the commentary on genesis of claudius of turin and biblical studies under louis the pious

Medieval Academy of America

The Commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin and Biblical Studies under Louis the PiousAuthor(s): Michael GormanSource: Speculum, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 279-329Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3040972 .

Accessed: 24/09/2013 11:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSpeculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:31:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3040972?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin and Biblical

Studies under Louis the Pious

By Michael Gorman

On the eve of the Carolingian revival of learning, Wigbod compiled for Charle- magne a commentary on Genesis that was encyclopedic in scope.' A decade or two later, not long before the year 811, Claudius of Turin prepared another ex- haustive commentary on Genesis at the request of Louis the Pious.2 Like Wigbod's, the commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin reveals much about the literary and exegetical interests of its author and his patrons, the methods of its compiler, and the sources he used.3 The commentaries supplied by these two scholars illustrate how biblical interpretation developed in the first decades of the Carolingian period.

Claudius moved successfully at the very highest levels of the political and ec- clesiastical society of his day.4 In the first decade of the ninth century he was

1 PL 93:233-430 = PL 96:1101-68. On Wigbod, see my articles, "The Encyclopedic Commentary on Genesis Prepared for Charlemagne by Wigbod," Recherches augustiniennes 17 (1982), 173-201; "Wigbod and the Lectiones on the Hexateuch Attributed to Bede in Paris lat. 2342," Revue benedictine 105 (1995), 310-47; and "Wigbod and Biblical Studies under Charlemagne," Revue benedictine 107

(1997), forthcoming. 2 This commentary was edited by Iohannes Alexander Brassicanus in Vienna and printed by Hi-

eronymus Froben for the first time in 1531 in Basel under the name of Eucherius of Lyons; reprinted by Migne, PL 50:893-1048.

3 For introductory comments on biblical exegesis in the Carolingian period, see John Contreni, "Carolingian Biblical Culture," in lohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics, ed. Carlos

Steel, James McEvoy, and Gerd Van Riel (Louvain, 1996), pp. 1-23, and "Carolingian Biblical

Studies," in Carolingian Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in Early Christian Studies, ed. Uta-Renate Blumenthal (Washington, D.C., 1983), pp. 71-98; repr. in John Contreni, Carolingian Learning, Mas- ters and Manuscripts (London, 1992).

4 There is no modern synthesis of Claudius and his work. See Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 1 (Munich, 1911), pp. 390-96; and the notes of Wilhelm Levison and Heinz L6we, in Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, 2 (Weimar, 1953), pp. 198-99, and 3 (Weimar, 1957), pp. 310-13. It is customary to say that Claudius was from

Spain, where he knew Felix of Urgel, but I find no convincing evidence for either assertion. John Cavadini, The Last Christology of the West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul, 785-820 (Philadelphia, 1993), p. 206, n. 8, has pointed out that it was his opponent, Jonas of Orleans, in his De cultu

imaginum (PL 106:307D-310C), who accused him of being a disciple of Felix. The only indication that Claudius was from Spain seems to be offered by Jonas, whose words link a Spanish origin with the charge of being a disciple of Felix: "quendam presbyterum natione Hispanum, nomine Claudium," PL 106:305C-306B; "emersit ex eadem Hispania . . . quidam Felix nomine," PL 106:307D; "Felix in

quodam discipulo suo nomine Claudio," PL 106:309C; "exortus ex eadem Hispania," speaking of Claudius, PL 106:310C. Whether the testimony of a bitter opponent can be reliable in a case like this is hard to say. Just as Hincmar of Reims would not be expected to report accurately the doctrinal

positions of Gottschalk of Orbais, so, too, we should not imagine that Jonas would furnish reliable information about Claudius. If Claudius did come from Spain, one would like to know whether he

Speculum 72 (1997) 279



studying with Leidrad, friend of Alcuin and archbishop of Lyons (798-814, t816). In a letter to Charlemagne written about 813, Leidrad proudly points out that his newly revitalized schools are training men not only to read the Bible during services but to grasp its spiritual meanings. Allegorical interpretation was clearly the goal of his curriculum, for as he states, "Some can partially interpret the Gos- pels allegorically, others the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, while most can at least interpret allegorically the Prophets, the books of Solomon, the Psalms, and Job."5

Claudius was a student in one of Leidrad's schools at this time, and, as Iain Douglas has suggested, "Claudius might have been told to concentrate on certain works at that point in his career."6 It must have been Leidrad who brought Clau- dius, one of his best students, to the attention of Louis the Pious, who supported his early studies, as Claudius explains in the preface to his commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, written about 820:

