BEDE, ISIDORE, AND THE EPISTOLA CUTHBERTI By WILLIAM D. McCREADY

The Observation has been made frequently enough in the recent and, indeed, not so recent scholarly literature to have assumed the status of a received truth: the Venerable Bede, esteemed for both his saintliness and his scholarship, simply did not like Isidore of Seville. Although Bede knew Isidore's major works, at

least, and used them extensively, he was less respectful of Isidore, we are told, than he was of his other authorities. On only three occasions does he refer to Isidore by name, and each time it is to correct him.1 Part of the explanation, it has been suggested, lies in their sharply differing attitudes towards antique lit

erary culture. Whereas Isidore was a product of the ancient world, says Rich?, Bede decisively turned against its cultural and educational legacy, rejecting the

approach, sanctioned by both Augustine and Gregory the Great, that enlisted the liberal arts in the service of Christian thought. He also, Rich? goes on to say,

was distrustful of the broadly-based scientific curiosity evinced in Isidore's works. Despite his acknowleged accomplishments, Bede's own scientific inter ests were, like those of other educated Anglo-Saxons, strictly limited. Natural

philosophy writ large was suspect because of the irreligious aberrations to which

!Cf. M. L. W. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Bede: His Life, Times, and

Writings, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson (1935; repr. Oxford, 1969), 237-66 at 256; Charles W.

Jones, ed., Bedae opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), 131-32; Jacques Fontaine,

ed., Isidore de Seville: Trait? de la nature, Biblioth?que de l'Ecole des hautes ?tudes hispa niques, fase. 28 (Bordeaux, 1960), 79-80; Paul Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar," in Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable

Bede, ed. Gerald Bonner (London, 1976), 40-69 at 58-59; Roger D. Ray, "Bede's Vera Lex

Hist?ri??," Speculum 55 (1980): 1-21 at 16-17. Bede's dislike of Isidore is now widely as

sumed. See, for example, A. Holder, "New Treasures and Old in Bede's 'De Tabern?culo' and 'De Templo'," Revue B?n?dictine 99 (1989): 237-49, who refers casually to "Bede's well

known distrust and lack of reverence for the Bishop of Seville" (248). The following abbreviations are used throughout. Bede DNR

= Bede De natura rerum, ed. Charles W. Jones, CCL 123A: 173-234. Bede DT = Bede De temporibus, ed. Charles W.

Jones, CCL 123C:579-611. Bede DTR = Bede De temporum ratione, ed. Charles W. Jones, CCL 123B. Cuthbert Epistola

= Cuthbert Epistola de obitu Bedae, ed. and trans. Bertram

Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1969), 579-87. Isidore DNR = Isidore of Seville De natura rerum, ed. Fontaine (see above). Isidore Etym.

= Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, ed. W. M. Lindsay, Isidori Hispalensis Ep iscopi Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1911). [A new edition of the

Etymologies is being published in the series "Auteurs latins du moyen ?ge." To date, however,

only four volumes have appeared: Book II, ed. and trans, (into English) Peter K. Marshall

(1983); Book IX, ed. and trans. Marc Reydellet (1984); and Books XII and XVII, ed. and trans.

Jacques Andr? (1986 and 1981 respectively).] Pliny Nat. Hist. ?

Pliny: Natural History, Loeb Classical Library, vols. 1-2 (London, 1938-1942).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

76 TRADITIO

it might lead.2 To C. W. Jones and a number of more recent commentators, the crux of the matter is Isidore's incompetence, not his excessive zeal. In Bede's

view, Isidore simply did not work to a high enough standard. Hence he turned to other authorities, scarcely containing his disdain of the Sevillian. "The weak ness of Isidore's treatment of cycles is manifest to the elementary student," Jones

points out; "it would be more than irritating to Bede."3 It is against this background, Jones argues, that one must read Cuthbert's

eyewitness account of Bede's last days, the famous Epistola de obitu Bedae.

Cuthbert, a deacon and former pupil of Bede's who was later to become abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow, tells us that two works preoccupied Bede during the

period of illness that preceded his death:

In istis autem diebus duo opuscula multum memoria digna, exceptis lectionibus quas cotidie accepimus ab eo et cantu Psalmorum, facer? studuit, id est a capite evangelii sancti Iohannis usque ad eum locum in quo dicitur "Sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?"

in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit, et de libris Rotarum Ysidori

episcopi exceptiones quasdam, dicens "Nolo ut pueri mei mendacium legant, et in

hoc post meum obitum sine fructu laborent."

[During those days there were two pieces of work worthy of record, besides the

lessons which he gave us every day and his chanting of the Psalter, which he desired

to finish: the gospel of St. John, which he was turning into our mother tongue to

the great profit of the Church, from the beginning as far as the words "But what

are they among so many?" and a selection from Bishop Isidore's book On the

Wonders of Nature; for he said "I cannot have my children learning what is not

true, and losing their labour on this after I am gone."]4

Until relatively recently this passage was generally thought to compliment the

Bishop of Seville. Although the point is not particularly clear from Colgrave's translation, Bede evidently spent the final days of his life translating two texts

for the benefit of his students. One was the gospel of St John; the other was

Isidore's De natura rerum, extracts of which Bede was rendering in the ver

nacular.5 That it was the De natura rerum Cuthbert had in mind is clear: in the

2 Pierre Rich?, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth through Eighth Centu

ries, trans. J. J. Contreni (Columbia, S.C., 1976), 384-93. Cf. Manuel C. D?az y D?az, "Les

arts lib?raux d'apr?s les ?crivains espagnols et insulaires aux Vile et Ville si?cles," in Arts

lib?raux et philosophie au moyen ?ge (Montr?al, 1969), 37-46 at 45-46.

3Jones, Bedae opera de temporibus, 131. Cf. Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar," 58-59; Ray, "Bede's Vera Lex Hist?ri??," 16-17.

AEpistola, Colgrave and Mynors, 582-83.

5See, for example, J. A. Giles, The Miscellaneous Works of the Venerable Bede, 6 vols.

(London, 1843), Llxxxi; C. Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae Opera Hist?rica, 2 vols. (1896;

repr. Oxford, 1969), l:lxxv-lxxvi; W. Levison, "Bede as Historian," in Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings, 111-51 at 134; idem, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford,

1946), 42; E. S. Duckett, Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars (New York, 1947), 332. It has also

been claimed that only the Gospel was being translated, not the selections from Isidore. See, for example, C. E. Whiting, "The Life of the Venerable Bede," in Bede: His Life, Times, and

Writings, 1-38 at 33-34. See below, n. 58.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 77

Middle Ages it frequently was given the title Liber or Libri rotarum.6 In Jones's

view, however, it was Bede's negative opinion of Isidore's book that Cuthbert wished to convey. "To what," he asks, "does in hoc refer, except to Isidore's

work, where [Bede's] pupils will read mendaciumT Meyvaert agrees, arguing that Cuthbert distinguishes between the translation of John's gospel, which was

intended for the church at large, and the work on Isidore, which was written for the benefit of Bede's students, all of whom knew Latin. Rather than translating selections from Isidore, therefore, Bede was compiling a set of corrections,

explaining himself by stating: "

do not want my students (pueri) to read lies, and to belabor this work fruitlessly after my death' (in hoc laborent sine fructu post obitum meum)" It is left to Ray to bring out the final implications. What Cuthbert is telling us, he claims, is that, alongside the translation of St. John's

Gospel, Bede was preparing "a Latin opusculum intended at least to steer his

pupils away from the 'lie' in Isidore's De natura rerum, if not to quash the whole book. It is not surprising that this liber exceptionum is now lost, for Isidore's eighth-century reputation was almost that of an official Doctor of the Church. Bede attacked his errors precisely because his works were everywhere."7

The authenticity of the Ep?stola Cuthberti, while generally assumed, is not

something that can simply be taken for granted. Bolton has pointed to "im

probabilities" concerning the two works on which Cuthbert would have us believe Bede spent his last days. The crux of his argument is that, "if [the Epistola Cuthberti] really stems from Wearmouth-Jarrow around 735, it is remarkable that we should have almost fifty MSS of it and not one of the two works from the same time and place that it alludes to." He also draws attention to a "grotesque textual history" lacking in manuscript evidence any earlier than a century after the events described. In Bolton's view, it looks like an instance of "fictive

6Plummer, Opera Hist?rica, 1: lxxv, . 6, maintains that in Cuthbert's text rotarum needs to be amended to notarum, an error repeated by Alan S. C. Ross, "A Connection between Bede

and the Anglo-Saxon Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels?" Journal of Theological Studies n.s.

