Bede as a Classical and a Patristic Scholar1

M. L. W. Laistner

doi:10.2307/3678665

Bede as a Classical and a Patristic Scholar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

M. L. W. Laistner

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Among the many and complex problems with which the history of Europe in the Middle Ages—and especially the earlier period of the Middle Ages—teems is the character of the intellectual heritage transmitted to medieval men from classical and later Roman imperial times. The topic has engaged the attention of many scholars, amongst them men of the greatest eminence, so that much which fifty years ago was still dark and uncertain is now clear and beyond dispute. Yet the old notions and misconceptions die hard, especially in books approximating to the textbook class. In a recently published volume on the Middle Ages intended for university freshmen there is much that is excellent and abreast of the most recent investigations; but the sections on early medieval education and scholarship seem to show that the author has never read anything on that subject later than Mullinger's Schools of Charles the Great.

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 16 , December 1933 , pp. 69 - 94

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678665 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 71 note 1} Bede, Historia abbatum, 4, 6, 9, 11, 15.

^{page 71 note 2} The De arte metrica and De orthographia should be consulted in volume 7 of Keil's Grammatici Latini: the De schematibus et tropis in Halm's Rhetores Latini Minores.

^{page 72 note 1} For a fuller discussion of this topic, cf. my Thought and Letters in Western Europe, pp. 26 ff., 80–1, 166 ff.

^{page 72 note 2} Line 763 from Terence's Eunuchus, cited in De orthographia (291, 22), doubtless comes from a grammarian, though it is not found elsewhere in Keil.

^{page 73 note 1} Juvenal, 14, 139.

^{page 73 note 2} Bede, P.L., 91, 1025A. For Christian, see my article in Harvard Theological Review 20 (1927), p. 137, note 30.

^{page 73 note 3} Aen., 3, 467 in P.L., 91, 611D.

^{page 73 note 4} Aen., 10, 640 in P.L., 93, 74A.

^{page 73 note 5} Aen., 12, 84 in P.L., 91, 721A.

^{page 73 note 6} P.L., 91, 745D, introducing Aen., 3, 126–7.

^{page 73 note 7} E.g., P.L., 91, 400D and 1019C.

^{page 74 note 1} Ecl., 2, 22 in P.L., 91, 1019C.

^{page 74 note 2} Ovid, Met., 1, 84–6 in Isid., Elym., 11, 1, 5.

^{page 74 note 3} Ovid, Met., 4, 58 in P.L., 91, 126C.

^{page 74 note 4} The only evidence given by Ehwald in his edition of Aldhelm (M.G.H.A.A., 15) is that two of the riddles exhibit similarities to two passages of the Metamorphoses.

^{page 74 note 5} Keil, Gramm. Lat., 7, 245, 9 ff.

^{page 74 note 6} De temporum ratione, ch. 16. I owe this reference to the thesis of C. W. Jones named below, p. 76, note 1.

^{page 74 note 7} Keil, op. cit., 7, 267, 18 and 269, 2–3. The second citation—solis innocens acclamationibus punitus est—is not in the Thesaurus (s.v. acclamatio). A possible allusion to Livy appears in Keil, op. cit., 7, 292, 18.

^{page 75 note 1} Suet. Claud., 43 in P.L., 92, 981B. All the Bede manuscripts that I have seen read Christo, not Chresto.

^{page 75 note 2} Cf. below, pp. 77 and 86. In P.L., 92,1023D–1024A Bede transcribes a sentence from Pliny, N.H., 16, 9. Jones in his thesis (cf. below, p. 76) is justified in arguing that it is inconceivable that Bede knew Book 18, else he could not have failed to use it when writing the De temporum ratione. That there was in Bede's time a complete manuscript of the Natural History in England can, I think, be ruled out. Extant manuscripts of Pliny, it is true, number over 200, but those of the earlier group contain only small portions of the whole, while even in the later group very few manuscripts are approximately complete.

^{page 75 note 3} Bede used Arator especially when writing his commentary on Acts. One of the earliest manuscripts of the latter (Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 12284; saec. ix) also contains Arator's poem. At Manchester, MS. Rylands 107 contains Bede's commentary amplified by many citations from Arator, to illustrate passages in Acts not elucidated by Bede.

^{page 75 note 4} Keil. Gramm. Lat., 7, 254, 16–30.

^{page 76 note 1} Jones, Charles W., Materials for an edition of Bede's De temporum ratione, a thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in June, 1932.Google Scholar Two typewritten copies of the work are in the library of Cornell University.

^{page 77 note 1} For the sources of Bede's Chronicle, cf. Mommsen's edition in M.G.H.: Chronica Minora, 3.

