love. And I see that this was done according to divine
dispensation, so that by their example, I might always be tethered to a
placid shore of prayer, as with the rope of an anchor, when I was tossed
to and fro under the incessant pressure of secular cases. Indeed, I used to
flee the great volume of earthly business and disturbances to join their
fellowship, as if to a bay in the safest of ports, and although that
ministry had removed me from my monastery and former life of peace,
and had destroyed me with the sword of its occupation, yet among those
brethren, through a daily discussion of a learned reading, I was revived
by a feeling of remorse.36
It was in this context of reading texts together and discussing them that
Gregory, clearly the expert of the group, began to give lectures on the
exegesis of the book of Job. The brothers asked him not only to
comment on the historical sense but also to deliver an allegorical
reading of the text that emphasized its moral sense. At first Gregory
made his commentary orally, and notes were taken by stenographers.
For the latter parts, he dictated to a scribe. He undertook a revision of
the whole after his return from Constantinople. Entitled Moralia in lob, it
eventually filled six volumes and was divided into thirty-five books. The
work did not attain its completed form until after Gregory became pope.
Pope Pelagius recalled Gregory to Rome in 585/6, where he resumed
his office of deacon. In this period Gregory lived at Saint Andrew’s and
was engaged in revising the Moralia. He devoted himself to reading,
contemplation, and fasting but also remained in the service of the
Roman Church and advised the pope. This was among the happiest
periods of his life.37 But all was not well outside the monastery. War
with the Lombards resumed in 587. In 589 northern Italy experienced
particularly heavy rainfall that caused catastrophic flooding. In autumn
the Tiber overflowed in Rome, flooding the city and the papal granaries
and destroying some old churches. Plague broke out in January. One of
its victims was Pope Pelagius II, who died on February 8, 590.38

D. GREGORY’S PAPACY
With the city in turmoil, faced with floods, disease, and possible
attacks from the Lombards, a papal election was soon held. The electors
—clerics, nobles, and people—unanimously chose Gregory. His unique
combination of administrative and diplomatic experience, together with
his ascetic piety and pastoral skill, made him the obvious choice.
Gregory, once again heavily reluctant to forego the quiet of the
monastery for the bustle of pastoral service, immediately wrote to
Emperor Maurice, requesting that he withhold his consent to the
election. Apparently, the letter was intercepted and replaced by a letter
acclaiming Gregory’s unanimous election. Maurice would soon heartily
confirm Gregory’s election.39
In the meantime, control of the city passed to the archpriest, the
archdeacon, the primicerius notariorum, and the pope-elect, as custom
decreed.40 Gregory chose to address the crisis of the plague by preaching
a sermon in the Basilica of Saint John Lateran.41 He proclaimed that the
plague was the scourge of God (flagellum Dei) meant to call people to
conversion. He exhorted the people to repent and do penance for their
sins. He instructed the people to pray for forgiveness and sing psalms for
three days, after which seven different processions would set off from
various churches and converge upon Saint Maria Maggiore. Tradition
has it that this took place on April 25. As they processed, the people
sang Kyrie eleison in supplication to the Lord. The gravity of the situation
and the desperation of the massive intercession with God that Gregory
orchestrated is underscored by the fact that, in the space of one hour,
eighty people dropped dead as they walked in procession. The plague
ravishing the city had yet to abate.42
In time, however, the waters receded, the plague subsided, and
Emperor Maurice’s diploma approving the election arrived in Rome.
Gregory was consecrated as pope on September 3, 590. It is reported
that Gregory was thwarted in a plan to go into hiding before his
consecration; whether the story is true or not, it underscores his
apprehension over assuming the office.43 “Resistance to episcopal
consecration,” writes Robert Markus, “was a well-established
convention, and not only in literature; but Gregory’s aversion was deeply
felt. He felt unequal to the responsibilities of his new office; and, more
important in his own mind, it plunged him back into the tempestuous
sea of worldly affairs from which he had long been seeking to extricate
himself.”44 The letters written by Gregory soon after his consecration—
the earliest letters of his we possess—are replete with sentiments of his
insufficiency for the burdensome office, of his reluctance at once again
being cast into the whirlwind of activity, and of his profound sorrow
over the loss of his monastic contemplation, which, he realized, would
never be his again.45
But Gregory did not slip into a quagmire of depression; ever obedient
to the will of God, it did not take long for him to be reconciled to his
vocation. By early 591, he could write, “I admit that I have taken on the
burdens of this office with a heavy heart. But because I was not able to
fight against divine decrees, I have by necessity recalled my mind to a
happier state.”46 A month later, he wrote, “Because it is not possible to
oppose the decision of the Lord who disposes, I have obediently followed
what the merciful hand of the Lord wished to be done concerning me.”47
And so began one of the most dynamic and influential papacies in
history.48
Gregory is credited with inaugurating the medieval papacy. But the
authority he secured for the bishop of Rome was born of necessity. Soon
after Gregory’s accession, Agilulf became the king of the Lombards, and
new Lombard dukes gained control of two towns near Rome: (1) Spoleto,
one hundred kilometers to the north of Rome on the road to the exarch
in Ravenna; and (2) Benevento to the south of Rome. Thus, Rome was
surrounded by Lombards and for practical purposes cut off from
Ravenna. Since the ineffective exarch ignored Rome’s plight, Gregory
was forced to oversee the defense of the city, the movement of troops,
and the organization of supplies. In July 592 Gregory himself concluded
a peace treaty with the duke of Spoleto, paying the ransom from Church
funds. When this move brought Agilulf south to Rome to besiege the city
in 593, Gregory eventually prevailed upon him to leave. During the next
few years, Gregory continued to oversee the ransoming of hostages, the
organization of supplies, the payment of the imperial troops, and the
care of refugees, as the exarch in Ravenna repeatedly failed to make
peace with the Lombards. Toward the end of 598, with a new exarch in
office, peace was finally concluded with the Lombards, though
occasional conflicts would arise. Gregory’s dealings with the Lombards
were born of his frustration with the imperial government and the
necessity of defending Rome in the absence of imperial support. Still,
Gregory remained loyal to the emperor and continually tried to convince
the imperial government to fulfill its obligations to defend Rome.
Nonetheless, Gregory’s extraordinary involvement in Rome’s political
and military affairs set a precedent for future popes.
Gregory also devoted much energy to the reorganization of the papal
patrimony, the administration of which had fallen into disarray. The
Roman Church owned vast estates, which had been accumulated
throughout the preceding centuries. They were located mostly in
southern Italy and in Sicily but also in other parts of Italy, Gaul, and
North Africa. These estates were farmed directly by the Church or leased
to tenants for either lifetime or fixed-term leases. Gregory corrected
abuses in the administration of the estates to ensure their efficient
management. He also sought to improve the quality of the lives of the
peasants who worked on these farms. Under Gregory’s tenure, the estates
increased in production and thus in value, tenants made a profit, and the
Roman Church was enriched by the share of the revenues it received.49
As the occupant of one of the ancient patriarchal sees, Gregory
intervened in ecclesiastical affairs in the East and West, with varying
degrees of success.50 His papal correspondence includes letters to
contacts in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Dalmatia,
Illyricum and the Balkans, North Africa, Gaul, Britain, and Spain. On the
whole, Gregory had little direct influence in churches outside of Italy.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was the conversion of the English. In
595 he sent a group of forty monks led by Augustine to the royal court
at Kent; they converted King Æthelbert and many others, thereby
establishing Roman Christianity in England. The monk Augustine was
soon made bishop of Canterbury, and a strong bond was forged between
the English and Roman Churches that lasted until the Reformation.
Indeed, the country considered Gregory “the Apostle of the English.”51
Gregory’s political activity in his dealings with the Lombards, Franks,
and the imperial court; his administration of the papal patrimony; and
his intervention in the Churches around the East and West constitute
only a small subset of his activities as pope. As bishop of Rome, Gregory
was the shepherd of countless Christians in the eternal city and
throughout Italy. It is in Italy and particularly in Rome that he had his
greatest impact. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in his reform of
the Roman Church, leading to its “monasticization.” First of all, Gregory
re-created a monastic environment in the Lateran Palace, much as he
had earlier done in Constantinople at the Placida Palace, to keep him
“tethered to a placid shore of prayer, as with the rope of an anchor,
when … tossed to and fro under the incessant pressure of secular cases.”
As during his tenure as apocrisarius, the pope’s inner circle of monks was
the setting for a collective study of the Scriptures, again with Gregory
taking the lead.52 As will be argued below, Gregory’s extant exposition
of the Song of Songs (translated in this volume) is a transcription of
comments on the biblical book that Gregory delivered to his monastic
intimates in the Lateran Palace.
Gregory’s inner circle of confidants at the Lateran Palace was much
more than a fellowship of like-minded ascetics and contemplatives.53 It
was also the pool from which Gregory drew candidates for appointment
to crucial positions in the papal administration. This preference for
placing monks in the important positions of the administration of the
Roman Church was a move that alienated members of the Roman
clerical aristocracy who had traditionally fulfilled such functions. This
caused an anti-monastic backlash in the Roman Church after Gregory’s
papacy, leading to the election of Sabinian, the preferred candidate of
the clerical party.
Gregory also promoted monasticism more generally throughout
Italy.54 Gregory was not a monastic innovator or legislator but an
enthusiastic advocate of the monastic way of life, which he regarded as
the supreme form of Christian living. While all his writings are imbued
with monastic principles and ideals, it is perhaps his Life of Saint
Benedict, the second book of his Dialogues, that is his most sustained
effort to popularize monasticism. He also gave practical support to the
movement, encouraging others to found and endow monasteries as he
had done and giving subsidies to monasteries that were in financial
straits. Gregory also concerned himself with the reform of lax
monasteries, the maintenance of monastic discipline, the preservation of
monastic seclusion, and the protection of monasteries from arbitrary
secular and episcopal interference. And so, Gregory was devoted to
monasticism not only by preference in how he lived his life but also by
policy in how he shaped the Church entrusted to him.

E. GREGORY’S WRITINGS
Gregory was extraordinarily busy as pope. So much is known about
his papacy because there is a massive amount of literary evidence for his
tenure. The bulk of this evidence comes from the collection of his letters
that spans the fourteen years of his papacy, called the Registrum
epistularum. There are 854 letters that survive.55 In these letters,
particularly those to individuals, another side of Gregory emerges: that
of friend, spiritual advisor, and pastor. Despite Gregory’s countless
engagements in the political, military, and administrative affairs of his
day, at heart he remained a monk devoted to Christian piety. As pope,
he continued to struggle to balance his contemplative aspirations with
his papal obligations. Yet Gregory wrote much more than letters; in fact,
he is one of the most prolific authors of the late antique period.56
Gregory’s other writings reveal him most fully as a thinker, ascetic
theologian, contemplative, spiritual expert, and moral reformer. These
facets of Gregory can be seen in his short Exposition on the Song of Songs
as well as in his major writings.
Mention has already been made of Gregory’s chief major writing, the
Moralia in lob. It is based on lectures Gregory delivered while he was the
papal apocrisiarius in Constantinople in the years 579/80 to 585/86.
Gregory seems to have begun revising these when he had more leisure
after his return to Rome from Constantinople.57 The revision appears to
have been completed shortly after his election as pope by early 591.58 It
is Gregory’s magnum opus. Being a line-by-line commentary on the book
of Job, it is not a systematic treatise but rather a treasurehouse of moral,
ascetic, theological, christological, and spiritual teachings. It was
enormously popular in the Middle Ages.59
Early in his papacy Gregory wrote the Regula pastoralis liber, or The
Book on Pastoral Care. Written between his installation in September 590
and February 591, in this book Gregory reflects on the nature of the
episcopal ministry, an issue suddenly of vital importance for him. Robert
Markus has suggested that the process of writing this book played a
crucial role in Gregory’s gradual interior acceptance of his new office.60
In it the tension between the active and contemplative forms of life boils
beneath the surface and continually erupts. The book is divided into four
parts: the qualifications of the pastor, the pastor’s way of life, how the
pastor’s teaching and admonition of his flock must be according to a
diversity of individual characters, and how the pastor should return to
contemplation after exercising his ministry. Even in Gregory’s lifetime
the book gained wide circulation throughout Europe and made its way—
in a Greek translation—to the major cities of the East such as
Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. It was immensely
influential in the formation of ecclesial ministers at all levels. This oft-
repeated opinion contains no exaggeration: “What Benedict’s Rule was to
monks of the Middle Ages, the Pastoral Rule of Gregory the Great was to
the clergy of the world.”61
In the early years of his papacy, Gregory delivered two series of
homilies. The first was on the gospels, in the years 590 to 592.62 These
homilies were preached to the clergy and the people during the liturgy
in various churches in Rome and revised for circulation shortly after
their delivery, around 593.63 There are forty altogether: the first twenty
were dictated by Gregory and then read out by his secretary; the last
twenty Gregory preached himself, caving in to the wishes of the people.
Some consider these homilies among his most charming, written as they
are in plain, unadorned language and lacking the complicated exegeses
and digressions that characterize Gregory’s other works. They emphasize
moral reform and deal with issues of Christology. The second set of
homilies was on the book of the prophet Ezekiel, given in late 593.64
They were delivered to a small group of monks and clerics and revised
for dissemination only eight years afterward, in 601, at their request.65
In these homilies Gregory discusses the allegorical meaning of Ezekiel
1:1–4:3 and 40:1-47; the latter narrated Ezekiel’s vision of the temple,
considered by Gregory to be the prophet’s most obscure passage. Given
the subject, these homilies make more demands on the reader, but those
who persevere are rewarded.
One of Gregory’s most widely read works were his Dialogues, written
around 593/4. The work is presented as a discussion with his subdeacon
Peter, a member of his inner circle. It relates the stories of about two
hundred Italian holy men working miracles in their day. Consisting of
four books, the second is devoted entirely to the life of Saint Benedict,
the author of the monastic rule bearing his name. The fourth book deals
with eschatology. The book is successful in depicting a consistent ideal
of holiness based on the virtues of the ordinary Christian life, such as
humility, obedience, love, and self-discipline.66 The work was translated
into Greek, and in the Greek Church Gregory’s fame rests upon it, being
called the “Dialogist.” Since the sixteenth century, the authenticity of
this work has been disputed, and quite vigorously recently; yet the
majority of Gregorian scholars continue to affirm its attribution to
Gregory.67 A Commentary on the First Book of Kings is also attributed to
Gregory. Though it had a long history of being suspected as inauthentic,
scholars mostly considered it to be genuinely Gregorian—that is, until
recently. In a 1996 article, Adalbert de Vogüé uncovered that its true
author was Peter of Cava, a twelfth-century Italian abbot.68 Other works
attributed to Gregory are considered doubtful or spurious.69

F. GREGORY’S DEATH AND LEGACY

After becoming pope, Gregory never enjoyed good health. Hard work,
stress, and ascetic discipline undoubtedly took their toll. His letters are
filled with references to his various illnesses.70 He had a weak stomach
and suffered from gout. He was susceptible to fever in the summer. From
598 onward he was mostly confined to his sickbed, rising only to
celebrate Mass. He lived in what seems to have been constant pain. He
died on March 12, 604. It is recorded in the Liber pontificialis that he
served as pope for thirteen years, six months, and ten days.71 He was
buried on the same day in Saint Peter’s Basilica.72 His epitaph, written
by Peter Oldradus, the bishop of Milan, and recorded by John the
Deacon, gives us some sense of Gregory’s legacy in the centuries after his
death. The poet commends Gregory’s corpse to a personified Earth,
lauding the pope’s character and deeds, and concludes with a direct
address to the departed pope himself:

O Earth, receive this body taken from your body, To do with it what you
can, until God raises it to new life.
His spirit seeks the stars; the powers of hell will not harm him.
For him death is the way to another, better life.
The limbs of the high priest are enclosed in this sepulcher.
Wherever he lived he always did immeasurable good.
He overcame hunger with feasts, cold with clothing; And with holy
advice he protected souls from the enemy.
And he fulfilled in deed what he taught in word; He was like an example
that spoke mystical words.
He converted the English to Christ through the teachings of piety,
Thereby acquiring a faithful army from this new people.
This toil, this zeal, this care of yours, you undertook as pastor, That you
might offer to the Lord a much increased flock.
And by these triumphs you were made to rejoice, O Consul of God, For
now you hold the reward of your work without end.73
The appellation “Consul of God” fittingly encapsulates Gregory’s
integration of his Roman heritage and his Christian faith. While he
struggled to reconcile his Romanitas and his Christianitas, the leadership
he exercised in both political and ecclesiastical domains, and the literary
legacy he bequeathed to subsequent ages, stand nonetheless as
remarkable achievements.
Accounts of Gregory’s life began to be written soon after his death. He
did not lack hagiographers, and the facts of his life soon became
embellished with legends. Most of these legends appear to stem from the
English Church. Three of the most popular are worth relating. The first is
that Gregory’s “weeping” for the condemned soul of Emperor Trajan (AD
98–117) secured his release from the torments of hell.74 The theological
ramifications of this incident—namely, the dubious orthodoxy of praying
for dead pagans—troubled not only John the Deacon but even Saint
Thomas Aquinas.75 Dante employed a modified form of the story in his
Divine Comedy.76
The second legend concerns a Roman lady who doubted that the bread
she herself had baked and donated for liturgical use could be
consecrated into the Body of Christ.77 When she grinned before receiving
Communion, Gregory withheld the host from her and reposed it upon
the altar. He then led the people in a prayer that Christ show the woman
the true nature of the sacrament. Thereupon the host assumed the
appearance of a piece of a bloody pinky finger (digituli auricularis
particulam sanguilenti). Gregory had the people pray that the host’s
pristine form be restored, and so it happened. The story ends with the
astonished woman taking Communion in full belief. By the high Middle
Ages this story had been transformed: one day when Gregory elevated
the host at the consecration of the Mass, Christ appeared to him as the
Man of Sorrows surrounded by the instruments of the passion. The
depiction of this scene, called the Mass of Saint Gregory, became
widespread in the late medieval and early modern periods, especially the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.78
 The third legend also had a pervasive influence on how Gregory was
depicted in art. According to this story, Peter the subdeacon recounted
that he had seen the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove dictating to
Gregory as he wrote his homilies on Ezekiel.79 This account of Gregory’s
clear inspiration by God was intended to contradict those who sought to
discredit Gregory after his death. Accordingly, one of the most common
representations of Gregory has him seated at a writing table with a dove
nearby interpreting the Scriptures for him as he writes or dictates his
commentary on Ezekiel. The legend indicates the esteem in which
Gregory was held as an inspired exegete of Scripture.
Many more legends could be recounted, but these suffice to give a
sense of their content and extensive influence. Fortunately, there are
more sober elements in the accounts of Gregory’s life, and fact can
generally be teased from fiction. There are several late antique texts
useful for retrieving the historical Gregory. The first was written soon
after his consecration as pope. Gregory of Tours included a chapter on
Gregory in his History of the Franks, based on reports he heard from one
of his deacons who had just returned from Rome.80 Gregory of Tours
narrates Gregory’s accession to the papacy and records the sermon he
delivered during the plague in early 590. The first account of Gregory’s
life written after his death was undoubtedly the short entry in the Liber
pontificalis, likely composed in 604.81 It lists his major writings, mentions
his mission to England, his addition of a line to the Canon used at Mass,
his redecoration of the interiors of various Roman churches, and how
many he ordained. Around 625, Isidore of Seville wrote a brief chapter
on Gregory in his De viribus illustribus, basically listing the Gregorian
writings known in Spain at the time.82 Ildefonsus of Toledo expands
upon Isidore’s chapter in his De virorum illustrium scriptis, from about
650.83 Venerable Bede sketched Gregory’s life around 731 in his
Ecclesiastical History and provided a more extensive account of Gregory’s
life than either Isidore or Ildefonsus.84 Bede’s chapter unsurprisingly
focuses on Gregory’s missionary activities in England.
Besides these accounts of Gregory’s life inserted in works of wider
scope, there are three early medieval biographies completely devoted to
Gregory. The first is the so-called Whitby Life of Gregory, composed by an
unknown monk of Whitby around 713. It is based on English materials
and is mostly the stuff of legend.85 The Lombard historian Paul the
Deacon used the Whitby Life as well as other sources for his own Life of
Gregory, composed around 775 or so, and it is more reliable historically.
John, a deacon in the Roman Church under Pope John VIII (872–82),
wrote the final and the longest early medieval biography of Gregory.
While he used the earlier biographies and Gregory’s own writings, John
also had access to the papal archives. “He read his documents with care
and sympathy,” writes Robert Markus, “and succeeded in producing one
of the finest of early medieval biographies.”86

II. GREGORY’S WRITINGS ON THE SONG OF SONGS

A. GREGORY’S EXPOSITION ON THE SONG OF SONGS

1. The Question of Authenticity. Gregory’s Exposition on the Song of Songs
is not one of his major works, nor was it well-known in his lifetime, nor
has it attracted much attention in modern times, save for a handful of
devoted scholars. At times, the Gregorian attribution of the Exposition
has even been doubted. This is due partly to its stylistic differences from
Gregory’s genuine works and partly to the fact that this work is not
mentioned in the early medieval biographies compiled in the decades
and centuries after his death.87 It is not mentioned in the Liber
pontificalis, nor do Isidore of Seville, the Whitby Life, Bede, Paul the
Deacon, or John the Deacon list it explicitly in their catalogues of
Gregory’s works. The stylistic differences and absence from these
catalogues can be explained. The Exposition on the Song of Songs is a
notary’s copy of an oral discourse which was circulated without his
approval. This accounts for its stylistic differences and its exclusion from
the official lists.
Yet the text was not completely excluded from all lists of Gregory’s
works. Explicit mention is made of Gregory’s Exposition in early medieval
texts such as Epistle 1 of the Irish abbot Columbanus (ca. 600), Gregory’s
own Reg. ep. 12.6 (January 602), and Ildefonsus of Toledo’s De virorum
illustrium scriptis 1 (ca. 650). (These three texts will be discussed in more
detail below.) Furthermore, early medieval biographies mention other
writings by Gregory not explicitly named but which could include the
Exposition. For example, after listing the major works of Gregory, the
Liber pontificalis says that he wrote “many others we cannot
enumerate.”88 Isidore of Seville: “He wrote other books on morals.”89
Paul the Deacon: “Moreover he wrote several others, and also quite a
number of letters.”90 Such notices could refer to Gregory’s Exposition,
though these passages are hardly sufficient evidence. At the least, they
furnish evidence that other works of Gregory were known to exist.
The attribution of the Exposition on the Song of Songs to Gregory was
disputed for another reason as well: it was transmitted in the
manuscripts in a corrupt form. Scholars are now able to recognize that,
in the centuries after the death of Gregory, his Exposition circulated in
both genuine and corrupt forms. At the dawn of critical scholarship in
the seventeenth century, some scholars rejected the Gregorian
authorship of the Exposition because they knew the text only in its
corrupt form. While others continued to argue for attribution to Gregory,
the authorship of the text remained in doubt until the pioneering work
of Dom Bernard Capelle in 1929, who definitively identified the
primitive and genuine form of the exposition and distinguished it from
its corrupt medieval form.91
Capelle determined that the genuine form of Gregory’s Exposition on
the Song of Songs comments only upon the first eight verses of the Song.
In the late eleventh century or soon thereafter, this primitive
“incomplete” exposition was “completed” by a commentary on the Song
of Songs composed by Robert of Tombelaine, a commentary conspicuous
for its brevity and conciseness.92 In other words, Robert’s commentary
on Song 1:9f. was appended to Gregory’s exposition on Song 1:1-8 to
form a complete commentary on the entire biblical book. It was in this
“mixed” or “medieval” form that the text was first printed around 1473
in Cologne by Ulrich Zell (without any discussion of authenticity).93 In
his edition of the mixed form of Gregory’s exposition in 1675, Pierre de
Goussainville was the first to raise the issue of the text’s authenticity.94
Goussainville was struck by the vast stylistic difference between the
prolix commentary on Song 1:1-8 and the terse commentary on Song
1:9f. and accordingly rejected attribution to Gregory. Initially the
Maurists accepted Goussainville’s opinion,95 but in their 1705 edition of
the exposition in its mixed form they reaffirmed the Gregorian
authorship.96 The Maurists explained the stylistic divergence between
the commentary on Song 1:1-8 and Song 1:9f as due to redactional
activity: the prolix section on Song 1:1-8 bore the mark of revision by
Gregory, while the remainder was the slipshod editorial work of one
Claudius, whom we will meet again below.97 In his 1722 edition of the
commentary of Robert of Tombelaine, Casimir Oudin was the first to
recognize that the commentary on Song 1:9f. in the mixed form of the
Gregorian exposition was in fact Robert’s.98 Following a suggestion of
Goussainville, he attributed the commentary on Song 1:1-8 to Richard of
Saint Victor. No one seriously examined the question of authenticity
after Oudin until Capelle in 1929.99
Capelle was able to recognize the authentic Gregorian exposition and
distinguish it from its mixed corrupt form by examining the manuscript
tradition. He identified four pertinent versions in the manuscripts.100
The first version is the primitive Gregorian exposition on Song 1:1-8
preceded by a long prologue. There are manuscripts of this version
dating from the ninth century, two centuries before Robert. The second
version is the original commentary of Robert preceded by Jerome’s
prologue to his commentary on Ecclesiastes.101 The third version is the
mixed medieval form of the exposition discussed above: the primitive
Gregorian commentary on Song 1:1-8 supplemented by Robert’s
commentary on Song 1:9f. The fourth is Robert’s commentary preceded
by a summary of the authentic Gregorian prologue.
The first and third versions transmit the authentic exposition of
Gregory on the Song of Songs—the first in its primitive and independent
“unmixed” form, the third is its corrupt medieval “mixed” form. Capelle
corroborated his attribution of the primitive exposition to Gregory based
on external criteria with an internal critique. He adduced eleven
examples in which the exegesis of particular verses of the Song had close
parallels in the other works of the Gregorian corpus.102 Claiming that
such passages could easily be doubled, he deemed that the eleven
citations he produced were sufficient for proving the Gregorian
authorship of the exposition. No one has contested Capelle’s view, and it
is generally accepted by scholars.
2. The Date and Circumstances of Composition. The text of Gregory’s
Exposition on the Song of Songs itself offers no clue to the time and
circumstances of its composition. Gregory’s only reference to the
exposition appears in a letter written to the subdeacon John, Gregory’s
apocrisiarius in Ravenna, in January 602:
Furthermore, the same most dear Claudius, who was once my son, had
heard me when I discoursed on Proverbs, the Song of Songs, the
Prophets, and the books of the Kings as well as the Heptateuch. Since I
was unable to put what I had said into writing due to sickness, he
dictated it according to his own understanding lest it perish in oblivion.
He did this planning to bring it to me when the time was right, so that it
could be dictated more correctly. When it was read to me, I found that
the sense of what I had said had been most unsuitably altered. This is
why it is necessary for Your Experience to leave aside every excuse and
delay, to go to his monastery, to convene the brothers, and, under the
authority of All Truth, to have them produce whatever papers on the
various Scriptures he brought there. Get these papers and send them to
me as quickly as possible.103
Scholars have justifiably not hesitated to see Gregory’s Exposition on the
Song of Songs as ultimately rooted in these lectures on various books of
the Old Testament. Yet this brief excerpt presents scholars with a host of
interpretive issues that bear decisively upon our understanding of the
nature and composition of Gregory’s Exposition. Until quite recently, the
interpretation of this excerpt had been seriously undermined due to the
erroneous assumption that the extant Commentary on the First Book of
Kings was genuinely Gregorian, an attribution definitively proved false
only in 1996.104 Along with Gregory’s exposition on the Song of Songs,
this commentary on 1 Kings was thought to be the only other discourse
mentioned in this letter that was still extant.105 Since the commentary
on 1 Kings has long sections in which the author speaks as a monk to
other monks, scholars who assumed the Gregorian authorship of the text
drew two erroneous conclusions from the letter cited above. First, they
dated the scriptural commentaries mentioned in the letter to the years
586–90, when Gregory was still a monk in the monastery of Saint
Andrew, just before becoming bishop of Rome. The basis for this date
was the assumption that it was in this period that Gregory most likely
spoke as a monk to other monks. Second, they held the abbot Claudius
mentioned in this letter to have been a member of Gregory’s monastic
community in this period, since Claudius had been present at Gregory’s
monastic discourses.106
Both of these conclusions are mistaken, as demonstrated
independently by Paul Meyvaert and Adalbert de Vogüé.107 By
examining all the available evidence on Claudius from Gregory’s letters,
Meyvaert and Vogüé found no evidence that Claudius, who during
Gregory’s papacy was the abbot of the monastery of Saints John and
Stephen in Classe in Ravenna, had ever been a monk with Gregory at
Saint Andrew’s.108 Furthermore, Meyvaert determined that Claudius had
spent an extended sojourn in Rome with Gregory from late 594 or early
595 to April 598.109 Therefore, we can safely assume that Gregory’s
Exposition on the Song of Songs first saw the light of day as an oral
discourse delivered in Rome in the years 594–98 during Gregory’s
pontificate, with Claudius in attendance.110 These discourses on the
various books of the Old Testament were probably delivered to a small
group of Gregory’s intimates and visitors, both clerics and monks, a
venue which Gregory found less demanding and exhausting than public
sermons in church before large groups of people.111
Claudius’s precise role in the composition of the Exposition in the form
that we now possess it has been the subject of much scholarly debate.
Besides the excerpt from Reg. ep. 12.6 cited above, there is one other bit
of evidence that helps evaluate Claudius’s role. In Gregory’s letter to
Marinianus of Ravenna in April 598 (Reg. ep. 8.18), which Claudius
himself carried from Rome to Ravenna, the pope said that Claudius had
been “a great help with the word of God” (magnum … erat in verbo Dei
solatium). This is a typical Gregorian expression that denotes that
Claudius assisted Gregory in his exegesis of the holy Scriptures.112 In the
excerpt of Reg. ep. 12.6 cited above, Gregory speaks more precisely on
the nature of their exegetical collaboration.113 In order to understand
this passage, one must first differentiate between the two distinct
methods of composition mentioned in it: loquere and dictare.
On the one hand, when Gregory says that he had discoursed (aliqua
me loquente) on various books of the Old Testament, he meant that he
had delivered an oral lecture which was recorded by a notary in
shorthand with the intention of later transcribing it in longhand. The
goal of loquere was the oral discourse; the written transcription of it was
secondary. On the other hand, by dictare Gregory meant that he dictated
to a scribe or notary with the specific intention of producing a written
text. It was a question of composing a literary work rather than having
his oral discourse simply recorded. In the composition of texts such as
the Moralia, Gregory reworked and revised the notary’s transcription of
his original spoken discourse into a more literary composition.114
Meyvaert notes that “one may legitimately presume” that whenever
Gregory discoursed on Scripture it was recorded by notaries,115 so we
may suppose that when Gregory discoursed on the Song of Songs and the
other Old Testament books there was a notary present who recorded the
proceedings. In Reg. ep. 12.6 Gregory says that when poor health
prevented him from producing a written version of his discourse (aliqua
me loquente … de Canticis canticorum … quae ego scripto tradere prae
infirmitate non potui), Claudius “dictated it according to his own
understanding lest it perish in oblivion” (ipse ea suo sensu dictauit, ne
obliuione deperirent). Claudius did what Gregory’s health prevented him
from doing: he dictated a revised text from the notary’s transcription to
produce a literary composition.
Two issues raised by Gregory’s description of Claudius’s activity
warrant comment. First, Gregory says that Claudius dictated “lest it
perish in oblivion.” Does this imply that there was a danger of losing
Gregory’s discourse altogether had not Claudius dictated? It seems that
the notary’s copy itself would have been sufficient to ensure the survival
of the discourse. Rather, Gregory’s expression “lest it perish in oblivion”
appears to mean nothing more than “lest it be forgotten.” In other
words, it seems that Gregory and Claudius realized that unless the
notary’s transcription was reworked by Claudius soon after the oral
discourse, it would remain in that form, since Gregory at this stage of his
life and papacy would never have the time or energy to take on the
arduous task of recasting the recorded notation into a literary
composition, as he had done earlier in his papacy for the Moralia. Hence,
Claudius’s dictation was a pragmatic action aimed at producing a
literary composition based on an oral discourse deemed worthy of
preservation. Second, Claudius dictated the written version “according to
his own understanding” or, more literally, “with his own mind” (suo
sensu). What this phrase seems to mean is that Claudius, in recasting the
rough copy of the notary, filled out the text and turned it into prose,
undoubtedly aiming to be faithful to the thought of Gregory, but
inevitably importing a good bit of his own thought and concerns into it.
We also learn from Reg. ep. 12.6 that Claudius’s dictation was done
with the intention of bringing it to Gregory for final revisions, when
Gregory himself would dictate the corrected version of Claudius’s work
(ut apto tempore haec eadem mihi inferret et emendatius dictarentur). But
when Claudius’s dictation was read to Gregory, he was very dissatisfied
with the result, claiming that the sense of what he had said had been
grossly misrepresented (Quae cum mihi legisset, inueni dictorum meorum
sensum ualde inutilius fuisse permutatum). When did Claudius prepare his
dictation and read it to Gregory? While Claudius may have begun to
prepare his provisional edition of the exposition while still with Gregory
in Rome in the years 594–98, it appears that at least some of his
editorial activity was undertaken after his return to Ravenna in April
598. For in the same letter, written in January 602 after Claudius had
died (probably in late 601), Gregory ordered the subdeacon John to
retrieve Claudius’s copies from his monastery in Classe (Reg. ep. 12.6),
no doubt to prevent the dissemination of texts Gregory deemed
unfaithful to his own ideas.116 We also know that in July 599 Gregory
invited Claudius back to Rome for a stay of five or six months (Reg. ep.
9.179), though there is no evidence that Claudius did, in fact, return to
Rome at this time. Meyvaert and Vogüé argue that Claudius did make
such a visit in late 599 through early 600 and claim that during this
period Claudius read his dictation to Gregory.117 Accordingly, the most
likely scenario is that Claudius began reworking the notary’s
transcriptions in Rome before 598, completed this work after returning
to Ravenna in April 598, and in late 599 returned to Rome, where he
read his dictation to Gregory, albeit to his dissatisfaction. Gregory never
mentions whether he had the time to correct Claudius’s edition before
his own death in 604.
And so, this raises the vexed question: whose version is the text that
has come down to us as Gregory’s Exposition on the Song of Songs?
Gregory’s? Claudius’s? The notary’s? The fact that the Exposition was not
included in the lists of Gregory’s works drawn up soon after his death
has led no scholar to claim that the version of it that we now possess
corresponds to the correction made by Gregory after being dissatisfied
with the work of Claudius.118 On the evidence of Reg. ep. 12.6, most
scholars have seen Claudius as responsible for the text as we possess it,
being a reworked version of the notary’s copy that preserved the
undeniably “spoken-character” of the text.119 But Meyvaert has argued
most forcibly that the Exposition in the form that we know it is simply
the unrevised notary’s transcription.120 Meyvaert’s position seems the
most persuasive.
Meyvaert bases his argument on the fact that the exposition bears all
the marks of being a spoken discourse that was recorded by a notary.121
For example, Gregory frequently uses expressions like “as we said
earlier” (sicut prius diximus)122 and engages his hearer (auditor), 123 not
his reader. In addition, the frequent syncopated and poorly connected
phrases and sentences reflect an oral style.124 A line from the prologue
provides another indication that his exposition was originally delivered
orally and copied by a notary: “In this book here, in which the Song of
Songs is written” (in hoc libro, qui in Canticis canticorum conscriptus
est).125 In using the demonstrative adjective hoc (this book here),
Gregory may be pointing to the book in front of him and telling his
audience which text has been copied into it. Therefore, as the text that
has come down to us seems to be more or less a verbatim record of
Gregory’s oral discourse and seemingly untouched by an editorial hand,
it seems that Meyvaert is correct in claiming that it corresponds to the
notary’s transcription.
Besides Meyvaert’s arguments, the case for attributing the text as we
possess it to Claudius is weak. Those who hold this opinion base their
claim on two arguments: (1) that there are signs of the hand of Claudius
in the text of the exposition, and (2) that the most primitive title given
to the work in the manuscripts indicates that Claudius was the
redactor.126 Both of these arguments fail to convince upon further
scrutiny.
It was Capelle who detected the hand of Claudius in the text we now
possess. But he cites only a single instance: the exegesis of Song 1:6 in
the Exposition diverges from Gregory’s exegesis of the same verse
elsewhere in his corpus. At Exp. 41, Gregory interprets the “at midday”
of where you lie down at midday (Song 1:6) as a reference to the “fervor
of charity” (fervor charitatis), whereas elsewhere he interprets it
pejoratively, connecting it with the fervor of the passions (e.g., H.Ev. 33
[7], 189–206; Mor. 30.26 [79], 33–36).127 Yet at Exp. 41 Gregory is
simply following Augustine.128 It seems more likely that Gregory would
draw upon Augustine, one of his principle sources for interpreting the
Song,129 than that Claudius would insert a text that contradicted
Gregory. Therefore, there is no evidence for “the hand of Claudius” in
the exposition.
It was also Capelle who argued that the most primitive title given to
the work in the oldest manuscripts comes from the hand of Claudius.
According to Capelle, Claudius’s authorship of the title proves that he is
the redactor of the text as we have it. The most primitive title runs:
Expositio in canticis canticorum a capite de exceda relevata domni gregorii
papae urbis romae. Capelle clarified the meaning of the obscure phrase
expositio … a capite de exceda relevata; it means that the exposition was
retrieved or restored (relevata) from the notary’s transcription
(exceda).130 Capelle claimed that this title went back to Claudius himself
on three grounds: (1) it corresponds to what we know about Claudius’s
role in the composition of the text as described in Reg. ep. 12.6; (2) the
omission of Claudius’s name and mention of his role in the recasting of
the notary’s copy is best explained by attributing the title to Claudius,
not to another editor who would have mentioned Claudius if he had
known about him; and (3) the fact the Gregory is called “Lord Gregory”
(domni gregorii) points to a date during the lifetime of the pope, who
shortly after his death began to be called sanctus or beatus.131 Bélanger
follows Capelle’s attribution of the title to Claudius and accepts it as a
sign that the text of the exposition that has come down to us is
Claudius’s version.132
Here, the claims of Capelle are tenuous. It is not as necessary as
Capelle suggests that the author of the title was Claudius. The title is
receptive of alternate explanations. The attribution of the text to “Lord
Gregory” does seem to suggest that the title was affixed during the
lifetime of Gregory. But anyone with access to the papal archives during
Gregory’s lifetime or shortly thereafter could have come across the
notary’s copy of the exposition on the Song of Songs. Whether or not he
knew Claudius’s role as described in Reg. ep. 12.6, he could have made a
clean longhand copy from the notary’s transcription, affixed the
primitive title to it, and circulated it. It does not logically follow from
the omission of Claudius’s name that he is the author of the title. The
best explanation of the primitive title is that it is another indication that
the text as we possess it is simply a longhand version of the notary’s
shorthand transcription.
By way of summary, I find Meyvaert’s conclusions the most
persuasive: the version of Gregory’s Exposition on the Song of Songs that
we now possess is the unrevised notary’s transcription, not Claudius’s
revision. We do not possess the dictation of Claudius, which Gregory
found so dissatisfactory. In fact, Gregory’s ninthcentury biographer, John
the Deacon, records an ancient tradition that Gregory had the work of
Claudius burned lest it be disseminated.133
3. The Scope of the Exposition. The extant Exposition comments on only
Song 1:1-8. This raises the question of its original scope. Did Gregory
comment on the entire biblical book? If so, then we possess only the
beginning of this commentary due to some accident in the manuscript
tradition. Or did he comment on only the first eight verses? There are
five pieces of evidence that collectively indicate that Gregory
commented on the entire Song of Songs.
The first piece of evidence stems from a letter that the Irish abbot
Columbanus (who was at the time residing in Gaul) wrote to Gregory in
the year 600.134 The pertinent section runs as follows:
I read your book containing the Pastoral Rule, brief in style, prolix in
learning, packed with holy mysteries. I confess that the work is sweeter
than honey to one in need, and so, in my thirst, I pray you through
Christ, bestow on me your works that, as I have heard, you wrote on
Ezekiel with amazing talent. I read Jerome’s six books on it, but he did
not cover even half. But if you think me worthy, send me something
from your readings in Rome; namely the final expositions of the book.
Send too the Song of Songs, from where it says: I shall go to the mountain
of myrrh and hill of frankincense [Song 4:6] until the end, briefly treated
with others’ comments, or yours, I ask. And to expound all the obscurity
of Zechariah, make his secrets public, so that a Western blindness may
thank you over this. My demands are unfit and I ask for too much, as
anyone would know. But you too have so much, as you well know less
can be lent from a small sum, more from a big one.135
This citation is taken from near the conclusion of the letter. His thirst
aroused from reading Gregory’s book Pastoral Care, Columbanus requests
Gregory’s expositions on Ezekiel, the Song of Songs, and Zechariah. It
seems that Columbanus has heard of Gregory’s homilies on Ezekiel but
has not read them. He does not explicitly say that he has heard that
Gregory wrote an exposition on the Song of Songs. But the very fact that
Columbanus is asking Gregory for comments on it suggests that he at
least knows that Gregory had expounded on it.
It is significant that Columbanus asks only for an exposition of Song
4:6–8:14. It implies that he already has in his possession an exposition
on Song 1:1–4:5. In all likelihood, the exposition on Song 1:1–4:5 that
Columbanus already possessed was Gregory’s.136 This claim needs to be
elaborated in some detail. The goal of Columbanus was to procure
Gregory’s own interpretations of the three biblical books mentioned. If
the exposition on Song 1:1–4:5 was not Gregory’s, why wouldn’t he also
ask him for his exposition on Song 1:1–4:5 in addition to that on Song
4:6–8:14? If the exposition on Song 1:1–4:5 was Gregory’s, it makes
sense for Columbanus to request of Gregory only an exposition on Song
4:6–8:14. Columbanus’s appeal for the Song of Songs “briefly treated
with others’ comments, or yours” (aut aliorum aut tuis brevibus … tracta
sententiis) means that he was inviting Gregory to compose or already
knew that Gregory had composed a commentary on Song 4:6–8:14,
either drawn from the commentaries of others or comprised of original
interpretations. Columbanus was not asking for an exposition on Song
4:6–8:14 composed either by Gregory or by someone else; Columbanus
wanted Gregory’s own commentary. In fact, Gregory’s Exposition on the
Song of Songs is a mixture of both original interpretations and those
drawn from other ecclesiastical fathers.137 Columbanus did not need to
ask the pope in order to obtain a non-Gregorian commentary on Song
4:6–8:14.
The letter of Columbanus to Gregory from 600 appears to indicate that
Columbanus had in his possession a version of Gregory’s exposition that
ran through Song 4:5. Either Columbanus knew of a continuation of this
work through Song 8:14 or he was inviting Gregory to complete it. How
did this exposition come into the possession of Columbanus?
Undoubtedly, he had obtained an unauthorized copy of the notary’s
transcription of Gregory’s oral exposition on the Song when, after its
delivery in the years 594–98, it was put in circulation without the pope’s
consent. In any event, Columbanus’s letter indicates that Gregory’s
original exposition commented on more than Song 1:1-8, at least to Song
4:5, and quite possibly to the end (Song 8:14).
The second piece of evidence is the extant exposition’s abrupt ending
after the exegesis of Song 1:8. It is more likely that an authentic
Gregorian exegesis on Song 1:9f. has been lost than that Gregory
purposely concluded his exposition in such a brusque manner. Indeed,
such a way of concluding would be uncharacteristic of Gregory, who in
his other commentaries on Job and Ezekiel brought his interpretations to
an end with protestations of his insufficiency, the wish only to benefit
his readers, and suchlike.138 Admittedly, conclusions such as these are
found in works that were heavily revised by Gregory for dissemination
after their initial oral presentation, whereas the exposition on the Song
of Songs never achieved such a state. Nonetheless, it seems likely that
even when delivering an exposition orally Gregory would have followed
his usual practice of concluding his exegesis with some appropriate
comments as found in his revised works. The abrupt ending to the
exposition appears to indicate that it was originally longer.
Another indication—the third—of the truncated nature of the extant
exposition may be the addition of the words libri duo to the title in the
most ancient manuscripts.139 These words may signal that a complete
exposition on the entire Song was originally distributed in two books.
Such an interpretation of the words libri duo is supported by the letter of
Columbanus, who noted that the commentary he had in his possession
stopped at Song 4:5, roughly the middle of the biblical book.
Columbanus may have possessed only the first book which commented
on Song 1:1–4:5 and was therefore requesting the second book which
dealt with Song 4:6–8:14. Further indication of an original distribution
in two books is found in the usual manuscript division of the extant
exposition on Song 1:1-8 into two omeliae or sermones, the second omelia
beginning at Song 1:3.140 Patrick Verbraken explains this curious
division as the result of copyists or readers who, when confronted with
the primitive title that included the words libri duo, split the extant
exposition on Song 1:1-8 into two sections despite the fact that the two
sections flow seamlessly together. Accordingly, the title that includes the
words libri duo and the division of the text into two omeliae or sermones
may indicate that our extant exposition on the Song of Songs originally
covered the entire biblical book.
The fourth indication that Gregory commented on the entire biblical
book is reflected in the most primitive title. As mentioned above, this
title runs, Expositio in canticis canticorum a capite de exceda relevata domni
gregorii papae urbis romae. The relevant words here are a capite, and it is
unclear whether they are to be construed with expositio in canticis
canticorum (i.e., “the exposition on the Song of Songs from the
beginning, restored from the notary’s transcription”) or with de exceda
relevata (i.e., “the exposition on the Song of Songs restored from the
beginning of the notary’s transcription”). Capelle, Verbraken, and Denys
Turner prefer the latter construal, though Verbraken considers the
expression “quelque peu énigmatique.”141 But as Verbraken notes, why
would a scribe draw attention to the obvious fact that the exposition of
the Song begins at the beginning of the Song? Rather, it seems more
likely that the words a capite were inserted to signal to the reader that
exposition was “restored from the beginning of the notary’s
transcription.” If what we have is the “beginning” of the notary’s
transcription, there must have been another part that constituted its
“ending,” or at least its continuation. If this interpretation is correct,
then the words a capite are another indication that the original
exposition of Gregory on the Song of Songs commented on more than
Song 1:1-8, since it would seem that the extant exposition constitutes
only the “beginning” of a longer transcription.
The fifth—and clearest—indication that Gregory’s original exposition
on the Song of Songs ran through the entire biblical book is found in the
De virorum illustrium scriptis of Ildefonsus of Toledo (ca. 607–67).142 In
the first chapter, which is on Gregory, he says, “How wonderfully he
wrote upon the book of Solomon, whose title is the Song of Songs,
running through the entire work by an exposition on its moral sense.”143
The description of Ildefonsus, that the commentary was “an exposition
on its moral sense” (morali sensu … exponendo), corresponds exactly to
the extant Gregorian exposition and furthermore indicates that
Ildefonsus likely possessed and had read a copy of it. If this is correct,
the fact that the bishop of Toledo attests that Gregory commented on the
Song in its entirety (opus omne … percurrit) is one of the strongest pieces
of evidence that the original Gregorian exposition commented on more
than Song 1:1-8 and in fact the entire biblical book.144
Collectively these five pieces of evidence appear to indicate that the
extant Gregorian Exposition on the Song of Songs is, in fact, a truncated
version of an originally more extensive commentary that probably
interpreted the entirety of the biblical book. One can therefore
legitimately conjecture that the loss of bulk of the exposition from Song
1:9 onward was due to some irregularity or accident in the manuscript
tradition.145 While one may lament this loss, it is equally appropriate to
marvel that this unrevised notary’s transcription survived at all.

B. THE EXCERPTERS OF GREGORY

In addition to the Exposition, Gregory commented on the Song of
Songs elsewhere in his literary corpus. We possess three medieval
collections of his comments on the Song drawn from his other works.
The massive literary output of Gregory—his Moralia in Job alone runs to
1,880 pages in the modern critical edition—and its unsystematic nature
resulted in its excerption. This was a fairly common scholarly practice
from antiquity through the Middle Ages. Such collections of excerpts
were organized either by theme or by scriptural book. Scholars would
comb through the entire corpus of a particular writer, say Augustine or
Ambrose or Gregory, and excerpt every passage that commented on the
chosen theme or scriptural book. For example, a scholar could collect
passages on love or on the book of Romans. Clerical and monastic
readers who did not have time or the willpower to read the entire corpus
of important authors like Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory could then
become familiar with their ideas in a far more efficient and systematic
way. It is thought that many writers of the Middle Ages, both in
monasteries and in the emerging universities, gained their basic
understanding of the fathers through such collections of excerpts.146
Some authors relied heavily but not exclusively on Gregory’s writings
for their collections, such as Isidore (d. 636) in his Sententiae and the late
seventh-century Defensor of Ligugé in his Liber scintillarum. But there are
several late antique and medieval scholars who produced collections of
excerpts exclusively from the works of Gregory. For example, Taio of
Saragossa went to Rome in 642 to consult the best copies of Gregory’s
works in the papal archives for his Liber sententiarum. Taio systematizes
Gregory’s thought in five books: he begins with the Trinity, then
proceeds with the foundation of the world and the creation of humanity;
he next deals with the incarnation of Christ and all aspects of the
Christian life, and then concludes with Gregory’s teaching on the
consummation of the world. Each of the five books has numerous
chapters, each of which is devoted to a particular subtheme.147
Paterius, Bede, and William of Saint Thierry compiled excerpts of
Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs not found in the Exposition.
Susanne Müller has identified ninety-two places in the corpus of Gregory
where he cites and comments on verses of the Song of Songs outside of
the Exposition.148 This number, however, needs to be adjusted. Five are
from the spurious Commentary on First Book of Kings. Two are counted
twice.149 In addition, Müller has overlooked four passages.150 Therefore,
there are eighty-nine Gregorian passages that deal with verses from the
Song of Songs. Knowing the number of possible texts that could have
been excerpted will allow one to judge the comprehensiveness of the
work of Paterius, Bede, and William. Appendix 1 contains a list of all the
Gregorian citations of and allusions to the Song of Songs outside of the
Exposition and provides references to the location of the passage within
the florilegia of Paterius, Bede, and William. Appendix 2 lists the precise
texts of Gregory excerpted by Paterius, Bede, and William and shows the
correspondences among them.
1. Paterius’s Book of Testimonies. Paterius was a notary (notarius) of
the Roman Church during the pontificate of Gregory. In this era, while
notaries on the papal staff took down the pope’s dictation, they also
played a more elevated role as administrative officials of the papal
secretariat.151 Paterius was a cleric, presumably in minor orders since he
is never called deacon, and was part of Gregory’s inner circle of
intimates and confidants.152 Paterius served Gregory as a notary at least
from February 595 and quite possibly from the beginning of his
papacy.153 At some point after September 595, Paterius was appointed
secundicerius notarius, or deputy to the head of the papal secretariat, and
presumably served in that capacity for the remainder of Gregory’s
pontificate.154
Of Paterius, John the Deacon says, “Paterius the notary, whom
Gregory appointed secundicerius, plucked the most beneficial passages
from his books.”155 Here John is referring to Paterius’s Book of
Testimonies (Liber testimonium), a collection of Gregory’s interpretations
of particular passages of Scripture excerpted from his writings, especially
the Moralia, and arranged according to their biblical sequence. Paterius
undertook this task during the lifetime of Gregory156 and aimed to
produce from the writings of Gregory a kind of running commentary on
Scripture. Originally consisting of three parts (two for the Old Testament
and one for the New Testament), all that survives is the first part, from
Genesis to the Song of Songs.157 The first part consists of thirteen books,
the final of which is that on the Song of Songs, translated in this
volume.158 Paterius excerpted forty-four out of eighty-nine possible
Gregorian passages on the Song of Songs.
2. Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs. Bede (ca. 635–735) was a
monk—from the age of seven!—at the dual monasteries of Wearmouth
and Jarrow in northeastern England and is considered the greatest
scholar of Anglo-Saxon England.159 One of the best-educated men in
Europe in his generation, he wrote works on orthography, poetic meter,
natural phenomena, a chronology of the history of the world, and a book
on the calculation of the date of Easter. Bede also composed
hagiography, most notably his two lives of Saint Cuthbert, one in verse
and another in prose. He is also the author of the Ecclesiastical History of
the English Nation, the chief source for studying the English Church in the
Anglo-Saxon period. Because of this book Bede is best known today as a
historian. But in his lifetime and throughout the Middle Ages he was
best known as an exegete of Scripture. He commented on many books of
the Old and New Testaments, including the Song of Songs. His exegesis
relies heavily on the earlier Latin tradition, particularly Augustine,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. While he produced original
work, some of Bede’s commentaries were, in fact, simply collections of
excerpts from one particular author, such as Augustine.160
Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs consists of six books.161 The
first five contain his running commentary on the entire text of the Song.
The sixth is a kind of appendix in which he collected excerpts on the
Song gathered from the works of Gregory. As we learn from the preface
to the sixth book, Bede seems to have done this in case readers were
dissatisfied with his own commentary: “We have composed a sixth162
book on the Song of Songs. It is a collection of texts made through our
very own efforts, but one which brings together the words and thought
of Blessed Gregory. So if there should perhaps be anyone who judges
that there is good reason to scorn our work, he may have ready access to
those statements of Gregory that ought to be read, which all agree are
not to be scorned in any way.”163 The reverence that the English Church
had for Gregory is apparent here.
Later in the preface Bede also reveals that, while he has heard of the
existence of Paterius’s collection, it was not available to him.164 His
work of collation is therefore his own. Bede excerpted fifty out of eighty-
nine possible Gregorian passages on the Song of Songs. Therefore, Bede
was slightly more thorough than Paterius. Bede and Paterius have thirty-
seven excerpts in common: he missed seven of the passages excerpted by
Paterius165 and located an additional thirteen Gregorian passages that
have no parallel in Paterius.166 In thirteen of the thirty-seven passages
cited in common, Bede cites the exact same text as Paterius.167
Otherwise, Bede generally cites a bit more than Paterius. As a result,
Bede’s florilegium gives the reader a better impression and
understanding of Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs than Paterius’s.
3. William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts from the Books of Blessed
Gregory on the Song of Songs. William of Saint Thierry (ca. 1075/80–
1148) is considered, along with Bernard of Clairvaux, Guerric of Igny,
and Ælred of Rievaulx, one of the four evangelists of Cîteaux.168 He
belongs to that second generation of Cistercian Fathers (the first being
the three founders of the New Monastery at Cîteaux: Saints Robert,
Alberic, and Stephen Harding) whose writings contributed to the
flourishing of Cistercian spirituality and the rapid spread of the Order.
William became a Cistercian only in 1135 after a long career as a
Benedictine. Around 1100 he entered the Benedictine monastery of Saint
Nicasius after being educated in the liberal arts at Reims. Around 1121
he was elected the abbot of the monastery of Saint Thierry. In 1135 he
resigned his abbacy and joined the new Cistercian foundation at Signy.
Perhaps his best-known writing from his Cistercian period is his Golden
Letter, the Epistle to the Brethren of Mont-Dieu, a compendium of ascetical
and contemplative doctrine. William remained a simple monk at Signy
until his death in 1148.169
William viewed the Song of Songs as a kind of textbook of the
contemplative experience of God and had a passionate interest in it.
Whatever his original interest in the Song of Songs may have been, it
deepened through his friendship with Bernard of Clairvaux. The two met
in 1118, when William visited Clairvaux.170 William made subsequent
visits to Clairvaux. On one such visit, when both William and Bernard
were convalescing in the infirmary, they spoke about the Song of Songs.
William recalls:
It was then, so far as the length of my illness allowed, that he expounded
the Song of Songs to me; though only in its moral sense, without
launching upon the mysteries with which the book abounds. This was
what I hoped for, what I had asked him to do. Every day, for fear of
forgetting the things I had heard, I put them down insofar as God
enabled me to and my memory served me. Thus I shared the insights of
the man of God. As good-natured and disinterested as you please, he
disclosed his ideas to me as they came to mind and the meanings that his
experience enabled him to make out. He outdid himself enlightening my
utter ignorance of things that can only be known from personal
experience. I could not as yet grasp all that he told me; but listening to
him I realized as never before how far above me those lofty truths still
soared.171
The notes that William made of these conversations have been preserved
as the so-called Brief Commentary (Brevis commentatio).172 During his
abbacy (1121–35), William composed two florilegia of patristic
interpretations of the Song, one drawn from the works of Ambrose of
Milan173 and the other from the works of Gregory the Great.174 Finally,
he wrote the Exposition on the Song of Songs in his early days as
Cistercian monk at Signy, in the years 1135 to 1138.175
In his preface to the Golden Letter, in the course of enumerating the
books he has written and compiled, William of Saint Thierry describes
his two florilegia on the Song of Songs in this way: “I have excerpted
from the books of Saint Ambrose whatever he discussed in them about
the Song of Songs. It is a work that is large and remarkable. I did the
same from the books of the Blessed Gregory, but more extensively than
Bede did. For Bede, as you know, made these excerpts into the final
book of his commentary on the Song.”176 From this we know that
William used the extracts made by Bede but did not limit himself to
Bede’s collection. Of the eighty-nine possible texts that William could
have cited, he found eighty of them. He cited every text that both
Paterius and Bede excerpted, thereby adding thirty texts to Bede’s
florilegium. William appears to have verified the Gregorian provenance
of Bede’s excerpts, and demonstrable traces of Bede’s work are
discernable in William’s collection.177 He is thus the most diligent,
thorough, and accurate of the three Gregorian excerpters, his use of Bede
notwithstanding. The nine Gregorian passages on the Song of Songs that
William missed are translated in this volume as “supplemental texts.”
In composing his Excerpts from the Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song
of Songs, William of Saint Thierry adopted a unique methodology
whereby he produced self-contained units of Gregorian commentary.178
Unlike Paterius and Bede, who cited blocks of texts and arranged them
in sequence, William interweaves all the available Gregorian passages on
a particular Song verse (or at least all those he could find) to produce a
single self-contained unit of Gregorian commentary, resulting in a
composition that is a kind of running commentary on the Song. This is
not to say that William has not altered or added to Gregory’s original
text. He has, but the goal of such changes in general appears to have
been the clarification of texts torn from their original context and mixed
together with other texts on the same Song verse. His alterations and
additions indicate a concerted effort to make decontextualized and
rearranged Gregorian passages as clear as possible. William chose this
method of producing his florilegium probably in order to make it
something more than a kind of reference work of Gregory’s exegesis of
the Song of Songs, as Paterius and Bede had done. Rather, William
composed a thoroughly Gregorian commentary on the Song of Songs
using Gregory’s own words.
Despite the rearrangement of the original Gregorian texts and the
minor alterations to them, the thought of Gregory has been preserved.
The changes are merely structural. No ideas foreign to Gregory are
imported on the part of William. The document William composed is
thus a reliable presentation of Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs,
and it can be read on its own since there is a single unit of commentary
for each verse of the Song. William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts from the
Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs is a stand-alone work
produced by his meticulous attention to detail and editorial genius,
perhaps to fulfill his desire to hold in his hands a genuine Gregorian
commentary devoted to the Song of Songs.179