And in fact I confess that at first it was against my will when, on the demand of my brothers in school to whom I lectured on the Scriptures, and at the request of the pious prince, Emperor Louis, I agreed to undertake both this work and the Pentateuch commentary that you ask for. I was urged by this prince not just to speak words that would disappear into oblivion, but rather to write them down with a pen and make them last so that what I said would be written down with a pen.7

Louis called Claudius to his court at Chasseneuil near Poitiers8 sometime before the year 811 and then brought him to Aachen in 814 after the death of his father. One imagines that Claudius must have known such leading personalities as Theo- dulf of Orleans, Benedict of Aniane, Helisachar of Saint-Riquier, and Florus of Lyons while he was in Lyons, Poitiers, and Aachen, but there seems to be no evidence he actually did. On the other hand, we know he was on friendly terms with Nibridius, abbot of Lagrasse and archbishop of Narbonne, who had been at Aachen and who did know Alcuin, Theodulf, and Helisachar.9 In the royal palaces

arrived in Lyons as a young man or whether he received his early schooling in Lyons before working with Leidrad, for if he came as a child, it would matter little whether he actually came from Spain or not. Franz Brunh6lzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 1 (Munich, 1975), p. 493, n. 193 (Histoire de la litterature latine dzu amoyen age, trans. Henri Rochais, 1/2 [Louvain, 1991], p. 243), has suggested that Claudius had not studied the artes before embarking on his exegetical career.

5 Ep. 30, MGH Epp 4:543, lines 4-9. I am grateful to Iain Douglas for pointing out this letter. 6 In a letter to me dated 30 April 1996. 7 MGH Epp 4:601. 8 Chasseneuil is just north of Poitiers, today in the suburbs (not to be confused with Chasseneuil-

sur-Bonnieure, thirty-five kilometers northeast of Angouleme). Claudius refers to this palace in the preface to his commentary on Genesis addressed to Dructeramnus (MGH Epp 4:592, lines 22-23) and also in the subscription to the commentary preserved in Paris lat. 9575, fol. 109r (MGH Epp 4:593, line 20); see Fig. 3, below. Chasseneuil was a much-frequented palace already in the time of Charlemagne and is mentioned several times by the Astronomer in his life of Louis the Pious. Claudius also stayed with Louis at his palace at Ebreuil in the Auvergne, twenty-five kilometers east of Vichy, referring to it in the preface to his commentary on Galatians addressed to Dructeramnus (MGH Epp 4:596, lines 20-21).

9 Ep. 8, MGH Epp 4:605. The spelling of the name of this influential, high-ranking abbot and archbishop is problematic. I give "Nibridius" here, as in the letter of Agobard (826-28), MGH Epp 5:199, line 11. "Nimbridius" is given by Theodemirus in the manuscripts of Claudius on Kings, Ep. 8, MGH Epp 4:605, line 23, but "Nebridius" (the name of Augustine's friend, Confessions 6.7.11,

Claudius of Turin 280




at Chasseneuil and Aachen, Claudius lectured on the Bible at the request of the emperor, and his commentaries grew out of these lectures, some of which were also committed to writing at the request of Louis. About the year 816 Louis sent him to Turin as bishop. It is fair to conclude that by this time he was part of the emperor's inner circle-"creatura della corte di Aquisgrana," to use Mirella Fer- rari's apt phrase.10 Why would Louis the Pious have posted a teacher and biblical scholar with no previous administrative experience to Turin as bishop? Claudius speaks of the quasi-military responsibilities that interrupted his literary pursuits, and he may have been chosen for Turin because Louis wanted one more loyal supporter in Italy after the rebellion of Bernard:1l

While I was earning a living by work and money, I continued to reflect on the holy Scriptures. Taking care of the diocese, I faced many problems that are cause for concern. In the winter I pace up and down the corridors of the palace [in Turin], although it is difficult for me to carry out what I desire to do. In the middle of spring, I go down armed with parchment and bearing weapons to the guard posts on the coast where I stay awake out of fear of the Saracens and Moors. At night I hold my sword, during the day my books and reed pen, trying to carry out my plan. For unless that man with grace of spirit were present whom the Apostle commends when he says that the head of man is not to be covered, what happened when the Lord offered seeds that were scattered on the path would occur to my mind. It is clear you lead a peaceful life if you think I have no worries. And because of this you make many demands on me, but you ought not to be insistent with me. I want to prepare this commentary and if it had been possible, I would have provided what you want. With all the problems I have, if I had not already begun this work for the brothers who asked for it, as you know, I could hardly work on it now at all.12

