¹ Minnis, Alastair J., Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1988)Google Scholar.

² Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 1964), chaps. 5–6Google Scholar; Dahan, Gilbert, L'exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval xiie–xive siècle (Paris, 2008), 108–20Google Scholar.

³ Verboon, Anemicke R., “The Medieval Tree of Porphyry: An Organic Structure of Logic,” in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory, and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought, ed. Salonius, Pipa and Worm, Andrea (Turnhout, 2014)Google Scholar.

⁴ It is assumed that the divisio textus was first introduced into the faculty of arts around the 1220s; Ebbesen, Sten, “Medieval Latin Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts, ed. Burnett, Charles, Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 23 (London, 1993), 129–77, here 133–38Google Scholar. Alexander of Hales's Gloss on Peter Lombard's Sentences (1220s) seems to be the first theological work in which a distinctive divisio textus is introduced. The first scriptural commentaries are likely those of the Dominican masters Hugh of St. Cher and Guerric of St. Quentin (1230s–1240s) on which see Spicq, Ceslas, Esquisse d'une histoire de l'exégèse latine au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1944), 212–13Google Scholar and Smalley, Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 296–97, where she cites Vosté as suggesting that Hugh was the first theologian to introduce it. See also Gilbert Dahan, L'exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval xiie–xive siècle, 271–76; idem, “Le schématisme dans l'exégèse médiévale,” in Qu'est-ce que nommer? L'image légendée entre monde monastique et pensée scholastique, ed. Heck, Christian (Turnhout, 2010), 31–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a concise article devoted to the issue, see Boyle, John F., “The Theological Character of the Scholastic ‘Division of the Text’ with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas,” in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Oxford, 2003), 276–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Boyle, “Theological Character,” 276.

⁶ See the opening to the narratology suggested in Barthes, Roland, “Introduction à l'analyse structurale des récits,” Communications 8 (1966): 1–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” trans. Duisit, L., New Literary History 6 (1975): 237–72Google Scholar.

⁷ Tony Hunt notes a general, continuous lack of interest in syntax through the tradition of teaching Latin, Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1991), 17, 97Google Scholar. The principle of generating similar sentences by choosing one word out of a group, however, exists in Latin teaching at least since the dialogues of tenth-century Bata, Aelfric, Anglo-Saxon Conversations: The Colloquies of Aelfric Bata, ed. Gwara, Scott and Porter, David (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1997)Google Scholar.

⁸ Murphy, James J., Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkley, 1974)Google Scholar; Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, at 118–223; Copeland, Rita, “The Ciceronian Rhetorical Tradition and Medieval Literary Theory,” in The Rhetoric of Cicero in Its Medieval and Early Renaissance Commentary Tradition, ed. Cox, Virginia and Ward, John O. (Leiden, 2011), 239–66, esp. 259–63Google Scholar.

⁹ de Chobham, Thomas, Summa de arte praedicandi, ed. Morenzoni, Franco, CCM 82 (Turnhout, 1988)Google Scholar; Auvergne, William of, Rhetorica divina, seu ars oratoria eloquentiae divinae, trans. Teske, Roland J., Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 17 (Paris, 2013)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Cicero, , Rhetorica ad Herrenium, 1.3, trans. Caplan, Harry, Loeb Classical Library 403 (Cambridge, MA, 1954), 8–9 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ibid. 1.10, ed. 30–31.

¹² For literature, see Copeland, Rita, Rhetoric, Hermeneutic, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge, 1981), 206–8Google Scholar. On the tree structure of the Breviari d'amori, see Nicholson, Francesca M., “Branches of Knowledge: The Purposes of Citation in the Breviari d'amor of Matfre Ermengaud,” Neophilologus 91 (2007): 375–85, at 376CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 153: “One justification for such literary division and collection seems to have been that the intentions of the auctores were thereby clarified… . Exceptional scholars, like Nicholas Trevet and Thomas Waleys, could criticize a divisio textus which, in their opinion, obscured instead of clarified the intentio auctoris.” On horizontal tree diagrams representing the structure of theological quaestiones, see Even-Ezra, Ayelet, “Schemata as Maps and Editing Tools in 13th Century Scholasticism,” Manuscripta 61 (2017): 21–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Ebessen, “Medieval Latin Glosses” (n. 4 above), 135.

¹⁵ On the rich tradition of commenting on the Book of Sentences, see especially Rosemann, Philipp W., The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard's Sentences (Peterborough, ON, 2007)Google Scholar. Examples of marginal diagrams, unrelated to any complete commentary, can be seen in Assisi Bibliotheca Communale MS Assisi 101 (fols. 7v, 8v, 9v, 87r, 118r, etc.); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 15323 (fols. 8r, 8v–9r, 10r, 12r, etc.). More than seventy diagrams representing text divisions for textbooks of logic feature in the margins of Vatican, lat. 996.

