432 traditio

et au prix d'un nouvel apprentissage.50 Dans bien des cas le retour au latin a

signifi? un passage direct ? renseignement de Rome. N?anmoins, la copie faite ? Tol?de en 1070 (soit sous le r?gne particuli?rement brillant et ?clair? d'al-Ma'm?n, et quinze ans avant la chute du pouvoir musulman dans cette

ville) de la r?futation de Migetius par Elipand et des d?fenses de la tradition wisigothique (lettre des ?v?ques d'Espagne ? ceux des Gaules, lettre d'Elipand ? Charlemagne51) fait penser plut?t ? l'exaltation d'un h?ritage propre qu'? une pr?paration des esprits ? admettre la prochaine tutelle catholique.

Universit? de Dakar Dominique Urvoy

THE VENERABLE BEDE'S KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK

Unlike today, when he is mostly remembered for his historical work, the Venerable Bede's renown in the Middle Ages was founded on his biblical exegesis. One reason that his comments on the Bible had such prominence was that Bede

referred to both the Latin and Greek texts, and in western Europe outside of Italy during the eighth century, the ability to read Greek marked one as practically unique.1 Two eighth-century lives remark on Bede's Greek. In the Brevis com

50 On a plusieurs t?moins de ce processus. D'une part les fragments disciplinaires des ar

chives de Lisbonne (indiqu?s au d?but de la pr?sente ?tude, in?dits) t?moignent d'une progres sive d?s-arabisation: certains canons ont ?t? vocalis?s ? une ?poque tardive, ce qui t?moigne:

(1) du d?sint?r?t pour les autres canons, qui devaient concerner des questions propres ?

l'?glise wisigothique, que d?daignera l'?glise romaine; (2) de la perte de la connaissance de

l'arabe, car pour un texte de ce genre qui ne pr?te pas ? l'ambigu?t? la vocalisation n'est

n?cessaire que pour qui ne pratique pas couramment cette langue. D'autre part on poss?de des monuments de la 'latinisation' des Mozarabes: (1) un glossaire latin-arabe conserv? ?

l'Universit? de Leyde (?d. Ch. F. Seybold, Glossarium latino-arabicum [Semitische Studien,

Erg?nzungshefte zur Zeitschrift f?r Assyriologie 15-17; 1900]), dont P. Sj. van Koningsveld a montr? qu'il s'agissait d'une traduction faite dans la deuxi?me moiti? du xiie si?cle ou la

premi?re moiti? du xnie si?cle d'un lexique latin-latin, dont les explications sont traduites en arabe, en ajoutant d'autres explications emprunt?es ? des versions arabes de certains livres

scripturaires (Ancien Testament, Evangiles, Ep?tres de Saint Paul) et ? un manuscrit latino

arabe du Liber Etymologiarum d'Isidore de S?ville (The Latin-Arab Glossary of the Leiden

University Library: A Contribution to the Study of Mozarabic Manuscripts and Literature

[Leyde 1977]); (2) un manuscrit arabe et latin de l'?p?tre aux Galates (fragment), dont le

vocabulaire est apparent? ? celui du dictionnaire de Leyde bien que l'ouvrage semble beau

coup plus ancien. Le texte arabe a ?t? copi? le premier et le texte latin ne le traduit pas

exactement, mais rel?ve d'une tradition diff?rente (cf. D. de Bruyne, o.s.b. et E. Tisserant, 'Une feuille arabo-latine de l'?p?tre aux Galates,' Revue Biblique n.s. 7 [1910] 322-43).

51 C'est le seul manuscrit qui nous transmette ces textes. Cf. Gil, Corpus I 67. 1 The once widely held belief that Greek was commonly known in Ireland at this time has

been dispelled by much fine scholarship, principally that of B. Bischoff and R. E. McNally. See especially Bischoff's 'Das griechische Element in der abendl?ndischen Bildung des Mit

telalters/ Byzantinische Zeitschift 42 (1951) 27-55; and McNally's 'The Imagination and

Early Irish Biblical Exegesis,' Annuale Mediaevale 10 (1969) 5-27. For a most amusing account of an incident revealing the limited extent of Irish knowledge of Greek in the mid

ninth century, see Nora Chadwick, 'Early Culture and Learning in North Wales,' Studies

in the Early British Church (Cambridge 1958) 94f.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

BEDE 433

memoratio de Venerabili Beda, probably written by a disciple named Antonius, we learn that Bede studied both Latin and Greek: 'Et cum in Latina erudiretur lingua, Graecae quoque peritiam non mediocriter percepit.

