Robert Grosseteste: New Perspectives on his Thought and scholarship (Instrumenta Patristica Et Mediaevalia) 2503505414, 9782503505411

Citation preview

INSTRVM ENTA

PATRIST ICA

XXVII

INSTRVMENT A

PATRISTICA

XXVII

ROBERT

GROSSETEST E: NEW PERSPECTIV ES ON HIS THOUGHT AND SCHOLARSHI P

MCMXCV STEENBRVGI S, IN ABBATIA S. PETRI BREPOLS PUBLISHERS , TURNHOUT

INSTRVMENTA

PATRISTICA

XXVII

ROBERT GR OSSETES TE: NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HIS THOUGHT AND SCHOLARSHIP EDITED BY JAMES McEVOY

MCMXCV STEENBRVGIS,

IN

ABBATIA

BREPOLS PUBLISHERS,

S.

PETRI

TURNHOUT

Printed in Belgium D/1995/05/58 ISBN 2-503-50541-4

PREFACE

Robert Grosseteste New Perspectives on his Thought and Scholarship

The astonishing number and variety of academic publications dedicated to Robert Grosseteste, in particular during the past ten or fifteen years, gave rise to the idea that to bring together a number of scholars for a colloquium on the life, thought and writings of Grosseteste would be a timely thing. The suggestion was put by the present writer to Sir Richard Southern, who decided to approach the Warburg lnstitute. Prof essor J .B. Tra pp willingly agreed that the Institute might act as host, by inscribing the project in its regular series of May colloquia. A number of the leading editors and students of Grosseteste quickly volunteered their support, and from the moment the colloquium was opened, with an address by Sir Richard, on 28 May 1987, the Warburg did everything possible to provide the perfect academic and administsrative setting for what proved in the eyes of its numerous participants to be a lively and memorable event. The occasion lent the opportunity to a number of young scholars to set forth the results of their research; that, indeed, had been a large part of its purpose from the start. The present volume differs in a number of ways from the programme of the colloquium. Notable additions have been made. Professor E.B. King, who was unable to attend, kindly agreed to have his planned contribution printed. Mrs Jennifer Moreton, who did attend, was invited to contribute a paper for publication, on the subject of her doctoral research. Mr Philipp Rosemann, who has edited the Tabula of Grosseteste, was approached for a compendious study of that work, and readily agreed. The editor also has made several contributions to the published volume. Fr Servus Gieben acceeded generously to the editor's request to supply a bibliography for the volume, th us bringing up to date (to 1991) his scholarly Bibliographia universa Roberti Grosseteste ab an. 1473 ad an. 1969. To this certain items which have appeared most recently have been

6

JAMES McEVOY

append ed. Sir Richar d Southe rn graciou sly agreed to provide an introdu ction to the volume . To all the contrib utors the editor wishes to express his sincere thanks . A summa ry of the often lively exchan ges of view which followe d each lecture has been compil ed from a tape recordi ng of the discussions and append ed to each paper, where approp riate. No attemp t has been made at a résumé of the final discuss ion, which was wideranging and which underli ned especia lly the import ance of trying to comple te the edition of Grosse teste's immen se output , as a priority . Certain ly the experie nce of the colloqu ium itself has served in the meanti me to encour age editors of Grosse teste materia l to proceed with their work, and to enter into mutual contac t in helpful ways. The present volume does not pretend to advanc e a unified picture of Grosse teste's though t and scholar ly achieve ment, but it may fairly claim to offer a variety of fresh perspec tives on publish ed and unpubl ished writing s, as well as on certain of the ideas and convictions of that versati le and prolific teacher and pastor. Its merit will be found to lie in range and diversi ty rather than in overall synthes is. The typogr aphica l conven tions utilized by each contrib utor have been retaine d in the printed work. The hope of the contrib utors is that this collecti ve book, althoug h put togethe r withou t any aim at the artifici al concor dance of the views held by its individ ual authors , may contrib ute to the advanc ement of particu lar tapies of curren t researc h, and thus add its own degree of momen tum to the presen t renaiss ance of interes t in the life, though t and writing s of one of the greates t and most attract ive thinker s and scholar s of the Middle Ages. It is a matter of some regret that the appear ance of this volume should have been so long delayed . The contrib utors to the colloquium were given the opport unity to make a thorou gh revisio n of their papers in view of publica tion, but even since then there have been unfores een and regrett able delays. Of course, the papers added subseq uently by invitat ion of the editor are of very recent date. The path to publica tion offered more than one stumbl ing-blo ck, up until the momen t when the editors of the Instrum enta Patristica series (Steenb rugge) rescued the project with an offer of publica tion as welcom e as it was genero us. The thanks of the editor are offered them most sincere ly. Mr R. Vander Plaetse deserve s thanks for having placed the volume with the series. Dom Eugène Mannin g O.S.B., of the Abdij Keizers berg (or Mont César), Louvai n, offered

PREFACE

7

his time and skills to put the entire volume on computerized dises, ready for publication. For his expert advice on typography, his spontaneous generosity and his unfailing energy the editor could not sufficiently express his gratitude. Mr Philipp Rosemann read most of the contributions in proofs and made innumerable corrections and improvements ; sincere thanks are hereby expressed to him, both for his work and for the spirit in which it was done. James McEvov Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuv e, Belgium.

INTRODUCTION

New Paths in Grosseteste Studies

The first thing I must do on behalf of us all is to thank the organizers of this conference, in particular Professor J. McEvoy, for all the work and thought that have gone into the selection of speakers and subjects for discussion. We all probably have some experience of the labour and tedium involved in the initial stages of any conference, especially one which has brought scholars together from so many different parts of the world. The only reward that can be offered in return is that the discussions should be at least free and frank, if necessary mildly fierce, reproving one another, as St Paul recommends, in love. Whatever disagreements may develop in the course of our discussions, - and it will not be a conference unless there are some - we will all agree that nothing is more important in the present state of Grosseteste studies - or even perhaps of historical studies generally - than that scholars who have an interest in different aspects of the same subject, but who work at great distances from each other, should have a chance to meet and discuss their common subject. So it is a great service to the subj ect to have arranged this, the first Grosseteste Conference in history. I shall say more about this in a few minutes. But before turning to consider the state of the subject, it is appropriate that we should also thank the Director of the Warburg Institute who has made it possible for us to meet in these congenial surroundings - and I am not thinking chiefly of all the amenities he will have provided, but of the great tradition of co-operative scholarship between scholars in different disciplines which the Institute represents. It is right that our conference should begin by paying tribute to the large-minded and civilizing activities of this institute over the last sixty years. I speak as one who remembers, better perhaps than anyone here, the narrowness which - alongside many virtues - beset medieval historical studies fifty or sixty years

10

R. W. SOUTHERN

ago. Aby Warburg and the Institute which he had founded in Hamburg, and which the horrors of that time (to our lasting good fortune) brought to London, bas done more than any other single force to make the creative processes of minds in the past a widely accepted study for historians everywher e. This aim has been fostered by successive directors, and we are grateful to the present Director for giving us this opportuni ty to extend the process to one of the most recalcitran t subjects in medieval history, Robert Grossetest e. These words must seem a rather pretentiou s introducti on to so small and brief a conference . But, in however small a way, we are engaged on a very large enterprise. Whether we shall succeed remains to be seen, but at least I think we can all agree that the moment is extraordin arily well chosen for making Grossetest e the subject of discussion s along lines laid down by the founder of this Institute. Looking at the present state of Grossetest e studies, no one can doubt that more progress has been made in the rediscover y of Grosseteste during the last fifty years than in the previous seven centuries since his death. This may seem a bold claim ; but if you think of what bas been done, you will see that it is well founded : Harrison Thomson' s survey of the manuscrip ts of Grossetest e's works, which was the first thing necessary for progress, in 1940; Dr Crombie's survey of Grossetest e's scientific works, and their place in the scientific developme nt of Europe, in 1953; The volume edited by Fr Callus in 1955, which provided the first overall view of Grossetest e both as bishop and scholar, and laid down the general lines of interpreta tion for the next thirty years; Professor Dales's editions, beginning with Grossetest e's commentary on the Physics, in 1957, and most recently coming down to his edition, with Professor King, of the De Cessatione Legalium, last year; Fr Gieben's series of editions and commenta ries on individual sermons and other works of Grossetest e from 1958 until the present day; Professor Rossi's edition of the commenta ry on Aristotle's Posterior A nalytics in 1981 ; Professor McEvoy's many editions of important parts of Grosseteste's works and his magisteria l exposition of Grossetest e's philosophy in 1982. These are just the high points in the great advance of knowledge in all fields of Grossetest e studies in the last half century. Much

NEW PATHS IN GROSSETESTE STUDIES

11

more has appeared in articles and studies, and much more is in course of preparation. Apart from the projects which we shall be hearing about from the participants themselves in the course of the conference, perhaps I could just mention - since the scholars themselves are not here - that Professors Westermann and Flint are well advanced in an edition of Grosseteste's Dicta; and we shall hear of much else from the scholars who are here. If I were to venture a prediction about the area in which the widest new prospects will be opened in the next decade, I should point to Grosseteste as a Greek scholar : truly one of the most extraordinary undertakings in the long list of surprises in Grosseteste's life, and it is a matter of the greatest satisfaction for all who are interested in the future of Grosseteste studies that Professor McEvoy, who recognised the importance of this area of study when he was a graduate student, now has a plan which should produce important results within the next few years. Since we can all see how much needs to be done, and how much of this is now in course of being done, it might be thought that the time spent on this conference could better be spent in getting on with the work. So - although it is preaching to the converted - let me say why, apart from the pleasure of meeting each other, considerable benefits are to be hoped for from this and perhaps later meetings of a similar kind. In Grosseteste we have on our hands a figure, not only of great complexity in himself, but of even greater complexity in the kind of evidence which we are required to use. I need say no more about the need for editions of his works, but it is worth remembering that, despite all the efforts of the last half century, quite half of his works are still unpublished. Of course they can be studied in the manuscripts, but most of these are late and unreliable. This also means that problems of authenticity abound. And, what makes everything even more perplexing, we are not agreed about the general outline of his life before he begins to corne into view at a relatively advanced age, around 1225, when on any reasonable hypothesis he was not less than fifty-five years old. Perhaps I should refrain from saying more about the problems of his career, since 1 have fairly recently corne forward with a view of his life which contradicts much that has been firmly believed for at least the last thirty years, and what I have said is sure to meet with a good deal of opposition. The disputed issues concern matters no less essential for understanding Grosseteste's development than

