The concordance of Scripture: the homiletic and exegetical methods of St Antony of Padua.

What conclusions may we draw at the end of this thesis? First, Antony appears as someone very conscious of standing in a theological tradition whose principal interpreters (for him) had been Augustine, Gregory and Bernard. His own genius lay in condensing and expressing that tradition, so as to make it memorable (in every sense) for those to whom he in turn passed it on.

More precisely, Antony appears as someone who possessed a naturally powerful memory (in the medieval understanding of the term), an ability to assimilate, organise, store and reproduce information; an ability which was further developed by the techniques that he learned from the Victorine traditions of Coimbra. His encyclopaedic familiarity with the Scriptures, and with important parts of the ‘authorities’ previously mentioned, provided a foundation for his own distillation of the Gospel message, both in his personal preaching and in the Opus Dominicale.

This present study has been chiefly concerned with that Opus Dominicale, which despite its more usual title of Sermones Dominicales does not fit neatly into any of the categories generally employed in respect of writings of Antony’s period. It is not, for instance, simply a collection of sermons preached by Antony; nor even of model sermons prepared by Antony for the use of others. It is not a manual of preaching, setting out theoretical guidance for preachers. It is not a straightforward commentary on the Scriptures; and it is certainly not a text-book of theology comparable to the works of Peter Lombard or of later Masters at Paris and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it has some features of all of these, even (though faintly) of the last mentioned, the ‘text-book of theology’.

Conscious of the tradition in which he stood, and conscious of the needs both of the ordinary believers to whom he himself preached, and of the other preachers (especially Franciscans) who were also entrusted with the work of preaching, and who were often relatively inexperienced and uneducated, Antony sought to make his message memorable: that is, easy to assimilate and understand, easy to retain and recall, so as to motivate the every-day lives of believers. In common with his contemporaries, he regarded ‘theology’ and ‘Scripture’ as virtually the same thing. In the Scriptures God spoke his revealing word, which it was the task of the theologian to explain. The text of Scripture had various layers of meaning, which needed to be meditated upon. Theology itself was a kind of ‘revelation’, or at least an unveiling of the hidden meaning of Scripture. Furthermore, the full understanding of Scripture required not only a grasp of individual texts, taken separately, but of the Scriptures regarded as an integrated whole. It was here that Antony’s gifts of memory gave him a particular advantage.

As we have seen, Antony’s Sermones are in the first place arranged in accordance with the liturgical distribution of the Gospels; and they are then subdivided more or less according to the natural divisions of the text (the clausulae). From this point onwards, however, Antony weaves a veritable lace-work of texts and comment, drawn from all over the Scriptures. His memory enabled him to recall relevant passages, and juxtapose them with his principal text, so as to exhibit parallels and patterns that only become evident from such a global grasping of the material.

I have suggested that Antony was motivated, at least in part, by the desire to counter Cathar disparagement of the Old Testament and of the material world. Antony undertakes to show the harmony, the ‘concordance’, between the Testaments themselves, and between the Scriptures and creation. In this latter respect, I further suggest that he was influence by the particular vision of St Francis, as regards the manifestation of God in the ‘Book of Nature’.

Antony teaches through imagery rather than through logical discourse (which is not to suggest that he is ‘illogical’). He ‘exhibits’ rather than ‘proves’; yet his method is just as much a ‘demonstration’ (a ‘showing’) of theological truth as that which proceeds by logical analysis and syllogistic reasoning. In this way, too, I suggest that Antony is beginning to exhibit traits which in the succeeding period were to characterise the Franciscan approach to theology. It is not just a regard for the created world, but a conviction that God is somehow to be intuited or perceived in Creation, and not merely to be deduced from it.

It would be anachronistic to ask how Antony ‘fits into’ the Franciscan tradition, since obviously during the lifetime of the Founder one can hardly as yet speak of a Franciscan tradition into which Antony might fit. If he had thought in those categories at all, he might have regarded himself as ‘Augustinian’ or ‘Gregorian’. Nevertheless, I suggest that Antony was already beginning to seek a theological expression of a distinctly Franciscan way of looking at the world and its Creator, which is not just a theology of Creation but also of Redemption. Christ is the key, and especially in his Passion, to which the note of poverty desired by Francis for his Order is particularly related. All of this would be developed more thoroughly, especially by Bonaventure, but the seeds are already to be found germinating in Antony: ‘first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.’

It is these features of Antony’s work which, in my opinion, make it of renewed theological interest today. Because the field has, so to speak, lain fallow for so long, there is room for a great deal of research. More could be done to relate Antony to his sources (particularly Augustine, Gregory and Bernard). A further comparison with Innocent III, and the reform of the Church which he promoted, could also prove fruitful, as well as an exploration of more precise links with Joachim of Fiore. Because of the long neglect of Antony as a writer, little has been done to raise questions about his possible influence on those, especially Franciscans, who came after him. If this influence was less in northern Europe, there are signs that it was greater in southern France and in Italy. We need to know more about writers such as Rigauld to trace that influence. There is, then, ample room for further research, and the present study would claim to have done little more than clear the ground to some extent.

Antony's posthumous fame as a Saint and wonder-worker came to eclipse his life-time achievement as a preacher and writer. This is in one way a pity, because even though he was not a system-builder like Bonaventure or Scotus, he is not devoid of originality in his methodology, to the exploration of which this thesis has been devoted. On the other hand, the long neglect can be seen as in another way as an advantage, in that we can now approach Antony with fresh eyes and without preconceptions.

One cannot engage in a study such as the present without immersing oneself in an author’s thought, and as it were entering his mind and seeing how it works. Beyond the particular theological issues he discusses, Antony reveals himself as a passionate critic of abuse in the Church, yet always animated by a spirit of charity and kindness. He shows a real affection for the ‘dear brothers’ to whom the work is offered, and an enthusiasm both for Biblical study and for the Book of Nature which also reveals God. Because Antony’s continuing popularity has rested far more on his sanctity than on his learning, it would be wrong, in seeking to redress the balance, to overlook the holiness and devotion also revealed in his writing. If it is "Love that moves the sun and the other stars" (Paradiso XXXIII), it was love that ultimately moved Antony and has led so many to seek his patronage. I will end as I began, by letting Julian of Spires sum up:

narrent hi qui sentiunt, dicant Paduani.

loosely translated:

All perils perish at his prayer, and even Fate gives way;

"Let them speak out, who know his care!" That’s what the Paduans say!

The copyright in this Dissertation belongs to the author, S.R.P. Spilsbury