'2 Also, in an anony

mous life, we read: 'Cumque Latinae aeque ut vernaculae linguae in qua natus

est percepisset notitiam, Graecae quoque non parva ex parte attigit scientiam. '3

This belief, that Bede was able to read Greek, was uncritically accepted for cen

turies. In more modern times, there have been three traditions regarding Bede's

Greek. The most long-standing is that Bede was able to deal with Greek texts

throughout his career, the unstated assumption being that he formally studied the language as part of his education.4 M. L. W. Laistner's position was more refined.

In a 1933 paper, he agreed that Bede had '... begun to learn Greek early in life, and his works are proof that he persisted in his study to the last. '5 Still, Laistner found no evidence in Bede's early works that he could read a Greek text, but

he claimed there was such evidence in the monk's late work.6 More recently, both of the above positions have been challenged. W. F. Bolton asserts that

Bede never evinced a critical knowledge of Greek and that his use of it was always passively dependent on earlier writers and Greek-Latin interlinear texts.7

So a clear issue is drawn. The lacuna in the argument is a close textual analysis. The present paper will attempt to supply this analysis and decide the question. Let us begin by noting that there is common agreement about which texts supply the best evidence on the issue; two exegetical works on the Acts of the Apostles, Expositio Actuum Apostolomra (hereafter Ex.), and Retractado in Actus Aposto lorum (hereafter Re.). The first of these, Ex., is an early work composed between

708 and 716; the second, Re., was composed near the end of Bede's career, prob

ably in the late 720s.8

2 PL 90.37b. 3 PL 90.46D. 4 This is a widely held position. For example, G. L. Plummer, in his fine edition of Bede's

historical works (Venerabilis Baedae Historia ecclesiastica, 2 vols.; Oxford 1896), states this

view and for authority quotes William Stubbs (Dictionary of Christian Biography 1. 30): ' He certainly knew Greek and Hebrew.

' This latter claim, that Bede knew Hebrew, was dis

proved by E. I. Sutcliffe ('The Venerable Bede's Knowledge of Hebrew/ Biblica 26 [1945]

300-6), who nevertheless added to the tradition of Bede's knowing Greek: 'There is no ground for calling into question . . . his proficiency in Greek.

'

5 M. L. W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe (Ithaca 1931; rev. ed. 1957)

161; cf. 'Bede as a Classical and Patristic Scholar/ Transactions of the Royal Historical

Society, 4th Series, 16 (1933) 84. 6 M. L. W. Laistner, 'The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede,' Harvard

Theological Review 30 (1937) 47. 7 W. F. Bolton, History of Anglo-Latin Literature: 497-1066 (Princeton 1967) 110. 8 Ex. must have been written after 708 because it is addressed to 'vere beatissimo Accan

episcopo/ and Acca did not become bishop of Hesham until 708. Also, Ex. must have

preceded Bede's commentary on Luke in which it is mentioned. And Luke, in turn, is men

tioned in the commentary on Samuel, which was being worked on when Ceolfrid set out

on his last journey to Rome in 716. Dating Re. is more difficult. In the Praefatio Bede

notes that in old age ('Gum esset senior') Augustine wrote a book of retractations. He

continues that it pleases him to imitate Augustine's example and to write a book of retrac

tations for his own work on Acts, which he says he had written many years before ('quam

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

434 TRADITIO

One issue complicating this question is the text of Acts Bede used. Laistner

showed that the monk consulted at least six Latin versions of Acts.9 But the

text he usually drew on was an e text, extant today in the Laudian Acts (Bod leian Ms. Laud Gr. 35), a Latin-Greek interlinear with no more than four or five

words to a line and with the Latin translation generally directly under the Greek

in parallel lines.10 It is a relatively simple matter to determine which Latin

words correspond to the Greek, and in the vast majority of the cases in both Ex.

and Re. where Bede implies he is translating directly from the Greek (sequitur in Graeco; in Graeco scriptum est), the version he gives corresponds with the e-inter

linear. Still, there are several instances, notably in Re., where Bede's translations

vary from e ?

proof, says Laistner, that Bede was undoubtedly able to read

the Greek original. Bolton, on the other hand, accepts Bede's assertion in Re.

