As for Tudor/Stuart attitudes towards gloss/commentary, within religious
discussions, at any rate, suspicion is there a plenty--at least suspicion of
the "other" side. Both Catholic and Reformers produce Biblical commentary and
each asserts its own as beacons illuminating the truth and the other's as
twisting and obscuring the text in evil/deceptive ways. The standard medieval
Catholic Bible commentary remained the Glossa Ordinaria, a complitation of
commentary from the Church Fathers shaping the "official" reading of the
central text. To Reformers, the lens controls and distorts the truth in the
most dangerous way--much remains valid and useful commentary but key passages
are misrepresented by Catholics, twisted out of shape which the Reformers are
restoring to the clear light of day. So a great deal of the religious polemic
and Biblical commentary of the period consists of line by line attack and
counter-attack, each side glossing the same passages, each side condemning
the others' glossing practice as deceptive, perverting the truth. So lots of
suspicion of glossing, though not one's own of course. The Geneva New
Testament and the Rheims square off against each other, both glossed in the
rigth way.
Arthur Upham
McGill 1996
Madison, WI
|