This passage from the preface to the commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians addressed to Theodemirus is perhaps the best example of Claudius's intense individ- ualism and the natural delight he displays in specifying details, a relief in a period when commentators usually reveal little of their personalities or hide behind a

9.3.6) is given by Theodulf, MGH Poet 1:522, line 67, "Nidibrius" (a scribal error?) in Helisachar's dedication of the new antiphonary (819-c. 822), MGH Epp 5:307, line 21, and also "Nifridius" (perhaps the least likely form) in a letter of Alcuin (804), MGH Epp 4:433, line 1. On Nibridius (t827-28), who was probably close to Benedict of Aniane (his monastery at Lagrasse is not far from Aniane and Gellone), see Michel Huglo, "Trois livres manuscrits presentes par Helisachar," Revue benedictine 99 (1989), 272-73, and Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis (CCCM), 52:231-34. See also Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de La Grasse, 1: 779-1119, ed. Elisabeth Mag- nou-Nortier and Anne-Marie Magnou, Collection de Documents Inedits sur l'Histoire de France: Section d'Histoire Medievale et de Philologie 24 (Paris, 1996), where the name is given as "Nimfridius," and the review of Daniel Misonne, Revue benedictine 106 (1996), 425.

10 Mirella Ferrari, "Note su Claudio di Torino 'episcopus ab ecclesia damnatus,' " Italia medioevale e umanistica 16 (1973), 291.

11 For Bernard's revolt and its aftermath, see Ann Freeman, "Theodulf of Orleans: A Visigoth at Charlemagne's Court," in L'Europe heritiere de l'Espagne wisigothique, ed. Jacques Fontaine and Christine Pellistrandi (Madrid, 1992), pp. 193-94; and Janet Nelson, "The Frankish Kingdoms, 814- 898: The West," The Netv Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Rosamond McKitterick, 2 (Cambridge, Eng., 1995), pp. 112-15.

12 Ep. 6, MGH Epp 4:601, lines 16-29. Paolo Chiesa kindly offered the conjecture "Quietam" for "Qui etiam" (line 25).



cloak of anonymity. From what is said here, Claudius is distracted by the administrative chores connected with being bishop in Turin but finds time nevertheless to study the Bible and write commentaries. He evidently is also a copyist of manuscripts as well as an author. "That man with grace of spirit" commended by Paul is apparently Claudius's way of referring to what we might today call his superego, the internal force that drove him forward in his biblical studies.

Evidently reared in a more austere atmosphere, Claudius reacted very strongly to the manifestations of "spirituality" he observed upon his arrival in Turin and moved quickly against the veneration of images, relics, and the cross, the practice of pilgrimage, and the cult of the saints. In his own words,

As soon as I was appointed bishop and took up the burden of the pastoral office, sent by the pious prince Louis, son of the holy catholic church of God, and came to the city of Turin in Italy, I found all the churches were against the order of the truth and weighed down with filthy images, and since everyone venerated them, I took it upon myself alone to destroy them. Everyone then spoke out to slander me, and unless the Lord had helped me, perhaps they would have swallowed me up alive.13

About 820 or 821 Claudius put his commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians into circulation, an act that was destined to unleash controversy.14 The commentary was dedicated to his friend Theodemirus, who refers to him as magister-could Theodemirus have been a student of Claudius at Chasseneuil or Aachen before becoming abbot of the important monastery at Psalmody near Nimes?15 Theo- demirus sent the commentary to Aachen so that the episcopi and optimates assembled there could condemn it.16 (Since this commentary is still unpublished and unstudied, it remains to be seen which passages might have so upset Theodemirus. One would also like to know whether theological opinions expressed in it antic- ipated Claudius's later criticisms of church practices in Turin.) Claudius still had loyal friends at Aachen, for he was informed of Theodemirus's move immediately and the commentary was never condemned, despite Theodemirus's efforts.17 In a final, vain attempt to win back the support of Theodemirus and, one supposes,

13 Ep. 12, MGH Epp 4:610, lines 26-32. I assume here that these are his own words. 14 For the background to these controversies, see David Ganz, "Theology and the Organisation of

Thought," in The New Camibridge Medieval History, ed. McKitterick, 2:773-77; and Ann Matter, "Theological Freedom in the Carolingian Age: The Case of Claudius of Turin," in La notion de liberte au moyen age: Islam, Byzance, Occident (Paris, 1985), pp. 51-60.