20 (1969): 482-94 at 494n. On this matter, however, see E. van Kirk Dobbie, The Manuscripts of Ccedmon's Hymn and Bede's Death Song (New York, 1937), 101-02. That some medieval

scribes were also puzzled by rotarum is evident from the frequency with which notarum ap

pears in the manuscripts of the Insular Version of the text (see below, n. 10). It is clear,

however, that rotarum was the reading in the hyparchetype, and in Cuthbert's original. Al

though the word is missing in the Continental Version, its presence in the Hague MS confirms

the reading. 7Jones, Bedae opera de temporibus, 131; Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar," 59-60; Ray,

"Bede's Vera Lex Hist?ri??," 16-17. Cf. T. J. Brown, "An Historical Introduction to the Use

of Classical Latin Authors in the British Isles from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century," in La

cultura antica nell'occidente latino dal VII all'XI secolo, Settimane di studio del Centro it

aliano di studi sull'alto medioevo 22 (Spoleto, 1975), 1:237-93 at 262; and Michael Lapidge, "The Anglo-Latin Background," in A New Critical History of Old English Literature, by Stan

ley . Greenfield and Daniel G. Calder (New York, 1986), 5-37 at 16.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

78 TRADITIO

iteration without the control of a basis in fact."8 Scholarly reaction to these claims has been essentially negative. The first of them has some force if one of the two works at issue was really a Latin treatise intended for a learned audience.

Failing that, however, as A. K. Brown points out, it is unsurprising that the two works that occupied Bede's final days should not have survived. In the seventh

century, vernacular compositions were by nature anonymous undertakings, and

would not have been included in the corpus of any Latin works their author may have written. Bolton's comments on the textual history, Brown goes on to say,

seem "overstated, and not really to the point even if they apply."9 A complete review, ab initio, would not be inappropriate given the number of manuscripts that have come to light since the ground-breaking work of Dobbie and Ker. In the interim, however, their interpretations of the textual history seem reason able.10 Certainly Bolton's handling, or rather mishandling, of Dobbie does not

8 W. F. Bolton, "Epistola Cuthberti De Obitu Bedae: A Caveat," Medievalia et Human?stica n.s. 1 (1970): 127-39 at 130-31, 133.

9A. . Brown, "The English Compass Points," Medium Aevum 47 (1978): 221-46 at 244, n. 78. Cf. H. D. Chickering, Jr., "Some Contexts of Bede's Death-Song," PMLA 91 (1976): 91-100 at 99n. See also Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar," 68, n. 71, who promises a paper on

the manuscript tradition showing that Bolton's objections are "groundless"; and Ray, "Bede's

Vera Lex Hist?ri??," 16n, who announces simply that "Bolton's case against the Epistola is

not convincing." 10Dobbie, Manuscripts, identifies a "Continental Version" preserved in twelve manuscripts

that date from the ninth century to the sixteenth, and an "Insular Version" recorded in thirty three manuscripts of the twelfth century and later. The stemma that he constructs for the

Continental Version (67) shows two branches descending from the archetype, one containing three manuscripts, the other nine. In Dobbie's judgment, the three-manuscript branch is su

perior because of the authority of two of its members: the ninth-century MS, St. Gall, Stifts

bibliothek 254, and the eleventh-century MS, Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek A. 1.47 (Bibi.

22). The other ten manuscripts date from the twelfth century or later (61-62). The manuscripts of the Insular Version can be divided into the "Digby Group," the "Symeon Group," and the

"Burney Group" (5, 49). Because of the "hopeless complexity of the transmission" (98), Dob

bie does not venture a stemma. However, he regards the "Digby Group" as the earliest of the

three (95). In Appendix 1 (117-27) Dobbie provides critical texts of the two versions on

opposite pages. As his base texts he adopts the Bamberg manuscript for the Continental Ver

sion, and a manuscript of the "Digby Group" ? MS Digby 211

? for the Insular Version.

Despite some virtues in the latter version, he argues that the Continental Version is earlier and

is therefore to be preferred (104-05). Since Dobbie's writing, many additional manuscripts have surfaced. See M. L. W. Laistner

and H. H. King, A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, 1943), 120; R. Brotanek, "Nachlese zu den Hss. der Ep?stola Cuthberti und des Sterbespruches Bedas," Anglia 64 (1940): 159?

90; and most recently, . W. Humphreys and Alan S. C. Ross, "Further Manuscripts of Bede's

'Historia Ecclesiastica', of the 'Epistola Cuthberti de Obitu Bedae', and Further Anglo-Saxon Texts of 'Caedmon's Hymn' and 'Bede's Death Song'," Notes and Queries 220, n.s. 22 (1975): 50-55. Humphreys and Ross list twenty manuscripts not recorded by Dobbie, plus one addi

tional manuscript to which he did not have access. Undoubtedly the most important is The

Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek 70.H.7, a tenth-century manuscript first identified by N. R.

Ker, "The Hague Manuscript of the Epistola Cuthberti de Obitu Bedae with Bede's Song,"

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 79

inspire confidence.11 The present paper, therefore, is premised on the authenticity of the Epistola Cuthberti. The question it raises is whether the text of the Epistola itself and other relevant information can support the anti-Isidorian interpretation that in recent decades has been placed upon it.

* * *

That Bede should have devoted some attention to correcting Isidore's errors is not particularly surprising. Whereas the young Bede had been inclined to defer to the pronouncements of the Fathers, the mature scholar did not shrink from

necessary criticism of even the most venerable authorities. More than once, he had learned, his faith had been misplaced.12 It is considerably less likely, how

ever, that he should have produced a work devoted specifically to correcting Isidore's De natura rerum. He had already written for the benefit of his pupils his own De natura rerum, a more or less complete reworking of the Isidorian account.13 Presumably Isidore had been given all the attention he required.

Bede's text was one of his earliest works, probably contemporaneous with De temporibus, which was written in 703. Like Isidore's, it was no more than an introduction. The brethren for whom both it and De temporibus were intended

Medium Aevum 8 (1939): 40-44. Ker regards it as holding "a position intermediate between

[Dobbie's] two versions, combining the merits of both and affording important evidence for

the authority of their readings" (40). He prints the manuscript as it stands, expanding the

abbreviations. Colgrave and Mynors have corrected obvious errors in adopting it as the basis

for their edition.

The most recent study of the text of the Epistola Cuthberti is that of David R. Howlett, "Biblical Style in Early Insular Latin," in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture, ed. Paul E. Szar

mach et al. (Kalamazoo, 1986), 127-47. Howlett argues that, like "nearly every extant mon

ument of British-Latin and Anglo-Latin literature from the fifth century to the eighth" (146), the Epistola Cuthberti was composed in what he calls "biblical style." It was a style charac

terized by the use of parallelism and chiasmus in varying combinations, and by mathematically fixed forms. "In a tightly knit composition like Cuthbert's," he argues, "it is very difficult

either to omit or to interpolate without doing violence to the syntax and the narrative sequence" (146). Consequently, "the changes from his original words are easily detected by comparison of the variants and the original text easily restored" (147). While Howlett's confidence is not

easily shared, he does point to some interesting features of the text, and his stylistic analysis has the potential to illuminate some textual problems. He offers a complete version of the

Latin text (134-38) accompanied by an English translation (139-41). His reconstruction is

based upon the Bamberg manuscript, with emendations drawn from other Continental manu

scripts, the Hague manuscript, and Bodleian MS Digby 211 (133). 11 Bolton states, correctly, Dobbie's belief that "the history of the two versions is one that

includes long separation after the original, presumably insular, composition" (129). However, he goes on to argue that "it is on the whole probable that CV [the Continental Version] was

'worked up' from IV [the Insular Version]" (129), mistakenly enlisting Dobbie in support of

the notion that "everything points ... to the priority of IV" (130).

12Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar" (n. 1 above), 58, 60-61. 13 Fontaine, Trait? de la nature ( . 1 above), 74.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

80 TRADITIO

complained about their excessive brevity.14 Its mere existence implies that Bede did not consider Isidore's treatment entirely satisfactory. Presumably, however, what was needed was simply a text more attuned to the specific needs of Bede's students. Bede's decision to write separate works De temporibus and De natura rerum represented a novelty in comparison to Isidore, who had combined both in a unitary treatment. The decision stemmed from Bede's special interest in

computus, which he later developed by expanding upon De temporibus in his more mature De temporum rationed Having made that distinction, however, and reserving his handling of the subjects raised in Isidore's first eight chapters to De temporibus, Bede retained the rest of Isidore's text as the model for his own De natura rerum. Many years ago Duhem pointed out the extent of Bede's debt: "Non seulement les m?mes mati?res y sont enseign?es ? peu pr?s dans le m?me ordre, mais encore l'expos? du Moine de Wearmouth reproduit bien sou

vent, d'une mani?re textuelle, des phrases ou des paragraphes entiers du livre de l'Ev?que espagnol."16

One measure of his reliance on Isidore is the fact that Bede is clearly dependent on the Isidorian treatise in twenty of his fifty-one chapters. If we consider his use of Isidore's Etymologies as well, the number increases to twenty-five. If, on the assumption that Bede would have attributed it to Isidore, we also count the Pseudo-Isidorian De ordine creaturarum, Bede's borrowing from Isidore rivals his use of Pliny. He draws on Pliny in thirty-one of the fifty-one chapters in his De natura rerum, and on Isidore in thirty-two, a full sixty-three percent of the time.17 Whether Bede would have considered De ordine creaturarum an Isidorian

work is at best an open question.18 Our numbers also do not take into account

14See Bede DTR, Praef., CCL 123B:263. 15 Cf. Alessandra Di Pilla, "Cosmologia e uso delle fonti nel De natura rerum di Beda,"

Romanobarbarica 11 (1991): 129-47 at 129-31.

16Pierre Duhem, Le syst?me du monde, vol. 3 (Paris, 1915), 16. 17 This analysis is based on an examination of the sources mentioned by Jones in the appa

ratus to his critical edition of Bede's DNR. Bede's dependence on Isidore is not always high lighted by his editor. Hence in DNR 3 (CCL 123A:194), the sentence "Mundus est universitas

omnis quae constat ex caelo et terra. . . ." is a direct quotation of Isidore DNR 9.1 (Fontaine

207), unnoted in the apparatus; and in DNR 7 (CCL 123A: 197-98), much of the paragraph is a quotation, not fully acknowledged in the notes or highlighted by italics in the text, from

Isidore DNR 13.2 (Fontaine 225). Further, in DNR 24 (CCL 123A:216), Bede derives from Isidore DNR 26.13 (Fontaine 273) information that is not in Pliny, despite the notation "ex

Plinio" in the apparatus; and in DNR 39 (CCL 123A:224-25), in addition to the use of Pseudo

Isidore and Pliny identified by Jones, Bede is also verbally dependent on Isidore DNR 40.1

(Fontaine 307). In the latter case Duhem (Syst?me du monde, 3:18) suggests that Bede was

making direct use of Ambrose Hexameron 4.7.30 (CSEL 32.1:136), which was Isidore's source. On a close comparison of the texts, however, that seems unlikely. A counter-instance is Bede DNR 51 (CCL 123A:233-34), where Jones identifies Pliny Nat. Hist. 3.1.3 and Isidore

DNR 48.2 (Fontaine 325) as Bede's sources. Bede's use of Isidore's DNR here is uncertain. See below, at n. 33.

18 See Manuel C. D?az y D?az, Liber de ordine creaturarum, Un an?nimo irland?s del siglo

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 81

the extent of the borrowing in each case, which can vary from a few words or

phrases to entire paragraphs. Even conservatively estimated, however, Bede's

use of Isidore was extensive. Along with Pliny, Isidore was obviously a principal source.

Bede adopts wholesale Isidore's explanations for a number of natural phe nomena, among them thunder, lightning, earthquakes and volcanoes. Thunder is produced by the breaking up of clouds, when, through the whirling action of the winds generated in their bosom, they suddenly burst asunder.19 Lightning is a product of clouds colliding against one another, in much the same way as

sparks result from the striking of flints. Thunder is also produced simultaneously, but the sound of the thunder reaches the ears more slowly than the sight of the

lightning does the eyes.20 Earthquakes are caused by wind trapped underground as if in the cavities of a sponge. A roaring noise and a trembling of the earth follow upon its efforts to escape, as do the fissures that appear in the earth's surface. Neither sandy soil nor solid ground is susceptible to earthquake, but

only earth with hollows capable of receiving the wind that produces it.21 Wind

figures prominently in the eruptions of volcanoes as well. In a chapter devoted to the volcanoes of Sicily, and to Mount Aetna specifically, Bede says that their

explanation is to be found in a soil, layered with sulphur and pitch, that feeds the flames, a soil that is also porous and open to the action of the wind. It is

VII: Estudio y edici?n critica (Santiago de Compostela, 1972). D?az y D?az concludes that the

work was clearly not by Isidore, but was of Irish provenance, and was written sometime

between 680 and 700 (27). According to C. W. Jones, manuscript evidence with which Diaz

y D?az was not familiar suggests that it could have been written in Northumbria, in either

Lindisfarne or Whitby. See D. O Cr?in?n, "The Irish Provenance of Bede's Computus," Peritia 2 (1983): 229-47 at 24 In. D?az y D?az argues further that in the earliest stage of its transmission

the text appeared anonymously. It was only in the second half of the eighth century, with its

circulation on the continent, that the attribution to Isidore begin to appear (23). However, he

also raises the possibility that "Isidore" was a nom de plume assumed by the monastic author

of the treatise and associated with the work from the outset (28). What likelihood is there,

then, that Bede had a manuscript that identified the author of the treatise as Isidore, an Isidore

whom he would have understood to be Isidore of Seville? The matter is simply uncertain.

19Bede DNR 28 (De tonitruo), CCL 123A:219. Bede's source is Isidore DNR 29.1 (Fontaine 279), with one final clause taken from Etym. 13.8.2.

20Bede, DNR 29 (De fulminibus), CCL 123A:219-20. Most of this chapter comes from

Isidore DNR 30.1-2 (Fontaine 281); Pseudo-Isidore De ordine creaturarum 7.9-10 (D?az y D?az 132); and Etym. 13.9.2. The basic explanation is provided by Isidore's DNR. However, Bede also borrows a third possible explanation of thunder from Pseudo-Isidore: "Quidam dicunt, dum aer in se vaporaliter aquam de imis et ignem caumaliter de supe?o?bus trahat,

ipsis confligentibus horr?sonos tonitruorum crepitus gigni." On Bede's uncertainty here, see

T. R. Eckenrode, "Venerable Bede as a Scientist," American Benedictine Review 22 (1971): 486-507 at 495-96.

21 Bede DNR 49 (De Terrae Motu), CCL 123A:232. The first half of this chapter, and the

part containing the basic explanation of earthquakes, is from Isidore DNR 46 (Fontaine 319

21). The latter half is from Pliny Nat. Hist. 2.81.192 and 2.86.200, Loeb 1:322-24, 330.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

82 TRADITIO

the combined effect of wind and flame that produces the volcanic activity. The fire is also fed, Bede tells us, by the waters of the Aeolian islands. These, it would seem, force the wind down to the depths of the sea, and would virtually suffocate it. In seeking its release through fissures in the earth like Mount Aetna, it fans their sulfurous flame.22

Bede draws on Isidore for his treatment of comets as well, although in this case the influence of Pliny is at least equally apparent. The relevant short chapter reads as follows:

Cometae sunt stellae flammis crinitae, repente nocentes, regni mutationem aut pes tilentiam aut bella, vei ventos aestusve, portendent&s. Quarum a//ae moventur er

rantium modo, aliae immobiles haerent. Omnes ferme sub ipso septentrione, aliqua eius parte non certa sed maxime in candida quae lactei circuii nomen accepit. Brevissimum quod cernerentur spatium Septem dierum adnotatum est, longissimum Ixxx. Sparguntur aliquando et errantibus stellis ceterisque crines. Sed cometes num

quam in occasura parte caeli est.23

Much of this is the result of patching together pieces of Pliny's lengthy treatment of comets in the second book of his Natural History.2* However, the basic definition ? "stellae flammis crinitae" ? comes from Isidore, as does the idea that comets portend change of rule, pestilence or war. The former is derived from the Etymologies, perhaps read together with Pliny;25 the latter from Isidore's De natura rerum.26 The notion that comets can portend wind or heat, and the rest of the paragraph, Bede owes to Pliny, except that at one point he either misunderstands Pliny or suffers from a faulty text. Whereas Pliny says that comets sometimes (nonnumquam) appear in the western sky, Bede claims that

they never do. Essentially, Bede follows Isidore's account as far as it goes, only

22Bede DNR 50 (Incendium Aetnae), CCL 123A:233. This chapter is patched together with words and phrases from Isidore, DNR 47 (Fontaine 321-25).

23Bede DNR 24 CCL 123A:216: "Comets are stars with tails of hair-like flames, suddenly

arising and signifying the change of a kingdom, pestilence, or wars, or winds or heat. Some of them move like the planets; others are fixed and stationary. Almost all of them appear towards due north, not in any particular part of it, but chiefly in the luminous area called the

Milky Way. The shortest period of visibility on record is seven days, the longest eighty days. Planets and other stars also occasionally have spreading hair. But a comet never appears in

the western part of the sky." My translation.

24Pliny Nat. Hist. 2.22-23, Loeb 1:230-38. See especially 2.22.89-23.92, Loeb 1: 230-34. The English translation (231-35) has provided the basis for the translation in n. 23.

25 Cf. Etym. 3.71.16-17: "Cometes stella est dicta eo quod comas luminis ex se fundat. . . .

Cometae autem Latine crinitae appellantur, quia in modum crinium flammas spargunt"; and

Nat. Hist. 2.22.89, Loeb 1:230-32: "cometas Graeci vocant, nostri crinitas, horrentis crine

sanguineo et comarum modo in vertice hispidas." 26DNR 26.13, Fontaine 273: "Haec cum nascitur aut regni mutationem fertur ostendere, aut

bella et pestilentias surgere." The Etymologies present the matter slightly differently. Cf. Etym. 3.71.16: "Quod genus sideris quando apparuerit, aut pestilentiam, aut famem, aut bella sig nificat."

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 83

then supplementing it with the more comprehensive coverage of the topic in the Natural History. Since Pliny's astronomy had been unavailable to Isidore, it is

unsurprising that Bede should have found him valuable.27 Di Pilla points to the mechanistic view of nature

? the strict regard for causes and effects ? that characterizes much of the Natural History. Bede was strongly attracted by it, once, of course, he had abstracted from the Stoic religious frame work within which it was embedded.28 In matters of astronomy particularly Pliny offered much from which Bede could benefit. Astronomy was not Isidore's strong suit. Although he employed some sources of a technical nature, chief among which was the De astronomia of Hyginus, his principal authorities were gram marians or scoliasts. It was to commentaries on Virgil that Isidore looked for much of his knowledge of the heavens, and the consequence was a grasp of astronomical matters much more literary than scientific in nature.29

Pliny himself was not always better. The point is illustrated by his conviction that changes in the weather are largely a function of the influence of the heavens. Given that the sun is responsible for the turning of the seasons, he argues, each of the other stars is to be credited with producing particular effects in accordance with its own nature. In this instance, following Pliny did not enable Bede to attain a standard any higher than Isidore had represented.30 Elsewhere, however, access to Pliny provided Bede with material that surpassed by several orders of

sophistication Isidore's elementary astronomy. Hence his short chapter on the

changing colors of the planets is drawn entirely from the Natural History, as is his treatment on their apsides. In the latter case it is Pliny's words that enable Bede to explain that each planet has its own distinctive orbit, and can appear to be moving more quickly or more slowly depending on whether it is closer to or further from the earth. Indeed, the dependence is pronounced enough for Bede to acknowledge it explicitly at the end, by referring us to Pliny for further

27Fontaine (Trait? de la nature [ . 1 above], 42) maintains that any trace of book 2 of the

Natural History in either the Etymologies or De natura rerum is slight. If Isidore was aware

of it at all, the knowledge came to him late. There were other books, however, with which he was quite familiar, and which he used extensively. See, for example, J. Oroz Reta, "Pr?sence

de Pline dans les Etymologies de saint Isidore de S?ville," Helmantica 38 (1987): 295-306, who discusses Pliny's influence on the mineralogy in book 16 of the Etymologies. Although it may have been excerpts that Isidore had at his disposal rather than Pliny's full text, his treatment leans heavily on books 36 and 37 of the Natural History.

28Di Pilla, "Cosmologia" ( . 15 above), 136-37. 29 See Jacques Fontaine, Isidore de S?ville et la culture classique dans VEspagne wisi

gothique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1959-1983), 2:571-89.

30See Pliny Nat. Hist. 2.39.105-106 (Loeb 1:248-50), from which Bede borrows verbally in DNR 11 (CCL 123A:201-203). Isidore makes similar claims in a number of places. For a

statement of general principle, see Etym. 3.71.5, where, referring to the stars, he says: "Sed et omnes homines ea intendunt ad praevidendas aeris qualitates per aestatem et hiemem verna

lemque temperiem. Ortu enim vel occasu suo certis stationibus temporum qualitatem signifi cant."

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

84 TRADITIO

information.31 None of this, however, can be taken to imply any disrespect for Isidore. His reliance on the Natural History notwithstanding, Bede's use of the

De natura rerum and other Isidorian materials was still far-reaching.

The focus of our concern here is Bede's opinion of the De natura rerum

specifically. According to Fontaine, the text appeared in three distinct versions: a short recension, produced by Isidore himself, of forty-six chapters, to which the Epistula Sisebuti was appended; a middle recension, also produced by Isidore, of forty-seven chapters plus, once again, the Epistula; and a long recension,

produced only at a later period, and of forty-eight chapters, but lacking Sisebut's letter. It is chapter 48, "De partibus terrae," that distinguishes the second re cension from the first. The third recension retains this chapter and adds one

more, chapter 44: "De nominibus maris et fluminum." In Fontaine's judgment, the version of the text known to Aldhelm and Bede was the second recension. It was sometime shortly thereafter that the third recension

? of Northumbrian

origin, interestingly enough ?

began to circulate.32 Fontaine argues that, while there is no indication in any of his works that he

knew chapter 44, Bede did know and draw upon chapter 48. On closer exami nation the evidence seems less than compelling, and so it may well have been the shorter first recension of forty-six chapters that Bede knew.33 For present

31 Bede DNR 14-15, CCL 123A:205-07.

32Fontaine, Trait? de la nature ( . 1 above), 38, 74, 79. See below, at nn. 48-50. 33 See DNR 51 (CCL 123A:233-34), where Bede invites us to picture a circular representation

of the earth, divided horizontally and oriented towards the East. The upper semicircle denotes

Asia; the lower semicircle, evenly divided in the middle, represents Europe on the left and Africa on the right: "Terrarum orbis universus, Oceano cinctus, in tres dividitur partes: Europam, Asiam, Africani. Origo ab occasu solis et Gaditano freto, qua irrumpens Oceanus Athlanticus in maria interiora diffunditur

? hinc infranti dextera Africa, laeva est Europa; inter has Asia

magnitudine compar est aliis duabus. Termini sunt amnes Tanais et Nilus; xv. passuum in lon

gitudine, quas diximus fauces Oceani, patent, v. in latitudine. Europa ergo ab occidente usque ad septentrionem, Asia vero a septentrione per orientem usque ad meridiem, atque inde Africa a meridie usque ad occidentem extenditur." Although most of this passage is a direct quotation from Pliny Nat. Hist. 3.1.3 (Loeb 2:4-5), the last sentence suggests Isidore DNR 48.2 (Fontaine

325): "Asia autem, ut ait beatissimus Augustinus, a meridie per orientem usque ad septentrionem

pervenit. Europa vero a septentrione usque ad occidentem, atque inde Africa ab occidente usque ad meridiem." This is the source identified by Bede's editor; presumably it was the evidence of

Bede's familiarity with chapter 48 that Fontaine had in mind as well. For a different view,

however, cf. Wesley M. Stevens, "Scientific Instruction in Early Insular Schools," in Insular Latin Studies: Papers on Latin Texts and Manuscripts of the British Isles: 550-1066, ed. Michael W. Herren (Toronto, 1981), 83-102 at 100. Although Bede's text has "contents parallel with

Isidore's chapter 48," Stevens argues, it "proceeds to describe the diagram in the opposite di

rection and does not quote or paraphrase him." Whether this is significant, given that the structure

of his summary is the same and most of the words identical, is perhaps open to discussion.

Nevertheless, Stevens may have drawn the correct conclusion: that it was the first version, the

short recension of Isidore's De natura rerum, that Bede knew. DNR 51 cannot be taken as

irrefragable proof that Bede knew chapter 48. He may equally as well have been drawing on

Etym. 14.2.2, or even on Isidore's source, De civ. Dei 16.17 (CCL 48:521).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 85

purposes, however, the point is not crucial. If we go on to ask how many of these forty-six or forty-seven chapters Bede clearly uses either in De temporibus or in his own De natura rerum, the answer is twenty-seven, something between

fifty-seven and fifty-nine percent of the total.34 Indeed, not only is his borrowing from Isidore's text extensive, he may have presumed his reader's prior knowledge of it. There is more than one place where his own De natura rerum would be difficult to follow were it not for the guidance that Isidore provides. Possibly in these passages Bede is relying on his reader's knowledge of Isidore to supply the missing steps in the logic.

An example is provided by Bede's explanation of the shape of the rainbow, where a curious reference to wax bearing the image of a ring is intelligible only with Isidore's assistance.35 A similar situation arises in Bede's discussion of the stars. He begins chapter 11 (De stellis) of his De natura rerum as follows:

34The particular chapters he uses are the following: 1 (probably), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16,

17, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47. It is probably chapter 1 (De

diebus), more specifically DNR 1.1-2 (Fontaine 173), that Bede draws upon in DT 2 (CCL

123C:585). Another possibility is Etym. 5.30.1-4, from which, with the exception of his final

thought, all the material in the chapter could have been derived. The same cannot be said of

Isidore's DNR. Bede's final thought, however, is the following: "Domino surgente vespers sabbati lucescebat in primam sabbati ut homo de luce lapsus in tenebras deinceps e tenebris

rediret ad lucem." The quotation is from Matt. 28:1: "Vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in

prima sabbati, venit Maria Magdalene, et altera Maria, videre sepulchrum." The inspiration, however, may have come from Isidore, who discusses the mystical or allegorical meaning of

the day at several points in his long chapter. See, for example, DNR 1.3 (Fontaine 173-75), where, after explaining that the Chaldaeans calculated the beginning of the day from the rising of the sun, the Egyptians from the fall of night, and the Romans from midnight, he states:

"Dies in principio operum Dei a lumine habebat exordium, ad significandum hominis lapsum; nunc autem a tenebris ad lucem, ut non dies obscuretur in noctem, sed nox lucescat in diem, sicut scriptum est de tenebris lumen clarescere [2 Cor. 4:6], quia a delictorum tenebris liberatus

homo ad lucem fidei scientiaeque pervenit." Bede's use of DNR 3 (De hebd?mada) (Fontaine 183-85) also requires some comment. At

DT 4 (CCL 123C:586), Jones cites Etym. 5.32 and 5.30 as Bede's chief sources, which is

clearly correct. However, he also uses Isidore's DNR 3. Bede points out, for example, that the

Romans named the days of the week after the planets, believing that they were influenced by the latter: "His ?ornen gentilitas a planetis indidit, habere se credens a Sole spiritum, a Luna

corpus, a Marte sanguinem, a Mercurio Ingenium et linguam, a love temperantiam, a Venere

voluptatem, a Saturno tarditatem" (DT 4, CCL 123C:586). The principal source is clearly Etym. 5.30.8: "Proinde autem ex his septem stellis nomina dierum gentiles dederunt, eo quod per eosdem aliquid sibi effici existimarent, dicentes habere a Sole spiritum, a Luna corpus, a

Mercurio ingenium et linguam, a Venere voluptatem, a Marte sanguinem, a love temperantiam, a Saturno humorem." What he says about Saturn, however, points to DNR 3.4 (Fontaine 185): "Proinde autem gentiles ex his septem stellis nomina dierum dederunt, eo quod per eosdem

aliquid sibi effici extimarent, dicentes habere ex aere ignem, ex sole spiritum, ex luna corpus, ex Mercurio linguam et sapientiam, ex Venere voluptatem, ex Marte fervorem, ex love tem

perantiam, ex Saturno tarditatem." 35 Bede DNR 31, CCL 123A:220-21: "Arcus in aere quadricolor ex sole adverso nubibusque

formatur, dum radius solis inmissus cavae nubi, repulsa acie in solem refringitur, instar cerat

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

86 TRADITIO

Stellae lumen a sole mutuantes cum mundo vert? utpote uno loco fixae, et non stante

mundo vagae ferri dicuntur, exceptis his quae planetae, id est errantes, vocantur.

Easque diei adventu celari nec umquam caelo decidere, fulgor plenilunii et solis

probat deliquium. Quamvis yi?eamus igniculos ex aethere lapsos portad ventis,

vagique lumen sideris imitari, trucibus cito eoonentibus ventis.36

Although the relevance of the solar eclipse is obvious enough, one is more than a little puzzled by the reference to the full moon. How does its brightness prove that the stars remain in the heavens even during the day? The answer is that it

doesn't. However, the reason why Bede should mention it in this context becomes clear when the cognate passage of Isidore's De natura rerum is consulted. Bede

obviously had it in mind. Isidore explains:

Stellas non habere proprium lumen, sed a sole inluminari dicuntur, nec eas umquam de caelo abscedere, sed veniente sole celari. Omnia enim sidera obscurantur sole

oriente, non cadunt. Nam dum sol ortus sui signa praemiserit, omnes stellarum ignes sub eius luminis fulgore evanescunt, ita ut praeter solis ignem nullius sideris splendor videatur. Hinc etiam et sol appellatus, eo quod solus appareat obscuratis cunctis

sideribus. Nec mirum hoc de sole, cum etiam plena luna et tota nocte fulgente

pleraque astra non luceant. Esse autem etiam per diem Stellas in caelo probat solis

deliquium, quod, quando sol obiecto orbe lunae fuerit obscuratus, clariora in caelo

astra videantur.37

Whether Bede was assuming his reader's knowledge of this text, or whether

imaginem anuli reddentis." Cf. Isidore DNR 31.1, Fontaine 285: "Arcus enim in aere ex imag ine solis hoc modo formatur. Dum enim sol in nubibus rarescentibus ex adverso refulserit

radiosque suos directa linea humori nubilo transfundens inpresserit, fit repercussio splendoris eius in nubibus ex quibus fulgor emicans arcus speciem format. Sicut enim inpressa cera anuli

imaginem exprimit, sic nubes e contra ex rotunditate solis figur?m sumentes orbem efficiunt

et arcus effigiem fingunt." 36Bede DNR 11, CCL 123A:201-202: "The stars borrow their light from the sun, and with

the exception of the wandering stars that are called 'planets', they are said to be fixed in place and to revolve with the cosmos, rather than being unfixed, and set in motion while the cosmos

itself is unmoved. They are [simply] concealed at the break of day, nor do they ever fall from

the heavens, as both the brightness of a full moon and an eclipse of the sun prove. We may,

however, see particles of fire that have fallen from the ether imitate the light of wandering stars, being driven along by the sudden outbreak of strong winds." My translation.

37Isidore DNR 24 A, Fontaine 261: "The stars are said not to have their own light, but to be

illumined by the sun. Nor do they ever drop from the heavens, but rather are hidden from view

by the arriving sun. All the stars are dimmed at the rising of the sun; they do not fall. For when

the sun sends forth the tokens of its rise, all the fires of the stars die away in the brightness of

its light, so that, other than the fire of the sun, the brilliance of no star can be seen. This is

why it is called the sun (sol): it alone (solus) appears, all the other stars having been concealed.

It is not surprising that the sun should have this effect, since even when the moon is full, and

shining throughout the night, a great many stars are invisible. An eclipse of the sun proves that even during the day there are stars in the heavens. For when the sun is concealed by the

interposing disk of the moon, the brighter stars in the heavens become visible." My translation.

The other passages of Isidore on which Bede is dependent at this juncture are DNR 22 A and

25.1 (Fontaine 255, 263).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 87

he was simply compressing his argument too much, by any reasonable standard his use of Isidore's De natura rerum was considerable. As Di Pilla points out, he was not always discriminating in his choices either. Along with sounder

passages he included some of Isidore's impr?cisions as well, his conflation of celestial and terrestrial circuii, for example.38 She also argues that, at points, Bede would even favor Isidore over Pliny.39 Whereas Pliny credits the fixed stars with their own innate source of light, says Di Pilla, Bede follows Isidore in maintaining that, like the moon and the planets, they have no source of light other than what is received from the sun. Di Pilla's summary assessment does not do full justice to a situation that is simply unclear.40 Although Bede's fol

lowing of Isidore to the exclusion of Pliny on a strictly scientific matter is

doubtful, it is noteworthy that he rarely corrects Isidore. Even more rarely, in either De natura rerum or De temporibus, is the correction a serious one.41

In the light of these conclusions, how likely is it that Bede spent a significant portion of the latter days of his life preparing a book of corrections to the same

38Di Pilla, "Cosmologia" (n. 15 above), 140. According to the basic doctrine that Bede

endorses, there are five celestial circuii (Isidore also speaks of zonae) that determine the cli

mate, and consequently the habitability, of five corresponding circuii on earth. Isidore confuses

the issue, however, by failing to distinguish clearly between the celestial and the terrestrial, and Bede follows him. Cf. Isidore DNR 10.1, Fontaine 209; and Etym. 3.44.1: "Zonae caeli

quinqu? sunt, quarum distinctionibus quaedam partes temperie sua incoluntur, quaedam in

manitate frigoris aut caloris inhabitabiles existunt. Quae ideo zonae vel circuii appellantur." It is the wording of the Etymologies that Bede adopts in DNR 9, CCL 123A:199: "Quinqu? circuits mundus dividitur, quorum distinctionibus quaedam partes temperie sua incoluntur,

quaedam inmanitate frigoris aut caloris inhabitabiles existunt."

39Di Pilla, "Cosmologia" ( . 15 above), 141.

40Isidore's position seems fairly certain. See Etym. 3.61; and DNR 24.1, Fontaine 261: "Stel

las non habere proprium lumen, sed a sole inluminari dicuntur . . ." In the latter passage he

goes on to refer to the ignes stellarum, but his usage could be taken to be metaphorical. Pliny's views are not as clear. The passage to which Di Pilla refers (Nat. Hist. 2.6.29, Loeb 1:188) concerns falling stars, which Pliny likens to heavenly lamps. Elsewhere, however, Pliny de

scribes the sun as mundi totius animus, and states: "hie lucem rebus ministrai aufertque te

nebras, hic reliqua sidera occult?t inlustrat ... hie suum lumen ceteris quoque sideribus fe

nerat" (Nat. Hist. 2 A A3, Loeb 1:178). Since the context is established with a reference to the seven planets

? "septem sidera quae ab incessu vocamus errantia"

? possibly he means that

they, and they alone, receive their light from the sun. For his part, Bede, at one point at least, seems clearly to endorse Isidore. See DNR 11, CCL 123A:201-02: "Stellae lumen a sole

mutuantes. . . ." Elsewhere, however, he refers to the fire by which the stars shine ?

"igne quo stellae lucent" (DNR 3, CCL 123A:194)

? following Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2.4.10. Here Pliny

discusses the four elements, describing fire as the highest: "igneum summum, inde tot stellarum

illos conlucentium oculos" (Loeb 1:176). 41

See, for example, DNR 31 (CCL 123A:220-21), where Bede corrects Isidore on the colors

of the rainbow, or DT 8 (CCL 123C:591), where he provides a more precise definition of the

length of the solar year. The matter is discussed more thoroughly in my "Bede and the Isidorian

Legacy" (to appear in Mediaeval Studies), which also explores criticism of Isidore in Bede's Retractatio on the Acts of the Apostles and in his De temporum ratione.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

88 TRADITIO

De natura rerumi Possibly, over the years, his opinion of Isidore's work had become more negative. There is not much evidence, however, that that was the case. Moreover, if Isidore's De natura rerum was now defective enough to justify

compiling a list of its errors, so, presumably, was Bede's own early work, and there is no indication that he ever contemplated writing a second set of retractions to complement those on the Acts of the Apostles. Both De temporibus and De natura rerum remained for Bede what they had been from the outset: satisfactory, although essentially limited, introductions to their subjects. There is also, one

suspects, something amiss with the image of Bede that such an interpretation of Cuthbert's remarks entails. Ray speaks of Bede's "angry words," and of his

"long-standing skepticism" about Isidore having sunk into "apparent bitterness." Is this the portrait of sanctity that Cuthbert would have wished to leave us? Is it consistent with Cuthbert's claim that Bede "dictated cheerfully" to his disciples, finishing his days in "great holiness and peace"?42 It seems unlikely. In Ray's view, however, "Cuthbert writes as if Bede's deathbed broadside against Isidore was part of the virtue that caused his teacher to die in the beauty of holiness."43

Both Meyvaert and Ray have argued that the specific language Cuthbert em

ploys to describe Bede's work on Isidore ?

exceptiones quasdam ?

implies that Bede was preparing corrections of some kind.44 The point certainly isn't obvious. The primary meaning of exceptio, as given in Lewis and Short, is

"exception, restriction, limitation." According to Glare, it means "exception,

qualification, reservation." The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae lists exemptio and exclusio as equivalents.45 Since it appears to denote things that are to be left out in some sense, conceivably exceptiones quasdam could refer to offending pas sages in Isidore's text that should be omitted. However, the standard guides provide no authority for such a reading, and even less for taking the words to mean a set of corrections of Isidore's errors. Of the possible meanings of exceptio/ exceptiones mentioned by Du Cange, the only one that makes any sense in the context is excerptiones, "excerpts" or "extracts", which presumably is what Col

grave had in mind when he took exceptiones quasdam to mean "a selection" from Isidore.46 If corrections were at issue, however, a much likelier possibility than corrections to Isidore himself would be corrections of the scribal errors and

other, deliberate changes that had corrupted his text. Michael Lapidge has recently edited an epitome of Isidore's Etymologies pre

42Epistola, Colgrave and Mynors, 583, 587.

43Ray, "Bede's Vera Lex Hist?ri??" ( . 1 above), 16-17.

44Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar" ( . 1 above), 59; Ray, "Bede's Vera Lex Hist?ri??" ( . 1

above), 16-17.

45ThLL 5. 2: cols. 1223-25; P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, fase. 3 (Oxford, 1971), 633-34.

46 Du Cange 3:343. Cf. the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, fase. 3 (Lon

don, 1986), 830, which cites the Epistola Cuthberti as the first of several examples.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 89

served in a continental manuscript that can be dated ca. 800. This text, apparently entitled De diversis rebus, reproduces a number of Insular abbreviations that caused the scribe some difficulty, as well as eight Old English glosses whose form suggests a date of ca. 700. Lapidge argues that the original was produced either at Canterbury or at some English center in contact with Canterbury, and at some time between ca. 700, when the glosses were written, and ca. 800, when the epitome was copied in northern France. What makes it particularly interesting for our purposes is the carelessness evident throughout the work, and the frequent errors to which it gave rise. Lapidge draws the appropriate conclusion: "Once such misinformation got into circulation, it would be very difficult to eradicate. The errors ... are readily apparent as long as the epitome is read side-by-side with Isidore's Etymologiae. But once the two became separated, the early me dieval user would have had very few means of controlling the errors, for he had no Pauly-Wissowa or Thesaurus Linguae Latinae against which to check sus

picious entries."47

Whether the great interest in Isidorian materials produced similar outrages against his De natura rerum is unknown. We do know, however, that the text of the De natura rerum that circulated in Northumbria in Bede's time and shortly thereafter was subject to considerable uncertainty. Fontaine argues that it was

in Northumbrian circles in the first half of the eighth century that the third

recension, the one that introduced chapter 44, made its appearance.48 Others have

argued that Isidore's works, including the De natura rerum, were known in Ireland well before the end of the seventh century.49 The third recension, there

fore, could have been of Irish provenance, and of even earlier date than Fontaine

supposed.50 If so, the likelihood is only increased that Bede was aware of the

47 Michael Lapidge, "An Isidorian Epitome from Early Anglo-Saxon England," Romano

barbarica 10 (1988-89): 443-83, esp. 457.

48Fontaine, Trait? de la nature ( . 1 above), 79.

49Cf. J. . Hillgarth, "The East, Visigothic Spain and the Irish," Studia Patristica 4 (Berlin,

1961): 442-56; idem, "Ireland and Spain in the Seventh Century," Peritia 3 (1984): 1-16, which is reprinted in Visigothic Spain, Byzantium and the Irish (London, 1985); and M. W.

Herren, "On the Earliest Irish Acquaintance with Isidore of Seville," in Visigothic Spain: New

Approaches, ed. Edward James (Oxford, 1980), 243-50. For a dissenting view, see Marina

Smyth, "Isidore of Seville and Early Irish Cosmography," Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies

14 (Winter, 1987): 69-102. From an analysis of the cosmographical views of Irish scholars,

Smyth argues that the relevant portions of Isidore's works could not have been available before

the end of the seventh century. Cf. idem, "The Physical World in Seventh-Century Hiberno

Latin Texts," Peritia 5 (1986): 201-34, esp. 206, 213.

50Cf. Bernhard Bischoff, "Die europ?ische Verbreitung der Werke Isidors von Sevilla," in

Isidoriana, ed. M. C. D?az y D?az (Leon, 1961), 317-44 at 332-34; J. . Hillgarth, "Visigothic

Spain and Early Christian Ireland," Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (Section C, No.

6) 62 (1962): 167-94, esp. 188; and M. W. Herren, Hisperica Famina, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1974), 134, where Herren comments on the word tollus, of Old Irish derivation. With the exception of Isidore DNR 44.5, it occurs only in Hiberno-Latin texts.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

90 TRADITIO

uncertainties that had been introduced into the text, and worried about the im

plications for his students. Conceivably he desired to leave them a corrected version. Given Isidore's very great popularity, Bede knew he would continue to be read, his own De natura rerum notwithstanding. Indeed, as we have just seen, his own De natura rerum may have presupposed it.

Rather than exceptiones, however, there is strong manuscript evidence that

excerptiones was the reading of the archetype of the Epistola Cuthberti.51 It reinforces what there is good reason for believing on other grounds: that Cuthbert was not referring to corrections of any kind, but to extracts from Isidore's treatise. Corrections of the sort envisaged by Meyvaert and Ray would have been without

precedent in Bede's known work. But twice already Bede had produced collec tions of selected passages, once from the works of Gregory the Great, and once from St. Augustine.52 Cr?pin suggests that in this case the purpose of the extracts

may have been to combat popular superstition. "Nolo ut pueri mei mendacium

legant, et in hoc post meum obitum sine fructu laborent," Bede is reported to have said. "I cannot have my children reading a lie, and losing their labour on this after I am gone."53 On Cr?pin's reading, the "lie" that Bede wished to combat was neither Isidore's treatise itself nor a defective textual tradition of it, but rather "some Old English astronomical lore."54 Fontaine maintains that the major purpose of Isidore's treatise had been to combat popular superstition of precisely this sort, superstition that remained a significant part of the spiritual life of the seventh century despite apparent Christianization.55 Conceivably, Bede was in terested in challenging the same demons.

51 See Dobbie, Manuscripts (n. 6 above), 120-22 and 121-23. Although the Hague MS gives

exceptiones, in both Insular and Continental Versions the reading in the hyparchetype was

excerptiones. In the latter case the two branches of the bifides tradition are divided on the

issue. However, the shorter and more authoritative branch gives excerptiones (the St. Gall MS

has excertiones). With the exception of one manuscript of the six in the Symeon Group, and

three manuscripts of eight in the Burney Group (one of which has excerptionis), the Insular

manuscripts uniformly endorse excerptiones. Cf. Howlett, "Biblical Style" (n. 10 above), 136.

52See book 6 of his commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, CCL 119B:359-75; and his

Collectio ex opusculis sancii Augustini in epistulas Pauli Apostoli, to be published in CCL 12IB.

53Cuthbert Epistola, Colgrave and Mynors, 582-83. Translation revised. 54 A. Cr?pin, "Bede and the Vernacular," in Famulus Christi ( . 1 above), 170-92 at 190n.

Rich?, Education and Culture (n. 2 above), 390-91, also speaks of a collection of extracts, but extracts that represented what was salvageable in Isidore's work. It was "a clear expression of Bede's criticism of the Sevillian for what Bede thought was an abuse of the allegorical genre and for digressions that were still too close to the cosmic system of the pagans."

55Fontaine, Isidore de S?ville ( . 29 above), 2:455-57; Trait? de la nature ( . 1 above), 4

6. Cf. "Isidore de S?ville et l'astrologie," Revue des ?tudes latines 31 (1953): 271-300, where

Fontaine argues that Isidore worked towards a distinction between astronomia and astrologia similar to our modern one. Although his own thought was not absolutely devoid of it, Isidore

regarded astrology as superstition. On the basic distinction, however, see M. Lejbowicz, "Th?orie et pratique astronomiques chez Isidore de S?ville," in L'homme et son univers au

moyen ?ge (Louvain-la-neuve, 1986), 2:622-30.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 91

A collection assembled for this specific reason would be likelier were there

any indication that Bede was troubled by pagan survivals, or worried by a

possible revival of pagan belief or practice. The available evidence suggests that such was not the case. Whereas Isidore makes a point of underlining the folly of heathen superstition, Bede does not.56 Whatever its purpose, however, it was

undoubtedly a collection of extracts that Bede was working on. The point is confirmed if A. K. Brown is correct in arguing that Cuthbert's Latin clearly implies that the exceptiones (or excerptiones) from Isidore were being translated. The central text needs to be examined once again:

In istis autem diebus duo opuscula multum memoria digna, exceptis lectionibus quas cotidie accepimus ab eo et cantu Psalmorum, facer? studuit, id est a capite evangelii sancii Iohannis usque ad eum locum in quo dicitur "Sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?'

'

in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit, et de libris Rotarum Ysidori

episcopi exceptiones quasdam, dicens "Nolo ut pueri mei mendacium legant, et in

hoc post meum obitum sine fructu laborent."57

Although many of Cuthbert's translators would not agree, following Brown I would argue that a translation along the following lines is required:

In those days, besides the lessons that we received from him daily and his chanting of the Psalter, there were two small works very worthy of record that he strove to

complete. For the benefit of the church of God, he translated into our language the

Gospel of St. John from the beginning up to the place where it is said: "But what are these among so many?" He also translated some selections from Bishop Isidore's

Liber Rotarum, saying: "I cannot have my children reading a lie, and laboring in

vain on this after I am gone."58

Two aspects of the Latin text require comment. First, it seems safe to assume that Bede intended to translate more of St. John's Gospel than he did.59 At the

56See, for example, DT 4 (CCL 123C:586), where Bede points out that the Romans named the days of the week after the planets, believing that they were influenced by the latter. He draws on both DNR 3.4 (Fontaine 185) and Etym. 5.30.8, but does not find it necessary to

repeat the thought with which Isidore closes in each case: "Talis quippe extitit gentilium stultitia, qui sibi finxerunt tarn ridiculosa figmenta."

57Cuthbert Epistola, Colgrave and Mynors, 582.

58For a similar approach to the translation, see Howlett, "Biblical Style" (n. 10 above), 140. Cf. Giles, Miscellaneous Works (n. 5 above), Llxxxi; and Plummer, Opera Hist?rica ( . 5

above), l:lxxv-lxxvi. Colgrave and Mynors, whose translation is here revised, imply that it was only the Gospel Bede was translating, not Isidore. See above, at n. 4. The same can be said of A. M. Sellar, in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (London, 1917), xlii; J. E. King, in Baedae Opera Hist?rica, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1930), xxxi; and D. H. Farmer, in Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English People, rev. ed. (Harmondsworth, 1990), 358-59.

59 According to the Insular Version, he translated the entire thing. See Dobbie, Manuscripts

(n. 6 above), 121-23: "In istis autem diebus duo opuscula . . . facer? studebat, evang?lium vero sancti Iohannis in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesie convertit, et de libris rotarum Ysidori episcopi excerptiones quasdam . . ." According to Howlett, "Biblical Style" (n. 10

above), 145, he probably got up to John 6:70, "the first great climax of St. John's Gospel."

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

92 TRADITIO

very least he would have hoped to cover a coherent portion of it. Stopping at John 6:9, in the middle of the story of the feeding of the five thousand, would not have been part of the design.60 Secondly, as Brown points out, the Latin

implies a translation of both St. John and Isidore. Presumably, therefore, the "lie" that had to be refuted was either an inept effort to render Isidore into Anglo Saxon,61 or else a set of other misconceptions of some kind that a translation of Isidore would help counter. Cuthbert introduces two parallel clauses with the

words: "duo opuscula . . . facer? studuit." The key clause is the second one,

which reads: "et de libris Rotarum Ysidori episcopi exceptiones quasdam." As it stands, it lacks a predicate, and has to be read as if governed by the predicate in the preceding parallel clause: "id est a capite evangelii . . . convertit." It is no solution to suggest that Cuthbert would have us reach outside the parallel clauses and understand exceptiones quasdam to be governed by facer? studuit. Such an argument is tantamount to accusing him of having constructed "a syn tactic monstrosity."62

Had Cuthbert not intended us to understand that Bede translated the selections from Isidore, he would have supplied fecit, or the logical equivalent, in the second parallel clause. This would have made the distinction between Bede's treatment of St. John and his handling of Isidore clear. He translated portions of the Gospel, but he merely compiled exceptiones quasdam from the Liber rotarum. Alternatively, he could have supplied a relative pronoun at the appro priate juncture in the first parallel clause. Writing quod after inter tantos would have created a subordinate clause ? "quod in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit" ? referring exclusively to the Gospel. This would have

changed the structure of the entire passage, leaving the reader to understand that the two works that Bede strove to complete were (a) some selections from the

Gospel, which, for the benefit of the Church of God, he translated into Anglo Saxon, and (b) some extracts from Isidore's De natura rerum. However, neither

option is endorsed by the critical text, nor is there any trace in either Dobbie's

apparatus or the Hague manuscript that the missing verb or relative pronoun

60However, cf. Ross, "A Connection" (n. 6 above), 491-92, who reports Stanley's suggestion that Bede stopped intentionally at John 6:9 because of some special spiritual significance attached to the verse. See also Ute Schwab, "Air- fter: Das Memento Mori Bedas als christ liche Kontrafaktur, eine philologische Interpretation," in Studi di letteratura religiosa tedesca in memoria di Sergio Lupi ([Florence], 1972), 5-134 at 40-53, who suggests that, whatever the historical truth on the matter may be, Cuthbert's reference to John 6:9 was quite deliberate. It points to a veiled numerical allegory in Bede's Death-Song, which precedes it by just a few lines. The number five, which figures prominently in the feeding of the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes, is equally conspicuous in the Death-Song, whose 5 lines contain (5x5 =) 25 words. Indeed, the hidden allegory extends to the number of syllables in the poem as well.

61 See Fontaine, Trait? de la nature ( . 1 above), 79, who translates as follows: "

Je ne veux

pas que mes fils lisent un text mensonger, et qu'ils y perdent leur temps apr?s ma mort."

62Brown, "English Compass Points" ( . 9 above), 232.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

BEDE AND ISIDORE 93

may have fallen out.63 As it stands, therefore, Cuthbert's Latin requires more

than the compiling of exceptiones. It implies that Bede translated them into

Anglo-Saxon, and at the same time it also ensures that the exceptiones in question were indeed extracts and not corrections. Translating a set of corrections to a

Latin text makes no sense whatever unless the basic text is translated as well, and Cuthbert's letter provides us with no basis for supposing that either Bede or anyone else ever undertook that larger task.

The principal objection to this interpretation has been voiced by Meyvaert: "Cuthbert distinguishes between the translation of John's gospel, which was

done for the good of the Church, and the work on Isidore, which was intended for Bede's students (among whom Cuthbert includes himself), all of whom knew Latin."64 Here, everything turns on the precise meaning to be given to pueri. Rather than Bede's pupils in the strict sense, a larger clerical audience could

possibly have been intended. In his letter to Bishop Ecgbert, Bede refers to clerici and monachi who could not read Latin, and he goes on to say that for the benefit of unlettered priests he has translated both the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer into the vernacular.65 Perhaps it was such monks and clerics, or even his "children" in a broader sense, the equivalent of the church at large, to whom Bede intended to direct his translations of St. John and of Isidore. If

so, we have an answer to the meaning of Cuthbert's text. It is also an answer

that testifies to Bede's continuing respect of Isidore's De natura rerum, not his embittered hostility.

Queen's University

Postscript

I am grateful to Paul Meyvaert, who identified himself as one of the readers of this paper and offered several valuable comments. He has asked me to note

here that he has now revised his earlier opinion, and would no longer maintain that Bede was hostile towards Isidore. Dr. Meyvaert points out that the reading excerptiones in Cuthbert's text can be confirmed by Bede's homily on Matthew 21 for Palm Sunday. Here Bede himself uses the verb excerpo in a similar way,

63 See Dobbie, Manuscripts (n. 6 above), 120-23; and Ker, "Hague Manuscript" (n. 10

above), 42.

64Meyvaert, "Bede the Scholar" (n. 1 above), 59.

65Epistola ad Ecgbertum episcopum 5, in Plummer, Opera Hist?rica ( . 5 above), 1:409:

". . . de clericis sive monachis, qui Latinae sunt linguae expertes. . . . Propter quod et ipse multis saepe sacerdotibus idiotis haec utraque, et symbolum videlicet, et dominicam orationem

in linguam Anglorum translatam optuli." The saepe would suggest that these translations were

not written.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC

94 TRADITIO

i.e. to describe the making of excerpts from known authorities in order to prevent the less learned from falling into error. Cuthbert's text is clearly an echo of what his master had originally said. See Horn. 2.3 (CCL 122:203-04), where Bede comments on the branches that were cut and spread on the road for Christ's

entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8):

Rami arborum dicta sunt patrum praecedentium. Et quisqu?s in exemplum recte

credendi sive operandi quid prophetae quid apostoli quid ceteri sancti dixerunt seu

fecerunt pandit ramos profecto de arboribus caedit quibus iter asini dominum por tantis conplanet quia sententias de sanctorum libris excerpit per quas simplicium Christi corda ne in via veritatis errent aedificet.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:19 UTC