WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

punishment, Nebuchadnezzar’s human mind returns; he recognizes his fault, and after seeking
repentance, God restores his kingdom. 204
Because of this narrative simplicity, Jerome refuses to read this “visio” ‘dream’ through
the allusive lenses that colored his exposition of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream, and even claims
that any allegorical readings of the dream are suspect:
The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God,
Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman…But there are some who claim to understand by the
figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: “I
beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning.”…These authorities assert that it was absolutely
impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell
among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the
imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a
kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period…And so they pose all of these
questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as
genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not
the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect
representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive
them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass
over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible,
such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and
flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed,
what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation
of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? [My emphasis] 205
In a strong departure from the figural interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream, Jerome’s
commentary does not allot similar allegorical and mystical portrayal to this passage in Daniel. It
instead takes refuge in the stylistic simplicity of the narrative, and in defending the literalness of
Nebuchadnezzar’s experience, the commentary refuses to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as
even a metaphor of history or an allegory of spiritual events.
Apparently even direct biblical narratives may produce obscure, figural readings, and so
Jerome uses his commentary as a way to prevent scripture from sounding like a fable in the
hands of allegorical interpreters. Jerome’s position suddenly switches from a figural to a literal
portrayal of dreams. He even repeats Gower’s position in the Confessio, “Cristes word may
204 Dan. 4.
205 Jerome Commentary on Daniel 46.
124