III. GREGORY’S EXEGESIS OF THE SONG OF SONGS

A. GREGORY IN THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

There is a vast difference between Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of
Songs and modern scholarly interpretations. Gregory stands in a long
tradition of Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs that
emerged in the third century, flourished for well over one thousand
years thereafter, began to wane only in the early modern period, but still
has a small number of adherents today.180 For now, we may
provisionally define allegorical exegesis as an interpretation of a text
that privileges its deeper, spiritual meaning rather than its more obvious,
literal meaning. Gregory is one of the major contributors to the tradition
of allegorical exegesis of the Song of Songs and, more important, one of
the key innovators within it. This tradition may have its origins in early
Rabbinic allegorical interpretations of the Song.181 Yet it received its
decisive impetus from Origen’s pioneering work. Though the relationship
between the man and the woman is never defined in the text of the Song
itself, Origen was the first to identify the Song as an epithalamium, or
wedding song, that consisted of dramatic dialogue between a bride and
bridegroom, with occasional lines by minor characters. He developed a
twofold figurative interpretation of the Song wherein the bride and
bridegroom were variously understood either as the Church and Christ
or the individual soul and the Word of God. Most commentators
subsequent to Origen employ elements of both the ecclesiastical and
individual-soul interpretations. Gregory knew and used Origen’s writings
on the Song of Songs in Latin translation, and the influence of the
Alexandrian’s exegesis upon Gregory is pervasive.
The allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs flourished in the
centuries after Gregory. New allegorical approaches were developed as
well, such as the interpretation of the woman in the Song as the Virgin
Mary (the Mariological interpretation). It could be argued that this
ancient tradition of exegesis reached its apex in the Cistercian homilies
on the Song of Songs in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.182
The greatest of these are the eighty-six homilies by Saint Bernard of
Clairvaux, who in his exegetical exuberance managed to discuss the Song
only through verse 3:1.183 The popularity of Bernard’s homilies can be
seen in the efforts to continue his work after his death in 1153. The
English Cistercian abbot Gilbert of Hoyland wrote forty-eight sermons
covering Song 3:1–5:10 before his own death in 1172.184 John of Ford,
also an English Cistercian abbot, composed 120 sermons covering the
remainder of the book before his own death in 1214.185 Nor ought we
omit William of Saint Thierry, whose exegetical works on the Song were
discussed above.186 For the most part, Cistercian exegesis of the Song
explores the love between God and the individual soul as the Christian
advances toward mystical union. Indeed, Bernard’s sermons on the Song
of Songs “are widely recognized to be at once the crowning achievement
of the approach to the Song initiated by Origen and the superlative
contribution of monastic theology to Christian spirituality.”187
In the early modern period, Reformation theologians initiated new
approaches to the Song of Songs. For example, Martin Luther interpreted
the Song of Songs as a political allegory.188 The ancient tradition of
allegorically interpreting the Song began to decline in the Enlightenment
era with the rise of rational criticism. Nascent critical scholarship in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries began to make the Song of
Songs the subject of literary and historical-critical analysis, uninterested
in its religious or theological significance. Nonetheless, allegorical
interpretations of the Song of Songs continued to be produced by
Catholic and Protestant exegetes alike from the sixteenth century
(perhaps most notably Saint John of the Cross) through the middle of
the twentieth century, when the modern critical approaches came to
dominate.189 Even though today allegorical interpretations have been
mostly abandoned, there have been recent critical attempts to retrieve
the Song’s spiritual meaning and even interpret it as a celebration of
God’s love for humanity.190
 In contrast to Gregory and the wider tradition of the Song’s allegorical
interpretation, modern exegetes of the Song of Songs generally consider
it a poem that celebrates human love—and only human love. The
opening line of J. Cheryl Exum’s 2005 commentary on the biblical book
expresses this attitude well. “The Song of Songs,” she writes, “is a long
lyric poem about erotic love and sexual desire—a poem in which the
body is both object of desire and source of delight, and lovers engage in
a continual game of seeking and finding in anticipation, enjoyment, and
assurance of sensual gratification.”191 Most modern commentary on the
Song of Song adopts this approach. As a result, the focus of such
exegetes is more on the literary aspects of the biblical text than its
theological or religious meaning.192 In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, for example, scholars interpreted the Song of Songs
as a love-drama, with two or three characters. Because of the Song’s lack
of plot and its undeveloped characters, this dramatic approach has since
dropped out of favor, though it still has some adherents.193 More
significantly, the discovery of ancient Near Eastern texts in the
nineteenth century has sparked a comparative literature interest in the
Song of Songs, setting it within the wider context of ancient Near East
love poetry.194 Such scholarship reflects a purely historical interest in
the Song. Most scholars concentrate on interpreting the Song of Songs as
an affirmation of the goodness, dignity, and even sanctity of human love
and sexuality.195
In recent years, feminist biblical criticism has proved to be one of the
most fruitful approaches to the Song of Songs. Feminist critics have
noted the gender and sexual equality of the man and the woman in the
Song of Songs, the mutuality of their sexual desire, and even the
gynocentricity of the poem.196 Not all agree with these interpretations,
not even all feminist scholars, and these issues remain a subject of lively
scholarly debate. Feminist criticism of the Song of Songs is currently one
of the most thought-provoking avenues of interpretation.
Many modern exegetes of the Song of Songs denigrate its allegorical
interpretation, finding the methodology arbitrary, unverifiable, and
implausible. The most contemptuous of these can be found in the famous
1974 essay by William E. Phipps titled “The Plight of the Song of Songs,”
in which he bemoans the stifling influence of allegorizations of the Song
that he believes were the product of early Christian disgust for sex. “It is
one of the pranks of history,” he writes, “that a poem so obviously about
hungry passion has caused so much perplexity and has provoked such a
plethora of bizarre interpretations.”197 But this is a woefully inadequate
explanation of the patristic allegorical approach to the Song of Songs. In
describing such “one-dimensional” assessments, Roland Murphy has
said, “A preoccupation with eroticism is rather boldly projected onto the
ancient Church, while allegory is reduced to a sort of exegetical alchemy
for transmutation or spiritualization of the Song’s ostensibly sexual
themes.” Rather, continues Murphy, allegory “facilitated construction
and maintenance of a Christian worldview, providing the intellectual
mechanism to effect a synthesis between Old Testament witnesses to
God’s providential love for humankind and what was confessed to be the
preeminent display of that love in the Christ event.”198 We will return to
the theme of the function and purpose of allegorical interpretation
below.199
While rejecting the allegorical method and viewing the Song as only a
poem about sexual love, most scholars offer a more balanced perspective
on the history of allegorical interpretation. As Dianne Bergant writes,
This book is now regarded as a collection of love poetry, and it is usually
interpreted as such. Its sensuous imagery and its depiction of an erotic
affair celebrate the passion of heterosexual love. Three features set the
Song of Songs apart from other biblical works. First, the sexuality within
it is explicit and erotic, and it makes no excuses for this. Second, there is
no mention of God in any of the poems. Third, while the focus of the
Song of Songs is human behavior, it neither passes judgment on that
behavior nor offers any moral teaching. These features may have
contributed to its early allegorical interpretation, but such an
interpretive approach is no longer promoted by scholars.200
J. Cheryl Exum offers a similar perspective: “The Song is not an allegory;
there is no indication that the poet ever intended it to be given an
esoteric interpretation… . Although the Song is not an allegory, it may
be admitted that it lends itself to allegorical interpretation. Ironically,
some of the features that helped make the Song a great love poem …
were the very features that facilitated its allegorical interpretation.”201
Exum also helpfully points out how the allegorical method can limit
exegetical possibilities when reading the biblical text. The equality of the
lovers in the poem and the absence of subordination or hierarchy
between them are hard to reconcile with the unequal, hierarchical
relationship between Christ and the individual soul or Church that is
present in allegorical interpretations. “Furthermore,” she adds, “the Song
of Songs presents its readers with not one but two subject positions from
which to read or with which to identify: the female’s and the male’s,
either or both of which readers are free to adopt. In allegory, however,
only one subject position is available to the reader: with few exceptions,
that of the female. In the long history of allegorical interpretation of the
Song, male readers have identified themselves with the woman who
desires, seeks, suffers for, and rejoices in her beloved, who is identified
with God.”202 Modern critiques of the allegorical interpretation of the
Song are useful not least of all because they help those interested in the
ancient methodology realize its limitations.203
The lesson to be taken from this survey of the history of interpretation
is that each exegetical methodology, whether ancient or modern, has the
potential for opening new perspectives on the Song of Songs. No single
method can exhaust the text’s exegetical possibilities. No single
interpretation can claim exclusive insight into the text’s meaning. The
Song of Songs is polyvalent and demands a variety of exegetical
approaches to plumb its meaning. However committed to modern
critical exegesis a modern reader of the Song may be, he or she should
not neglect the abundance of wisdom that is to be found in premodern
exegesis of the Song. A critical reading of the Song can only be enriched
by familiarity with the kind of exegesis that predominated until quite
recently. And there is hardly a better writer from which to gain this
familiarity than Gregory the Great.

B. GREGORY’S METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL EXEGESIS

Gregory the Great’s exegesis of Scripture has been the object of many
studies. In this introduction it is impossible to give a full account of their
findings. Bibliographical references are supplied for readers interested in
a greater treatment of the subject. The work of the Italian scholar
Vincenzo Recchia is fundamental for understanding Gregory’s
exegesis.204 What follows situates Gregory’s approach to Scripture by
drawing upon recent studies of patristic exegesis. Its goal is to facilitate
an informed and fruitful reading of his comments on the Song of Songs.
1. Gregory’s Exegetical Motivation. Before discussing Gregory’s
exegetical approach and practice, it will be helpful to understand his
motivation for interpreting Scripture in the first place. Gregory was
convinced that Scripture contained different levels of meaning, such that
everyone who read it, regardless of training, intelligence, spiritual
insight, or lack thereof, could benefit from it. In his letter to Leander of
Seville that was prefaced to the Moralia, Gregory writes, “For as the
divine word exercises the understanding of the wise by the mysteries it
contains, so usually it comforts the simple by its surface meaning. It lays
open what can nourish the little ones; it keeps in secret what lifts up the
minds of loftier men in admiration. It is like a kind of river, so to speak,
which is both shallow and deep, in which both the lamb may walk and
the elephant may swim.”205 Gregory was clearly an elephant. He knew
that plumbing the depths of Scripture and searching into its mysteries
required exegetical effort. Scripture’s obscure passages would nourish
only if their meaning could be wrestled from them. Thus, he also
conceptualized scriptural exegesis as a kind of digestion. “For sacred
scripture,” writes Gregory, “is sometimes food to us, sometimes drink. It
is food in the more obscure passages because in a certain sense it is
broken in pieces by being explained and swallowed after chewing. But it
is drink in the plainer passages because it is imbibed just as it is
found… . Few attain a knowledge of the mighty and hidden meanings,
but many understand the plain sense of the narrative.”206 Lambs are
more plentiful than elephants. Yet the elephant does not swim in the
depths of Sacred Scripture merely for his own enjoyment: those
possessing the wisdom and requisite skill to penetrate the deep mysteries
of Scripture have a responsibility to communicate their insights to the
simple lambs. Elephants enable lambs to be nourished by the obscure
passages of Scripture; lambs should be given access to all the Scriptures,
not simply the plain passages.
In the opening lines of one of his homilies on Ezekiel, Gregory
explains the specific purpose for which an understanding of the
Scriptures is given.207 During private reading, scriptural insight is given
for the sake of the individual’s spiritual advancement, either in
compunction (one’s own moral improvement) or in contemplation
(insight into the mystery of God). But the understanding of Scripture
given in private reading is meant to be shared in the communal setting.
The real purpose of scriptural insight is to edify the community; hence,
individual understanding must be communicated to a wider audience.
This was Gregory’s principle motivation in the bulk of his exegetical
corpus, and he had a strong sense of responsibility to use the gift he had
received for the benefit of others. His commentaries and homilies on the
books of Job, Ezekiel, and the Song of Songs—all considered particularly
obscure to the simple reader—were meant to break open the hidden
insights they contained and communicate them to others, so that they
too could be nourished by the word of God. Gregory believed that one of
the primary tasks of the preacher was to communicate insight into the
Scriptures.
2. Grammatical Reading Techniques. Gregory’s interpretation of
Scripture relies heavily on grammatical reading techniques.208 Recent
scholarship on patristic exegesis has highlighted the role of such
techniques in determining the meaning of the scriptural text. In the
Greco-Roman educational system the primary role of the grammarian
(grammaticus) was to impart to students a command of correct language,
a mastery of a selection of classic texts, and the skills needed to interpret
them properly.209 Grammatical studies provided students not only with
the fundamental techniques and skills for good reading but also with a
sense of the appropriate order in which to apply these techniques.210
Unsurprisingly, Christian exegetes trained in these grammatical
techniques applied them when reading Scripture.211 These techniques
were used to determine what Lewis Ayres calls “the plain sense of
scripture,” by which he means “the way the words run,” that is, “the
sense that a text had for a Christian of the period versed in ancient
literary critical skills.”212 This plain sense as determined by grammatical
reading techniques was the point of departure for all interpretations,
including figurative.213 As a member of an aristocratic Roman family,
Gregory was able to obtain a solid formation in grammatical reading
techniques as part of his education, even though such training was
becoming increasingly rare in the sixth century.214 At the same time, by
Gregory’s day grammatical reading techniques had been used by
Christian exegetes for centuries, and Gregory would have encountered
them in the exegetical traditions with which he was familiar.
Undoubtedly, Gregory learned how to interpret the Bible grammatically,
at least in part, by reading the leading lights of the Christian exegetical
tradition: Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and so forth.
The most basic reading techniques learned from the grammarian were
aimed at the preliminary analysis of the letter of the text.215 Preliminary
analysis, called methodike, begins with the establishment of the correct
text (textual criticism) and the proper construal of the text once
established. In an age of scripta continua, the reader had to determine
where the words began and ended, how to punctuate sentences, where
to place the stress, and so forth. In his comments on the Song of Songs,
Gregory does not often engage in this sort of preliminary analysis since
there was wide consensus on these issues.216 Next, the exegete paid very
close attention to the grammar, vocabulary, and syntax of sentences.
Sentences were parsed, homonyms identified, the meaning of unfamiliar
words determined, figures of speech discussed, and the significance of
the grammatical characteristics of verbs, nouns, and the other parts of
speech discussed.217 A great deal of Gregory’s exegesis takes up issues
such as these. Indeed, he viewed the Song of Songs as a whole as an
extended figure of speech. But preliminary analysis was not limited to
basic philological concerns. For example, it was important to identify
who was speaking, who was spoken to, and who was spoken about in a
particular passage when it was disputed, each of which was recognized
as a persona, that is, a distinct character in the narrative. Scholars now
call this technique “prosopographic exegesis,” and it was particularly
influential in the development of trinitarian and christological
terminology.218 Gregory uses prosopographic exegesis abundantly in his
exegesis of the Song of Songs, specifying who speaks each verse and to
whom it is spoken. Preliminary analysis concluded with an analysis of
the style. And so, “reading a classic in school meant analyzing its
sentences into parts of speech and its verses into metre, noting linguistic
usage and style, discussing different meanings of words, elucidating
figures of speech or ornamental devices.”219
Once the basic linguistic analysis was complete, the exegete could
advance to the explanation of the content of the text, historia. Frances
Young has described historia as “the enquiry that produces as much
information as possible with respect to the elements, actions, characters,
and background of the text.”220 It is not a reconstruction of the historical
facts that the text reports; rather, it is an explanation of narrative that
the text itself presents. Gregory uses his preliminary analysis of the Song
of Songs to understand its content as an extended figure of speech. In other
words, Gregory viewed that plain sense of the Song of Songs as figural,
as pointing to a deeper, spiritual sense. Figural interpretation will be
discussed in more detail below, but for now it suffices to say that
Gregory believed that the Song of Songs could nourish spiritually only
when interpreted as an extended figure. Through his use of grammatical
reading techniques, then, Gregory determined that the plain sense of the
Song of Songs was its figural interpretation. Thus, grammatical reading
techniques are used to explain the figural, spiritual content of the text.
Fundamental for understanding the meaning of a text in grammatical
analysis was discerning the reference of words and sentences.221
Determining the reference meant answering questions such as: What are
the extratextual realities to which the words of the text refer? What are
the extratextual realities about which the sentence is talking? Discerning
the reference plays a crucial role in Gregory’s exegesis. Since the Song of
Songs is interpreted figurally, words are symbols that point to realities of
the spiritual life. Gregory takes great pains to clarify that to which
figurally interpreted words and passages refer.
In cases where reference was disputed, two other grammatical reading
techniques were used to resolve the issue. The first is cross-referencing.
Cross-referencing by either quotation or allusion was not understood as
purely ornamental but as a reinforcement of the point being made.222
The use of cross-references corroborated a claim by showing that the
same was said elsewhere. Therefore, in cases of disputed reference, a
cross-reference could clarify or even establish reference. Frances Young
has noted that “the principle of looking for the reference and exploiting
cross-reference in order to substantiate proposed exegesis in a rational
way remains crucial throughout the [patristic] period.”223 Gregory often
cross-references other passages of Scripture to support his interpretation.
At times, the cross-reference provides the essential link between the
verse of the Song of Songs and his interpretation.
 The second technique for clarifying references is the identification of
the skopos or hypothesis of a text—its basic plot, theme, direction, or
inner coherence—and then interpreting difficult passages in light of that
skopos. In other words, when the meaning of a passage was uncertain
because of disputed reference(s), it was interpreted in light of its wider
context. In biblical exegesis, the contextual unit could range from the
paragraph in which the disputed passage is embedded to Scripture as a
whole. The main point, however, was that any interpretation of a
particular passage that was inconsistent with the text’s skopos was
deemed inappropriate.224
Gregory was heir to an exegetical tradition that viewed the reference
of the Song of Songs in its entirety as disputed. If it is not about human
sexual love, then about what? In the preface to the Exposition Gregory
clearly identified the skopos of the Song of Songs: union with God, not
erotic human love. Every passage in his exposition had to be interpreted
in the light of this overarching theme. Hence Gregory considered the
plain sense of the text to be an extended figure of speech about union
with God. Indeed, the very title given to Gregory’s commentary on the
Song of Songs—expoitio—points to his grammatical and rhetorical
approach, as this term signified in grammatical and rhetorical circles a
certain genre of exegetical discourse.225 And the prologue of the
Exposition seems to be an accessus ad auctorem, a literary genre with set
topics used to introduce a work that became standard in the medieval
period.226 Hence Gregory’s debt to grammatical exegetical practices can
be seen even in the title and structure of his Exposition.
The preface to the Exposition concludes with a discussion of the
characters that speak in the Song of Songs (Exp. 10). Gregory is not
sorting out the speaking characters in a particular disputed passage or
section. Rather, his identification of the extra-biblical references of these
characters in the preface is meant to set the parameters for the
interpretation of the entire biblical book. There are four characters: the
Bridegroom, the Bride, the young girls who attend the Bride, and the
companions of the Bridegroom. But to what extra-biblical realities do
these characters refer? Gregory discerns the reference of the Bridegroom
as the Lord and that of the Bride as the Church. The attendants are
spiritual neophytes, whereas the companions are either angels or the
perfect. Yet both the attendants and the companions, as members of the
Church, are part of the Bride. In this way Gregory justifies his twofold
interpretation of the Song of Songs, that it is a dialogue both between
Christ and the Church and between Christ and the individual soul. While
in the Exposition Gregory is initially systematic about interpreting each
verse of the Song of Songs in both ways, elsewhere he picks one or the
other.
Gregory also recognizes another reference for these characters. An
attendant is someone at the beginning of his or her spiritual quest,
dedicated to doing good works. A companion is someone who is more
experienced and preaches the Bridegroom in his or her words and
actions. A Bride is someone who loves God perfectly. The identification
of the reference of the characters in the Song of Songs and the tripartite
division of the Bride harmonizes well with Gregory’s overall motivation
in interpreting the Scriptures: there is something for everybody in this
biblical book, whether you are a novice Christian or have already
attained Christian perfection, whether you are a lamb or an elephant.
Every reader can identify with one of the characters and so derive some
benefit from the Song of Songs. In the final lines of the preface, Gregory
gives this exhortation: “So then, we are invited to be the Bride. But if we
are still unable to do this, let us be companions. If even this exceeds our
capacities, let us at least gather together as young girls around the
marriage-bed. Therefore, since we said that the Bridegroom and the
Bride are the Lord and the Church, let us as either young girls or
companions listen to the words of the Bridegroom, let us listen to the
words of the Bride, and from their dialogue let us learn the fervor of
love” (Exp. 10).
3. Gregory’s Figural Approach to the Song of Songs. As mentioned above,
the Church fathers considered the Song of Songs one of the most obscure
books of the Bible. Its unmistakably erotic language presented Christian
interpreters with an exegetical dilemma. In the patristic era, the status of
this biblical book as the inspired word of God that was meant to nourish
Christians precluded the very possibility of interpreting it as a
celebration of human sexual desire and love. As Augustine had written,
“Anything that cannot be related to either good morals or to the true
faith should be taken as figurative.”227 This resulted in the allegorical
interpretation of the Song of Songs, and as mentioned above, Gregory
was a part of this tradition.228
Modern scholars have devoted many pages to studying ancient
allegorical exegesis.229 Earlier a few examples of modern disdain for the
allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs were mentioned. Too
often modern scholars use “allegorical” as code for exegesis that is
devoid of objectivity, unconnected with what the text “actually” says,
and subject to flights of fancy. Allegorical exegesis is often contrasted
with another kind of figurative exegesis, called “typological,” which is
supposedly tied to the “historical” meaning of the text itself and has an
objectivity that presages modern historical-critical exegesis. Yet there is
a growing recognition that the terms “allegorical” and “typological”
have acquired meanings in modern scholarship that diverge quite
significantly from how they were used in antiquity.230 Patristic exegetes
did not divide figurative exegetical approaches into two basic categories
but rather used a variety of words—such as “allegory” and “type”—to
describe what has been called in modern scholarship “figural reading
practices.”231
Figural reading practices are those techniques used by Christian
exegetes, especially when interpreting the Old Testament, to illustrate
aspects of God’s action in Christ. Patristic authors believed in the unity
and the coherence of the Scriptures: the Old and New Testaments
narrate a single story of salvation history that begins with creation and
culminates in Jesus Christ, who continues to be present in the Church
through the Spirit. Hence the Old Testament needed to be interpreted in
the light of Christ: Christ is the interpretive key that unlocks the
meaning of the whole of Scripture.232 A figural reading of an Old
Testament book enabled such an interpretation by treating the text as a
resource for describing God’s action in salvation history, in the
incarnation, and in the result of the incarnation, the transformation of
souls in the ongoing life of the Church.233 And so, Gregory interprets the
Song of Songs allegorically—or, better, figurally—in order to gain a
better understanding of the mystery of God’s action in salvation history,
particularly in the incarnation of Christ and in drawing souls and the
Church into union with Christ.
But why the Song of Songs in particular and not some other Old
Testament book? Several studies have been devoted to trying to
understand Christian figural exegesis of the Song of Songs and Gregory’s
place within this wider context.234 Dennis Turner has argued that late
patristic and medieval allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs is a
fusion of “erotic metaphysics” derived from the pseudo-Dionysius and
ascetical monastic eschatology. Indeed, the eroticism of the Song
provided an argument for the very necessity of interpreting the books of
the Old Testament figurally. Hence patristic and medieval commentaries
on the Song of Songs are not merely instances of figural exegesis but
justifications for it. Turner argues that celibate Christians chose to
interpret the Song of Songs because of its eroticism, not in spite of it, since
their own worldview was so thoroughly informed by a biblical,
eschatological theology suffused with yearning and desire for mystical
and contemplative union with God in Christ.235 He situates Gregory at
the very head of this tradition (while acknowledging Origen’s
influence).236 This tradition views the erotic love of the man and the
woman in the Song of Songs as the best likeness available for
understanding the love and union between Christ and the Church,
between Christ and the individual soul.237 And so, Gregory considered
the Song of Songs the best textual resource for describing and
understanding God’s action in the whole of salvation history, provided
that it was interpreted figurally.
One of the remarkable features of Gregory’s Exposition is that it begins
with a preface devoted to justifying why the Song of Songs should be
read figurally. Simply put, humanity’s fallen condition has made it
necessary for God to communicate the loftiest spiritual truths through
symbolic language.238 In their fallen condition human beings now lack
the ability to understand spiritual truths that are directly communicated
by God. Therefore, such truths need to be mediated. As Gregory puts its,
God communicates what humans do not know by means of what they do
know (Exp. 1). Therefore, it is the divine intention that the Scriptures
contain what Gregory variously calls enigmas or allegories. These
figurative devices use language that a person already understands to
communicate something not yet understood: “Allegories are produced by
clothing divine thoughts in what we know. When we recognize the
exterior language, we attain interior understanding” (Exp. 2). They act
“as a kind of crane” that lifts the soul up to God (Exp. 2). They facilitate
the search for wisdom and exercise the mind, enabling purification and
spiritual progress (Exp. 4).239 A figural reading of the enigmas and
allegories employed by God in the Scriptures allows the exegete to
access the spiritual truths they contain mediated through mundane
language. Enigmas and allegories thus play a purely pedagogical and
instrumental role in Gregory’s exegesis: they are means to interior,
spiritual understanding. Hence the passage from letter to spirit mirrors
the path of spiritual progress from exteriority to interiority, from
ignorance of divine truths to knowledge of them. Allegories and enigmas
mediate not mere information but rather an experience of God. In other
words, they facilitate contemplation. The Song of Songs not only is about
contemplation but also is the privileged resource for attaining it.
Gregory conceives of contemplation as the transcendence of knowledge
by faith and a kind of incipient, if fleeting, grasp of God that obtains in
the afterlife (Exp. 19).
But enigmas and allegories only function as intended when the
exegete can recognize them for what they are. The exegete should not
immediately reject the Song of Songs because of its erotic language;
rather, God uses such language out of mercy. “He has gone so far as to
embrace the language of our vulgar love in order to enkindle our heart
with a yearning for that sacred love… . We learn from dialogues of the
love here below with what intensity we should burn in the love of
Divinity” (Exp. 3). The eroticism of the Song of Songs, when properly
interpreted as a figure of speech, teaches Christians about the love and
desire they should have for God. One of the main purposes of the preface
is to help readers of the Song of Songs recognize that it must be
interpreted figurally.
Gregory is well-aware that exegetes of the Song of Songs can become
fixated on its erotic language. Therefore, the surface meaning of the
“exterior” words must be passed by in order to attain their “interior”
meaning. The interpreter has to adopt a hermeneutic of divine charity
and abandon reading the Song of Songs through the lens of physical,
bodily love. Here, Gregory employs a number of analogies to help his
readers pass beyond the external form of the words to arrive at their
interior, spiritual content. Focusing on the external words while ignoring
their meaning is like looking at the colors of a painting while missing the
subject depicted; it is like eating husks instead of the kernel (Exp. 4). In
order to avoid such a mistake, an interpreter of the Song of Songs must
purify himself and be filled with love of God (Exp. 5). Therefore,
correctly interpreting the Song of Songs requires moral preparation. This
prerequisite explains why the Song of Songs is placed third among the
books traditionally ascribed to Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the
Song of Songs. Proverbs teaches morality, whereas Ecclesiastes teaches
the transience of natural goods. Only when prepared by these two
biblical books can the exegete properly understand the spiritual content
of the Song of Songs (Exp. 7).240 Thus, proper exegesis for Gregory (as
for many of the Church fathers) is not merely an intellectual exercise but
must take place in a nexus of ascetical, liturgical, and communal
practices.
The Song of Songs represents a high point of God’s condescension to
humanity in Scripture. Gregory notes that the very title of this biblical
book—the Song of Songs—signifies something quite superlative, a
solemn mystery (Exp. 6). There are many songs in the Old Testament,
each with their own character, but the Song of Songs is the most sublime
of all because it is about humanity’s union with God: “through this song
the Lord is embraced with an intimate love” (Exp. 7). The fact that the
Lord calls himself “Lord” and “Father” elsewhere in the Scriptures but
“Bridegroom” in the Song of Songs is also significant. The first two titles
are used to convey that the Lord should be feared and honored, but the
latter that he should be loved: “In this book, then, when ‘Bridegroom’ is
said, something quite sublime is being conveyed since it reveals our
bond of union with him” (Exp. 8).
Gregory’s explanation of the purpose and function of scriptural
allegories and enigmas in Exp. 1–5 is unparalleled in patristic literature.
In the preface he not only justifies reading the Song of Songs figurally
but also argues that such an interpretation grants access to the most
sublime mysteries of God. The Song of Songs is special and unique.
Though seemingly utterly inappropriate for inclusion within the Bible
because of its exuberant eroticism, a figural interpretation reveals that it
is perhaps the most profound of all biblical books because it teaches
about mystical union with God. For this reason, it should be approached
with due caution, after significant preparation and purification, “lest we
linger over exterior meanings when we hear the words of exterior love
[and] the very crane employed to lift us will instead burden us and thus
not lift us” (Exp. 4).
4. Gregory’s Exegetical Practice. By way of conclusion to this
introduction to Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs, it will be helpful
to give some examples of the concrete grammatical reading techniques
he employs.241 Prosopographic exegesis plays a fundamental role. It is
crucial for Gregory to determine first whether the verse under discussion
is spoken by the Bridegroom to the Bride or by the Bride to the
Bridegroom. In most cases Gregory explicitly identifies the personae, as
for example: “And note the words of the Bridegroom when he replies to
the Bride: If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women, set out
and follow the tracks of the flocks, and pasture your young goats near the
tents of the shepherds [Song 1:7]” (Exp. 44). Other times he names just
the speaker, and the one spoken to can be easily inferred: “Hence the
Bride says in the Song: Bolster me with flowers, surround me with apples,
for I grow faint with love [Song 2:5]” (B10, W14). Often Gregory identifies
the Church herself as one of the personae, passing to its figural
interpretation: “it is said to the holy Church in the voice of the
Bridegroom: Honey and milk are under your tongue [Song 4:4]” (B29,
W30), and “In the voice of the Bride the holy Church plainly desires to
see him in the present time, saying: Lo! He stands behind our wall [Song
2:9]” (B14). Undoubtedly, Gregory’s prosopographic exegesis has been
influenced by previous interpreters of the Song of Songs, such as Origen.
Another key technique employed by Gregory is the discernment of
reference. Given his figural exegesis, he must specify to what extra-
biblical reality the words of any given verse of the Song of Songs refer.
In most cases Gregory explicitly names the references. For example, in
his interpretation of Song 3:8b, he writes, “A ‘blade is placed upon the
thigh’ when a wicked suggestion of the flesh is subjugated by the sharp
edge of holy preaching. But the term ‘night’ refers to the blindness that
characterizes our enfeebled state. For we do not see the forces of
opposition that threaten us at night. Therefore, everyone’s blade is on their
thigh on account of nocturnal fears because it is clear that holy men, while
they dread the dangers they do not see, are always prepared to ward off
an attack” (B24). Two references in this verse needed to be determined:
the blade on the thigh and the nocturnal fears. The first refers to the
resistance to carnal desire enabled by edifying preaching; the second, to
the moral and intellectual blindness of the human condition. Once these
two references have been discerned, Song 3:8b can be interpreted
figurally: holy men, though unable to foresee temptations, are always
ready to resist them through previous preparation.
But a single word can have multiple references. In this case, the
appropriate reference must be discerned in the particular verse. An
example of this situation can be seen in Gregory’s interpretation of Song
5:2, I sleep but my heart is awake. He writes, “In Sacred Scripture, the
figurative use of ‘sleep’ or ‘slumber’ can be understood in three ways.
Sometimes ‘sleep’ expresses the death of the flesh, sometimes the
numbness of indifference, but sometimes the calmness of life that ensues
when earthly desires are trod underfoot” (W35). Gregory then justifies
these different references by cross-referencing concrete scriptural
passages. Sleep denotes the death of the flesh as in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-
14, the numbness of indifference as in Romans 13:11 and 1 Corinthians
15:34, and the calmness after fleshly desires are subdued as in Song 5:2.
Once the reference of ‘sleep’ is established in Song 5:2, Gregory explains
how the Bride can be asleep but her heart awake.
At the same time, Gregory does not feel compelled to identify only a
single reference for any given word in a particular verse. A word can
have numerous references, each providing additional insights into God’s
action in salvation history. For example, Gregory discerns three distinct
references for the Bride in Song 1:4-5: (1) the Church of Jewish converts,
(2) the Church of Gentile converts, and (3) the whole Church in the
present time (Exp. 32–40). Accordingly, when the Bride says, the sons of
my mother fought against me (Song 1:5c), three references can be
discerned: (1) Jews who persecuted Jewish converts to Christianity, (2)
the apostles who converted the Gentiles to Christianity (here, the
‘fighting’ is interpreted positively as the struggle to turn Gentiles from
error to belief), and (3) the fallen angels who tempt Christians. The
polyvalence of the scriptural text is virtually inexhaustible in the hands
of Gregory.
Sometimes Gregory needs to provide a cross-reference in order to
support his identification of the reference of a verse. For example, when
interpreting All are holding swords and they are very skilled in warfare
(Song 3:8a), Gregory cross-references Ephesians 6:17 to clarify the
reference of ‘sword.’ He writes, “What the ‘sword’ represents in the
Divine Scripture, Paul laid open when he said: And the sword of the Spirit,
which is the Word of God [Eph 6:17]” (P22, B22). In this context, another
facet of Gregory’s grammatical approach can be seen when he says,
“Now Solomon did not say, ‘All have swords,’ but: All are holding swords,
clearly because is it wonderful not only to know the Word of God, but
also to do it.” Gregory finds meaning in the use of one verb instead of
another: the Word of God must not only be possessed but also put in
practice. Such detailed attention to verbs and nouns is characteristic of
Gregory’s grammatical exegesis.
Gregory also uses formal analogies to discern the reference of the text.
These analogies are typically expressed in terms of “as a is to b, so c is to
d.” For example, a formal analogy is employed in his interpretation of
Your lips are like a scarlet headband (Song 4:3). As a headband binds
together the hairs of the head, so a pious exhortation binds together the
wandering thoughts of the mind (P26, B28). Thus, the reference of the
‘headband’ is a holy exhortation. Another example of the use of formal
analogy can be found in Gregory’s interpretation of Your shoots are a
garden of pomegranates (Song 4:13). As a pomegranate protects many
seeds within it, so the unity of the faith shelters many people within the
Church (B33). Thus, the reference of ‘pomegranate’ is ‘the unity of the
faith.’ Gregory employed formal analogy in many of his figural
interpretations of the Song of Songs.
Gregory does not limit himself to using a single method to discern the
reference. Often several techniques are used to strengthen his exegesis.
For example, in interpreting Your name is ointment poured-out (Song
1:2b), Gregory claims, “‘Ointment poured-out’ is the incarnate divinity”
(Exp. 21). He justifies the incarnate divinity as the reference of the
poured-out ointment by a formal analogy between ointment and the
divinity. When ointment is in the bottle, you can’t smell it, but when it is
poured out, you can perceive it. Likewise, the divine nature is invisible,
but when incarnate it is perceptible. Gregory then supports this
interpretation by crossre-referencing Philippians 2:6-7, which speaks of
Christ “emptying himself.” Gregory writes, “Paul called ‘emptying’ what
Solomon called ‘pouring-out.’” By means of this cross-reference Gregory
suggests that the divine kenosis is variously described as God pouring
himself out and emptying himself. And so, he makes a stronger case for
his interpretation of Song 1:2b by employing both formal analogy and a
cross-reference.
 The final grammatical reading technique that Gregory employs on a
regular basis is paraphrase. A good example is his interpretation of Song
8:14, Escape, my beloved, escape!, the last verse of the book:
We say “it escapes me” as often as what we want to remember does not
come to mind. We say “it escapes me” when we do not retain in our
memory what we want to remember. So the holy Church, after narrating
the Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension, cries out to him, filled with
a prophetic spirit: Escape, my beloved, escape! It is as if she were saying:
“You who were made comprehensible to us by the flesh, transcend the
grasp of our senses by your divinity and remain incomprehensible to us
in your very own self!” (P49, B53, W52)
Here, Gregory appeals to common expression, “it escapes me,” to
understand what this verse means before offering a paraphrase. He
suggests that the verse is a prayer to the ascended Lord, no longer visible
in the flesh and once again incomprehensible. As in this example,
Gregory usually offers an interpretive paraphrase of a verse only after he
has used a variety of other techniques to elucidate his interpretation.
Sometimes he introduces the paraphrase without any introduction, but
in most cases he begins with a formula. The three most common
formulas are as follows: (1) “In other words” (id est); (2) “It is as if
he/she were saying” (ac si dicat); and (3) “It is as if he/she were saying
in plain speech, as if it was being said in plain speech” (ac si aperte
dicat/diceret/diceretur). By using subjunctive forms of dicere Gregory
indicates that the paraphrase he presents is a hypothetical reconstruction
based on his interpretation, not actually what the text says. When aperte
is added, it highlights the fact that, when paraphrasing, Gregory is
engaging in figural exegesis and has uncovered the hidden, spiritual
meaning that the allegory or enigma was intended to communicate.
Once Gregory has penetrated the figural, “exterior,” erotic language of
the Song of Songs and attained the spiritual, “interior” meaning, he
paraphrases the verse in plain “exterior” language in order to contribute
to the edification of his audience. The allegories and enigmas have
served their purpose, and now the spiritual truths God wants to convey
through them can be expressed directly in an easily understandable
manner. The elephant speaks plainly to the lambs.

IV. GREGORY’S SOURCES

 It is notoriously difficult to pinpoint Gregory’s sources. His writings
are so suffused with the thought of his patristic predecessors that it is
tough to demarcate where their doctrine ends and his begins. He has
made the preceding patristic tradition his own. Gregory absorbed the
teachings of his predecessors and reexpressed them in a way that
reflected his concerns as well as those of his audience. He was no mere
copyist; he digested the thoughts of others and ruminated on them in the
light of his own experience as a pastor, ascetic, and contemplative. This
would often transform the ideas of his sources in striking ways. Hence,
we find in Gregory’s writings sentiments that are simultaneously very
familiar and very novel. Perhaps it is Robert Gillet who has best
expressed the situation. “A reader [of Gregory],” he writes, “who is even
slightly familiar with patristic literature constantly feels that he is
reading things he has already come across. But what if he searches for
the source of what he has just read? It is most often the case that there is
no possibility of making a precise comparison. He merely finds himself
in the presence of an immense communal ambience.”242 Nonetheless,
despite these difficulties in determining Gregory’s sources, it is certain
that he had an intimate knowledge of the Latin fathers, particularly
Augustine and John Cassian, and that whatever knowledge of the Greek
fathers he had came mostly through Latin translations.243

A. ORIGEN
In his exegesis of the Song of Songs, Gregory was most deeply
influenced by Origen. One can detect his inspiration on every page.244
Origen wrote both homilies and a commentary on the Song of Songs,
and Gregory would have had contact with both through the Latin
translations of Jerome and Rufinus. Whether in translation or in the
original, Origen’s exegesis of the Song of Songs was a decisive
inspiration for the Latin fathers,245 and Gregory is no exception. Indeed,
Henri de Lubac considers Gregory one of the primary heirs of Origen’s
exegetical methodology. “In Gregory’s case,” de Lubac writes, “it is not
only his manner of understanding the threefold sense that makes him
reminiscent of Origen but also certain exegetical details and a likeness of
mind which is perhaps connatural. Even certain words, certain
expressions, or certain turns of phrase which are characteristic of
Gregory’s style hark back to those of his Greek predecessor, in the form,
at least, which had been given them by the Latin Rufinus… . [I]n the
end Saint Gregory depends even more on Origen than he does on Saint
Augustine.”246
In his Exposition Gregory owes to Origen both the structure of the
commentary and many particular points of exegesis. Like Origen,
Gregory synthesizes two traditions of interpreting the Song, each of
which views the Bride of the Word differently. One tradition sees the
Bride as the individual soul, whereas the other as the Church. Besides
this structural influence, Gregory has in many cases taken Origen’s
concrete ideas as the “point of departure” for his own exegesis.247 “At
times Gregory’s dicta appear to be no more than a résumé or
paraphrasing of Origen,” writes Paul Meyvaert, “and elsewhere we can
see how a saying of Origen gave Gregory a cue for his own
development.”248 Paul Meyvaert, Rodrigue Bélanger, and Joan M.
Petersen have all listed numerous parallels between Gregory and Origen
found in the Exposition.249 Origen’s influence on Gregory is particularly
evident in the latter part of the prologue of the Exposition, in paragraphs
6–7 and 9–10.250
But Origen’s exegesis of the Song of Songs has also influenced Gregory
in works besides the Exposition, such as the Moralia, Pastoral Care, and
his homilies. For example, Gregory follows Origen in interpreting “the
fragrant nard” of Song 1:11 as the good works or virtues of the Church’s
members.251 In this context both Origen and Gregory cite 2 Corinthians
2:15 as further scriptural support of their exegesis. Another example is
Gregory’s adoption of Origen’s interpretation of the “shadow” in Song
2:3 as the incarnation of the Lord by connecting it with Luke 1:35.252
Gregory also follows Origen in interpreting the “young hart” of Song
2:9a as a reference to the Lord’s human existence according to the
flesh.253 Finally, Origen lies behind Gregory’s exegesis of the “left” and
“right” hands mentioned in Song 2:6, which both writers interpret by
reference to Proverbs 3:16.254 Though Gregory does not follow Origen
exactly, he borrows from his predecessor’s idea that the left hand refers
to the Lord’s incarnation and his right hand to the eternal Word. Taking
Origen’s exegesis as his point of departure, Gregory interprets the left
hand as the present life and the right as eternal life and teaches that the
prosperity of the present life should push us to seek eternal blessedness.
This last instance of Gregory’s use of Origen is thus a particularly good
example of how Gregory both borrowed from his predecessors and
transformed them.255

B. AUGUSTINE
Besides Origen, Augustine also had a formative and pervasive
influence on the thought of Gregory. Indeed, Gregory himself expressed
his high esteem for him in a letter to Innocent, the praetorian prefect of
Africa: “If you desire to be nourished with delicious food, read the little
works of Saint Augustine, your countryman, and do not look for our
bran, in comparison with his fine flour.”256 But unlike Origen, Augustine
did not write a commentary or homilies on the Song of Songs. His
interpretations of the book are found scattered throughout his works.257
So the inspiration of Augustine on Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of
Songs is not a question of Gregory borrowing from particular writings, as
was the case with Origen. Rather, because Gregory had a thorough
knowledge of the writings of the bishop of Hippo, when he encountered
particular verses of the Song of Songs that Augustine had commented
upon, they acted as triggers for Gregory’s memory to recall what
Augustine said on the verse. Accordingly, the influence of Augustine’s
exegesis of the Song of Songs on Gregory is far less pervasive than is the
case for Origen’s and contributes nothing to the plan and structure of the
Exposition. Nonetheless, one can detect several lines of influence between
Augustine and Gregory in the interpretation of particular verses.
As mentioned above, one point of contact between Augustine and
Gregory is their exegesis of “at midday” in Song 1:6.258 In addition,
Rodrigue Bélanger has discussed Augustine’s influence upon Gregory in
his exegesis of the Song of Songs in the Exposition and cited several
examples.259 There are also examples of Gregory basing himself on
Augustine outside of the Exposition. For example, Gregory follows
Augustine in his interpretation of the “teeth” of Song 4:2 as those in the
Church who correct others by their teaching and manner of life.260
While Augustine sees such “teeth” as convincing heathens and heretics
(i.e., Donatists) to enter the Church, for Gregory, the Church’s “teeth”
correct sinners within the Church. Nevertheless, both Augustine and
Gregory speak of these “teeth” as softening up the “toughness” (duritia)
of sinners by chewing them.261
In another example, Gregory borrows from Augustine’s interpretation
of Song 4:16. Augustine says that the devil and the other fallen angels,
having turned from the light and warmth of love, have become frozen in
icy hardness and accordingly are located figuratively in the north wind.
The Spirit of grace, however, is the south wind, and when it blows, the
sins of the people are forgiven.262 Taking Augustine as his point of
departure, Gregory says that the north wind represents the chilliness of
an evil spirit and that the devil has possessed the “frozen” minds of
sinners. The south wind signifies the fervor of the Holy Spirit who, when
he touches sinners, releases them from the chilliness of their evil
ways.263 In this context, both Augustine and Gregory cite 2 Corinthians
2:15 to describe what happens when the south wind, that is, the Spirit,
blows.
Perhaps the most significant example is Augustine’s interpretation of
Song 2:2 as a reference to the Church as a necessary mixture of good and
bad people.264 In this case, Gregory both borrowed from Augustine’s
exegesis of this verse and transformed it. Gregory has taken an element
of Augustine’s ecclesiology that was forged in the heat of the Donatist
controversy and modified it into a principle of perfection in the Christian
life, removing all traces of the earlier polemic. Gregory’s interpretation
of Song 2:2 is thus another good example of how he could both be
influenced by his predecessors and yet transform them in ways that
corresponded to his own experience and the pastoral needs of his
audience.

C. APPONIUS
A third source for Gregory is Apponius, whose sole surviving work is a
commentary on the Song of Songs, written in the first third of the fifth
century.265 Apponius was probably a monk who lived in northern Italy,
perhaps near Rome. Rodrigue Bélanger has cited several instances of
Gregory’s dependence on Apponius.266 He correctly notes that one must
exercise due caution in seeing Apponius as a source for Gregory, since
parallels between them could be explained by a shared recourse to
Origen.267 While a shared recourse to Origen is undeniable and needs to
be taken into account when determining the extent of Apponius’s
influence on Gregory, there are cases in which one can detect the
inspiration of Apponius alongside the Alexandrian exegete.
One example of this can be found in Exp. 7, from the second part of
the prologue. In Exp. 7 Gregory follows Origen in listing several different
kinds of scriptural songs that culminate in the Song of Songs.268 While
there is not exact correspondence between the lists (Origen has six songs
that precede the Song of Songs; Gregory has four), the influence of
Origen is unmistakable. The songs enumerated by Origen in the Homilies
are:

1. the song of Moses after crossing the Red Sea (Exod 15:1-28)
2. the song sung upon the arrival at the well (Num 21:17-18)
3. the song of Moses at the bank of the Jordan (Deut 32:1-43)
4. the song of Deborah after the overthrow of Sisera (Judg 5)
5. the song of David after escaping his enemies and Saul (2 Sam 22)
6. the song of the vineyard (Isa 5:1-7)
7. the Song of Songs

In his Commentary, Origen substitutes David’s song of thanksgiving on

the appointment of Asaph and his brethren (1 Chr 16:8-36) as the fifth
song. Gregory’s first song corresponds to Origen’s first song, though he
attributes it to Miriam, not Moses, an identification based on Exodus
15:21. His second song corresponds exactly to Origen’s third. In third
place Gregory substitutes the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10). His fourth
corresponds to Origen’s fifth. While clearly influenced by Origen,
Gregory does not follow him in every detail. Gregory also adopts
Origen’s teaching that one must ascend through the songs in order
before attempting to sing the Song of Songs. But Gregory places less
stress on the order of the songs than Origen does and highlights, rather,
the different character of each song. The song of Miriam is a song of
victory. Moses’ song at the Jordan is a song of encouragement and
affirmation. The song of Hannah is a song of rejoicing. David’s song after
escaping his enemies is a song asking for help. Such categorization of the
songs is not found in Origen.
In this, Gregory may have Apponius as his point of departure.
Apponius, also clearly influenced by Origen, listed nine songs that
preceded the Song of Songs and says that “these songs were sung by
various prophets for various persons or reasons.”269 He describes the
song of Moses after crossing the Red Sea as “a song in praise of victory”
(pro victoriae laude). Though Gregory categorized this song as a song of
encouragement and affirmation, he may have developed Apponius’s idea
that each of the songs that precedes the Song of Songs has a certain
character, in that they were sung “for various persons or reasons.”
Gregory may have specified what Apponius suggested. Furthermore, the
four songs that Gregory places before the Song of Songs are all listed in
Apponius, whereas only three are found in Origen. Accordingly, Gregory
may have inserted the song of Hannah into Origen’s list based on his
reading of Apponius. And so, the example of Exp. 7 shows that, even if
both Gregory and Apponius independently used Origen, there is
evidence that Gregory may have known and appropriated Apponius as
well.
Apponius may have also influenced Gregory in Exp. 8. Most of the
second half of Gregory’s preface to the Exposition is based on Origen
(Exp. 6–7 and 9–10).270 Gregory has inserted Exp. 8 into the material he
drew from Origen. In this paragraph he explains the significance of the
names ‘Lord,’ ‘Father,’ and ‘Bridegroom.’ God uses these three titles to
indicate the character of the relationship he wants to have with the
person who calls him by these names. ‘Lord’ is used in relations where
the fear of God takes precedence. In this context, Gregory cross-
references Malachi 1:6. ‘Father’ is used when honor of God is primary,
‘Bridegroom’ when it is a question of love, and here Gregory cites Hosea
2:19-20 and Jeremiah 2:2 as cross-references. Gregory adds that these
names correspond to the stages of spiritual progress. God’s own goal is to
be called Bridegroom. Yet in order to attain this stage the Christian must
begin with fearing God, advance to honoring God, and then arrive at
loving God.
In Exp. 8 Gregory is not drawing on a single source but rather
synthesizes the ideas of others with Apponius. Lactantius had used
Malachi 1:6 to make the point that ‘Lord’ emphasizes God’s power to
punish whereas ‘Father,’ his kindness.271 The appeal to this verse for the
same theme is also found, for example, in Jerome and Cassian.272
Elsewhere in his corpus Gregory explains in a similar vein how God
prefers to be loved as Father rather than feared as Lord.273 Apponius
cites Hosea 2:19-20 and Jeremiah 2:2 as evidence that the Word is the
Bridegroom of the Church.274 And so, it appears that Gregory connects
these two streams of thought: (1) the distinction made between ‘Lord’
and ‘Father’ by appeal to Malachy 1:6, which is found in Lactantius,
Jerome, and Cassian; and (2) the significance of the title ‘Bridegroom’ by
appeal to Hosea 2:19-20 and Jeremiah 2:2 found in Apponius.

D. AMBROSE OF MILAN
Gregory esteemed Ambrose as much as he did Augustine. In a letter to
Marinianus, bishop of Ravenna, Gregory writes, “I believed it most
inappropriate that you should drink despicable water [i.e., Gregory’s
own homilies on Ezekiel], when it is certain that you regularly imbibe
the deep and clear streams from the springs of the blessed Fathers,
Ambrose and Augustine.”275 Yet the influence of Ambrose upon Gregory
in respect of his exegesis of the Song of Songs has not been much
studied. The following discusses three examples in which Gregory
borrowed from Ambrose’s interpretation of the Song of Songs.
1. In a passage in which Ambrose is interpreting Song 2:8, he discusses
the meaning of the Bridegroom’s leaping upon the mountains. Gregory
follows him closely, almost word-for-word:
Ambrose Gregory

Salit de caelo in virginem, de utero in

De caelo venit in uterum, de utero venit in praesepe, de
praesepe, de Iordane in crucem, de cruce in
praesepe venit in crucem, de cruce venit in sepulcrum, de
tumulum, in caelum de sepulcro. Proba mihi
sepulcro rediit in caelum. Ecce ut nos post se faceret,
David salientem, proba currentem. Tu enim
quos pro nobis saltus manifesta per carnem Veritas
dixisti: «Exsultavit ut gigas ad currendam
dedit, quia «exsultavit ut gigas ad currendam viam.»277
viam.»276

He leaps from heaven into the virgin, From heaven he came into the womb. From the
from the womb into the manger, from womb he came into the manger. From the manger he
the Jordan onto the cross, from the cross came onto the cross. From the cross he came into the
into the grave, from the tomb into tomb. From the tomb he returned to heaven. Behold!
heaven. Show me, David, the one who In order to make us run after him, Truth manifested
leaps, show me the one who runs. For in the flesh performed for our sake a certain number
you have said: he exulted like a giant to of leaps and he exulted like a giant to run his course [Ps
run his course [Ps 18:6]. 18:6].

Gregory takes from Ambrose both the five leaps performed by the
Bridegroom and the reference to Psalm 18:6. The heavenly Word
becomes incarnate in the womb of Mary, is born and placed in the
manger, dies on the cross and is buried, and after the resurrection
returns to heaven: this is his “course,” the course the Incarnate Word
“ran.” Though Gregory makes some minor alterations, his indebtedness
to Ambrose is clear.
Incidentally, Ambrose is here adapting an earlier christological
interpretation of Song 2:8 that views the incarnation as the descent and
ascent of the Word.278 For example, in his interpretation of Song 2:8,
Hippolytus writes, “Now what is meant by ‘leaping’? The Word leapt
from heaven into the womb of the virgin. He leapt from the holy womb
onto the tree. He leapt from the tree into hell. He leapt upward from
there to the earth in this human flesh. O new resurrection! From there
he leapt from the earth to heaven. Here he sits at the right hand of the
Father, and from there he will leap to the earth to repay the exchange of
retribution.”279 Though Hippolytus describes seven leaps of the Word, as
opposed to Ambrose’s five, Ambrose is clearly drawing on Hippolytus in
this instance. And so, through the fourth-century Ambrose, the
christological interpretation of the third-century Hippolytus has
influenced the sixth-century Gregory.
2. Gregory also follows Ambrose in his “historical” interpretation of
Song 1:1 that connects it with Luke 7:45 because both verses speak of
kissing.

Ambrose Gregory

«Osculum mihi non dedisti: haec autem ex quo

intravi, non cessavit osculari pedes meos». «Osculum mihi non dedisti: haec autem ex quo

Osculum utique insigne est charitatis. Unde ergo intravi, non cessavit osculari pedes meos».

Judaeo osculum, qui pacem non recognovit, qui Osculum quippe dilectionis est signum. Et infidelis

pacem a Christo non accepit dicente: «Pacem ille populus Deo osculum non dedit, quia ex

meam do vobis, pacem meam relinquo vobis»? caritate eum amare noluit, cui ex timore servivit.
Vocata autem gentilitas Redemptoris sui vestigia
Non habet Synagoga osculum; habet Ecclesia, osculari non cessat, quia in eius continuo amore
quae exspectavit, quae dilexit, quae dixit: « suspirat. Unde et sponsae voce de eodem
Osculetur me ab osculis oris sui»; diuturnae enim Redemptore sui in Canticis canticorum dicitur:
cupiditatis ardorem, quem adventus Dominici «Osculetur me ab osculis oris sui». Osculum recte
exspectatione adoleverat, osculo ejus volebat conditoris sui desiderat, quae se ei obsequi per
stillanter exstinguere, hoc explere sitim suam amorem parat.4
munere.3

You have not given me a kiss, yet this woman has You have not given me a kiss, yet this woman has
not ceased kissing my feet since I entered [Luke not ceased kissing my feet since I entered [Luke
7:45]. To be sure, a kiss is a sign of love. This 7:45]. Now a kiss is a sign of love. On the one
is why the kiss is not given to the Jew, seeing hand, that faithless people did not give a kiss to
that he has neither known peace nor received God because they chose not to love out of
peace from Christ when he said: My peace I charity him whom they served out of fear. But
give to you, my peace I leave you [John 14:27]. the Gentiles, on the other hand, after they were
The synagogue did not have the kiss. The called have not ceased to kiss the feet of their
Church has the kiss because she has waited for Redeemer because they sigh with unceasing
it and desired it when she said: Let him kiss me love for him. This is why in the Song of Songs it
with the kiss of his mouth [Song 1:1]. For by his is said in the voice of the Bride about that same
kiss she wished to quench bit-by-bit the Redeemer of hers: Let him kiss me with the kiss of
burning of her long desire, which had his mouth. They are right to desire the kiss of
increased as she waited for the coming of the their maker since they get themselves ready to
Lord, and to satisfy her thirst with this gift. obey him through their love.

A little before the Gregorian passage cited above, the pope had spelled
out the references in Luke 7:45: “But whom does the Pharisee,
presuming on his false justice, represent, if not the Jewish people? Who
is represented by the woman who was a sinner but came to the Lord’s
feet and wept, if not converted Gentiles?”282 Like Ambrose, Gregory
connects the kissing of Song 1:1 with the kissing of Luke 7:45 and makes
the point that “a kiss is a sign of love,” though the terminology he uses is
different. For Ambrose, the Jews did not receive the kiss because of their
lack of peace, whereas for Gregory it is because of their lack of love. For
Ambrose, the Church received the kiss because of her desire for the Lord,
whereas for Gregory the Church received the kiss because of her love.
While Gregory’s indebtedness to Ambrose is clear, he has developed
Ambrose such that reception of the kiss of the Redeemer is solely a
matter of love.
3. The next example demonstrates how Gregory could remove a
passage from its original context and make it serve his own purposes.
While Ambrose’s christological exegesis of Song 1:2b is part of a larger
argument about the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Gregory is solely
concerned with the christological exegesis of the verse, not its use in
Ambrose’s overall argument.

Ambrose Gregory

«Unguentum exinanitum est nomen tuum». Cuius «Unguentum effusum nomen tuum». Unguentum
virtute sermonis nihil potest esse praestantius. Nam effusum est diuinitas incarnata. Si enim sit
sicut inclusum in vase aliquo unguentum cohibet unguentum in uasculo, odorem exterius minus
odorem suum, qui odor quamdiu vasis illius reddit; si uero effunditur, odor effusi unguenti
angustiis coercetur, etsi ad plures non potest dilatatur. Nomen ergo dei unguentum effusum est:
pervenire, tamen vim suam servat; cum vero de quia ab inmensitate diuinitatis suae ad naturam
vase illo, quo claudebatur, unguentum fuerit nostram se exterius fudit et, ab eo quod est
effusum, longe lateque diffunditur: ita et Christi inuisibilis, se uisibilem reddidit. Si enim non se
nomen ante ejus adventum in Israel populo, quasi effunderet, nequaquam nobis innotesceret. Effudit
in vase aliquo Judaeorum mentibus claudebatur: se unguentum, cum se et deum seruauit et homo
«Notus» enim «in Judaea Deus, in Israel magnum exhibuit.6
nomen ejus»: hoc utique nomen, quod vasa
Judaeorum angustiis suis coercitum continebant.5

Your name is ointment poured-out [Song 1:2b]. Your name is ointment poured-out [Song 1:2b].
Nothing can surpass the force of this statement. Poured-out ointment is the incarnate divinity.
For just as ointment stored in some bottle Now when ointment is stored in a small bottle,
keeps in its odor, and as long as it is confined there is no odor outside of it. But when it is
in the narrow space of that bottle it preserves poured out, the odor of the poured-out
its strength, even though it cannot reach many, ointment spreads far and wide. Therefore, the
but when the ointment is poured out of the name of God is ointment poured-out because
bottle in which it was enclosed, it is diffused God poured himself out exteriorly from the
far and wide; so too the name of Christ before immensity of his divinity into our nature and
his coming among the people of Israel was rendered himself visible from that which is
enclosed in the minds of the Jews as if in some invisible. For if he had not poured himself out,
bottle. For God is known in Judah; his name is he would not have become known to us at all.
great is Israel [Ps 75:1], meaning that name that He poured himself out as ointment by both
the bottles of the Jews used to confine in their preserving himself as God and displaying
narrow spaces. himself as a human being.