that he had several Greek texts (Graeca exemplaria). Quoting two comments

from Re. which suggest a misunderstanding of Greek philology, Bolton speculates that these other texts were also interlinears and contained mistakes. Because his

Greek was passive, Bede was limited to transcribing earlier work without the

ability to recognize or correct errors.11

That the knowledge of Greek revealed in the early Ex. is passive is beyond dispute. In twelve instances in Ex., after writing

' In Graeco exemplari legitur,'

or ' In Graeco ita scriptum est,

' or

' Melius legitur in Graeco,

' Bede continues

by quoting directly from his e-interlinear. In six of ten instances where he gives the etymology of a Greek word, he is quoting the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville, while a seventh etymology is from Jerome. In two of three instances where he

is quoting neither Isidore nor Jerome, he is mistaken. For example, in comment

ing on Acts 17. 34 (In quibus est Dionisius Ariopagita), Bede offers his etymology of the Athenarum curia: '. . . Nomen a Marte trahens; siquidem Graece Mars

"A , villa dicitur a . '12 While he is of course correct in giving the Greek for Mars, Bede's derivation of villa from a is without foundation. He knew

that the Areopagus was a meeting place and seems to have therefore concluded

that a must mean an enclosed area.

In commenting on Acts 17.18 (Quid vult seminiverbius hie dicere ?), Bede says that seminiverbius is an accurate translation of the Greek e ; 'quia semen est verbum dei et ipse dicit: "si nos vobis spiritalia seminavimus."

'13 Bede's

acceptance of the equality of these words, along with his comment, suggest an

ante annos plures . . . conscripsimus'). So it seems that Re. belongs near the end of his ca

reer, but there is much conjecture about just how near. In a list of his works which he

drew up in 731 and included in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (hereafter HE), Bede mentions two works on Acts. So we may reasonably conclude that Re. was composed in the late 720s.

9 Laistner, 'Latin Versions' 49.

10 For a thorough discussion of the evidence that Bede used this e text, see E. A. Lowe, 'An Eighth Century List of Books in a Bodleian Ms. from W?rzburg and its Probable Rela

tion to the Laudian Acts,' Speculum 3 (1928) 3-15. 11 W. F. Bolton, 'An Aspect of Bede's Later Knowledge of Greek,' The Classical Review'

N.s. 13 (1963) 37-50. 12 Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractado, ed. M. L. W. Laistner

(Cambridge, Mass. 1939) 68. Hereafter, Bedae. 13 Bedae 65.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

BEDE 435

incomplete understanding. Etymologically they appear to be close, but whereas

the Latin word seminiverbius has a neutral connotation, the Greek e

is metaphorically pejorative, meaning a babbler, as is clear from the context.

Paul, in Athens, is confronting Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who, after some questioning, refer to him as e to insult him and his teaching. Bede seems to have missed this; indeed, he seems to applaud the fittingness of the term:

' Recte seminiverbius, id est e vocatur.

' Because of the brevity

of the comment, it is difficult to say whether or not Bede is being ironic, but we can say that irony is noticeably absent elsewhere; he is invariably straightfor ward.

Bede could even be led astray by Isidore. In commenting on 6.8, he notes that

the Greek word Stephanus is written coronatus ('having been crowned') in Latin.

This comes directly from the Etymologiae (7.11.3), where we find: 'Stephanus enim corona dicitur, humiliter lapidatus, sed sublimiter coronatus.

'14 When he

returns to this passage in Re., however, Bede corrects himself, noting that

Stephanus is not coronatus but corona ('a crown'); coronatus, he adds, would

be e a ('bearing a crown').15 Not content with demonstrating that

he can distinguish Greek noun and verb forms, Bede gratuitously gives another

term for crown and even cites its gender: 'Vocatur autem corona apud Graecos

etiam neutro genere a. ' Here Bede is clearly beyond a passive reliance on

Isidore; nor is it likely this information would be found in an interlinear margin. His knowledge of Greek vocabulary and grammar had clearly improved in the

interim between Ex. and Re.