12

R. W. SOUTHERN

where he studied, what he studied, under what inspiration he studied, and in what order and with what resources he studied, the several departmen ts of learning on which he made his mark. Everything connected with him - his studies, his life, his career, his works - ail still bang in the balance. N ow one might say : in these circumstan ces, the only sensible course is to refrain from ail conjecture until the texts have been edited. After all, the attribution to him of the greater part of his surviving writings is as reliable as those of Aquinas or any other well-attest ed thirteenth -century author; and about half of these have never been printed, much less edited with the care that modern scholarshi p makes possible and necessary. So let us get on with this work instead of getting involved in controvers ial issues. On the surface, this seems reasonable enough. But there is something more than the impatienc e of frail humanity which makes this course impossible to follow. W e cannot begin to work seriously on Grossetest e without some hypothetic al structures of his life, studies, audience and circumstances to help our understand ing. Even editing the certainly genuine texts requires some provisiona l view of the habits of mind he had formed in the course of his career, of the extent of bis reading and his methods of study, and of the influences which prompted his writing. Indeed, if editing is - as it certainly must be - the chief and most demandin g task that lies before us, it is also true that interpreta tion is the major task of an editor. Interpreta tion cannot begin without a hypothesis , and no hypothesis can be certain : some wrong ones will blaze a trail to the truth, and some right ones will be a waste of time because they lead nowhere. It is only by strenuous and time-consu ming effort that we can find our way forward. But at the end of the road - to speak the language of Grossetest e - there is light. What is true of editorial work, which is one of the most refined of historical tasks, is even more true of those less refined procedure s of general historians, who attempt to interpret the thought and work of such a man as Grossetest e in the light of his general circumstances and the ideals of his time. W e cannot move, because we do not know in which direction to move, without the guidance of some provisiona l hypothesis about his life and circumstan ces. There are good hypothetic al constructi ons and bad ones ; and the only certainly bad ones are those which present themselve s as certainly right. One of the many qualities that warm the heart of a historian

NEW PATHS IN GROSSETESTE STUDIES

13

to Grosseteste is his willingness to hold provisional opinions ; and the only thing that would have made him better would have been a greater willingness on his part to concede that what he thought certainly right was sometimes wrong. In these tasks, we can help each other to test our hypotheses by conferring in a friendly yet critical way. 1 am sure that this conference, held in this informal way within the splendid historical ambiance of the Warburg Institute, will corne to be seen in the history of Grosseteste studies as an important occasion when some old constructions - and some new ones too, no doubt - began to be shaken out of the system, and some fresh ones appeared, which could in the end give new life to the whole subject. Perhaps the point 1 want to make can best be understood by a contrast. If Grosseteste were a Thomas Aquinas, we would certainly have many problems on our hands; but they would not be problems of his life, circumstances, education, habits of mind, audience, structure or purpose of his works. All, or nearly all the external facts about him are straightforward. The problems which arise corne chiefly from the majestic complexity of the system of thought unfolded in his writings. To understand what he writes is, superficially at least, rather easy because he is indefatigably lucid : it is only when we corne to the matter that he so lucidly expresses that we have to give our full attention to his pros and contras, and to the refinements of his distinctions. W e are not mu ch bothered with problems of authenticity, nor even of development from one work to another, nor with any problem about the habits of thought and argument which he brought to the various parts of his work. It is possible to write outlines of his life and doctrines, of his aims, methods and circumstances which will differ in sensitivity, in philosophical grasp, in understanding of his sources, in sympathy with his principles. But they will not differ to any significant extent in the facts which they set out to interpret. The difficulties corne only from the difficulty of grasping the complexity of his finely balanced thoughts. We must have thoroughly well-equipped theological and philosophical minds to understand him. I do not say that we need no historical background, but we can get a long way only with that which is generally agreed. When we turn to Grosseteste, we find a situation which is as different from this as it could well be. He presents a quite unique for once, the word can be given its full meaning - combination of problems. The range of subjects he studied, the way in which he

14

R.

W.

SOUTHERN

studied them, and the order in which he studied them, seem - to a much greater extent than any of the great scholastic thinkers - to be an expression , not of any normal programm e of university studies, but of his personalit y and of the obscure and varied background and circumstan ces of his life. Then further, his thoughts on the subjects which he chose to elaborate are markedly his own. In a word, uniquenes s of circumstan ces and personalit y, with a strong element of turbulence in both, are ail more evident in his work than in any other major character of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, with the possible exception of Abelard. But this parallel is not really helpful, for even though he and Grossetest e both display plenty of turbulence in their careers, the turbulence in Abelard's life is peripheral - I suspect he really felt rather annoyed about the complications Heloise had introduced into his life - whereas Grossetest e's turbulence goes to the root of ail his most characteri stic thoughts. In ail these remarks, I speak of course as a general historian, and not as an expert in any of the fields of study in which Grossetest e was conspicuou s. Perhaps more than anyone else here, I corne to learn from those who are working on the texts. These are after ail what matter most, and the new editions that are in process of production provide the greatest hope for new steps forward in Grosseteste studies. Sir Richard SOUTHERN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Robert Grosselesle. New Perspectives on his Thought and Scholarship

Preface, 'Robert Grosseteste: New Perspectives on His Thought and Scholarship', by James McEvoy

5-7

Introduction, 'New Paths in Grosseteste Studies', by R.W. 9-14 Southern .

Table of Contents

15

1. J. Goering, 'When and Where did Grosseteste Study Theology ?'

17

2. Pietro B. Rossi, 'Robert Grosseteste and the Object of Scientific Knowledge'.

53

3. Jennifer Moreton, 'Robert Grosseteste and the Calendar'

77

4. Jeremiah Hackett, 'Scientia Experimentalis: From Robert Grosseteste to Roger Bacon'.

89

5. Meridel Bolland, 'Robert Grosseteste's Greek Translations and College of Arms MS Arundel 9'

121

6. James McEvoy, 'Grosseteste's Reflections on Aristotelian Friendship: A 'New' Commentary on Nicomachean Ethics VIII. 8-14 .

149

7. Deirdre Carabine, 'Robert Grosseteste's Commentary on the Mystical Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius'

169

8. Candice Taylor Hogan, 'Pseudo-Dionysius and the Ecclesiology of Robert Grosseteste: a Fruitful Symbiosis' .

189

9. Servus Gieben, 'Robert Grosseteste and the Evolution of the Franciscan Ortler'

215

16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10. Michael Robson, 'Saint Anselm, Robert Grossetest e and

the Franciscan Tradition'

.

11. James McEvoy, 'Robert Grossetest e's Use of the Argument of Saint Anselm' .

233 257

12. E.B. King, 'Durham Cathedral MS A. 111. 2 and the Corpus of Grossetest e's Homiletic al Works' .

277 13. James McEvoy, 'Robert Grossetest e on Educative Love' 289 14. Richard C. Dales, 'Robert Grossetest e on the Soul's Care for the Body' 313 15. Philipp W. Rosemann , 'Robert Grossetest e's Tabula' 321 16. David J. Wasserste in, 'Grossetes te, the Jews and Medieval Christian Hebraism '.

357

17. Matthias Hessenaue r, 'The Impact of Grossetest e's Pastoral Care on Vernacula r Religious Literature : La Lumière as Lais by Pierre de Peckham'

377

18. K. Sajavaara , 'Château d'Amour' (Summary )

393

19. Jam es McEvoy, 'Editions of Grossetest e Planned and in Progress, and Sorne Desiderata for the Future'

395

20. Discussion s

407

21. Servus Gieben, 1970-1991 . Indices.

'Robertus Grossetest e: Bibliograp hia 415 433

WHEN AND WHERE DID GROSSETESTE STUDY THEOLOGY?

The story of a boy of humble birth who becomes a renowned scholar, head of one of England's most important dioceses, and a familiar of Popes and Kings, might seem like a fairytale, but it is the picture that has emerged from generations of research into the career of Robert Grosseteste. Our knowledge of his career after 1235, when he became bishop of Lincoln diocese, is fairly detailed. But the training and experiences that qualified him for such an exalted office and that prepared him for his work as pastor, teacher, and administrator par excellence remain matters of conjecture. Particularly obscure are the years c. 1200 to 1225. These are the years of Grosseteste's mid-life, from approximately age 30 to age 55, when common wisdom then as now holds that people 'flourish'. Even if Grosseteste be described as a late-bloomer, the preparation for that blossoming should be found in his activities, interests, and accomplishments during the middle years of his career. The evidence for Grosseteste's career before 1235 lacks continuity and detail. Documentary evidence of his offices and activities before becoming bishop of Lincoln is sporadic. A few definite, but widely separated, documents survive to indicate something of his occupations, but these are too few and far between to allow a satisfactory reconstruction of his pre-episcopal career. The documents can be supplemented by the more abundant evidence of his writings, but these are ambivalent witnesses, open to differing interpretations of authenticity, date, and historical context. The reconstruction of Grosseteste's career from his writings is an interactive (not to say 'circular') process: the more we know about his career, the more accurately we can date the works ; the more accurately the works are dated, the more we can know about his career. In the following essay both categories of evidence---the documents and the writings-will be re-examined, and new documents as well as previously unstudied writings will be adduced to clarify this obscure period of Grosseteste's career. Particular attention will be given to the question of when and where he acquired the exper-

18

JOSEPH GOERING

tise in theology that would become one of the hallmarks of this many-facete d scholar and churchman. The earliest surviving document to give unambiguou s, if sparse, information about Robert's career is a Lincoln charter that can be dated to the years 1189-1192 1 • His name appears last among the witnesses to the charter, and he shares with most of the other witnesses the title 'Magister'. The title indicates that he had studied in the schools and that he was qualified to teach, but we learn from this document neither what or where he had studied nor what he might teach. Sorne of these questions can be answered by the chance survival of a letter commending Grosseteste to the service of William de Vere, bishop of Hereford from 1186 to 1198. The letter is from Gerald of Wales, and survives only because Gerald, with his characteristic hubris, preserved it in his, Symbolum eleciorum 2 • Writing from Lincoln, c. 1195, Gerald informs the bishop that Grosseteste has reliable skill in two branches of learning, in practical law (concern1 The most recent discussion of Grosseteste's career is R. W. Southern, Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mindin Medieval Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); this document is discussed on pp. 42-46. See also J. C. Russell, 'Richard of Bardney's Account of Robert Grosseteste's Early and Middle Life', Medievalia et Humanislica, 2 (1944), pp. 45-54; idem, 'Phases of Grosseteste's Intellectual Life', Harvard Theological Review, 43 (1950), pp. 93-116; idem, 'Sorne Notes upon the Career of Robert Grosseteste', Harvard Theological Review, 48 (1955), pp. 199-211; D. A. Callus, 'The Oxford Career of Robert Grosseteste', Oxoniensia, 10 (1945), pp. 42-72; idem, 'Robert Grosseteste as Scholar' in D. A. Callus, ed., Robert Grossetesle, Scholar and Bishop, (Oxford, 1955), pp. 1-69. 2 'Pro bonis viris,' ut ait Symmachus, 'quisquis intervenit non magis eorum videtur juvare commodum, quam suum commendareju dicium.' Hinc est quod pro magistro Roberto Grosse/este, quem nuper, sicul audivi et gralanter accepi, in familiam et familiarilatem suscepistis, veslram id solum efflagito discretionem, ut viri merita aequiparenl praemia. Scia quippe quod ejus opera lam in negoliis veslris variis, el causarum decisionibus, quam in corporis veslri conferendae sanitatis el conservandae curis, cum in horum peritia fideliter praestet, vobis dupliciter fiel immo mullipliciler pernecessaria. Praecipue quidem cum facultates illas, quae his noslris diebus fructuosae prae caeteris in lemporalibus esse soient, super liberalium arlium el litleralurae copiosae fundamenla stabiliter ereclas, egregii mores adjuncti laudabiliter illuminent el exornenl. Cum enim praediclarum f acultatum artifices fi de plerumque vacillare soleanl, praeter caeteras virtutes el animi dotes quibus excellil, {ide noverilis ipsum el fidelilale conspicuum. Et ut brevi eloquio ad cumulum commendationi s mulla concludam, talis hune naturae pariter et induslriae novi, quod virum in eo juxla cor veslrum, si non fallor, et in quo plurimum quiescet spiritus vester invenietis. Giraldus Cambrensis Opera, J. S. Brewer, ed., (RS, London, 1861) I, 249.

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

19

ing varions kinds of business and legal decisions), and in medicine (the ability to provide cures and preserve health). We learn, furthermore, that Grosseteste has a solid foundation in the liberal arts, has read widely, and that he adorns these accomplishments with a faith and morality that is often lacking in others with similar interests and training. Gerald mentions these particular qualities because they emphasize Grosseteste's potential usefulness to the bishop. There is no implication that Robert holds degrees of Master of Arts or Doctor of Laws or of Medicine ; these are anachronistic titles, scarcely applicable to the schools of the 12th and early-13th centuries. The letter implies, rather, that Grosseteste had learned something of all these things, either in the schools or through practical experience, and 3 that he could put this knowledge to good use in the bishop's service • Gerald makes no explicit reference in this letter to Grosseteste's potential as a scholar and teacher. We know, however, that schools were flourishing in Hereford at the time, and a comparison of the qualities singled out for special mention by Gerald with the earliest writings of Grosseteste shows that he was well suited to take part in the scholastic as well as the administrative activities of his new home. Hereford was known as a centre for the study of the natural sciences and the liberal arts at varions times during the 11 th and 12th centuries 4 • The scientist Roger of Hereford made astronomical tables for Hereford in the second half of the 12th century, and astrology and geomancy were being taught along with astronomy. Master Simon of Fresne, a canon in Hereford cathedral, wrote to Gerald of Wales early in the 13th century urging Gerald to corne to Hereford where the seven liberal arts were more studied and taught than anywhere else in England 5 • Law and theology also were taught

That he was in active service with Bishop de Vere is shown by his regular appearance among the witnesses of the episcopal charters. See Southern, Grosselesle, p. 66 n. 6. 4 See J. C. Russell, 'Hereford and Arabie Science in England c. 1175-1200, Isis 18 (1932), pp. 14-25; R. W. Hunt, 'English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 19 (1936), pp. 23-4, 36-7; 'Kathleen Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, (2nd ed.; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), pp. 189-91; Southern, Grosseteste, pp. 104, 126, 128. 5 See Giraldus ... Opera, I, 382-3; Hunt, 'English Learning', pp. 23, 36-7. 3

20

JOSEPH GOERING

in the Hereford schools 6 • A person with Grosseteste's qualifications would be well suited to take advantage of this scholastic milieu, and a recapitulation of his earliest writings suggests that he did. These include such works as the Computus, the De artibus liberalibus, the De cometis, the De generatione sonorum, the De impressionibus aeris, and the De sphaera. Although no consensus has been reached on the precise dating of the individual works, they are generally agreed to be among Grosseteste's earliest writings 7 • They all reflect the interests current in the Hereford schools at the turn of the century, and one would be remiss not to presume that Grosseteste frequented these schools, and taught there what we would call 'arts and sciences'. The bishop of Hereford whom Grosseteste served during the ll 90s died in December of 1198. During the next twenty years Grosseteste's name appears twice in the written documents as a papal judge-delegate in the pontificate of Innocent III. Before 1216 he acted with the archdeacon of Salop (Lichfield diocese) and the rural dean of Sapey (on the border between Herefordshire and Worcestershire ) in a case concerning the prior and monks of Worcester 8 • Between 1213 and 1216 he is found in association with Hugh Foliot, archdeacon of Shropshire in Hereford diocese, deciding another case involving the Worcester monks 9 • Hugh Foliot became bishop of Hereford in 1219, and Grosseteste appears to have been a valued member of the episcopal circle for several years thereafter 10 • From these documents we can infer that Grosseteste was regarded, at least in the neighborhood of Hereford, as a prudent and trustworthy person with practical administrative skills 11 • His reputation may have been fostered by his association with the schools; he is designated 'Master' in all the documents, and the absence of 6

Hunt, 'English Learning', p. 37. See Richard C. Dales, 'Robert Grosseteste's Scientific Works', Isis 52 (1961), 381-402; James McEvoy, 'The Chronology of Robert Grosseteste's Writings on Nature and Natural Philosophy' Speculum 58 (1983), pp. 614-655; Southern, Grosseteste, pp. 120-140. 8 C. R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney, The Letters of Pope Innocent 111 (1198-1216) Concerning England and Wales, (Oxford, 1967), p. 189, no. 1156b. 9 See Southern, Grosseteste, pp. 66-67. 10 Southern, ibid. 11 J. Sayers provides a good summary of the qualities sought and valued in judges-delegate in her Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury, 1198-1254, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 109-135. 7

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

21

any institutional title (archdeacon's official, etc.) suggests that his qualifications as judge and witness derived from sources other than diocesan administrative office 12 • His association with Hereford diocese in the l 190s and again between c. 1215 and the early 1220s provides prima f acie evidence for this diocese as the primary locus of his activities during the early decades of the 13th century. The details of Grosseteste's activities during these decades have been the subject of much conjecture. We know from his personal reminiscences that he spent part of this time, during the papal inter13 dict of England 1208-1213, on the contintent . Did he take this opportunity to study theology at the University of Paris? The assertion is not inherently improbable; many other English clerics studied and taught theology in Paris during these years. The evidence that Grosseteste did so, however, is all circumstantial. It is based on the general principle that Paris was the place favoured by Englishmen in this period for theological studies, and on the premise that Grosseteste must have become a master of theology by c. 1215

An interesting passage in Grosseteste's Templum Dei, probably composed during the same years that he was witnessing Hereford charters for Bishop Foliot, suggests that he was familiar with some of the temptations of ad hoc diocesan service. In his inquiry into the sin of usury Grosseteste comments : Symoniacus es ... si pro sciencia et pericia iuris ministras episcopo pro certa taxacione stipendiorum; see the edition cited below in n. 50, p. 54, c. XII.3. 13 Matthew Paris reports Grosseteste's deathbed reminiscence of a sojourn in France where he heard the preaching of Eustace of Flay, James of Vitry, Robert of Courson, and the exiled Stephen Langton, Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, (RS, London, 1880), V. 404. Callus, 'Oxford Career', pp. 49-50, connects Grosseteste's visit with the dispersion of Masters and students from Oxford in 1209-1214, but we have no evidence that Grosseteste was teaching at Oxford by 1209. His association with Hereford diocese before 1200 and again after 1215 suggest a continuing connection with that diocese (and its schools). The Bishop of Hereford joined other English bishops in exile on the continent in 1209, during the papal interdict of England, and we might well consider this as sufficient occasion for Grosseteste's sojourn there. Southern, Grosseteste, p. 66, note 7, suggests that Grosseteste heard these preachers in the South of France, not in Paris. However a consideration of the chronology and itineraries of these men suggests that Grosseteste would have been more likely to encounter them in the area of Paris and/or Normandy, in the years 1211-1213. See John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle (2 vols.; Princeton N. J.: Princeton University Press), 1, 19-31, 36-39. 12

22

JOSEPH GOERING

because he was chancello r of Oxford Universi ty at about that time-a position that could be held only by a master of theology 14 • W e will return to the vexed question of the Oxford chancello rship at the end of this paper. Here it will suffice to present the substant ive evidence that Grossete ste did not study theology and become a theologia n in Paris during the years 1208-1215 15 • The first bit of evidence is one of the rare autobiog raphical statements in Grossete ste's writings. In the sermon Scriptum est de Leuitis, number 31 in Thomson 's catalogu e of the writings 16 , Grossete ste says: 'First I was a cleric, then master of theology and priest, and afterwar ds bishop' 17 • We know that he was still in deacon's orders in 1225, when he received his first parochia l benefice, and that he was ordained to the priesthoo d soon thereafte r 18 • If Grossete ste's mastersh ip in theology and his presbyte ral ordinatio n were closely associate d in his own mind, we should be wary of separating the two by the ten or fifteen years between his return from the continen t and his Lincoln ordinatio n. Richard of Bardney , whose sixteenth -century life of Grossete ste has recently been rehabilitated, confirms this chronolo gical point when he says that Grossete ste began to study theology at the same time that he became a priest and received a Lincoln prebend, i.e. after 1225 19 •

14

5-6.

See Cali us, 'Oxford Career', pp. 48-52; idem, 'Grossetes te as Scholar', pp.

15 I am, of course, not the first to suggest that Grossetest e was not a regent master of theology until later in the century. This is argued cogently, but on somewhat different grounds by Southern, Grosselesle, and is implied by Josiah Cox Russell as early as 1936, in his Diclionary of Wrilers of Thirleenth Cenlury England, (1936, rpt. New York: Burt Franklin, 1971) p. 137, and further developed in the articles cited above, note 1. 16 S. Harrison Thomson, The Wrilings of Robert Grosselesle Bishop of Lincoln 1235-1253, (Cambridg e: Cambridge University Press, 1940), p. 176. 17 'Primo fui clericus, deinde magister in lheologia el presbiler, el tandem episcopus' ; cf. Russell, 'Phases', pp. 98-99; Callus, 'Oxford Career', p. 52; idem, 'Grossetes te as Scholar', pp. 5-6. Callus's arguments against interpretin g these words as biographic ally relevant do not seem particularl y cogent. 18 L. E. Boyle, 'Robert Grossetest e and the Pastoral Care', Medieval and Renaissance Sludies 8 (1979), pp. 3-51; rpt. in his Pastoral Gare, Clerical Education, and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), at pp. 3-4. 19 Quomodo poeniluil Groslhed sludii scienliarum inhibilarum : His monilis subpressa viri prudenlia magni Respuil haec sludia, dum cupil inde nova, &c.

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

23

One bit of positive evidence has survived to confirm that Grosseteste was still a master of arts in the 1220s. It is found in the testimony of Nicholas Trevet, that while a master in arts Grosseteste 'wrote compendiously on the Posterior Analytics, and also published treatises on the Sphere, the Computus, and many 20 other things useful in philosophy.' • Grosseteste's commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics has been edited recently, and current 21 opinion is unanimous in ascribing it to the decade 1220-30 • Although Trevet was writing a hundred years later, he was a wellinformed historian of academic affairs. His precise comment that Grosseteste was a master in arts when he commented on this work Acclamai vulgus, ut in ordine Presbiteratus Gaudeal alla studens; sed negal ille limens. Rex jubet, hoc sentit, sic gens generosa, fidelis Urgel eum Clerus. Presbyler efficilur. Dai libi Praebendam primam Lincolnia mater; Quam bene Clistona solvil in Ecclesia. Quomodo Magister Grosthede Doctor efficilur Theologiae: Laetiliae studia, quibus ardet grata juventus, Omnia deponil nobilis iste studens. Sic ait. ln fragili lusit mea pagina mente. Mens lasciva nitens in sua damna volai. Majorem nunc tendo /iram; studium renovabo. Coelesti Musae pleclra parai cithara, &c. Sic Scriplurarum mustum bibit atque propinat; Quod doctus fueral, & decus orbis eral. Doclrina probitate simu/ vir nobilis iste Robertus Grosthed Doctor in orbe nitet. Vita Roberli Grosthed, Episcopi Lincolniensis. Authore Richardo Monacho Bardeniensi, cc. 21-22, in Wharton, Anglia sacra, vol. 2, pp. 333-4. J. C. Russell was the first to recognize the potential value of this often-fanciful work (see above, note 1); Southern discusses the above verses in his Grosseteste, pp. 79-80. 20 'Qui, cum esset magister in artibus, super librum Posteriorum compendiose scripsil; lractatus etiam De sphaera et De arle compati, mu/taque alia in philosophia utilia, edidit. Doctor vero in theologia, in trip/ici lingua eruditus, Latina, H ebraea, et Graeca, mulla de glossis H ebraeorum extraxil, et de Graeco mu/ta transferri fecit ... .' Annales sex Regum Angliae, sub anno 1253. The words 'in theo/ogia' are omitted in ail the published editions of the Annales, against the evidence of the manuscripts; see F. A. C. Mantello, 'The Editions of Nicholas Trevet's Annales sex Regum Angliae', Revue d'histoire des textes 10 (1980), pp. 257-275, at p. 259 n. 10. The restored text would seem to imply that ail of the first items, not just the writings on the Posterior Analytics, were composed while Grosseteste was a mas-

ter in arts. 21 See Southern, Grosseteste, p. 131, and the references in n. 42.

24

JOSEPH GOERING

deserves the credence that it can now be given 22 • An examina tion of Grossete ste's extant writings corrobor ates the testimon y of these witnesses . No work of scholasti c theology can be attribute d to Grossete ste until more than a decade after his return from the continent around 1215. The earliest works that testify unambig uously to his status as a master of theology are the sermons, scriptura l expositions, and dicta in Durham MS A.111.12 (c. 1230), the questions De dotibus (c. 1230; definitely after 1225), the De cessatione legalium (after 1230), and the Hexaeme ron (after the De cessatione). Grossete ste's letter to Adam Rufus, perhaps written c. 1228, is clearly the work of a persan learned in theology , but not necessari ly a regent master in the schools 23 • Editions and studies of other theological works such as the Dicta, the De decem mandatis , and the biblical commen taries may alter this judgeme nt, but it is unlikely that any of these will prove to date from before 1225. Two theologic al works previous ly ascribed to Grossete ste, the Moralitat es super euangelia and the De eucaristia , may indeed have been written early in the century, but not by Grossete ste 24 • The Questiones theologice edited by D. A. Callus present a special problem 25 • They exist in a single, unascrib ed manuscr ipt copy, and 22 For the importanc e of Trevet's work as a source for scholastic history see Mantello, 'Editions of Nicholas Trevet', pp. 257-261. Southern's assertion (ibid., pp. 131-2) that Trevet, 'writing in Oxford c. 1320, would have naturally assumed that a commenta tor on the Posterior Analytics must have been a lecturer in arts', does Trevet an injustice. As one of the most careful reporters on the academic career and writings of Thomas Aquinas, for example (a theologian who commented extensivel y on 'arts' texts), it is hard to imagine that Trevet would have been easily misled by anachronis tic assumptio ns about Grossetest e's commenta ries. 23 On this letter see James McEvoy, 'Der Brief des Robert Grossetest e an Magister Adam Rufus (Adam von Oxford O. F. M.): ein Datierung sversuch', Franziskan ische Studien 63 (1981), pp. 221-226; Southern, Grosseteste, pp. 32-35. 24 On the Moralities see E. J. Dobson, M oralities on the Gospels: A New Source of Ancrene Wisse (Oxford: Clarendon , 1975), where the work is dated c. 1215, and tentatively assigned to Alexander of Bath; see also the review of Dobson's book by S. Wenzel and R. Rouse in Speculum 52 (1977), pp. 648-52. On the De eucaristia see J. Goering, 'The Diffinicio eucaristie formerly attributed to Robert Grossetest e', Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986), pp. 91-104, where it is shown to be excerpts from a work on the sacrament s by William de Montibus, Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedra!, who died in 1213. 25 D. A. Callus, 'The Summa theologiae of Robert Grossetest e', in Studies in Medieval History Presented Io F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, et al. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), pp. 180-208.

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

25

Callus's arguments for attributing them to Grosseteste, although 26 strong, have thus far failed to gain general acceptance • Even if the questions should prove to be authentic, however, they provide no evidence for dating Grosseteste's theological teaching before 12251230. Recently attention has been drawn to a quotation in the Questiones of Ps.-Dionysius's De diuinis nominibus, a work that Grosseteste begins to cite only after 1230 27 . Callus himself notes the dependence of these questions on the Summa aurea of William of 28 Auxerre, probably completed between 1220 and 1225 . His assertion that these questions belong to Grosseteste's early teaching years may be correct, but these years must then have been during the third, or even the fourth, decade of the thirteenth century, rather than the second 29 • Not only the dates but also the number of Grosseteste's theological writings seems to preclude a teaching career extending from 1215 to 1235. As a master of theology he would have been expected to lecture on the Bible and its glosses, and his extant works indicate that he did so. But as Fr Callus noted, there are far too few extant commentaries from Grosseteste's pen to 30 account for a teaching career that extended over two decades • Callus's conjecture that 'a good number must have been lost, or are still untraced' remains a possibility, but the result of research to See J. McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p, 489, who is cautions about their authenticity, and Southern, Grosseteste, pp. 29-31, who argues that, if they are authentic, they must have been composed after 1230, and that this would scarcely fit with the known chronology of Grosseteste's career. In my opinion, interna! evidence such as the author's careful use of William of Auxerre, and his following of Peter of Poitier's rather than Peter Lombard's Sentences to organize the text (see Callus, 'Summa theologiae', pp. 190, 193) is a strong argument in favour of Grosseteste's authorship; Southern's concerns about the dating of the text are addressed below. 27 Southern, Grosseteste, p. 30, and note 5. 28 On the date of William's Summa, see below, n. 91. Callus, p. 193, notes that the author of these questions follows faithfully the Summa of William of Auxerre 'in the order of the quaestiones, and often in the whole argument, although in abridged form.' This same reliance on William of Auxerre's Summa aurea can be found in others of Grosseteste's disputed questions; see Joseph Goering, 'The De dotibus of Robert Grosseteste', Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982), pp. 83-109, at pp. 95-6. 29 See Callus, 'Summa theologiae', p. 194: 'The Quaestiones Theologicae belong to Grosseteste's teaching career, and very probably to his early years. They corroborate the tradition of his pursuing his theological studies in Paris.' 3 Callus, 'Grosseteste as Scholar', p. 28. 26

°

26

JOSEPH GOERING

date has been to reduce, not to augment, the number of authentic scriptural writings 31 • The extant commentari es can be dated to the late 1220s or the 1230s, and the entire corpus could easily have been produced during a teaching career of five or six, rather than twenty, years. As a master of theology Grosseteste also should have disputed questions and preached. Again, the extant evidence may be incomplete, but the records of scholastic disputations are far too few to fill a long career as a master of theology 32 • Sermons attributed to Grosseteste, although abundant from the episcopal period, are infrequent from the earlier years; none has been identified in manuscripts, nor were any noted by contemporar ies, before the 1230s 33 • The paucity of Grosseteste' s theological writings as well as their late date of composition must call into question the assumption that Grosseteste studied theology in Paris before 1215 and taught theology in the schools for the next twenty years. Neither the extant documents nor the writings suggest that Grosseteste studied theology in the Parisian schools in the years before 1215, or that he wrote or taught as a master of theology during the subsequent decade. Rather the evidence intimates that he was on the continent along with the bishop of Hereford and other English Churchmen in exile before 1215, that he returned to the diocese of Hereford when the interdict was lifted, and that he continued his diocesan service and his teaching as a master of arts, at Hereford or elsewhere, into the 1220s. To deny that Grosseteste followed a course of formai theological instruction on the continent (or in England) and that he became a master of theology during the first quarter of the thirteenth century is not to preclude ail interest on his part in theology. Indeed, a 31

See above, note 24. Beryl Smalley argues persuasively against Grosseteste's authorship of the commentary on Romans in Gonville and Caius MS 439 in her 'Biblical Scholar', in Cali us, ed., Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop, p. 76; cf. Thomson, Writings, pp. 74-5. 32 See Callus, 'Grosseteste as Scholar', pp. 28-9; idem, 'Summa theologiae', p. 192; (note that the 'De eucharistia' listed there is inauthentic; see above, note 24). 33 On the sermons see Thomson, Wrilings, pp. 160-191; the sermons in Durham MS A. Ill. 12, (Thomson, pp. 182-191), can be dated c. 1230, and thus are from the pre-episcopal period. The theological Dicta also include some sermons, and are said by Grosseteste to date from the time when he was lecturing in scolis; see Thomson, ibid., pp. 214-232.

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

27

consideration of his recently edited works on penance and confession leads to the conclusion that he was deeply interested in practical theology and in the cura animarum years before he became a master of theology, priest, and bishop. Before presenting this evidence, however, we must ask whether such a conclusion is inherently improbable. First, could Grosseteste have written extensively on the pastoral activities of hearing confessions and assigning penances if he were not himself a priest with experience in the care of souls? In reply, it might be noted that many of the most famous pastors and writers on pastoral tapies among Grosseteste's contemporaries were not ordained to the priesthood. Lothair of Segni, for example, was only a deacon when he was chosen pope, taking the name Innocent III. Although the chronology of his pastoral writings still needs investigation, there can be no doubt that he gained much of his expertise in the cura animarum without first-hand experience of the priestly office 34 • Likewise Peter the Chanter of Paris, who wrote widely and sensitively on the sacrament of penance and the intricacies of confession and pastoral care, was only in deacon's orders when he è:, suggest that it should be rendered 'vero'. Grosseteste never renders it that way. It is his invariable habit to translate µÈv with 'quidem' and l>è: with 'autem'. Whoever compared the text of MS. Royal 5. D. X. with a Greek manuscript did it carefully; but either it was not Grosseteste at all, or it was Grosseteste with a different manuscript of John of Damascus, and different idiosyncracies, from the translator and corrector of the text in Pembroke 20. The 'old translation' referred to in the rubric of MS. Pembroke 20 is of course Burgundio's. The text is essentially that of Burgundio, but as I have remarked, Grosseteste applies the principle of fidelity to the text to its limits. Sorne of his changes and comments are to be found in the margin; other are incorporated silently into the 11

Cambridge University Library, MS. Pernbroke College 20, f. l'.

GROSSETESTE'S GREEK TRANSLATIONS

127

text. Sorne comments refer to sizeable chunks missing from Burgundio: Sir Richard for example cites the marginalia from f. 166v of MS. Magdalen 192, referring to the two chapters on the winds, stars and seas. My present concern is with the text on a far more minute lev el. To begin with, comparatively few of the variants are labelled 'in greco'. The first marginal note reads 'seu nullus' for the textual reading 'nemo'. There is no reason that 1 can fathom. It is just a synonym. In the text, Grosseteste has changed Burgundio's 'in sinu' to the plural, 'in sinibus'. That brings it in line with the exact Greek reading, &v Toî'c; xÔÀ7tOLç. The addition of an 'et' here, the omission of an 'est' there-these too bring the readings closer to the Greek. With Grosseteste's rendering of ToÜ e:lvou with eius quod est esse, we corne to one of his quirks as a translator. Burgundio translates this verb used nominally (as indicated by the article) with the gerund. Grosseteste has a system for translating the definite article, not in all its manifestations, but in certain occurrences: the article with the infinitive being one of them. 12 With this usage he is certainly closer to the Greek. It does, however, produce rather odd Latin, and earlier scholars, such as Hocedez, were at a loss to understand what Grosseteste was doing. The same principle applies to 'quod conferens' for Tà cruµrpÉpov, and to Grosseteste's precise translation of the participles µe:TcxlpovTe:c; and l'.me:p~cxlvovTe:c; with Latin participles, 'transferentes' and 'transgredientes', instead of Burgundio's finite verbs. All these changes or 'corrections'-unlike those in BL Royal 5. D. X.-bear the true imprint of Grosseteste's individuality as a translator, instantly recognisable if one has edited a single text ; he is nothing if not hyperpunctilious to a fault. If Burgundio's choice of the word for word method makes his translation less elegant and smooth-running than Cerbanus's, then Grosseteste moves in the direction of being yet more cumbrous and, it must be said, more incomprehensible than Burgundio.13 In addition to these changes, there are others of a more lexical nature, where Grosseteste has put forward alternatives to Burgun12 Compare, for example, 'eius quod est ... habere' for Tou ËXE~v in De Hymno Trisagio, ed. M. Holland (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1980), p. 208. 13 See E. Hocedez, 'La Diffusion de la "Translatio Lincolniensis du 'De Fide Orthodoxa" ', Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes 3 (1913) pp. 189-198.

128

MERIDEL ROLLAND

dio's choice of words. Sorne of these changes are silently incorporated into the text, others are noted in the margin : for example, 'seu huius et continentia' glosses 'eius permanentia' in Burgundio. If one looks up the Greek of these alternative translations in the Greek-Latin Lexicon, College of Arms MS. Arundel 9, one finds that most, though not quite all, of the readings are an exact reflection of the Latin definition given in the Lexicon. The following is a table of the main lexical variants found in the first three chapters of De Fide Orthodoxa. 14 Variants in Chapters 1 Ch. 1.

Ch. 2.

Burgundio

Grosseteste

et eius permanentia suppositus immutabilis

(marg.) seu continentia subiectus (marg.) seu tibilis id est divinitate in posternum chorus altero sanctas manifestans (marg.) seu ratoribus quidem (marg.) seu ligibilia (marg.) seu na vit

scilicet deitati postea

Ch. 3.

coetus alio di vinas ostendens prophetis igitur intellectualia constituit (Buytaert: statuit) agit generari

to 3 of De Fide Orthodoxa MS. Arundel 9

huius

sunochiI

continentia

inver-

up6kei(d]mai âtreptos

subiaceo inversibilis

l1goun fü:L6THS eis ôsteros Xor6s Heros agios emfainw ennar- upofHTHS

intel-

mén nOHTOS

scilicet. id est divinitas in posternus chorus alter sanctus manifesto iam facta narrans quidem intelligibilis

ordi-

tassw

ordino

âgw génomai

duco fio

(marg.) seu ducit fieri

It is difficult to make a precise count of variants from an unedited text. 1 count about twenty lexical variants, either incorporated into the text or mentioned in a marginal gloss, in the first three chapters of De Fide Orthodoxa. Of these, a couple are trivial

14 The words and phrases from the Burgundio translation are taken from the edition by E. Buytaert (New York, 1955).

GROSSETESTE'S GREEK TRANSLATIONS

129

('nullus' for 'nemo', 'ipsius' for 'eius'). A total of seventeen out of the twenty reproduce the Latin definitions given in the College of Arms Lexicon. From this very high proportion of agreements, I draw the conclusion that Grosseteste referred to the exemplum from which this manuscript was made when he undertook his re-translation of Burgundio. It has long been posited that Grosseteste began his translating career with De Fide Orthodoxa. 1 do not wish to dispute this. It therefore seems likely that the Lexicon was Grosseteste' s working companion from the very beginning of his career as a Greek scholar. Now let us turn our attention to the Lexicon itself. M. R. James has made a preliminary investigation into this dictionary in the volume Mélanges Emile Chatelain. 15 He says that the manuscript is to be dated to the late thirteenth century, and that it is written by an English scribe. He says, 'It is intended for the use of persans who know no Greek at all. It therefore contains the simplest, as well as many of the rarer, words in the language.' He provides a list of the letter forms found in the Lexicon, and of the Greek abbreviations or compendia used by the scribe. He gives a list of the sources of the Lexicon, and by means of the first source he mentions, the Book of Suda, he links the Lexicon to the circle of Grosseteste and his helpers, since Grosseteste is known to have had a Greek manuscript of the Book of Suda. 16 He do es not suggest that the Lexicon had anything to do with Grosseteste himself, but thinks maybe it was connected 'with a younger contemporary of Grosseteste's'. James points out that strong links connect the manuscript with Magna Graecia and Sicily, making a list of all the specifically Sicilian words, and positing the idea that 'an Italo-Greek was connected with our text'. He gives a brief account of all the non-Latin definitions of Greek words, noting that English is not to be found among the languages used. He then considers all the grammatical sources used apart from Suda, including Choiroboscus, Pausanius, and Theodosius, whose system of Greek declensions (35 masculine, 12 feminine and 9 neuter) is followed by the compiler. Let us take some of the points raised by James. I hope 1 have already shown by the internai evidence of Grosseteste's changes to 15

M.R. James, 'A Graeco-Latin Lexicon of the Thirteenth Century', in

Mélanges offerts à M. Emile Chalelain (Paris, 1910), pp. 1-16. 16

Probably Ms Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss Gr. F. 2.

130

MERIDEL ROLLAND

Burgundio's translation that the Lexicon is likely to have been not merely the product of 'Grosseteste's circle' or the compilation of a 'younger contemporary', but the very dictionary used by the bishop himself. On the paleographical evidence of the looped d's and twostoried a's, the manuscript must be assigned a date of about 1290 (at the earliest) or about 1300. 17 College of Arms MS. Arundel 9 represents a copy of the prototype used by Robert Grosseteste. Roger Bacon says that Grosseteste, being rich and powerful, was able to command whatever he wanted in the way of manuscripts, dictionaries, grammars and teachers. We have already noted that he owned a Lexicon of Suda, now Leiden MS. Vossianus Gr. Fol. 2. If the Greek-Latin Lexicon is based in part on Suda, and if Grosseteste had his Lexicon right from the beginning, then it follows that he had his Suda from the beginning too. When 1 wrote before on Grosseteste's translations of John of Damascus, I was able to point out that he could be shown in various places to have used the Lexicon of Suda in the actual work of translating, making the obvious but then unexplored comment that since it is not easy for a beginner to use a dictionary of a foreign language where the definitions also happen to be in that language, Grosseteste must have had recourse to some intermediary, either a bilingual helper who translated definitions for him as he went along, or a dictionary that was a translation of his dictionary. 18 College of Arms MS. Arundel 9 qualifies as this intermediate stepping stone between Suda and other medieval Greek lexica, and the Latin translations produced by Robert Grosseteste. It is quite a large lexicon (8 1/8" x 11 7 /8"), written at first in two columns per side, and then, perhaps as the scribe realised what a gargantuan task he had ahead of him, and how much parchment he was going to need, in three columns per side. There is evidence of continuai decision-making as the scribe went along-he changes from two columns to three, he changes his mind about how to place the grammatical information accompanying each word, he dithers about which letters to write in Greek and which in Roman script. It is, of course, unfortunately impossible to tell how many of the features of this manuscript are copied directly from the prototype of the year 1235 or so, and how many are peculiar to itself. 17

In the view of James, in the article referred to in n. 15. M. Holland, 'Robert Grosseteste's Translations of John of Damascus,' Bodleian Library Record 11 (1983), pp. 138-154. 18

GROSSETESTE'S GREEK TRANSLATIONS

131

At first it seemed to me very curious that the Greek entries of the lexicon were transliterated into Roman letters. From the evidence of the four remaining Greek manuscripts belonging to Grosseteste, it would seem that they were written in Greek script, as one would expect. If, however, the Lexicon is to be seen as part of his earliest equipment in the job of translating, it might be expected that he would experience problems in reading the Greek with ease, and that he needed the words transliterated the better to hear how they sounded. It makes one wonder if in the very early stages he had his texts transliterated; but this takes us too far into the realm of conjecture. The scribe is not very consistent in the matter of transliteration ; in fact I would say that consistency is not in any event one of his strong points. Eta and omega, for which there are no Roman equivalents, are kept as Greek letters throughout. Sigma follows many forms, both Greek and Roman. Gamma is sometimes written as a Roman g, but more frequently as Greek gamma. The first Greek word beginning with rxy- is transliterated into Roman script, th us: àgagw; but as soon as the scribe reaches the top of folio 2 with ark1streuw, he uses the Greek gamma, the Greek abbreviation for e:u, and Greek omega. One has to accept James's opinion that the scribe of MS Arundel 9 is English. Yet the contents of the Lexicon show that whoever compiled the original was not struggling with Greek as a little-known language; I would suggest that we are not many removes from a native Greek speaker~one very likely, as Jam es deduced from the number of Sicilian words included, to have corne from Sicily or Southern Italy. There are other entries that confirm this opinion. For example, the difinition of &Àwç reads: alios. marinus vel vanus. et secundum Doricos sol. semper enim mutant illi H. in a. The entry substantially reproduces that in the Liber Suda. But the words 'semper enim' etc. seem to be the addition of the compiler. This is interesting, because it is known that the Greek spoken in Southern Italy was of the Doric dialect. As James rightly points out, the Lexicon is a composite from several sources. He names Suda, Choiroboscus and Pausanius. The lexicographer frequently refers to Suda; in fact many more of the entries than are named are from the Book of Suda. Whoever edits this text will have to collate it carefully either with Leiden Vossianus Gr. Fol. 2, or with the copy of that manuscript, Oxford University, Corpus Christi College MSS. 76 and 77. I think I also detect

132

MERIDEL ROLLAND

traces of Hesychius Lexicographus (5th c. AD?) but have not yet ascertained whether he was the source of a source, or used independently. It would seem a phenomenal task to weave so many lexica into one Greek-Latin dictionary: small wonder that the alphabetical order sometimes goes awry. The Lexicon begins thus: 19 significat septem, ut dicitur in libro de erotimatibus: Defectum ut aphilos, sine amicis ; intensionem, ut azilos, id est silva cui est multitudo lignorum; tertio, simile, ut adelphus qui ex eodem ventre vel matrice natus, scilicet frater uterinus; quarto modo significat inanimum, ut a phonos, qui inanimam habet vocem; quinto modo, parum, ut amathis, parum instructus; sexto modo, congregationem , ut a pas, omnis; septimo modo additur per pleonasmum; nihil vero addit super significationem simplicem, ut stathis, spica, astathis idem. (f. 1r) (A has seven meanings, as it says in the book of Erotemata. Being without, as aphilos, without friends; intensification, as azilos, that is, a wood with a variety of timbers; thirdly, like, as adelphus, one who is born from the same womb or matrix, viz., a uterîne brother; fourth, it means inanimate, as a phonos, having a dead voice; fifth, little, as amathis, little instructed; sixth, congregation, as a pas, ail; and the seventh is added by pleonasm, and adds nothing to the basic meaning, as stathis, a spike, and astathis, the same.) James calls this 'indifferent information'; but 1 feel that the compiler of the dictionary should be given credit for being as complete and intelligent as possible, an impression confirmed as one proceeds through the lexicon. W e might notice at this stage the itacistic confusion (and worse) in the explanation of ax.ilos. Most forms of itacistic spelling are found in the dictionary. Other aspects of medieval morphological changes in the Greek language (as described by Robert Browning in Medieval and Modern Greek 20 ) are represented in the Lexicon, such as the simplification of verb endings. There are also some oddities of pronunciation, such as the sort of lisp of stathis for the more usual staphis (a kind of delphinium, here translated as spica). Like Jam es, 1 have been unable to trace the Liber de Erotimatibus mentioned in the opening paragraph of the lexicon. Compilations entitled Td. ÈpUJT~µomx are extremely numerous, anything in 19

20

The A is missing in the text, as the rubricator never got round to it. R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge, 1969).

GROSSETESTE'S GREER TRANSLATIONS

133

question and answer form qualifying for the title. There is a musical erotemata in Cambridge University Library-but usually the subject of the erotemata is grammar, which displays a singularly roseate view of the pupil's thirst for grammatical knowledge. The widely disseminated Latin grammar of Donatus is in the erotemata form. The truly famous erotemata of the Byzantine era-those of Manuel Chrysoloras, Manuel Kalekas, and Demetrios Chalkokondyleswere a flowering of the century and a half after Grosseteste's death. 21 It may be significant that the centre for this flowering was Italy. Herbert Hunger mentions a twelfth-century codex of Grottaferrata, and further examples of the tradition in Italy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. 22 • The information on A from the Liber de Erotimatibus is followed by the first entry in the dictionary, which is ascribed to Suda. aa is an adverb and it has two meanings as it says in the Book of Suda. For it is an adverb of wonder or realization, and sometimes it is likewise written with three letters, thus-aaa, which is pronounced the same as two. (f. 1') aa is followed by àagiI, aages, and aadw, and so on for a further sixteen thousand entries (James's computation). Now, the Lexicon is clearly meritorious. It is learned ; it is very long ; it is based on several sources; it gives a fair bit of grammatical information, and very often accentuation. The question is, how useful was it to Robert Grosseteste? 1 ought to say immediately that 1 am not going to give a definitive answer to this question; only a few indications of the directions that the answer might take. One's first glance at the Lexicon might precipitate a certain feeling of dismay. What a useless collection of peculiar words ! One recalls Pope's couplet on Suidas in the Dunciad: For Attic phrase in Plato let them seek: 1 poach in Suidas for unlicens'd Greek,

21 For a discussion of these compilers of erotemala see A. Pertusi, 'Erotemata. Perla storia e le fonti delle prime grammatiche greche a stampa,' ltalia medioevale e umanisla 5 (1962), pp. 321-351. See also G. Cammelli, 1 dotti byzantini (Florence, 1941-54). 22 H. Hunger, Byzanlinisches H andbuch: Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner II (Munich, 1978), p. 14. His information is based on Pertusi's list of erotemala, p. 331.

134

MERIDEL ROLLAND

and the accompanying footnote: 'a dictionary-writ er, a collector of impertinent facts and barbarous words' .23 In the first few pages one finds two words for pig manure ; for an arrow never shot in battle ('plaga'); two words for an animal that has not yet shed its milk teeth; a sour sauce made of leeks, eaten by barbarians; a stone weight used in weaving; the terminal ornament on a ship; the watery part that runs out when olives are pressed. (aadén; aakragès; ablttton; abol.HTos; 'abolos; aburtaktt; agnys; acrostolion; am6rgtt [not glossed]). There are a great many words from both the lliad and the Odyssey. One would expect that if the Greeks were to make a dictionary, it would be to preserve a reading knowledge of these most beloved of works ; and Homer was already on the archaic side by the time of Plato. Even the definitions of Homeric words, however, are sometimes blurred : &µ1nµ1Xiœroç (Odyssey 14, 311), amaimaketos in the Lexicon, an epithet for 'mast', and apparently meaning 'unbending' is glossed as fongus. The theological content of the Lexicon is very slight indeed, and there is very little patristic vocabulary. There are a few words from the Septuagint (for example, abyssos, where the Psalms of David are cited), and there are occasional marginal additions of words like 'alleluia' which belong to a more specifically Christian context. 'Allttlouia' is given a number of possible etymologies: allHlouia. secundum hebraios. al. potens. lH. deus. lou. iste. ïa solus. Secundum grecos. allH. laudate. louia. deum. Aliter. al. venit. vel apparuit. lH. deus. louïa. vivens. (f. 5') I do not wish to drown myself in the deep waters of a discipline in which I am not an expert; but I should say that on the whole, the linguistic world of the Lexicon is not the linguistic world inhabited by the writers whom Grosseteste translated. Imagine, for example, being foreign and having to construe Milton's Samson Agonistes with a glossary prepared to help a student read Spenser's Faerie Queene. The charming, deliberately archaic semantic world of the Faerie Queene is poles apart from Milton's astonishing modernity, his daring stretching of language to include neologisms coined from Latin, a language apparently very close to his own mental processes. Let us have a look at the semantic worlds occupied by two of Grosseteste's authors, worlds which are also poles apart. One is that 23 A. Pope, The Poems of Alexander Pope, ed. J. Butt (University Paperbacks, 1963), p. 778.

GROSSETESTE'S GREEK TRANSLATIONS

135

of John of Damascus, the other, of Dionysius the PseudoAreopagite. To say that Dionysius's vocabulary is specialized is to put it mildly. He relies on a highly incantatory prose, full of half-rhyme and paradox, esoteric compounds and plays on words, where it is all too easy to become lost in the assonantal and rhythmical crossechoes of his convoluted syntax. I have sometimes wondered which came first with Dionysius-apophatic experience, or a highly developed sense of the constricting force of words, which led him to stretch and etherialize the bounds of language and drove him into an apophatic theology, placing God beyond all the norms of linguistic conceptualization. John of Damascus inhabits a very different semantic world. In the centuries before John was born, Christian theology had undergone a constant process of definition and re-definition, each era of heresy and counter-heresy marked by a great Council of the Church. Speaking of the Fourth Council, the doctrines of which are reiterated by John of Damascus, Edward Gibbon writes: In the name of the Fourth General Council, the Christ in one persan, but in two natures, was announced to the Catholic world: an invisible line was drawn between the heresy of Apollinaris and the faith of St Cyril; and the road to paradise, a bridge as sharp as a razor, was suspended over the abyss by the master-hand of the theological artist. 24 John of Damascus trod this 'bridge as sharp as a razor'. He took it on himself to lay down the lines of Orthodox theology, as defined by the Councils, to the refutation of all possible heresies, including the heresy which had recently sprung up in his own locality, that of the prophet Mohammed. It is not for nothing that every single one of John's works translated by Robert Grosseteste centres on the defining of faith and the repudiation of heresy. John was essentially a solidifier, a simplifier, of ordained truths. His vocabulary is not difficult, since his aim is clarification, not obfuscation : his is the crystalline, not the mystical, theology. As a theologian of the intellect, he draws heavily on the defining and distinguishing vocabulary of Aristotle. He is endlessly repetitive. My own theory is that after translating a few of his works, Grosseteste got bored, became

24 E. Gibbon, The Decline and Pail of the Roman Empire (London, no date), vol. 3, p. 340.

136

MER!DEL ROLLAND

engrossed in other authors, and only went back to him in later years. I have so far set up two hypotheses, and to a certain extent they are mutually incompatibl e. One is that Grosseteste owned and used the prototype of the Greek-Latin lexicon of which MS. Arundel 9 is a copy; the other, less provable hypothesis is that the Lexicon, with its rather peculiar vocabulary range, was of limited use to him. Without, however, putting the Lexicon and every single one of Grosseteste' s Greek texts into a computer, it would be quite impossible to know how many of the sixteen thousand entries were never needed by him. I did, however, conduct an experiment of my own, to see how far one could get with the Lexicon on selected passages of text, and to see how many de verbo ad verbum translations are actually Lexicon readings. The first passage I chose was the first sentence of Dionysius the Areopagite's Mysiical Theology. 25 The following is a very literai English translation : Oh supersubstan tial and superdivine and supergood Trinity, overseer of the divine wisdom of Christians, direct us to the superunknown and superlight and highest peak of hidden thoughts, where the simple and absolute and unchangeabl e mysteries of theology are veiled in the superluminous cloud of secretly-teac hing silence, in the deepest darkness superillumin ating the superobvious and in the entirely intangible and invisible of the superbeautif ul splendours, superfilling our eyeless intellects. This brief but dense passage provided Grosseteste with a number of problems. Out of a count of forty-one words (not including xod and the untranslated definite article) nineteen are in the Lexicon. This is nearly half, a surprisingly high total given that the Lexicon is nota theological dictionary, and contains relatively few theological words of the Christian era. The specifically Christian words Tpi&c; and :x.picrnocvwv are not in the Lexicon. The words µucr·nxwv, 6e:oÀoylocc; and µucr't"~pioc are dealt with simply by being transliterated. The nine peculiarly Dionysian compounds beginning with ùne:p- are, not surprisingly, not in the Lexicon, but Grosseteste manages by rendering ùne:p- with the Latin cognate 'super' and then 25

The analysis is based on the following texts; the Greek text is that given in Patrologia Graeca 3, 997. The Latin text is that of Oxford University, Merton College MS. Coxe 86 f. 277B, compared with Cambridge University Library, MS. Kk. IV. 4, F. 44A. The College of Arms Lexicon is used passim.

GROSSETESTE'S GREEK TRANSLATIONS

137

looking up the second part of the compound. A number of words, or parts of compounds, are in the Lexicon, but Grosseteste uses an alternative from elsewhere: this cornes to a total of nine words, which is a lot. Presumably he preferred an alternative offered in one of the existing translations of Dionysius. Grammatically the complexity of the passage leads Grosseteste astray from time to time. Ëqiope:, vocative in the passage, seems to be regarded by Grosseteste as a feminine, in apposition with the feminine Trinity. He renders it inspectrix. u7te:pÀiiµ7tov'm and U7te:p7tÀ'YJpoGv-m, which 1 take to agree with µua't'~p~oc (neut. nom. pl.) Grosseteste takes as masc. ace. sing., agreeing with yv6qiov, and thus makes them agree with his translation of yv6qiov, caliginem. My second sample is from The Dialogue of the Christian and Saracen of John of Damascus. 26 In this passage, the Saracen is as usual setting up a singularly nasty Christian-trap. He is either trying to persuade the Christian that ex nihilo creation takes place in the modern world, and therefore all is not as the Book of Genesis would have it; or to persuade him that man is himself a creator, and therefore on a par with God ;27 or even worse, he is trying to trap the Christian into an admission of dualistic principles of creation, and make him say that some unpleasant things are created by the Devil. The following is my translation of Grosseteste's Latin translation : And the Saracen (says): Behold, 1 have been wounded in a certain part of my flesh, and the wounded flesh has produced a sore, and in the sore, a maggot has corne into existence. Who made him, then? Say to him as we said above : After the first seven days of the creation of the world, we do not find man creating any created thing whatsoever, or anything being made. But by the command of

26 This analysis is based on my own definitive edition of Grosseteste's Latin translation of the Dubitatio ad Agarenos (see note 12 above, p. 332); and the Greek text of John of Damascus, found in MS. Escorial R. IIL 1, ff. llSv-121, ed, J, Featherstone and M, Bolland (ibid,, pp, 342-358), I am very grateful to Dom Boniface Kotter, O.S.B. of the Abtei Scheyern, for providing me with a photographie copy of this manuscript. No printed version of the Greek text of the Dialogue of the Christian and Saracen bears any resemblance to the redaction used by Grosseteste; the text in the Escorial ms. is very close. 27 Grosseteste evidently read 7tÀOCHOU'l't"Q( with the Escorial ms,, thus making hominem the subject of the subordinate clause, not the object, The text in PG 96, 1346, 33 is oùx EupLcrxoµe:v olov Ô1)7tO't"oÜv 7tpocyµQ( 7tÀoccrQ(V'l"Q( 'l"Ov 6e:ov, ~ 7tÀOCHO'l't"Q(. 'We do not find God creating or making anything whatsoever.'

138

MERIDEL HOLLAND

God, which he commanded in the first seven days, those things which are came into being. After our transgression, however, the earth was condemned to put forth thorns and prickles. Then also was our flesh condemned to bear worms and maggots to this very day. The questions and answers continue in this wise until at last the poor Hagarene has nothing more to say, and retires desponden t'hasty retreat of heretical party' as a Victorian cartoon in Punch might have it. The passage has a total of sixty-six words, not including x.od and the untranslated definite article. Despite its being a specifically Christian text, the world of late antique realia which it reflectssores, thorns, prickles, worms, maggots, flesh (mwlw~, akantha; tribolos, skwlttE;, qiOeir, sarE;)-mean it is closer in content to the Lexicon than is the supersubsta ntial world of Dionysius. Forty of the sixty-six words are exact Lexicon definitions. There are ten words not in the Lexicon at all. These include the extremely common particle ôè: and the qui te ordinary verb e:uplcrx.w, 'I find'. Tribolos is in it, with two definitions, spina and iribulus. Grosseteste has already used spina for akantha, and so chooses the transliterati on tribulus, which conveys the Greek flavour, and in any case had been naturalized in Latin from the time of Virgil, Ovid and Pliny. Neither 7tÀocHCù nor 7tÀoccrcrw is in the Lexicon, but as a borrowing, plasma had long had currency in ecclesiastica l Latin. 'E~ôoµocô()( (twice) and the proper name ~()(p()(X'Y)vàc; are not in the Lexicon, (though interestingly , agarttnos is, glossed 'saracenus'), and these are transliterate d. There are two major deviations from Lexicon definitions. TI()(pOC~()(mc; is given in the Lexicon as prevaricatio; Grosseteste prefers transgressio, which is a much better translation in this context. He may have found it in Burgundio's translation of De Fide Orthodoxa. 'Av()(TÉÀÀw is given as orior; Grosseteste uses germino. In short: the translation is very close to the Lexicon; there are some very common words not in the Lexicon ; and there are a few words in the Lexicon for which Grosseteste prefers a translation gleaned from somewhere else. My last sample-a short one-cornes from the same author's De Hymno Trisagio, 28 where he refutes the ancient heresy of Peter the 28 This passage is based on my edition of Grosseteste's translation (M. Holland, Dissertation 1980, p. 195) and the Greek text given in PG 95, 28.

GROSSETESTE's GREEK TRANSLATIONS

139

Fuller, who added the clause 'who was crucified for us' to the hymn 'Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy lmmortal, have mercy upon us'. The hymn, as John of Damascus notes, was a conflation of the hymn of the Seraphim in Isaiah, 'Holy, Holy, Holy', and Psalm 41.3. 29 According to legend, it was sung in its final form by divine revelation in the time of Proclus, when in A.D. 447 the people were troubled by an earthquake. As Gibbon laconically remarks, 'In the twelve centuries between Isaiah and St Proclus's boy, who was taken up into heaven before the bishop and people of Constantinople, the song was considerably improved.' 30 John of Damascus's account, based probably on the dubiously authentic letter of Acacius to Peter the Fuller, 31 is as follows: In this way, too, under Proclus the thrice-blessed, they sang the Trisagion Hymn by divine revelation, 'Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us,' when, it is said, a child was snatched up out of the midst of the praying crowd, and was taught the hymn by some angelic power while he was in the air, and that the proof of the sanctity of the hymn was the cessation of the affliction. The word-count for this passage (with the usual omissions) is forty-three words. Nineteen of these are lexicon definitions. The proper names Proclus and Trisagion are transliterated. So are üµvoc; (laus in the Lexicon), ùµvlÇw (laudare) and &yyEÀŒ"fjc; (aggelos is glossed nuntio). Hymnus and hymnizo entered Latin with St Augustine, and angelicus with the Vulgate. Nine words (mainly insignificant) are not the Lexicon at all, and four others are in, but Grosseteste prefers other translations. The translation of the word b:cxywy~ is of interest. Its basic meaning is 'a bringing on', and by extension, 'distress' and 'misery' in general. The Lexicon definition is: epagwgH:. indueThis observation is not original to John of Damascus. That the Trisagion Hymn was a conflation of these two texts was pointed out to the monk Job by a certain Jew (Quoted by Photius in his Bibliotheca, Cod. CCXXII; PG 103, 771 ff.): flioacnmv oi'iv cx\nov tp'Y)OW ftx 't'E TYjç X.Epou~ix'ijç uµ.voÀoy[cxç xcx( -roÙ µ.,X \jlcxÀµ.où -rwv 1Epw\jlcxhwv cruv-rE8dcr8cxi -ro µ.EÀ 10

De t(r)initate (et) p(er)sonis q(ue) su(n)t i(n) t(r)initate· 1 (et) noc(i)o(n)ib(us)· (et) de m(od)o loqu(en)di c(ir)ca h(oc)· 1 de ci(uitate) d(e)i· li(bro)· x· 1 de doc(trina)· ch(rist)i(ana)· li(bro)· i0 • 1 De u(er)a rel(igione)· 1 (contr)a faustu(m). 11 de g(raci)a noui testam(en)fr 1 de t(r)in(itate)· li(bro)· i0 • (et) v·

15

CJI De noc(i)o(n)ib(us)·

1 au(gustinus) li(br)o· de t(r)i(nitate). v·

20

~

De po(tenci)a (et) o(mn)ipote(n)cia d(e)i· .1 de ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· v· .1 (contr)a faustu(m)· li(bro )· ii 0 • 1 i(n) ep(isto )la 1 ad uolusianu(m)· 1 de t(r)in(itate)· li(br)o· iii·

'f7

De magnalib(us) d(e)i· (et) de miraculis· 1 de ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· x· (et) xxi· (et) xxii- 1 De u(er)a rel(igione). 1 1 (contr)a faustu(m)· 1 i(n) ep(istol)a ad uolusianu(m)· 1 de t(r)in(itate) l li(bro)· iii 0 •

0 25

De dominio d(e)i· (et) dominio· (et) s(er)uitute 1 De u(er)a rel(igione)· CJI creat(ur)e t(con)cc 5 t· 1 de ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· i· v· xix· 1 1 De agone ch(rist)iano 1 de sp(irit)u (et) litt(er)a· 1 de p(er)f(e)c(ti)o(n)e· 1 iusti(ci)e hom(in)u(m). 1 de li(bero)· ar(bitrio )· li(bro )· i0 • l li(bro )· ( con)f( essionum)· x· i(n) 1 ep(istol)a ad marcellin(um)· de· x· cordis·

col. 2 00 De sapi(enci)a siu(e) r(aci)onib(us) r(e)r(um) q(ue) su(n)t i(n) m(en)te 1 diuina· (et) u(er)itate su(m)ma- (et) ymagi(n)e q(ue) 1 de· ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· xi· CJI est filius. 1 au(gustinus) li(bro)· (con)f(essionum) i· x· ·vu· 5 (et)/(et) xi· (et) xiii- 1 De u(er)a rel(igione) 1 1 De diuinac(i)o(n)e demonu(m). 1 de uita beata· 1 1 (contr)a faustu(m)· 1 de· x· cordis· 1 de li(bero)· ar(bitrio ). li(bro )· i0 •

354

P. W. ROSEMANN

l..o

'Il De locutione d( e)i ·

De ci(uitate) d(e)i· li(bro)· xvi· 1 litt( er)a·

10

De sp(irit)u (et)

~ De lsci(enci)a/ p(ro)uide(n)cia p(re)destinac(i) o(n)e (et) dis 1 po(sici)o(n)e d(e)i. 'Il de ci(uitate) d(e)i· li(bro)· 1-v· (et)/ x· (et) xfr 1 (contr)a faustu(m). 1 1 de correp(cione)· (et) g(raci)a· 1 de p(re)destinac(i) o(n)e s(an)c(t)or(um) . 1 de li(ber)o· 1 ar(bitri)o· li(bro)· ii 0 • ~

De u(er)itate p(ro)po(sicio)nu (m) q(ue) su(n)t de fut(ur)o siu(e) de p(re)t(er)ito· 1 (contr)a faustu(m). li(br)o· fr 1

15

W

20

De fato (et) for(tu)na (et) casu (et) q(u)al(ite)r o(mn)ia ap(ud) d( eu)m 1 ordinata su(n)t· (et) de iudiciis ast(r)ono(mi)e· 1 de ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· v· (et) xii· 1 1 de (con)f(essionibu s)· li(bro)· iii· (et) iifr (et) vii· 1 De u(er)a rel(igione). 1 1 de agone tch(rist)i(an)at · 1 De moribus manicheor(um) · 11 (contr)a faustu(m)· li(bro)· i0 • (et) ii 0 • .1 de ordi(n)e· 1 de p(re)desti 1 nac(i)o(n)e s(an)c(t)or(um) · 1 De g(raci)a· noui testam(en)fr 1 de li(bero )· ar(bitri)o. 1 li(br)o· ii 0

< blank space amounting to one entry > ~

Q(u)al(ite)r res su(n)t i(n) d(e)o (et) d(eu)s i(n) reb(us) let)/ diu( er)simo de· (et) q(u)alit( er) (est) ubiq(ue) 1 de- ci(uitate)· d(e)i· ix· l li(bro)· (con)f(essionum)· i0 • (et)· ii 0 • (et)· iii 0 • (et)· iiii 0 • (et)· v 0 • 1 [F' li(bF)o (eoa)f(essi oaum).~· 0 ] I De p(re)s(ci)e(n)cia d(e)i. q(u)a(s)i p(er) totu(m)· 1 de ouib(us)· 11 De p(e)n(itenc)ia. 1 de li(bero )· ar(bitrio )· li(bro )· i0 • 1

25

,+ col. 3

g

Q(u)al(ite)r d(icitu)r d(eu)s e(ss)e q(u)alit(er) (est) i(n) t(em)p(o)r(e)·

s(em)p(er)

(et)

De et( er)nitate 1 De ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(br)o· xii- 1 1 au(gustinus) li(bro)· (con)f(essionum )· ii 0 • (et) xi· (et) xii· 1 De u(er)a rel(igione).

ROBERT GROSSETESTE's TABULA

355

< blank space amounting to one entry > De uolu(n)tate d(e)i (et) (com)p(ar)ac(i)o(n)e e(ius) ad po(tenci)a(m) (et) sa 1 pie(n)cia(m) e(ius)· 1 de ci(uitate) d(e)i· li(bro)· xxi· I De sp(irit)u (et) lit(tera). r (contr)a faustu(m) 1 li(bro )· ii 0 ·

5

De bonitate d( e)i \(et) mi(sericordi)a/ erga c(r)eat(ur)a(m) sua(m). a(ugustinus) 1 De ci(uitate)· d(e)i· li(bro)· xxi· I 1 de (con)f(essionibus)· li(bro)· iii· 1-vi-j (et) ix· I De ouib(us). r de beato l lat(r)one· r de li(bero)· ar(bitrio)· li(bro)· i0 • r sup(er) io(hannem)· om(eli)a· xxxia.

10

15

* Ç!_

20

57

De iusti(ci)a d(e)i· siu(e) de i(us)ti(ci)a (et) mi(sericordi)a d( e)i (con)iu(n)cti(m)· 1 de doc(trina)· ch(rist)i(ana)· li(bro)· i 0 • I De morib(us) eccl(e)sie· I 1 De sp(irit)u (et) litt(er)a- 1 ( contr)a faustu(m)· r de g(ra)cia (et) li(ber)o ar(bitri)o 1 (contr)a ual(e)ntiu(m)· 1 de bono p(er)seu(er)a(n)cie· 1· De ira d(e)i (et) de (con)silib(us) q(ue) d(icu)n(tu)r e(ss)e i(n) 1 d( e)o· r de ci(uitate)· d(e)i· xv· (et) xvi· (et) xvii- (et) xxi· \ \i(m)p(ropr)ie d( e)o conuenie(n)t// De paciencia d( e)i erg a nos· r li(bro)· (con)f(essionum)· i·

< > en De no(min)ib(us) d(i)c(t)is de d(e)o· 57

/rab(anus) l· 1··148 a·\