Before citing Song 1:2b, Ambrose had been arguing for the divinity of
the Holy Spirit based on the fact that in Romans 5:5 the Spirit is said to
be “poured out.”285 Ambrose cited Song 1:2b to show that being poured
out is proper only to God, as this verse speaks of Christ’s pouring out,
that is, his incarnation.286 The interpretation of Song 1:2b as a prophecy
of the incarnation goes back at least to Origen, and Gregory has adopted
aspects of Origen’s exegesis of this verse.287 Yet Gregory has borrowed
Ambrose’s description of the two states of ointment, enclosed in a bottle
or poured out of it. Ambrose himself had copied this description from
Didymus the Blind.288 Hence, through Ambrose, Gregory has
appropriated a fourth-century Greek exegesis of Song 1:2b.289 Gregory
has no interest in Ambrose’s use of this verse as part of an argument for
the Holy Spirit’s divinity. By Gregory’s time this issue had been long
settled. Gregory’s interest in the verse is solely christological.

E. JOHN CASSIAN
Though Gregory was deeply influenced by John Cassian, there is
virtually no evidence that Cassian’s exegesis of the Song of Songs had an
impact on Gregory. This is not surprising since Cassian cited the Song of
Songs a mere nine times in his works. The only parallel—and it is a
slight one—between the two is found in Institutes 5.17–18. Here Cassian
cites Song 1:3b to interpret 1 Corinthians 9:26-27, in which Paul speaks
of his running not without purpose so as to attain the prize. Gregory
makes a similar connection between Song 1:3b and Paul, but cites 1
Corinthians 9:24 as an example of running to the end in perseverance.290
Both Gregory and Cassian view the “running” of Song 1:3b as the kind of
running that obtains the ultimate prize—God. Aside from this, there is
no trace of Cassian’s exegesis of the Song of Songs in Gregory. Yet there
are many instances in which doctrines of Cassian that are not specifically
associated with the exegesis of the Song of Songs turn up in Gregory’s
interpretation of particular verses. For example, Gregory borrows
Cassian’s notion that only those who are sinners do not desire the Lord’s
coming as judge, as those who are confident about their good works look
forward to it without fear.291

V. TWO NOTES TO THE READER

A. NOTE ON REFERENCES TO THE SONG OF SONGS

Because of Gregory’s habit of citing snippets of what are single verses
of the Song of Songs according to modern divisions, it has been
necessary for reference purposes to subdivide certain verses. This
happens most frequently in Song 1:1-8.

Vulgate Text English Translation

1:1a osculetur me osculo oris sui Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth!

1:1b quia meliora sunt ubera tua vino For your breasts are better than wine.

1:2a fraglantia unguentis optimis oleum The odor of your ointments surpasses all perfumes.

1:2b effusum nomen tuum Your name is ointment poured-out.

1:2c ideo adulescentulae dilexerunt te Therefore, the young girls have loved you.

1:3a trahe me Draw me.

1:3b post te curremus in odorem

After you we shall run in the odor of your ointments.
ungventorum tuorum292

1:3c introduxit me rex in cellaria sua The king has brought me into his bedchamber.

1:3d exultabimus et laetabimur in te We shall rejoice and be glad in you,

1:3e memores uberum tuorum super

mindful of your breasts that surpass wine.
vinum

1:3f recti diligunt te The upright love you.

1:4a nigra sum sed formonsa filiae I am black but beautiful,

Hierusalem daughters of Jerusalem,
1:4b sicut tabernacula Cedar like the tents of Kedar,
1:4c sicut pelles Salomonis like the curtains of Solomon.

1:5a nolite me considerare quod fusca

Do not stare at me because I am dark,
sim

for the sun has scorched me.

1:5b quia decoloravit me sol for the sun has scorched me.

1:5c filii matris meae pugnaverunt

The sons of my mother fought against me.
contra me

1:5d posuerunt me custodem in vineis They stationed me as a guardian in their vineyards,

1:5e vineam meam non custodivi but I have not guarded my own vineyard.

1:6a indica mihi quem diligit anima mea Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture,
ubi pascas ubi cubes in meridie where you lie down at midday,

1:6b ne vagari incipiam per greges lest I begin to wander after the flocks of your
sodalium tuorum companions.

1:7a si ignoras te o pulchra inter

If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women,
mulieres

1:7b egredere et abi post vestigia gregum set out and follow the tracks of the flocks,

1:7c et pasce hedos tuos iuxta and pasture your young goats near the tents of the
tabernacula pastorum shepherds.

1:8 equitatui meo in curribus Pharaonis I have associated you, my sweetheart, with my cavalry
adsimilavi te amica mea while you were in the chariots of Pharaoh.

B. NOTE ON THE TRANSLATIONS

A few words on the style and format of the following translations are
necessary. Italics are used in the translations for scriptural citations or
reminiscences; these are always followed by the scriptural reference in
square brackets, for example [John 1:1]. References to scriptural
allusions are given in the footnotes. Single quotation marks (‘ ’) are used
to signal when Gregory is quoting a scriptural phrase, sometimes not
exactly, or even a single word from a verse of Scripture, before he offers
his own interpretation. Single quotation marks are also used to signal
when Gregory is talking about a word in itself, not the object that it
names. Double quotation marks (“ ”) almost always signal one of
Gregory’s interpretive paraphrases of a scriptural verse. On rare
occasions words are inserted in square brackets to improve the sense.
In these translations I have attempted to render Gregory as clearly as
possible in English without making him clearer than he is in Latin and
have refrained from making his prose more exciting than his somewhat
wooden style warrants. In fact, Gregory’s style varies considerably in the
texts contained in this volume. In the excerpts from the Moralia and
Gregory’s other published works, Gregory’s prose is elegant and terse,
marked by long periods and variety in vocabulary. The style of the
Exposition falls short of the refinement of his published works. This is not
surprising given the fact that the Exposition is a notary’s copy of an oral
delivery that Gregory never polished. Here, Gregory’s style is at times
repetitious and unglamorous. Yet the lack of flourish in his words is
counterbalanced by the profundity in his thought. In these translations I
have aimed to avoid the extremes of literalism and paraphrase. On the
one hand, I have strived to produce English prose that is understandable,
idiomatic, and felicitous; on the other hand, I have endeavored not to
stray into paraphrase so that the words and phrases of the translations
could be matched with the Latin on which they are based. Dear reader,
the result of my efforts is now before you.
 1. In the following sketch of the historical context of Gregory, I am particularly indebted to
the following works: Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–430 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1993); Averil Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity.
AD 395–600 (London: Routledge, 1993); A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); and Mark Humphries, “Italy, A.D.
425–605,” in Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–605, ed. Averil Cameron, Bryan
Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby, 525–51 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
See also Jeffery Richards, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), 4–24; and Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek
Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–
752 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), 1–5.

2. Thomas S. Burns, Barbarians within the Gates of Rome (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1994); Thomas S. Burns, Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).

3. Roger Collins, Early Medieval Europe, 2nd ed. (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1999).

4. Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997).

5. H.Ez. 2.6 [22], 524–28 (CCSL 14:310).

6. There are several excellent short sketches of Gregory’s life before becoming pope:
Richards, Consul of God, 25–43; Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 6–13; Carole Straw, Gregory the
Great (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), 1–8; R. A. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 8–14; John R. C. Martyn, The Letters of
Gregory the Great (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004), 1–13; John
Moorhead, Gregory the Great (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 1–9. See also Pierre
Riché, Petite vie de saint Grégoire le Grand (540–604) (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1995).

7. H.Ev. 38 [15], 392 (CCSL 141:375); Dial. 4.17. Note that atavus may simply mean
“ancestor.”

8. Agapitus was the son of a priest named Gordianus, a name found in Gregory’s own family,
suggesting a relation to him; see LP 59.

9. In VG 1.1 John the Deacon anachronistically calls Gordianus a regionarius (PL 75:63a), but
in all likelihood he was a defensor.
 10. H.Ev. 38 [15], 361–435 (CCSL 141:373–76); Dial. 4.17.1–2.

11. John the Deacon, VG 1.1 (PL 75:63a) and 1.9 (PL 75:66a).

12. Reg. ep. 1.37 (CCSL 140:44).

13. For Palatinus, see Reg. ep. 11.4.5 (CCSL 140A:862); for the unnamed brother, see Reg. ep.
9.201 (CCSL 140A:759). On both, see John R. C. Martyn, “Six notes on Gregory the Great,”
Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s. 29 (2003): 1–25, at 12–15.

14. HF 10.1 (MGH-SRM 1/1: 478, 14): ab adulescentia devotus Deo.

15. VG 2 (PL 75:42a–43a): Hic in annis adolescentiae in quibus solet ea aetas vias saeculi ingredi
Deo coepit devotus existere, et ad supernae vitae patriam totis desideriis anhelare.

16. On the state of education in Lombard Italy and Gregory’s own learning, see Pierre Riché,
Education and Culture in the Barbarian West (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1976), 139–76. See also Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le Grand: culture et expérience chrétiennes
(Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1977), 16–24 and 31–34; and Martyn, Letters, 2–3 and 101–14.

17. HF 10.1 (MGH-SRM 1/1: 478, 8–9): Litteris grammaticis dialectisque ac rethoricis ita est
institutus ut nulli in Urbe ipsa putaretur esse secundus.

18. The issue of Gregory’s Greek has attracted much scholarly attention; G. J. M. Bartelink,
“Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. John C.
Cavadini, 117–36 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), provides the best
summation. See also the recent summaries of Martyn, Letters, 102–3; and Ekonomou, Byzantine
Rome, 14–15.

19. E.g. Reg. past. 3.praef., where Gregory uses Gregory of Nazianzus.

20. Reg. ep. 4.2.10–11 (CCSL 140:218). The mss. read both urbanam praefecturam (urban
prefect) and urbanam praeturam (urban praetor), and the latter reading is found in the better
mss. (F. Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols. (London:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905), 1.101 n. 1; and Martyn, Letters, 3). At VG 1.4 John the
Deacon also says that Gregory was urban praetor (PL 75:64b): sub praetoris urbani habitu. Most
scholars reject the reading praeturam and the witness of John the Deacon since the office of
praetor was defunct by Gregory’s time (Dudden, Gregory the Great, 1.101 n. 1; Straw, Gregory
the Great, 20 n. 6; see Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 8 n. 35). The reading praeturam
could also be a textual corruption, a scribe accidentally omitting -fec-from praefecturam due to
skipping from the letter f to letter t. Martyn, however, adopts the minority position and prefers
the reading praeturam and holds that Gregory became urban praetor in 573 and urban prefect a
year later in 574 (Martyn, Letters, 3).

21. Mor. ad Leandrum [1], 5–15 (CCSL 143:1); trans. [modified] Martyn, Letters, 379–80.

22. See Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 17–26.

23. John the Deacon, VG 1.5.

24. Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1; Paul the Deacon, VG 3; John the Deacon, VG 1.5–6.

25. Valentio: Dial. 4.22.1; Maximian: Dial. 3.36.1; 4.33.1; and H.Ev. 34.18. 26. Ekonomou,
Byzantine Rome, 5 and 8.

26.Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 5 and 8.

27. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 5.

28. Pelagius, Ep. 1 (PL 72:703d); see Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 5 and 9–10.

29. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 11.

30. For a history of the debate before Gregory became involved, see Yves-Marie Duval, “La
discussion entre l’aprocrisaire Grégoire et la patriarche Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de
la chair: l’arrière-plan doctrinal oriental et occidental,” in Grégoire le Grand, ed. Jacques
Fontaine et al., 347–66 (Paris: CNRS, 1986).

31. For Gregory’s account, see Mor. 14.56 [72–75] (CCSL 143A:743–6).

32. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 11–12.

33. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 12.

34. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, 12.

35. For Gregory’s more “social” activities in Constantinople, see Markus, Gregory the Great
and His World, 11–12; and Martyn, Letters, 7–11.

36. Mor. ad Leandrum [1], 33–43 (CCSL 143:2); trans. Martyn, Letters, 380.

37. Dial. 1, prol. 3–5.

38. Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1.

 39. Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1; Paul the Deacon, VG 10; John the Deacon, VG 1.39–40.

40. Richards, Consul of God, 41.

41. The text is preserved in Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1.

42. Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1; Paul the Deacon, VG 11–12; Paul the Deacon, Historia
Langobardorum 3.24; John the Deacon, VG 1.41–43.

43. Gregory of Tours, HF 1.10, records that Gregory planned to go into hiding to avoid being
consecrated but was abducted before he had the chance. This account was later embellished:
Paul the Deacon, VG 13; and John the Deacon, VG 1.44. See Richards, Consul of God, 42 and
Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 13. There seems to be some truth to it, since Gregory
refers to his planned escape from the papacy by hiding himself away (delitescendo) in Reg. ep.
1.24a.

44. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 13.

45. The best example is Reg. ep. 1.5, to Theoctista, but also see Reg. ep. 1.3; 1.4; 1.6; 1.7;
1.24; 1.25; 1.29; and 1.30.

46. Reg. ep. 1.20, 7–9 [January 591] (CCSL 140:19); trans. (slightly modified) Martyn,
Letters, 133.

47. Reg. ep. 1.26, 9–11 [February 591] (CCSL 140:34); trans. Martyn, Letters, 148–49.

48. Essential studies of Gregory’s papacy are Dudden, Gregory the Great; Richards, Consul of
God; and Markus, Gregory the Great and His World. Good summations can be found in
Moorhead, Gregory the Great, 5–9; and Straw, Gregory the Great, 14–41.

49. On the papal patrimony, see Richards, Consul of God, 126–39; Straw, Gregory the Great,
16–20; and Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 112–24.

50. On Gregory’s intervention in ecclesial affairs outside the Roman church, see Dudden,
Gregory the Great, 1.402–76; 2.43–159, and 201–37; Richards, Consul of God, 195–227; Straw,
Gregory the Great, 26–37; and Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 143–202.

51. Whitby VG 6; Bede, HE 2.1.

52. See Reg. ep. 12.6, discussed below.

53. On Gregory’s inner circle, see Richards, Consul of God, 70–84.

 54. Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2.173–200; Richards, Consul of God, 251–8; Markus, Gregory
the Great and His World, 68–72.

55. For a description of the collection, see Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 14–15;
Moorhead, Gregory the Great, 16–17; Straw, Gregory the Great, 47–9; and Martyn, Letters, 13–
14.

56. Descriptions of Gregory’s works can be found in Markus, Gregory the Great and His World,
14–16; Straw, Gregory the Great, 41–60; Moorhead, Gregory the Great, 10–18. A list of editions
and translations can be found in the bibliography.

57. Mor. ad Leandrum [2], 72–90 (CCSL 143:3).

58. Reg. ep. 1.41, 51–58 [April 591] (CCSL 140:49). See also Paul Meyvaert, “Uncovering a
Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the Early Commentary on Job,” Traditio 50
(1995): 55–74 at 63–64; and Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 186 n. 99.

59. For example, the copying of Gregory’s Moralia at the New Monastery at Cîteaux was
completed on December 23, 1111 (the codex is now at Bibliothèque Municipale in Dijon, mss.
168–170, 173, cat. nos. 24–25). It was the first book copied after the liturgical books (1099)
and the Stephen Harding Bible (1109). It deeply influenced the first Cistercians. On the
illumination of this codex, see Conrad Rudolph, Violence and Daily Life: Reading, Art, and
Polemics in the Cîteaux Moralia in Job (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997). On
Gregory’s influence on the Middle Ages more generally, see Jean Leclerq, The Love of Learning
and the Desire for God, 3rd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), 25–36; and Terryl
Kinder, Cistercian Europe: Architecture of Contemplation (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 2002), 27.

60. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 14.

61. Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 518.

62. For the date, see Raymond Étaix, Gregorius Magnus: Homiliae in Evangelia, CCSL 141
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), lvix–lxix.

63. This is the date to which Paul Ewald and Ludwig Hartmann assign Gregory’s prefatory
letter to Bishop Secundinus of Taormina in Sicily; see the comments in their edition on Ep.
4.17a (Gregorii I papae registrum epistolarum, MGH, 1.251); this letter is not included in
Norberg’s CCSL edition but is found in Étaix’s edition of H.Ev. (CCSL 141:1–2).

64. This date is inferred from internal evidence: these homilies seem to have been preached
as the Lombard Agilulf was approaching Rome in 593; see H.Ez. 2, praef. (CCSL 142:205), and
2.10.24 (CCSL 142:397). Note that the first book of homilies may have been delivered earlier
in 591–92.

65. H.Ez. praef., 5 (CCSL 142:3).

66. The best analysis of the Dialogues can be found in the first volume of Adalbert de Vogüé’s
edition: Grégoire le Grand. Dialogues, Vol. 1, SChr 251 (Paris: Cerf, 1978). Also see Joan M.
Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in the Late Antique Cultural Background (Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984); William D. McCready, Signs of Sanctity:
Miracles in the Thought of Gregory the Great (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
1989); and Adalbert de Vogüé, The Life of Saint Benedict—Gregory the Great (Petersham, MA:
Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993).

67. The most recent debate was sparked by the work of Francis Clark, most fully argued in
his The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues (Leiden: Brill, 1987) and his The “Gregorian” Dialogues and
the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism (Leiden: Brill, 2003). For summaries of the debate and
references to further literature, see Straw, Gregory the Great, 54–55; Markus, Gregory the Great
and His World, 15–16; and Moorhead, Gregory the Great, 160 n. 22. For the latest reports, see
Terrence Kardong, “Who wrote the Dialogues of Saint Gregory? A Report on a Controversy,”
Cistercian Studies Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2004): 31–39; and Adalbert de Vogüé, “Is Gregory the
Great the Author of the Dialogues?” American Benedictine Review 56, no. 3 (2005): 309–14.

68. Adalbert de Vogüé, “L’auteur du Commentaire des Rois attribué à saint Grégoire: un
moine de Cava?” Revue Bénédictine 106 (1996): 319–31.

69. See Straw, Gregory the Great, 53–54, for details.

70. See Dudden, Gregory the Great, 1.243; Martyn, Letters, 5–7.

71. LP 66.

72. See Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2.273–76, for an account of Gregory’s relics and their
frequent translation.

73. John the Deacon, VG 4.68 (PL 75:221bc).

74. Whitby VG 29; Paul the Deacon, VG 27; John the Deacon, VG 2.44. For discussion, see
Dudden, Gregory the Great, 1.43; Bertram Colgrave, The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an
Anonymous Monk of Whitby (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1968), 161–63.
 75. ST Suppl. q. 71 a. 5. Saint Thomas derived his information from John of Damascus’s
Oratio de his qui in fide dormierunt 16 (PG 95:261d–64a).

76. Purgatorio 10, 73–93; Paradiso 20, 106–17.

77. Whitby VG 20; Paul the Deacon, VG 23; John the Deacon, VG 2.41. See also Dudden,
Gregory the Great, 2.272.

78. See Patricia DeLeeuw, “Unde et Memores, Domine: Memory and Time and the Mass of
Saint Gregory,” in Memory and the Middle Ages, ed. Nancy Netzer and Virginia Reunburg, 33–
42 (Boston: Boston College Museum of Art, 1995); and Caroline Walker Bynum, “Seeing and
Seeing Beyond: The Mass of Saint Gregory in the Fifteenth Century,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and
Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, ed. Jeffrey F. Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché,
208–40 (Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University in
association with Princeton University Press, 2005). Both articles include numerous examples of
the scene.

79. Whitby VG 26; Paul the Deacon, VG 28 (this is actually an interpolated text and is not
original to Paul); John the Deacon, VG 4.69. See Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2.269–70 and 272;
and Colgrave, The Earliest Life, 157.

80. Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1. See above, p. 15.

81. LP 66.

82. Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus 40 [53–56] (PL 83:1102a–3a).

83. Idefonsus of Toledo, De virorum illustrium scriptis 1 (PL 96:198c–99b).

84. Bede, HE 2.1.

85. Edition: Colgrave, The Earliest Life.

86. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 2.

87. For convenience, I refer to all the early accounts of Gregory’s life and writings, both the
chapters included in longer works and the biographies devoted exclusively to him, as the
“early medieval biographies.”

88. LP 66.

89. Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus 40 [55] (PL 83:1103a): et alios libros morales
scripsisse.

90. Paul the Deacon, VG 14 (PL 75:48c): Scripsit praeterea et alia nonnulla, sed et epistolas
complures.

91. Dom Bernard Capelle, “Les homélies de saint Grégoire sur le Cantique,” Revue Bénédictine
41 (1929): 204–17. See also Rodrigue Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand: commentaire sur le Cantique
des cantiques, SChr 314 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 15–21.

92. Robert was born at Tombelaine, became a monk at Mont-Saint-Michel, and was made
abbot of Saint-Vigor near Bayeux. He died before 1090. His commentary can be found in PL
150:1361–70.

93. Patrick Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le
Cantique des cantiques,” Revue Bénédictine 73 (1963): 277–88, at 285. This mixed text was
printed again in 1496 at Bâle and in 1498–99 at Paris, also without discussion of authenticity.

94. Pierre de Goussainville, Sancti Gregorii Papae Primi cognomenato Magni Opera in tres tomos
distributa (Lutetiae Parisiorum: Impensis Societatis Typographicae, 1675).

95. Dom Denys de Saint-Marthe, Histoire de S. Grégoire le Grand, Pape et Docteur de l’Église
(Rouen: Behourt, 1697), 555–58.

96. Sancti Gregorii Papae I cognomento Magni Opera omnia, t. III (Paris, 1705), Part 2, cols.
397–414. This text was reprinted by Migne: PL 79:471–547, along with the Maurist preface at
PL 79:467–71. One of their key arguments for the Gregorian authorship of the text was the
discovery of an excerpt from the exposition in the florilegium of Gregorian texts compiled by
Paterius, the notary of Gregory (see PL 79:1060b-d). But this argument was subsequently
proven to be without merit when it was determined that the excerpt in question is found only
in the medieval elaboration of the florilegium of Paterius. See André Wilmart, “Le recueil
grégorien de Paterius et les fragments wisigothiques de Paris,” Revue Bénédictine 39 (1927):
81–104, and Raymond Étaix, “Le Liber testimonium de Paterius,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses
32 (1958): 66–78. Hence, the Maurist argument for attribution to Gregory rests solely on the
widespread attribution to him in the mss. tradition.

97. PL 79:471.

98. Casimir Oudin, Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae Antiquis (Frankfort and Leipzig,
1722), t. II, cols. 768–76.

99. In the early 1890s, J. Barthélemy Hauréau adopted the views of Oudin; see his Notices et
extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Klincksieck, 1890–93), t.
V, pp. 15–19.

100. See Capelle, “Les homélies,” 207–10, with the elaborations and corrections of
Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 277–88; and Bélanger, Gregoire le Grand, 16–21.

101. The Hieronymian provenance of the prologue to Robert’s commentary was first
detected by P. A. Vaccari, “De scriptis S. Gregorii Magni in Canticum Canticorum,” Verbum
Domini 9 (1929): 306 n. 3.

102. Capelle, “Les homélies,” 210–14.

103. Reg. ep. 12.6, 31–42 (CCSL 140A:975): Praeterea quia isdem carissimus quondam filius
meus Claudius aliqua me loquente de prouerbiis, de canticis canticorum, de prophetis, de libris
quoque regum et de eptatico audierat, quae ego scripto tradere prae infirmitate non potui, ipse ea suo
sensu dictauit, ne obliuione deperirent, ut apto tempore haec eadem mihi inferret et emendatius
dictarentur. Quae cum mihi legisset, inueni dictorum meorum sensum ualde inutilius fuisse
permutatum. Unde necesse est ut tua experientia, omni excusatione atque more cessante, ad eius
monasterium accedat, conuenire fratres faciat et sub omni ueritate quantascumque de diuersis
scripturis chartulas detulit, ad medium deducant, quas tu suscipe et mihi celerrime transmitte.

104. Vogüé, “L’auteur du Commentaire des Rois.” The true author was Peter of Cava, a
twelfth-century Italian abbot. In Vogüé’s own six-volume edition and translation of this
commentary, Grégoire le Grand (Pierre de Cava): Commentaire sur les Premier Livre des Rois, 6
vols., SChr 351, 391, 432, 449, 469, 482 (Paris: Cerf, 1989–2004), he recognizes the true
author from vol. 3 onward.

105. Patrick Verbraken edited the text along with the Exposition on the Song of Songs in his
Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones in Canticum Canticorum, in Librum Primum Regum, CCSL 144
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1963).

106. This opinion ultimately goes back to the Maurist edition of 1705 (repr. in PL 79:471–
548; see their introduction at PL 79:467–71). It was followed by Dudden, Gregory the Great,
1.187–222; Pierre Batiffol, Saint Grégoire le Grand, 2nd ed. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1928), 47–51; O.
Porcel, La doctrina monastica de San Gregorio Magno y la ‘Regula Monachorum’ (Washington, DC:
1951), 36–57; Capelle, “Les homélies” and Verbraken, Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones, vii.

107. Paul Meyvaert, “The Date of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on the Canticle of
Canticles and on I Kings,” Sacris Erudiri 23 (1978–79): 191–216; Adalbert de Vogüé, “Les vues
of Grégoire le Grand sur la vie religieuse dans son commentaire des Rois,” Studia Monastica 20
(1978): 17–63; English translation: “The Views of St Gregory the Great on the Religious Life in
His Commentary on the Book of Kings,” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 17 (1982): 40–64 and 212–
32. Both Meyvaert and Vogüé assumed the Gregorian authorship of the commentary on 1
Kings, but their arguments against the older opinion of the date of the exposition on the Song
is not otherwise affected by this.

108. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 197–98; Vogüé, “The Views,” 43–44.

109. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 192–98; Vogüé, “The Views,” 44–45, limits Claudius’s visit to
Rome to the years 597–98. We know for certain that Claudius stayed in Rome for an
indeterminate yet extended period, leaving in April 598 (Reg. ep. 8.18). Vogüé assumes a visit
of less than a year. Meyvaert’s argument for a visit of around three years is based on his
interpretation of Gregory’s letter to Marinianus, Bishop of Ravenna, written in January 596
(Reg. ep. 6.24), which he sees as implying that Claudius was already in Rome appealing to the
pope before the death of Bishop John of Ravenna, the successor of Marinianus with whom
Claudius had jurisdictional problems, a length of time also implied by Gregory’s letter to
Marinianus in April 598 (see Meyvaert, “The Date,” 193–94).

110. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 27–28; and K. Suso Frank, Origenes und Gregor der Grosse.
Das Hohelied (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1987), 81, also accept this date. Meyvaert, “The Date,”
198–202, advances the further argument that Gregory’s inability to dictate due to the sickness
best corresponds to what is known of the middle and later years of his pontificate.

111. See Meyvaert, “The Date,” 201–7.

112. See Meyvaert, “The Date,” 198; Vogüé, “The Views,” 44–45. Here Vogüé also
speculates, based on Gregory’s earlier collaboration with the Deacon Peter in the Dialogues, on
the nature and form of the exegetical collaboration between Gregory and Claudius. He suggests
that Claudius “conversed with Gregory, in the presence of a few companions or even one to
one, on scriptural texts whose meaning they sought to penetrate together. In these
conversations Claudius played the role of the disciple who helps the master’s developments by
his intelligence, modesty, and receptivity” (45). But this remains conjecture.

113. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 198.

114. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 207–8.

115. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 209.

116. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 214–15; Vogüé, “The Views,” 45; Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 28.
 117. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 215; Vogüé, “The Views,” 45–46; Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 28.
Vogüé even speculates that Gregory, dissatisfied with Claudius’s work, sent him back to
Ravenna recommending that he not circulate the exposition.

118. Verbraken, Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones, vi.

119. This was the position first expressed in the Maurist Life of Gregory, published by
Thomas Gals in 1698 (Sancti Gregorii Papae I Vita VI, 9; repr. PL 75:447–48) and was followed
and developed by subsequent scholars such as Capelle, “Les homélies,” and Verbraken, Sancti
Gregorii Magni Expositiones, vii.

120. Meyvaert, “The Date,” 212 and 215. Robert Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 16
n. 72, appears to agree with Meyvaert.

121. For the evidence, see Meyvaert, “The Date,” 212 n. 46 and 214 n. 48.

122. For example, Exp. 16.

123. For example, Exp. 43.

124. A point well made by Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 25; see, for example, Exp. 22–24 and
37.

125. Exp. 3.

126. These arguments were laid out by Capelle, “Les homélies,” and have been followed by
Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand; and Frank, Origenes und Gregor der Grosse, 81–82.

127. Capelle, “Les homélies,” 216; followed by Patrick Verbraken, “Le commentaire de Saint
Gregoire sur le Premier Livre des Rois,” Revue Bénédictine 66 (1956): 159–217, at 213; see also
Meyvaert, “The Date,” 214 n. 48. Capelle also noted that the Exposition contained citations of
the Song in the Vulgate form which varied from Gregory’s Old Latin citations elsewhere, e.g.,
the exposition’s Vulgate Song 1:7 (Si ignoras te) differs from the Old Latin version elsewhere
cited by Gregory (Nisi cognoveris te). Capelle saw in this an indication of the hand of Claudius,
but I prefer Bélanger’s explanation of this, that Gregory simply used the scriptural version of
his sources (Grégoire le Grand, 63).

128. Augustine, Sermon 295.5 (PL 38:1351): Nam videte quid dicat sponsus dilectae suae in
Cantico canticorum, quando ei dixit sponsa, «Annuntia mihi, quem dilexit anima mea, ubi pascis, ubi
cubas in meridie; ne forte fiam sicut operta, super greges sodalium tuorum» [Song 1:6]. Annuntia,
inquit, mihi, ubi pascis, ubi cubas in meridie, in splendore veritatis, in fervore charitatis.
 129. See below p. 87.

130. Capelle, “Les homélies,” 214–15. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 68 n. 2, also follows
Capelle’s interpretation.

131. Capelle, “Les homélies,” 215–16.

132. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 26.

133. John the Deacon, VG 4.70 (PL 75:222–23).

134. Columbanus, Ep. 1; edition: G. S. M. Walker, ed., Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores
Latini Hiberniae, v. 2 (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1957), 2–12. For the date
of this letter, see p. xxxvi. For a discussion of this letter, see John R. C. Martyn, “Pope Gregory
the Great and the Irish,” Journal of Australian Early Medieval Association 1 (2005): 65–83.

135. Ep. 1 (Walker, 10, 11–23); trans. Martyn, “Pope Gregory the Great and the Irish,” 82.

136. See Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 279–80; and Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 21–
22.

137. See the discussion of sources below.

138. See Mor. 35.20 [49] (CCSL 143B:1810–11); and H.Ez. 2.10 [24] (CCSL 142:397).

139. For this argument, see Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 280–81; and Verbraken,
Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones, viii, and the critical apparatus on p. 3. Note that Verbraken
excises these words from his critical text.

140. See the critical apparatus on pp. 3 and 27.

141. Capelle, “Les homélies,” 215; Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 279; and Denys
Turner, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs, CS156 (Kalamazoo, MI:
Cistercian, 1995), 248 n. 2.

142. See Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 280; and Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 22.

143. De virorum illustrium scriptis 1 (PL 96:198d–99a): Super librum Salomonis, cui titulus est
Canticum canticorum, quam mire scribens morali sensu opus omne exponendo percurrit.

144. Though Ildephonsus lived in Spain and wrote within sixty years of Gregory’s death, he
was in a good position to know the corpus of Gregory. See Markus, Gregory the Great, 164–68,
for Gregory’s relationship with the Spanish church. This relationship was fostered through
Leander, bishop of Seville from 579 to 601, whom Gregory had befriended when both were
residents of Constantinople in the early 580s. At the request of Leander, Gregory revised his
lectures on Job and dedicated and sent the finished composition, the Moralia, to him. Leander
was succeeded as bishop of Seville by his brother, Isidore, who served from 601 to 636. In his
De viris illustribus 40, on Gregory, Isidore proves that the Regula pastoralis, the Moralia, and
Homilies on the Gospels were known in Spain during his lifetime (PL 83:1102). The De virorum
illustrium scriptis of Ildephonsus was a conscious continuation of his contemporary Isidore’s
similar work. He explicitly alludes to the Gregorian works mentioned by Isidore and lists
several other works that were known in Spain at the time: the Homilies on Ezekiel, the
Exposition on the Song of Songs, the Dialogues, and the Register of Letters (PL 96:198–99).

145. Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 280; and Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 146. One
could think of these collections of excerpts as the precursors of today’s textbooks on the
thought of particular ancient Christian writers, which present their doctrine in a systematic
way and are essential for introducing these figures to a new audience. The most famous
versions of such collections were Peter Abelard’s Sic et non and Peter Lombard’s Libri quatuor
sententiarum.

147. PL 80:727–990. Taio notes that he supplemented Gregory with Augustine when he
could not find Gregorian passages on the subject at hand (praef. 4 [PL 80:729b]).

148. Susanne Müller, “Fervorem discamus amoris”: das Hohelied und seine Auslegung bei Gregor
dem Grossen (Saint Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991), 49–229.

149. Mor. 27.2 and H.Ev. 25 are listed for both Song 3:1-2 and 3:3-4. Gregory’s comments on
Song 3:1-4 should be considered together.

150. Reg. ep. 7.23 on Song 1:3; H.Ev. 33 [7] on Song 2:9a; Mor. 27.2 on Song 5:7; and Reg.
past. 1.11 on Song 7:4.

151. See Markus, Gregory the Great, 112–22. See Reg. ep. 5.26; 6.12; and 9.98 for instances of
Gregory dictating to Paterius.

152. John the Deacon, VG 2.11. On Gregory’s intimates, see Richards, Consul of God, 70–84.

153. The earliest reference to Paterius in Gregory’s letters is in Reg. ep. 5.26 (February 595).
He is mentioned in three others: 6.12 (September 595); 9.98 (January 599); and 11.15 (5
October 600).

154. Paterius is named as secundicerius in Reg. ep. 9.98 and 11.15; see also John the Deacon,
VG 2.11.

155. John the Deacon, VG 2.11 (PL 75:92a): Paterium aeque notarium, qui ab eo secundicerius
factus, ex libris ipsius aliqua utillima defloravit.

156. Paterius, Liber testimonium, prooem. (PL 79:683–86). The undertaking of the
compilation during the lifetime of Gregory is further supported by the fact that Paterius
preserved numerous extracts from earlier editions of Mor. and H.Ez. that were not incorporated
into the final editions (Étaix, “Le Liber testimonium de Paterius,” 78).

157. PL 79:683–916. The two following parts printed in Migne (PL 79:917–1136) are not the
work of Paterius but of an anonymous twelfth-century complier. Neither is the preface to the
three parts (PL 79:681–84) Paterius’s but rather that of someone named Bruno.

158. The thirteen books cover Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, 1
and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Songs.

159. For a good overview of Bede’s life and writings, see Benedicta Ward, The Venerable
Bede, CS 169 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1998).

160. For example, David Hurst, trans. Bede the Venerable: Excerpts from the Works of Saint
Augustine on the Letters of the Blessed Apostle Paul, CS 183 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1999).

161. While Bede considered his Commentary on the Song of Songs to consist of seven books,
the editors of the modern critical edition of the text have organized it into six books preceded
by a long introduction, despite the fact that Bede himself considered the introduction to be the
first book. While this move on the part of the editors seems dubious, I adopt their division of
the work to facilitate easy reference to their edition.

162. The text here actually reads “seventh.” See the preceding note.

163. Cant. 6, 10–14 (CCSL 119B:359).

164. Cant. 6, 17–21 (CCSL 119B:359).

165. P1.2; P18; P20; P21; P31; P34B; and P39.

166. B1; B3; B5; B16; B20; B21; B24; B26; B29; B33; B34; B38; and B47.

167. P2, B4; P5, B7; P6, B8; P24, B24; P28, B31; B37, P34; P36, B40; P38, B42; P43, B46;
P44, B48; P45, B49; P46, B50; and P49, B53.
 168. This designation appears to have been popularized by Dom Anselme Le Bail (1878–
1956), a Cistercian monk of Scourmont Abbey in Belgium who is largely responsible for
renewed interest in the Cistercian Fathers in the twentieth century; see Louis Bouyer, The
Cistercian Heritage (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958), 13.

169. Though dated, Jean Marie Déchanet, William of Saint Thierry: The Man and his Work, CS
10 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1972), remains a basic introduction to William’s life and
thought. Déchanet overstates William’s reliance on the Greek fathers. For a more recent
introduction to William’s thought, see David N. Bell, Image and Likeness: The Augustinian
Spirituality of William of Saint Thierry, CS 78 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1984). Also
recommended as an overview: M. Basil Pennington, The Last of the Fathers, Studies in
Monasticism 1 (Still River, MA: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1983), 109–80.

170. William, Vita Bernardi 1.7, 32–34 (PL 185:246b–47d).

171. William, Vita Bernardi 1.12, 59 (PL 185:259bc); trans. Déchanet, William of Saint
Thierry, 26–27.

172. Paul Verdeyen, Stanislaw Ceglar, and Antonius van Burink, Guillelmi a Sancto
Theodorico Expositio super Cantica canticorum, Brevis commentatio, Excerpta de libris beati
Ambrosii et Gregorii super Cantica canticorum, CCCM 87 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 155–96.

173. Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, 207–384.

174. Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, 387–444.

175. Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, 19–133.

176. William, Epistula ad fratres de monte Dei, praef., 11 (SChr 223:138 Déchanet): Excerpsi
enim ex libris sancti Ambrosii quicquid in eis disseruit super Cantica canticorum, opus grande et
inclytum; similiter et ex beati Gregorii, sed diffusius quam Beda fecerit. Nam idem Beda, ut nostis,
ultimum in Canticis suis librum hanc ipsam exceptionem constituit.

177. Mark DelCogliano, “The Composition of William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts from the
Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs,” Cîteaux: Commentarii cistercienses 58 (2007): 62–
64.

178. For a detailed discussion of William’s methodology, see DelCogliano, “The Composition
of William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts,” 64–76.

179. William seems to have been ignorant of the extant fragment of Gregory’s own
commentary on the Song of Songs.

180. The following survey of the history of interpretation is highly selective. For more
comprehensive surveys, see Friedrich Ohly, Hohelied-Studien: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der
Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1958); Marvin H.
Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 89–229; Roland E. Murphy, The Song
of Songs (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 11–41; and Duane Garrett, Song of Songs
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), 59–91. See also the classic essay of H. H.
Rowley, “Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” in his The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on
the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 197–245.

181. The influence of early Rabbinic allegorical exegesis of the Song on early Christian
exegesis is more often assumed than proven. There is evidence for first-century Rabbinic
dispute over the canonicity of the Song, but clear evidence for its allegorical interpretation
emerges only in the seventh and eighth centuries, even if it developed earlier. See Roland E.
Murphy, “Patristic and Medieval Exegesis—Help or Hindrance?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43
(1981): 505–16, at 506; and Garrett, Song of Songs, 60. For a discussion of Rabbinic exegesis of
the Song, see Daniel Boyarin, “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality, Allegory, and
Midrash,” in The Book and the Text: Bible and Literary Theory, ed. Regina M. Schwartz, 214–30
(Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990).

182. On Cistercian exegesis of the Song of Songs, see Ohly, Hohelied-Studien, 135–205;
Matter, Voice of my Beloved, 123–33.

183. Killian Walsh and Irene Edmonds, trans., Bernard of Clairvaux: Sermons on the Song of
Songs, 4 vols., CF 4, 7, 31, and 40 (Spencer, MA: Cistercian, 1971–80).

184. Lawrence C. Braceland, trans., Gilbert of Hoyland: Sermons on the Song of Songs, 3 vols.,
CF 14, 20, and 26 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1978–79).

185. Wendy Mary Beckett, trans., John of Ford: Sermons on the Song of Songs, 7 vols., CF 29,
39, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1978–84).

186. See p. 55.

187. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 25.

188. E. Kallas, “Martin Luther as Expositor of the Song of Songs,” Lutheran Quarterly 2
(1988): 323–41.

189. A few twentieth-century Catholic scholars have produced allegorical interpretations,

such as: Paschal P. Parente, “The Canticle of Canticles in Mystical Theology,” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 6 (1944): 142–58; and Alfonso de Rivera, “Sentido mariológico del Cantar de los
Cantares” Ephemerides mariológicas 1 (1951): 437–68 and 2 (1952): 25–42. For a critique of
Rivera, see Roland E. Murphy, “The Canticle of Canticles and the Virgin Mary,” Carmelus 1
(1954): 18–28; and Pope, Song of Songs, 188–92. There is also a French Catholic school of
“midrashic” allegorical interpretation; see the following: André Robert and Raymond J.
Tournay, with André Feuillet, Le Cantique des Cantiques: Traduction et commentaire (Paris: J.
Gabalda, 1963); Raymond J. Tournay, Word of God, Song of Love: A Commentary on the Song of
Songs (New York: Paulist, 1988); and André Feuillet, Comment lire le Cantique des Cantiques:
Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse (Paris: Téqui, 1999).

190. André LaCocque, Romance She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 1998); Corey Ellen Walsh, Exquisite Desire:
Religion, the Erotic and the Song of Songs (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000); Christos
Yannaras, Variations on the Song of Songs (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005);
and Larry L. Lyke, I Will Espouse You Forever: The Song of Songs and the Theology of Love in the
Hebrew Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007).

191. J. Cheryl Exum, The Song of Songs (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005),
1.

192. Good summaries of modern scholarship on the Song of Songs include: E. Ann Matter,
“Song of Songs, Book of,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. vol. 2, ed. John H. Hayes, 495–
96 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999); and Exum, The Song of Songs, 78–86.

193. For example, Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986);
and Iain W. Provan, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).

194. The best example of this is Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian
Love Songs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985).

195. Such is the thrust of the commentaries of Murphy and Exum. See also Ariel Bloch and
Chana Bloch, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (New
York: Random House, 1995).

196. For example, Phyllis Trible, “Love’s Lyrics Redeemed,” in God and the Rhetoric of
Sexuality, 144–65 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1978); repr. in Harold Bloom, ed., The
Song of Songs (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988), 49–66; Renita J. Weems, “Song of
Songs,” in Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, 156–60
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992); Renita J. Weems, “Song of Songs,” The
New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997), 5:361–434; Athalya Brenner, ed., A
Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); and
Athalya Brenner and Carole R. Fontaine, eds., The Song of Songs: A Feminist Companion to the
Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

197. William E. Phipps, “The Plight of the Song of Songs,” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion 42 (1974): 82–100; repr. in Harold Bloom, ed., The Song of Songs (New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1988), 5–23. Citation from pp. 5–6.

198. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 16.

199. See pp. 73–79.

200. Dianne Bergant, The Song of Songs (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), xi.

201. Exum, The Song of Songs, 76.

202. Exum, The Song of Songs, 77.

203. See Elizabeth A. Clark, “The Celibate Bridegroom and His Virginal Brides: Metaphor
and the Marriage of Jesus in Early Christian Ascetic Exegesis,” Church History 77, no. 1 (March
2008): 1–25.

204. Vincenzo Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici (Torino: Società
Editrice Internazionale, 1967); Vincenzo Recchia, Gregorio Magno papa ed esegeta biblico (Bari:
Edipuglia, 1996); and Vincenzo Recchia, Lettera e profezia nell’esegesi di Gregorio Magno (Bari:
Edipuglia, 2003). Other recent studies include: Stephan Ch. Kessler, Gregor der Grosse als
Exeget: eine theologische Interpretation der Ezechielhomilien (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1995); Giuseppe
Cremascoli, L’esegesi biblica di Gregorio Magno (Brescia: Queriniana, 2001); and Angela Russell
Christman, What did Ezekiel See? Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus
to Gregory the Great (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

205. Mor. ad Leandrum [4], 173–78 (CCSL 143:6).

206. Mor. 1.21 [29], 7–9 and 21–22 (CCSL 143:40).

207. H.Ez. 1.2.1.

208. In his L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici, Vincenzo Recchia has stressed the
grammatical and rhetorical methodologies that inform Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs.
Though he considered the spurious commentary on 1 Kings as genuinely Gregorian, in my
estimation his overall argument is not marred by his liberal use of it.

209. On the teaching of grammarians, see Quintilian, Institutio oratio 1.4–9; H. I. Marrou,
Education in Antiquity (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956), 160–85 and 274–91; and
Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: Grammatical and Literary Theory 350–1100
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). On ancient education, see Teresa Morgan,
Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998); and Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001). On the role of grammarians in society,
see Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

210. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 35–36, provides a good summary.

211. Bernhardt Neuschafer, Origenes als Philologe, 2 vols. (Basle: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987);
Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997).

212. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 32.

213. See Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 31–40.

214. See above p. 7.

215. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 77–78.

216. For examples elsewhere in Gregory’s corpus, see Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al
cantico dei cantici, 46–47.

217. For a fourth-century example of the significance of a verb’s tense in exegesis, see my
“Basil of Caesarea, Didymus the Blind, and the Anti-Pneumatomachian Exegesis of Amos 4:13
and John 1:3,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 61 (2010), 644–48.

218. Michael Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” Theological Studies 49
(1988): 461–76, provides a good introduction to the method; see also Hubertus R. Drobner,
Person-Exegese und Christologie bei Augustinus (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Hubertus R. Drobner,
“Grammatical Exegesis and Christology in Saint Augustine,” Studia Patristica 18 (1990): 49–63.

219. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 78.

 220. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 87.

221. I am indebted to Young’s exposition of reference and cross-reference in Biblical Exegesis,

chap. 6. As Young notes, this sort of approach is rooted in the ancient assumption that
language referred to something other than itself, that there was a correspondence between
words and reality; see Young, Biblical Exegesis, 119–20.

222. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chap. 5.

223. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 137. In his study of the use of Scripture in the Apophthegmata
Patrum, Per Rönnegård has employed with good results Young’s insight regarding reference
and cross-reference; see Threads and Images: The Use of Scripture in Apophthegmata Patrum
(Lund: Lund University, 2007).

224. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 1 and 2.

225. Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici, 2–11.

226. Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici, 13–26.

227. De doctrina christiana 3.10.

228. Helmut Riedlinger, Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den Lateinischen Hoheliedkommentaren
des Mittelalters (Münster: West. Aschendorff, 1958), 64–68; Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno
al cantico dei cantici, 35–43; Recchia, “Invigilata Lucernis: L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno ai
simboli del «Cantico dei Cantici»,” Invigilata Lucernis 23 (2001): 207–21; Domingo Ramos-
Lisson, “En torno a la exégesis de San Gregorio Magno sobre el ‘Cantar de los Cantares,’”
Teología y vida 42 (2001): 241–65.

229. The standard work is Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, trans. Mark Sebanc, 2 vols.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). Traditional accounts of allegorical exegesis and
references to the important studies can be found in Robert M. Grant with David Tracy, A Short
History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged ed. (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1984); Bertrand de Margerie, Introduction to the History of Exegesis (Petersham,
MA: Saint Bede’s Press, 1993–94); Manilo Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994). John J. O’Keefe and J. J. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An
Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2005) represents a good recent attempt to describe patristic exegesis and its
theological assumptions.

230. For new approaches, see James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical
Interpretation (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986); Young, Biblical Exegesis; and Peter
W. Martens, “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,” Journal of
Early Christian Studies 16 (2008): 283–317.

231. David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992); David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the
Fashioning of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

232. For a good discussion, see Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 155–76; and O’Keefe and
Reno, Sanctified Vision, 24–44.

233. For a good summary, see Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 37–38.

234. E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval
Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990); Ann W. Astell, The Song of
Songs in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990); and Turner, Eros and
Allegory.

235. E. Ann Matter has argued that Song of Songs commentaries constitute a distinct
subgenre of the genre of biblical commentaries since this biblical book “provided an
extraordinarily rich ground for the elaboration of allegory and therefore provided an
unparalleled opportunity for finding the truth hidden beneath the figures of the text” (The
Voice of My Beloved, 10).

236. See Turner, Eros and Allegory, 38, 85–87, and 111.

237. Turner, Eros and Allegory, 153.

238. This idea is a crucial aspect of Gregory’s doctrine of God’s condescension in the
incarnation; see Rodrigue Bélanger, “Anthropologie et parole de Dieu dans le commentaire de
Grégoire le Grand sur la cantique des cantiques,” in Grégoire le Grand, ed. Jacques Fontaine et
al., 245–54 (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1986).

239. Origen saw the spiritual senses of the Song of Songs as intended to exercise the soul to
facilitate spiritual progress; see O’Keefe and Reno, Sanctified Vision, 135–39. While Gregory
adopts this view, he places much more emphasis on God’s condescension to humanity through
the scriptural text.

240. Here, Gregory draws upon a traditional view of the so-called Solomonic corpus.

241. For more examples, see Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici, 43–65.
 242. Robert Gillet, “Introduction,” in Grégoire le Grand: Morals sur Job I-II, ed. Robert Gillet
and André de Gaudemaris, 7–133, at 13, SChr 32 bis. (Paris: Cerf, 1975).

243. See Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, 35, who cites the relevant studies. See also
Moorhead, Gregory the Great, 31–32.

244. Meyvaert, “A New Edition,” 220–24; Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 43–49; Joan M.
Petersen, “The Influence of Origen Upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of the Song of Songs,”
Studia Patristica 17 (1985): 343–47.

245. Elizabeth A. Clark, “The Uses of the Songs of Songs: Origen and the Later Latin
Fathers,” in Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith, 386–427 (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1986).

246. De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 2.153–54.

247. Petersen, “The Influence of Origen,” 346.

248. Meyvaert, “A New Edition,” 220–21.

249. Meyvaert, “A New Edition,” 221–23; Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 45–46; and Petersen,
“The Influence of Origen,” 343–46.

250. Petersen, “The Influence of Origen,” 343–46, discusses these parallels in detail.

251. Origen, H.Cant. 2.2; Gregory, Mor. 35.17 [43], 29–41.

252. Origen, C.Cant. 3.5; H.Cant. 2; Gregory, Mor. 33.3 [5], 2–19.

253. Origen, C.Cant. 3; Gregory, H.Ev. 33 [7], 192–93.

254. Origen, C.Cant. 3.9; H.Cant. 2.9; Gregory, Reg. Past. 3.26 [50], 32–54.

255. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 47–49, remarks on Gregory’s use of Origen in the light of
the condemnation of Origen at the Council of Constantinople in 553.

256. Reg. ep. 10.16 (trans. Martyn, Letters, 727). See also Reg. ep. 12.16a [=H.Ez. praef.],
cited below on pp. 92–93.

257. See A. M. La Bonnardière, “Le Cantique des Cantiques dans l’œuvre de saint Augustin,”
Revue des Études Augustiniennes 1 (1955): 225–37.

258. See pp. 90–91.

 259. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 30–34.

260. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 3.7; De doctrina christiana 2.6 [7]; see Enarrationes in
Psalmos 77.4 and 94.11; Gregory, Mor. 33.27 [47], 6–12.

261. Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.6 [7].

262. Augustine, Ep. 140.22 [55].

263. Gregory, Mor. 9.11 [17], 125–49; Mor. 27.38 [63], 6–17; H.Ez. 1.2 [9], 176–93.

264. Gregory, Mor. 1.1 [1], 1–28; Mor. 20.39 [76], 20–53; H.Ev. 38 [7], 141–84. For
Augustine’s use of this verse, see Michael Cameron, “Augustine’s Use of the Song of Songs
against the Donatists,” in Augustine: Biblical Exegete, ed. Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph C.
Schnaubelt, 99–127 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001).

265. On the date, see Bernard de Vregille and Louis Neyrand, Apponius: Commentaire sue le
cantique des cantiques, SChr 420, 421, and 430 (Paris: Cerf, 1997–98), 1.111–20; see also Mark
W. Elliott, The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church 381–451 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000), 40–50; and Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 35–36.

266. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 37–40.

267. Bélanger, Grégoire le Grand, 37.

268. Origen, H.Cant. 1.1; and C.Cant. prol. 4.3–14.

269. In Canticum canticorum expositio 1, 229–60.

270. See p. 86.

271. De vera sapientia et religione 4.3.

272. Jerome, Ep. 52.7; Commentary on Malachy 1.6; Cassian, Conferences 11.10.

273. Mor. 9, 39–41 [62–64]; 11, 41 [55].

274. In Canticum canticorum expositio 1, 192f.

275. Reg. ep. 12.16a [=H.Ez. praef]; trans. Martyn, Letters, 821.

276. Ambrose, Expositio psalmi cxviii 6, 2–3 (CSEL 62:111, 18–24).Virtually the same text is
found in De Isaac et anima 4.31.
 277. Gregory, H.Ev. 29 [10], 231–34 (CCSL 141:253–54).

278. See Elliott, The Song of Songs, 76–77.

279. Hippolytus, C.Cant. 21.2 (40 Garitte).

280. Ambrose, Ep. 41.14. See On repentance 2.69.

281. Gregory, H.Ev. 33 [6], 159–67 (CCSL 141:294); see Exp. 18.

282. Gregory, H.Ev. 33 [5], 104–6 (CCSL 141:292).

283. Ambrose, De spiritu sancto 1.95.

284. Gregory, Exp. 21.

285. See Ambrose, De spiritu sancto 1.90–94.

286. See Ambrose, De spiritu sancto 1.95–96.

287. Origen, C. Cant. 1.4.4; and H. Cant. 1.4. Gregory’s indebtedness to Origen is seen
especially in the connection made between Song 1:2b with Phil 2:6-7 (C. Cant. 1.4.4): though
Origen hints at this, it is Gregory who makes it explicit. Once again, Origen is Gregory’s point
of departure for his own developments.

288. See Didymus, De spiritu sancto 51. Didymus may owe something to Eusebius of
Caesarea, Demonstratio evangelica 4.3. Jerome denigrated Ambrose’s De spiritu sancto as little
more than bad Latin translation of Didymus’s Greek treatise; see Didymus, De spiritu sancto,
prol.

289. See Elliott, The Song of Songs, 53–57, for a discussion of the christological use of Song
1:2b.

290. Gregory, Exp. 25.

291. Cassian, Conferences 9.19; Gregory, Exp. 31.

292. For Song 1:3b the Vulgate reads only post te curremus.
TRANSLATIONS
 GREGORY THE GREAT’S
Exposition on the Song of Songs
INTRODUCTION
The modern critical edition of Gregory the Great’s Exposition on the
Song of Songs was established for Corpus Christianorum Series Latina by
Patrick Verbraken in 1963.1 After examining the twenty-two extant
manuscripts, he identified two major textual families, each of which
could be further subdivided into groups.2 For his edition, he favored the
four manuscripts of group α of the first family, the most ancient
witnesses, dating from the ninth to tenth centuries. But he noted that the
six manuscripts of group β from the second family (ninth to thirteenth
centuries) were nearly as important, especially Δ 1•2•3, as their
archetype’s age rivaled that of α. Verbraken’s edition replaced two older
editions.3 The first is the Maurist edition of 1705 (m), which was based
on manuscripts no longer available today, and the second is that of
Gotthard Heine from 1848 (h) whose text largely corresponds to
Verbraken’s group β of the first family.
Both Paul Meyvaert and J. H. Waszink, in their respective reviews of
Verbraken’s edition, suggested many different readings based on the
manuscripts.4 Meyvaert argued that the readings of groups δ ε of the
second family deserved “the greatest respect, particularly if they can be
reinforced by the context or by what we know par ailleurs about
Gregory’s vocabulary.”5 He suggested twenty-six alternate readings
based on this principle. Waszink proposed three different readings and
three punctuation changes. Rodrigue Bélanger incorporated many of
their suggestions in his 1984 edition of Gregory’s Exposition in the
Sources Chrétiennes series, which reprinted Verbraken’s edition with
fourteen emendations. He accepted five of Meyvaert’s alternate readings
and five of Waszink’s suggested changes (three alternate readings and
two punctuation changes), and he employed five different readings of his
own.6
The translation below is based on the critical edition of Verbraken,
with twenty-five emendations. I have followed Bélanger’s lead in
accepting the same five alternate readings of Meyvaert as well as the five
that he himself employed. But I have accepted only three of the five
emendations that Bélanger adopted based on the suggestions of Waszink
(two alternative readings and one punctuation change). In addition, I
have adopted twelve of Meyvaert’s suggested readings not accepted by
Bélanger. In each of these cases, the reading is witnessed to not only by
the groups Δ ε but also by Heine’s edition (h). The emendations
employed in my translation of the Exposition are listed in appendix 3.
The section titles in the translation below are my own.
1. Patrick Verbraken, Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones in Canticum Canticorum, in Librum
Primum Regum, CCSL 144 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1963), 3–46.

2. Verbraken used twenty-one mss. in his original edition. For a detailed discussion of the
manuscripts, see his, “La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le
Cantique des cantiques,” Revue Bénédictine 73 (1963): 277–88, which he summarizes in the
introduction to his edition (CCSL 144: viii–ix). Subsequent to his edition Verbraken discovered
another ms. that proved to be the oldest surviving witness to the text (eighth to ninth century).
Nonetheless, its readings correspond to Verbraken’s family ?, a text of very poor quality. See
Patrick Verbraken, “Un nouveau manuscript du Commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le Cantique
des Cantiques,” Revue Bénédictine 75 (1965): 143–45.

3. Sancti Gregorii Papae super Cantica Canticorum Expositio in Sancti Gregorii Papae I
cognomento Magni Opera omnia, Édition des Bénédictins de Saint-Maur, t. III (Paris, 1705), 2e
part, cols. 397–414. Reprinted by Migne, PL 79:471–92; and Commentarius Gregorio Magno
adscriptus in Gotth. Heine, Bibliotheca Anecdotorum seu Veterum Monumentum ecclesiasticorum
Collectio novissima. Pars I. Monumenta regni Gothorum et Arabum in Hispaniis (Leipzig: Weigel,
1848), 168–86.

4. Paul Meyvaert, “A New Edition of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on the Canticle and I
Kings,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 9 (1968): 215–25; and J. H. Waszink, “Sancti
Gregorii Magni Expositiones in Canticum Canticorum, in Librum Primum Regum,” Vigiliae
Christianae 27 (1973): 72–74.