^{page 77 note 2} P.L., 92, 192D–193A; Marcellinus in M.G.H.A.A., 11, 84–5.

^{page 77 note 3} James, 3, 7; P.L., 93, 28A–B.

^{page 78 note 1} M.G.H.A.A., 11, 72.

^{page 78 note 2} Pliny, N.H., 8, 65.

^{page 78 note 3} E.g., P.L., 91, 547C, 721C, 722A, 848A, 859B, 876D.

^{page 78 note 4} See Boysen's edition in C.S.E.L., 37.

^{page 79 note 1} P.L., 92, 1032B; Greg. Turon, H.F., 5, 26 (34), a description of a severe epidemic that visited Gaul in A.D. 580.

^{page 79 note 2} Karlsruhe, Augiensis LXXVII. For a full description of this manuscript, which contains both the Acts commentaries, see A. Holder, Die Reichenauer Handschriften.

^{page 79 note 3} The Retractations is not included in Bede's own list of his writings appended to the Ecclesiastical History (5, 34) and was therefore written after that work. The interesting reference in the Retractations (P.L., 92, 1027D) to a living Pope must accordingly be to Gregory III, who became Pope in 731.

^{page 79 note 4} Hist. Eccles., 1, p. xxiii, note 3.

^{page 80 note 1} For instance, Cyprianus in libro de habitu virginum (P.L., 93, 46D) or Hieronymus in historia beatae Paulae, that is to say, Epistle 108 (P.L., 92, 958A).

^{page 81 note 1} Sutcliffe, E. J., S.J., in Biblica, 7 (1926), pp. 428–39Google Scholar; Laistner, M. L. W. in Journal of Theological Studies for October, 1933.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Lindsay, W. M. and Lehmann, P. in Palaeographia Latina, 4 (1925), P. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} On the Lyons scriptorium, see Tafel, S. in Palaeographia Latina, 4 (1925). PP. 40Google Scholar ff.

^{page 82 note 1} Full indications of Bede's sources will be given in my forthcoming edition of the Commentary and Retractations on Acts.

^{page 82 note 2} As with Pliny's Natural History, so here it is unlikely that Bede had access to a complete collection of Jerome's correspondence. For, as Hilberg (C.S.E.L., 54, p. v) points out: inter codices qui alicuius pretii habendi sunt, ne unus quidem omnes epistulas conplectitur.

^{page 82 note 3} P.L., 92, 994A–B quoting from P.L., 23, 129A, 129B, 105C–106A. The earlier quotation will be found in P.L., 92, 954D and comes from P.L., 23, 151A and B.

^{page 82 note 4} Published in Anecdota Maredsolana, III, part 1. Bede cites from these Commentarioli five times.

^{page 83 note 1} P.L., 92, 947B–D = C.S.E.L., 46, 160, 17–161, 11. Reference to Gregory: Ibid., 999D.

^{page 83 note 2} Acts xxviii., 11.

^{page 83 note 3} Isid., Etym., 15, 1, 40.

^{page 84 note 1} Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 26, 75 (= Acta Sanctorum, 2, 97). These texts read expetivit.

^{page 84 note 2} In M.G.H.A.A., 15, 265, note 1, Ehwald observes: num Evagrii versionem noverit Aldhelmus, ex eis quae dicit, parum constat.

^{page 85 note 1} Bede does not exactly give this title, but describes the author as, librum exponens de obitu beatae genitricis Dei. See P.L., 92, 1014c.

^{page 85 note 2} There is a clear allusion to the same narrative in the Comm. on the Epist. of James (P.L., 93, 24D). Now, while we know from Bede himself (P.L., 92, 940B) that his commentary on the Epistles of John was sent to Acca at the same time as that on Acts, it is inconceivable that, if Bede had at that time known Avitus’ translation, he would not have used it for chapters 7 and 8 of Acts. Thus we must assume, what is inherently probable, that Bede's expositions of the Seven Catholic Epistles were composed at different times. When all had been written, he added a general preface, and issued them as a single work, although privileged friends like Acca had already seen the separate parts as they first appeared.

^{page 85 note 3} See Classical Review, 46 (1932), pp. 248–9.

^{page 86 note 1} P.L., 92, 1028B.

^{page 87 note 1} Both florilegia in P.L., 79.

^{page 87 note 2} P.L., 91, 1223B.

^{page 87 note 3} P.L., 93, 46D = C.S.E.L., 3, 192, 2–11; 55A = 193, 27–194. 4; 66C = 420, 1–18. There appears to be an allusion to Cyprian's De lapsis in P.L., 91, 434D. The same work is quoted in Bede's Martyrology (for 22 May), but as Bede's share in this compilation is uncertain, this evidence must not be pressed.