¹⁶ Long, R. James, “The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: Edition of the Prologue to His Commentary on the Sentences,” Medieval Studies 34 (1972): 71–98, here 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The modern editors of the commentary replicated them as well and referred to their existence in manuscripts’ descriptions. See Long, R. James and O'Carroll, Maura, The Life and Works of Richard Fishacre OP: Prolegomena to the Edition of his Commentary on the “Sentences” (Munich, 1999)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ That is, biblical divisiones. In the editing project of Richard of Fishacre's commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences, James Long prints arbores as well. Fishacre, Richard, In secundum librum Sententiarum, 2 pts., ed. Long, James (Munich, 2008, 2011)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ On the thirteenth century's revival of interest in sapiential literature, see Smalley, Beryl, “Commentaries on the Sapiential Books,” Dominican Studies 2 (1949): 318–55Google Scholar; eadem, “Some Latin Commentaries on the Sapiential Books in the Late Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 25–26 (1950–1951): 103–28Google Scholar continues her survey into the next decades, but like its precedent focuses on books other than Job. See also A Cambridge Companion to Job in the Middle Ages, ed. Franklin T. Harkins and Aaron Canty (Leiden, forthcoming). For modern editions, see B. Alberti Magni O. Praed. Ratisbonensis episcopi Commentarii in Iob, ed. Weiss, Melchior (Freiburg, 1904)Google Scholar; Aquinas, Thomas, Expositio super Iob ad litteram, cura et studio fratrum Praedicatorum, Opera Omnia 26 (Rome, 1965)Google Scholar. Hugh of St Cher's Postilla is available in several early modern prints. Alain Boureau has recently published Petrus Olivi, Iohannis, Postilla super Iob, CCM 275 (Turnhout, 2015)Google Scholar and is planning to publish Richard de Mediavilla's postilla as well. Luc Ferrier is working on the edition of Roland of Cremona from BNF, lat. 405. The commentary in MS Naples, Bib. Naz. VII. A. 16 is usually attributed to Guerric of St. Quentin. Matthew of Aquasparta's commentary is in Assisi Bib. Com. 35. Paris, BNF, lat. 15566 (incipit “consumpta est caro eius a suppliciis …”) is attributed by Friedrich Stegmüller to William of Middleton ( Repertorium biblicum Medii Aevi, 7 vols., ed. Stegmüller, Friedrich [Freiburg, 1954], 4:419, no. 36Google Scholar).

¹⁹ Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super Iob ad litteram.

²⁰ Stump, Eleonore, Aquinas (London, 2003), 455 Google Scholar. For an extensive bibliography up to the 1980s on Thomas's exposition of Job, see Clines, David J. A., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 18b (Dallas, 1989), 1271–72Google Scholar.

²¹ Smalley, The Bible, 281–92.

²² Boyle, “Theological Character” (n. 4 above), 281.

²³ Jaffe, Martin, Thomas Aquinas: The Literal Exposition on Job; a Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, trans. d'Amico, Anthony (Atlanta, 1986), 16–17 Google Scholar.

²⁴ F. 62v^b. See the Prolegomena to the critical edition of Thomas Aquinas's Expositio super Iob ad litteram, page 4*, beginning with “vir erat etc. liber hic dividitur in partes duas. In prima enim ponitur quedam historia… . ”

²⁵ Cenci, Cesare, Bibliotheca manuscripta ad Sacrum conventum Assisiensem (Assisi, 1981), 183 Google Scholar; Expositio super Iob ad littera, Prolegomena 3*; 60*–61*.

²⁶ Ibid., 183–84.

²⁷ These parsing principles greatly resemble modern methods of analyzing narratives and presentations of the resulted structures as trees. See Barthes, “Introduction” (n. 6 above); Mandler, Jean M. and Johnson, Nancy S., “Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall,” Cognitive Psychology 9 (1977): 111–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A., “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization,” Text 8 (1988): 243–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Assisi, Bib. Com. 35, 4v^b. Word order in the standard Vulgate is slightly different, “Dominus quoque conversus est ad pœnitentiam Job.” BNF, lat. 15566, fol. 6r, uses a different verse for the principal division but also suggests as a second option this psalm verse.

²⁹ “Et sicut iam dictum est, diuiditur in tres partes. Primo enim agit de prima eius prosperitate; secundo de eius aduersitate infra primo capitulo quadam autem die; tertio de subsequenti et finali eius felicitate infra capitulo ultimo postquam autem locutus est dominus.” Petrus Iohannis Olivi, Postilla super Iob (n. 18 above).

³⁰ BNF, lat. 15566 fol. 6r, 8v.