5. Meyvaert, “A New Edition,” 217.

6. Rodrigue Bélanger, Grégoire Le Grand: Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques, SChr 314
(Paris: Cerf, 1984), 68–140.
 In the name of the Lord here begins
the Exposition on the Songs of Songs,
restored from the beginning of the notary’s transcription,
by Lord Gregory, Pope of the City of Rome1

+
 PART 1: PROLOGUE (1–10)

HUMAN IGNORANCE AND THE NEED FOR ALLEGORY

1. After its banishment from the joys of Paradise, the human race
came to the pilgrimage of this present life with a heart blind to spiritual
understanding. If the divine voice had said to this blind heart, “Follow
God!” or, “Love God!” (as was said to it in the Law), once this was
uttered, the numbing cold of its obtuseness2 would have prevented it
from grasping what it heard. Accordingly, divine speech is
communicated to the cold and numb soul by means of enigmas and in a
hidden manner instills in her the love she does not know by means of
what she knows.
2. Allegory provides the soul set far below God with a kind of crane
whereby she may be lifted to God.3 If enigmas are placed between God
and the soul, when the soul recognizes something of her own in the
language of the enigmas, through the meaning of this language she
understands something that is not her own and by means of earthly
language hopes for eternal things.4 For by not recoiling from what she
knows, the soul comes to understand what she does not know. Allegories
are produced by clothing divine thoughts in what we know. When we
recognize the exterior language, we attain interior understanding.
3. In this book here, in which the Song of Songs is written, the
language of what appears to be physical love is employed that the soul
may be revived from her numbing cold by means of her usual manner of
speech, so that she may grow warm again and so be spurred on to the
love that is above by the language of the love here below. Now in this
book there is mention of kisses, there is mention of breasts, there is
mention of cheeks, there is mention of thighs. We should not ridicule the
sacred narrative for using such language. Rather, let us ponder how
great God’s mercy is. For when he mentions the parts of the body and
thereby summons us to love, note how wonderfully and mercifully he
works within us. He has gone so far as to embrace the language of our
vulgar love in order to enkindle our heart with a yearning for that sacred
love. Yet God lifts us by understanding to the place from where he
lowers himself by speaking. For we learn from dialogues of the love here
below with what intensity we should burn in the love of Divinity.
4. Let us consider this book carefully lest we linger over exterior
meanings when we hear the words of exterior love. Otherwise the very
crane employed to lift us will instead burden us and thus not lift us. In
these bodily words, in these exterior words, let us seek whatever is
interior. And when we discuss the body, let us become as if separated
from the body. Let us attend this sacred wedding of the Bride and
Bridegroom with an understanding of the most interior kind of charity,
which is to say with a wedding gown. Such attire is necessary5 since if
we are not dressed in a wedding gown, that is, if we do not have a
worthy understanding of charity, then we will be cast out of this
wedding banquet into the exterior darkness, which is to say into the
blindness of ignorance.6 By means of this passionate dialogue let us cross
over to the virtue of impassibility.
For just as Sacred Scripture consists of words and its meaning, so too a
picture consists of colors and its subject matter. And he is dumber than
dumb who pays such close attention to the colors of the picture that he
ignores the subject depicted! So if we embrace the words expressed in an
exterior way and ignore their meaning, it is as if we were ignoring the
subject depicted by concentrating only upon the colors. It is written: The
letter kills but the spirit gives life [2 Cor 3:6]. For the letter hides the spirit
just like the husk covers the kernel. Yet it is beasts who feed on husks,
whereas human beings eat the kernel. So then, whoever uses human
reason should discard the husks of the beasts and promptly eat the
kernel of the spirit. After all, it is beneficial7 that the mysteries are
veiled by being wrapped in letters, insofar as long-sought wisdom tastes
better. Hence it is written: The wise conceal the meaning [Prov 10:14]. For
surely the spiritual meaning is concealed under the veil of the letter.
Furthermore, in the same book it is said: It is the glory of God to hide
the word [Prov 25:2a]. For God appears more glorious to the mind that
seeks him the more subtly and interiorly she seeks that he appear. But
could it be that we ought not demand what God hides in his mysteries?
Of course we should, for it continues: And the glory of kings is to examine
the word [Prov 25:2b]. Now they are kings who already know how to
rule and examine their bodies, or rather, the stirrings of their flesh. So
then, ‘the glory of kings is to examine the word’ because it is
praiseworthy for those who live a good life to scrutinize the mysteries of
God’s commandments.
Therefore, when we hear the words of a human conversation, let us be
like those who are above ordinary people. Otherwise by listening in a
human way to what is said we might not perceive anything about the
Divinity that we ought to be hearing. Paul no longer desired his disciples
to be like ordinary people when he said to them: For when envy and
contention are among you, are you not ordinary people? [1 Cor 3:3-4]. The
Lord no longer considered his disciples to be like ordinary people when
he said: Who do ordinary people say that the Son of Man is? [Matt 16:13].
When they told him what ordinary people had said, he immediately
added: But you, who do you say that I am? [Matt 16:15]. For by saying
‘ordinary people’ first and then adding ‘you,’ he was contrasting ordinary
people and his disciples, surely because by inspiring them to divine
things he was making them superior to ordinary people.
The Apostle states: Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,
the old has passed away [2 Cor 5:17]. And we know that at our
resurrection the body is so united to the spirit that everything which the
passions controlled is assumed into the power of the spirit. Therefore,
whoever follows God ought to imitate his own resurrection every day. In
light of the fact that at that time he will have nothing subject to the
passions in his body, he should now have nothing subject to the passions
in his heart. In the present time he should be a new creation according
to the interior man, in the present time he should trample on anything
suggestive of the old man, and he should seek in old words only the
power of the new.
5. Now Sacred Scripture is a kind of mountain from which the Lord
comes into our hearts to give understanding. This mountain is
mentioned by the Prophet: God shall come from Lebanon and the Holy One
from a shady and thickly wooded mountain [Hab 3:3]. This mountain is
‘thick’ because of its meanings and ‘shady’ because of its allegories. But
know that, when the Lord’s voice echoes on the mountain, we are
commanded to wash our clothes and be cleansed from every defilement
of the flesh, provided that we are hastening to approach the mountain.
After all, it is written that if a beast should touch the mountain, it is to be
stoned [Heb 12:20; cf. Exod 19:12-13]. Now a ‘beast touches the
mountain’ when those enslaved to irrational stirrings approach the lofty
heights of Sacred Scripture and understand it in an inappropriate way,
interpreting it irrationally according to whim. For if some fool or half-
wit should be spotted around this mountain, he would be put to death
by his most dreadful thoughts as if by stones.
This mountain burns because surely Sacred Scripture causes
whomever it spiritually fills to be inflamed with the fire of love. Hence it
is written: Your word is fiery [Ps 118:140]. Hence when some men
walking on the road heard the words of God,8 they exclaimed: Did not
our heart burn within us as he opened the scriptures to us? [Luke 24:32].
Hence it is said through Moses: In his right hand is the fiery law [Deut
33:2]. At God’s left hand are gathered the wicked who do not cross over
to his right side. At God’s ‘right hand’ are the elect who are separated
from those on the left. So then, ‘in God’s right hand is the fiery law’
because in the hearts of the elect, who will be placed at his right hand,
the divine precepts are aflame and burn with the ardor of charity. So
then, let this fire consume any exterior corruption and oldness that exists
in us, so that our mind may be offered as a holocaust in the
contemplation of God.

EXPLANATION OF THE TITLE, “THE SONG OF SONGS”

6. Nor is it pointless to note that this book is not called “the Song” but
“the Song of Songs.” For just as in the Old Testament there are holy
things as well as the holies of holies, and there are sabbaths as well as
the sabbaths of sabbaths, so too in Sacred Scripture there are songs as
well as the Songs of Songs. The holy things were kept in the tabernacle
and brought outside of it; the sabbaths were celebrated each week. But
the holies of holies were undertaken with a kind of more mysterious
veneration and the sabbaths of sabbaths were observed only on their
own feasts. Likewise, the Songs of Songs is a kind of mystery and is
solemn in a more interior way. One penetrates this mystery by grasping
hidden meanings. For if the exterior language is focused upon, there is
no mystery.

THE GENRE OF THE SONG OF SONGS

7. Know also that in Sacred Scripture some songs are songs of victory
and others are songs of encouragement and affirmation, some are songs
of rejoicing and others are songs of help received, and some are songs of
union with God. Miriam sang a song of victory after the Red Sea was
crossed: Let us sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously triumphant: horse and
rider he has thrown into the sea [Exod 15:21]. Moses sang a song of
encouragement and affirmation to the Israelites as they approached the
promised land: Give heed, heaven, and let me speak: let the land hearken to
the words of my mouth [Deut 32:1]. Hanna sang a song of rejoicing when
she foresaw the fecundity of the Church in herself: My heart exults in the
Lord [1 Sam 2:1]. Therefore, she expressed the fecundity of the Church’s
future generations figuratively9 when she said: The barren woman gives
birth to many, and she who has many sons is weak [1 Sam 2:5]. After battle
David sang a song of help received: I will love you, Lord, my strength [Ps
17:2]. But a song of union with God is that song which was sung at the
marriage of the Bride and Bridegroom, which is to say the Song of
Songs. It is more sublime than all other songs insofar as it is performed
at a marriage of more sublime solemnity. Now by means of those other
songs vices are shunned, but through this song everyone is enriched with
virtues. By means of those other songs the enemy is thwarted, but
through this song the Lord is embraced with an intimate love.

EXPLANATION OF THE LORD’S NAMES

8. Note too that sometimes in Sacred Scripture the Lord calls himself
‘Lord,’ sometimes ‘Father,’ and sometimes ‘Bridegroom.’ When he wants
to be feared, he calls himself ‘Lord.’ When he wants to be honored,
‘Father.’ When he wants to be loved, ‘Bridegroom.’ He himself says
through the Prophet: If I am Lord, why don’t you fear me? If I am Father,
why don’t you honor me? [Mal 1:6]. And again he says: I have betrothed
you to myself in righteousness and fidelity [Hos 2:19-20]. And: I
remembered the day of your betrothal in the desert [Jer 2:2]. Now there are
surely no “whens” for God.10 But since he wants to be feared before
being honored, and honored before love of him is attained, he calls
himself ‘Lord’ on account of the fear, ‘Father’ on account of the honor,
and ‘Bridegroom’ on account of the love. Thus through fear we come to
honor, and through honor of him we attain love. Therefore, as honor is
more worthy than fear, God rejoices more to be called ‘Father’ than
‘Lord.’ And as love is dearer than honor, God rejoices more to be called
‘Bridegroom’ than ‘Father.’
In this book, then, the Lord and the Church are not called ‘Lord’ and
‘Handmaiden’ but ‘Bridegroom’ and ‘Bride,’ that he may be served not
only with fear, not only with reverence, but also with love, and that an
interior affection for him may be aroused by this exterior language.
When he calls himself ‘Lord,’ he indicates that we have been created by
him. When he calls himself ‘Father,’ he indicates that we have been
adopted by him. When he calls himself ‘Bridegroom,’ he indicates that
we have been united to him. But being united to God is greater than
being created or adopted by him. In this book, then, when ‘Bridegroom’
is said, something quite sublime is being conveyed since it reveals our
bond of union with him.
These names are frequently employed in the New Testament because
it celebrates the already consummated union of Word and flesh, of Christ
and the Church. Hence John says at the Lord’s coming: He who has the
Bride is the Bridegroom [John 3:29]. Similarly, the same Lord says: The
sons of the Bridegroom will not fast while the Bridegroom is with them [Matt
9:15]. Likewise, it is said to the Church: I have betrothed you to one man,
to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ [2 Cor 11:2]. And again: So that
he might produce a glorious Church without stain or wrinkle [Eph 5:27].
And again in the Revelation of John: How happy are they who have been
invited to the wedding-banquet of the Lamb! [Rev 19:9]. And again in the
same place: And I saw the Bride as if a newlywed coming down from heaven
[Rev 21:2].

THE POSITION OF THE SONG OF SONGS AMONG THE WORKS OF SOLOMON

9. The fact that this book of Solomon is placed third among his works
is not inconsistent with its great mystery. For the ancients maintained
that there were three orders of life: the moral, the natural, and the
contemplative—what the Greeks called the ethical, the physical, and the
theoretical lives. The subject of Proverbs is the moral life, where it is
said: My son, hear my wisdom and bend your ear to my prudence [Prov
5:1]. The subject of Ecclesiastes is the natural life because here
consideration is given to the fact that all things tend to an end, when it
is said: Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity [Eccl 1:2]. The subject of the
Songs of Songs is the contemplative life because in these songs the
coming and appearance of the Lord himself is desired, when it is said in
the voice of Bridegroom: Come from Lebanon, come! [Song 4:8].
These orders are also signified by the lives of the three Patriarchs,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham led the moral life by being
obedient.11 Isaac symbolized the natural life by digging wells.12 For to
dig wells in the ground is to probe meticulously into all things here
below by pondering their nature. Jacob led the contemplative life,
having seen angels ascending and descending.13 But since pondering the
nature of things does not reach perfection unless first the moral life is
lived, it is right that Ecclesiastes follows Proverbs. And since heavenly
contemplation is not gazed upon unless first transitory things here below
are despised, it is right that the Songs of Songs follows Ecclesiastes.
For first we get our morals in order. After this we ponder all present
things as if they were not present. In the third place we gaze upon
heavenly and interior realities with pure keenness of heart. And so, it is
as if a kind of ladder to the contemplation of God has been constructed
with these books as its rungs. Accordingly, as a first step, we attentively
carry out virtuous tasks in the world. Then as the next step we disdain
even the virtuous tasks of the world. Finally at the top rung we gaze
upon the interior realities of God. So in this work the voice of the
Church collectively awaits the coming of the Lord in such a way that
every soul in particular also watches for the entry of God into her heart
as though it were the Bridegroom climbing into the marriage-bed.

THE CHARACTERS OF THE DRAMA 10. And know that four speaking characters
are introduced in this book: the Bridegroom, the Bride, the young girls
attending the Bride, and the flocks of companions with the Bridegroom.
The Bride is the perfect Church herself, whereas the Bridegroom is the
Lord. The young girls attending the Bride are the souls of beginners and
those maturing through their novice zeal. The companions of the
Bridegroom are either the angels who coming from him have often
appeared to people or more likely all the perfect men in the Church who
know how to relate the truth to people. But those who are individually
young girls or companions are together as a whole the Bride, since
together as a whole they are the Church.
 Yet each of these three names can also be understood in an individual
sense. For the one who already loves God perfectly is the Bride. The one
who preaches the Bridegroom is a companion. The one who while still
young follows the way of good works is a young girl. So then, we are
invited to be the Bride. But if we are still unable to do this, let us be
companions. If even this exceeds our capacities, let us at least gather
together as young girls around the marriage-bed. Therefore, since we
said that the Bridegroom and the Bride are the Lord and the Church, let
us as either young girls or companions listen to the words of the
Bridegroom, let us listen to the words of the Bride, and from their
dialogue let us learn the fervor of love.
 PART 2: COMMENTARY (11–46)

THE FIRST INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:1-2A (11–14) CHRIST’S INCARNATE

PRESENCE
11. And so, the holy Church, so long awaiting the coming of the Lord,
so long thirsting for the font of life,14 let her declare in what way she
wants to see her Bridegroom’s presence, in what way she desires it: 12.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! [Song 1:1a]. The Lord had
sent angels to her, patriarchs to her, and prophets, all bearing spiritual
gifts. Yet she was not seeking to perceive gifts through the Bridegroom’s
servants but to perceive right now the Bridegroom himself. Let us bring
before our eyes the whole human race, from the world’s beginning to its
end, namely the whole Church: it is the one Bride who through the Law
received pledges for a spiritual gift. Nonetheless, she was seeking the
presence of her spouse when she said: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his
mouth. For the holy Church, sighing for the coming of the Mediator
between God and humanity, for the coming of her Redeemer, beseeches
the Father in prayer to dispatch his Son to her and so enlighten her by
his presence, so that he may speak to this same Church no longer
through the mouths of the Prophets15 but with his own mouth. Hence in
the Gospel it is written of this same Bridegroom, that when he was
seated on the mount and speaking lofty precepts, Jesus opened his mouth
and said … [Matt 5:2]. It is as if he were saying: “He who once opened
the mouths of the Prophets for the encouragement of the Church then
opened his own mouth.”
13. But see how, when she sighs, when she seeks him as if absent,
suddenly she is aware of his presence! For the grace of our Creator has
such power that when we speak about him as we seek him, we enjoy his
presence. Hence it is written in the Gospel that when Cleopas and the
other man were discussing him on the road, it was granted that they
suddenly saw16 him present.17 So then, when the holy Church desires
her still absent spouse to become incarnate, suddenly she is aware of his
presence and adds: For your breasts are better than wine, and the odor of
your ointments surpasses all perfumes [Song 1:1b-2a]. ‘Wine’ was the
knowledge of the Law, the knowledge of the Prophets. But when the
Lord came, since he wanted to preach his own wisdom through the flesh,
he imparted it to us as if milk in the breasts of his flesh. For being utterly
incapable of grasping his wisdom in his divinity, we can perceive it in
his Incarnation. Hence it is not pointless to praise his ‘breasts.’ For by
lowering his preaching to our level he has effected in our hearts what
the teaching of the Law utterly failed to effect. After all, the preaching of
the Incarnation has nourished us more than the teaching of the Law.
Therefore, let her say: Your breasts are much better than wine [Song 1:1b].
14. Reinforcing this point, she says: And the odor of your ointments
surpasses all perfumes [Song 1:2a]. The ‘ointments’ of the Lord are his
powerful deeds. The ‘ointment’ of the Lord would be the Holy Spirit.18
Concerning the latter, the Prophet declared to the Lord: God, your God,
has anointed you with the oil of gladness above all others [Ps 44:8]. He was
anointed with this oil at the very moment he became incarnate. For he
did not first become a human being and only afterward receive the Holy
Spirit. Rather, becoming incarnate through the mediation of the Holy
Spirit, he was anointed with this same oil at the very moment he was
made a human being. Therefore, the ‘odor of his ointment’ is the
fragrance of the Holy Spirit who remains upon him, even though the
Holy Spirit proceeds from him.
The ‘odor of his ointments’ is the fragrance of the powerful deeds that
he performed. The Church should inhale these perfumes because she has
acquired many gifts of the Spirit, which in the house of God, which is to
say in the communion of saints, give off an odor of good repute and
announce the sweet scent of the Mediator to come. But the odor of your
ointments surpasses all perfumes because the fragrance of the powerful
deeds that the Bridegroom accomplished through his Incarnation is far
more excellent than the figurative declarations of the Law which the
Bridegroom conferred as pledges. After all, the more the Church grew in
understanding, the more she merited to be enlightened by the grace of a
fuller vision. Angels dispensed those perfumes of the Law, whereas the
presence of the Bridegroom bestows this ointment. But since the
brightness of his presence has eclipsed the blessings of the Law, even
though they were once believed to be lofty, it is right for it to be said:
The odor of your ointments surpasses all perfumes.
THE SECOND INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:1-2A (15–17) CHRIST’S INTERIOR
PRESENCE
15. But this which we have said collectively about the whole Church,
let us now understand how it applies to every soul19 in particular. Let us
bring before our eyes a certain soul who is committed to the pursuit of
the gifts20 and acquires understanding through the preaching of another.
She also desires to be enlightened by divine grace so that she may one
day also understand on her own. She ponders the fact that no
understanding comes to her save by the words of preachers. Accordingly,
she says: Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth [Song 1:1a]. “May he
touch me interiorly so that I may know with understanding and no
longer find enjoyment in the voices of preachers but only in the touch of
his interior grace.” It is as if he ‘kissed’ Moses ‘with the kiss of his
mouth’ when he extended understanding to him by his pledge of the
grace of intimate friendship.21 Hence it is written: If he were a prophet, I
would speak to him in his sleep and not as with my intimate friend Moses, for
I spoke to him mouth to mouth [Num 12:6-8].22 For to speak mouth to
mouth is as it were to kiss and to touch the mind with interior
understanding.

CHRIST’S HUMBLE WISDOM COMPARED TO THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD

16. It follows: For your breasts are better than wine [Song 1:1b]. The
‘breasts’ of God, as we said earlier, are the most humble preaching of his
Incarnation.23 But the wisdom of the world resembles ‘wine.’ For it
intoxicates the mind by estranging it from humble understanding. It is as
if philosophers are intoxicated by a kind of ‘wine’ when by their worldly
wisdom they go beyond the normal way of doing things. The holy
Church should despise this sort of wisdom. She should pursue the most
humble preaching of the Incarnation of the Lord.24 She should prefer to
savor25 the nourishment offered by the weakness of his flesh rather than
what this world extols through the pride of false sagacity, and she
should say: For your breasts are better than wine [Song 1:1b]. That is, “The
most humble preaching of your Incarnation is superior to the proud
wisdom of the world.” Hence it is written: The weakness of God is stronger
than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man [1 Cor 1:25].26
 17. But sometimes even the wise of this world appear to devote
themselves to some of the virtues. For you notice that many have
charity, observe mildness, practice exterior goodness toward all. Yet they
display these virtues not to please God but men. Accordingly, they are
not really virtues at all since they do not strive to please God.
Nevertheless, a pleasant odor reaches people’s noses when they think
that these so-called virtues confer a good reputation. But if these were to
be compared to the true odor of our Redeemer, they would be compared
to the truly true virtues,27 and it would be said: The odor of your
ointments surpasses all perfumes [Song 1:2a]. That is, “The aroma of your
virtues is superior to every pretence of virtue possessed by the wise of
this world precisely because by its truth it transcends their concocted
facades of virtue.”

THE THIRD INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:1-2A (18–20) COMPUNCTION

18. We said above in the second interpretation that what is said
applies to every soul, and so let us develop this same understanding in
greater detail, insofar as we can with God’s help.28 Every soul that fears
God is already under his yoke but is still distant from him because she
fears. For the closer anyone comes29 to God, the more she is relieved of
the burden of fear and receives from him the grace of charity. Let us
bring before our eyes the soul of any elect person who is enkindled
through unceasing desire for the love of the sight of the Bridegroom.
Since she cannot fully perceive him in this life, she contemplates his
grandeur and feels compunction30 on the basis of this love for him. Now
this compunction, which occurs through charity, which is enkindled
from desire, resembles a kiss. For as often as the soul kisses God, so often
does she feel compunction in the love of him. There are many who
indeed already fear the Lord and have received the ability to do good
works. But they still do not kiss him because they do not in any way feel
compunction through love for him.
This is well illustrated at the banquet of the Pharisee. After he
welcomed the Lord into his home and cursed in his heart the woman
kissing the Lord’s feet, he heard: I entered into your home, you did not give
me a kiss. But this woman, from the moment she came in, has not ceased
kissing my feet [Luke 7:44-45]. In a certain sense, everyone who already
gives alms, who is already devoted to good works, welcomes Christ at
the banquet. He provides food for Christ when he does not cease to
sustain him in his members. But if he still does not feel compunction
through love, he has still not kissed Christ’s feet. Therefore, the woman
who kisses is preferred to the pastor because whoever amid desire for
the Lord feels compunction in interior ardor of mind is preferred to the
one who provides exterior goods.31
Now she has not ceased kissing my feet [Luke 7:45] is well said. For in
the love of God it does not suffice to feel compunction once and then do
nothing. Rather, once compunction happens, it ought then increase in
frequency. Hence the woman is praised because ‘she did not cease
kissing,’ which is to say because she did not in any way cease to feel
compunction. Hence it is also said through the Prophet: Establish a
solemn day with great frequency32 even unto the horn of the altar [Ps
117:27]. It is ‘a solemn day’ for the Lord when our heart feels
compunction. But a solemn day is established ‘with great frequency’
when the mind is constantly moved to tears out of love for him. Then it
is as if we had asked him: “How long are we to do these things? How
long are we to be afflicted by tribulations?” For straightaway he tells us
how far we must go: even unto the horn of the altar. Now ‘the horn of the
altar’ is the highest point of an interior sacrifice. When we have reached
it, we no longer have any need to celebrate a solemn day for the Lord
with our lamentation. So then, the soul who already desires to feel
compunction through love, who already strives to contemplate the sight
of her Bridegroom, let her say: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth
[Song 1:1a].

THE SUPERIORITY OF CONTEMPLATION

19. Then again, the kiss of his mouth is surely the very fullness of
interior peace. Whenever we obtain it, nothing more remains for us to
seek. Hence it is fittingly added: For your breasts are better than wine
[Song 1:1b]. For ‘wine’ is the knowledge of God we receive while
situated in this life. But as for the ‘breasts’ of the Bridegroom, we
embrace them when in the present time we contemplate him in the
eternal homeland through the embrace of his presence. Therefore, let her
say: Your breasts are better than wine. It is as if she were saying: “Great
indeed is the knowledge33 of you that you have granted me in this life.
Great is the wine of the knowledge34 of you by which you intoxicate me.
But ‘your breasts are better than wine’ because that is when we
transcend, through sight and through the loftiness of contemplation, all
that we presently know about you through faith.”
20. And the odor of your ointments surpasses all perfumes [Song 1:2a].
Here in this life the holy Church possesses ‘perfumes’ when she is
illustrious in the virtue of knowledge, in the virtue of chastity, in the
virtue of mercy, in the virtue of humility, in the virtue of love. If the life
of the saints did not possess an ‘odor’ that arose from the ‘perfumes’ of
the virtues, Paul would not have declared: We are the good odor of Christ
in every place [2 Cor 2:15]. But far more excellent is the ‘ointment’ of the
contemplation of God to which we will someday be led. Far more
excellent than the ‘perfumes’ of our virtues is the ‘odor of God’s
ointments.’ And if that which we have received is already great, far
greater is that which we will receive from the contemplation of our
Creator. Hence let the soul sigh and say: The odor of your ointments
surpasses all perfumes. In other words: “Those blessings you prepare for
us when we contemplate you are far more excellent than all the gifts of
the virtues you have bestowed upon us in this life.”

THE FIRST INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:2BC (21–22) THE INCARNATION OF

CHRIST
21. Let us tell this Church, let us tell this soul, so loving, so ardent in
the love of her Bridegroom, where she can perceive what she so greatly
desires, where she can grasp a knowledge of his divinity. But see how
the Bride herself tells us where when she says: Your name is ointment
poured-out [Song 1:2b]! ‘Ointment poured-out’ is the incarnate divinity.
For when ointment is stored in a small bottle, there is no odor outside of
it. But when it is poured out, the odor of the poured-out ointment
spreads far and wide. So then, the name of God is ‘ointment poured-out’
because he poured himself out exteriorly from his immeasurable divinity
into our nature, making himself visible from his invisible being. Now if
he had not ‘poured himself out,’ he would in no way have made himself
known to us. He ‘poured himself out as ointment’ when he both
preserved himself as God and manifested himself as man. Paul spoke of
this ‘pouring-out’: Although he was in the form of God, he did not consider it
robbery that he was equal to God, but he emptied himself, taking to himself
the form of a slave [Phil 2:6-7]. Paul called ‘emptying’ what Solomon
called ‘pouring-out.’ Therefore, because the Lord has made himself
known to the human race through the humility of the Incarnation, let it
be said to him: Your name is ointment poured-out [Song 1:2b].

THE LOVE OF THE NEWLY BAPTIZED FOR CHRIST

22. It follows: Therefore the young girls have loved you [Song 1:2c]. How
are we to take the ‘young girls’ in this passage if not as the souls of the
elect renewed through baptism? For sinful conduct pertains to the old
man, whereas holy conduct to the new. So then, by ‘pouring himself out
as ointment’ he has made the ‘young girls ardent in the love of him’
because by renewing them he has made their souls burn with desire for
him. Childhood is the stage of life that is inappropriate for love, whereas
old age is the stage of life when people give up on love. A child is
someone who has yet to begin the pursuit of the life of love, whereas an
old man is someone who once began such a life but has given up on it.
So then, neither of them burns for the Lord: either those who have yet to
begin or those who once began but have now gone cold. Because of this,
no mention is made of the conduct of the child and the old man,
whereas the ‘young girls’ are said to run, which is to say those souls in
the fervor of love.

THE SECOND INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:2BC (23) HOW ANGELS AND HUMAN
BEINGS LOVE CHRIST DIFFERENTLY
23. Yet we can understand this passage in another way. For ‘youth’
can refer to weakness.35 The ages of adulthood represent the order of the
angels, who are not mastered by any feebleness nor subject to any
weakness. Therefore, let it be said: Your name is ointment poured-out;
therefore the young girls have loved you [Song 1:2bc]. In other words:
“Since by your Incarnation you have ‘poured out’ knowledge of yourself
outwardly, weak souls can accordingly ‘love you’ in your human nature.
Now those highest powers, as if the ages of adulthood, love you even
there where you are not poured out because they even see you there
where you remain in your divine condition. So then, even though those
highest orders of angels, as if the ages of adulthood, see you as not
‘poured-out,’ you nonetheless ‘poured yourself out’ outwardly for the
sake of human beings, so that ‘you could be loved by the young girls,’
which is to say by weak minds.”

THE INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:3 (24–31) THE DIVIDED HUMAN WILL

24. It follows: Draw me [Song 1:3a]. Everyone drawn is led either
because of incapacity or because of unwillingness when summoned. But
she who says, Draw me, possesses something that wills, possesses
something that is incapable. Human nature wants to follow God. But
overcome by a habit of weakness, it is incapable of following him as it
should. And so, it sees something in itself whereby it strives and
something in itself which is incapable, and rightly it says: ‘Draw me.’
Paul saw that he was as it were willing but incapable when he said: With
my mind I serve the law of God but with my flesh I serve the law of sin [Rom
7:25]. And: I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my
mind [Rom 7:23]. Therefore, because there is something in us which
urges us forward and something which holds us back, let us say: ‘Draw
me.’

THE THREE WAYS OF FOLLOWING GOD

25. After you we shall run in the odor of your ointments [Song 1:3b]. We
‘run in the odor of God’s ointments’ when, catching the scent of his
spiritual gifts, we long in love to see him. But note that when people
follow God, sometimes they walk, sometimes they run, sometimes they
run very fast. It is as if a person walks after God when he follows him
tepidly. A person runs after God when he follows him fervently. A
person runs after God perfectly when he follows him perseveringly. Now
our heart was adamant in not following God and unwilling to walk after
him, when the coming of the Lord into the world was manifested and
roused human minds from their obtuse condition. Hence it is written: His
feet stood still and the earth was moved [Hab 3:5-6]. Here reference is
made to ‘running,’ not ‘moving,’ because movement does not suffice for
following God unless we run with desire. But since running does not
suffice unless one runs perfectly, Paul said: So run that you may obtain [1
Cor 9:24].
 But some people,36 by running too strenuously, will overextend
themselves through indiscretion. For they are wiser than necessary and
place more value on themselves than on him whom they are following,
deciding for themselves what virtuous deeds they will do and
disregarding the commandments of him whom they are following. So
then, when ‘after you’ is placed before ‘we run,’ it is well said. For they
‘run’ after God who ponder his commandments, place more value on his
will than on their own, and use discretion in their endeavor to reach him
by means of worthy actions. Hence the Prophet, pondering and
following God’s will, said: My soul has clung to you [Ps 62:9]. Hence it is
said to Peter when he offered advice: Get behind me, Satan! For you do not
have the wisdom that belongs to God but that which belongs to men! [Mark
8:33; cf. Matt 16:23]. And so, since perfect souls study God’s
commandments with the utmost care and presume neither to fall short of
them through cold indifference nor to surpass them through ill-
conceived fervor, it is well said: After you we run in the odor of your
ointments. For ‘after you we run’ only when we follow his divine
commandments out of love and do not surpass them out of fear.

THE CHURCH IS LIKE A KING’S HOUSE

26. The king has brought me into his bedchamber. We shall rejoice and be
glad in you [Song 1:3cd]. The Church of God is like the house of a king.
And this house has an entrance. It has a staircase. It has a banqueting
hall. It has bedchambers. Everyone who has faith within the Church has
already passed through the entrance of this house. For as an entrance
gives access to the rest of the house, so faith is the gateway to the rest of
the virtues. Everyone who has hope within the Church has already
reached the staircase of this house. For hope lifts the heart such that it
pursues the lofty regions and abandons the lowly. Every resident of this
house who has charity walks as if in the banquet halls. For vast is
charity, which extends itself37 even to the love of enemies. Every
resident of the Church who already scrutinizes God’s lofty secrets, who
already ponders his hidden commandments, has entered as if into the
bedchamber.
Someone mentioned the entrance to this house: Open to me the gates of
holiness; and I will enter them and confess to the Lord [Ps 117:19]. He
mentioned the staircase of hope: He has arranged staircases in his heart [Ps
83:6].38 Mention was made of the vast banquet halls of this house: Your
command is exceedingly vast [Ps 118:96]. This ‘vast command’ refers in
particular to charity. As for the bedchamber of the king, he spoke of it
who said: My secret is my own [Isa 24:16]. And on another occasion: I
have heard mysterious words which people are not permitted to utter [2 Cor
12:4].
So then, the first point of entry into this house is the entrance of faith.
The second step is the staircase of hope. The third is the vastness of
charity. The fourth is the perfection of charity for the comprehension of
God’s secrets. Therefore, because the holy Church in her perfect
members, in her holy teachers, in those already filled with and rooted in
the mysteries of God, reaches as it were the lofty secrets and even
penetrates them while still residing in this life, she said: The king has
brought me into his bedchamber. For through the Prophets, through the
Apostles, and through the teachers residing in this life here who have
already penetrated the lofty secrets of that life there, the Church has
entered the ‘bedchamber of the king.’

THE NEED FOR REVERENCE AND HUMILITY IN CONTEMPLATION

27. And we must carefully examine why it does not say “into the
bedchamber of the Bridegroom” but into the bedchamber of the king [Song
1:3c]. Now by mentioning the ‘king’ it wants to indicate the reverence
owed to its secrets. For the more noble the bedchamber, the greater the
reverence that should be shown to those things for the sake of which it is
entered. Therefore, lest anyone exalt himself and fall into pride when he
comes to know the secrets of God, when he scrutinizes God’s hidden
commandments, when he is raised up to the lofty heights of
contemplation, it is said that he enters ‘the bedchamber of the king.’ In
other words, the more a soul is brought to the knowledge of his secrets,
the greater the reverence that should be shown. Accordingly, anyone
who progresses, who is already exalted through grace and has reached
the lofty secrets, should be mindful of himself and be all the more
humbled by his very progress. Hence whenever Ezekiel was brought to
the lofty heights of contemplation, he was called ‘son of man.’39 It is as if
it were said to him: “Be mindful of what you are. And do not exalt
yourself on account of those things to which you have been raised.”

MERCY AND FORGIVENESS ARE THE CONSOLATION OF THOSE WHO CANNOT

CONTEMPLATE GOD
28. But only a few people in the Church ever come to scrutinize and
comprehend these lofty and hidden commandments of God. Yet when
we see that strong men can attain such great wisdom that the secrets of
God are contemplated in their hearts, even we little children have
confidence of someday obtaining forgiveness, of someday obtaining
God’s grace. Hence it continues with the words of the young girls: We
shall rejoice and be glad in you [Song 1:3d]. While the Church in those
who are perfect enters the ‘bedchamber of the king,’ the ‘young girls
look forward to the hope of rejoicing’ because while the strong attain the
lofty heights of contemplation, the weak find hope in the forgiveness of
their sins.

THE CHURCH’S PREACHERS

29. The king has brought me into his bedchamber. We shall rejoice and be
glad in you, mindful of your breasts that surpass wine. The upright love you
[Song 1:3c-f]. The Bridegroom, who out of reverence is also called the
‘king,’ has ‘breasts.’ He has ‘breasts,’ holy men clinging40 to him with
their heart. Breasts are affixed to the ribcage. They draw from inward
nourishment in order to nourish outwardly. So then, holy men are the
Bridegroom’s ‘breasts’ because they draw from their innermost depths
and nourish outwardly. His breasts are the Apostles. His breasts are all
the preachers of the Church. As we said above, there was ‘wine’ in the
Prophets. There was ‘wine’ in the Law. But since the commandments
given through the Apostles are better than those given through the
Prophets, they are mindful of your breasts that surpass wine. For there can
be no doubt that those who can fulfill the commandments of the New
Testament surpass the knowledge of Law.

HUMILITY SURPASSES KNOWLEDGE

30. Yet there is another way to understand the passage: Mindful of
your breasts that surpass wine [Song 1:3e]. There are many who indeed
possess the ‘wine’ of wisdom but lack an appreciation for humility;
knowledge puffs them up since charity does not build them up [1 Cor 8:1].
But there are many who possess the ‘wine’ of knowledge such that they
know how to ponder the gifts of teaching, the gifts of spiritual grace. For
the gifts of spiritual grace are like nipples on the chest, which tenderly
sustain and nourish through hidden spiritual passageways. So then, they
are ‘mindful of your breasts that surpass wine’ because these are the
ones who know how to pursue the gifts of your grace such that they do
not attribute their wisdom to themselves and do not exalt themselves on
account of the wisdom they have received, and so they surpass those
who have exalted and raised themselves up on account of their own
wisdom. For being wise humbly is better than merely being wise; in fact,
you are not really wise at all if you are not wise humbly. So then, they
are ‘mindful of your breasts that surpass wine’ because in knowing how
to ponder the gifts of spiritual grace they are superior to those who
indeed possess knowledge but lack an appreciation for these gifts in their
memory. So then, ‘mindful of your breasts that surpass wine’ is said in
plain speech insofar as humility is stronger than knowledge. For ‘wine’ is
the knowledge that makes one tipsy, whereas it is the ‘mindfulness of the
breasts’ that makes one very drunk and brings one back to an
appreciation for these gifts. Therefore, they are ‘mindful of your breasts
which surpass wine’ because humility triumphs even over an abundance
of knowledge.

PERFECT LOVE IS WITHOUT FEAR

31. The upright love you [Song 1:3f]. It is as if she were saying: “Those
who are not upright still fear.” The upright love you. On the one hand,
everyone who does good works out of fear, though ‘upright’ in deed, is
not ‘upright’ in desire. For he wishes that there were nothing to fear and
that he did not have to do good works. On the other hand, the one who
does good works out of love is ‘upright’ both in deed and in desire. But
the sweetness of love is hidden from those who fear. Hence it is written:
How great is the abundance of your sweetness, Lord, which you have hidden
from those who fear you and have brought to fruition for those who hope in
you! [Ps 30:20].41 For the sweetness of God is unknown to those who
fear God but becomes known to those who love him. So then, whoever
has endeavored to be upright through love42 has a love43 that is perfect,
such that he does not fear the coming Judge, such that he does not
tremble at reports of eternal punishments. Hence Paul, while awaiting
the coming of the Judge, while seeking the rewards of eternal life, said:
God has prepared these things, not only for me but also for all who love his
coming [2 Tim 4:8]. The Judge prepares eternal rewards for those who
love because everyone who knows that he does evil works fears the
coming Judge, but everyone who is confident about his works seeks the
coming of the Judge. So then, rewards are prepared for those who wait
for God’s coming and love his coming because people do not love the
coming of the Judge unless they are confident about their case. And so
all certainty of uprightness is a question of love, and therefore it is
rightly said: The upright love you [Song 1:3f].

THE FIRST INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:4-5 (32–35) ON JEWISH CONVERTS TO

CHRISTIANITY
32. I am black but beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of
Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not stare at me because I am dark,
for the sun has scorched me [Song 1:4-5a]. We know that at the time of
the Church’s origins, when the grace of our Redeemer was preached,
some from Judaea believed, whereas others did not believe. But those
who believed were scorned by those who did not believe, suffered
persecution, and were judged for having departed to the way of the Gentile
nations [Matt 10:5]. Hence the Church in [the voice of] these same
believers cries out against the unconverted: I am black but beautiful,
daughters of Jerusalem. “I am indeed black in your judgment but beautiful
through the enlightenment of grace.” In what way black? Like the tents of
Kedar. ‘Kedar’ interpreted means ‘darkness.’ For Kedar was the second
son of Ishmael.44 And the tents of Kedar belonged to Esau.45 So then, in
what way black? Like the tents of Kedar because “in your sight I am
judged to resemble the Gentile nations, that is, to resemble sinners.” In
what way beautiful? Like the curtains of Solomon. It is reported that when
Solomon built the temple, he draped all the utensils of the temple in
finished curtains.46 But Solomon’s curtains must have been very
beautiful, as they were appropriate for the tabernacle. These curtains
would not have been in his tabernacle unless they were beautiful enough
for the service of a king. But since ‘Solomon’ interpreted means ‘peaceful
one,’ we for our part may understand him as the true Solomon. For all
souls attached to God are the ‘curtains of Solomon,’ softening47 and
acclimatizing themselves for the service of the King of Peace. “In your
judgment I am indeed like the ‘tents of Kedar’ because I am judged to
have departed to the way of the Gentile nations,48 but in reality I am
like the ‘curtains of Solomon’ because I am attached to the service of the
King.”
33. Do not stare at me because I am dark, for the sun has scorched me
[Song 1:5a-b]. The group which did not believe in Christ regarded the
group which believed as sinners. But let the latter group say: Do not stare
at me because I am dark, for the sun has scorched me [Song 1:5a-b]. “It is
the sun, the Lord himself, who scorched me when he came.” By his own
precepts he shows that they were not beautiful through the precepts of
the Law. The sun scorches the one upon whom it intensely shines;
similarly, when the Lord came, he scorched with his grace the one upon
whom he intensely shined. For the nearer we draw to his grace, the
more we recognize ourselves as sinners. Let us have a look at Paul, who
came from Judaea, who was scorched by the sun: But if we wished to be
made righteous in Christ, we ourselves were also found to be sinners [Gal
2:17]. Whoever ‘finds himself to be a sinner in Christ’ finds that he has
been scorched by the sun.
34. But note that the group from Judaea which believed suffered
persecution from the Jews who did not believe and was afflicted and
beset by many troubles. Hence it follows: The sons of my mother fought
against me [Song 1:5c]. For the sons of the synagogue who persisted in
their disbelief waged a war of persecution against believers from the
synagogue.
35. But when the group who came to belief from among the Jews
suffered persecution, they departed to preach to the Gentile nations.
They forsook Judaea and went to preach to the Gentile nations. Hence it
follows: They stationed me as a guardian in their vineyards, but I have not
guarded my own vineyard [Song 1:5de]. “For when they persecuted me,
those who are in Judaea made me a guardian in the Churches. ‘I have
not guarded my own vineyard’ because I forsook Judaea.” Hence Paul
says, hence the Apostles: The word of God was sent to us, but since you
have been judged unworthy of it, let it be known that we are going to the
Gentile nations [Acts 13:26, 46]. It is as if he were saying: “We wanted to
guard our own vineyard, but since you yourselves have rejected us, you
send us to guard the vineyards of others.”

THE SECOND INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:4-5 (36–38) ON GENTILE CONVERTS

TO CHRISTIANITY

36. What we have said about the synagogue converted49 to belief can
be now said about the Church called50 to belief: I am black but beautiful,
daughters of Jerusalem [Song 1:4a]. The Church coming from the Gentile
nations ponders the souls of believers, which she has acquired, which
she calls ‘the daughters of Jerusalem.’ After all, ‘Jerusalem’ means
‘vision of peace.’ She ponders what she was. She ponders what she has
become.51 And she acknowledges her past faults lest she be proud,
acknowledges her present conduct lest she be ungrateful, and says: I am
black but beautiful. She is ‘black’ through what she deserves but beautiful
through grace; black through her past conduct but beautiful through her
subsequent way of life. In what way black? Like the tents of Kedar [Song
1:4b]. For the tents of Kedar52 belonged to the Gentile nations; they
were tents of darkness. And it was said to the Gentile nations: You were
once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord [Eph 5:8]. In what way
beautiful? Like the curtains of Solomon [Song 1:4c]. For we have been
softened53 through the works of penance. Flesh is mortified through the
works of penance as skins are treated to make curtains for the service of
a king. All those who afflict themselves through the works of penance
make themselves members of Christ. So then, the members of Christ
afflicted through the works of penance are ‘the curtains of Solomon’
because they become mortified flesh.
37. But note that there were in Judaea [Acts 11:1] some believers who
judged the Gentiles unworthy of coming to belief. Hence they criticized
Peter because he accepted Cornelius.54 Hence she adds in [the voice of]
the Church of the Gentile nations: Do not stare at me because I am dark
[Song 1:5a]. “Do not disdain my Gentile disbelief. Do not disdain my
former sins. Do not focus on what I was.” Why? Because the sun has
scorched me [Song 1:5b]. The sun scorches the one on whom it narrowly
concentrates its rays.55 When God delivers a severe judgment, it is as if
he intensely pours forth a concentration of his rays. And he scorches
when he shines intensely because it is when he concentrates his rays in a
penetrating way that he judges with severity. Now the sun retracts its
rays as it were when God considers our works with mercy. It is as if God
pours forth his power in a concentrated way when he ponders our works
with severity. Therefore, let the Church say: “I am dark for this reason, I
am a sinner for this reason: because the sun has scorched me. For when
my Creator forsook me, I slid into error.”
38. But O! you, so afflicted, so deprived, what did you do to deserve
this? What did you gain from this gift? The sons of my mother fought
against me [Song 1:5c]. The ‘sons of the mother’ are the Apostles. For the
mother of all is the Jerusalem above.56 They ‘fought against’ the Church
when bringing her from disbelief to belief they stabbed her with their
preaching as if with lances. Hence Paul spoke like a fighter: We destroy
speculative arguments and every lofty thing raising itself up in pride against
the knowledge of God [2 Cor 10:4-5]. Because he destroyed the ‘lofty
thing,’ he surely is a fighter. And so, those fighters, those sons of mother
Jerusalem, waged war against the Church to bring her from error and
establish her in righteousness.
The sons of my mother fought against me. And what did these fighters
do? They stationed me as a guardian in their vineyards [Song 1:5d]. The
‘vineyards’ of the Church are the virtues which bear fruit. “For when
they fight against the vices in me, it is as if they extricate me from my
evils.57 They bestowed upon me an abundance of fruit and zeal for the
virtues. ‘They made me a guardian in their vineyards’ so that I could
bring forth58 an abundance of fruit.” After being extricated, let her say of
herself in particular: I have not guarded my own vineyard [Song 1:5e]. The
Church’s ‘vineyard’ is the ancient habit of error. When she was stationed
as a guardian of the virtues, she forsook that vineyard, the ancient habit
of her error.

THE THIRD INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:4-5 (39–40) PROPER SELF-DISCLOSURE

39. We have spoken about the synagogue that comes to belief. We
have spoken about the converted Gentile nation. Let us now speak about
the whole Church collectively and about what ought to be understood
for each soul in particular. Bad students are in the habit of pondering
not what their teachers are but what they were. But good teachers both
acknowledge what they were and communicate what they are. Thus they
neither conceal that they are sinners nor again deny the gifts given to
them as if ungrateful. Therefore, let the Church say in [the voice of]
them: I am black but beautiful [Song 1:4a]. “I am black on my own but
beautiful through the gift given to me; black due to my past but
beautiful because of what I have become for the future.” In what way
black? In what way beautiful? Black like the tents of Kedar, beautiful like
the curtains of Solomon [Song 1:4bc]. And it is not right to judge someone
based upon past conduct and to place more weight on what she was
rather than what she is. Hence she adds: Do not stare at me because I am
dark, for the sun has scorched me [Song 1:5ab]. Sometimes in Sacred
Scripture the sun represents the excessive heat of earthly desires. So
then, why is she dark? “‘For the sun has scorched me’ and I have been
scorched by the ardor of earthly love in the eyes of the Bridegroom,
which is to say I have become ugly in the eyes of the King.”

THE STRUGGLE WITH OUR BROTHERS, THE FALLEN ANGELS

40. The sons of my mother fought against me [Song 1:5c]. In the whole
of creation, there are two creatures endowed with reason, the human
and the angelic. The angel fell and seduced the man. Now the mother of
every creature is the kindness and power of God. So then, because both
we and the angels are endowed with reason, it is as if we possess a kind
of brotherly association. So the angels have been created by the same
power as we have been. And yet after they fell, the angels wage war
against us every day. Because of this, let her say: The sons of my mother
fought against me [Song 1:5c]. Note that when these rational spirits fight,
these spirits who are the ‘sons of the mother,’ when they fight against
the soul, they entangle her in earthly affairs, plunge her into worldly
concerns, addict her to transitory goods. Hence she adds: They stationed
me as a guardian in their vineyards; I have not guarded my own vineyard
[Song 1:5de]. Now the ‘vineyards’ are earthly concerns. It is as if she
were saying: “They stationed me as a guardian in the midst of earthly
concerns.” And why? “I have failed to keep guard over my own
‘vineyard,’ which is to say my soul, my conduct, my mind. For while I
was engrossed exteriorly in concern for earthly matters, I dropped my
interior guard.” Many judge themselves on the basis of what is
associated with them, not what they are. High-ranking positions are
associated with them. Exterior ministries are associated with them. And
when they guard what has been associated with them, they fail to guard
themselves. Therefore let her say: They stationed me as a guardian in the
vineyards; I have not guarded my own vineyard [Song 1:5de]. In other
words: “When I devoted myself to exterior guarding in the concerns of
the world, my solicitude for interior guarding disappeared.”

THE INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:6 (41–43) WHERE THE REDEEMER IS FOUND

INTERIORLY
41. Once returned to the grace of her Creator, see how the soul now
loves him, now seeks where she may find her Redeemer! Hence it
follows: Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture, where you
lie down at midday [Song 1:6a]. At midday the sun is hotter. Everyone
who is fervent in belief is fervent in the love of desire. In the heart of
such people the Bridegroom, who is called a young hart below [Song
2:19], ‘pastures’ on the green grass of the virtues. In the heart of such
people he ‘lies down at midday,’ in the burning fervor of charity. Show
me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture, where you lie down at
midday [Song 1:6a].

HERETICAL TEACHERS ONLY APPEAR TO BE THE COMPANIONS OF GOD

42. “Why do you seek thus where he pastures, where he lies down?”
She replies with the reason for her inquiry: Lest I begin to wander after the
flocks of your companions [Song 1:6b]. God’s ‘companions’ are his friends
and family members, as are all who lead a good life. But many appear to
be his companions but are not his companions. For many teachers who
promoted wicked doctrine really seemed to be his companions but were
discovered to be his enemies. While they were still teachers, Arius,
Sabellius, and Montanus seemed to be his companions. But when they
were carefully examined, they were unmasked as his enemies.59 And it
often happens that believing souls, who cling to the word of God, who
love in their teachers what enables them to make progress, do not know
how to be wary of what wicked teachers say and falter because of their
teaching. How many people believed because of the companions but
when they followed them went astray through the ‘flocks’ of the
companions! And so she says: Show me where you pasture, where you lie
down at midday, lest I begin to wander after the flocks of your companions
[Song 1:6ab] . It is as if she were saying: “Show me in whose hearts you
truly repose ‘lest I begin to wander after the flocks of those who seem to
be your companions,’ which is to say those who are regarded as your
family members but are not.” All priests, all teachers are companions of
God insofar as outward appearance is concerned. But insofar as conduct
is concerned, many are not his companions but his adversaries.

CATHOLIC TEACHERS LEADING BAD LIVES ARE NOT THE COMPANIONS OF GOD
43. But what we have said about heretical teachers can be said about
Catholics who do not live a good life. For many little children in the
Church who believe strive to lead a good life. They want to have upright
conduct. They ponder the conduct of the priests who preside over them.
And when priests themselves do not lead a good life, when those who
preside do not live in an upright manner, those who follow them will
slip into error. Hence the Church as if in [the voice of] these same little
children who believe says: Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you
pasture, where you lie down at midday [Song 1:6ab] . That is to say:60
“Show me the conduct of those who truly serve you, that I may know
where you ‘pasture’ on the green grass of the virtues, that I may know
where you ‘lie down at midday,’ which is to say where you repose in the
burning fervor of charity. Otherwise when I watch the ‘flocks of your
companions’ I will begin to wander, not knowing on whose words and
teachings I can depend.” Now every student, every weak person, must
carefully ponder whose words he should trust, whose teaching he should
put into practice, whose examples he should follow.

THE INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:7 (44) THE CONSEQUENCES OF LACK OF SELF-

KNOWLEDGE
44. And note the words of the Bridegroom when he replies to the
Bride: If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women, set out and
follow the tracks of the flocks, and pasture your young goats near the tents of
the shepherds [Song 1:7]. Every soul should care for nothing more than to
know herself. For whoever knows herself recognizes that she has been
made in the image of God. If she is made in the image of God, then she
should not behave like beasts, squandering herself either in self-
indulgence or in the pursuit of present goods. It is said of this ignorance
elsewhere: When man is held in honor, he lacks understanding; he is
compared to foolish beasts and becomes like them [Ps 48:13]. The ‘tracks of
the flocks’ are the activities of the crowds: the more we engage in such
activities, the more they hamper, the more they misguide.
So then, let it be said to the Church: If you do not know yourself, O
beautiful among women, set out and follow the tracks of the flocks and
pasture your young goats near the tents of the shepherds [Song 1:7]. “O you
who were filthy through ignorance have through faith become beautiful
among the souls of others!” This is clearly said to the Church of the
elect. “‘If you do not know yourself,’ that is, if you do not know that you
have been made in my image, then ‘set out,’ that is, go forth.61 But if
you do not realize by whom you have been made, then ‘set out and
follow,’ that is, hasten after ‘the tracks of the flocks.’ Do not follow
examples I have given you, but the examples of the crowds.”
Pasture your young goats near the tents of the shepherds. Our ‘young
goats’ are the stirrings of carnal desire. Our young goats are illicit
temptations. “‘Follow the tracks of the flocks,’ that is, depart, follow the
examples of the crowds. ‘And pasture your young goats,’ that is, indulge
your stirrings of carnal desire. No longer nourish your spiritual thoughts
but your stirrings of carnal desire. ‘Go near the tents of the shepherds.’ If
you were pasturing lambs, you would have pastured them in the tents of
shepherds, that is, in the teachings of the masters, in the teachings of the
Apostles, in the teachings of the Prophets. But if you are pasturing young
goats, pasture them ‘near the tents of the shepherds,’ so that you will be
called a Christian by belief and not by works. For you will be viewed as
within [the Church] through your belief but as not within through your
works.”
Look how you have chided her! Look how you have rebuked her! Why
aren’t you saying that you have already worked in her out of kindness?
Speak plainly!

THE INTERPRETATION OF SONG 1:8 (45–46) PREDESTINATION

 45. For it follows: I have associated you, my sweetheart, with my cavalry
while you were in the chariots of Pharaoh [Song 1:8].62 All enslaved to
self-indulgence, pride, greed, envy, falsehood are still under the yoke of
Pharaoh’s chariot. They are like horses under the yoke of his chariot,
which is to say under the control of the devil. But everyone who is
fervent in humility, in chastity, in teaching, in charity has already
become a horse of our Creator, is already hitched to the chariot of God,
already has God as his charioteer. Hence the Lord said to the man whose
conductor he already was: It is hard for you to kick against the goad [Acts
26:14]. It is as if he were saying: “You are my horse. You can no longer
kick against me. I am now your conductor.” These horses are mentioned
elsewhere: You have sent your horses into the sea, throwing the many waters
into confusion [Hab 3:15]. And so, God has chariots. He is the conductor
of holy souls and travels around everywhere by means of holy souls.
Hence it is written: The chariots of God are ten-thousand, many thousands
of those rejoicing [Ps 67:18]. Pharaoh has chariots. But his chariots were
submerged in the Red Sea63 insofar as many wicked people have been
transformed in baptism. So then, let the Bridegroom say: I have
associated you, my sweetheart, with my cavalry while you were in the
chariots of Pharaoh [Song 1:8]. In other words: “While you were still in
the chariots of Pharaoh, while you were still enslaved to demonic works,
I associated you with my cavalry. For I consider what I will have
accomplished in you through predestination. And so I have placed you
among my horses.” For God sees that many are still servants of self-
indulgence and greed, and yet by a secret judgment considers what he
has already worked in them. For God has horses but he sees that many
are still the horses of Pharaoh.
46. And since God knows by a hidden judgment who will be changed
for the better by a hidden predestination, he already considers them to
be like his own horses. For he sees that he will lead to his own chariot
those who were once slaves in Pharaoh’s chariot. At this point let us
ponder his hidden judgments. For many appear to be horses of God on
account of their preaching, wisdom, chastity, generosity, longsuffering.
Yet by a hidden judgment of God they are associated with the horses of
Pharaoh. And many appear to be horses of Pharaoh on account of their
greed, pride, envy, self-indulgence. And yet by a hidden judgment of
God they are associated with the horses of God. For God both sees those
who will turn from good to evil and sees those who will return from evil
to good. So then, in his severity many who appear to be God’s horses are
actually Pharaoh’s horses because of the reprobate conduct which will
ensue for them; likewise, in his pity many who appear to be Pharaoh’s
horses are actually his elect because of the holy conduct which they will
observe in the end and are thus associated with God’s horses. Hence the
Bridegroom encourages the Bride and says: I have associated you, my
sweetheart, with my cavalry while you were in the chariots of Pharaoh [Song
1:8]. In other words: “You were still enslaved, hitched to the chariots of
Pharaoh. You were running under the yoke of your vices. But I consider
what I accomplished in you through predestination. I have associated
you with my cavalry, which is to say I consider you to be like my elect.”

Here it ends.64

1. This incipit is the most genuine and is found in mss. α1•3•4, β1•4, ω2.

2. Here I read insensibilitatis instead of infidelitatis.

3. Here I read infra positae instead of positae.

4. Here I read sperantur aeterna instead of separatur a terra. The alternate reading is
translated: “is separated from earthly things.”

5. Here I read nuptiali. Necesse est, ne, si instead of nuptiali, necesse est: ne, si.

6. See Matt 22:1-14.

7. Here I read utile instead of utilis.

8. Here I read cum verba dei audirent instead of cum verba dei.

9. Here I read figurate instead of figuram.

10. Lat. Et quidem apud deum quando et quando non est. In other words, the use of temporal
language when speaking about God does not refer to different moments of time.

11. See Gen 12:4.

 12. See Gen 26:14-22.

13. See Gen 28:12.

14. See Ps 35:10; Prov 13:14; 16:22; John 4:14; Rev 7:17.

15. Here I read per ora prophetarum instead of per prophetarum.

16. Here I read eum subito videre instead of eum videre.

17. See Luke 24:13-35.

18. Note the significance of difference between the singular and plural of ‘ointment.’

19. Here I read unaquaque instead of unaquaeque.

20. Presumably, Gregory means the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

21. See Exod 33:11, 17-23.

22. Lat. os enim ad os loquor ei, often translated “face-to-face.”

23. Here I read humillimae praedictiones Incarnationis eius instead of humillimae Incarnationis
eius.

24. Here I read humillimam praedicationem dominicae Incarnationis instead of humillimam

praedicationis dominicae Incarnationem.

