Lyra in Light of Condemnation

Lyra in Light of Condemnation Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349) belongs to the first generation of Franciscans to gloss the Bible after the fourteenth-century apostolic poverty controversy . As such his exegesis has been employed to argue for a shift in Franciscan exposition away from more explicitly “Franciscan” interpretations. Upon further investigation of Lyra’s gloss on certain affluent pericopes, this assessment needs to be nuanced. Because Lyra’s aptitude in Jewish and Hebrew scholarship has so greatly overshadowed any other utility that his exegesis may have warranted in scholarly investigations, too rarely has Lyra been addressed in regard to ecclesiastical or social issues and too often have certain assumptions about his exegesis gone largely unchecked. While other Franciscan commentators such as Bonaventure, Thomas of York, and Peter John Olivi are frequently examined on ecclesiastical and social issues, it seems scholarship has anaesthetized Lyra, placing his importance solely  I wish to thank Prof. William Courtenay, whose patience and guidance have made this article possible; an anonymous reviewer, whose insightful comments and suggestions have further enhanced my understanding of the period; and, not least of all, Prof. Jeffrey Wills, whose encouragement and willingness to read a number of earlier drafts have been invaluable.  Kevin Madigan provides this assessment of Nicholas of Lyra’s hermeneutics most forthrightly in his “Lyra on the Gospel of Matthew,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, ed. Philip D. W. Krey and Lesley Smith, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, vol. 90, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 195-99.  Providing the standard assessment of Nicholas of Lyra, Beryl Smalley has remarked, “it is plain that Lyre represents the culmination of a movement for the study of Hebrew and rabbinics.” See Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964), 355. Beginning with St. Jerome (331-420), Smalley traces a parentage of scriptural interest in Jewish and Hebraic studies through the twelfth-century master to pupil relationships of Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141), Andrew of St. Victor (d. 1175), and Herbert of Bosham. Taking Smalley’s work one step farther, Deeana Copeland Klepper has done much to connect Lyra with twelfth-century exegetes through the Christian Hebraism of Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), Adam Marsh (d. c. 1257), and Roger Bacon (d. 1292). See Deeana Copeland Klepper, “Nicholas of Lyra and Franciscan Interest in Hebrew Scholarship,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, 289-311. 349 Franciscan Studies 65 (2007) 15.Matenaer.indd 349 12/5/07 20:29:59 James M. Matenaer 350 in the realm of scriptural exegesis. This has been a huge disservice to one who was so involved in the affairs of his Order and those of the Church in general. On the other hand, if we approach Nicholas of Lyra’s postillae with an understanding of the ecclesiastical tensions that had engulfed the Franciscan Order in the early fourteenth century, his exegesis embodies not only the crowning achievement of the literal sense but also a reformulated expression of mendicant propaganda. Contrary to previous scholarly evaluations, I hope to show that in the aftermath of the apostolic poverty controversy, Nicholas of Lyra’s exegesis very carefully reveals an unshaken loyalty to the once orthodox, then condemned Franciscan position. His discretion is so great in presenting his convictions that previous examinations, which uncovered other Franciscan commentators’ biases, found nothing of particular merit in Lyra’s comments. Having completed his exegetical corpus soon after John XXII’s condemnation of Peter John Olivi’s highly ‘Franciscanizing’ commentaries, the ecclesiastical environment into which Lyra’s work was to be released had become much more precarious. What then were the possible avenues available to him in light of the recent condemnation? If Nicholas of Lyra still held to the Franciscan position on apostolic poverty how could he have expressed his beliefs without incurring the wrath of John XXII? These are the particular constraints that we must take into account if we are to discover the real dissent that Nicholas of Lyra consigned to his postills. The condemnation of Olivi in 1326 completely shifted the boundary between what we can characterize as particularizing and non-particularizing exegesis, especially...