15 Ep. 8, MGH Epp 4:605, line 16. Psalmody is two kilometers north of Aigues-Mortes on the D46

heading toward Nimes. An ancient abbey apparently restored by Charlemagne in 791, Psalmody was one of the most important abbeys in the south of France in the ninth century; see Gallia Christiana, 6:471-73, where Theodemirus is mentioned. His name appears as "Theutmirus" in some documents, most importantly in his own letter to Claudius (MGH Epp 4:605, line 14) and also in Claudius's preface to his commentary on Kings (p. 607, line 8) as well as in the title of the excerptum in Vatican City Reg. lat. 200 (p. 610, line 17), and perhaps that form should be preferred. A charter of Louis the Pious (815) addressed to Theodemirus is preserved: PL 104:1030-31. On the excavations carried out at the site since the late 1960s by a team from Williams College, see Jerrilynn Dodds, Whitney S. Stoddard, Brooks W. Stoddard, Bailey K. Young, and Kitch Carter-Young, "L'ancienne abbaye de Psalmodi (Saint-Laurent-d'Aigouze, Gard), premier bilan des fouilles (1970-1988)," Archeologie medievale 19 (1989), 7-55 and 55 plates.

16 Ep. 10, MGH Epp 4:609, lines 1-10. 17 The word Claudius uses is damnare: Ep. 10, MGH Epp 4:609, line 4.

282 Claudius of Turin



others like him, Claudius prepared a special recension of his commentary on Kings and sent a manuscript to Theodemirus at Psalmody in which the work was dedicated to him.18 Theodemirus responded by writing out a formal attack on Clau- dius's positions, but the work is lost. Claudius answered with a lengthy treatise that bore the title Apologeticum atque rescriptum aduersus Theutmirum abbatem, which is lost, too. About this time, in November 825, a synod was held in Paris where the question of images was discussed.19 Claudius did not attend, and there is no evidence that he was attacked or condemned on this occasion.

Only selections from Claudius's Apologeticum survive in an excerptum prepared by and for his opponents. (Whether their abbreviated version faithfully preserves Claudius's words or thoughts is open to question.)20 This excerptum has come down to us in only one manuscript, Vatican City Reg. lat. 200, fols. lr-6v, which is roughly contemporary.21 In this book it precedes (fols. 7r-92r) the po- lemical answer prepared by Dungal of Saint-Denis and Pavia, Responsa contra peruersas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias, which was completed in 827.22 By the time Dungal's book was finished, Claudius was no longer alive, as Dungal tells us. His death occurred sometime after May 827, when he is mentioned in a charter of the Monastery of St. Peter at Novalesa,23 and he probably died the same

18 The origin of this recension is explained in detail in my article, "The Commentary on Kings of Claudius of Turin and Its Two Printed Editions (Basel, 1531; Bologna, 1755)," Filologia mediolatina 4 (1997), forthcoming.

19 MGH Conc 2:480-551. For the events leading up to this council, see the narrative of Ann Free- man, "Carolingian Orthodoxy and the Fate of the Libri Carolini," Viator 16 (1985), 100-105. For the issues involved, see Ann Freeman, "Scripture and Images in the Libri Carolini," in Testo e immagine nell'alto medioevo, 15-21 aprile 1993, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 41 (Spoleto, 1994), pp. 163-88; and Michael McCormick, "Textes, images et iconoclasme dans le cadre des relations entre Byzance et l'Occident carolingien," ibid., pp. 95-158.

20 See the comments of R. van Acker, CCCM 52:xxxi. 21 For this manuscript and its sister codex, Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, B 102 sup., Dungal's

working copy, in which the excerptum is now missing, see Mirella Ferrari, "In Papia conueniant ad

Dungalum," Italia medioevale e unmanistica 15 (1972), 10-15. 22 PL 105:465-530. 23 Novalesa is about eight kilometers above Susa on the old road to Mount Cenis. Claudius is

mentioned twice in a Novalesa charter of May 827; Elderadus, abbot at this time (c. 825-c. 840), was in touch with Florus of Lyons, from whom he received a psalter corrected personally by Florus: "In Dei nomine. noticia iudicati qualiter acta, vel definita est causa. dum Boso comes, vel misso domni