25. Here Gregory plays on sapientia (“wisdom”) and sapere (“to savor”), commonly thought
in antiquity to be etymologically connected.

26. Gregory’s version differs slightly from the Vulgate: The foolishness of God is stronger than
men, and the weakness of God is wiser than men.

27. Lat. veris veris virtutibus. The repetition of veris is an intensive, unless it is a corruption.

28. Here I read deo instead of domino.

29. Here I read prope fit instead of proficit.

30. Lat. compungitur.

31. Here I read exteriora sua danti is instead of exteriora suadenti is.
 32. Lat. in confrequentationibus. Though this phrase could mean either “with great throngs of
people” or “with great frequency,” Gregory’s interpretation depends on the latter, and I
translate accordingly.

33. Lat. scientia.

34. Lat. notitia.

35. “Youth” (adulescentia) is the age of the “young girls” (adulescentulae).

36. Here I read sed nonnulli instead of et nonnulli.

37. Here I read extenditur instead of tenditur.

38. Full citation: The blessed man whose help is from God has arranged staircases in his heart.

39. Lat. filius hominis. The phrase occurs some ninety times in Ezekiel, translated by Jerome
in the Vulgate with the vocative in the classical form: fili hominis.

40. Here I read adherentes instead of adherentium.

41. Psalm 30:20 reads: Quam magna multitudo dulcedinis tuae, domine, quam abscondisti
timentibus te, et perfectisti eam sperantibus in te. Timentibus is meant to be understood as a dative
and thus would be translated “which you have laid up for those who fear you” and therefore
forms a parallel with “have brought to fruition for those who hope in you.” But it is clear from
what follows that Gregory takes timentibus as an ablative of separation. Thus, Gregory sees the
two latter phrases of this verse as presenting an antithesis between those who merely fear God
and those who hope in him.

42. Lat. amor.

43. Lat. dilectio.

44. See Gen 25:13 and 1 Chr 1:29.

45. This is not recorded in Scripture.

46. The word for “curtains” is pelle, which means either animal skin or the commodities
made from animal skins such as blankets, tents, and curtains.

47. Lat. macerantes. This word literally refers to the “treatment” of animal skins, whether by
“softening” or “weakening,” in order to make them fit for other uses. The same word is also
used by Gregory for the ascetic “chastisement” of the body.
 48. See Matt 10:5.

49. Here I read conversa instead of conversam.

50. Here I read vocata instead of vocatam.

51. Here I read considerat quid facta est instead of quid facta est.

52. Here I read Cedar quippe instead of Cedar.

53. See n. 47 above on macerantes.

54. See Acts 10:1–11:18.

55. This sentence and the following are difficult to translate because of Gregory’s wordplay
with districtius, districte (“with severity, severely”), districtus (“severe”), and districtio (“a
concentration” of the sun’s rays).

56. See Gal 4:26.

57. Here I read malis meis instead of mala mea.

58. Here I read afferem instead of afferent.

59. Here Gregory lists the most infamous heretics of the fourth, third, and second centuries,
respectively.

60. Here I insert Id est.

61. Here I read egredere id est foras exi instead of egredere id est exi.

62. Lat. Equitatui meo in curribus pharaonis adsimilavi te, amica mea. Gregory seems to
interpret the preposition in in a temporal sense (“while in”), whereas it merely denotes a
physical position (“in”). I have reflected this interpretation of Gregory in the translation.

63. See Exod 14:28.

64. Lat. explicit. This is the most primitive scribal explicit which is found in mss.α2, β1, δ2;
other more developed explicits read: “Here ends the second sermon taken from the notary’s
transcription” (α1•3); “Here ends the second homily” β2, δ5); “Here ends the exposition on the
Songs of Songs by Blessed Gregory, Pope” (β5); and “Here ends the book called on the Songs of
Songs by Gregory, Pope of the City of Rome” (δ6).
EXCERPTS FROM THE WORKS OF
GREGORY THE GREAT ON
THE SONG OF SONGS
Compiled by Paterius and Bede
INTRODUCTION
There is no critical edition of the Liber testimonium of Paterius.
Therefore, I have based my translation on the defective Maurist edition
of 17051 that was reprinted by Migne in 1849.2 I have also utilized the
corrections to this edition that were suggested by Raymond Étaix in his
study of the manuscript tradition.3 I have omitted the phrase adiunctum
est that the Maurists inserted before the scriptural citation in their
edition, as André Wilmart has noted that it is not found in the
manuscripts.4 The situation for Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs is
much better. My translation is based on the critical edition established
for Corpus Christianorum Series Latina by Dom David Hurst, OSB, in
1983.5 I have emended both these editions in a number of cases. These
emendations, as well as other significant divergences between the
excerpters and Gregory, are listed and explained in appendix 4.
There is much overlap in the excerpts compiled by Paterius and Bede.
Rather than producing two separate translations with much repetition, it
was thought best to present a single translation of Gregory’s comments
on the Song of Songs as compiled by both authors. Both excerpters for
the most part simply cite blocks of text from their source, though not
always the same lines. Accordingly, the “dimensions” of their respective
excerpts are indicated in each case. The signal within curly brackets {}
indicates to whose excerpt the following text belongs. For example,
{P10} indicates that the following part of the excerpt is drawn from
Paterius and that it is the tenth of his collection; {B9} that what follows
is drawn from Bede and that it is the ninth excerpt from his collection. In
cases of overlap, annotations such as {P4/B2} are used. See appendix 2
for a table that lists how Paterius’s and Bede’s excerpts correspond to
Gregory’s original text. The translation of these excerpts is preceded by
Bede’s preface to his collection.

BEDE’S PREFACE TO COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS VI

In the Exposition on the Song of Songs, which we have expounded in
five books (now the first volume of this work was written particularly
against Julian6 in order to defend the grace of God which he had
attacked; for which reason, when grace abandoned him, he perished),
we followed in the footsteps of the fathers, with the result that we have
in the meantime left untouched the works of our Pope and Father
Gregory, beloved by God and men. I suppose that readers would be
happier if we could bring together all the discussions scattered
throughout his works in which he interprets the Song of Songs, since he
spoke abundantly on it and said many things, and collect them into a
single volume. It is this that we now plan to do, with the Lord’s help.
Therefore, we have composed a sixth7 book on the Song of Songs. It is a
collection of texts made through our very own efforts, but one which
brings together the words and thought of Blessed Gregory so that if there
should perhaps be anyone who judges that there is good reason to scorn
our work, he may have ready access to those statements of Gregory that
ought to be read, which all agree are not to be scorned in any way. But
if someone should be seized by love and also read what we have written,
then it would be as if a great architect were placing a golden roof on our
insignificant marble buildings. I have heard, moreover, that Paterius, a
disciple of the same blessed Pope Gregory, collected Gregory’s
interpretations of all the Holy Scriptures from all the parts of his works
and gathered them in order into a single volume. If I should have had
this work at hand, I would have accomplished the task I set for myself
far more easily and more perfectly. But since I have not yet merited to
see this work, I myself have tried to imitate it on my own to the best of
my ability, with the Lord’s help.

TRANSLATION OF THE COMPILATIONS OF PATERIUS AND BEDE

Song 1:1a. Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth!
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 148—{B2} When Matthew
observed the Lord giving commandments on the mount, he said: Opening
his own mouth, he said … [Matt 5:2]. It is as if he were saying in plain
speech: “Then he who had earlier opened the mouths of the Prophets
opened his own mouth.” For the same reason the Bride who desired his
presence said of him: Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth! For
{P1.1/B2} as many commandments the holy Church learned from his
preaching, so many ‘kisses of his mouth,’ as it were, did she receive.
{P1.2} She who readies herself through love to obey her Creator is right
to desire his ‘kiss.’9
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 27—{B1.1} The Only-
Begotten Son can be designated as the “Mouth” of God. Just as he is
spoken of as the “Arm” of God because the Father accomplishes all
things through him (about this Arm the Prophet says: To whom is the
Lord’s Arm revealed? [Isa 53:1]; and John the Evangelist says: All things
were made through him [John 1:3]), so too may he be spoken of as the
“Mouth.” {B1.2} It is as if “Word” were being said in plain speech when
the term “Mouth” is used, just as we are accustomed to say “tongue” for
“language.” For when we use the expression “the Greek or Latin tongue,”
we mean “the Latin or Greek language.”10 Therefore, we are right to
take the “Mouth” of the Lord as his Son, {B1.3} through which he
speaks all things to us. {B1.4} The Prophet speaks in this way: For the
Mouth of the Lord has spoken this [Isa 1:20; 58:14]. {B1.5} The Bride too
speaks to him in this way in the Song of Songs: Let him kiss me with the
kiss of his mouth. It is as if she were saying in plain speech: “Let him
touch me with the sweetness of the presence of his Only-Begotten Son,
my Redeemer.”

Song 1:1b. Your breasts are better than wine.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 30—{B3} Teachers are the
‘breasts,’ which are connected to the hidden part of the chest and give
milk to drink, because they cling to hidden matters in the loftiest
contemplation and nourish us with their perceptive preaching.11

Song 1:2c. The young girls have loved you.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 24—{B4/P2} Sacred
Scripture is frequently accustomed to put “youth” for “newness of life.”
Hence it is said to the approaching Bridegroom: The young girls have
loved you, which is to say the souls of the elect, renewed by the grace of
baptism, who do not succumb to the practices of their former ways but
are adorned with the way of life that belongs to the new man [Eph 4:24].

Song 1:4a. I am black but beautiful.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 18—{B5} Preachers never
pride themselves on the true light of their righteousness but through the
grace of humility acknowledge in themselves the blackness of sin. Hence
it is also said by the Church of the elect: I am black but beautiful. And
John said: If we were to say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves
[1 John 1:8].

Song 1:5d-e. They placed me as a guardian in their vineyards; I have not

guarded my own vineyard.
From the Exposition of the Gospels, Homily 17—{B6} The holy
Church says these words about her weak members. {P3/B6} The
‘vineyards’ are our activities that we cultivate by our practice of daily
labor. We are ‘placed as guardians in their vineyards’ but ‘do not guard
our own vineyard’ because when we entangle ourselves in external
activities, we neglect the ministry of our own activity.12

Song 1:6a. Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture, where
you lie down at midday.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 30—{P5/B7} The Lord
‘pastures himself’ when he finds delight in our good deeds. But he ‘lies
down at midday’ when turning from the hearts of the reprobate, which
burn with carnal desires, he finds the cool refreshment of good thought
in the hearts of his elect.

Song 1:7. If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women, set out
and follow the tracks of the flocks and pasture your young goats.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 30—{P6/B8} She who is
‘beautiful among women’ knows herself when every elect soul, even if
placed among sinners, remembers that she was created in the image and
likeness of her Creator and lives in a manner befitting this status of
likeness that she has perceived. If she ‘does not know herself,’ she ‘sets
out’ because, being exiled from the secret depths of her heart, she is
dissipated by external objects of desire. But when she ‘sets out,’ she
‘follows the tracks of the flocks’ because clearly by forsaking her interior
life she is brought to the wide way13 and follows the examples of the
masses. She no longer ‘pastures’ lambs but ‘goats’ because she makes no
effort to nourish the harmless thoughts of the mind but encourages the
wicked stirrings of the flesh.

Song 1:11. While the king was on his couch, my nard gave its odor.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 35—{B9} The virtues of
those making progress are in a certain sense fragrant with a sweet odor
when other people come to know them. Paul spoke in this way: We are
the good odor of Christ for God [2 Cor 2:15]. Similarly, the holy Church,
being fragrant with a kind of sweet odor in her elect, spoke in this way
in the Song of Songs, saying: While the king was on his couch, my nard
gave its odor. {P7/ B9} It is as if she were saying in plain speech: “As
long as the king is hidden from my sight, secluded by himself in his
heavenly repose, the conduct of the elect is occupied with giving forth
the wonderful odors of the virtues. Hence even though it still does not
see him whom it seeks, it may burn all the more ardently with desire.”
And so ‘nard gives off its odor while the king is settled upon his couch’
because the virtue of the saints in the Church supplies us with the
pleasantness of great sweetness while the Lord is at rest in his
blessedness.

Song 2:5a. Bolster me with flowers, surround me with apples, for I grow
faint with love.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 3 in Book 2—{B10.1} She
who passionately loves her Bridegroom ordinarily gains a single
consolation from the delay of the present life, if throughout her
separation from the sight of him the souls of others make progress by her
word and thereby are inflamed with the firebrands of love for the
heavenly Bridegroom. {B10.2} Hence the Bride says in the Song: Bolster
me with flowers, surround me with apples, for I grow faint with love.
{P8/B10.2} For what are ‘flowers,’ if not souls who are already
beginning to do good work and are redolent with heavenly desire? What
are the ‘apples’ from the ‘flowers,’ if not the perfect minds of those
already good who attain the fruit of good work from the moment they
chose a holy way of life? So then, she who ‘grows faint with love’ seeks
to be ‘bolstered with flowers’ and ‘surrounded with apples,’ because,
even though she is still not permitted to see him whom she desires, she
gains great consolation by finding joy in the progress of others.
Therefore, a soul who has ‘grown faint with holy love’ is ‘surrounded
with flowers and apples,’ so that she may find rest in the good work of
her neighbor when she is still unable to contemplate the face of God.

Song 2:5b (LXX). I have been wounded by love.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 6—{P9/B11} The soul that
is sickly and lies prostrate in the blind security of this exile has neither
seen God nor sought to see him.14 But when she is struck by the darts of
his love, she is ‘wounded’ in her innermost recesses with tender
devotion, burns with desire for contemplation, and marvelously is
restored to life through her wound, though once she lay dead in health.
She yearns, she pants, and she desires now to see him whom she fled.
Thus by being struck she recovers her health, recalled to the secure state
of inward repose by the overturning of her self-love. {P9} But when the
wounded mind begins to pant for God, when she despises all that is
attractive in this world and thereby stretches to her homeland above
through desire, whatever she used to consider pleasing and attractive in
the world is straightaway turned into source of temptation for her. For
those who had a fond affection for her when she was a sinner cruelly
assault her when she lives uprightly. And the soul that is upright in God
endures attacks from her very own flesh in which she formerly groveled
with delight, enslaved to her vices. Previous pleasures return to the
memory and afflict the mind with an oppressive struggle as it opposes
them. But by being exhausted in toil that is transitory, we are freed from
sorrow that is everlasting.

Song 2:6. His left hand is under my head and his right hand will embrace
me.
From the Book on Pastoral Rule, Chapter 50 in Book 3—{P10/B12} In
a certain sense, she15 has put the ‘left hand’ of God, which is to say the
prosperity of the present life, ‘under her head,’ and pushes it with the
intentness of the highest love. But the ‘right hand’ of God embraces her
because in her total commitment she is kept safe under his eternal
beatitude. {B12} Again, for this reason it is written: With your right hand,
Lord, you have shattered the enemies [Exod 15:6]. For God’s enemies, even
though they thrive in his left hand, are smashed by his right hand,
because the present life is usually favorable to the wicked but the
coming of eternal beatitude dooms them.

Song 2:8. Behold! He comes leaping upon the mountains, springing across
the hills.
From the Exposition on the Gospels, Homily 29—{P11.1} Considering
his great works to be like lofty peaks, she said: Behold! He comes leaping
upon the mountains. {P11.2/B13} For by coming for our redemption the
Lord performed, if I may put it so, a certain number of leaps. {B13} Dear
brothers, do you want to learn what these leaps of his were?
{P11.2/B13} From heaven he came into the womb. From the womb he
came into the manger. From the manger he came onto the cross. From
the cross he came into the tomb. From the tomb he returned to heaven.
Behold! Truth manifested in the flesh performed for our benefit a certain
number of leaps so as to make us run after him. {B13} He exulted like a
giant to run his course [Ps 18:6] so that we might say to him from our
heart: Draw me! After you we shall run in the odor of your ointments [Song
1:3].

Song 2:9b. Lo! He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows,
peering through the lattices.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 1 in Book 2—{B14} In the
voice of the Bride the holy Church plainly desires to see him in the
present time, saying: Lo! He stands behind our wall. {P12/B14} For he
who displayed to human eyes that which he assumed from mortal
nature,16 and remained invisible in himself, ‘stood’ as if ‘behind a wall’
for those seeking to see him in the open because he did not allow
himself to be seen with his majesty manifest. Now he ‘stood’ as if ‘behind
a wall’ when he displayed the nature of the humanity that he assumed
and kept the nature of his divinity hidden from human eyes. Hence it is
added there: Looking through the windows, peering through the lattices. For
anyone who ‘looks through windows and lattices’ is neither entirely seen
nor entirely unseen.17 Thus, thus our18 Redeemer came before the eyes
of doubters surely for the following reasons: if he had performed
miracles without suffering as a man, he would have appeared to them19
exclusively as God. Then again, if he had experienced human suffering
without accomplishing anything as God, they would have considered
him a mere man. But since he both accomplished divine acts and
experienced human suffering, it is as if he ‘peered’ at human beings
‘through windows and lattices.’ For he both manifested himself as God
through his miracles and hid that he was God through his sufferings. He
was perceived as a man on account of his sufferings and yet was
recognized as superior to a man on account of his miracles.

Song 2:10-12. Arise, make haste, my love, my beautiful one, and come! For
now the winter is past, the rains are over and gone.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 27—{B15} Holy preaching
will cease when the present life ends, which is to say rains will cease
when winter ends. Hence the soul that is departing from this life and
hastening to the regions of eternal summer rightly hears the voice of the
Bridegroom persuading her say: Arise, make haste, my love, my beautiful
one, and come! For now the winter is past, the rains are over and gone. After
all, {P13/B15} when ‘winter is past, the rains are gone’ because when
the present life is over, in which the numbing cold of the corruptible
flesh holds us back in a cloud of ignorance, every ministry of preaching
ceases. For at that time we will see more clearly with our own eyes that
which we now hear somewhat obscurely through the voices of the saints.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 4 in Book 2—{B16} Whether
she is the holy Church or any elect soul, she is the ‘love’ of the heavenly
Bridegroom on account of her love, his ‘dove’ on account of her spirit,
and his ‘beautiful one’ on account of the beauty of her conduct. When
she is raised from the corruption of the flesh, do not doubt that ‘now the
winter is past’ for her because the numbing cold of the present life
departs. Furthermore, ‘the rains are over and gone’ because when she is
raised to the contemplation of Almighty God in his own essence, there is
no further need for the rain of preaching to drench her. For she will see
more fully what she could hardly hear at all. At that time ‘flowers will
appear in the land’ because when a soul begins to receive a kind of
initial foretaste of the pleasantness of eternal beatitude, it is as if the
soul is already sniffing fragrances among flowers as she departs. For
after she has quit this life, she will have fruit in greater abundance. This
is why it is added in that place: The time for pruning has come [Song
2:12]. When someone is pruning, he cuts away the barren branches in
order that the vigorous ones may bear fruit in greater abundance. And
so, ‘the time for our pruning comes’ when we forsake the unfruitful and
harmful corruption of the flesh so as to be able to attain the fruit of the
soul.

Song 3:1-4. In my little bed night by night I sought him whom my soul loves;
I sought him but I did not find him. I will arise and scour the whole city; in
the streets and the squares I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him
but I did not find him. The watchmen who guard the city found me. Have you
seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed by them a little ways, I
found him whom my soul loves.
From the Exposition on the Gospels, Homily 25—{P15/B17} We seek
the beloved ‘in the little bed’ when we sigh with desire for our Redeemer
during the brief respite of the present life. We seek ‘night by night’
because even though our mind already watches for him, yet our eye is
still darkened. But when she does not find her beloved, ‘she arises and
scours the city,’ which is to say she uses her mind to travel about the
holy Church of the elect on a quest. ‘She seeks him in the streets and the
squares,’ which is to say she looks at those strolling in narrow and wide
places, seeking if any trace of him can be found in them. For even
among those who lead a worldly life, there are some who display a
modicum of virtue in their actions that is worth imitating. As we search,
‘the watchmen who guard the city’ find us because the holy fathers, who
are the guardians of the Church’s stability, run to meet our good efforts
in order to teach us by their deeds, their words, or their writings. When
we ‘have passed by them a little ways,’ we find him whom we love
because our Redeemer, even though he lived in humility as a human
being among human beings, was yet above human beings on account of
his divinity. Therefore, when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is
found because when we come to consider the Prophets and the Apostles
as inferior to him, we realize that he who is God by nature is superior to
human beings. Therefore, the Bridegroom when not found is first sought
so that later when found he may be held more closely.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 7 in Book 2—{B19} Here is
what the Bride in the Song of Songs says when she is anxious with holy
desires: In my little bed night by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I
sought him but I did not find him. {P17/B19} For she seeks the beloved ‘in
the little bed’ when the soul, in her eagerly sought leisure and repose,
already yearns to see the Lord, already desires to depart to him,
already20 longs to be free of the darkness of the present life. But ‘she
seeks him and does not find him’ because, although she desires with
great love, she is still not permitted to see him whom she loves.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 5—{P18} The Bridegroom
hides himself when sought so that upon not being found he may be
sought all the more ardently. The Bride who seeks him is kept at a
distance lest she find him, in order that she may be rendered more
receptive by the delay and thereby one day find a thousandfold what she
sought.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 18—{P19} Whom ought we
take as ‘the watchmen who guard the city,’ if not the earlier fathers and
prophets who devoted themselves to watching by the words of holy
preaching so as to guard us? {P19/B18} But when the Church sought
her Redeemer, she was not willing to set her hope on those same ancient
preachers, saying: When I had passed by them a little ways, I found him
whom my soul loves. After all, she would not have been able to find him
unless she had been willing to pass them by. {P19} The unbelievers
entrusted themselves to these same sentries since they believed that
Christ the Son of God was one of them. So then, by means of the words
and faith of Peter the holy Church passed by the watchmen whom she
found, since she refused to believe that the Lord of the Prophets was one
of the Prophets.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 27—{P20} When I had
passed by them a little ways, I found him whom my soul loves because the
mind eager for the sight of him cannot find him who is above humanity,
unless she ‘passes by’ the high esteem of the Prophets, the loftiness of
the Patriarchs, and the stature of all people. So then, ‘to pass by the
watchmen’ means to consider even those whom the soul admires as of
less value when compared to him. And he who was sought is then
beheld, if he is believed to be a human being and yet at the same time
beyond the stature of human beings.

Song 3:6. Who is this coming up through the desert like a column of smoke
arising from incense made of myrrh and frankincense and all the fragrant
powders of the perfumer?
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 1—{P21} The holy Church
is ‘coming up like a column of smoke arising from incense’ because she
makes progress each day in the uprightness of internal ‘incense’21 on
account of the virtues of her conduct. Nor does she become dissipated in
scattered thoughts, but confines herself within the hidden recesses of her
heart by means of the rod of severity.22 As long as she never ceases to
ponder and consider anew what she does, she indeed has ‘myrrh and
frankincense’ in her deeds but ‘powder’ in her thoughts.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 10 in Book 2—{B20} The
holy Church of the elect, when with ardent love she raises herself from
this world amid holy prayers, ‘is coming up through the desert,’ which
she leaves behind. But it adds how she comes up: like a column of smoke
arising from incense. Smoke is produced by incense, as is said through the
Psalmist: Let my prayer arise in your presence like incense [Ps 140:2].
Smoke ordinarily provokes tears. And so, the ‘smoke arising from
incense’ is the compunction of prayer produced by the virtues of love.
Yet this prayer is called ‘a column of smoke’ because, when it asks only
for heavenly goods, it soars upward so directly that it never turns back
to seek earthly and temporal goods.23 And note that it is not called a
“rod” but a ‘column’ because sometimes in the ardor of compunction the
force of love is of such subtlety24 that not even the soul itself, which
when enlightened merits to possess it, can comprehend it. Furthermore,
‘made of myrrh and frankincense’ is well said. For the Law prescribes
that frankincense be burned in sacrifice to the Lord but that dead bodies
be embalmed with myrrh to prevent corruption by worms. Therefore, a
sacrifice of myrrh and frankincense is offered by those who afflict their
flesh lest they be dominated by the vices of corruption, who burn the
pleasing offering of their love in the presence of the Lord,25 and who
present themselves to God amid holy virtues. This is why it is added in
that place: And all the fragrant powders of the perfumer. The fragrant
powder of the perfumer is the virtue of the one who acts well. And note
that the virtues of those who act well are not called “paints” but
‘fragrant powders.’ For when we do any good work, we are offering
paints. But when we reconsider the very good works that we do, and on
the basis of this reconsideration determine whether there is anything evil
in them, and submit to this judgment, in a certain sense we make
powder from paints. Thus we burn our prayer to the Lord more subtly
through discretion and love.

Song 3:7. Lo! Sixty of the most valiant men of Israel surrounded the little
bed of Solomon.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 7—{B21.1} The strength of
the righteous is to conquer their flesh, to thwart self-will, to annihilate
the delight of the present life, to love the harshness of this world for the
sake of eternal rewards, to scorn the charms of good fortune, to
overcome the dread of adversity in their heart. {B21.2} Therefore, sixty
of the most valiant men of Israel surrounded the little bed of Solomon
{B21.3} because all the saints contemplate interior repose without any
lessening of their desire.26

Song 3:8a. All are holding swords and they are very skilled in warfare.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 19—{P22/B22} What the
‘sword’ represents in the Divine Scripture, Paul laid open when he said:
And the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God [Eph 6:17]. Now
Solomon did not say, “All have swords,” but: All are holding swords,
clearly because is it wonderful not only to know the Word of God but
also to do it. After all, a sword is had but not held when someone knows
the divine speech but makes no effort to live according to it. And a man
can no longer be skilled in warfare if he does not train with the spiritual
sword he has. For he is altogether unequal to the task of resisting
temptations {P22} if by living a bad life he puts off holding this sword
of the Word of God.

Song 3:8b. Everyone’s blade is upon his thigh on account of nocturnal fears.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 20—{P23/B23} ‘Nocturnal
fears’ are the hidden snares of temptation. But a ‘blade is upon the thigh’
when vigilant guarding subdues the enticements of flesh. So then, lest
‘nocturnal fear,’ which is to say hidden and sudden temptation, catch us
unawares, the ‘blade’ of guarding ‘placed upon our thigh’ must always
subjugate it. For even though holy people are so confident in their hope,
they nevertheless always look upon temptation with mistrust. After all,
to them it is said: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice in him with trembling
[Ps 2:11], {B23} meaning that rejoicing is born of their hope and
trembling of their mistrust.
From the Book on Pastoral Rule, Chapter 56 in Book 3—{B24} A
‘blade is placed upon the thigh’ when a wicked suggestion of the flesh is
subjugated by the sharp edge of holy preaching. But the term ‘night’
refers to the blindness that characterizes our enfeebled state. For we do
not see the forces of opposition that threaten us at night. Therefore,
everyone’s blade is on his thigh on account of nocturnal fears because it is
clear that holy people, while they dread the dangers they do not see, are
always prepared to ward off an attack.

Song 3:9-10. King Solomon made himself a palanquin from the wood of
Lebanon. He made its posts of silver, its seat of gold, its ladder of purple, and
he covered the insides with love on account of the daughters of Jerusalem.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 3 in Book 2—{P24.1/B25.1}
Now we ought not believe about Solomon, a king of such greatness, who
abounded in such immeasurable riches that the weight of his gold could
not be estimated and in whose days silver was worthless,27 that he made
himself a palanquin from wood. Rather, it is Solomon, namely our king
and our peacemaker, who made himself a palanquin from the wood of
Lebanon. For the cedar wood of Lebanon is most imperishable. And so,
the palanquin of our king is the holy Church, which was built from our
strong forefathers, which is to say from imperishable minds. She is
rightly called a ‘palanquin’ because each day she transports souls to the
eternal banquet of her Creator.
The ‘posts’ of this palanquin were made ‘of silver’ because the
preachers of the holy Church shine with the splendor of eloquent speech.
But there is a ‘seat of gold’ in addition to the ‘posts of silver’ because
when the luminous words of holy preachers are heard, the minds of
those who hear them discover the brightness of inner clarity, in which
they may recline. For when they hear these clear and plain words they
find rest in the clarity that has come to their heart. So then,28 its29
‘posts’ are ‘of silver’ and its ‘seat’ was made ‘of gold’ because the
splendor of speech enables the discovery of restful clarity in the soul. For
this interior brightness illumines her mind in the present time so that by
means of attention she may find rest in that place where the grace of
preaching is not required.
{P24.2/B25.2} But in addition to this revelation of interior clarity,
the quality of the ladder is described by an additional statement made
about the same palanquin: its ladder of purple. Since real purple is
achieved by dyeing with blood, it is not unjust to view it as representing
the color of blood. And so, since the greatest multitude of the faithful at
the beginning of the Church in its infancy attained the kingdom through
the blood of martyrdom, our king made a ‘ladder of purple’ in his
palanquin because one attains the clarity seen within through the trial of
blood.
So then, what are we to do, miserable as we are and bereft of all
strength? Look, we cannot be ‘posts’ in this palanquin because neither
the strength needed for working nor the splendor of preaching shines in
us. We do not possess a ‘seat of gold’ because, as is fitting, we still do not
perceive the rest of interior clarity through spiritual understanding. We
are not a ‘ladder of purple’ because we are unable to shed blood for our
Redeemer.30 So then, what is to be done about us? What hope will there
be if no one attains the kingdom except the one who is endowed with
the most excellent virtues?
But there is also consolation for us. Let us love God as much as we
can, let us love our neighbor, and at the same time too let us strive for
the palanquin of God, because as it is written in that same place: he
covered the insides with love. Have love, and without a doubt you will
reach that place where the ‘post of silver’ is set and the ‘ladder of purple’
is kept. Yet that this is said on account of our weakness is clearly shown
when it is added further on in the same place: on account of the daughters
of Jerusalem. Since the word of God does not say “sons” but ‘daughters,’
what else has been signified by the female sex other than the weak parts
of our minds?
{P24.2} Therefore, because in this passage31 it is said that in the
midst of the ‘posts of silver,’ the ‘seat of gold,’ and the ‘ladder of purple’
there is love ‘on account of the daughters of Jerusalem,’ this is
designated here32 by the five cubits between the rooms [Ezek 40:7]. For
even those who lack the strength for the virtues, if they do not fail to do
the good that they can do with love, then they are not strangers to the
edifice of God.

Song 4:1. How beautiful you are, my love, how beautiful! Your eyes are
dovelike, aside from what is veiled within.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 9—{B26} He describes her
as ‘beautiful,’ then repeats himself, calling her ‘beautiful’ a second time.
For she possesses one sort of beauty, the beauty of conduct, whereby she
is recognized in the present time, and another sort of beauty, the beauty
of rewards, whereby she will later be lifted up through the sight of her
Creator. Because all her elect members do everything with simplicity,
her eyes are called ‘dovelike.’ They shine with great splendor because
they sparkle with the miracles that she sees. But as great as every
miracle is because it can be seen, an interior miracle is more wonderful
because it cannot be seen in the present time. Regarding this it is
appropriately added in that place: aside from what is veiled within. For the
glory of an observable work is great, but the glory of a hidden reward is
far beyond comparison.33

Song 4:2. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming up from a
washing.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 33—{B27.1} We take the
holy Church’s ‘teeth’ as those who masticate the toughness of sinners
with their preaching. {P25/B27.2} It is not unreasonable to compare
them to ‘shorn’ and ‘washed’ sheep. For by adopting an irreproachable
manner of life in the baptismal bath they have put aside the raggedy
fleece of their previous way of life.

Song 4:3. Your lips are like a scarlet headband, my Bride, and your words
are sweet.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 2—{P26/B28} A headband
binds the hairs of the head. Therefore, the Bride’s ‘lips’ are like a
‘headband’ because the exhortations of the holy Church bind together all
wandering thoughts in the minds of those who listen. It keeps them from
running riot, being scattered by forbidden thoughts, and, once scattered,
troubling the eyes of the heart. And so it enables them to gather
themselves together, as it were, into a single purpose as long as the
headband of holy preaching binds them. How good is it too that the
headband is called ‘scarlet’! For the preaching of the saints burns only
with the ardor of love. {P26} But what is meant by the head, if not that
which is the principle of each and every action, the mind itself? This is
reminiscent of something said elsewhere: And let not oil be lacking from
your head [Eccl 9:8]. Now oil on the head means love in the mind, and
oil is not lacking from the head when love has not departed from the
mind.

Song 4:4. Your neck is like the tower of David, built with its own bulwarks;
a thousand bucklers hang upon it, every one of them the armament of valiant
men.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 3 in Book 2—{B29.1} In the
neck one finds the throat, and in the throat one finds the voice. So then,
what is meant by the ‘neck’ of the holy Church, if not the Sacred Words?
When it is mentioned that a thousand bucklers hang upon it, this number
of perfection indicates the number of totality because the Sacred Word
contains our total defense. For that is where we find the precepts of God,
that is where we find the examples of the righteous. {B29.2} Therefore,
‘upon the neck of the Church,’ which is to say in the preaching of the
Sacred Word (said to be ‘like the tower of David’ because of its strong
position and height), ‘a thousand bucklers hang’ because there all the
precepts are also defenses for our heart. {B29.3} And so do we hasten to
be ‘valiant’ against the powers of the air? We find the ‘armament’ of our
mind in this ‘tower’ and from it we take the precepts of our Creator and
the examples of our predecessors by which we become invincibly armed
against our adversaries.
{B29.4} And note that the tower is said to have been built with its own
bulwarks. Now bulwarks perform the same function as bucklers do, since
both protect the one who fights. But there is a difference between them:
while we can move bucklers at will to protect ourselves, we can defend
ourselves with a bulwark but without being able to move it. A buckler is
clutched in the hand, but a bulwark is not. So then, what is the
difference between a bulwark and a buckler, if not the fact that in the
Sacred Word we both read the miracles of the fathers who have gone
before us and hear the virtues of their good works? {B29.5} And so,
their miracles testify that they proclaimed the truth about the Lord, since
they would not have been able to do such things through him unless
they were telling the truth about him. And their activities testify to how
devoted, how humble, how kind they were. {B29.6} So then, what are
their miracles, if not our bulwarks? For they can protect us, and yet we
do not hold them in our hand as things within our power to choose,
seeing that we cannot do such things. But we do have a buckler in our
hand and it defends us because the virtue of patience and the virtue of
mercy, so long as grace precedes, are within our power to choose, and
they protect from the danger of adversity.

Song 4:5-6. Your two breasts are like two fawns of a roe deer, twins, who
feed on the lilies until the day breaks and the shadows recede.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 24—{P27/B30} What are
the ‘two breasts’ of the Bride, if not the two peoples coming from the
Jews and from the Gentiles, who are implanted in the body of the holy
Church through their efforts to attain wisdom in the hidden depths of
their heart? Accordingly, those elected from these peoples are compared
to the ‘fawns of a roe deer’ because through their humility they have
come to understand that they are truly insignificant and sinful. But if
they encounter any hurdles of temporal encumbrance, running by love
they surmount them and making leaps of contemplation34 they ascend to
heavenly realities.
In order to do these things they35 reflect on the examples of the saints
who have preceded them. This is why reference is made to the fact that
they feed on the lilies. For what is indicated by lilies, if not the conduct of
those who can truly say: We are the good odor of Christ for God [2 Cor
2:15]? So then, the elect, in order to gain the strength to follow them to
the highest regions, completely satisfy themselves by reflecting upon the
fragrant and pure conduct of the righteous. Even in the present time
they thirst to see God. In the present time they burn with the fires of
love that they may be completely satisfied by the contemplation of him.
But since they are still incapable of doing so while placed in this life,
they feed in the meantime on the examples of the fathers who have
preceded them.
 Hence that passage fittingly gave a limit to the time for their ‘feeding
on the lilies,’ when it is said: Until the day breaks and the shadows recede.
For we need to be nourished with the examples of the righteous for only
so long, until we pass beyond the shadows of our present mortality when
that eternal day breaks. After all, when the shadow of this transitory
time has receded and this mortal state has passed away, since we behold
the inner light of day itself, we no longer seek to be kindled with love
for it through the examples of others. But as it is now, since we are still
unable to gaze upon it, we especially need to be aroused by reflecting on
the actions of those who have pursued it perfectly.
{P27} So then, let us gaze upon the beautifulness of the alacrity of
those who pursue it, and let us notice the disgracefulness of the sloth of
the lazy. For as soon as we reflect on the deeds of those who live good
lives, we pass judgment on ourselves in our profound embarrassment.
Soon feelings of shame assail our mind, soon a rightfully harsh
accusation is levied upon us, and we are even sorely displeased with our
disgraceful behavior, which perhaps we still find pleasurable.

Song 4:8. You shall be crowned from the summit of Amana, from the peak
of Senir and Hermon, from the dens of lions.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 17—{P28/B31} What else
could the word ‘lions’ designate36 other than the demons who rage
against us with wrath of the most savage sort of cruelty? And because
sinners are called to faith, whose hearts were once37 ‘dens of lions,’
when they confess their belief in the Lord’s victory over death, it is as if
he is ‘crowned from the dens of lions.’ After all, the reward for victory is
a crown. Therefore, the faithful offer a crown to the Lord as often as
they confess that he is victorious over death through his resurrection.

Song 4:10. Your breasts are better than wine.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 30—{P29} Preachers are
the ‘breasts,’ which are connected to the hidden part of the chest and
give milk to drink, because they cling to hidden matters in the loftiest
contemplation and nourish us with their perceptive preaching.38

Song 4:11. Honey and milk are under your tongue.

 From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 15—{B32} When most of
the righteous see any persons living wicked lives, who deserve to be
chastised with harsh rebukes, they put sternness on the tongue. But
‘under the tongue’ they conceal the gentleness of their mind. This is why
it is said to the holy Church in the voice of the Bridegroom: Honey and
milk are under your tongue. {P30/ B32} For they prefer not to disclose
the sweetness of their mind to the weak, but when they speak they
chastise them with a degree of sternness. And yet amid their harsh words
they sprinkle droplets of sweetness, on the sly as it were. It is people
such as these who do not have sweetness on the tongue but rather ‘under
the tongue.’ For amid the harsh words which they utter, they also give
out some that are consoling and sweet whereby the mind of a distressed
person can be restored on account of their gentleness. {P30} Similarly,
because some of the wicked do not have evil on the tongue but rather
‘under the tongue,’ they make a pretence of sweetness in their words but
formulate wicked plans in their thoughts.

Song 4:13. Your shoots are a garden of pomegranates.

From the Book on Pastoral Rule, Chapter 15 in Book 2—{B33} What
is designated by ‘pomegranates,’ if not the unity of the faith? For just as
in a pomegranate many seeds that are inside are protected by a single
outer rind, so too does the unity of the faith shelter the countless people
of the holy Church, who though diverse in merit are held together
within it.

Song 4:16. Arise, north wind, and come, south wind, blow through my
garden and let its sweet scents spread around.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 9—{P31} What is
designated by the phrase ‘south wind,’ if not the fervor of the Holy
Spirit? When anyone is filled with him, love for the spiritual homeland is
enkindled in her. This is why in the Song of Songs it is said in the voice
of the Bridegroom: Arise, north wind, and come, south wind, blow through
my garden and let its sweet scents spread around. For ‘the south wind
comes’ and ‘the north wind arises and departs,’ when the ancient enemy,
who chills the mind with lethargic numbness, is expelled by the arrival
of the Holy Spirit and betakes himself away. But ‘the south wind blows
through the garden’ of the Bridegroom to ‘spread its sweet scents
around’ because surely when the Spirit of truth fills the holy Church
with the virtues that are his very own gifts, he spreads far and wide from
her the odors of good works. Therefore, the chambers of the south wind
[Job 9:9] are those hidden orders of angels and the unfathomable depths
of the heavenly homeland, which are filled with the warmth of the Holy
Spirit. After all, that is where the souls of the saints go, both at the
present time when they are divested of their bodies and hereafter when
they are restored to their bodies, and like stars they lay hidden in remote
realms. There day after day, it is as if the fire of the sun were burning
intensely at high noon because the brightness of the Creator, which at
the present time is obscured by the darkness of our mortality, is more
clearly seen. And it is as if a ray of that orb raised itself to higher regions
because truth enlightens us through and through from its own resources.
There the light of interior contemplation is observed without the
intervening shadow of mutability. There the warmth of the supreme
light is seen without being obscured by the body. There the invisible
choirs of angels glitter like stars in remote realms, which cannot be seen
by human beings at the present time, because they are deeply bathed in
the flame of the true light.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 27—{B34} The ‘south
wind’—a wind that is certainly warm—is not an unsuitable designation
for the Holy Spirit. For when anyone is touched by him, she is freed
from the lethargic numbness of her evil ways. Hence it is well said in the
Song of Songs: Arise, north wind, and come, south wind, blow through my
garden and let its sweet scents spread around. For the ‘north wind’ is
ordered to ‘arise,’ undoubtedly in order that the hostile spirit, who chills
the hearts of mortals, may take flight. The ‘south wind comes and blows
through the garden’ in order that ‘its sweet scents spread around’
because when human minds are filled by the coming of the Holy Spirit,
soon after this their reputation for virtues is scattered abroad. Hence the
tongue of the saints, like ‘a garden through which the south wind blows,’
may justly say in the present time: We are the good odor of Christ for God
[2 Cor 2:15].

Song 5:2. I sleep but my heart is awake.

 From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 2 in Book 2—{B35}
Exceedingly lovely is the sweetness of the contemplative life, which
carries the soul above herself, discloses heavenly secrets, shows that
earthly goods are to be scorned, reveals spiritual truths to the eyes of the
mind, and hides corporeal objects. So the Church speaks well when she
says in the Song of Songs: I sleep but my heart is awake. {P32/B35} For
she sleeps with a ‘heart’ that ‘is awake’ because39 on account of her
interior progress in contemplation she is undisturbed by disturbing
exterior works. {P32} But note that, amid these things, as long as life
continues in this mortal flesh, no one progresses in the virtue of
contemplation so much so that in the present time the eyes of the mind
can be fixed on the uncircum-scribed ray of light itself. For in the
present time there is no vision of Almighty God in his brightness, but the
soul glimpses something short of it whereby she is revived and advances
further. But in the hereafter she attains to the glory of the vision of God.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 23—{P33/B36} As if she
were saying: “While I give my exterior senses rest from the worries of
this life, I have a more lively comprehension of interior realities since
my mind is free. ‘I sleep’ exteriorly, but ‘my heart is awake’ interiorly
because while I have no perception, as it were,40 of exterior objects, I
have a keen comprehension of interior realities.”

Song 5:4. My beloved put his hand through the opening, and my insides
trembled at his touch.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 7 in Book 2—{P34/ B37}
Surely ‘the beloved puts his hand through the opening’ when the Lord by
his own power moves our soul to a refined understanding. And ‘the
insides tremble at his touch’ because our weakness, on account of being
touched by an understanding of heavenly joy, is thrown into confusion
by our own ecstasy. And panic seizes her mind in her rejoicing41 because
in the present time she experiences a bit of the heavenly joy that she
loves and yet42 she dreads not retaining what she experiences so
fleetingly. {P34} Therefore, what are they to do, all who have an
appreciation for the joys of the heavenly homeland, if not to direct their
feet along the path of a more perfect life?
Song 5:6. My soul was melted when my beloved spoke.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 4—{P34B} There can be no
doubt that when the mind is touched by the breath of secret speaking,
she loses the seat of her own strength and ‘is melted’ by the very desire
that consumes her. And then she discovers that she is inherently weak,
which enables her to realize that beyond herself there is a strength
which deigns to come down.
From the Exposition on the Gospels, Homily 25—{B38} The mind of
the person who does not seek the sight of her Creator is very hard
because she persists in a frozen state on account of herself. But if in the
present time she starts to burn with the desire to follow him whom she
loves, ‘melted’ by the fire of love, she runs. She becomes eager with
desire. She reviles all worldly things that used to bring her pleasure.
Nothing except her Creator pleases her. What first delighted her soul
afterward becomes grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles her grief as
long as she has still not looked upon him whom she desires. Her mind
sorrows. Light itself is wearisome. Scorching fire burns away the rust of
sin in her mind. The soul is enflamed like gold because gold loses its
luster through use but regains its brightness through fire.

Song 5:7. The sentries who patrol the city found me. They beat me. They
wounded me. The sentries of the walls took my cloak from me.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 27—{B39} ‘The watchmen
find the Bride as she searches for him, and wound her, and take away
her cloak’ because {P35/B39} when dutiful teachers find that any soul
is already seeking the sight of her Redeemer, they ‘wound her’ with the
darts of heavenly love through the word of preaching. And if she still
possesses any covering of her old way of life, they ‘take it away’ so that
the more she is stripped of the burden of this world, the more quickly
she may find him whom she seeks.

Song 5:11. His head is the finest gold.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 34—{P36/B40} The head of
Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3] but there is no metal more resplendent than
gold. Hence the Bridegroom’s head is called ‘gold’ because his humanity
rules over us on account of the brightness of his divinity.
Song 6:3. You are beautiful, my love, charming and lovely as Jerusalem,
terrifying as an army’s front poised for battle.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 8 in Book 1—{P37/ B41} The
interpretation of the name ‘Jerusalem’ is “vision of peace,” which
represents the heavenly homeland. So then, the holy Church is called
‘charming and lovely as Jerusalem’ because her conduct and desire43 are
being compared to the vision of inner peace. Hence insofar as she loves
her Creator and yearns to see the face of him about whom it is written,
He upon whom the angels desire to look [1 Pet 1:12], she is said to be like
the angels on account of these very desires of her love. She becomes
pleasing to God to the extent that44 she makes an effort to become
terrifying to wicked spirits.
Another comparison shows just how terrifying she is: like an army’s
front poised for battle. Why do the enemies of the holy Church fear her as
if she were ‘an army’s front’? Now this comparison does not lack great
insight and so we must examine it in detail. For we know and it is
undisputed that an army’s front appears terrifying to enemies when it is
drawn up so tightly and packed together so closely that no gaps can be
seen anywhere. For if it is deployed such that there is an empty space
through which the enemy could enter, it would certainly no longer be
terrifying to its enemies. Therefore, when we form the line for spiritual
battle against wicked spirits, it is of the utmost importance that we
always be united to one another and joined closely together through
charity and45 never found separated from one another through discord.
For even though we may do good works, if charity is lacking, the evil of
discord opens a gap in the battle-line through which the enemy can
enter and smite us.
{P37} The ancient enemy does not fear our self-control if it is without
charity because he is not oppressed by flesh such that he destroys
himself through self-indulgence. He does not fear our abstinence because
he who46 is not urged by the needs of the body does not eat food. He
does not fear it when we donate our earthly goods if we do so without
charity because he has no need for the benefits of riches. But he very
much fears the true charity in us, which is to say the humble love that
we mutually extend to one another. And he greatly begrudges our
concord because we ourselves retain on earth what he himself, choosing
not to retain it, lost in heaven. Therefore, terrifying as an army’s front
poised for battle is well said because the wicked spirits tremble with fear
at the multitude of the elect insofar as they observe them united and
assembled against themselves through the concord of charity.

Song 6:6. Like the skin of a pomegranate are your cheeks, apart from what
you hide.
From the Commentary on Ezekiel, Homily 4 in Book 2—{P38/B42}
The ‘cheeks’ of the holy Church are the spiritual fathers, who at the
present time glow in her with marvelous deeds and in a certain sense
give a venerable appearance to her face. For when we see many perform
wonders, prophesy future events, perfectly forsake the world, and
ardently burn with heavenly desires, the holy Church’s47 cheeks blush
‘like the skin of a pomegranate.’ But what is all this that we admire in
comparison to that reality of which it is written: What eye has not seen,
nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for
those who love him [1 Cor 2:9]? Therefore, when he admired the cheeks
of the Church, it is good that he added: apart from what you hide. It is as
if he were saying in plain speech: “Indeed, those things in you which are
not hidden are great, but those which are hidden are utterly
inexpressible.”

Song 6:9. Who is this coming forth, rising like the dawn?
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 4—{P39} The Church of
the elect is ‘rising like the dawn’ since she has left the darkness of her
former wickedness and turned herself to the radiance of new light. So
then, in that light which is manifested at the coming of the strict Judge,
the body of our enemy when condemned will not see the break of the
rising dawn. For when the strict Judge comes for retribution, each
wicked person, being oppressed by the blackness of his own deserts, is
kept from knowing the wondrous splendor with which the holy Church
rises to the interior light of the heart. At that time the mind of the elect
is transported on high such that she is illumined with the rays of
Divinity, and she is bathed in the light of his countenance to the extent
that she is lifted above herself in the refulgence of grace. At that time
the holy Church becomes a full dawn since she has wholly parted with
the darkness of her mortality and ignorance. So then, at the judgment
she is still dawn but in the kingdom she is day. For though she already
begins to behold the light at the judgment when bodies are resurrected,
yet she attains a fuller vision of it in the kingdom. And so, the break of
dawn is the beginning of the Church in splendor, which the reprobate
cannot see. For oppressed by the weight of their evils, they are dragged
from the sight of the strict Judge into darkness.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 29—{P40/B43} The holy
Church as she pursues the rewards of the heavenly life is called the
‘dawn’ because when she leaves the darkness of sin she shines with the
light of righteousness. Yet we have here something quite profound which
ought to be pondered by considering the characteristics of the daybreak
or dawn. Now the dawn or daybreak announces that the night is past,
but does not yet put forward the full brightness of day. Rather, while it
dispels the night and takes on the day, it keeps the light intermingled
with the darkness. And so, what are all of us who follow the truth in this
life, if not the dawn or daybreak? For in the present time we both do
some things which belong to the light, and yet are not free from the rest
of the other things which still belong to the darkness.

Song 7:4. Your nose is like the tower which is in Lebanon.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 31—{B44} We use our nose
to distinguish between pleasant scents and foul odors. {P41/B44} And
what is meant by the Church’s ‘nose,’ if not the farseeing discernment of
the saints? Now a watchtower is placed on high so that the approaching
enemy may be spotted from afar. So then, the Church’s ‘nose’ is rightly
said to be ‘like the tower in Lebanon’ because as long as the farseeing
discernment of the saints placed on high carefully monitors all possible
places, it catches sight of sin before its arrival. And so, the greater the
vigilance in detecting sin before its arrival, the greater the strength to
avoid it.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 11 in Book 1—{B45} To
preserve the truth of preaching, a loftiness of conduct must be
maintained. Hence in the Song of Songs it is rightly said to the holy
Church in the voice of the Bridegroom: Your nose is like the tower of
Lebanon. What kind of praise is it, my brothers, for the Bride’s nose to be
compared to a tower? Seeing that we always use our nose to distinguish
between pleasant scents and foul odors, {P42/B45} what is meant by
the nose, if not the discernment of the watchmen? Surely the nose is said
to be ‘like the tower of Lebanon’ because clearly the discernment of
superiors ought always be fortified with careful attention and be
established on loftiness of conduct, which is to say they ought not lie in
the valley of feeble effort. For as a tower is placed on a mountain to spot
enemies coming from afar, so too ought the conduct of a preacher
always remain fixed on high. Thus like a nose he may distinguish
between the foul odors of vices and the pleasing scents of virtues,
perceive from afar the onslaughts of malicious spirits, and through his
providence safely return the souls entrusted to him.

Song 7:12. Let us get up early to go to the vineyards. Let us see whether the
vine has budded, whether the buds are ready to produce fruits.
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 12—{P43/B46} Vines have
‘budded’ when the minds of the faithful plan good works. But they do
not ‘produce fruits’ if they falter in carrying out their plans when
overcome by certain erring practices. We ought then not look to see if
the vines have budded but if the buds are strong for producing fruits. For
there is nothing to admire if someone begins good works, but there is
much to admire if someone persists in a good work with the right
intention.

Song 8:5. Who is this ascending from the desert overflowing with an
abundance of delights?
From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 16—{B47} Surely if the
holy Church were not ‘overflowing with an abundance of delights,’
which is to say with the words of God, she could not ‘ascend from the
desert’ of the present life to the regions above. So then, she is
‘overflowing with an abundance of delights’ and ‘ascending’ because
when she is nourished by mystical understandings she is lifted up daily
in the contemplation of heavenly things.

Song 8:5 (LXX). Who is this who ascends made white?

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 18—{P44/B48} The holy
Church does not have the heavenly life by nature but when the Spirit
comes upon her she is adorned with the beautifulness of gifts. For this
reason she is described not as “white” but as ‘made white.’

Song 8:6a. Set me as a seal upon your heart.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 29—{P45/B49} Now a seal
is set on things so that they may not be violated by any audacity of
plunderers. So then, the Bridegroom is ‘set as48 a seal on our heart’ when
the mystery of faith in him is impressed upon us for the safe keeping of
our thoughts. Hence when that faithless servant, namely our adversary,
observes our hearts sealed by faith,49 he does not have the audacity to
break into them with temptation.

Song 8:6b. Strong as death is love.

In the Exposition on the Gospels, Homily 11—{P46/B50} As death
destroys the body, so love of eternal life makes one dead to the love of
corporeal things. For whomever it utterly consumes becomes impervious
to outward earthly desires.

Song 8:8. Our sister is little and she has no breasts.

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 19—{B51} As the age of
each individual person is described, so that of the holy Church. For she
was ‘little’ when fresh from birth she could not preach the word of life.
Hence it is said about her, Our sister is little and she has no breasts,
because surely {P47/B51} before the holy Church made progress by
growth in virtue, she could not offer the ‘breasts’ of preaching to each of
her weak listeners. But the Church is called “adult” when, being wedded
to the Word of God and filled with the Holy Spirit, she conceives
children through the ministry of preaching, enters into labor with them
by exhortation, and gives birth to them by effecting conversion. {B51}
Concerning this age of hers it is said to the Lord: The young girls have
loved you [Song 1:2]. For all the churches which constitute the one
Catholic Church are called ‘young girls.’ They are at present not aged
through sin but youthful through grace, not barren on account of old age
but suited for spiritual fecundity on account of the youthful age of their
mind.
Song 8:13. You who dwell in gardens, the friends are listening: make me
hear your voice.
From the Exposition on Ezekiel, Homily 2 in Book 2—{B52} ‘In
gardens’ the holy Church, {P48/B52} ‘in gardens’ every individual soul
‘dwells’ who in the present time is filled with the greenness of hope and
good works. For hope in this age is barren because all things loved here
hastily wither away. And so Peter the Apostle urges us to hasten to an
inheritance that never perishes, never spoils, and never withers away [1 Pet
1:4]. So then, she who already ‘dwells in gardens’ must ‘make’ her
Bridegroom ‘hear her voice,’ which is to say she must sing the song of
good preaching in which he whom she desires will delight, because50
‘the friends are listening,’ namely all the elect who in order to return to
life again in the heavenly homeland desire to hear the words of life.

Song 8:14. Escape, my beloved, escape!

From the Exposition on Blessed Job, Book 17—{P49/B53} We say “it
escapes me” as often as what we want to remember does not come to
mind. We say “it escapes me” when we do not retain in our memory
what we want to remember.51 So the holy Church, after narrating the
Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension, cries out to him, filled with a
prophetic spirit: Escape, my beloved, escape! It is as if she were saying:
“You who were made comprehensible to us by the flesh, transcend the
grasp of our senses by your divinity and remain incomprehensible to us
in your very own self!”
1. Sancti Gregorii Papae I cognomento Magni Opera omnia, Édition des Bénédictins de Saint-
Maur, t. IV (Paris, 1705), 2e part, cols. 1–310.

2. PL 79:683–916. In his “Le recueil grégorien de Paterius et les fragments wisigothiques de

Paris.” Revue Bénédictine 39 (1927): 81–104, André Wilmart determined that only the excerpts
on the first thirteen biblical books (Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut, Judg, 1–2 Sam, 1–2 Kgs, Pss,
Prov, and Song) at PL 79:683–916 were authentic to Paterius.

3. Raymond Étaix, “Le Liber testimonium de Paterius,” Revue des sciences religieuses 32 (1958):
66–78. The corrections that pertain to the Song of Songs can be found on pp. 74–75.

4. Wilmart, “Le recueil grégorien de Paterius,” 90.

 5. D. Hurst and J. E. Hudson, eds., Bedae Venerabilis Opera. Pars II, Opera exegetica. 2B: in
Tobiam, in Proverbia, in Cantica Canticorum, in Habacuc, CCSL 119B (Turnhout: Brepols, 1983),
165–375.

6. Julian of Eclanum (ca. 386–454), a major opponent of Augustine in the “Pelagian”

controversy.

7. The text says septimus (Cant. 6, 10–11 [CCSL 119B:359]). See pp. 52–53 of the
introduction.

8. Formulae introducing the excerpts are found in both Paterius and Bede. The titles used for
Gregory’s works vary both within each excerpter and between them. Accordingly, standardized
references have been adopted. Errors have been tacitly corrected.

9. P1.2 is actually excerpted from the H.Ev. 33, though Paterius adds it to P1.1, from Mor.
14; see appendix 2.

10. Gregory’s clever point is lost in translation. Gregory justifies saying that the term
“mouth” is equivalent to saying “Word” (verbum) by appeal to the custom of saying “tongue”
for “language” (verba). Even in everyday language, the organs of speech have a transferred
sense by which they refer to the words or language they produce.

11. See P29.

12. That is, preaching.

13. See Matt 7:13.

14. Instead of Gregory’s nec videre requirebat, “nor sought to see him,” Paterius has nec videri
requirebat a Domino, “nor has she sought to be seen by the Lord.” See appendix 4, note 1P.

15. Bede inserts ecclesia, “the church,” as the subject of the verb “has put.” See appendix 4,
note 1B.

16. Bede mistakenly omits natura; see appendix 4, note 2B.

17. Instead of Gregory’s nec totus videtur, nec totus non videtur, “neither entirely seen nor
entirely unseen,” Paterius has nec totus latet nec totus videtur, “neither entirely hidden nor
entirely seen.” Paterius also omits the second sic, “thus,” at the beginning of the next sentence.
See appendix 4, note 2P.

18. Bede mistakenly omits the noster found in Gregory; see appendix 4, note 3B.
 19. Bede mistakenly reads eius, “of him,” instead of Gregory’s eis, “to them.” See appendix 4,
note 4B.

20. Bede omits the iam, “already,” found in Gregory; see appendix 4, note 5B.

21. I.e., interior virtue.

22. Here, Gregory plays on “column” (virgula) and “rod” (virga).

23. At this point Bede adds pro terreno studio, “in an earthly pursuit.” On the significance of
this addition, see appendix 4, note 6B.

24. Bede reads simplicitatis, “simplicity,” instead of Gregory’s subtilitatis, “subtlety.” See
appendix 4, note 7B.

25. Here, Bede adds the parenthetical: murram itaque quia se cruciant et cruciando a vitiis
conservant, tus vero quia Dei visionem diligunt ad quam pervenire medullitus inardescunt, “myrrh
because they crucify themselves and by crucifying themselves they keep themselves from vices,
but frankincense because they love the vision of God, which in the depths of their heart they
long to attain.” On the significance of this addition, see appendix 4, note 8B.