Bede's comment in Ex. on 28. 26-27 (Quia bene spiritus sanctus locutus est

per Esaiam) indicates how assiduously he gathered his information from texts

other than interlinears. The monk quotes a long section from Jerome's transla

tion of Didymus' De Spiritu Sancto, the point of which is that the holy spirit who spoke through Isaias was the true Holy Spirit, the Lord. It reads in part:

Sicut dicit non simpliciter e a a , id est, spiritus sanctus, sed cum additamento

articuli e a a , hoc est, hic spiritus sanctus, et Esaiam prophetasse com

m?mor?t cum articulata voce ?i? a e a .16

Thus Bede would have learned ? if it had not already become clear from his

work with the interlinears ? that Greek nouns take articles and that these

change in the various cases ( a ; a ). The number (one hundred and twenty-five) and the variety of Greek allusions

in Re. prove that by that late point in his career Bede was able to translate Greek biblical texts independently. One group of comments, where he gives

etymologies, shows Bede's increased vocabulary. For example, in commenting on 4.32 (Sed erant Ulis omnia communia) he notes that where the Latin has communia, the Greek has a ('common,' 'shared in common') and cites two

words built on it: quo nomine constat perfectos dei f?mulos ? a Graece, id est, communiter viventes, et ? a habitacula eorum esse vocata.

'17

Next, commenting on the other part of the root, ? , Bede explains that in Greek ? refers not to that life which is the opposite of death but means a way

14 PL 83.290b. 15 Bedae 117. 16 Bedae 89. 17 Bedae 113.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

436 TRADITIO

of life, whether in the military or in agriculture or in art; that life by which we are distinguished from the dead, he correctly says, is in Greek . He concludes

by noting that those who live communally for the Lord have a name formed of the first two words:

' Qui ergo ita vivunt ut sint eis omnia communia in domino,

recte composito ex duobus uno nomine ? a vocantur. '

Neither of the

Greek compounds he mentions appear anywhere in Acts. And while he probably obtained both from word lists rather than from translations, they are evidence

that his interest in Greek went beyond the text of Acts. Another group of comments provides a view of Bede's knowledge of Greek

grammar. In these instances, Bede either tells us he is choosing between two

Latin translations or suggests that he is independently offering a Latin reading closer to the Greek than is found in his codices. For example, in commenting on 1.13 (Et cum introissent in cenaculum ascenderunt ubi manebant), Bede says the order of words is different in Greek. He then gives the order of words from his e interlinear, but makes one change. In e, he found habitantes but changed it

to manentes, which he rightly felt was a more accurate translation of the Greek

participle a a e . Bede's choice, manentes, is not found in any extant

text known to be in the monk's library; it may well be his independent transla tion.

Further on, he faults a Latin translation of 2.4 (Et coeperunt loqui variis lin guis). Bede says that in Greek it is not variis Unguis but aliis Unguis. The Greek reads e a a , so Bede's point is correct, although it is probably not original with him; several manuscript families of the Latin Acts also have aliis.

But the point remains that Bede was able to choose the better translation. In

fact, in every instance in Re. where Bede had to choose between different transla

tions, he chose the one closer to the Greek text.

And the better choice was not always in e. Bede's comment on 4.1 (Super venerunt sacerdotes et magistratus templi) illustrates this. He tells us that other

codices more correctly have praetor templi for magistratus templi. He goes on to

explain that in Greek praetor is a , while magistratus is a . Clearly he has developed a Greek vocabulary and is beyond a passive acceptance of the e interlinear.

This is again demonstrated in his discussion of 4.21 (Quia omnes clarificabant id quod factum fuerat), which begins: 'Melius habetur in Graeco, omnes enim glorificabant deum in eo quod factum fuerat, et quod in nostris codicibus additum est, in eo quod acciderat, in Graeco non habetur.

'18 His first alteration, suggesting

glorificabant for clarificabant is certainly acceptable, if not truly necessary. The Greek text has e a , from a , with the sense of extolling or praising. Either Latin word is a valid translation. Next, he changes the phrase from id

quod factum fuerat to deum in eo quod factum fuerat; this is again closer to the Greek, which reads e a e e e , 'glorified God in the thing done.

' It is easy to see that this is better expressed by Bede's deum in eo

quod factum fuerat than by id quod factum fuerat. Finally, the extra Latin phrase, in eo quod acciderat, is as unknown in Greek texts today as it seems to have been

in the ones known to Bede. Moreover, the Greek is better without the addition.

Bede's Latin source literally reads: '. . . because all glorified that which has been

done in that which came to pass. ' Since none of the Latin biblical texts known to

18 Bedae 110-11.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

BEDE 437

have been in Bede's library has a translation anywhere approaching Bede's, it may very well be his own work.