³¹ “Vir erat in terra Hus. Liber iste totalis potest diuidi in duas partes. In prima agit de eius persecutione [read: perfectione]. In secunda de perfectionis remuneratione: infra ultimo Dominvs qvoqve conversvs est ad penitentiam Iob et subditvr et addidit qvoqve Dominvs omnia. Prima autem pars diuidi potest in duas, quia status perfectionis consistit in duobus, scilicet ut in tempore prosperitatis seruetur innocentia et tempore aduersitatis, patientia. Ideo primo agitur de perfectione eius quoad statum prosperitatis, in secundo quoad statum aduersitatis… .” I thank Alain Boureau for sharing the draft of his transcription of Richard's postilla with me.

³² Aquinas, Expositio, 5, lines 10–11.

³³ Florence Medic. Laur. Plut. 20.18, fol. 62v; cf. Aquinas, Expositio, 5.

³⁴ The author seems to have drawn a second branch between persona and prosperitas and then erased it. Perhaps he intended at first to locate virtue there.

³⁵ The preceding branch ends precisely where the next diagram begins (1:5). Since superscript is frequently used here to represent the surface; since the letters “in or” at the end of the label are clearly legible; and since this letter cluster appears only once in this chapter, I am inclined to infer that this unit was supposed to be the one beginning with the words “cumque in orbem” (no. 17).

³⁶ Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in Iob (n. 18 above), 17.

³⁷ Matthew divides Job's adversities into those inflicted by the devil and those by his friends, but leaves the wife out. Assisi, Bib. Com. 35, 8r^b.

³⁸ For a similar understanding of narrative as constructed of settings and events, see Mandler and Johnson, “Remembrance” (n. 27 above); for a similar approach stressing imbalance between pairs of “nucleus” and “satellite,” see Mann and Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory” (n. 27 above).

³⁹ This observation too has an equivalent in modern conversational analysis, seeking to find infrastructures such as “offer — refusal,” “compliment — acceptance,” etc.

⁴⁰ “Prima habet duas. Primo enim premitat et explicat dyaboli iniquam ac perversam affectionem, et secunda illius prave affectionis executionem, ibi: quadam autem die . Circa explicandam eius personam et iniquam affectionem duo introducit… . Duplex autem fuit occasio, una fuit assistencia dyaboli inter angelos dei, secundo fuit excellens commendatio sancti viri … ,” etc. Matthew keeps close track after the discursive steps of each of them. Assisi, Bib. Com. 35, fol. 8v^b–10v^a.

⁴¹ On distinctiones, see especially Rouse, Mary and Rouse, Richard, “Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 41 (1974): 27–37 Google Scholar. For a comprehensive account on horizontal tree diagrams in general, see Ayelet Even-Ezra, “Seeing the Forest beyond the Trees: A Preliminary Overview on a Scholastic Tree-visualisation Habit,” in The Visualisation of Knowledge in the Middle Ages, ed. Adam S. Cohen, Marcia Kupfer, and Andrea Worm (forthcoming).

⁴² Ibid. Another known case, apart from the sporadic distinctiones, is Robert Grosseteste's Templum dei, an example of which is discussed by Smith, Lesley J., Masters of the Sacred Page: Manuscripts of Theology up to 1274 (Notre Dame, 2001), 155–58Google Scholar.

⁴³ For a short account of horizontal tree diagrams in general and their proximity to sentences, see Lima, Manuel, The Book of Trees: Visualizing Branches of Knowledge (Princeton, 2014), 97 Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Long, “Science of Theology” (n. 16 above), 98.

⁴⁵ Some diagrams, however, show only one singular trail, just as the purely verbal form does.

⁴⁶ On the implications of spatializing knowledge through diagrams, see Ong, Walter, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (Chicago, 1958; repr. 2004)Google Scholar. On narrative, diagram, and space, see Putzo, Christine, “The Implied Book and the Narrative Text: On a Blind Spot in Narratological Theory from a Media Studies Perspective,” Journal of Literary Theory 6 (2012): 383–415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and eadem, “Narration und Diagrammatik: Eine Vorüberlegung und sieben Thesen,” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 44 (2014): 77–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Rouse, Richard and Rouse, Mary, “ Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson, Robert L. (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 201–25Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ St. Alban's monastery was extremely innovative in this regard. On this, consult the beautiful online exposition of the British Library prepared by Joanna Frońska, “Writing and Picturing History: Historical Manuscripts from the Royal Collection” at https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourHistoryGen.asp.

⁴⁹ Cf. Aquinas, Expositio, 6, lines 126–39.

⁵⁰ Carruthers, Mary, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge and New York, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ On these figures, see “Anonymous: A Method for Recollecting the Gospels,” in The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. Carruthers, Mary and Ziolkowski, Jan (Philadelphia, 2002), 255–93Google Scholar.

⁵² Parkes, Malcolm C., “The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book,” in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. Alexander, J. J. G. and Gibson, M. T. (Oxford, 1976), 115–41, esp. 122–27Google Scholar.