26. Instead of Gregory’s ulla debilitate desiderii, “without any lessening of their desire,” Bede
has ulla dubietate desiderii, “without any wavering in their desire.” See appendix 4, note 9B.

27. See 1 Kgs 10:21.

28. At this point both Paterius and Bede omit Gregory’s ergo, “so then.” See appendix 4,
notes 3P and 10B.

29. Bede omits Gregory’s eius, “its.” See appendix 4, note 11B.

30. Bede (or a copyist) omits the beginning of this paragraph up to this point; see appendix
4, note 12B.

31. I.e., Song 3:9-10.

32. I.e., in Ezek 40:7. Paterius retains this line of the excerpt though it makes little sense
outside of its context in H.Ez.

33. Bede reads retributionis, “retribution,” instead of Gregory’s remunerationis, “reward.” See
appendix 4, note 13B.

34. Paterius mistakenly has contemplationum, “of contemplations,” instead of Gregory’s

contemplationis, “of contemplation.” See appendix 4, note 4P.

35. Paterius reads Quia ut haec agant, “Since in order to do these things they,” instead of
Gregory’s Qui ut haec agant, “In order to do these things they.” See appendix 4, note 5P.

36. Paterius mistakenly reads signantur, “signify,” instead of Gregory’s designantur,

“designate.” See appendix 4, note 6P.

37. Paterius mistakenly omits Gregory’s quondam, “once.” See appendix 4, note 7P.

38. See B3.

39. Bede mistakenly reads qui, “which,” instead of Gregory’s quia, “because.” See appendix
4, note 14B.

40. Bede reads suasi, which is ungrammatical, instead of Gregory’s quasi, “as it were.” See
appendix 4, note 15B.

41. While Gregory’s text reads in laetitia, “in her rejoicing,” Paterius has cum laetitia, “with
her rejoicing.” In addition, Bede has ac laetitia, which would alter the translation as follows:
“And panic, as well as rejoicing, seizes her mind.” See appendix 4, notes 8P and 16B.

42. While Gregory’s text reads quia iam sentit quod de caelesti gaudio diligat, et adhuc, Paterius
has et si in place of quia and omits et. Paterius’s reading would alter the translation thus: “And
panic seizes her mind in her rejoicing; even though at the present time she experiences a bit of
the heavenly joy that she loves, yet she dreads not laying hold of what she experiences so
fleetingly.” See appendix 4, note 9P.

43. Bede mistakenly reads eius vitae desiderium, “her desire for life,” instead of Gregory’s eius
vita et desiderium, “her conduct and desire.” See appendix 4, note 17B.

44. Paterius mistakenly reads quantum instead of Gregory’s quanto (the meaning is the
same). See appendix 4, note 10P.

45. Bede reads ut, “so as to be” instead of Gregory’s et, “and.” See appendix 4, note 18B.

46. Paterius mistakenly reads quia, “because he,” instead of Gregory’s qui, “who.” See
appendix 4, note 11P.

47. Paterius mistakenly omits Gregory’s ecclesiae, “Church’s.” See appendix 4, note 12P.

48. Bede adds an ut not found in Gregory, though it does not change the translation; see
appendix 4, note 19B.

49. Both Paterius and Bede have corrupt versions of Gregory’s signata fide corda, “hearts
sealed by faith.” See appendix 4, notes 13P and 20B.

50. Bede omits this quia, “because.” See appendix 4, note 21B.

51. Paterius mistakenly abbreviates these two sentences to “We say ‘it escapes me’ as often
as what we want to remember we do not retain in our memory.” See appendix 4, note 14P.
 WILLIAM OF SAINT THIERRY’S

Excerpts from the Books of Blessed Gregory on

the Song of Songs
INTRODUCTION
The first modern edition of William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts from the
Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs was published at Leiden in
1692.1 This edition was based on the autograph of the text from the
Abbey of Signy, where William lived as a monk from 1135 until his
death in 1148. Unfortunately, this manuscript has since been lost. The
Leiden text was reprinted in 1781 by André Galland and then in 1855 by
J.-P. Migne.2 While this edition and its reprints are not critical editions,
they remain nonetheless extremely valuable because they witness to the
lost autograph of Signy. I will designate this lost manuscript as S.
The critical edition of William of Saint Thierry’s Excerpts from the
Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs was established for Corpus
Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis by Paul Verdeyen in 1997.3
Though there are eight extant manuscripts of this florilegium, Verdeyen
used the best four for his edition. He then classified these four into two
families, one representing the Benedictine manuscript tradition and the
other the Carthusian manuscript tradition. Three manuscripts represent
the Benedictine tradition: (1) Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 142,
thirteenth century, originally from the Abbey of Saint Thierry [=R]; (2)
Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 50, twelfth century,
originally from the Abbey of Saint-Amand [=V]; and (3) Dendermonde,
Abbaye Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul, ms. 19, twelfth century [=A]. Note
that the first two manuscripts are from Saint Thierry and Saint-Amand,
the latter of whose prior, Hellinus, succeeded William as abbot of Saint
Thierry. From this, Verdeyen concludes “that William probably made the
two florilegia during his abbacy (between 1121 and 1135) and that his
successor had them copied for his original monastery.”4 Hence we
possess manuscripts not far removed from William’s lost autograph (S).
The Carthusian tradition is represented only by Darmstadt, Hessisiche
Landes-und Hochschulbibliothek, ms. 21, fourteenth century, originally
from the Charterhouse of Saint-Barbe in Cologne [=D].5 While the
manuscript that William sent to the Carthusian monks of Mont-Dieu is
lost, it is likely that D was copied from it.
 Verdeyen used R as the basis for his edition, correcting it where
necessary by A, V, and D, as well as by Gregory’s own works. A is the
second most important manuscript since either its copyist or corrector
(the latter designated as Ac) compared R with the works of Gregory, and
it thus constitutes a corrected text. The use of the text of the Carthusian
tradition represented by D for establishing original readings must
proceed with caution since its text is an expanded version of the text
found in A, R, and V. Numerous minor alterations (both additions and
omissions) and six major additions have been made to the text: five of
these major additions are taken from the Moralia (see W13, W15, W21,
W25, and W26) and the other from Augustine (see W16). Furthermore,
the text of Excerpta 3, 141–156 in D is completely reworked (W25).
Therefore, it seems that D is a revised version of the text, but not one
made by William. There are two reasons for not attributing the revision
to William. First, William’s vast knowledge of the fathers of the Church
would seem to preclude his mistakenly inserting an Augustinian text into
his Gregorian florilegium. Second, it makes little sense to attribute the
rearrangement of Excerpta 3, 141–156 to William when the original
version was already a careful pastiche of Gregorian texts. Hence, some
unknown Carthusian monk is probably responsible for the revised
version.
I have based my translation on Verdeyen’s edition, though not without
minor disagreement. I depart from Verdeyen’s text in twenty-six
instances. In four of these departures I have preferred the readings of S,
an important witness which Verdeyen did not utilize in his edition.
Twice I preferred the reading of S over against all other manuscript
support, and twice when the reading of S was supported by other
manuscripts. I have also identified twenty-two primitive errors in
William’s text based on a comparison with the original Gregorian texts.
Some of these are corruptions, others accidental omissions. These
twenty-six departures from Verdeyen are reflected in the translation and
footnoted in each case. The emendations employed in my translation of
William’s excerpts are listed and discussed in appendix 5.
Finally, I have divided each of William’s excerpts into verses. Each
verse is marked by superscript italic numeral. See appendix 2 for a table
that lists how each of William’s verses corresponds to Gregory’s original
text.
 EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOKS OF BLESSED GREGORY ON THE SONG OF SONGS6

CHAPTER ONE

Song 1:1a. Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth!
W1. ‘The Only-Begotten Son can be designated as the “Mouth” of God.
Just as he is spoken of as the “Arm” of God since the Father
accomplishes all things through him (about this Arm the Prophet says:
To whom is the Lord’s Arm revealed? [Isa 53:1]; and John the Evangelist
says: All things were made through him [John 1:3]), so too may he be
spoken of as the “Mouth” 2through which the Father speaks all things to
us. 3The Prophet speaks in this way: For the Mouth of the Lord has spoken
this [Isa 1:20; 58:14]. 4It is as if “Word” were being said in plain speech
when the term “Mouth” is used, just as we are accustomed to say
“tongue” for “language.” For when we use the expression “the Greek or
Latin tongue,” we mean “the Latin or Greek language.”7 Therefore, we
are right to take the “Mouth” of the Lord as his Son. Thus the Bride
prays to the Father of the Bridegroom and says: Let him kiss me with the
kiss of his mouth. It is as if she were saying: “Let him touch me with the
sweetness of the presence of his Only-Begotten Son, my Redeemer.”
W2. 1It is as if he were saying in plain speech: “Let him, who before
his Incarnation gave me so many commandments to do through the
mouths of the Prophets, come to me in the flesh and speak with his own
mouth.” 2After all, as many commandments the holy Church learned
from his preaching, so many ‘kisses of his mouth,’ as it were, did she
receive. 3So when Matthew observed the Lord giving commandments on
the mount, he said: Opening his own mouth, he said [Matt 5:2]. It is as if
he were saying in plain speech: “Then he who had earlier opened the
mouths of the Prophets opened his own mouth to give commandments.”
W3. 1Concerning the sinful woman who did not cease kissing the
Lord’s feet (onto which she poured her tears and which she wiped with
her hair), 2the Lord said to the indignant Pharisee: You have not given me
a kiss, yet this woman has not ceased kissing my feet since I entered [Luke
7:45]. A kiss is a sign of love. 3But his ‘feet’ are to be understood as the
very mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation, through which divinity touched
the earth. For he assumed flesh: The Word became flesh and dwelt among
us [John 1:14]. 4But whom does the Pharisee presuming on his false
righteousness represent, if not the Jewish people? Who is represented by
the woman who was a sinner but came to the Lord’s feet and wept, if not
the converted Gentile nation? 5On the one hand, that faithless people did
not give a kiss to God because they chose not to love with charity him
whom they served with fear. On the other hand, after the Gentile nation
was called, they have not ceased to kiss the ‘feet’ of their Redeemer
because they sigh with unceasing love for him 6and love the mystery of
his Incarnation with all their heart. 7Since they ready themselves
through love to obey their Creator, they are right to desire his ‘kiss,’
saying: Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth.

Song 1:1b. Your breasts are better than wine.

W4. The ‘breasts’ of the Bridegroom are his holy preachers. Now
breasts are connected to the hidden part of the chest and give us milk to
drink. Holy preachers are ‘breasts’ because they cling to hidden matters
in the loftiest contemplation and nourish us with their perceptive
preaching.

Song 1:2c. The young girls have loved you.

W5. 1Sacred Scripture is frequently accustomed to put “youth” for
“newness of life.” 2All the churches, you see, which constitute the one
Catholic Church are called “young girls.” At present, they are not
enfeebled by sin but renewed by grace; not barren by old age but ready
for spiritual fruitfulness by the age of their mind. 3Hence it is said to the
approaching Bridegroom: The young girls have loved you,8 which is to say
the souls of the elect, renewed by the grace of baptism, who do not
succumb to the practices of their former ways but are adorned with the
way of life that belongs to the new man [Eph 4:24].
Song 1:3b. We shall run in the odor of your ointments.9
W6. 1It is the Bride desiring the Bridegroom who said this.10 2In
Sacred Scripture, ‘the odors of ointments’ usually indicate a reputation
for virtue. 3Hence the Apostle Paul, knowing that he was fragrant with
the renown of the virtues, said: We are the good odor of Christ for God [2
Cor 2:15].

Song 1:4a. I am black but beautiful.

W7. 1The more we prize ourselves, the more God despises us; the
more we despise ourselves for God’s sake, the more God prizes us. For he
looks on the lowly and recognizes the haughty from afar [Ps 137:6]. 2For
the righteous never pride themselves on the light of their righteousness
but through the grace of humility acknowledge in themselves the
blackness of sin. 3Hence John said: If we were to say that we have no sin,
we are deceiving ourselves [1 John 1:8].

Song 1:5de. They placed me as a guardian in their vineyards; I have not

guarded my own vineyard.
W8. There is something in the conduct of pastors, dear brothers, that
causes me intense suffering. What I am saying here is consistent with
earlier statements of mine. But lest this charge of mine seems perhaps
hurtful to anyone, I accuse myself equally. We have become bogged
down in the business of exterior affairs. We undertake one thing out of a
sense of honor, another thing out of a sense of duty to take action. We
abandon the ministry of preaching, and in my opinion, we are called
bishops in a way that makes us worthy of blame: we retain the prestige
of the name but not its virtue. Those entrusted to us abandon God, and
we keep silent. They lay low in depravities, and we do not extend the
hand of correction. They perish daily through many wicked deeds, and
in our negligence we observe them wending their way toward hell. But
when will we, who neglect our own lives, be able to correct another’s
life? Being engrossed in secular cares, the more our interior life slips
away, the more enthusiastic we appear for exterior affairs. For the soul
becomes calloused to heavenly desire through its engagement with
earthly cares. When the soul is made calloused in this very engagement
through its worldly activity, it cannot be softened for what pertains to
the love of God. So the holy Church was right to say of her weak
members: They placed me as a guardian in their vineyards; I have not
guarded my own vineyard.11 For the ‘vineyards’ are our activities, and we
cultivate them by engaging in daily labor. But ‘placed as guardians in
their vineyards, we do not guard our own vineyard.’ For when we
become entangled in exterior activities, we neglect the ministry of our
own activity.12

Song 1:6a. Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture, where
you lie down at midday.
W9. 1The Lord ‘pastures himself’ when he finds delight in our good
deeds. But he ‘lies down at midday’ when turning from the hearts of the
reprobate, which burn with carnal desires, he finds the cool refreshment
of good thought in the hearts of his elect. 2After all, it is hottest at
midday, and the Lord seeks a shady place not affected by the fiery heat.
So the Lord finds rest in those hearts which do not burn with love for
this present age, which are not ablaze with carnal desires, which have
not become dry from being scorched by the anxiety brought on by their
craving for this world. Hence it is said to Mary: The Holy Spirit shall come
upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you [Luke 1:35].
So the Lord ‘seeks shady places at midday to pasture himself,’ because he
pastures himself in minds not ablaze with bodily desires on account of
their appreciation for the grace of temperance. And so, Mary, the sinner
who repented, pastured the Lord interiorly more than the Pharisee
pastured him exteriorly because our Redeemer fled from the heat of the
carnal to her mind, to which the shade of repentance brought
temperance after the fire of her vices.

Song 1:7. If you do not know yourself, O beautiful among women, set out
and follow the tracks of the flocks and pasture your young goats.
W10. 1All the elect carefully reflect upon by whom and in what they
have been created. After a proper consideration of the image they have
received, they disdain to follow the vulgar herd. This is why 2the
Bridegroom addresses his Bride: If you do not know yourself, O beautiful
among women,13 which is to say: “if when living a good life you do not
know the honor that you have received in virtue of being created in the
likeness of God, then depart from the sight of the contemplation of me
and imitate the conduct of the ignorant masses.” 3For the word ‘flocks’
designates the ignorant masses. 4Now she who is ‘beautiful among
women’ knows herself when every elect soul, even if placed among
sinners, remembers that she was created in the image and likeness of her
Creator and lives in a manner befitting this status of likeness that she has
perceived. If she ‘does not know herself,’ she ‘sets out’ because, being
exiled from the secret depths of her heart, she is dissipated by external
objects of desire. But when she ‘sets out,’ she ‘follows the tracks of the
flocks’ because clearly by forsaking her interior life she is brought to the
wide way14 and follows the examples of the masses. She no longer
‘pastures’ lambs but ‘goats’ because she makes no effort to nourish the
harmless thoughts of the mind but encourages the wicked stirrings of the
flesh.

Song 1:11. While the king was on his couch, my nard gave its odor.
W11. 1It is as if 2the holy Church, being fragrant with a kind of sweet
odor in her elect, 3were saying in plain speech: “As long as the king is
hidden from my sight, secluded by himself in his heavenly repose, the
conduct of the elect is occupied with giving forth the wonderful odors of
the virtues. Hence even though it still does not see him whom it seeks, it
may burn all the more ardently with desire.” And so ‘nard gives off its
odor while the king is settled upon his couch’ because the virtue of the
saints in the Church supplies us with the pleasantness of great sweetness
while the Lord is at rest in his blessedness. 4For the virtues of the elect
making progress are in a certain sense fragrant with a sweet odor when
other people come to know them. Paul spoke in this way: We are the
good odor of Christ for God [2 Cor 2:15].15

CHAPTER TWO

Song 2:2. As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.

W12. 1In the holy Church there cannot be bad people without the
good, and good people without the bad. 2For as long as we live here
below, we must walk the path of this present age intermingled. But we
are distinguished when we reach the next life. Now the good are never
alone except in heaven and the bad are never alone except in hell. But
just as this life, which lies between heaven and hell, is accessible to all,
so too it admits citizens from both regions alike. Though the holy Church
now receives them both indiscriminately, afterward she will make
distinctions between them as they exit from this life. And so, if you are
good, for as long as you abide in this life, calmly bear with the bad. For
anyone who does not bear with the bad through a lack of forbearance
testifies against himself that he is not good. The one whom a Cain does
not vex with wickedness refuses to be an Abel. Just as on threshing
floors grains are pressed under the chaff, so too do flowers rise among
thorns and a fragrant rose grows when a thorn pricks it.
Now the first man had two sons: one of these was elect, the other was
reprobate. Noah’s ark held three of his sons: while two were steadfast in
their humility, one was quick to mock his father. Abraham had two sons:
one was innocent but the other was the persecutor of his brother. Isaac
had two sons: one served in humility but the other was reprobate even
before he was born. Jacob had twelve sons: one of them was sold on
account of his innocence but the others sold their brother on account of
their wickedness. Twelve Apostles were elected but one of them became
involved with the reprobate in order to put the others to the test,
persecuting them lest they remain untested. There were seven deacons
ordained by the Apostles: six were steadfast in correct faith but one
arose as an originator of error.16
3And so, dear brothers, reflect upon these past times and strengthen
yourselves to bear with mean people. For if we are the sons of the elect,
their examples teach us how we ought to progress. After all, none of
them was good if he refused to bear with the bad. 4It is not very
praiseworthy if someone is good with the good, but rather if someone is
good with the bad. Just as not being good among the bad is a serious
fault, so too does being good even among the bad deserve boundless
commendation. 5Thus blessed Job claimed about himself: I was a brother
of dragons and a companion of ostriches [Job 30:29]. 6Peter exalted Lot
with great praises for the same reason, because he found him good
among the reprobate: And he rescued the righteous Lot who was oppressed
by sacrilegious men’s lawless way of life. For Lot was righteous in his sight
and hearing, dwelling among those who from day to day tortured that
righteous man’s soul with unrighteous works [2 Pet 2:7-8]. Surely, he could
not have been tortured unless he both heard and witnessed the wicked
deeds of his neighbors. And yet he is called ‘righteous in his sight and
hearing’ because when the ears and eyes of the righteous man perceived
the conduct of the iniquitous, he did not delight in it but rather bore it.
7Thus the blessed Job is also reported to have lived in a land of Gentiles

among iniquitous people, 8so that the excellence of his virtue could be
portrayed; 9and so that he could be praised for having been good among
the bad 10and for having grown (according to the Bridegroom’s
commendation) as a lily among thorns. 11Hence Paul both praised and
strengthened the conduct of the disciples when he said: in the midst of a
wicked and perverse people, among whom you shine like lamps in the world
[Phil 2:15].
12Listen carefully, dear brothers! Now that we have gone through just
about every example, we realize that no one is good unless he is put to
the test by the wickedness of the bad. 13Yet we complain: “Why aren’t
all who live with us good?” For we are unwilling to bear the misdeeds of
our neighbors. We think that everyone should already be a saint when
we do not want to bear anything from our neighbors. But the situation is
clear: as long as we refuse to bear with the bad, we ourselves still
possess far less goodness. For someone is not entirely good unless he can
be good even with the bad. 14If I may put it so, the iron sword of our
soul does not become razor-sharp unless the file of another’s wickedness
grinds it.
15When we grumble frequently about the conduct of our neighbors,
attempt to relocate, and try to find a quiet place for a life of greater
seclusion, clearly we are ignorant of the fact that if the Spirit is lacking,
no place will be of help to us. Though Lot was holy in Sodom, he sinned
on the mountain. That places do not protect the mind is proved by the
fact that the very first parent of the human race fell in paradise. 16If a
place had been able to save, Satan would not have fallen from heaven.
So when the Psalmist observed people being tempted everywhere in this
world, he sought a place to which he might flee, but could not find one
that was safe without God. Because of this he even begged God to
become for him the place that he was seeking: Be for me a protecting God
and a safe place, that you might save me [Ps 30:3]. Therefore, neighbors
are to be borne with everywhere because he whom a Cain does not vex
with wickedness cannot become an Abel.
But there is one reason for shunning the company of the bad. If
perhaps the bad are incorrigible, they are to be shunned lest they seduce
others to imitate themselves. When they cannot be changed from their
wickedness, they are to be shunned lest they mislead those associated
with them. This is why Paul said: Crooked speech corrupts good habits [1
Cor 15:33]. And Solomon said: Do not be a friend to an irritable man nor
walk with a man liable to rage lest you inadvertently learn his ways and take
a stumbling block to your soul [Prov 22:24-25]. And so, just as perfect
men ought not flee their wicked neighbors because they often induce
them to uprightness and are themselves never induced to wickedness, so
too the weak ought to turn from the company of the bad lest they are
enticed to imitate the misdeeds they frequently see and cannot correct.
So then, each day we take the words of our neighbors into our mind by
hearing, in the manner that we draw air into the body by inhaling and
exhaling. And just as the continual breathing of bad air infects the body,
so too the continual hearing of wicked speech infects the soul of the
weak, so that it languishes from delight in wicked works and unceasing
evil conversation. 17So then, a sinner plus wickedness is joined to the
righteous and perfect man, as in a furnace dross plus fire is united to
gold, so that wherever the dross burns the gold is refined. Therefore,
they are truly good who can persevere in goodness even among the bad.

Song 2:3. I sat under the shadow of him whom I had desired.
W13. 1‘Overshadowing’ is sometimes used in the Sacred Word for the
Incarnation of the Lord or the relief of the mind from the heat of carnal
thoughts. Hence the term ‘shadow’ implies this relief of the heart
through heavenly protection,2 as the Psalmist said: Protect me under the
shadow of your wings [Ps 16:8]. And so, the Bride, having awaited the
coming of the Bridegroom, makes this announcement: I sat under the
shadow of him whom I had desired. 3Here ‘shadow’ expresses the relief of
the heart through heavenly protection. 4It is as if the Bride were saying:
“I rested under the protection of his coming from the heat of carnal
desires.” 5That the term ‘overshadowing’ could signify Incarnation of the
Lord without destroying the veracity of the narrative is proved by the
message of the angel, who says to the blessed Mary:17 The power of the
Most High shall overshadow you [Luke 1:35]. Now a shadow is caused in
no other way than by a light and a body. Accordingly, the power of the
Most High overshadowed her because the incorporeal Light took18 a
body within her womb. Because of this overshadowing she received in
herself every relief of mind.

Song 2:5a. Bolster me with flowers, surround me with apples, for I grow
faint with love.
W14. The mind that passionately loves her Bridegroom ordinarily
gains a single consolation from the delay of the present life, if
throughout her separation from the sight of him the souls of others make
progress by her word and thereby are inflamed with the firebrands of
love for the heavenly Bridegroom. She mourns19 because she realizes
that she is separated. Everything she sees makes her sad because she still
does not see him whom she longs to see. But when a fervent soul is
separated, it is, as I said, no small consolation if she gathers together
many people. In consequence of this, him whom she wanted to see
sooner all by herself she will see later in the company of many others.
Hence here the Bride says: Bolster me with flowers, surround me with
apples, for I grow faint with love. For what are ‘flowers,’ if not souls who
are already beginning to do good work and are redolent with heavenly
desire? What are the ‘apples’ from the ‘flowers,’ if not the perfect minds
of those already good who attain the fruit of good work from the
moment they chose a holy way of life? So then, she who ‘grows faint
with love’ seeks to be ‘bolstered with flowers’ and ‘surrounded with
apples,’ because, even though she is still not permitted to see him whom
she desires, she gains great consolation by finding joy in the progress of
others. Therefore, a soul who has ‘grown faint with holy love’ is
‘surrounded with flowers and apples’ so that she may find rest in the
good work of her neighbor when she is still unable to contemplate the
face of God.
 Let us ponder, if you please, what sort of mind Paul had. He said: For
me to live is Christ and to die is gain [Phil 1:21]. If he thought that his life
was Christ alone and to die was gain, the love with which he joined
himself to Almighty God must have been very great. Thus he repeats
himself: I have a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which is far
better [Phil 1:23]. But let us now consider the love with which he who
desired to be dissolved grows faint. Because he realizes that for the
present he is separated, doesn’t he seek to be ‘surrounded with flowers’?
It is clear that he does seek this, for it follows: But to stay in the flesh is
necessary for your sake [Phil 1:24]. And he says to his disciples who are
making progress: For what is our hope or joy or crown of glory? Is it not you
before our Lord Jesus Christ? [1 Thess 2:19].

Song 2:5b (LXX). I have been wounded by love.

W15. 1In two ways Almighty God wounds those whom he is
concerned to restore to health. Sometimes 2he whips them outwardly on
the flesh in order to cure the poison of sins.20 Sometimes, even if the
outward blows seem to have stopped, he inflicts wounds inwardly
because21 he strikes the hardness of our mind with desire for him. Yet by
striking he heals because, when we have been pierced by the spear of
fear of him, he recalls us to an upright frame of mind. For our hearts are
sickly when stricken with no love for God, when unmindful of the
woefulness of our pilgrimage, when apathetic with hardly any feeling at
all toward the weakness of our neighbor. But they are wounded that
they may be healed because God strikes unfeeling minds with the darts
of love for him and soon makes them full of feeling through the burning
heat of charity. Hence here the Bride says: I have been wounded by love.
For the soul that is sickly and in the state of this exile lies prostrate in
blind security22 has neither seen God nor sought to see him. But when
she is struck by the darts of his love, she is ‘wounded’ in her innermost
recesses with tender devotion, burns with desire for contemplation, and
marvelously is restored to life through her wound, though once she lay
dead in health. She yearns, she pants, and she desires to see him whom
she fled.
3She burns with desire for him. At present she yearns for nothing that
is in the world, considers the length of the present life as punishment,
hastens to depart and to find rest with a loving embrace in the vision of
the heavenly Bridegroom. And so, a mind that is already in this state
receives no consolation from the present life but in the very depths of
her being sighs, burns, is anxious for him whom she loves.23 The very
health of her body becomes of little worth because she is pierced by the
wound of love.24 4Yet sickly is the heart which does not know the pain
of this wound. But when she has already started to long for heavenly
desire and to feel the wound of love, the soul which was once sick from
health becomes healthier from a wound. 5Thus by being struck she
recovers her health, recalled to the secure state of inward repose by the
overturning of her self-love.
6Anyone who has been able to reach for the truth burns with this love
and desire. For this reason David said: My soul has thirsted for the strong
living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God? [Ps 41:3].
He warns us for the same reason: Always seek his face [Ps 104:4]. For the
same reason Isaiah the Prophet said: My soul desired you in the night but
in the morning I shall keep watch for you deep within my heart with my spirit
[Isa 26:9]. And so, for the same reason the holy Church says to him: I
have been wounded by love [Song 2:5]. Bearing in her heart the wound of
love caused by the heat of desire for him, she is right to reach for health
from the vision of the Physician.

Song 2:6. His left hand is under my head and his right hand will embrace
me.
W16. 1Let the things that support us outwardly be of service in such a
way that they do not deflect the soul from the pursuit of heavenly love.
Let the things that assist us in our exile not assuage the sorrow of our
interior pilgrimage. We should not rejoice as if we are made fortunate by
transitory things since we understand how miserable we are for as long
as we are separated from eternal realities. Thus here the Church says in
the voice of the elect: His left hand is under my head and his right hand will
embrace me. 2For what is meant by the ‘left hand,’ if not the present life?
What is signified by the ‘right hand,’ if not everlasting life?25 3In a
certain sense, she has put the ‘left hand’ of God, which is to say the
prosperity of the present life, ‘under her head,’ and pushes it with the
intentness of the highest love. But the ‘right hand’ of God embraces her
because in her total commitment she is kept safe under his eternal
beatitude. Thus it is said through Solomon: Length of days is in his right
hand, but in his left hand are riches and glory [Prov 3:16]. He teaches how
‘riches and glory’ should be held; he recorded that they are placed in the
‘left hand.’ Thus the Psalmist said: Save me by your right hand [Ps 59:7].
Now he did not say “by your hand” but ‘by your right hand,’ clearly so
that he could make it known by mentioning the right hand that he seeks
eternal salvation. Again, for this reason it is written: With your right
hand, Lord, you have shattered the enemies [Exod 15:6]. For God’s
enemies, even though they thrive in his left hand, are smashed by his
right hand, because the present life is usually favorable to the wicked
but the coming of eternal beatitude dooms them.

Song 2:8. Behold! He comes leaping upon the mountains, springing across
the hills.
W17. By coming for our redemption the Lord performed, if I may put
it so, a certain number of leaps. Dear brothers, do you want to learn
what these leaps of his were? From heaven he came into the womb.
From the womb he came into the manger. From the manger he came
onto the cross. From the cross he came into the tomb. From the tomb he
returned to heaven. Behold! Truth manifested in the flesh performed for
our benefit a certain number of leaps so as to make us run after him. He
exulted like a giant to run his course [Ps 18:6] so that we might say to him
from our heart: Draw me! After you we shall run in the odor of your
ointments [Song 1:3]. And so, dear brothers, it is fitting that we follow
him with our heart to where we believe he ascended with his body.

Song 2:9a. My beloved is like a roe and the young hart of deer.
W18. 1The Lord is called ‘the young hart of a deer’ because of the
flesh that he assumed as the son of the ancient fathers. 2Thus the
Apostle: Whose are the fathers, from whom Christ came according to the
flesh, who is above all things God blessed forever [Rom 9:5].

Song 2:9b. Lo! He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows,
peering through the lattices.
W19. 1When our Redeemer became incarnate for our sake out of
mercy, he ‘stood’ before human eyes as if ‘behind a wall’ because he
made himself visible through his humanity and kept himself invisible in
his divinity. Hence the Jews, who had awaited him because of the
promise of the Prophets, were disturbed on account of the confused
nature of their mistaken beliefs. For they saw as mortal him whom they
had believed would come for their rescue. 2When they saw his miracles,
they were drawn to believe; then again, when they pondered his
sufferings, they refused to believe that he whom they saw mortal in the
flesh was the Lord. Hence it came to pass that they hesitated to
recognize him. For they saw him hungry, thirsty, eating, drinking, tired,
sleeping, and inferred that he was a mere man. They saw him reviving
the dead, cleansing lepers, giving light to the blind, casting out demons,
and deduced that he was superior to men. Yet his humanity obscured
[the significance of] his miracles, which they pondered in their heart.
Thus the holy Church in the voice of the Bride26 3plainly desires to see
his form in his divinity, though not capable of it, because the humanity
he assumed has hidden from her eyes the form of his eternity which she
has longed to behold. In her sorrow here she says: Lo! He stands behind
our wall. It is as if she were saying in plain speech: “For my part, I now
desire to see him in the form of his divinity, but the wall of the flesh he
assumed still prevents me from seeing him.”
4For he who displayed to human eyes that which he assumed from
mortal nature, and remained invisible in himself, ‘stood’ as if ‘behind a
wall’ for those seeking to see him in the open because he did not allow
himself to be seen with his majesty manifest. Now he ‘stood’ as if ‘behind
a wall’ when he displayed the nature of the humanity that he assumed
and kept the nature of his divinity hidden from human eyes. Hence it is
added: Looking through the windows, peering through the lattices. For
anyone who ‘looks through windows and lattices’ is neither entirely seen
nor entirely unseen. Thus our Redeemer came before the eyes of
doubters surely for the following reasons: if he had performed miracles
without suffering as a man, he would have appeared to them exclusively
as God. Then again, if he had experienced human suffering without
accomplishing anything as God, they would have considered him a mere
man. But since he both accomplished divine acts and experienced human
suffering, it is as if he ‘peered’ at human beings ‘through windows and
lattices.’ For he both manifested himself as God through his miracles and
hid that he was God through his sufferings. He was perceived as a man
on account of his sufferings and yet was recognized as superior to a man
on account of his miracles.

Song 2:10-12. Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and
come! For now the winter is past, the rains are over and gone, flowers have
appeared in the land, the time for pruning has come.
W20. 1The present life is indeed ‘winter,’ in which, despite hope even
now guiding us to the things above, nonetheless the numbing cold of our
mortality still holds us back. For it is written: The body that is corrupt
weighs down the soul and the earthly dwelling presses down on the mind
pondering many things [Wis 9:15]. In addition, there are ‘rains’ during
winter, which are surely the preachings of ecclesiastical rulers. With
regard to these rains, it is of course said through Moses: Await what I say
like falling rain, and let my words come down like dew [Deut 32:2]. These
rains are indeed appropriate for winter but will cease in summer because
at present when the heavenly life is hidden from the eyes of the carnal,
we need to be doused by the preachings of the saints. But when the
heat27 of eternal judgment has reached its peak, no one will then regard
the words of preachers as necessary.
2Holy preaching will cease when the present life ends, which is to say
rains will cease when winter ends. Hence the holy Church, or the soul
that is departing from this life, hastening to the regions of eternal
summer, 3and awaiting the day of true light as the season of spring,
rightly hears the voice of the Bridegroom persuading her say: 4Arise,
make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and come, for now the
winter is past and the rains are over and gone. 5Whether she is the holy
Church or any elect soul, she is the ‘love’ of the heavenly Bridegroom on
account of her love, his ‘dove’ on account of her spirit, his ‘beautiful one’
on account of her conduct. When she is raised from the corruption of the
flesh, do not doubt that ‘now the winter is past’ for her because the
numbing cold of the present life departs. Furthermore, ‘the rains are over
and gone’ because when she is raised to the contemplation of Almighty
God in his own essence, there is no further need of the rain of preaching
to drench her. 6After all, when ‘winter is past, the rains are gone’
because when the present life is over, in which the numbing cold of the
corruptible flesh holds us back in a cloud of ignorance, every ministry of
preaching ceases. For at that time we will see more clearly with our own
eyes that which we now hear somewhat obscurely through the voices of
the saints. 7At that time ‘flowers will appear in the land’ because when a
soul begins to receive a kind of initial foretaste of the pleasantness of
eternal beatitude, it is as if the soul is already sniffing fragrances among
flowers as she departs. For after she has quit this life, she will have fruit
in greater abundance. This is why it is added: The time for pruning has
come. When someone is pruning, he cuts away the barren branches in
order that the vigorous ones may bear fruit in greater abundance. And
so, ‘the time for our pruning comes’ when we forsake the unfruitful and
harmful28 corruption of the flesh so as to be able to attain the fruit of the
soul. This fruit will be as abundant as possible for us: the vision of the
one God.

CHAPTER THREE

Song 3:1-4. In my little bed night by night I sought him whom my soul loves;
I sought him but I did not find him. I will arise and scour the whole city;
among the streets and the squares I will seek him whom my soul loves. I
sought him but I did not find him. The watchmen who guard the city found
me. Have you seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed by them a
little ways, I found him whom my soul loves.
W21. 1The Bride says these lines in the guise of every soul, energized
by holy desires and urged by hidden goads of holy love. 2We ought to
know that in the Sacred Word a “bed,” a “chamber,” or a “mattress” is
usually understood as the secret depth of the heart. 3And so, the beloved
is sought ‘in the little bed’ and ‘night by night’ because the invisible
Creator appears in the chamber of the heart (though any kind of
corporeal seeing is precluded), 4because he is desired in anguish of spirit
within the secret chambers of the heart.
5We seek the beloved ‘in the little bed’ when we sigh with desire for
our Redeemer during the brief respite of the present life. We seek ‘night
by night’ because even though our mind already watches for him, yet
our eye is still darkened. ‘Nonetheless, the Bride ‘does not find him’
when she seeks because every elect soul already 7yearns to see the Lord,
already desires to depart to him, already longs to be free of the darkness
of the present life. 8Although she desires with great love, she is still not
permitted to see him whom she loves, 9so that the deferred love may
profit from its very deferment and what seems as if denied may intensify
through ardent desire, 10so that deferred desires may intensify and as
they intensify take possession of what they will have found. 11Therefore,
the Bridegroom when not found is first sought so that later when found
he may be held more closely. For holy desires intensify when deferred;
but if they fade when deferred, they were not desires.29
12The Bridegroom hides himself when sought so that upon not being
found he may be sought all the more ardently. The Bride who seeks him
is kept at a distance lest she find him, in order that she may be rendered
more receptive by the delay and thereby one day find a thousandfold
what she sought. 13But when she does not find her beloved, ‘she arises
and scours the city,’ which is to say she uses her mind to travel about the
holy Church of the elect on a quest. ‘She seeks him among the streets
and the squares,’ which is to say she looks at those strolling in narrow
and wide places, seeking if any trace of him can be found in them. For
even among those who lead a worldly life, there are some who display a
modicum of virtue in their actions that is worth imitating. 14And so, the
Bride first seeks her beloved but finds nothing. 15Failing to find him, she
then redoubles her efforts, saying: I sought him but I did not find him. But
since finding is not long delayed if the quest does not falter, she adds:
The watchmen who guard the city found me.
16Whom ought we take as ‘the watchmen who guard the city,’ if not
the holy fathers and prophets and teachers who devoted themselves to
watching by the words of holy preaching so as to guard us? 17Therefore,
every soul seeking the sight of her Redeemer 18is found by the holy
fathers and attentive teachers who are the guardians of the Church’s
stability because they run to meet her good efforts in order to teach her
by their deeds,30 their words, or their writings. 19But when the Church
sought her Redeemer, she was not willing to set her hope on those same
fathers and teachers, saying: When I had passed by them a little ways, I
found him whom my soul loves. After all, she would not have been able to
find him unless she had been willing to pass them by. The unbelievers
entrusted themselves to these same sentries since they believed that
Christ the Son of God was one of them. But by means of the words and
faith of Peter the holy Church passed by the watchmen whom she found,
since she refused to believe that the Lord of the Prophets was one of the
Prophets.
20So then, the mind eager for the sight of him cannot find him who is
above humanity, unless she ‘passes by’ the high esteem of the Prophets,
the loftiness of the Patriarchs, and the stature of the Apostles, teachers,
and all people. 21For our Redeemer, even though he lived in humility as
a human being among human beings, was yet above human beings on
account of his divinity. 22So then, ‘to pass by the watchmen’ means to
consider even those whom the soul admires as of less value when
compared to him 23and to be unwilling to set her hope on them.
24Therefore, when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is found
because when we come to consider the Prophets, Apostles, and teachers
as inferior to him, we realize that he who is God by nature is superior to
human beings, 25if he is believed to be a human being and yet at the
same time beyond the stature of human beings.

Song 3:6. Who is this coming up through the desert like a column of smoke
arising from incense made of myrrh and frankincense and all the fragrant
powders of the perfumer?
W22. 1Here the virtue of the Bride is praised in the voice of
Bridegroom. The holy Church of the elect, when with ardent love she
raises herself from this world amid holy prayers, ‘is coming up through
the desert,’ which she leaves behind. But it adds how she comes up: like
a column of smoke arising from incense. Smoke is produced by incense,
and it is said through the Psalmist: Let my prayer arise in your presence
like incense [Ps 140:2]. Smoke ordinarily provokes tears. And so, the
‘smoke arising from incense’ is the compunction of prayer that is
produced by the virtues of love. Yet this prayer is called ‘a column of
smoke’ because, when it asks only for heavenly goods, it soars upward so
directly31 that it never turns back to seek earthly and temporal goods.
2The holy Church is ‘coming up like a column of smoke arising from
incense’ because she makes progress each day in the uprightness of
internal ‘incense’32 on account of the virtues of her conduct. Nor does
she become dissipated in scattered thoughts, but she confines herself
within the hidden recesses of her heart by means of the rod of severity.33
3And note that prayer is not called a “rod” but a ‘column’ because
sometimes in the ardor of compunction the force of love is of such
subtlety that not even the soul itself, which when enlightened merits to
possess it, can comprehend it. Furthermore, made of myrrh and
frankincense is well said. For the Law prescribes that frankincense be
burned in sacrifice to the Lord but that dead bodies be embalmed with
myrrh to prevent corruption by worms. Therefore, a sacrifice of myrrh
and frankincense is offered by those who afflict their flesh lest they be
dominated by the vices of corruption, who burn the pleasing offering of
their love in the presence of the Lord, and who present themselves to
God amid holy virtues. This is why it is added in that place: And all the
fragrant powders of the perfumer. The fragrant powder of the perfumer is
the virtue of one who acts well. And note that the virtues of those who
act well are not called “paints” but ‘fragrant powders.’34 For when we do
any good work, we are offering paints. But when we reconsider the very
good works that we do, and on the basis of this reconsideration
determine whether there is anything evil in them, and submit to this
judgment, in a certain sense we make powder from paints. Thus we burn
our prayer more subtly through discretion and love.
4And so, as long as we never cease to ponder and consider anew what
we do, we indeed have ‘myrrh and frankincense’ in our deeds but
‘powder’ in our thoughts. 5Therefore, dearly beloved, let us seek nothing
earthly, nothing transitory through tears of compunction. Let him alone
who made all things suffice for us. Let us pass beyond all things through
desire, that we may focus our mind upon the One. Ignited no longer by
the fear of punishment nor the remembrance of our offenses, but by the
flames of love, let us burn in tears with the odor of virtues.

Song 3:7. Lo! Sixty of the most valiant men of Israel surrounded the little
bed of Solomon.
W23. 1All the saints contemplate interior repose without any lessening
of their desire. 2It is said to them through the Psalmist:
Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all you who hope in the Lord! [Ps
30:25]. 3For the strength of the righteous is to conquer their flesh, to
thwart self-will, to annihilate the delight of the present life, to love the
harshness of this world for the sake of eternal rewards, to scorn the
charms of good fortune, to overcome the dread of adversity in their
heart, 4to concern themselves with perils of the world needing toleration
for the world’s sake in order to be lessened, to gaze upon their own end,
to mark how transitory the present life is, and for these reasons to refuse
to undergo outward toils, whose delight they conquer inwardly.

Song 3:8a. All are holding swords and they are very skilled in warfare.
W24. 1What the ‘sword’ represents in the Divine Scripture, Paul laid
open when he said: And the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
[Eph 6:17]. 2When Solomon described the valiant men as warriors in the
spiritual battle, 3he did not say: “All have swords,” but: All are holding
swords, clearly because is it wonderful not only to know the Word of
God, but also to do it. After all, a sword is had but not held when
someone knows the divine speech but makes no effort to live according
to it. And a man can no longer be skilled in warfare if he does not train
with the spiritual sword he has. For he is altogether unequal to the task
of resisting temptations if by living a bad life he puts off holding this
sword of the Word of God.

Song 3:8b. Everyone’s blade is upon his thigh on account of nocturnal fears.
W25. 1This verse speaks of the valiant warriors of the heavenly
homeland. 2A ‘blade is placed upon the thigh’ when a wicked suggestion
of the flesh is subjugated by the sharp edge of holy preaching. 3A ‘blade
is upon the thigh’ when vigilant guarding subdues the enticements of the
flesh. 4But ‘nocturnal fears’ are the hidden snares of temptation. 5After
all, the term ‘night’ refers to the blindness that characterizes our
enfeebled state. For we cannot see the forces of opposition that threaten
us at night. Therefore, everyone’s blade is on his thigh on account of
nocturnal fears because it is clear that holy people, while they dread the
dangers they do not see, are always prepared to ward off an attack.35
6For even though holy people are so confident in their hope, they
nevertheless always look upon temptation with mistrust. After all, to
them it is said: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice in him with trembling
[Ps 2:11], meaning that rejoicing is born of hope and trembling of their
mistrust. 7Therefore, lest ‘nocturnal fear,’ which is to say sudden and
hidden temptation, catch us unawares, the ‘blade’ of guarding ‘placed
upon our thigh’ must always subdue it.36

Song 3:9-10. King Solomon made himself a palanquin from the wood of
Lebanon. He made its posts of silver, its seat of gold, its ladder of purple, and
he covered the insides with love on account of the daughters of Jerusalem.
W26. Now we ought not believe about Solomon, a king of such
greatness, who abounded in such immeasurable riches that the weight of
his gold could not be estimated and in whose days silver was
worthless,37 that he made himself a palanquin from wood, as the Bride says
here. Rather, it is Solomon, namely our king and our peacemaker, who
made himself a palanquin from the wood of Lebanon. For the cedar wood of
Lebanon is most imperishable. And so, the palanquin of our king is the
holy Church, which was built from our strong forefathers, which is to
say from imperishable minds. She is rightly called a ‘palanquin’ because
each day she transports souls to the eternal banquet of her Creator.
The ‘posts’ of this palanquin were made ‘of silver’ because the
preachers of the holy Church shine with the splendor of eloquent
speech.38 But there is a ‘seat of gold’ in addition to the ‘post of silver’
because when the luminous words of holy preachers are heard, the
minds of those who hear them discover the brightness of inner clarity, in
which they may recline. For when they hear these clear and plain
words39 they find rest in the clarity that has come to their heart. So
then, its ‘posts’ are ‘of silver’ and its ‘seat’ was made ‘of gold’ because the
splendor of speech enables the discovery of restful clarity in the soul. For
this interior brightness illumines her mind in the present time so that by
means of attention she may find rest in that place where the grace of
preaching is not required. Indeed it is written of the same holy Church:
The wings of a dove are covered with silver and its rump with the appearance
of gold [Ps 67:14]. For here filled with the spirit of mildness, she like the
dove has wings covered with silver and on her rump the appearance of
gold because here she endows her preachers with the splendor of speech
but in a later age40 shows in herself the brightness of clarity.
But in addition to this revelation of interior clarity, the quality of the
ladder is described by an additional statement made about the same
palanquin: its ladder of purple. Since real purple is achieved by dyeing
with blood, it is not unjust to view it as representing the color of blood.
And so, since the greatest multitude of the faithful at the beginning of
the Church in its infancy attained the kingdom through the blood of
martyrdom, our king made a ‘ladder of purple’ in his palanquin because
one attains the clarity seen within through the trial of blood.
So then, what are we to do, miserable as we are and bereft of all
strength? Look, we cannot be ‘posts’ in this palanquin because neither
the strength needed for working nor the splendor of preaching shines in
us. We do not possess a ‘seat of gold’ because, as is fitting, we still do not
perceive the rest of interior clarity through spiritual understanding. We
are not a ‘ladder of purple’ because we are unable to shed blood for our
Redeemer. So then, what is to be done about us? What hope will there
be if no one attains the kingdom except the one who is endowed with
the most excellent virtues?
But there is also consolation for us. Let us love God as much as we
can, let us love our neighbor, and at the same time too let us strive for
the palanquin of God, because as it is written in that same place: he
covered the insides with love. Have love, and without a doubt you will
reach that place where the ‘post of silver’ is set and the ‘ladder of purple’
is kept. Yet that this is said on account of our weakness is clearly shown
when it is added further on in the same place: on account of the daughters
of Jerusalem. Since the word of God does not say “sons” but ‘daughters,’
what else has been signified by the female sex other than the weak parts
of our minds? Therefore, in this passage it is said that in the midst of the
‘posts of silver,’ the ‘seat of gold,’ and the ‘ladder of purple,’ there is love
‘on account of the daughters of Jerusalem.’ For even those who lack the
strength for the virtues, if they do not fail to do the good that they can
do with love, then they are not strangers to the ‘palanquin’ of God.

CHAPTER FOUR

Song 4:1. How beautiful you are, my love, how beautiful! Your eyes are
dovelike, aside from what is veiled within.
W27. 1He describes her as ‘beautiful,’ then repeats himself, calling her
‘beautiful’ a second time. For she possesses one sort of beauty, the
beauty of conduct, whereby she is recognized in the present time, and
another sort of beauty, the beauty of the rewards, whereby she will later
be lifted up through the sight of her Creator. Because all her elect
members do everything with simplicity, her eyes are called ‘dovelike.’
They shine with great splendor because they sparkle with the miracles
that she sees. But as great as every miracle is because it can be seen, an
interior miracle is more wonderful because it cannot be seen in the
present time. Regarding this it is appropriately41 added in that place:
aside from what is veiled within. For the glory of an observable work is
great, but the glory of a hidden reward is far beyond comparison. 2All
that is seen by divine providence in the face of heaven, as it were, is
beautiful; but that attained without being seen is incomparably far more
beautiful.

Song 4:2. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming up from a
washing.
W28. 1We take the holy Church’s ‘teeth’ as the holy preachers who
masticate the toughness of sinners with their preaching. 2It is not
unreasonable to compare them to ‘shorn’ and ‘washed’ sheep. For by
adopting an irreproachable manner of life in the baptismal bath they
have put aside the raggedly fleece of their previous way of life.

Song 4:3. Your lips are like a scarlet headband, my Bride, and your words
are sweet.
W29. 1A headband binds the hairs of the head. 2But what is meant by
hairs, if not the soul’s racing thoughts? 3Therefore, the Bride’s ‘lips’ are
like a ‘headband’ because the exhortations of the holy Church bind
together all wandering thoughts in the minds of those who listen. It
keeps them from running riot, being scattered by forbidden thoughts,
and, once scattered, troubling the eyes of the heart. And so it enables
them to gather themselves together, as it were, into a single purpose as
long as the headband of holy preaching binds them. How good is it too
that the headband is called ‘scarlet’! For the preaching of the saints
burns only with the ardor of love.

Song 4:4. Your neck is like the tower of David, built with its own bulwarks;
a thousand bucklers hang upon it, every one of them the armament of valiant
men.
W30. 1In the neck one finds the throat, and in the throat one finds the
voice. So then, what is meant by the ‘neck’ of the Bride to whom the
Bridegroom speaks these words, if not the Sacred Words of the holy
Church? When it is mentioned that a thousand bucklers hang upon it, this
number of perfection indicates the number of totality because the Sacred
Word contains our total defense. For that is where we find the precepts
of God, that is where we find the examples of the righteous.
If the soul has grown cold in desire for her Creator, let her hear what
is said: Love the Lord your God with all your mind and with all your strength
[Matt 22:37]. Perhaps she has fallen into hatred for her neighbor? Let
her hear what is said: Love your neighbor as yourself [Matt 22:39]. Does
she covet another’s goods? Let her hear what is written there: Do not
covet your neighbor’s goods [Exod 20:17]. Is the mind stirred to anger by
an injury inflicted by the word or deed of a neighbor? Let her hear what
is said: Do not seek revenge nor remember the injury of your fellow citizens
[Lev 19:18]. Does the mind troubled by evils seethe with the craving of
the flesh? Lest the eye follow the mind, let her hear what was said a
little before:42 Whoever looks at a woman in order to crave her has already
committed fornication with her in his heart [Matt 5:28].
Perhaps there is someone who decides to give his soul over to hatred
of an enemy? Let him hear what is written there: Love your enemies and
do good to those who hate you [Matt 5:44]. Perhaps one who already does
not plunder another’s goods still keeps his own goods in a way contrary
to divine law? Let him hear what is said there: Sell what you possess and
give alms [Luke 12:33]. Does the soul of a feeble person desire to enjoy
God and this world at the same time? Let her hear what is written there:
No one can serve two masters [Matt 6:24]. Does another keep possessions
not to make necessary payments but to satisfy the desires of the will? Let
him hear what is said there: Whoever does not renounce all he possesses
cannot be my disciple [Luke 14:33]. While some abandon everything,
many renounce while possessing, in that they keep their possessions for
use in such a way that they do not fall prey to them out of desire.43 Does
someone seek indolence and dodge undertaking labor for the Lord even
when capable? Let him hear what is written there: Whoever does not
gather with me scatters [Luke 11:23]. Therefore, ‘upon the neck of the
Church,’ which is to say in the preaching of the Sacred Word (said to be
‘like the tower of David’ because of its strong position and height), ‘a
thousand bucklers hang’ because there all the precepts are also defenses
for our heart.
And so, do we hasten to abide in humility so as to preserve our
innocence, even if injured by a neighbor? Let Abel come before our eyes.
It is written that he was murdered by his brother but we do not read that
he struggled against him.44 Is purity of mind chosen even within the
bond of marriage? Enoch ought to be imitated. Though a married man,
he walked with God [Gen 5:24] and was not found because God took him
[Heb 11:5]. Do we hasten to prefer God’s precepts to what benefits us in
the present? Let Noah come before our eyes. Abandoning his domestic
responsibilities at the bidding of the Almighty Lord, he lived for one
hundred years engaged in the building of the ark.45 Do we make every
effort to submit to the virtue of obedience? We ought to observe
Abraham. Leaving behind home, kinsfolk, and country, he was obedient in
going out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out,
ignorant of where he was going [Heb 11:8]. He was prepared for the sake
of an eternal inheritance to kill the beloved heir whom he had received.
And since he did not hesitate to offer his only son to God, he received a
whole multitude of peoples for his descendants.46 Is simplicity of
conduct pleasing? Let Isaac come before our mind. The tranquility of his
conduct made him beautiful in the eyes of Almighty God. Is fortitude in
labor sought in order to obtain it? Let Jacob be recalled to your memory.
After learning how to serve a human being with fortitude,47 he was led
to it as a virtue, such that the angel who wrestled him could not prevail
over him.48
Do we try to conquer the enticements of the flesh? Let Joseph return
to your memory. He was zealous to guard chastity of the flesh49 even to
the point of endangering his life.50 Since he had good knowledge
regarding the rule of his own members, it thus came to pass that he was
also entrusted with the rule of all Egypt. Do we seek to be meek? Let us
bring Moses before our eyes. Even though he ruled six hundred thousand
armed men (not counting women and children), he is described as
having been the meekest of all men who dwelt upon the face of the earth
[Num 12:3]. Are we enkindled by zeal for uprightness against vices? Let
Phineas be brought before your eyes. By running his sword through the
pair having sexual intercourse, he brought chastity back to the people
and by his own wrath calmed the wrath of God.51 Do we seek amid
uncertainties to presume on hope in Almighty God? Let us recall Joshua
to our memory. When he engaged in uncertain battles with a confident
mind, he came through to victory without any uncertainty.
Do we already yearn to break free from meanness of mind, to enlarge
the soul in kindness? Let Samuel enter into thought. Although rebuffed
by the people with regard to the kingship, when the same people begged
him to pour out prayers for them to the Lord, he answered: Far be it from
me that I should sin against the Lord such that I would cease to pray for you!
[1 Sam 12:23]. For the holy man believed he would have committed a
sin if he had not returned the kindness of grace by praying for those
whom he had endured as adversaries even to the point of being rebuffed.
Again, when at the bidding of the Lord he was sent to anoint David as
king, he replied: How can I go? Saul will find me and kill me! [1 Sam
16:2]. And yet when he learned that God was angered at the same Saul,
he agonized over it with such mourning that the Lord said to him in
person: How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing that I have rejected him?
[1 Sam 16:1]. So then, let us ponder how great an ardor of charity
inflamed the soul of him who wept even for the man by whom he feared
being killed. But are we willing to look out for the one whom we fear?
We ought to ponder this with an attentive mind so that, if perhaps we
were to find the opportunity, we ourselves will not repay the one whom
we fear evil for evil. Therefore, let David return to the memory. He
found himself in pursuit of the king so that he could kill him, and yet
when placed within striking distance he chose the good he ought to have
done but not the evil the king deserved to suffer, saying: Far be it from
me that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed! [1 Sam
26:11]. And when the same Saul was later destroyed by his enemies,
David wept for the murdered man whom while alive he had endured as
a persecutor.
 Do we decide to speak candidly to those powerful in the world when
they are in error? Let the authority of John be directed to your soul.
When he censured Herod’s wickedness, he was not afraid of being killed
for the uprightness of his message. And since Christ is the Truth [1 John
5:6],52 he therefore laid down his life for Christ since he laid it down for
the truth. Do we hasten right now to lay down our flesh in death for
God? Let Peter come to mind. He rejoiced in the midst of scourgings,
when beaten withstood princes, despised his own life for the sake of Life.
Are we resolved to scorn adversity with a longing for death? Let Paul be
brought before your eyes. Ready not only to be fettered but also to die
for Christ,53 he does not make his own life more valuable than Christ. Do
we seek to have our heart kindled with the fire of charity? Let us ponder
the words of John. Everything he said burned with the fire of charity.
Therefore, because we find in the voice of the Sacred Word the means of
fortifying any virtue we seek, a thousand bucklers hang upon it, every one
of them the armament of valiant men.
Now if we want to fight against spiritual wickedness, we should look
for defensive weapons in the ‘neck’ of the Church that was built for us
‘like the tower of David,’ which is to say in the Divine Words. Thus from
the discerning use of the precepts we gain powerful aid against vices.
Look, do we hasten to be ‘valiant’ against the powers of the air? We find
the ‘armament’ of our mind in this ‘tower’ and from it we take the
precepts of our Creator and the examples of our predecessors by which
we become invincibly armed against our adversaries. For when you seek
to acquire any virtue and see it already fulfilled somewhere by the
fathers, there you find the ‘armament’ by means of which you can
defend yourself against spiritual onslaughts. After all, bucklers hang upon
it. If anyone seeks to fight, let him take up that virtue and defend his
heart with it, and let him launch javelins of words.
And note that the tower is said to have been built with its own bulwarks.
Now bulwarks perform the same function as bucklers do, since both
protect the one who fights. But there is a difference between them: while
we can move bucklers at will to protect ourselves, we can defend
ourselves with a bulwark but without being able to move it. A buckler is
clutched in the hand, but a bulwark is not. So then, what is the
difference between a bulwark and a buckler, if not the fact that in the
Sacred Word we both read the miracles of the fathers who have gone
before us and hear the virtues of their good works? For we learn there
that one could divide the sea,54 another stop the sun,55 another revive a
dead person,56 another raise up a paralytic by a word,57 another heal the
sick with his shadow,58 another break the fevers of the infirm with his
apron.59 Yet all these were meek with the forbearance of patience and
fervent with the zeal of uprightness, rich in preaching the word and at
the same time abundant in mercy. And so, their miracles testify that they
proclaimed the truth about the Lord, since they would not have been
able to do such things through him unless they were telling the truth
about him. And their activities testify to how devoted, how humble, how
kind they were. Thus if our faith, which we conceived from their
preaching, is put to the test, we will reflect upon the miracles of those
who preach, and the faith which we received from them will be
strengthened. So then, what are their miracles, if not our bulwarks? For
they can protect us, and yet we do not hold them in our hand as things
within our power to choose, seeing that we cannot do such things. But
we do have a buckler in our hand and it defends us because the virtue of
patience and the virtue of mercy, so long as grace precedes, are within
our power to choose, and they protect from the danger of adversity. And
so, our tower is ‘built with its own bulwarks,’ on which ‘a thousand
bucklers hang,’ because the Sacred Scriptures enable us both to hide
from the javelin of adversity under the miracles of the fathers and to
hold in our hand things we can do to safeguard a holy way of life.
2Therefore, dear brothers, do not scorn the writings of our Redeemer
which have been sent to us. It is very remarkable that through them a
soul can be restored to warmth lest she grow numb through the cold of
iniquity. When we learn in them that our righteous forebears acted
valiantly and we ourselves are equipped with strength for good works,
the soul of the reader is kindled by the flame of holy examples. She sees
their valiant deeds and she gets very annoyed with herself for not
imitating such acts.

Song 4:5-6. Your two breasts are like two fawns of a roe deer, twins, who
feed on the lilies until the day breaks and the shadows recede.
W31. 1We must always, dear brothers, reflect on the conduct of the
righteous so that we can gain subtle insight into our own. 2All the elect
never stop doing this. For they study the conduct of their betters and
modify the aspects of their way of life that fall short. 3What are the ‘two
breasts’ of the Bride to whom the Bridegroom is speaking, if not the two
peoples coming from the Jews and from the Gentiles, who are implanted
in the body of the holy Church through their efforts to attain wisdom in
the hidden depths of their heart? Accordingly, those elected from these
peoples are compared to the ‘fawns of a roe deer’ because through their
humility they have come to understand that they are truly insignificant
and sinful. But if they encounter the hurdles of temporal encumbrance,
running by love they surmount them and making leaps of contemplation
they ascend to heavenly realities.
In order to do these things they reflect on the examples of the saints
who have preceded them. This is why reference is made to the fact that
they feed on the lilies. For what is indicated by ‘lilies,’ if not the conduct
of those who can truly say: We are the good odor of Christ for God [2 Cor
2:15]? So then, the elect, in order to gain the strength to follow them to
the highest regions, completely satisfy themselves by reflecting upon the
fragrant and pure conduct of the righteous. Even in the present time
they thirst to see God. In the present time they burn with the fires of
love that they may be completely satisfied by the contemplation of him.
But since they are still incapable of doing so while placed in this life,
they feed in the meantime on the examples of the fathers who have
preceded them.60
Hence that passage fittingly gave a limit to the time for their ‘feeding
on the lilies,’ when it is said: Until the day breaks and the shadows recede.
For we need to be nourished with the examples of the righteous for only
so long, until we pass beyond the shadows of our present mortality when
that eternal day breaks. After all, when the shadow of this transitory
time has receded and this mortal state has passed away, since we behold
the inner light of day itself, we no longer seek to be kindled with love
for it through the examples of others. But as it is now, since we are still
unable to gaze upon it, we especially need to be aroused by reflecting on
the actions of those who have pursued it perfectly.
So then, let us gaze upon the beautifulness of the alacrity of those who
pursue it, and let us notice the disgracefulness of the sloth of the lazy.
For as soon as we reflect on the deeds of those who live good lives, we
pass judgment on ourselves in our profound embarrassment. Soon
feelings of shame assail our mind, soon a rightfully harsh accusation is
levied upon us, and we are even sorely displeased with our disgraceful
behavior, which perhaps we still find pleasurable. 4And so, those who
desire to be raised to the highest regions must always pay close attention
to the progress of their betters, that they may judge the defects in
themselves with greater severity in proportion to the greater profundity
with which they see in them what they admire.

Song 4:8. You shall be crowned from the summit of Amana, from the peak
of Senir and Hermon, from the dens of lions.
W32. 1The approaching Bridegroom is told that he ‘shall be crowned
from the dens of lions.’61 What else could the word ‘lions’ designate
other than the demons who rage against us with wrath of the most
savage sort? 2But the ‘dens’ of demons were the hearts of the
iniquitous.62 Since the demons seduced them to their own wickedness, it
is as if the iniquitous rested in that place where demons dwell. But by the
midwifery of the Lord’s hand [Job 26:13] the lions are driven out of their
own dens because, when divine grace heals us, the one who had
possessed us, the ancient enemy, is cast out of us, as incarnate Truth
says: Now shall the prince of this world be cast out [John 12:31].63 3And
because sinners are called to faith, whose hearts were once ‘dens of
lions,’ when they confess their belief in the Lord’s victory over death, it
is as if he is ‘crowned from the dens of lions.’ After all, the reward for
victory is a crown. Therefore, the faithful offer a crown to the Lord as
often as they confess that he is victorious over death through his
resurrection.

Song 4:11. Honey and milk are under your tongue.

W33. 1When most of the righteous see any persons living wicked lives,
who deserve to be chastised with harsh rebukes, they put sternness on
their tongues. But ‘under the tongue’ they conceal the gentleness of their
mind. 2For they prefer not to disclose the sweetness of their mind to the
weak, but when they speak they chastise them with a certain degree of
sternness. And yet among their harsh words they sprinkle droplets of
sweetness, on the sly as it were. It is people such as these who do not
have sweetness on the tongue but rather ‘under the tongue.’ For among
the harsh words which they utter, they also give out some that are
consoling and sweet whereby the mind of a distressed person can be
restored on account of their gentleness. Similarly, because some of the
wicked and hypocritical do not have evil on the tongue but rather ‘under
the tongue,’ they make a pretence of sweetness in their words but
formulate wicked plans in their thoughts.

Song 4:16. Arise, north wind, and come, south wind, blow through my
garden and let its sweet scents spread around.
W34. 1In light of the fact that the ‘north wind’ chills with cold, the
word ‘north’ is not an inappropriate designation for the lethargic
numbness caused by the evil spirit.64 Isaiah the Prophet testifies to this,
declaring that the devil said he would sit on the slopes of the north [Isa
14:13]. 2He sits ‘on the slopes of the north’ because he possesses the cold
minds of human beings. 3But the ‘south wind’—a wind that is certainly
warm—is not an unsuitable designation for the fervor of the Holy Spirit.
For when anyone is touched by him, she is freed from the lethargic
numbness of her evil ways. 4And when anyone is filled with him, love
for the spiritual homeland is enkindled in her.
5And so, in the voice of the Bridegroom the ‘north wind’ is ordered to
‘arise,’ undoubtedly in order that the hostile spirit, who chills the hearts
of mortals, may take flight. 6When at God’s bidding the cold spirit
recedes, the warm spirit takes up residence in the mind of the faithful
and ‘blows through the garden’ of God, which is to say the holy Church,
7in order to ‘spread its sweet scents around.’ For surely when the Spirit
of truth fills the holy Church with the virtues that are his very own gifts,
he spreads far and wide from her the odors of good works. 8Thus reports
of her virtues flow out like ‘sweet scents’ enabling them to become
known to many people. Indeed, after the departure of the ‘north wind,’
which is to say the evil spirit, the Holy Spirit fills the mind like the
‘south wind.’ By blowing with his warmth, the ‘sweet scents’ of the
virtues at once flow from the hearts of the faithful. 9And soon after this
their reputation for virtues is scattered abroad. Hence the tongue of the
saints, like ‘a garden through which the south wind blows,’ may justly
say in the present time: We are the good odor of Christ for God [2 Cor
2:15].

CHAPTER FIVE

Song 5:2. I sleep but my heart is awake.

W35. 1In Sacred Scripture, the figurative use of ‘sleep’ or ‘slumber’ can
be understood in three ways. Sometimes ‘sleep’ expresses the death of
the flesh, sometimes the numbness of indifference, but sometimes the
calmness of life that ensues when earthly desires are trod underfoot. The
word ‘sleep’ or ‘slumber’ suggests the death of the flesh, as when Paul
says: Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who
are asleep [1 Thess 4:13]. And a little after: Even so, through Jesus God will
bring with him those who are asleep [1 Thess 4:14]. Again, ‘sleep’
designates the numbness of indifference, as when it is said by the same
Paul: It is now the hour to rise from sleep [Rom 13:11]. And again: Wake
up, you who are righteous, and do not sin [1 Cor 15:34]. ‘Sleep’ also
signifies the calmness of life that ensues when desires of the flesh are
trod underfoot, as when the following is said in the voice of the Bride: I
sleep but my heart is awake [Song 5:2],2 as if she were saying: “While I
give my exterior senses rest from the worries of this life, I have a more
lively comprehension of interior realities since my mind is free. ‘I sleep’
exteriorly, but ‘my heart is awake’ interiorly because while I have no
perception, as it were, of exterior objects, I have a keen comprehension
of interior realities.” 3Indeed, the more the holy mind withholds herself
from the clamor of temporal yearning, the more truly she attains
knowledge of interior realities; and the more eagerly she is awake to
inward concerns, the more she screens herself from outward disturbance.
4And so, she sleeps with a ‘heart’ that is ‘awake’ because65 on account of
her interior progress in contemplation she is undisturbed by disturbing
exterior works. 5Whoever seeks to do the things which are of this world
is, so to speak, ‘awake.’ But whoever in their quest for interior calm
eschews the clamor of this life ‘sleeps.’
Song 5:4. My beloved put his hand through the opening, and my insides
trembled at his touch.
W36. 1Great is the mercy of our Creator. 2For the entrance into the
heavenly kingdom is opened equally to both the Jewish and Gentile
peoples, and the righteous and the sinners, but only after converted from
their sins. 3The joys of the heavenly kingdom are opened not only66 to
those who remain in innocence but also to condemned sinners when
they repent of their sins. Thus they come to appreciate the inexpressible
mysteries of the heavenly kingdom, and by appreciating them thirst for
them, by thirsting for them run after them, by running after them attain
them. He appreciated these mysteries of interior joy who said: My soul
has thirsted for the living God. When shall I enter and appear before the face
of God? [Ps 41:3]. The preacher to the Gentiles longed for the entrance
to the heavenly kingdom when he said: My desire is to depart and to be
with Christ [Phil 1:23]. The Bride appreciated these mysteries of hidden
ecstasy when she said here: My beloved put his hand through the opening,
and my insides trembled at his touch [Song 5:4]. Surely ‘the beloved puts
his hand through the opening’ when the Lord by his own power moves
our souls to a refined understanding. And ‘the insides greatly tremble at
his touch’ because our weakness, on account of being touched by an
understanding of heavenly joy, is thrown into confusion by our own
ecstasy. And panic seizes her mind in her rejoicing because in the
present time she experiences a bit of the heavenly joy that she loves and
yet she dreads not retaining what she experiences so fleetingly.
Therefore, what are they to do, all who have an appreciation of the joys
of the heavenly homeland, if not to direct their feet along the path of a
more perfect life?

Song 5:5. My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers full of the finest myrrh.
W37. 1The holy Church says this about her laborers who fight even
unto death on behalf of God. 2For ‘myrrh’ is a figure for the mortification
of our flesh. 3The Evangelist writes with regard to the Magi who came
from the East to Bethlehem to adore the Lord: And after they opened their
treasures, they offered the Lord gold, frankincense, and myrrh [Matt 2:11].
4We too offer him myrrh if we mortify the vices of our flesh through self-
restraint. For, as we said, myrrh keeps dead flesh from putrefying. The
putrefaction of dead flesh is the enslavement of this mortal body to the
dissipation caused by self-indulgence, as is said through the Prophet
about certain people: The beasts have putrefied in their own dung [Joel
1:17]. For ‘beasts putrefying in their own dung’ are carnal persons
ending their life in the stench of self-indulgence. Therefore, we offer
myrrh to God when we use the seasoning of self-control to keep this
mortal body free from the putrefaction of self-indulgence.

Song 5:6. My soul was melted when my beloved spoke.

W38. 1The mind of the person who does not seek the sight of her
Creator is very hard because she persists in a frozen state on account of
herself. But 2when she is touched by the breath of secret speaking, she
loses the seat of her own strength and ‘is melted’ by the very desire that
consumes her. 3And if in the present time she starts to burn with the
desire to follow him whom she loves, ‘melted’ by the fire of her love, she
runs. 4And the more her zeal for the world cools, the more ardently love
for God rises within her. 5She becomes eager with desire. She reviles all
worldly things that used to bring her pleasure. Nothing except her
Creator pleases her. What first delighted her soul afterward becomes
grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles her grief as long as she has
still not looked upon him whom she desires. Her mind sorrows. Light
itself is wearisome. Scorching fire burns away the rust of sin in her mind.
The soul is enflamed like gold because gold loses its luster through use
but regains its brightness through fire.

Song 5:7. I sought but did not find him; I called but he gave me no answer.
The sentries who patrol the city found me. They beat me. They wounded me.
The sentries of the walls took my cloak from me.
W39. The Bride ‘does not find him’ when she seeks because every
elect soul already burns with the firebrands of love for him but still is
denied the sight of him who is sought, so as to intensify the desire of the
lover. It is as if water is taken away in thirst, causing the heat of her
thirst to increase: the longer she desires it when thirsty, the more avidly
she takes it when given.67 ‘The watchmen find her as she searches for
him, and wound her, and take away her cloak’ because when dutiful
teachers find that any soul is already seeking the sight of her Redeemer,
they ‘wound her’ with the darts of heavenly love through the word of
preaching. And if she still possesses any covering of her old way of life,
they ‘take it away’ so that the more she is stripped of the burden of this
world, the more quickly she may find him whom she seeks.

Song 5:11. His head is the finest gold.

W40. 1By the term ‘gold’ is designated the very innermost brightness
of divinity when the Bride describes the sight of the Bridegroom. 2The
head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3] but there is no metal more
resplendent than gold. Hence the Bridegroom’s head is called ‘gold’
because his humanity rules over us on account of the brightness of his
divinity.

CHAPTER SIX

Song 6:3. You are beautiful, my love, charming and lovely as Jerusalem,
terrifying as an army’s front poised for battle.
W41. 1The holy catholic Church is described in the guise of a beloved
woman. 2The interpretation of the name ‘Jerusalem’ is “vision of peace,”
which represents the heavenly homeland. So then, the holy Church is
‘charming and lovely as Jerusalem’ because her conduct and desire are
being compared to the vision of inner peace. Hence insofar as she loves
her Creator and yearns to see the face of him about whom it is written,
He upon whom the angels desire to look [1 Pet 1:12], she is said to be like
the angels on account of her very desires of her love. She becomes
pleasing to God to the extent that68 she makes an effort to become
terrifying to wicked spirits.
Another comparison shows just how terrifying she is: like an army’s
front poised for battle. Why do the enemies of the holy Church fear her as
if she were ‘an army’s front’? Now this comparison does not lack great
insight and so we must examine it in detail. For we know and it is
undisputed that an army’s front appears terrifying to enemies when it is
drawn up so tightly and packed together so closely that no gaps can be
seen anywhere. For if it is deployed such that there is an empty space
through which the enemy could enter, it would certainly no longer be
terrifying to its enemies. Therefore, when we form the line for spiritual
battle against wicked spirits, it is of the utmost importance that we
always be united to one another and joined closely together through
charity and never found separated from one another through discord.
For even though we may do good works, if charity is lacking, the evil of
discord69 opens a gap in the battle line through which the enemy can
enter and smite us.
The ancient enemy does not fear our self-control if it is without
charity because he is not oppressed by flesh such that he destroys
himself through self-indulgence. He does not fear our abstinence because
he who is not urged by the needs of the body does not eat food. He does
not fear it when we donate our earthly goods if we do so without charity
because he has no need for the benefits of riches. But he very much fears
the true charity in us, which is to say the humble love that we mutually
extend to one another. And he greatly begrudges our concord because
we ourselves retain on earth what he himself, choosing not to retain it,
lost in heaven. Therefore, terrifying as an army’s front poised for battle is
well said because the wicked spirits tremble with fear at the multitude of
the elect insofar as they observe them united and assembled together
against them through the concord of charity.
The greatness of the virtue of concord is shown by the fact that when
the remaining virtues are without it, they are revealed to be non-virtues.
For example, great is the virtue of abstinence. But if anyone were to
abstain from food in such a way that he condemns others for eating food
and even denounces the foods which God created for the faithful to
consume with thanksgiving, what has the virtue of abstinence become
for him if not a snare of sin? Thus the Psalmist indicated that abstinence
cannot exist without concord: Praise him with timbrel and choir [Ps
150:4]. For the dry membrane70 on a timbrel produces a sound but the
voices in a choir sing with concord. So what is meant by the ‘timbrel’ if
not abstinence? By the ‘choir’ if not the concord of charity? Accordingly
whoever observes abstinence so as to abandon concord does indeed
‘praise with timbrel’ but does not ‘praise with choir.’ In addition, there
are some who in their eagerness to be wiser than necessary recoil from
peace with their neighbors, despising them as dull and stupid. Thus
Truth himself admonishes us: Have salt in yourselves and have peace
among yourselves [Mark 9:50]. Whoever is eager to have the salt of
wisdom must take care never to withdraw from the peace of concord.71
Our statements about these two virtues ought to be understood as
applicable to all the rest. Hence Paul admonishes us in a terrifying
manner: Strive for peace with all and for the holiness without which no one
will see God [Heb 12:14]. Truth himself indicates that nothing is pleasing
to God without concord when he says: If you are offering72 your gift at the
altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you,
leave your gift there before the altar and go, first be reconciled with your
brother and then come and offer your gift [Matt 5:23-24]. See, he does not
want to receive a sacrificial offering from those enmeshed in discord; he
refuses to accept a holocaust from them. So then, ponder how great the
evil of discord must be if on account of it the offering through which
guilt is remitted is rejected. 3Therefore, it is right that the holy Church
be called terrifying as an army’s front poised for battle 4because the elect,
5who constitute an army, a spiritual military force that has ventured

upon war against the powers of the air, 6are always joined together in
charity. And this same charity of theirs strikes the punishment of fear
into wicked spirits, which is to say their ancient enemies.73

Song 6:6. Like the skin of a pomegranate are your cheeks, apart from what
you hide.
W42. 1The ‘cheeks’ of the holy Church are the spiritual fathers 2who
insofar as they are filled with charity, control their flesh by abstinence,
enlighten the hearts of their hearers with the splendor of preaching,
perform signs, work mighty deeds, 3glow with marvelous deeds.
4Because the good deeds they have done publicly become known to us,

not undeservedly 5do they give a venerable appearance to the face of the
holy Church. For when we see many perform wonders, prophesy future
events, perfectly forsake world, ardently burn with heavenly desires, the
holy Church’s ‘cheeks’ are considered to be ‘like the skin of a
pomegranate.’ But what is all this we admire in comparison to that
reality of which it is written: What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor
entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love
him [1 Cor 2:9]? Therefore, when he admired the cheeks of the Church,
it is good that he added: apart from what you hide. It is as if he were
saying in plain speech: “Indeed, those things in you74 which are not
hidden are great, but those which are hidden are utterly inexpressible.”

Song 6:9. Who is this coming forth, rising like the dawn?
W43. 1The holy Church, 2whom the Bridegroom admires here, 3is
fittingly75 described by being compared with the ‘dawn.’ 4Leaving the
darkness of sin, she now bursts forth into the light of eternity. 5By
knowledge of the faith she exchanges the darkness of her sins for the
clear light of righteousness. 6Because dawn is changed from darkness
into light, the name ‘dawn’ is not undeservedly applied to the whole
Church of the elect. For when she is led from the night of unbelief to the
light of faith, she is broken open with the splendor of heavenly
brightness, as the dawn breaks open into day after the darkness. 7The
holy Church as she pursues the rewards of the heavenly life is called the
‘dawn’ because when she leaves the darkness of sin she shines with the
light of righteousness. 8She is ‘rising like the dawn’ since she has left the
darkness of her former wickedness and turned herself to the radiance of
the new light.
9Yet we have here something quite profound which ought to be
pondered by considering the characteristics of the dawn. Now the dawn
announces that night is past,76 but does not yet put forward the full77
brightness of day. Rather, while it dispels the night and takes on the day,
it keeps the light intermingled with the darkness. And so, what are all of
us who follow the truth in this life, if not the dawn? For in the present
time we both do some things which belong to the light and yet are not
free from the rest of the other things which still belong to the darkness.
After all, it is said to God through the Prophet: Every living man will not
be justified in your sight [Ps 142:2]. Again it is written: All of us offend in
many things [Jas 3:2]. Paul too said: I see another law in my members
fighting against the law of my mind and leading me captive under the law of
sin, which is in my members [Rom 7:23]. Where then the law of sin
struggles with the law of the mind, there it is certainly still the dawn
because the light which has already shone forth has still not entirely
overcome the darkness that preceded it. It is still the dawn because, if
the law of the flesh assails the law of the mind and the law of the mind
assails the law of the flesh, light and darkness battle each other. Thus
when Paul said, The night is past [Rom 13:12], he did not continue with
“the day has arrived,” but rather, the day has drawn near [Rom 13:12].
For he who teaches that the day has still not arrived after the night has
departed but rather that it ‘has drawn near’ indisputably proves that he
is still at dawn before the sun yet after the darkness.
But the holy Church of the elect will be fully day at that time when
the darkness of sin is no longer associated with her. She will be fully day
at that time when she has been brightened with the perfect fervor of
interior light. She will be fully day at that time when, saddled no longer
with the tempting memory of evil deeds, she has concealed from herself
even all the remains of darkness. 10But at present because the Church,
enduring still the annoyance of temptations, hastens elsewhere by
intention of heart, she progresses to her own place ‘rising like the dawn.’
11For what is the place of the dawn, if not the perfect brightness of
interior vision? When after being guided there she arrives at this place,
she will no longer have any darkness of the night that is past. 12If she
were not to perceive this place with her mind, she would remain in the
darkness of this life. But by striving daily to be perfected and to be
increased daily in light,78 she already beholds her own place and seeks
for the sun to shine fully on her. The dawn gazes upon its own place
when a holy soul burns to contemplate the sight of her Creator. The
dawn was consumed with reaching its proper place when David said: My
soul has thirsted for the living God. When shall I come and appear before the
face of God? [Ps 41:2]. 13The dawn was hastening to arrive at this place,
which it knew, when Paul said that he had a desire to depart and to be
with Christ [Phil 1:23]. And again: For me to live is Christ and to die is gain
[Phil 1:21]. And again: We know that if our home of this earthly dwelling is
destroyed, that we have a building from God, a home not made by hands,
eternal in the heavens [2 Cor 5:1]. 14The blessed Job spoke of this dawn:
May that night be solitary and not worthy of praise! May it look forward to
the light and see neither it nor the breaking of the rising dawn! [Job 3:7,
9].79
15So then, in that light which is manifested at the coming of the strict
Judge, the body of our enemy when condemned will not see the break of
the rising dawn. For when the strict Judge comes for retribution, each
wicked person, being oppressed by the blackness of his own deserts, is
kept from knowing the wondrous splendor with which the holy Church
rises to the interior light of the heart. At that time the mind of the elect
is transported on high such that she is illumined with the rays of
Divinity, and she is bathed in the light of his countenance to the extent
that she is lifted up above herself in the refulgence of grace. At that time
the holy Church becomes a full dawn since she has wholly parted with
the darkness of her mortality and ignorance. So then, at the judgment
she is still dawn but in the kingdom she is day. For though she already
begins to behold the light at the judgment when bodies are resurrected,
yet she attains a fuller vision of it in the kingdom. And so, the break of
dawn is the beginning of the Church in splendor, which the reprobate
cannot see. For oppressed by the weight of their evils, they are dragged
from the sight of the strict Judge into darkness. Hence it is rightly said
through the Prophet: The impious man is borne away lest he see the glory of
God [Isa 26:10].

CHAPTER SEVEN

Song 7:4. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon.

W44. 1I ask you, dear brothers, what kind of praise is it for the Bride’s
nose to be compared by the voice of the Bridegroom to a ‘tower’? But
since 2the thing which we cannot make out with our eyes is generally
sensed beforehand by its smell, 3and we use our nose to distinguish
between pleasant scents and foul odors, what then is meant by the
Church’s ‘nose,’ if not the farseeing discernment of the saints and
ecclesiastical authorities? 4Now a watchtower is placed on high so that
the approaching enemy may be spotted from afar. So then, the Church’s
‘nose’ is rightly said to be ‘like the tower which is in Lebanon’ because as
long as the farseeing discernment of the saints placed on high carefully
monitors all possible places, it catches sight of sin before its arrival. And
so, the greater the vigilance in detecting sin before its arrival, the greater
the strength to avoid it.
5The Church’s ‘nose’ is rightly said to be ‘like the tower which is in
Lebanon’ clearly because the discerning foresight of the saints is situated
on high in such a way that it can spot80 the attacks of temptations even
before they come and successfully withstand them when they do come.
If future events can be sensed beforehand they become less potent when
present. For when an enemy believes he is unexpected, but instead his
quarry is ready for the blow, the same enemy is weakened to the very
extent that he is sensed beforehand.
6The Church’s ‘nose’ is rightly said to be ‘like the tower which is in

Lebanon’ 7because clearly the discernment of superiors ought always be

fortified with careful attention and be established on loftiness of
conduct, which is to say they ought not lie in the valley of feeble effort.
For as a tower is placed on a mountain to spot enemies coming from
afar, so too ought the conduct of a preacher always to remain fixed on
high. Thus like a nose he may distinguish between the foul odors of vices
and the pleasing scents of virtues, perceive from afar the onslaughts of
malicious spirits, and through his farsightedness safely return the souls
entrusted to him.
8Therefore, the conduct of a watchman ought always be high and

circumspect. 9It does not suffice for the watchman to live on high unless
by persistent speaking he also attracts his hearers to the heights and by
speaking ignites their minds with a love for the heavenly homeland.
10Let it be high lest he succumb to the love of earthly things. Let it be
circumspect on every side lest he be struck by the darts of a hidden
enemy.81

Song 7:12. Let us get up early to go to the vineyards. Let us see whether the
vine has budded, whether the buds are ready to produce fruits.
W45. 1Vines have ‘budded’ when the minds of the faithful plan good
works. But they do not ‘produce fruits’ if they falter in carrying out their
plans when overcome by certain erring practices. We ought then not
look to see if the vines have budded but if the buds are strong for
producing fruits. For there is nothing to admire if someone begins good
works, but there is much to admire if someone persists in a good work
with the right intention. Accordingly it is generally the case that, if a
right intention is not maintained in the course of a good work, even the
very work itself, which is deemed good, is lost.
2We need to ponder how a vine is spoilt when it first buds [Job 15:33].
If a vine in bud is exposed to excessive cold due to variations in the air,
all the moisture that gives it freshness is immediately sucked out of it.
And there are some who after journeying along wicked roads yearn to
pursue holy paths, but before good desires can gain strength in them, as
we said,82 some piece of good fortune in the present age comes upon
them, which entangles them in outward affairs. And when it withdraws
their mind from the warmth83 of intimate love, which is snuffed out, as
it were, by the cold, it also kills any bud of virtue that seemed to appear
in them. For the soul grows very cold in earthly activities if she was not
already strengthened by interior gifts.
Hence it is essential that the administration of positions of great
responsibility or the performance of exterior works, which help meet
human need, should be taken on only by those who know by reason of
their interior virtue how to judge them and not be overcome by them.
When any weak person is summoned either to a position of leadership or
the performance of exterior works, he is destroyed inasmuch as he has
been raised above his capabilities. Even the tree which does not first
plant deep roots is quickly knocked down by a gust of wind if it has
raised itself too highly: the higher it grows in the air without roots, the
more quickly it crashes to the ground.
But sometimes it is not cold that dries up a vine in bud but hot
weather: when it is exposed to excessive heat, the bud is killed and the
grape cluster withers. As for those who do not come to good works with
the right intention, it generally comes to pass that when they realize that
they are winning the approval of others, they are beset with a burning
desire to do these same works. Though it makes them anxious, they are
eager to do what will be popular in the eyes of others and become
fervent as if for a holy pursuit. What then has come upon these whom
the appetite for human praise has alienated from producing fruit, if not
the hot weather that kills the bud? 3But know that things such as these
always happen to those who do not follow God with pure and undivided
zeal.

CHAPTER EIGHT
Song 8:5. Who is this ascending from the desert overflowing with an
abundance of delights?
W46. 1Surely if the holy Church were not ‘overflowing with an
abundance of delights,’ which is to say with the words of God, she could
not ‘ascend from the desert’ of the present life to the regions above. So
then, she is ‘overflowing with an abundance of delights’ and ‘ascending’
because when she is nourished by mystical understandings she is lifted
up daily in the contemplation of heavenly things. 2To be ‘overflowing
with an abundance of delights’ is to be filled as much as possible from
the delicacies of Sacred Scripture when having love for the Almighty. In
his words surely we find as many delights as we obtain varieties of
understanding for our benefit. Thus now the bare historical narrative
itself nourishes us, now the moral allegory veiled under the literal text
refreshes us deep within, now contemplation attaches us to the higher
regions, even now in the darkness of this present life shining some of the
light of eternity upon us.
But know that she who is ‘overflowing with an abundance of delights’
relaxes a certain aspect of herself and slackens in her zeal for labor as if
from weariness because surely when the soul begins to ‘overflow with an
abundance of delights’ interiorly, she no longer agrees to occupy herself
with earthly works. Rather, captivated by love of the Creator and by her
very captivity now set free, she yearns though fading to contemplate his
brightness and is invigorated as if by growing weary. For no longer able
to bear loathsome burdens, she hastens through rest to him whom she
loves within.
3Hence the Psalmist said: And the night shall be my illumination in the
midst of delights [Ps 138:11]. For when mystical understanding renews
the eager mind, then the darkness of the present life is dispersed in her
by the illumination of the day to follow. Thus even in the darkness of
this state of corruption, the force of the light to come may break into her
understanding, and being fed with the delights of words she may learn
by such a foretaste how she hungers for the sustenance of truth.

Song 8:5 (LXX). Who is this who ascends made white?

W47. 1The holy Church does not have the heavenly life by nature but
when the Spirit comes upon her she is adorned with the beautifulness of
gifts. For this reason she is described by the voice of the Bridegroom not
as “white” but as ‘made white.’ 2Thus also when rebuking arrogant
heretics in the Church, the blessed Job called those faithful who were
truly humble ‘the purest dyeings,’ saying: 3Nor shall the purest dyeings
be adorned [Job 28:19]. They are called ‘the purest dyeings’ who are
truly humble and truly holy, who know indeed that they do not have the
beauty of virtues through their own efforts but that they hold this by the
gift of grace which comes upon them. For they would not have been
dyed if they had holiness by nature. But they are ‘the purest dyeings’
because when the grace of the virtues comes upon them they humbly
guard this gift which they have received.
4Those are rightly called ‘the purest dyeings’ who were once foul
through wicked deeds, yet when the Spirit comes upon them are clothed
with the radiance of grace, so that they are seen to be far different from
what they were. Hence our own descending into the water is also said to
be a “baptism,” that is, a “dyeing.”84 For we are dyed, and we, who were
once hideous and black by the disfigurement of vices, upon accepting
the faith are rendered beautiful and ‘made white’ by grace and the
adornment of the virtues.85

Song 8:6a. Set me as a seal upon your heart.

W48. 1Sacred Scripture is in the habit of using ‘seal’ for faith. For
example, the younger brother who returned to his father after
squandering all his property received a signet ring as a gift.86 In
addition, the Gentile people who returned to God through repentance
after losing immortality is fortified by the seal of faith. 2Now a seal is set
on things so that they may not be violated by any audacity of
plunderers. So then, the Bridegroom, who here speaks to the Church, is
‘set as a seal on our heart’ when the mystery of faith in him is impressed
upon us for the safekeeping of our thoughts. Hence when that faithless
servant, namely our adversary, observes our hearts sealed by faith, he
does not have the audacity to break into them with temptation.

Song 8:6b. Strong as death is love.

 W49. 1The strength of love87 is praised by the true voice of the holy
Church 2and love88 is compared to the power of death 3because as death
destroys the body, so love89 for eternal life 4makes the mind seized by it
wholly dead to the love90 of corporeal things and the love91 of the
world. 5For him whom it perfectly consumes becomes indifferent to
outward earthly desires. 6And the stronger the authority it confers upon
him, the more it renders him indifferent to objects of terror. 7For
whoever is rooted in the desire for eternity alone is neither exalted by
prosperity nor shaken by adversity. When there is nothing in the world
for which he seeks, nothing from the world makes him tremble. 8Did not
Paul burn with the fire of this love?92 For he said: For I am certain that
neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor
things to come, nor strength, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation will be able to separate us from the love93 of God that is in Christ
Jesus our Lord [Rom 8:38-39].

Song 8:8. Our sister is little and she has no breasts.

W50. 1As the age of each individual person is described, so that of the
holy Church. For she was ‘little’ when fresh from birth she could not
preach the word of life 2because surely before she made progress by
growth in virtue, she could not offer the ‘breasts’ of preaching to each of
her weak listeners. But the Church is called “adult” when, being wedded
to the Word of God and filled with the Holy Spirit, she conceives
children through the ministry of preaching, enters into labor with them
by exhortation, and gives birth to them by effecting conversion.

Song 8:13. You who dwell in gardens, the friends are listening: make me
hear your voice.
W51. 1The Church, to whom these words are said during the
Bridegroom’s conversation with her, ‘dwells in gardens’ because she has
cultivated a state of inner greenness whereby she preserves a place
where virtues can be planted. 2Indeed,94 ‘in gardens’ the holy Church, ‘in
gardens’ every individual soul ‘dwells’ who in the present time is filled
with the greenness of hope and the fruitfulness of good works. For hope
in this age is barren because all things loved here hastily wither away.
And so Peter the Apostle urges us to hasten to an inheritance that never
perishes, never spoils, and never withers [1 Pet 1:4].
So then, she who already ‘dwells in gardens’ must ‘make’ her
Bridegroom ‘hear her voice,’ which is to say she must sing the song of
good preaching in which he whom she desires will delight. 3Clearly it is
her voice that the Bridegroom desires to hear because he longs for her
preaching through the souls of his elect, 4because ‘the friends are
listening,’ namely, all the elect who in order to return to life again in the
heavenly homeland desire to hear the word of life from her, 5the word of
her preaching.
Therefore, whoever makes progress in the holy Church by beholding
spiritual things must offer them to others by recounting them. For she
realizes that she must communicate them when, seeing that she makes
progress in herself, she also preaches out of concern for her neighbor’s
progress. Hence it is written elsewhere: Let the one who hears say: Come!
[Rev 22:17]. For the one who has already heard the voice of God
speaking in her heart must unsilence her own voice on behalf of her
neighbor through the office of preaching and thereby call another
because she herself was already called.

Song 8:14. Escape, my beloved, escape!

W52. 1We say “it escapes me” as often as what we want to remember
does not come to mind. We say “it escapes me” when we do not retain in
our memory what we want to remember. So the holy Church, after
narrating the Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension, cries out to him,
filled with a prophetic spirit: Escape, my beloved, escape! It is as if she
were saying: “You who were made comprehensible to us by the flesh,
transcend the grasp of our senses by your divinity and remain
incomprehensible to us in your very own self!”
2Thus it is rightly said through the Psalmist: Dark clouds were under his
feet, and he mounted the Cherubim, and he flew: he flew on the wings of the
winds, and he made the darkness his covering [Ps 17:10-12]. Now he has
‘dark clouds under his feet’ because those beneath do not perceive him
in that brightness in which he exercises dominion among those above.
And he mounted the Cherubim, and he flew. Cherubim means “fullness of
knowledge.” Accordingly, it is related that ‘he mounted the fullness of
knowledge, and he flew’ because no branch of knowledge can
comprehend the loftiness of his majesty. So then, ‘he flew’ because he
retreated on high, far from the reach of our understanding. ‘He flew on
the wings of the winds’ because he transcends the knowledge that souls
can have.95 ‘And he made the darkness his covering’ because when the
darkness of our mind96 renders us incapable of comprehension, our
ignorance conceals him from us lest we see him now in his eternal and
interior glory. 3He hides the power of his majesty from mortal beings.
4In this life we do not perceive the glory of his kingdom, so great as it is
within, and that glory of the heavenly kingdom is not seen such as it is.
5And so, dear brothers, it is appropriate for us to follow the Lord in
our heart to that place where we believe he ascended in his body. Let us
escape from earthly desires. Let nothing in the lower regions delight us
now, for we have a Father in the heavens. And we need especially to
ponder this, that he who ascended in peace will return in terror, that
whatever he enjoined upon us with mildness he will exact from us with
severity. Therefore, let no one disparage this grace-period for
repentance. Let no one neglect to care for himself while he can. For the
severity with which our Redeemer will come in the future for judgment
stands in direct proportion to the great patience he accorded us before
judgment. And so, brothers, do these things for your own benefit;
carefully reflect upon them in your mind. Though your soul be agitated
still by disturbing thoughts about these things, nonetheless fix the
anchor of our hope now in your eternal homeland, focus the gaze of
your mind on the true light. Indeed, we believe that the Lord has
ascended into heaven. So let us keep what we believe as the subject of
our meditation. Although here we are confined still by the weakness of
our body, let us nonetheless follow him by the footsteps of our love. He
who gave us our desire will not fail to fulfill it, Jesus Christ our Lord,
who lives and reigns with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God
forever and ever. Amen.
1. GUILLELMI abbatis primum Sancti Theodorici Remensis ac postea Signiacensis monachi ordinis
cisterciensis Commentarius in Cantica canticorum. Ex MS codice autographo abbatiae Signiaci
(Lugduni Batauorum: P. van der Meersche, 1692). This edition does not list the editor, but
some scholars have claimed that it was Casimir Oudin. For the following review of the mss.
and editions I am indebted to Paul Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico Expositio super
Cantica canticorum, Brevis commentatio, Excerpta de libris beati Ambrosii et Gregorii super Cantica
canticorum, CCCM 87 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 387–92.

2. André Galland, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum et antiquorum Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum

(Venice, 1781), Tome 14, 394f.; PL 180:441–74.

3. Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, 387–444.

4. Verdeyen et al., Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, 387.

5. The four mss. of this text not used for this edition are: (1) Cambridge, Gonville and Caius
College, ms. 239; (2) Heiligenkreuz, ms. 253; (3) München, Clm. 15912; and (4) Wien, Nat.
Bibl. ms. 2164.

6. This is the titulus of ms. R.

7. Gregory’s clever point is lost in translation. Gregory justifies saying that the term “Mouth”
is equivalent to saying “Word” (verbum) by appeal to the custom of saying “tongue” for
“language” (verba). Even in everyday language, the organs of speech have a transferred sense
by which they refer to the words or language they produce.

8. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits: “Hence it is said to the approaching Bridegroom.”

9. For Song 1:3b the Vulgate reads: After you we shall run.

10. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits this sentence.

11. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits the entire paragraph until this point.

12. That is, preaching.

13. The context seems to require the rest of the verse: set out and follow the tracks of the flocks
and pasture your young goats.

14. See Matt 7:13.

15. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits the entirety of W11.4.

16. Here Gregory alludes to the ancient tradition of ascribing the heresy of the Nicolaitans
mentioned in Revelation (Rev 2:6, 15) to Nicolaus of Antioch, one of the first seven deacons
(Acts 6:5).

17. The Carthusian version (ms. D) replaces the sentence up to this point with: “On account
of this cooling of mind given from heaven, it is said to Mary.”

18. Here I read sumpsit instead of assumpsit; see appendix 5, note 1.

19. Here I read maeret instead of merito; see appendix 5, note 2.

20. Here I read ut virus delictorum curet instead of ut intus delictorum vulnera curet; see
appendix 5, note 3. At this point, the Carthusian version (ms. D) contains a fuller citation of
Mor. 6.25 [42], 2–26 (CCSL 143:314–15): “Sometimes he strikes the flesh and softens the
hardness of the mind through fear of him. Therefore, by wounding he recalls to health when
he afflicts his elect outwardly so that they may live inwardly. Thus it is said through Moses: I
will kill and I will make alive; I will strike and I will heal [Deut 32:39]. For he kills in order to
make alive, he strikes in order heal, in that he applies wounds outwardly in order to cure the
wounds of sins inwardly.”

21. Here I read quia instead of qui; see appendix 5, note 4.

22. For textual comments on this line, see appendix 5, note 27.

23. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits: “but in the very depths of her being sighs, burns,
is anxious for him whom she loves.”

24. For textual comments on this line, see appendix 5, note 28.

25. At this point the Carthusian version (ms. D) inserts a citation from Augustine: “The Bride
is speaking about the Bridegroom, the Church is speaking about Christ in an embrace of piety
and love. For what does she say before? What does it mean when his right hand is above her
and his left hand beneath her? It means that when the Bridegroom embraces the Bride, he puts
his left hand beneath her to comfort her, and his right hand above her to protect her” (Enarr. in
Ps. 120.9, 3–8).

26. Here the text reads sponsi, but should read sponsae; see appendix 5, note 29.

27. Here Gregory plays on “heat” (aestus) and “summer” (aestas).

28. Here I read ac noxiam instead of hanc nos iam; see appendix 5, note 5.

29. The passage “Although she desires with great love … they were not desires” (vv. 8-11) is
replaced in the Carthusian version (ms. D) with: “But the sight of him is still denied to her who
longs so as to intensify the desire of the lover. It is as if water is taken away in thirst, causing
the heat of her thirst to increase: the longer she desires it when thirsty, the more avidly she
takes it when given” (Mor. 27.2 [4], 33–37 [CCSL 143:1332–33]). See W39.

30. Here I read suo instead of solo; see appendix 5, note 6.

31. Here I read sic recta instead of erecta; see appendix 5, note 7.

32. I.e., interior virtue.

33. Here Gregory plays on “column” (virgula) and “rod” (virga).

34. Here I read pulveres instead of pulvis; see appendix 5, note 8.

35. For textual comments on this line, see appendix 5, note 30.

36. In the Carthusian version (ms. D), this paragraph is replaced by: “Now ‘nocturnal fears’
are the hidden snares of temptation. But a ‘blade is upon the thigh’ when vigilant guarding
subdues the enticements of flesh. So then, lest ‘nocturnal fear,’ which is to say hidden and
sudden temptation, catch us unawares, the ‘blade’ of guarding ‘placed upon our thigh’ must
always subjugate it. For even though holy people are so confident in their hope, they
nevertheless always look upon temptation with mistrust. After all, to them it is said: Serve the
Lord with fear and rejoice in him with trembling [Ps 2:11], meaning that rejoicing is born of their
hope and trembling of their mistrust. Likewise: Everyone’s blade is on his thigh on account of
nocturnal fears [Song 3:9]. A ‘blade is placed upon the thigh’ when a wicked suggestion of the
flesh is subjugated by the sharp edge of holy preaching. But the term ‘night’ refers to the
blindness that characterizes our enfeebled state. For we do not see the forces of opposition that
threaten us at night. Therefore, everyone’s blade is on his thigh on account of nocturnal fears
because it is clear that holy people, while they dread the dangers they do not see, are always
prepared to ward off an attack.” The translation of the final sentence assumes the emendation
outlined in the previous footnote. The arrangement of the Carthusian version of the passage
here merely consists of Mor. 20.3 [8], 79–87 (CCSL 143:1007–8) followed by Reg. past. 3.32,
49–58 (SChr 382:492–94), which are the two excerpts from Bede in order (B23–24). In the
original version of his florilegium, William has interspliced these two excerpts.

37. See 1 Kgs 10:21.

38. At that point the Carthusian version (ms. D) adds: “By ‘silver’ we understand the
brightness of holy and eloquent speaking, but ‘gold’ usually indicates the brightness of conduct
or of wisdom” (Mor. 18.16 [24], 4 [CCSL 143:900] combined with Mor. 18.26 [39], 2–4 [CCSL
143:910]).

39. Here I read quod luculente et aperte audiunt instead of quod occulta aperte audiunt; see
appendix 5, note 9.

40. Gregory’s wordplay here is untranslatable. In the exegesis of Ps 67:14, “in a later age” (in
posteriori saeculo) actually corresponds to “rump” (posteriora dorsi), which literally translated
would read: “the hinder parts of the back.”

41. Here I read apte instead of aperte; seeappendix 5, note 10.

42. Curiously, William did not excise the phrase “what was said a little before,” a reference
Gregory originally made to H.Ez. 2.1 [10], which is not included in the present excerpt.

43. After this sentence, ms. A adds: “Let them listen to what is said: Let him who wants to
come after me deny himself” (Matt 16:24; Luke 9:23).

44. See Gen 4:8.

45. See Gen 6:13f.

46. See Gen 22:16-17; Heb 11:17-18.

47. See Gen 29:20; 29:25; 30:29.

48. See Gen 32:25.

49. At this point, ms. A adds: “when his Lady tempted him,” which is original to Gregory’s
text at H.Ez. 2.3 [21], 510 (CCSL 142:252).

50. See Gen 39:12-20.

51. See Num 25:7-11.

52. Note that only the Vulgate of 1 John 5:6 reads: “Christ is the Truth.” The standard Greek
text reads: “the Spirit is Truth.” If Gregory was not alluding to the Vulgate of 1 John 5:6 here,
he many have been thinking of John 14:6.

53. See Acts 21:13.

54. See Exod 12:21-29.

55. See Josh 10:12-14.

56. See 1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:18-37.

57. See Acts 9:32-34.

 58. See Acts 5:15.

59. See Acts 19:12.

60. For textual comments on this line, see appendix 5, note 31.

61. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits this sentence.

62. The Carthusian versions (ms. D) reads: “the hearts of the proud and iniquitous.”

63. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits: “as incarnate Truth says: Now shall the prince of
this world be cast out.”

64. The Latin spiritus, here translated as “spirit,” also means “wind.” In his interpretation of
Song 4:16, Gregory plays on both senses of this word.

65. Here I read quia instead of qui; see appendix 5, note 11.

66. Here I read solum his instead of solis; see appendix 5, note 12.

67. The text “… but still is denied … she takes it when given” was employed in the
Carthusian version (ms. D) of W21; see n. 29 above.

68. Here I read quanto instead of quantum; see appendix 5, note 13.

69. Here I read per instead of par, see appendix 5, note 14.

70. Here I read corium instead of curvum; see appendix 5, note 15.

71. Gregory’s thought here is echoed in Ep. 7.29 to Anastasius, the priest in charge of Neas,
one of the monasteries in Jerusalem, when he tries to reconcile him with Amos, the bishop of
Jerusalem: “I know that both of you abstain, both of you are learned, both of you are humble;
this is why it is necessary for the glory of our Lord to be praised, according to the text of the
psalm, with timbrel and choir [Ps 150:4]. For on a timbrel a sound is produced from a dry
membrane, but in a choir there is a concord of voices. Therefore, what is meant by the timbrel,
if not abstinence? What is meant by the choir, if not unanimity? Therefore, since you praise
the Lord with timbrel through abstinence, I beg you to praise him with choir through
unanimity. Truth himself even said: Have salt in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves
[Mark 9:50]. What is meant by salt, if not wisdom? Paul testified to this when he said: Let your
word always be gracious, seasoned with salt [Col 4:6]. Therefore, since we know that you have
the salt of the heavenly Word on account of your learning, it remains that you should also keep
peace among yourselves with all your heart through the grace of love.”
 72. Here I read offeres instead of offers; see appendix 5, note 16.

73. The Carthusian version (ms. D) omits verses 3-6, “Therefore, it is right … ancient
enemies.”

74. Here I read te instead of ea; see appendix 5, note 17.

75. Here I read apte instead of aperte; see appendix 5, note 18.

76. Here I read praeterisse instead of interisse; see appendix 5, note 19.

77. Here I add integram after claritatem; see appendix 5, note 20.

78. Here I add contendit perfici et in lucem cotidie after cotidie; see appendix 5, note 21.

79. This verse is an addition by William.

80. Here I add videat after priusquam veniant; see appendix 5, note 22.

81. On the order of verses 8-10, see appendix 5, note 32.

82. Here I insert ut diximus; see appendix 5, note 23. For another instance of William’s
retention of a Gregorian reference to an earlier discussion that he did not include in his
florilegium see n. 42 above.

83. Here I read a calore instead of calorem; see appendix 5, note 24.

84. Lat. tinctio, “dyeing.” The use of this word for baptism was fairly common in early
Christianity.

85. For textual comments on this line, see appendix 5, note 33.

86. See Luke 15:22.

87. Lat. caritas.

88. Lat. dilectio.

89. Lat. caritas.

90. Lat. amor.

91. Lat. dilectio.

 92. Lat. dilectio.

93. Lat. caritas.

94. Here I read enim instead of est; see appendix 5, note 25.

95. Lat. scientiam transcendit animarum. In his interpretation here, Gregory makes a
connection between “wind” (ventus) and “soul” (anima) because anima can also mean “breath.”

96. Here I read mentis nostrae instead of nostrae infirmitatis; see appendix 5, note 26.
SUPPLEMENTAL TEXTS
INTRODUCTION
Paterius, Bede, and especially William of Saint Thierry exhibited
remarkable industry in collecting Gregorian texts on the Song of Songs.
Paterius found just under 50 percent of all such texts in Gregory’s
corpus, and Bede about 56 percent. In contrast, William located just
under 90 percent of all possible passages—and this in the days before
Scripture indices, let alone searchable databases. He failed to locate only
nine of the eighty-nine passages. Three of these are from Gregory’s
letters, which William probably did not scour for discussions of verses of
the Song of Songs. In fact, two of the passages from the letters are
identical, the one letter being a later version of the other.1 In addition,
both Bede and William knew of the passage that cited Song 1:3, but
since the same passage actually commented on Song 2:8, they listed it
under the latter verse.2 Accordingly, William really missed only five
relevant sections in those Gregorian works that he probably read. Since
this volume is intended to be a comprehensive resource for the study of
Gregory’s exegesis of the Song of Songs, the nine passages omitted by the
excerpters are translated here for the sake of completeness. At the same
time, one can understand why William (and the other excerpters) might
have omitted these passages if indeed they knew of them. For they
repeat interpretations found elsewhere or offer little substantial
interpretation of verses from the Song of Songs.

TRANSLATION

Song 1:3. Draw me! After you we shall run in the odor of your ointments.
1. From H.Ev. 29 [10–11], 226–40 (CCSL 141:251–52)3—Solomon
says in the voice of the Church: Behold! He comes leaping upon the
mountains, springing across the hills [Song 2:8]. Considering his great
works to be like lofty peaks, she said: Behold! He comes leaping upon the
mountains. For by coming for our redemption the Lord performed, if I
may put it so, a certain number of leaps. Dear brothers, do you want to
learn what these leaps of his were? From heaven he came into the
womb. From the womb he came into the manger. From the manger he
came onto the cross. From the cross he came into the tomb. From the
tomb he returned to heaven. Behold! Truth manifested in the flesh
performed for our benefit a certain number of leaps so as to make us run
after him. He exulted like a giant to run his course [Ps 18:6] so that we
might say to him from our heart: Draw me! After you we shall run in the
odor of your ointments [Song 1:3]. And so, dear brothers, it is fitting that
we follow him in our heart to where we believe he ascended in his body.
Let us flee earthly desires. Let us no longer take delight in things here
below, seeing that we have a Father in heaven.
2. From Reg. ep. 7.23, 1–15 (CCSL 140:474–75)—I give great thanks to
Almighty God that Your Excellency,4 though placed in such a great
tumult, is filled with the richness of the Sacred Word and sighs
ceaselessly for eternal joys. For I see fulfilled in you what was written
about the elect fathers: The sons of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of
the sea [Exod 15:19]. But in contrast: I have entered the waters of the deep,
and the waves have overwhelmed me [Ps 68:3]. I see that you walk with
dry steps to the promised land in the midst of the waves of worldly
affairs. Therefore, let us give thanks to the Spirit who lifts up the hearts
that he fills, who produces a solitary place in the mind in the midst of
the tumults of men, and in whose presence every place becomes
conducive for a soul to feel compunction. For you breathe in the odor of
eternal sweetness and hence love the Bridegroom of your soul with such
ardor that you can say to him, along with the heavenly Bride: Draw me!
After you we shall run in the odor of your ointments [Song 1:3].

Song 2:3. I sat under the shadow of him whom I had desired.
3. From Mor. 18.20 [32], 1–30 (CCSL 143A:906–7)—The mind of each
one of the elect is cooled down when the heat of evil inclinations is
extinguished therein and the flame of carnal desires grows cold. Hence
the holy Church, praising her spouse, cries out with joy: I sat under the
shadow of him whom I had desired [Song 2:3]. The Lord speaks to her
about the abatement of this heat, making this promise through Isaiah:
Instead of the bramble shall come up the cypress tree, and instead of the
nettle shall come up the myrtle tree [Isa 55:13]. For ‘instead of the
bramble’ there ‘comes up’ in her ‘the cypress tree’ when in the heart of
the saints, instead of the lowness of earthly thought, the elevation of
heavenly contemplation rises up. Now the ‘nettle’ is altogether of a fiery
nature and the ‘myrtle tree’ is said to have the power to cool. Therefore,
‘instead of the nettle’ there ‘comes up the myrtle tree’ when the minds of
the righteous are brought from the itching and heat of evil inclinations
to a coolness and quietness of the thoughts, no longer seeking earthly
things, extinguishing the flames of the flesh by heavenly desires.

Song 2:5b. I have been wounded by love.

4. From Mor. 34.10 [21], 1–11 (CCSL 143B:1746–47)—The archer
shall not put him to flight [Job 41:19]. What do we understand by arrows,
if not the words of preachers? When the voice of those of upright life
launch them, they pierce the hearts of their hearers. The holy Church
had been struck with these arrows when she said: I have been wounded by
love [Song 2:5b]. These arrows are mentioned by the voice of the
Psalmist: Their wounds have been caused by the arrows of children [Ps
63:8]. For clearly the words of the humble have penetrated the souls of
the proud. These arrows are mentioned to the Champion who is to come:
Your arrows are sharp, almighty one, peoples shall fall under you in their
heart [Ps 44:6]. And so, the archer is the one who by aiming his bow at a
holy target plants the words of upright exhortation in the hearts of his
hearers.

Song 2:10-12. Arise, make haste, my love, my beautiful one, and come! For
now the winter is past, the rains are over and gone.
5. From Mor. 29.30 [65], 180–91 (CCSL 143B:1480)—Frost and ice5
can also designate the adversity of the present life, whose harshness
oppresses the saints but makes them stronger thereby. For when
Almighty God lets us be troubled by annoyances, and conveys us to a
better life condition by the mediation of sadness, he is carrying out a
marvelous plan through which he gives birth to frost and ice as well as
future fruit. This he does so that each of the elect may endure the
adversities of wind and cold in this life, as though he were in winter, and
in the future, as if he were in the calm of summer, display the fruits
which he has conceived here in this life. Hence it is said by the voice of
the Bridegroom to every soul hastening from the whirlwinds of this
world to the charming delights of eternity: Arise, make haste, my love, my
beautiful one, and come! For now the winter is past, the rains are over and
gone [Song 2:10-12].

Song 4:2. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming up from a
washing.
6. From Mor. 11.33 [45], 1–51 (CCSL 143A: 610–12)—In the Sacred
Scriptures ‘teeth’ are usually taken to mean either the holy preachers or
the interior senses. As for the holy preachers, it is said to the Bride: Your
teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming up from a washing [Song 4:2].
Hence it is said to one of them (here the Gentiles are represented
figuratively): Kill and eat [Acts 10:13]. In other words, “masticate their
oldness and change it into the body of the Church, which is to say into
your own members.” Then again, Jeremiah testifies that ‘teeth’ are
usually taken to mean the interior senses. For he says: He broke my teeth
one by one [Lam 3:16]. Now the teeth break down food that it may be
swallowed. Hence not unworthily do we take the ‘teeth’ as the interior
senses, for in a certain sense they chew and chomp on every thought
that occurs to the mind, and transfer all of them to the belly of the
memory. The Prophet says that these teeth are ‘broken one by one’
because the senses become blind to understanding in proportion to the
quantity of each particular sin. According to the quantity of exterior sins
committed, each one loses perception of those interior and invisible
truths which he could have understood.

Song 6:8. One alone is my dove, my perfect one.

7. From Reg. ep. 9.148, 69–85 (CCSL 140A:701) and Reg. ep. App. 10,
70–86 (CCSL 140A:1106–7)—Your Belovedness,6 who are most sweet to
me because you live an especially upright life in good conduct, because
you afflict yourself through abstinence, because you are wholeheartedly
devoted to the doctrine of God, must reflect on this matter with even
greater attention,7 lest by following the error of schismatics a church be
found divided from the holy, universal Church. And what would so
many toils have brought forth, if it were not found in the unity of the
faith, which in particular keeps the soul in good deeds before the eyes of
Almighty God? Hence it is said: One alone is my dove, my perfect one.
Hence the Lord says to Moses: There is a place near me, and you shall
stand upon the rock [Exod 33:21]. What place is there which is not in
God, seeing that all things are held together by him through whom they
were created? And yet there is a place within him, namely the unity of
the holy Church, which is where one stands upon the rock, humbly
planting one’s feet on the solid foundation of the Church’s confession.
Regarding this place, it is added: Then you shall see my backsides [Exod
33:23]. For by standing on the rock, which is to say in the holy Church,
we shall see the backsides of God, when we contemplate the joys of the
heavenly homeland, which have been promised us at the end of time.

Song 7:4. Your nose is like the tower which is in Lebanon.

8. From Reg. past. 11, 27–33 (SChr 381:166)—We use our nose to
discern pleasant scents and foul odors. Therefore, the nose rightly
represents discernment, through which we choose virtues and avoid
transgressions. Thus it is said in praise of the Bride: Your nose is like the
tower which is in Lebanon [Song 7:4]. For surely the holy Church though
discretion monitors the places where any sort of temptation may enter
and from on high apprehends the approaching attacks of vices.
1. Reg. ep. 9.148 and Reg. ep. appendix 10; see Martyn, Letters, 889.

2. See B13 and W17.

3. Compare B13 and W17.

4. The letter is addressed to Theoctista, the emperor’s sister.

5. See Job 38:29.

6. This excerpt is from a letter to Secundinus, an anchorite, whom Gregory addresses with
the title of politeness, “Your Belovedness.”

7. The matter is the Three Chapters controversy.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE
Gregory’s Citations of the Song of Songs

The following table lists each of Gregory’s citations of the Song of Songs
outside of the Exposition (which comments on Song 1:1-8). Those
references to passages of Gregory’s works marked by an asterisk (*)
indicate places where Gregory alluded to, but did not cite, the Song of
Songs. Cross-references to the collections of Paterius, Bede, and William
are provided. When a Gregorian passage has not been included by any of
the excerpters, the reference number to the appropriate supplemental
text is given.
APPENDIX TWO
Table of Correspondences among
Paterius, Bede, and William

The following table compares the excerpts of Paterius, Bede, and

William of Saint Thierry. The first column has the excerpt signal, which
indicates the compiler of the excerpt (P = Paterius; B = Bede; and W =
William) and its number in his collection. The second column has the
corresponding reference to the excerpter’s text. The third column has the
reference to the corresponding text in Gregory. In order to save space,
the following abbreviations are used:
L = CCSL
M = CCCM
 1. See P29.