Although he did not comment on the last passage, Laistner suggested that Bede uses his own translation in commenting on 27.1 (ut autem iudicatum est eum

navigare in Haliam, et trad? Paulum cum reliquis custod?is centurioni) where the

monk's comment reads: ' Consequentius legitur in Graeco: ut autem iudicatum est

navigare nos in Italiani, tradiderunt Paulum et quosdam alios vinctos centurio

ni. '19

Here Bede is suggesting three changes. He first changes eum to nos, thus

making the Latin agree with the Greek a , then replaces trad? with the active verb tradiderunt to agree with the Greek a a . Third, he offers quosdam alios vinctos for reliquis custodiis, while the Greek reads a e e a ('some other prisoners'). The Greek makes clear that the number is indefinite

and not necessarily all-inclusive of those remaining; thus the more general alios

is preferable to reliquis. Bede's substitution of vinctos for custodiis was probably done for clarity rather than strictly on the basis of meaning, since both can mean

prisoners. (In Acts 27.42 the same Greek word is translated by custodias meaning

prisoners, and Bede suggests no change.) Although custodia primarily refers to the

act of guarding, one extended meaning is 'the thing or person being guarded,' i.e., the prisoner. So while custodiis was technically correct, Bede seems rightly to have felt vinctos would be clearer. Certainly his changes all come closer to the

Greek than does the Vulgate.20 There are other examples of this sort, but the

point has, I hope, been made. In many instances Bede is able to supply a better

translation of the Greek than is in the e Latin version. Whether the improvement is original with him or whether he chose it from among several in his hands, Bede

was not bound to accept passively the version of a single interlinear. He clearly had an extensive biblical Greek vocabulary and could read the Greek text well enough to know when it was correctly expressed in Latin.

More evidence of his Greek knowledge is in another group of comments in which Bede discusses the structure of the Greek. Curiously, Bolton cites one of the

first of these in Re. without further discussion, as a ' typical comment.

'21 It

relates to 1.6 (Domine, si in tempore hoc restitues regnum Israhel) and is oc

casioned by the fact that in Greek and usually in Latin Israel is undeclined. Bede saw that this admitted the possibility of an erroneous reading of the Latin text where there is no article to guide the reader, a possibility absent in Greek because of the dative article: 'Non huius Israhel sed huic Israhel, sicut in Graeco mani

festum est, ubi a et non a scriptum est.'22 So Bede has learned the function and case forms of the Greek article, probably from sources

such as Jerome as we noted earlier.

19 Bedae 144. 20 Laistner is not alone in noticing Bede's independent translation. In a footnote to

Acts 27.1 in his N?vum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, 9th ed. (Rome 1964), Augustinus Merk

notes these two variants (nos and tradiderunt) and credits them to Bede (p. 464). It is sur

prising that Bede is the first to have emended eum to nos because this is one of the famous

'we' passage in Acts where Luke seems to have joined the group he is writing about. 21 Bolton, History 109. 22 Bedae 95.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

438 TRADITIO

Why Bolton would use this note to illustrate Bede's typical way of dealing with Greek is unclear. No one type of note can be used to illustrate Bede's use

of a Greek text. Moreover, this note suggests an active familiarity with Greek

grammar; why Bolton would first quote this and then assert that all Bede's

knowledge of Greek is second-hand is equally unclear.

There are two other comments in which Bede demonstrates a knowledge of

Greek nouns. Referring to 2.1 (Et cum complerentur dies pentecostes erant omnes

pariter in eodem loco), Bede tells us that some manuscripts mistakenly have

pentecosten for pentecostes. He notes that in the prayers of the day the form ' et diem sacratissimam pentecosten celebrantes

' must be used, and this has led

some into thinking that even in the nominative case the correct form is pente costen. To make his point, Bede transliterates part of the declension of the

word: 'Nam pentecoste nominativo casu quinquagesima dicitur, pentecostes

genetivo quinquagesimae, pentecosten accusativo quinquagesimam.'23 It is

unlikely that at this place or any other Bede would have found a paradigm of first-declension feminine Greek nouns in his manuscripts. What seems to have

happened is that he was able to learn much about the structure of Greek in

ductively by careful study over many years. In Ex. he had accepted the reading of what he called in Re. 'male quidam codices' and written pentecosten without comment.

Another instance of his knowledge of differing noun forms in Greek is included in his comment in Re. on Acts 2.3 (Et apparuerunt Ulis despertitae linguae tarn

quam ignis). Ignis has the same form in the nominative and the genitive and Bede wants to emphasize that it is to be read as genitive: 'Huius ignis, non hic

ignis; in Graeco enim habet, non .>24: As with pentecosten, this infor

mation was not included in his note on this verse in Ex.

Bede had also acquired a knowledge of the differing gender forms of the Greek personal pronoun. In 1.14 (Cum mulieribus et Maria maire lesu et fratribus eius), it is possible to read eius as masculine or feminine, as referring to Jesus or Mary. But Bede says that it is the brothers of Jesus who are spoken of, and supports this by referring to the Greek text: 'Namque in Graeco manifesta distinctio est, ubi non a sed a scriptum est, quod absque ulla dubietate pronomen est

apud eos generis masculini.'25 Elsewhere, in the very first comment in Re., on

Acts 1.1 (Primum quidem semonem feci de omnibus, O Theophile, quae coepit Iesus facer? et docere), Bede shows he is able to distinguish ordinal adverbs from ad

jectives. Given the Latin word order, primum could be taken as an ordinal

adverb, but Bede says the Greek makes clear that primum modifies sermonem:

'. . . Sicut ex Graeco facillime patet, primum nomen est adiungendum ad hoc

quod sequitur sermonem. '26 In the Greek, (primum) is placed between

the article and its noun (sermonem). The interlocking word order thus makes clear that the sense is the first book.

A final example links the last two groups we have discussed. Here Bede is

choosing between different Latin versions on the grammatical basis of verb

tense equivalence. In Acts 2.34 (Non enim David ascendit in c?elos; dicit autem

23 Bedae 97. 24 Bedae 98. 25 Bedae 96. 26 Bedae 94.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC

'liber commicus' 439

ipse, dixit dominus domino meo, sede a dextris meis) Bede says some texts have

dicit dominus but the Greek texts (et in hoc libro et in psalterio) have dixit domi nus. In Greek, he observes, the verb is e e , the second aorist indicative form

which is most closely expressed in Latin by the perfect, dixit. Here again, Bede

goes against the Latin reading in his e interlinear and gives another indication of

how much more sophisticated his knowledge of Greek was when he was composing Re. than it was when he was writing Ex. In the latter he had accepted dicit

without comment.

It would seem, then, that the years between the composition of Ex. and that

of Re. were productive ones for Bede in regard to his study of Greek. In the

earlier work he assiduously gathered information from a variety of sources,

yet there is no evidence in Ex. that he could deal independently with the Greek text. In contrast to this the evidence in Re. is quite positive. Bede's ability to choose the more accurate of different Latin translations, consistently and

without exception, along with his ability to make some comparative structural

comments, argues persuasively that he was, by the late 720s, able to read biblical

Greek. Although he did not supply the textual analysis that would have sealed the issue, Laistner was correct when he argued that when Bede composed Re., he had undoubtedly studied the Greek original.

Central Connecticut State University Kevin M. Lynch

ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'LIBER COMMICUS'

The somewhat striking title of Liber Commicus was the usual designation in the Mozarabic Church for the liturgical book known elsewhere in western Christen

dom as the lectionarium, that is, the collection of passages from the Old Testa

ment, Epistles, and Gospels specified for reading during the Mass throughout the ecclesiastical year. This book, so important for the history of the medieval

Church in the Iberian peninsula, and cited in a great many documents, has

survived in two complete manuscripts from the 11th century, two significant

fragments from the 9th and the 11th centuries, and several smaller fragments. First made available by Morin in 1893,1 the work has most recently been edited by P?rez de Urbel and Gonz?lez y Ruiz-Zorilla.2 (Their spelling commicus is related to certain arguments relative to the term's origin; this form of the word

will be used in this study up to the point at which I wish to argue otherwise.) The nature and content of the book are well known, but speculation and in

decision concerning the title itself are implicit in the designations employed by the respective editors. Morin, faced with two manuscript readings of comicum

and one of comicus, chose the form ending in -s for his established text. Pre

sumably, he regarded the book's title as derived from comitis, or some other form

of comes, but he does not make such a connection in his explanatory material.

P?rez, after establishing comicus (with -s but -m-) in the text itself, entitled his

1 Liber Comicus, ed. Germain Morin (Anecdota Maredsolana 1; Maredsous 1893). 2 Liber Commicus, edd. Justo P?rez de Urbel and Atilano Gonz?lez y Ruiz-Zorrilla (Madrid

1950).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:55:12 UTC