WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

palace.’ 202 Unlike the first of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams which valorized the ambiguity of
writing, the biblical account of this second dream valorizes personal, spoken speech to such a
degree that, according to Jerome, the biblical “ego” ‘I’ shows a literal (and perhaps dictated)
epistle, “inserted in the volume of the prophet, in order that the book might not afterwards be
thought to have been manufactured by some other author, as the accuser [Porphyry] falsely
asserts, but the product of Daniel himself.” 203 In other words, it is the presence of
Nebuchadnezzar’s voice in the narrative that makes the biblical text true.
Unlike his previous framing of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of time in which the figural and
allusive connotations of the story gave it its credibility, Jerome takes an unequivocal stance
because the story itself is direct. And in this, he is supported by the narrative itself. The fourth
chapter of Daniel describes how the king dreams of a tree and hears a voice which declares that,
for its pride, the tree will be hewn down and its “manly” heart replaced with a beastly soul. The
voice declares that the punishment will continue until such a time in which this manly tree
recognizes the power of the true God.
Expectedly, Nebuchadnezzar awakes terrified, but this time he manages to remember his
dream and narrate it directly to his chief interpreter, Daniel. In contradistinction to his first
interpretation of the king’s dream, the Jewish prophet does not wait to ask God for the answer in
a nightly visitation, but immediately interprets it: if the king continues to be proud, he will be
humbled and made to act like a beast. Of course, Nebuchadnezzar does not mend his ways, and
as a result, his humanly mind leaves him. He begins to eat grass like a beast; his hair grows like
the feathers of an eagle, and his nails lengthen so that they look like claws. After seven years of
202 Dan. 4:1.
203 Jerome Commentary on Daniel 46.
123