A CRITICAL EDITION OF THE
GLOSSA ORDINARIA ON GENESIS 22:
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EDITIONS
OF THE GLOSS AND RATIONALE FOR
Although two modern printed editions of the Glossa Ordinaria exist, neither emphasizes the elements of the Gloss most crucial to my reading of the text. The most easily available edition, in volumes 113 and 114 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina,1 completely omits the interlinear gloss. Following an early mistake, Migne ascribed the marginal gloss to Walafrid Strabo and the interlinear gloss to Anselm of Laon.2 Migne’s edition, printed under Strabo’s name, includes only the marginal gloss, eliminating the interlinear gloss because Migne viewed it as a later addition. This is a distortion of the manuscripts and early printed editions, since in either form the marginal gloss has never been found separately from the interlinear.3
In Migne’s edition, even the marginal gloss is not complete. Because Migne saw the Gloss as a collection of excerpts from patristic authors, he truncated marginal comments, often replacing them with a cross-reference to Augustine or Jerome. This editorial choice conceals the minor but often significant changes that the gloss editors made in their reproduction of patristic commentaries.
In its most misleading decision, the PL edition did not reproduce the traditional gloss format, with the interlinear gloss between the lines and the marginal gloss on the sides. This layout, present in every known gloss manuscript, even the earliest,4 was one of the main innovations of the gloss. It is impossible to understand the Glossa Ordinaria without understanding the method and innovation of its unique layout. The PL Glossa Ordinaria is problematic not only because of its manner of handling the