^{page 88 note 1} P.L., 92, 305–6. = C.S.E.L., 43, 4, 4–5; 6, 3–7, 3; 9, 3–10, 14.

^{page 88 note 2} P.L., 92, 940B.

^{page 88 note 3} P.L., 91, 9–10A.

^{page 88 note 4} P.L., 93, 173D–174A = C.S.E.L., 41, 263, 7–264, 4; 264, 17–19.

^{page 88 note 5} P.L., 91,650B. Both treatises of Augustine will be found in C.S.E.L., 41.

^{page 88 note 6} P.L., 94, 672C–673A; 673C–D; 674C–D.

^{page 89 note 1} P.L., 93, 129D–134A, abbreviated from P.L., 34, 82–90.

^{page 89 note 2} As Bede in his commentary on the Apocalypse names Tyconius no less than ten times, the quotations thus introduced may prove to be all that he borrowed. The care taken to indicate the source in the text, and not merely in the margin, was probably due to the fact that Tyconius was a heretical writer.

^{page 89 note 3} Bede himself wrote commentaries on Genesis and on Luke, and he refers to his great predecessor by name in this connection. Cf. P.L., 91, 10A. De Noe et arca, as Jones has shown, was also used for the De temporum ratione.

^{page 89 note 4} There are two citations in the Comm. on the Cath. Epist. from the adv. Iovinianum, viz., P.L., 93, 14B–C (cf. P.L., 23, 286D–287A) and 79B–C (cf. P.L., 23, 287C). The Comm. on Daniel is cited in Bede on the Apocalypse—P.L., 93, 154C (cf. P.L., 25, 579B). The Martyrology is described briefly in Bede's Comm. on Mark (P.L., 92, 192D): in Martyrologio quod Eusebii et Hieronymi vocabulis insignitum est. In his later Retractations he writes as though anxious to correct erroneous notions about that work: liber martyrologii qui beati Hieronymi nomine ac praefatione adtitulatur; quamvis idemHieronymus libri illius non auctor sed interpres, Eusebius autem auctor extitisse narretur. A new edition of Jerome's Martyrology, with a most valuable introduction by Delehaye, was published in 1931 in Acta Sanctorum, November II, pars 2.

^{page 90 note 1} On Bede and Cassiodorus cf. Lehmann, Philologus, 74 (1917), pp. 359–60 and my Thought and Letters, p. 73, note 2. For Primasius, cf. Ibid., p. 85, note 1.

^{page 90 note 2} The identification of Philippus rests on Gennadius’ authority, De viris illustribus, 62.

^{page 90 note 3} P.L., 91, 91A–C; cf. Patrologia Graeca, 12, 161–75.

^{page 90 note 4} P.L., 91, 16B–C = Patrol. Graeca, 30, 887B–C.

^{page 91 note 1} P.L., 92, 131D–132D reproduces Rufinus, H.E. (ed. Mommsen), I, p. 141,1–19. The other identified passages occur in the Acts commentary.

^{page 91 note 2} P.L., 91, 912C.

^{page 91 note 3} P.L., 93, 9B–10A.

^{page 91 note 4} O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, 4, p. 486, note 1.

^{page 91 note 5} P.L., 93, 58B.

^{page 91 note 6} P.L., 93, 56D.

^{page 91 note 7} Hist. Eccles., 1, note on p. li.

^{page 91 note 8} P.L., 92, 314B–C; cf. Patrologia Graeca, 49, 357–8.

^{page 92 note 1} Hist. Eccles., 5, 24.

^{page 92 note 2} See Plummer's edition, 1, p. xvi.

^{page 93 note 1} The reader will find a good example in the Acts commentary (P.L., 92, 942D–943C), where, in a discussion of the identity of James, son of Alpheus, passages from Jerome, Rufinus, and Isidore are combined with remarks of Bede himself.

^{page 93 note 2} Yet it may be accounted remarkable that there is not a single early manuscript in Great Britain. Of five manuscripts in the British Museum, eight at Oxford, and one in Glasgow, only one (Bodl. canon, pat. lat. 222) is as early as the tenth century. Of the fourteen ninth-century manuscripts one, Paris, B.N. Nouv. Acq. 1630, contains only a few fragments. The manuscripts, Dijon 153, Oxford. Bodl. Laud, misc., 312 and 268, are not included in the figures given in the text. They contain different attempts to abbreviate the Acts commentary and to conflate it with portions from the Retractations. Nor is Manchester, Rylands 107 (cf. above, p. 75, note 3) reckoned herein.

^{page 94 note 1} Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Sonnets, Part 1, no. 23.

Article contents

Bede as a Classical and a Patristic Scholar1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests