NOTES AND STUDIES 355

GROSSETESTE'S TRANSLATION OF THE TIPOAOTOZAND SXOAIA OF MAXIMUS TO THE WRITINGS OF

THE PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA

IN some codices containing the works of the pseudo-Dionysius Areo-pagita in Grosseteste's translation are found marginal notes of varyinglength, preceded by the words: ex greco. Perhaps those who havethus far worked upon the writings of the great bishop of Lincoln havenot thought these notes worthy of special attention; but Baur, who sawand described a number of such manuscripts for his edition of thephilosophical works of Grosseteste,1 lays stress on them. Passingreferences to them are found in manuscript catalogues: Bandini, forinstance, mentions them in his description of the Laurentian MSS,S. Crucis Plut. XIII Dext codd. I-V,1 fine copies dating from themiddle of the thirteenth century, all written by the same or similarEnglish or North-French hands and containing the pseudo-Dionysianworks in the translation and with the comments of Grosseteste.'

These marginal glosses are a translation of the Scholia of Maximus *Continuation ofnott i on p. 3543. Commentary on Mark.

Troyes 397 (eleventh century) and 431 (twelfth century). The marginalia arcscattered throughout the codicts, but one letter of a pair has often disappeared.

Oxford: Bodleian, Bodl. 317 ^S.C. 3053). Twelfth century. The survivingsource marks are few.3. Commentary on Luke.

Oxford: Bodleian. Bodl. 318 (S.C. 201:4). Written about 830. E. K. Randthe MS is no. 66 in his Manuscripts of Toursmakes no mention of the marginalia,which have been carelessly copied.

As in Paris: B.N. lat 11681, N sometimes appears for H, e.g. in the selfsamepassage from Jerome that has been cited above (p. 35 J, note 4). Sometimes the twoletters are reversed i.e. R-G instead of G-R.

Troyes 330. Twelfth century from Clairvaux. The size of the marginal lettersvaries, and it is not clear whether they were all entered at the time when the MSwas copied.

1 L. Baur Dii philosophischtn Werht dts Robert Grosseteste Bischofs von Lincoln

(Beitrige tur Gtsch. d. PhOos. d. MttUlalUrs Bd. ix 1913 pp 3i*~43*).* Hereinafter referred to as Lj, L,. &c. A. M. Bandini Cat. Codd. lat. Bibl. Mtd.-Laur. iv pp. 426-439. These MSS

were noted by Baur and Grabmann ; but they did not notice the important words:angtlica ltrarchia cum commento . . . stcundum dominum Lincolnumsem (cod. iifol. 1 a) found by Thomson (J.T.S. January 1933 p. 50). who also observed the glossix greco in the De Ealtsiastica HUrarchia and in the Dt Divinis Nominibus in theVatican MS Chigi A. V. 129 of the thirteenth century {itnd. p. 49).

* For the sake of clearness I beep this title for the collection of scholia by twodistinct authors, Johannes Scythopolitanus Scholasticus who lived at Scitopoli

A a i

at Brunel U

niversity on March 25, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

356 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

to two of the principal works of the pseudo-Dionysius: De Ecclesiastkaffierarchia, and De Divinis Nominibus} Thus we have anothertranslation from the Greek to add to the many for which Grossetestewas responsible, either as translator or reviser. There is no notice ofthis translation in any recent biography of him.*

IIThe translation of these Scholia is inseparably bound up with that of

the pseudo-Uionysian works mentioned above. For the latter, as isknown, Grosseteste (and with his name I include his collaborators) hadbefore him Greek MSS from which he revised and corrected the Latintranslations existing at his time: those of Johannes Scotus, JohannesSarracenus, and probably another not yet identified.* In one or moreof the- Greek manuscripts the Scholia of Maximus were noted anony-mously in the margins, and Grosseteste translated them as he cameupon them in making his version of the works of Dionysius. That hedid not know the Scholia to be by Maximus we know from a veryimportant statement at the end of the commentary to chapter viii of theDe Celesti Hierarchia: 'Quod autem hie diximus : separari, est ingreco : apokrincsthai, compositum ab apo quod significat in composicionere uel ab et krinesthai quod est iudicari et sumitur comuniter pro re-sponderi quia respondens sibi propositum a proponente prius iudicatumreiudicat; unde quidam transtulemnt hoc in verbum respondendi;alii autem, quia sonare potest in abiudicari, transtulerunt illud in

during the episcopacy of Theodosius (who wa3 consecrated to that see in si8), andMaximus Confessor (saec. vii), to whom should perhaps be added a third, Germanus,patriarch of Constantinople, if we may believe the evidence of two MSS whichstate this. But in all the editions after 1562 these scholia are all confused underthe one name of Maximus (see B. M. De Rubeis, In vtnttam Optrum quatArtopagiika dicuntur tditiontm in Migue P. G. iii 5R-76 ; iv 1031-1034).

1 I have not found in any MS the translation of the Scholia to the Epistolt ot

Dionysius; these, moreover, are not yet identified with Grosseteste's translation.Nor do I know any MSS containing the Scholia to the Dt Myshca Thtologia andthe Dt Ctltsti Hitrarchia: L,, L,, and the Chigi MS have those to the Dt Ecclesi-aslica Hitrarchia and the DtDivinis Nomittibtts.

1 The only indication that can be found is that of Archbishop James Ussher

(1665), who seems to have read a precise ascription of this translation to Robertof Lincoln in an Oxford MS, as he can spexk of a ' Latina versio ScholiorumScythopolitani a Roberto episcopo Lincolniensi facta, et in bibliotheca collegiiCorporis Christi apud Oxoniensea mss. asservata, in qua reperitur'. This citationis repeated without verification by Fabricius, Wharton and De Rubeis (MigncP. G.iii 64-65, where fuller references are given).

This is evident from the citations of alii translator** and ali* transladones : thesecitations are most frequent where Grossetette's commentaries on the Dionysianworks are primarily philological.

at Brunel U

niversity on March 25, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

NOTES AND STUDIES 357

diiudicari seu condemnari seu puniri. SED GRECUS QUi PONIT NOTASIN GRECO, QUAS NOS IN MARGINE SCRIBIMUS, exponit hie apokrinesthaiper churizesthai, quod est separari seu dividi' (L, f. 96 a).1 From thisstatement and from the words ex greco which he puts before every gloss,however short, it is certain that Grosseteste was translating directly fromthe Greek without the help of any earlier Latin translation.1

I may state, in anticipation, conclusions to which I have come aftera detailed examination of the scholia and a comparison of the Greektext as it has come down to us :

(a) Many of the Greek scholia are not found in Grosseteste's transla-tion.

(b) A number of them are found to be abridged or revised.(c) Some of the Latin scholia are not found in the Greek text.To give greater precision to the first point, reached through examin-

ing L, and L,, it will be necessary to check the glosses in all the MSSin which they appear. In some MSS they have been abridged; inothers they have disappeared completely, e.g. in L, and in the Mala-testian MS. Plut. XII Dext cod. I at Cesena. If close examinationreveals the omission of scholia, it should not be attributed to Grosseteste,who was too great a lover of Greek learning and too precise a translatorto do this; such omissions must be supposed to have occurred in theGreek (?) manuscript or manuscripts which he used.

Passing to the second point, the same may be said of the abridgedor revised glosses, some examples of which are here given: Schol. in'Os iv avpq. (P. G. iv 208 c, L8 f. 31b); in 'A/i.vaTa>v (ibid. 209 c, L, f.36 b ) ; in Tyv Oeapxt-rfv {ibid. 209 D, L 3 f. 37 b) ; in TV OeoXoymv (ibid.236 c, L, f. 69 a) &c. It is noteworthy that many of the glosses aredivided into two or more in the Latin translation; that, on the otherhand, in not a few cases two or more Greek glosses are compressed intoone in the Latin; and, finally, that such compressions occur at thesame time as more or less extensive omissions.

1 The scholium to which Grosseteste here refers is not found translated into

Latin in this manuscript, which has none of these marginal glosses, but among theScholia of Maximus can be read in Greek : 'AvoKpivta0ai. KaXwt tltttv & Kvptos ivTip wpo

358 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

As to the third point (c) the Latin scholia that I have found to belacking in the Greek text are few in number and very short, rarelyexceeding six or seven words; they have no importance, being simplyalternative glosses; and there is nothing to prevent our attributingthem to Maximus who has many like them. What is more importantis that in some passages Grosseteste's translation shows clearly that theGreek text we have is deficient: Schol. in 'AAAa v60S votiv TI, KO! Xtytiv ircpl ufov . . .(P.G. iv413 c) = Signa: Orige/us ait quoniam propter totaliter intelligerequid et dicere de Deo . . . (L, f. 245 a), where the reading Origcnes isprobably to be preferred to wpalov (venuste). Thus the Latin text isbetter than the Greek in the important gloss on the opinion of theancients on the immortality of the soul (SchoL in Ectl. Hier. vii =Migne P.G. iv 173 c \ntpl 6a.vd.T0v. . .] L, f. 122 a).

I l l

The form of the translation is identical in every respect with that ofother translations by Grosseteste *; and if, on comparing it with thetranslation of the Dionysian writings, a few small differences appear,this is due to the fact that for the latter Grosseteste had various Latintexts which were of some help, while the Scholia are a direct translationfrom the original Greek. His version is extremely literal and evenkeeps those details of Greek syntax which are irreconcilable with theLatin idiom, such as the infinitive construed with a conjunction or apreposition: OK SrjXovv = ut ostendert; SLO. TO OKUK votlv TI KO! \iyiw =propter totaliter intelligere quid et dicere; ftera TO eVnyjti/'

NOTES AND STUDIES 359Schol. in De Div. Nom. cap. I

(P.G. iv 185 A)'ApeoTrayCrov. "Ori ra yvwplcrpxiTa

airtp il)(Ov^EXXr}vti iri o n t ? oi iraAatiyiot, Kal fiera TO iirUTTpof/ca irposXpurrov avipvOpuiiTTiix: liriypajfyovlavTOis" Sov yap ' AptOTrayiTrjv bra>v6-puajrev iavrov, d>s Kal 6 #ios lovoru 'os& Tip jrpos "EXXi^as Aoyy lovortvov

Ibid. cap. V (P.G. iv 332 c)\rj Tives TOS Vbias Kal TO, irapa-

twTrocrraTa 2r]o-av, TOV-TOI>S brippaTri^n vvv *TWr]vas okTasKal ijo~i.' il yap pt] dirXils Kalivialias tlev ai IStcu, voiycrtts inrtpr}-TrXtofLtvai oZo-ax TOV vrrpt]TrXxi}p.ivovKal V7r(prjvti>p.vov cou, OTjvderos avtit] 6 tos IK TrapaSety/xaTos Kal

ov, oirep SiirXorjv ivo/iacrt. ToayaXXop-arij

Kvpios, KCU TO. irjs.

Schol. in Eccl. Hier. cap. VI(/".

36o THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

intelligibilis luminis revelat Deusnon per alterum doctorem sed ipseper se illuminans misterium specu-lationis, etc.

Existencia proprie in Deo nondicitur, et enim est preexistencia.Sed quia omnis existencia ex ipsoex hiis que per ipsum declaranturnominatur, ut intelligatur et superhec.1

Ls f. 148 aBoni cognominationem omnino

perfecte providencie susceptivamesse ait; reliquas autem particu-lares velut vitam et sapientiam etrationem. Et omnia quidem enimentia propter bonitatem Dei ad-ducta sunt ad existenciam et suntbona, id est valde bona. Nonomnia autem vita vel sapienria velratione participant; propter quodtales cognominationes secundumcontradivisionem omnino perfecteposuit. Universaliores autem ait inpluribus consideratas, velut vita ;occupat enim in plantis et animali-bus et rationalibus et irrationalibus;sapientia autem et ratio particu-lariores, in solis enim rationabilibusconspiciuntur hec.

IVThis translation of the Scholia of Maximus had a remarkable influence

on Grosseteste's Commentary on the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius.He did not content himself with mere translating: he assimilatedMaximus's thought, made it his own and worked it into his commentaryto the greater clarity of the Areopagite's text; he referred often to themarginal glosses and did not hesitate to depend on their authorityalthough he did not know their authorshipto establish uncertain

1 In the Latin text note the omission of Tovrtori . . . i>v&pcan.

ov Si* eripov SISCUTKOXOV iXXa avrosavroK ifxirn^wv TO ftvcrrijpiov TTJSOtatplas, KTX.

Schol. in De Div. Norn. cap. II(P.G. iv 212 A)

. . . VTrapi fiiv (cvpttus ivl ovov Xtyerai' Kal yap { KalCav Kal XoyoV xal jravra fiiv yapra ovra St' dyaOoTTjTa 6eov Trafnj^Or]irpoi xnrap^iv Kal turiv ayaOd, f/roi.icaAA Ax'av' ov vavra Si ^("^9 fj X.6yovT) crtx/Hat n.cri\avo-L, 810 Tas ro t awas

Kara dvnStaoroX-^v rrjiXovs Ttdtuccv. 'OXocan-tpat Si

r}cri Tas ITTI irXetdvcuv Ottapov/Jicvas,olov fcoyijv' tf)6a.vti yap CTTI vru>v Kalf UKOV, koyucuiv T Kai aXoyaiv' o~o

NOTES AND STUDIES 361

readings in some passages of the original. Following are the moreinteresting cases:

Comm. in Eccles. Hier. cap. I : ' Agnoscunt enim viri ecclesiasticimulta sancta et secreta ex misteriis per primos patres et ierarchas dis-positis et eorum tradicionibus non scriptis. Ex glosa autem marginalividetur debere esse ex sacerdotalibus, ubi nos posuimus ex ierarchids,quod aliquod exemplar habet: idem est in sensu . . .' (Lt f. 2 b ; themarginal gloss has: ' Ex greco. Quoniam sacerdotalem scientiam extradicionibus accepit': cf. Migne P.G. iv 116 A).

Comm. in Angel. Hier. cap. I I : ' A quibus autem sacris theologislaudetur ipsa thearchia per predicta in tribus generibus exempla satispatet ex glosa marginali ex greco sumpta ' (L, f. 27 b = P.G. iv 45 c D).

Ibid. cap. VII : Secundum notam autem sumptam ex greco aliqui librihabent sic: propriam existimandum esse ierarchiam uniformem ipsissecundum on}ne, pro eo quod nostra exemplaria habuerunt: similemexistimandum esse et secundum omne uniformem ierarchiam, quemad-modum nos transtulimus : nee est in sensu magna differentia nisi quodmanifestius insinuat primis substanciis, hoc est primis tribus ordinibus,propriam esse ierarchiam' (L, f. y^a. = P.G iv 68 B : Tais TrpcuTais.OVTCD TTJV Kaff xnripfiacriv, (CTX.).

Comm. in De Div. Nom. cap. I : ' Et ideo est deitas segregata etsuperelevata ab omnibus supersubstancialiter ut ipsa in eloquiis de sepluribus locis testatur, ut in scholio super hoc verbum tangitur' (L, f.17 b : Ex greco. Solus enim Deus, etc. = P.G. iv 189 c : MoVos yap 6

Ibid. cap. IV: ' Qualiter autem ipse Deus dicatur et totus amor et..partes amoris satis liquet in scholio greco scripto in margine ' (L, f. n o b :Ex greco. Dicens totalem amorem, etc = P.G. iv 269 c: T&ITTU>V bXixbvipotra . . .).

Ibid. cap. VI : ' Quod autem hie tangitur illud psalmicum, et quodillud intelligit Dionisius in animalibus irrationalibus et plantis solum,manifeste dicit scholium marginale ex greco sumptum' ( L , f. 1 7 0 b :Ex greco. Psalmicum quidem dictum de hominibus, etc. = P.G. iv337 A : To /itv \\faXfUKov).

Ibid. cap. VII : ' Ubi autem supra posuimus sol, aliqua translatiohabet letitia, quia in aliquo exemplari greco pro Hlios, quod est sol,scribitur Hdis, quod sonat in letitiam seu delectationem: sed veriorlittera est sol, sicut patet per scholium marginale' ( L , f. 1 7 5 a : E xgreco. Signa quoniam solem sui ipsius et sancti Ierothei sanctumPaulum dicit = P. G. iv 340 D : 'Xijixtiuxrai, ori r)\iov iarrrov . . .).

Ibid. cap. XI : ' . . . sed tenens ea in ordine tribuente unicuiquelocum sibi convenientem finit ea et terminat et inconfusa conservat et

at Brunel U

niversity on March 25, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

362 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

in universitatis armoniara conciliat; et est hoc redargutio quorundamphilosophorum, sicut patct in scholio marginali' (L, f. 226a: Ex greco.Magnos errores philosophorum gentilium redarguit, eta = P.G. iv392 A B : McyaAas jrXavas

NOTES AND STUDIES 363

mihi in Deo confidens apposui, secundum deinceps adiacentes sennonesquos nunc in meas venire accidit manus);' but I have not been ableto determine whether this is an actual translation, like the Scholia, ora reworking.1 Ezio FRANCESCHINI.

THE CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRITHE three publications by Sir Frederick Kenyon,8 which form the

subject of this paper, give us a full account of the new MS of theGospels and Acts and of its companions. When one adds that the newMS contains fragments of 30 leaves (out of an original no) , and thatits date is probably a little earlier than A.D. 250, i.e. between the deathof Origen and the Decian Persecution, it is obvious that its publicationmarks an epoch in textual history.

Sir Frederick Kenyon must be heartily congratulated on his work.The first volume gives an account of the find, with good facsimiles ofeach of the MSS. The second gives the text of the Gospels and Acts,together with a useful apparatus from cognate MSS; there is a verymodest but informing introduction, which tells the reader everything heneeds. In the Schweich Lectures there is a popular, and at the sametime scientific, account of the chief discoveries made since Hort'sedition was published, from the Sinai Palimpsest onwards. He dis-cusses the theories of Lake and Streeter, so that the reader is at onceput abreast of the present position. We see where we stand: evenunlearned persons, under Sir Frederic Kenyon's guidance, can dis-tinguish the controversy between Hort and Burgon, which is dead, fromthat between Hort and Lake (if I may so express it), which is alive andon which fresh light has been thrown by the great discovery of P", asthe new Papyrus is to be called.

P45, to begin with, is really antique. It has regularly iota adscriptwritten after 17 and w, but not after a : e.g. Lk x 12 eN[THi]HMep