2. Raymond Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium de Paterius,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 32
[1958]: 74) suppresses P4 as inauthentic.

3. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) suppresses the first few lines of P6 as inauthentic: id est
… imitarepopulorum (PL 79: 905d-906a).

4. William follows the text of H.Ev., but fills out the excerpt with lines from Mor. 20.39 [76],
20-32 (CCSL 143A.1059), which is a slightly more expanded version of the same text.

5. Compare Mor. 1.1 [1], 10-12 (CCSL 143: 25).

6. Compare H.Ev. 38 [7], 174-177 (CCSL 141: 366).

7. Though H.Ez. 1.9 [22-23] shares both theme and scriptural citations with the other texts
excerpted for W12, it does not actually cite Song 2:2.

8. Gregory cites Rom 9:5 twice in H.Ez., but neither passage seems to be William’s source.

9. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) suppresses P14 as inauthentic.

10. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) suppresses P16 as inauthentic.

11. Though Paterius excerpts this text for Song 4:10, it actually cites Song 1:1. See B3 and
W4.
 12. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) suppresses the following lines of P30 as inauthentic:
sicut plerique … lingua tua (PL 79:912a).

13. See Gregory, Reg. ep. 1.24, which has the same text.

14. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) adds lines from the Moralia (Mor. 9.11 [17], 135–49
[CCSL 143:468]) to the text of P31 (PL 79:912c).

15. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 74) replaces the text of Test. 13.32 with H.Ez. 2.2 [13–14],
315–24 (CCSL 142:234).

16. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) suppresses the following lines of P33 as inauthentic:
qui exterioribus … ac si diceret (PL 79:912d–13a).

17. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) adds an additional excerpt between Test. 13.34 and
13.35.

18. At Mor. 27.2 [3], 22–29 (CCSL 143:1332), Gregory cites Song 3:1; 3:3; 5:7; 3:3-4 in
succession. The following commentary by Gregory (Mor. 27.2 [4], 30–62 [CCSL 143:1332–
33]) was mined by both Paterius and William for the excerpt on Song 3:1-4; see P20 and W21.
But all three excerpters also recognized that Gregory also cited Song 5:7. Accordingly, they
excerpted the same text for this verse.

19. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) replaces the text of Test. 13.35 with Mor. 27.2 [4], 39–
44 (CCSL 143:1333).

20. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) retains only the following lines of P36 as authentic:
quia caput Christi … principatur (PL 79:913c). He suppresses the remainder of P36 as
inauthentic.

21. William alters this text considerably.

22. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) adds H.Ez. 2.4 [8], 259–65 to the text of P38 at PL
79:914d.

23. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) suppresses the following lines of P39 as inauthentic:
aurora ecclesia … quasi aurora consurgens (PL 79:915a).

24. Compare Mor. 31.44 [85], 8–10 (CCSL 143B:1609) and H.Ez. 1.11 [7], 137–39 (CCSL
142:172), which are basically the same.

25. Étaix (“Le Liber testimonium,” 75) suppresses the following lines of P43 as inauthentic:
unde fit … ammittur (PL 79:915a).

26. W47.2 is a combination of Mor. 18.52 [86], 88–89; 18.53 [87], 2–3; and 18.53 [87], 17–
18 (CCSL 143A:949–50).
APPENDIX THREE

Textual Notes on Gregory the Great’s Exposition

on the Song of Songs
The emendations employed in the translation found in this volume are
presented below. The first column refers to the line number of
Verbraken’s edition.
 I have rejected one of the punctuation changes that Bélanger adopted
based on the suggestion of Waszink (vocatur, ac si ei dicatur for vocatur.
Ac si ei dicatur at line 545) because Verbraken’s reading reflects
Gregory’s usage.
I have rejected one of Waszink’s suggested alternative readings that
Bélanger adopted: discretionis for discretione at line 492. The full context
is: qui … pervenire ad eum sub digna operatione discretione contendunt. I do
not accept Waszink’s preference for discretionis over discretione despite
the frequency of the genitive elsewhere in the corpus of Gregory. I agree
with him that discretione is the lectio difficilior and that the alternate
readings (ac discretione, cum discretione, per discretionem) are attempts to
make sense of the passage. But I think discretionis is as well. Since
Gregory’s use of discretione immediately before a verb is frequent enough
in his writings, and both grammatical and logical sense can be made of
discretione as it stands, I judge that there is no need for an emendation
here.
 1. Note that Bélanger does not print this text in his edition but recommends it; see Rodrigue
Bélanger, Grégoire Le Grand: Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques, SChr 314 (Paris: Cerf,
1984), 94 n. 31.
APPENDIX FOUR
Textual Notes on the Compilations of
Paterius and Bede

A comparison of Paterius’s and Bede’s texts with that of Gregory

reveals that there are several divergences between the excerpters and
their Gregorian source. Some of these divergences indicate that the
editions of Paterius and Bede need to be emended. Such emendations
represent necessary (in my opinion) corrections of scribal errors,
whether on the part of Paterius or Bede themselves, or a later copyist. In
the following notes, the emendations that I suggest for adoption in
future editions of Paterius and Bede are marked with an asterisk (*).
Other divergences are reflective of the Gregorian text available to
Paterius or Bede. As such they provide clues about the transmission of
Gregory’s writings after his death. Still other divergences appear to be
purposeful alterations. All these divergences are footnoted in the
translation, but discussion of the textual issues involved is reserved for
the following notes.

I. PATERIUS
I have identified fourteen cases in which Paterius has diverged from
the text of Gregory. Eight of these represent scribal errors. The majority
of these are the result of corruption or confusion (see notes 4P, 5P, 6P,
10P, and 11P), though there are a few instances of haplography (see
notes 7P, 12P, and 14P). Only one divergence almost certainly reflects
an alternative form of the Gregorian text that Paterius used (see note
2P). But there are five other cases where Paterius’s text may bear witness
to a primitive textual corruption (see notes 1P, 3P, 8P, 9P, and 13P).
None the Paterian divergences seems to be the result of a willful
alteration.
Note 1P. Gregory, Mor. 6.25 [42], 22 (CCSL 143:315): nec videre
requirebat; Paterius, Test. 13.9 (PL 79:906d): nec videri requirebat a
Domino. It may be the case that Paterius’s text read videri instead of
videre, prompting the addition of a Domino.
Note 2P. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.1 [15], 458–59 (CCSL 142:220): nec totus
videtur, nec totus non videtur; Paterius, Test. 13.12 (PL 79:907): nec totus
latet nec totus videtur. Paterius also omits the second sic at the beginning
of the next sentence. These readings are also found in one of the early
mss. of Gregory’s H.Ez. Hence Paterius’s reading represents the
Gregorian text as he knew it.
Note 3P. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.3 [14], 296 (CCSL 142:246): ergo; Paterius,
Test. 13.24 (PL 79:910a) omits this word, as does Bede; see note 10B.
There is no evidence for this omission among the mss. of the H.Ez., but
the fact that both Paterius and Bede testify to it may indicate that it is
primitive corruption.
*Note 4P. Gregory, Mor. 24.8 [15], 82 (CCSL 143B:1199):
contemplationis; Paterius, Test. 13.27 (PL 79:911b): contemplationum. The
nominal suffix of contemplation- seems to have been confused by Paterius
or a later scribe. Hence the Paterian text should be emended to
contemplationis.
*Note 5P. Gregory, Mor. 24.8 [15], 82–83 [CCSL 143B:1199): Qui ut
haec agant; Paterius, Test. 13.27 (PL 79:911b): Quia ut haec agant. Both
qui and quia were commonly abbreviated in mss., making them
susceptible to confusion. The word Qui was miscopied as Quia by either
Paterius or a copyist. Hence the Paterian text should be emended to Qui.
*Note 6P. Gregory, Mor. 17.32 [52], 44 (CCSL 143A:883); Paterius,
Test. 13.28 (PL 79:911d): signantur. It appears that signantur is a
corruption of designantur. Hence, the Paterian text should be emended to
designantur.
*Note 7P. Gregory, Mor. 17.32 [52], 46 (CCSL 143A:883): quondam;
Paterius, Test. 13.28 (PL 79:911d) omits this word. This seems to be a
case of haplography due to homoiarchton because of the word quorum
that immediately preceded quondam in the original Gregorian text.
Hence quondam should be inserted in the Paterian text.
Note 8P. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.7 [10], 309 (CCSL 142:324): in laetitia;
Paterius, Test. 13.34 (PL 79:913a): cum laetitia; Bede, Cant. 6, 459 (CCSL
119B:371): ac laetitia. These variant readings seem to indicate that the
original text lacked either a preposition or conjunction before laetitia,
since in, cum, and ac appear to be attempts to construe laetitia.
Note 9P. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.7 [10], 309–10 (CCSL 142:324): quia iam
sentit quod de caelesti gaudio diligat, et adhuc; Paterius, Test. 13.34 (PL
79:913a) reads et si in place of quia and omits the et. Paterius must have
had corrupt text before him, prompting this alteration.
*Note 10P. Gregory, H.Ez. 1.8 [6], 143 (CCSL 142:105): quanto;
Paterius, Test. 13.37 (PL 79:914b): quantum. The Paterian text should be
emended to quanto.
*Note 11P. Gregory, H.Ez. 1.8 [7], 163 (CCSL 142:105): qui; Paterius,
Test. 13.37 (PL 79:914c): quia. Both of these words were commonly
abbreviated in the mss., making them susceptible to confusion. The
Paterian text should be emended to qui.
*Note 12P. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.4 [8], 258 (CCSL 142:264): ecclesiae;
Paterius, Test. 13.38 (PL 79:914d) omits this word. This is probably an
instance of haplography due to homoioteleuton (sanctae ecclesiae genae).
Hence, the word ecclesiae should be inserted into the Paterian text.
Note 13P. Gregory, Mor. 29.6 [12], 38 (CCSL 143B:1441): signata fide
corda; Paterius, Test. 13.45 (PL 79:916b): signata corda; Bede, Cant. 6,
578 (CCSL 119B:374): signatam fidem. The variations found in Paterius
and Bede indicate some primitive textual corruption.
*Note 14P. Gregory, Mor. 17.27 [39], 25–26 (CCSL 143A:874): Fugit
nos, dicimus, quotiens menti nostrae id quod reminisci volumus non occurrit.
Fugit nos dicimus quando id quod volumus memoria non tenemus; Paterius,
Test. 13.49 (PL 79:916d): Fugit nos, dicimus, quotiens id quod reminisci
volumus memoria non tenemus. There are two omissions: (1) menti nostrae
and (2) non occurrit. Fugit nos dicimus quando id quod volumus. The
second is likely an instance of haplography due to homoiarchton
(volumus … volumus). The first may have been dropped in order to make
sense after the second omission. Hence, the Paterian text should be
emended to restore the omissions.

II. BEDE
I have identified twenty-one cases in which Bede has diverged from
the text of Gregory. Seven of these represent scribal errors. Some of
these are the result of corruption or confusion (see notes 4B, 14B, 15B,
and 17B), and there are a few instances of haplography (see notes 2B,
3B, and 5B). Three divergences almost certainly reflect an alternative
form of the Gregorian text that Bede used (see notes 6B, 8B, and 11B).
But there are three other cases where Bede’s text may bear witness to a
primitive textual corruption (see notes 10B, 16B, and 20B). Two
additions on the part of Bede appear to be purposeful (see notes 1B and
19B). In five cases, the Bedan text contains an alteration, though it is not
clear whether these are due to corruption or were done on purpose (see
notes 7B, 9B, 13B, 18B, and 21B).
Note 1B. Bede, Cant. 6, 119 (CCSL 119B:362) inserts ecclesia as the
subject of posuit; cf. Gregory, Reg. past. 3.26, 41 (SChr 382:440). This
addition was probably meant as a clarification.
*Note 2B. Bede, Cant. 6, 139 (CCSL 119B:362) omits the natura found
at Gregory, H.Ez. 2.1 [15], 451 (CCSL 142:219). It should probably be
restored.
*Note 3B. Bede, Cant. 6, 146 (CCSL 119B:362) omits the noster found
at Gregory, H.Ez. 2.1 [15], 460 (CCSL 142:220). This seems to be a case
of haplography due to homoioteleuton (-or … -er). Hence, the Bedan text
should be emended.
*Note 4B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.1 [15], 461 (CCSL 142:220): eis; Bede,
Cant. 6, 148 (CCSL 119B): eius. The word eius seems to be a corruption
of eis. Hence, the Bedan text should be emended to eis.
*Note 5B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.7 [11], 357 (CCSL 142:325): iam carere;
Bede, Cant. 6, 217 (CCSL 119B:364): carere. Since Bede includes the
other two instances of iam in this sentence, the omission of this one
seems to be an oversight.
Note 6B. Bede, Cant. 6, 231–32 (CCSL 119B:365) adds pro terreno
studio to Gregory, H.Ez. 2.10 [22], 587 (CCSL 142:396). This same
addition is found in the Codex Longipontanus, one of the mss. of H.Ez.;
see the critical apparatus for this line. The presence of this addition in
Bede indicates that his text of the H.Ez. may have been of the same
family as the Codex Longipontanus. There are other indications of this;
see note 8B.
Note 7B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.10 [22], 590 (CCSL 142:396): subtilitatis;
Bede, Cant. 6, 233–34 (CCSL 119B:365) reads simplicitatis. Since there is
no support for this reading among the Gregorian mss. of H.Ez., this
reading is either a corruption or a conscious alteration on the part of
Bede (or a copyist).
Note 8B. Bede, Cant. 6, 240–43 (CCSL 119B:365) adds the
parenthetical: murram itaque quia se cruciant et cruciando a vitiis
conservant, tus vero quia Dei visionem diligunt ad quam pervenire medullitus
inardescunt. This same addition is also found in the Codex
Longipontanus; see the apparatus for H.Ez. 2.10 [22], 597 (CCSL
142:396). This is a second indication that Bede’s copy of the H.Ez. may
have been related to the Codex Longipontanus; see note 6B.
Note 9B. Gregory, Mor. 7.21 [24], 20 (CCSL 143:349): ulla debilitate
desiderii; Bede, Cant. 6, 257–58 (CCSL 119B:365): ulla dubietate desiderii.
Since there is no support for this reading among the Gregorian mss. of
Mor., this reading is either a corruption or a conscious alteration on the
part of Bede (or a copyist).
Note 10B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.3 [14], 296 (CCSL 142:246): ergo. Bede,
Cant. 6, 301 (CCSL 119B:366) omits this word, as does Paterius. See note
3P for further discussion.
Note 11B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.3 [14], 296 (CCSL 142:246): eius; Bede,
Cant. 6, 301 (CCSL 119B:366) omits this word. This omission is also
witnessed to by the thirteenth-century ms. Palatinus latinus 259; see the
apparatus at Gregory, H.Ez. 2.3 [14], 296 (CCSL 142:246).
Note 12B. At Bede, Cant. 6, 312 (CCSL 119B:367), several lines have
been omitted, namely, Gregory, H.Ez. 2.3 [15], 315–21 (CCSL 142:246–
47). This is probably an accidental omission on the part of Bede or a
copyist, an instance of haplography due to homoiarchton (quid ergo …
quid ergo).
Note 13B. Gregory, Mor. 9.11 [18], 172 (CCSL 143:469):
remunerationis; Bede, Cant. 6, 333 (CCSL 119B:367): retributionis. Since
there is no support for this reading among the Gregorian mss. of Mor.,
this reading is either a corruption or a conscious alteration on the part of
Bede (or a copyist).
*Note 14B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.2 [13], 316 (CCSL 142:234): quia; Bede,
Cant. 6, 446 (CCSL 119B:370): qui. Though qui can be construed
grammatically, it seems likely it is a corruption of quia. Both of these
words were commonly abbreviated in the mss., making them susceptible
to confusion. Hence the Bedan text should be emended to quia.
*Note 15B. Gregory, Mor. 23.20 [38], 57 (CCSL 143B:1173): quasi;
Bede, Cant. 6, 451 (CCSL 119B:370): suasi. Since suasi is ungrammatical,
it seems to be a corruption of quasi. Hence, the Bedan text should be
emended to quasi.
Note 16B. Gregory, H.Ez. 2.7 [10], 309 (CCSL 142:324): in laetitia;
Paterius, Test. 13.34 (PL 79:913a): cum laetitia; Bede, Cant. 6, 459 (CCSL
119B:371): ac laetitia. On the textual issue here, see note 8P.
*Note 17B. Gregory, H.Ez. 1.8 [6], 139 (CCSL 142:105): eius vita et
desiderium; Bede, Cant. 6, 490 (CCSL 119B:371): eius vitae desiderium. It
seems that Bede’s vitae is a corruption of vita et. Hence, the Bedan text
should be emended.
Note 18B. Gregory, H.Ez. 1.8 [6], 156 (CCSL 142:105): et; Bede, Cant.
6, 505 (CCSL 119B:372): ut. It is not clear whether ut is a mere
corruption of et, or a purposeful alteration.
Note 19B. Bede, Cant. 6, 575 (CCSL 119B:374) adds an ut which is not
found at Gregory, Mor. 29.6 [12], 36 (CCSL 143B:1441).
Note 20B. Gregory, Mor. 29.6 [12], 38 (CCSL 143B:1441): signata fide
corda; Paterius, Test. 13.45 (PL 79:916b): signata corda; Bede, Cant. 6,
578 (CCSL 119B:374): signatam fidem. See note 13P.
Note 21B. At Cant. 6, 607 (CCSL 119B:375), Bede omits a quia found
at Gregory, H.Ez. 2.2 [4], 104 (CCSL 142:227). There is no support for
this omission among the Gregorian mss. of H.Ez. It is unclear whether
this omission is accidental or purposeful.
APPENDIX FIVE
Textual Notes on William of St. Thierry’s

Excerpts from the Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of

Songs

I. EMENDATIONS TO VERDEYEN’S EDITION

My emendations to Verdeyen’s edition are presented in the table
below. The notes that follow this table justify these emendations. After
these notes, I offer some concluding remarks about the character of the
scribal errors in the manuscripts of William’s Excerpts.
 Note 1. The mss. R and A, as well as Mor. 33.3 [5], 12 (CCSL
143B:1673), support sumpsit instead of assumpsit (Exc. 2, 114 [CCCM
87:404]).
Note 2. I read maeret (H.Ez. 2.3 [9], 180 [CCSL 142:242]) for merito
(Exc. 2, 121 [CCSM 87:404]). The word merito makes little sense in the
context and thus seems to be a corruption of maeret.
Note 3. At Exc. 2, 151 [CCCM 87:405] I prefer the reading of ms. S (ut
virus delictorum curet) to that of Verdeyen: ut intus delictorum vulnera
curet, “to cure the wounds of sin inwardly.” The reading of the other
mss. and Verdeyen appear to be influenced by Mor. 6.25 [42], 2–26
(CCSL 143:314–15), which was employed in the Carthusian version (ms.
D) of this passage; see p. 196, n. 20 for a translation. I prefer the reading
of ms. S on the supposition that the Benedictine version (mss. R, V, and
A) contains William’s summary of this passage, rather than the exact
words of Gregory. Gregory speaks of the “poison of sins” elsewhere (e.g.,
Mor. 7.18 [21], 23 [CCSL 143:348], and H.Ev. 40 [2], 25 [CCSL
141:395]), and William could have been borrowing this phraseology.
Note 4. I read quia (Mor. 6.25 [42], 11 [CCSL 143:315]) instead of qui
(Exc. 2, 152 [CCCM 87:405]). Both of these words were commonly
abbreviated in the mss., making them susceptible to confusion.
Note 5. I read ac noxiam (H.Ez. 2.4 [15], 432 [CCSL 142:270]) instead
of hanc nos iam (Exc. 2, 309 [CCCM 87:410]). The incorrect reading
appears to be an error of mishearing. First, the aspiration h was added
where none was intended, probably causing the scribe to hear the word
ac as hanc (the presence of the n is harder to explain). Second, the x of
noxiam was heard as an s, resulting in nos iam.
Note 6. I read suo (H.Ev. 25 [2], 51 [CCSL 141:206]) instead of solo
(Exc. 3, 49 [CCCM 87:412]). The word solo makes little sense and thus
seems to be a corruption of suo. This could also be an error of hearing.
Note 7. I read sic recta (H.Ez. 2.10 [22], 586–87 [CCSL 142:396])
instead of erecta (Exc. 3, 82 [CCSL 87:413]). The word erecta seems to be
a corruption of sic recta, possibly an error of hearing.
Note 8. I read pulveres (H.Ez. 2.10 [23], 601 [CCSL 142:397]) instead
of pulvis (Exc. 3, 100 [CCSL 87:414]). The verb dicuntur requires a
nominative plural predicate noun (pulveres) instead of the nominative
singular pulvis. Hence pulvis seems to be a corruption of pulveres.
Note 9. I read quod luculente et aperte audiunt (H.Ez. 2.3 [14], 295
[CCSL 142:246]) instead of quod occulta aperte audiunt (Exc. 3, 175–76
[CCCM 87:417]). The incorrect reading appears to be an error of
hearing: luculente et was heard as occulta. If the initial l- was not heard
for some reason, one could see how -uculente et might be heard as
occulta.
Note 10. I read apte (Mor. 9.11 [18], 170 [CCSL 143:469]) instead of
aperte (Exc. 4, 12 [CCCM 87:419]). Both of these words were commonly
abbreviated in the mss., making them susceptible to confusion.
Note 11. I read quia (H.Ez. 2.2 [13], 316 [CCSL 142:234]) instead of
qui (Exc. 5, 22 [CCCM 87:428]). See note 4.
Note 12. I read solum his (H.Ez. 2.7 [10], 293 [CCSL 142:323]) instead
of solis (Exc. 5, 31 [CCCM 87:429]). The two words solum his were
probably contracted into solis due to an error of hearing. By the
medieval period, it was common for nominal endings such as -um not to
be fully pronounced. Hence one can see how sol-his was heard as solis.
Note 13. I read quanto (H.Ez. 1.8 [6], 143 [CCSL 142:105]) instead of
quantum (Exc. 6, 11 [CCCM 87:432]). As these two words were
abbreviated in mss., they could be easily confused. Note that William’s
reading reflects that of the Mor. ms. G (see the critical apparatus on line
143 on CCSL 142:105). Hence, it would appear that William did not
make this change on purpose.
Note 14. I read per (H.Ez. 1.7 [6], 158 [CCSL 142:105]) instead of par
(Exc. 6, 25 [CCCM 87:432]). The word par is a misprint.
Note 15. I read corium (mss. S, A, and D; H.Ez. 1.8 [8], 181 [CCSL
142:106]) instead of curvum (Exc. 6, 47 [CCCM 87:433]). At first glance,
the version of ms. S printed in Migne appears to read curvum at PL
180:466. Such is the reading of the electronic Patrologia Latina Database.
But on close inspection of a printed copy of PL 180, the v is a y printed
so lightly that its tail is nearly un-detectable. Accordingly, ms. S
witnesses to curyum, found also in A D, but spelled differently, as corium.
Note 16. I read offeres (H.Ez. 1.8 [9], 196 [CCSL 142:106]) instead of
offers (Exc. 6, 61 [CCCM 87:433]). The word offers is a misprint.
Note 17. I read te (H.Ez. 2.4 [8], 265 [CCSL 142:264]) instead of ea
(Exc. 6, 89 [CCCM 87:434]). The difficulty of construing the word ea
motivates this correction. The reading te also seems preserved in the in se
of ms. S.
Note 18. I read apte (Mor. 18.29 [46], 10 [CCSL 143:915]) instead of
aperte (Exc. 6, 93 [CCCM 87:434]).
Note 19. I read praeterisse (Mor. 29.2 [3], 22 [CCSL 143:1435] instead
of interisse (Exc. 6, 107 [CCCM 87:435]). The word interisse does not
make sense in the context and appears to be a corruption of praeterisse.
Note 20. I add integram (Mor.29.2 [3–4], 23 [CCSL 143B:1435]) after
claritatem (Exc. 6, 108 [CCCM 87:435]). The word integram was
accidentally omitted due to homoioteleuton (-em … -am).
Note 21. I add contendit perfici et in lucem cotidie (Mor. 29.2 [4], 57
[CCSL 143:1436]) after cotidie at Exc. 6, 137 (CCSL 87:436). These
words were omitted due to homoioteleuton (cotidie … cotidie).
Note 22. I add videat (Reg. past. 3.32, 65 [SChr 382:494]) after
priusquam veniant at Exc. 7, 16 (CCCM 87:437). The word videat was
omitted due to a combination of homoiarchton (v- … v-) and
homoioteleuton (-t … -t).
Note 23. I insert ut diximus at Exc. 7, 50 based on ms. S and Mor.
12.53 [60], 15–16 (CCSL 143:665). William was not immune to
retaining Gregorian references to earlier discussions that he did not
include in his own florilegium; see W30. It is possible that ut diximus was
omitted after in eis because of homoioteleuton (-s … -s).
 Note 24. Here I read a calore (Mor. 12.53 [60], 18 [CCSL 143:665])
instead of calorem (Exc. 7, 52 [CCCM 87:438]). The presence of the
accusative calorem gives retrahit two direct objects, making it difficult to
construe the sentence. Hence, the word calorem is best viewed as a
corruption of a calore.
Note 25. I read enim (H.Ez. 2.2 [4], 96 [CCSL 142:227]) instead of est
(Exc. 8, 92 [CCCM 87:442]). Though the sentence is grammatically
correct with est, it makes better sense if it is replaced with the original
enim. The error could also be due to a confusion of abbreviations.
Note 26. I read mentis nostrae (ms. S) instead of nostrae infirmitatis
(Exc. 8, 133 [CCCM 87:443]. If ms. S testifies to the autograph of
William, then the phrase mentis nostrae represents a conscious departure
from Gregory on the part of William.
Concluding Remarks. The emendations explained above can be
classified into six categories. The first two categories comprise
corrections to readings offered by Verdeyen; the remaining four
categories contain corrections made to errors in William’s text that were
introduced by scribes.
1. Reversion to ms. readings. In four cases I have preferred readings of ms. S (in two
cases based on ms. S alone, in two cases along with other textual support): see notes
3, 15, 17, and 26. In one case I have preferred the readings of mss. Rand A; see note
1.
2. Correction of misprints introduced by Verdeyen: see notes 14 and 16.
3. Confusion of abbreviations; see notes 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 25.
4. Errors of mishearing; see notes 5, 7 (possibly), 9, and 12. These errors are significant
because they provide clues regarding the process of manuscript copying (see also
note 30 below). They demonstrate that, at least on some occasions, a scribe could
copy a text by having it read to him.
5. Omissions: see notes 20, 21, 22, and 23. The presence of these errors, which
occurred because of faulty reading, indicates that scribes also continued to copy
texts by reading them. What is interesting about the errors of omission in the mss. of
William’s text is that they are clustered together, at the end of Exc. 6 and the
beginning of Exc. 7. This may indicate that the scribe was particularly tired on the
day that this section of text was copied.
6. Corruptions not otherwise explained; see notes 2, 6, 8, 19, and 24.
II. OTHER TEXTUAL COMMENTS
The following seven notes comment on significant textual issues that
present themselves in William’s text.
Note 27. On Exc. 2, 161–62 (CCCM 87:405). William’s Latin text here
reads in huius exsilii statum caeca securitate prostrata. His version inserts
the word statum, which is not found in Gregory’s in huius exsilii caeca
securitate prostrata (Mor. 6.25 [42], 20–21 [CCSL 143:315]). Both
Paterius (P9; Test. 13.9 [PL 70:906d]) and Bede (B11; Cant. 6, 111 [CCSL
119B:361]) follow Gregory’s text. The critical apparatus of Mor. 6.25
[42], 20–21 indicates that various words such as statim, stratum, and
statu were inserted between exsilii and caeca, and William’s text testifies
to the mss. family that contains this textual tradition. Though the
insertion of statum is not original to Gregory, it is retained as it
represents the text that William knew. The translation of the
uncorrupted text is: “lays prostrate in the blind security of this exile.”
Note 28. On Exc. 2, 173 (CCCM 87:406). For this line, all the mss. are
corrupt: Ipsa salus sui corporis quae transfixa est vulnere amoris (mss. S, R,
A, V, D). Verdeyen has restored this text to Vilis ei fit ipsa salus sui
corporis, quia transfixa est vulnere amoris based on H.Ez. 2.3 [8], 169–70
(CCSL 142:242). The apparatus of H.Ez. for this line indicates evidence
for the omission of vilis ei, an omission that seems reflected in William’s
text.
Note 29. On Exc. 2, 246–47 (CCCM 87:408). The full Latin text of this
line is Unde sancta ecclesia sub sponsi voce aperte speciem eius videre
desiderans in divinitate. Though the original Guillelmian text is surely
sponsi (Exc. 2, 246 [CCCM 87:408]), it should be corrected to sponsae for
two reasons. First, sponsi makes little sense in the context. Second, sponsi
seems to be a mistake on the part of William when combining Unde
sancta ecclesia sub sponsae voce hunc aperte iam videre desiderans (H.Ez.
2.1 [15], 449–50 [CCSL 142:219]) and Unde sancta ecclesia sponsi sui
speciem videre in divinitate desiderans (Mor. 18.48 [78], 42–43 [CCSL
143:942]). The sponsi modifies speciem, whereas the sponsae modifies
voce.
Note 30. On Exc. 3, 150 (CCCM 87:416). At this point all the mss.
contain a primitive corruption: ad intentionem certam in his parati (mss. S,
R, A, V) or ad intentionem etiam in his parati (ms. D). Based on Reg. past.
3.32, 57 (SChr 382:494), Verdeyen corrected the text to read: ad
intentionem certaminis parati. Interestingly, this primitive corruption gives
us insight into the methods of the copyist of R. Apparently there was an
assistant reading the exemplar aloud to him, and he misheard certaminis
as certam in his, adding an aspiration h where none was intended. On this
corruption, see CCCM 87:391.
Note 31. On Exc. 4, 216–17 (CCCM 87:425). William’s Latin here is
praecedentium interim patrum exemplis pascuntur. Gregory reads: per
praecedentium interim patrum exempla pascuntur (Mor. 24.8 [18], 90–91
[CCSL 143:1200]), which has the same meaning. It is likely that in
William’s copy of Mor. the per was omitted, necessitating the change of
exempla to exemplis.
Note 32. On Exc. 7, 30–35 (CCCM 87:437–38). It may be the case that
William accidentally omitted v. 10 (ne enim terrenarum rerum amori
succumbat alta sit; ne occulti hostis iaculis feriatur ex omni latere
circumspecta), which in its original context was located between v. 8
(esse ergo speculatoris vita et alta debet semper et circumspecta) and v. 9
(neque hoc speculatori sufficit ut altum vivat…). William’s eye could have
skipped from the circumspecta of v. 8, not to the ne enim of v. 10 as he
should have done, but, misled by the circumspecta of v. 10, to the similar
neque hoc of v. 9, thereby omitting v. 10. See H.Ez. 1.11 [7], 123–26.
Interestingly, William seems to have caught his error and appended the
missing verse to the end of his collation.
Note 33. On Exc. 8, 47–48 (CCCM 87:440). Ms. S omits et nigri, “and
black,” and et dealbati, “and ‘made white,’” which are not original to
Gregory’s text (Mor. 18.53 [87], 22–23 [CCSL 143:950]).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES

AMBROSE OF MILAN
The Exposition on Psalm 118 (Expositio psalmi cxviii). Edition: Michael
Petschenig. Expositio psalmi cxviii. CSEL 62. Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig:
Freytag, 1913.
Epistles (Epistulae). Edition: Otto Faller. Epistvlae et acta, tom. I.
Epistvlarvm libri I-VI. CSEL 82/1. Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky,
1964.
On the Holy Spirit (De spiritu sancto). Edition: Otto Faller. De spiritu sancto
libri tres; De incarnationis dominicae sacramento. CSEL 79. Vienna:
Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1968.

ANONYMOUS
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis). Edition: L. Duchesne. Le Liber
Pontificalis, Texte, introduction et commentaire. 2nd ed., 3 vols. Paris: E.
de Boccard, 1955–57. English translation (to 715): Raymond Davis.
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). Translated Texts for Historians
Latin Series V. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.

ANONYMOUS
The Whitby Life of Gregory (Liber beati et laudabilis viri Gregorii papae urbis
Romae de vita atque eius virtutibus). Edition and English translation:
Bertram Colgrave. The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an
Anonymous Monk of Whitby. Lawerence: University of Kansas Press,
1968.

APPONIUS
Commentary on the Song of Songs (In Canticum canticorum expositio).
Edition and French translation: Bernard de Vregille and Louis
Neyrand. Apponius: Commentaire sue le cantique des cantiques. 3 vols.
SChr 420, 421, and 430. Paris: Cerf, 1997–98.

AUGUSTINE
Sermons (Sermones). Edition: PL 38–39.
Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos). Edition: Eligius
Dekkers. Sancti Avrelii Avgvstini Enarrationes in Psalmos. CCSL 38–40.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1956.
On Christian Teaching (De doctrina christana). Edition: Paul Tombeur.
Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus: De doctrina Christiana. CCSL 32. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1982.

BEDE
Commentary on the Song of Songs (In Cantica Canticorum). Edition: D.
Hurst and J. E. Hudson. Bedae Venerabilis Opera. Pars II, Opera
exegetica. 2B: in Tobiam, in Proverbia, in Cantica Canticorum, in
Habacuc. CCSL 119B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1983, 165–375.
Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Historia ecclesiastica gentis
anglorum). Edition and English translation: Bertram Colgrave and R. A.
B. Mynors. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford
Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.
Excerpts from the Works of Saint Augustine on the Letters of the Blessed
Apostle Paul (In apostolum quaecumque in opusculis sancti Augustini
exposita inueni). English translation: David Hurst. Bede the Venerable:
Excerpts from the Works of Saint Augustine on the Letters of the Blessed
Apostle Paul. CS 183. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1999.
Homiles on the Gospels (Omeliarum euangelii libros II). English translation:
Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst. Bede the Venerable: Homilies on
the Gospels. 2 vols. CS 110, CS 111. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1989–
90.

BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX
Sermons on the Song of Songs (Sermones super Cantica canticorum). English
translation: Killian Walsh and Irene Edmonds. Bernard of Clairvaux:
Sermons on the Song of Songs. 4 vols. CF 4, 7, 31, and 40. Spencer, MA:
Cistercian Publications, 1971–80.

COLUMBANUS
Letters (Epistulae). Edition and English translation: G. S. M. Walker.
Sancti Columani Opera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, vol. 2. Dublin:
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1957, 2–59.
 DIDYMUS THE BLIND
On the Holy Spirit (De spiritu sancto). Edition: Louis Doutreleau. Didyme
l’Aveugle: Traité du saint-Esprit. SChr 386. Paris: Cerf, 1992. English
translation: Mark DelCogliano, Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, and Lewis
Ayres. Works on the Spirit: Athanasius the Great and Didymus the Blind.
Popular Patristics Series 43. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2011.

GILBERT OF HOYLAND
Sermons on the Song of Songs (Sermones super Cantica canticorum). English
translation: Lawrence C. Braceland, Gilbert of Hoyland: Sermons on the
Song of Songs. 3 vols. CF 14, 20, and 26. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian
Publications, 1978–79.

GREGORY OF TOURS
The History of the Franks (Historiarum libri X). Editions: W. Arndt and
Bruno Krusch. Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Teil 1: Libri historiarum X.
MGH, SrM 1/1 Hannover, 1885; and Rudolf Buchner. Zehn Bücher
Geschichten. 2 vols. Berlin: Rütten & Loening, 1955. English
translation: Lewis Thorpe. Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks.
London: Penguin, 1974.

GREGORY THE GREAT

Commentary on First Kings (Commentarius in Librum Primum Regum)
[spurious] Edition: Adalbert de Vogüé. Grégoire le Grand (Pierre de
Cava): Commentaire sur les Premier Livre des Rois. 6 vols. SChr 351,
391, 432, 449, 469, and 482. Paris: Cerf, 1989–2004.
Dialogues (Dialogorum libri IV de miraculis patrum italicorum). Edition:
Adalbert de Vogüé and Paul Antin. Grégoire le Grand. Dialogues. 3 vols.
SChr 251, 260, and 265. Paris: Cerf, 1978–80. English translation: Odo
Zimmerman. St. Gregory the Great: Dialogues. Fathers of the Church 39.
New York: Fathers of the Church, 1959.
Exposition on the Song of Songs (Expositio in Canticis canticorum). Editions:
Patrick Verbraken. Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones in Canticum
Canticorum, in Librum Primum Regum, CCSL 144. Turnhout: Brepols,
1963, 387–444; and Rodrigue Bélanger. Grégoire le Grand.
Commentaire Sur Le Cantique Des Cantiques. SChr 314. Paris: Cerf,
 1984. German translation: K. Suso Frank. Origenes und Gregor der
Grosse. Das Hohelied. Christliche Meister 29. Einsiedeln: Johannes,
1987, 79–129. Italian translation: Emilio Gandolfo. Gregorio Magno.
Commento al Cantico dei Cantici. Magnano: Qiqajon, 1997. English
translation: Denys Turner. Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the
Song of Songs. CS 156. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1995, 215–55.
Homilies on the Gospels (Homiliae in Evangelia). Edition: Raymond Étaix.
Gregorius Magnus. Homiliae in Evangelia. CCSL 141. Turnhout: Brepols,
1999. English translation: David Hurst. Gregory the Great: Forty Gospel
Homilies. CS 123. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1990.
Homilies on the Prophet Ezekiel (Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetem).
Edition: Marcus Adriaen. Sancti Gregorii Magni Homiliae in
Hiezechihelem prophetem. CCSL 142. Turnhout: Brepols, 1971. English
translation: Theodosia Grey. The Homilies of Saint Gregory the Great on
the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist
Orthodox Studies, 1990.
Letters (Registrum epistularum). Edition: Dag Norberg. S. Gregorii Magni
Registrum epistularum. 2 vols. CCSL 140 and 140A. Turnhout: Brepols,
1982. English translation: John R. C. Martyn. The Letters of Gregory the
Great. 3 vols. Medieval Sources in Translation 40. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004.
Morals on Job (Moralia in Iob). Edition: Marcus Adriaen. S. Gregorii Magni
Moralia in Iob. 3 vols. CCSL 143, 143A, and 143B. Turnhout: Brepols,
1979–85. English translation: Gregory the Great: Morals on the Book of
Job. 4 vols. Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church 18, 21, 23,
and 31. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1844–50.
Pastoral Care (Regula pastoralis). Edition: Bruno Judic, Floribert Rommel,
and Charles Morel. Grégoire le Grand. Règle pastorale. 2 vols. SChr 381
and 382. Paris: Cerf, 1992. English translations: Henry Davis. St.
Gregory the Great: Pastoral Care. Ancient Christian Writers 11. New
York and Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1950; and George E.
Demacopoulos. St. Gregory the Great: The Book of Pastoral Rule. Popular
Patristics Series 34. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2007.

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
Commentary on the Song of Songs. Edition (preserved only in Georgian)
 and Latin translation: G. Garitte, Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et
Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. Corpus
scriptorum Christianorum orientalium 263–64. Scriptores Iberici 15–
16. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965.

JOHN CASSIAN
The Conferences (Conlationes). Edition: Michael Petschenig. Iohannis
Cassiani Conlationes XXIIII, CSEL 13. Vienna: Geroldus, 1886. English
translation: Boniface Ramsey. John Cassian: The Conferences. Ancient
Christian Writers 57. New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1997.

JOHN THE EDACON

The Life of Pope Saint Gregory (Sancti Gregorii papae vita). Edition: PL
75:59–242.

JOHN OF FORD
Sermons on the Song of Songs (Sermones super Cantica canticorum). English
translation: Wendy Mary Beckett. John of Ford: Sermons on the Song of
Songs. 7 vols. CF 29, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. Kalamazoo, MI:
Cistercian, 1978–84.

IDEFONSUS OF TOLEDO
On the Writings of Illustrious Men (De virorum illustrium scriptis). Edition:
PL 96:195–206.

ISIODORE OF SEVILLE
On Illustrious Men (De viris illustribus). Edition: PL 83:1081–1106.

ORIGEN
Commentary on the Song of Songs (In Cantico canticorum). Edition: W. A.
Baehrens. Origenes Werke. 8. Bd. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied
und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied, in Rufins und
Hieronymus’ Ubersetzung. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
33. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925. English translation: R. P. Lawson.
Origen. The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies. Ancient Christian
Writers 26. New York and Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1956.
Homiles on the Song of Songs (Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum). Editions:
 W. A. Baehrens. Origenes Werke. 8. Bd. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum
Hohelied und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied, in Rufins und
Hieronymus’ Ubersetzung. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
33. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925; and O. Rousseau. Origène. Homélies
sur le Cantique des Cantiques. SChr 37. Paris: Cerf, 1954. English
translation: R. P. Lawson. Origen: The Song of Songs Commentary and
Homilies. Ancient Christian Writers 26. New York and Mahwah, NJ:
Newman Press, 1956.

PAUL THE DEACON

The Life of Gregory (Vita Gregorii). Editions: PL 75:41–59 [interpolated
version]; H. Grisar. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 11 (1888): 162–
73; Walter Stuhlfath, Gregor I, der Große. Sein Leben bis zu seiner Wahl
zum Papste nebst einer Untersuchnung der ältesten Viten. Heidelberger
Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, 39 (Heidelberg:
C. Winter, 1913), 98–108.
The History of the Lombards (Historia Langobardorum). Edition: L.
Bethmann and G. Waitz. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores
rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum. Tome 1. Scriptores rerum
Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX (Hannover, 1878), 12–187.

PATERIUS
Book of Testimonies (Liber testimonium). Edition: PL 79:683–916, with
emendations by Raymond Étaix. “Le Liber testimonium de Paterius.”
Revue des Sciences Religieuses 32 (1958): 66–78.

TAIO OF SARAGOSSA Sentences (Liber sententiarum). Edition: PL 80:727–

990.

WILLIAM OF ST. THIERRY

Excerpts from the Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs (Excerpta
de libris beati Gregorii super Cantica canticorum). Paul Verdeyen,
Stanislaw Ceglar, and Antonius van Burink. Guillelmi a Sancto
Theodorico Expositio super Cantica canticorum, Brevis commentatio,
Excerpta de libris beati Ambrosii et Gregorii super Cantica canticorum.
CCCM 87. Turnholt: Brepols, 1997, 387–444.
The Life of Saint Bernard (Vita Bernardi). Edition: PL 185:246b–247d.
The Golden Epistle (Epistola ad fratres de Monte Dei). Edition: Jean
Déchanet. Guillaume de saint-Thierry. Lettre aux frères du Mont-Dieu. 1st
ed. rev. et corr. SChr 223. Cerf: Paris, 2004. English translation:
Theodore Berkeley. William of Saint Thierry: The Golden Epistle. CF 12.
Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1971.

II. SECONDARY SOURCES

Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Astell, Ann W. The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1990.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bartelink, G. J. M. “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek.” In
Gregory the Great: A Symposium, edited by John C. Cavadini, 117–36.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.
Batiffol, Pierre. Saint Grégoire le Grand. 2nd ed. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1928.
Bélanger, Rodrigue. “Anthropologie et parole de Dieu dans le
commentaire de Grégoire le Grand sur la cantique des cantiques.” In
Grégoire le Grand, edited by Jacques Fontaine, Robert Gillet, and Stan
Pellistrandi, 245–54. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1986.
Bell, David N. Image and Likeness: The Augustinian Spirituality of William
of St. Thierry. CS 78. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1984.
Bergant, Dianne. The Song of Songs. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2001.
Bloch, Ariel, and Chana Bloch. The Song of Songs: A New Translation with
an Introduction and Commentary. New York: Random House, 1995.
Bloom, Harold, ed. The Song of Songs. New York: Chelsea House
Publishers, 1988.
Bouyer, Louis. The Cistercian Heritage. London: Mowbray, 1958.
Boyarin, Daniel. “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality,
Allegory, and Midrash.” In The Book and the Text: Bible and Literary
Theory, edited by Regina M. Schwartz, 214–30. Cambridge, MA: Basil
Blackwell, 1990.
Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
_______. and Carole R. Fontaine, eds. The Song of Songs: A Feminist
 Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Burns, Thomas S. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1994.
______. Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C.–A.D. 400. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Bynum, Caroline Walker. “Seeing and Seeing Beyond: The Mass of St.
Gregory in the Fifteenth Century.” In The Mind’s Eye: Art and
Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, edited by Jeffrey F.
Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché, 208–40. Princeton, NJ:
Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University in
association with Princeton University Press, 2005.
Cameron, Averil. The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–430. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1993.
______. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. AD 395–600. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Cameron, Michael. “Augustine’s Use of the Song of Songs against the
Donatists.” In Augustine: Biblical Exegete, edited by Frederick Van
Fleteren and Joseph C. Schnaubelt, 99–127. New York: Peter Lang,
2001.
Capelle, Bernard. “Les homélies de saint Grégoire sur le Cantique.” Revue
Bénédictine 41 (1929): 209–17.
Cavadini, John C., ed. Gregory the Great. A Symposium. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.
Christman, Angela Russell. What did Ezekiel See? Christian Exegesis of
Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great. Leiden:
Brill, 2005.
Clark, Elizabeth A. “The Uses of the Song of Songs: Origen and the Later
Latin Fathers.” In Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith, edited by Elizabeth
A. Clark, 386–427. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1986.
______. “The Celibate Bridegroom and His Virginal Brides: Metaphor and
the Marriage of Jesus in Early Christian Ascetic Exegesis.” Chuch
History 77, no. 1 (March 2008): 1–25. Clark, Francis. The Pseudo-
Gregorian Dialogues. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
______. The “Gregorian” Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Collins, Gregory. “Saint Gregory the Great as Mystical Theologian.” In
L’eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente, edited by
 Guido Innocenzo Gargano, 181–200. Verona: Gabrielli Editori, 2005.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Europe. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1999.
Cremascoli, Giuseppe. L’esegesi biblica di Gregorio Magno. Brescia:
Queriniana, 2001.
Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic
and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Dagens, Claude. Saint Grégoire le Grand: culture et expérience chrétiennes.
Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1977.
Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient
Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
______. Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002.
Déchanet, Jean Marie. William of St. Thierry: The Man and His Work. CS
10. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1972.
DelCogliano, Mark. “The Composition of William of St. Thierry’s Excerpts
from the Books of Blessed Gregory on the Song of Songs.” Cîteaux:
Commentarii cistercienses 58 (2007): 57–77.
______. “Basil of Caesarea, Didymus the Blind, and the Anti-
Pneumatomachian Exegesis of Amos 4:13 and John 1:3.” Journal of
Theological Studies n.s. 61 (2010): 644–58.
DeLeeuw, Patricia. “Unde et Memores, Domine: Memory and Time and
the Mass of St. Gregory.” In Memory and the Middle Ages, edited by
Nancy Netzer and Virginia Reunburg, 33–42. Boston, MA: Boston
College Museum of Art, 1995.
D’Imperio, Francesca Sara. Gregorio Magno. Bibliografiia per gli anni
1980–2003. Firenze: Sismel, 2005.
Drobner, Hubertus R. Person-Exegese und Christologie bei Augustinus.
Leiden: Brill, 1986.
______. “Grammatical Exegesis and Christology in St. Augustine.” Studia
Patristica 18 (1990): 49–63.
______. The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction. Translated
by Siegfried S. Schatzmann with bibliographies updated and expanded
for the English edition by William Harmless and Hubertus R. Drobner.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.
Dudden, F. Homes. Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought. 2
vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905.
Duval, Yves-Marie. “La discussion entre l’aprocrisaire Grégoire et la
patriarche Eutychios a sujet de la réssurrection de la chair: l’arrière-
plan doctrinal oriental et occidental.” In Grégoire le Grand, edited by
Jacques Fontaine, Robert Gillet, and Stan Pellistrandi, 347–66. Paris:
CNRS, 1986.
Ekonomou, Andrew J. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern
Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias,
A.D. 590–752. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007.
Elliott, Mark W. The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church
381–451. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 7. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Étaix, Raymond. “Le Liber testimonium de Paterius.” Revue des Sciences
Religieuses 32 (1958): 66–78.
Exum, J. Cheryl. The Song of Songs. Old Testament Library. Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Feuillet, André. Comment lire le Cantique des Cantiques: Étude de théologie
biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse. Paris: Téqui, 1999.
Fontaine, Jacques, Robert Gillet, and Stan Pellistrandi, eds. Grégoire le
Grand. Paris: CNRS, 1986.
Fox, Michael V. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
Garrett, Duane. Song of Songs. Word Biblical Commentary 23B.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.
Gillet, Robert, “Introduction.” In Grégoire le Grand: Morals sur Job I–II,
edited by idem and André de Gaudemaris, 7–133. SChr 32 bis. Paris:
Cerf, 1975.
Godding, Robert. Bibliografia di Gregorio Magno (1890/1989). Roma:
Città Nuova Editrice, 1990.
Goulder, Michael D. The Song of Fourteen Songs. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament. Supplement Series 36. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986.
Goussainville, Pierre de. Sancti Gregorii Papae Primi cognomenato Magni
Opera in tres tomos distributa. Lutetiae Parisiorum: impensis Societatis
Typographicae, 1675.
Grant, Robert M., with David Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation
of the Bible. 2nd ed. Revised and enlarged. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1984.
Hauréau, J. Barthélemy. Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de
 la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1890–93.
Heine, Gotth. Bibliotheca Anecdotorum seu Veterum Monumentum
ecclesiasticorum Collectio novissima. Pars I. Monumenta regni Gothorum et
Arabum in Hispaniis. Leipzig: Weigel, 1848.
Humphries, Mark. “Italy, A.D. 425–605.” In Late Antiquity: Empire and
Successors, A.D. 425–605, edited by Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-
Perkins, and Michael Whitby, 525–51. The Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Irvine, Martin. The Making of Textual Culture: Grammatical and Literary
Theory 350–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Kallas, E. “Martin Luther as Expositor of the Song of Songs.” Lutheran
Quarterly 2 (1988): 323–41.
Kardong, Terrence. “Who Wrote the Dialogues of Saint Gregory? A Report
on a Controversy.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2004): 31–39.
Kaster, Robert A. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in
Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Kessler, Stephan Ch. Gregor der Grosse als Exeget : eine theologische
Interpretation der Ezechielhomilien. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1995.
Kinder, Terryl. Cistercian Europe: Architecture of Contemplation.
Kalamazoo, MI: Cisterician, 2002.
Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation.
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986.
La Bonnardière, A. M. “Le Cantique des Cantiques dans l’œuvre de saint
Augustin.” Revue des Études Augustiniennes 1 (1955): 225–37.
LaCocque, André. Romance She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of
Songs. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 1998.
Leclerq, Jean. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God. 3rd ed. New
York: Fordham University Press, 1982.
Lubac, Henri de. Medieval Exegesis, 2 vols. Translated by Mark Sebanc.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Lyke, Larry L. I Will Espouse You Forever: The Song of Songs and the
Theology of Love in the Hebrew Bible. Nashville, TN: Abdingdon Press,
2007.
Margerie, Bertrand de. Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Petersham:
St. Bede’s Press, 1993–94.
Markus, R. A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Marrou, H. I. Education in Antiquity. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1956.
Martens, Peter W. “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The
Case of Origen.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008): 283–317.
Martyn, John R. C. “Six Notes on Gregory the Great.” Medievalia et
Humanistica, n.s. 29 (2003): 1–25.
______. “Pope Gregory the Great and the Irish.” Journal of Australian Early
Medieval Association 1 (2005): 65–83.
Matter, E. Ann. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western
Medieval Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1990.
______. “Song of Songs, Book of.” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation.
Vol.2, edited by John H. Hayes, 492–96. Nashville, TN: Abingdon,
1999.
McCready, William D. Signs of Sanctity: Miracles in the Thought of Gregory
the Great. Studies and Texts/Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
91. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1989.
Meyvaert, Paul. “A New Edition of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on
the Canticle and I Kings.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 19 (1968):
215–25.
______. “The Date of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on the Canticle of
Canticles and on I Kings.” Sacris Erudiri 23 (1978–79): 191–216.
______. “Uncovering a Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the
Early Commentary on Job.” Traditio 50 (1995): 55–74.
Moorhead, John. Gregory the Great. The Early Church Fathers. London
and New York: Routledge, 2005.
Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Müller, Susanne. “Fervorem discamus amoris”: das Hohelied und seine
Auslegung bei Gregor dem Grossen. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991.
Murphy, Roland E. “The Canticle of Canticles and the Virgin Mary.”
Carmelus 1 (1954): 18–28.
______. “Patristic and Medieval Exegesis—Help or Hindrance?” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 505–16.
______. The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the
 Song of Songs. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.
Neuschafer, Bernhardt. Origenes als Philologe. 2 vols. Basle: Friedrich
Reinhardt, 1987.
Ohly, Friedrich. Hohelied-Studien: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der
Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, 1958.
O’Keefe, John J., and J. J. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early
Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2005.
Oudin, Casimir. Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae Antiquis. Frankfort
and Leipzig, 1722.
Parente, Paschal P. “The Canticle of Canticles in Mystical Theology.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 6 (1944): 142–58.
Pennington, M. Basil. The Last of the Fathers. Studies in Monasticism 1.
Still River, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1983.
Petersen, Joan M. The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in the Late Antique
Cultural Background. Studies and Texts/Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies 69. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, 1984.
______. “The Influence of Origen upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of the
Song of Songs.” Studia Patristica 17 (1985): 343–47.
Phipps, William E. “The Plight of the Song of Songs.” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 82–100. Reprinted in Bloom,
The Song of Songs, 5–23.
Pope, Marvin H. Song of Songs. The Anchor Bible 7C. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1977.
Porcel, O. La doctrina monastica de San Gregorio Magno y la ‘Regula
Monachorum.’ Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press,
1951.
Provan, Iain W. Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2001.
Ramos-Lisson, Domingo. “En torno a la exégesis de San Gregorio Magno
sobre el ‘Cantar de los Cantares’.” Teología y vida 42 (2001): 241–65.
Recchia, Vincenzo. L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici.
Torino: Società Editrice Internationale, 1967.
______. Gregorio Magno papa ed esegeta biblico. Bari: Edipuglia, 1996.
______.”Invigilata Lucernis: L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno ai simboli del
 «Cantico dei Cantici»,” Invigilata Lucernis 23 (2001): 207–21.
______. Lettera e profezia nell’esegesi di Gregorio Magno. Quaderni di
“Invigilata Lucernis,” Dipartamento di Studi Classici e Cristiani,
Università degli Studi di Bari, vol. 20. Bari: Edipuglia, 2003.
Richards, Jeffery. Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.
Riché, Pierre. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West. Translated by
John J. Contreni. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976.
______. Petite vie de saint Grégoire le Grand (540–604). Paris: Desclée de
Brouwer, 1995.
Riedlinger, Helmut. Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den Lateinischen
Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters. Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 38, 3. Münster: West.
Aschendorff, 1958.
Rivera, Alfonso de. “Sentido mariólogico del Cantar de los Cantares.”
Ephemerides mariológicas 1 (1951): 437–68; and 2 (1952): 25–42.
Robert, André, and Raymond J. Tournay, with André Feuillet. Le
Cantique des Cantiques: Traduction et commentaire. Paris: J. Gabalda,
1963.
Rönnegård, Per. Threads and Images: The Use of Scripture in
Apophthegmata Patrum. Lund: Lund University, 2007.
Rowley, H. H. “Interpretation of the Song of Songs.” The Servant of the
Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1965, 197–245.
Rudolph, Conrad. Violence and Daily Life: Reading, Art, and Polemics in the
Cîteaux Moralia in Job. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1997.
Saint-Marthe, Dom Denys de. Histoire de S. Grégoire le Grand, Pape et
Docteur de l’Église. Rouen: Behourt, 1697.
Simonetti, Manilo. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1994.
Slusser, Michael. “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology.”
Theological Studies 49 (1988): 461–76.
Straw, Carole. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.
______. Gregory the Great. Authors of the Middle Ages 12. Historical and
Religious Writers of the Latin West. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.
Tournay, Raymond J. Word of God, Song of Love: A Commentary on the
Song of Songs. New York: Paulist, 1988. English translation of Quand
Dieu parle aux hommes le langage de l’amour: études sur Le Cantique des
Cantiques. Cahiers de La Revue Biblique 21. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982.
Trible, Phyllis. “Love’s Lyrics Redeemed.” God and the Rhetoric of
Sexuality. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1978, 144–65. Reprinted in
Bloom, The Song of Songs, 49–66.
Turner, Denys. Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs.
CS 156. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1995.
Vaccari, P. A. “De scriptis S. Gregorii Magni in Canticum Canticorum.”
Verbum Domini 9 (1929): 304–7.
Verbraken, Patrick. “Le commentaire de Saint Gregoire sur le Premier
Livre des Rois.” Revue Bénédictine 66 (1956): 159–217.
______. “La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le
Cantique des cantiques.” Revue Bénédictine 73 (1963): 277–88.
______. “Un nouveau manuscript du Commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le
Cantique des Cantiques.” Revue Bénédictine 75 (1965): 143–45.
Vogüé, Adalbert de. “Les vues of Grégoire le Grand sur la vie religieuse
dans son commentaire des Rois.” Studia Monastica 20 (1978): 17–63;
English translation: “The Views of St Gregory the Great on the
Religious Life in his Commentary on the Book of Kings.” Cistercian
Studies Quarterly 17 (1982): 40–64 and 212–32.
______. The Life of St. Benedict—Gregory the Great. Translated by Hilary
Costello and Eoin de Bhaldraithe. Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s
Publications, 1993.
______. “L’auteur du Commentaire des Rois attributé à saint Grégoire: un
moine de Cava?” Revue Bénédictine 106 (1996): 319–31.
______. “Is Gregory the Great the Author of the Dialogues?” American
Benedictine Review 56, no. 3 (Sept. 2005): 309–14.
Walsh, Corey Ellen. Exquisite Desire: Religion, the Erotic and the Song of
Songs. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000.
Ward, Benedicta. The Venerable Bede. CS 169. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian,
1998.
Waszink, J. H. “Sancti Gregorii Magni Expositiones in Canticum
Canticorum, in Librum Primum Regum.” Vigliae Christianae 27 (1973):
72–74.
Weems, Renita J. “Song of Songs.” In Women’s Bible Commentary, edited
 by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, 156–60. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.
______. “Song of Songs.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 5. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon, 1997, 361–434.
Wilmart, André. “Le recueil grégorien de Paterius et les fragments
wisigothiques de Paris.” Revue Bénédictine 39 (1927): 81–104.
Yannaras, Christos. Variations on the Song of Songs. Brookline: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 2005.
Young, Frances. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.