Several million years ago I did an MA in Theology, and always wanted to get back to Richard. And so I have now. And I think I want to make the case for reading this for someone who's not studying Theology.
One of the things that happens with books like this is that they sit on Theological reading lists, _maybe_ on a list of works of mysticism - for people who are specialists in one area or another. Richard of St Victor is one of the lesser known figures from his world - Hugh of St Victor is probably the better known from the same Abbey and usually Hugh is a footnote to the works of Peter Abelard [my MA was a long time ago so do feel free to correct me] - Abelard being well-known to later traditions which were less Theologically-oriented.
This is all bread and butter to students of medieval theology and doubtless also students of medieval philosophy. My point here though is that there's a whole heap of stuff a reader could get from this.
The basic pitch is that Ricky chats about a few things - the 12 patriarchs of Christianity, a mystical reading of the ark of the covenant, and an extract of a treatise on the Trinity (non-Theologians may not that writing about the Trinity is eternally popular, even now, for Christian Theologians). I think the second is probably most interesting, for the non-historical-Theologian - it's a work that dotes on _how_ to meditate / contemplate. And those shouldn't be thought of in the same sense as contemporary uses - but we get an exhaustive analysis of different ways of understanding contemplation, different modes of thinking.
Ricky builds up his arguments in a really compelling way - it's by no means 'systematic' but there's lots of saying 'the lesser contemplation we call [x]' and distinguishing different modes of contemplation. And I think it's this modality that I find interesting - if you ignore the tendency towards Theological dogmaticism (which is super light here) then you've got a diary of a single person's approach to understanding his own intense study and contemplation. The wiki article discusses it in psychological terms and I think that's appropriate - Ricky's speaking out of a lifetime of meditation.
So perhaps reading one - exegesis on meditation. Reading two - hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is maybe a fussy word loaded with Christian (or Abrahamic religions') connotations so we can say textual interpretation, deconstruction [etc] if we prefer. The mystical ark is a mystical reading of the ark of the tabernacle, as revealed to Moses (etc). That's maybe not massively useful but as a study of how intensive readings lead to whole epistemologies, this is a beauty. Put another way - Ricky has a gorgeous way with imbibing a small amount of Biblical material and pushing out a bunch of ideas and images. Like Perec or Lispecter maybe - focussing on small allegedly incidental elements of text and reproducing it as a rainbow of interpretations.
What I mean really is that this holds up - holds up as intensive writing, as psychological writing, as an example of how some literary thinking spreads across the millennia (if it's not clear, this is from sometime late 1100s). His is a lush and an inviting tone and if you can put the exceptionally religious tone to one side, it's alarmingly current and non-denominational. He seems like a _nice guy_, in short.
Am I justifying reading old stuff to myself? Probably - but I'd like to think there's people out there thinking 'I'd like to have a go at a mystic reading of the ark of the tabernacle' but no idea where to start. Start here.