imperatoris residisset infra civitate Taurinensi, curtis ducati, in placito publico ad singulorum hominum causas audiendo vel deliberandum, ibidem cum eo aderant Claudius episcopus sanctae Taurinensis aecclesiae.... in constituda vero die, dum ipse Ratperto in loco comes residisset in curte Contenasco, in plaito publico ad singulorum hominum causas audiendo vel deliberando, ibidem aderant cum eo Claudius episcopus sanctae Taurinensis aecclesiae .. .": Carlo Cipolla, ed., Monumenta Noualiciensia uetustiora: Raccolta degli atti e delle cronache riguardanti l'abbazia della Novalesa, 1, Fonti per la Storia d'Italia 31 (Rome, 1898), p. 77, lines 1-6, and p. 78, lines 5-9. Claudius is also mentioned on

p. 60, line 10 (where the subscription, "Claudius episcopus Taurinensis cognovi et subscripsi," appears in a false charter of 774, also "signed" by Charlemagne). Claudius is also mentioned in the Chronicle of Novalesa, saec. xI2: "tunc etiam misit Hludovvicus rex, filius Caroli, Boso comes cum suis iudicibus in Taurinensi civitate. inter quos adfuit Claudius episcopus Taurinensis a parte monasterii, cum duobus monachis, Agleramno scilicet et Richario prepositis, cum suo advocatus": ed. Cipolla, Monumenota Noualiciensia uetustiora, 2, Fonti per la Storia d'Italia 32 (Rome, 1901), p. 187, lines 9-13, with additional references to Claudius on pp. 203 and 231. On Novalesa, see Giovanni Tabacco, "Dalla Novalesa a S. Michele della Chiusa," in Monasteri in alta Italia dopo le invasioni Saracene e Magiare




year. If we assume he was about twenty-five or thirty when he finished his commentary on Genesis in 811, he would have been born between 780 and 785 and about the same age as Florus of Lyons.24

Throughout these controversies at the end of his life, Claudius was busy as bishop in Turin and hard at work on his biblical commentaries. If they were available in modern editions, we would be better informed about what issues were at dispute. To judge from the prefaces attached to his commentaries, Claudius seems to have been in close touch with many high-ranking prelates, especially abbots, although there is no evidence that he was a monk; the prefaces to his works are addressed to three abbots, Dructeramnus of Monastier Saint-Chaffre (Genesis, Galatians; Ep. 1 and 3), Theodemirus of Psalmody (Exodus, Leviticus, Kings, 1 and 2 Corinthians; Ep. 6-10), and Iustus of Charroux25 (Matthew; Ep. 2), as well as to Louis the Pious himself (Ephesians, Philippians; Ep. 4).26 Were these abbots his patrons, and was their support essential for his career?27 His exegetical projects seem to have developed partially in response to their requests, and perhaps they participated in elaborating the projects themselves, for the commentary on Genesis was evidently the first step in a larger plan to create commentaries on the Octateuch and Kings (as Wigbod did), Matthew (Wigbod also prepared a commentary on the Gospels, possibly at the request of Charlemagne), and the Epistles of Paul.

Most of Claudius's commentaries are either unpublished or printed under the names of others (Eucherius, "Claudius of Auxerre," Atto of Vercelli). Several were not finished, and only a few have been studied. It is thus nearly impossible at the moment to study the methods and aims of Claudius as exegete. Of the projected commentary on the Pentateuch, only the commentaries on Genesis and Leviticus survive.28 The commentaries on Exodus and Numbers are lost, and the commentary on Deuteronomy was never begun. The commentary on Joshua and Judges is unpublished.29 Although an intense student of Scripture, perhaps Claudius set himself a task beyond his means, for it is difficult to see how commentaries on all the books of the Octateuch could have been compiled with the same thoroughness and detail as his commentary on Genesis. The brief commentary on Ruth was

(sec. X-XII) (Turin, 1966), pp. 479-526. On the Chronicle, see Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 2 (Munich, 1923), pp. 294-99.

24 Celestin Charlier, "Florus de Lyon," in Dictioznnaire de spiritualite, 5 (Paris, 1964), col. 514. 25 Charroux, founded by Charlemagne in 785, is about sixty kilometers south of Poitiers on the

Charente River. For Iustus, see Gallia Christiana, 2:1278-79; Ulysse Chevalier, Repertoire des sources

historiques du nzoyen age: Bio-bibliographie, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1905-7), 1:660; and Laurent H. Cottineau, Repertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieures, 3 vols. (Macon, 1939-70), 1:711-12.

26 The prefaces are printed in MGH Epp 4:590-613. 27 Note that the monasteries of Dructeramnus (Monastier Saint-Chaffre), Iustus (Charroux), and

Nibridius (Lagrasse) are mentioned along with Aniane and Gellone (Saint-Guilhem-du-Desert) by the Astronomer in his list of prominent abbeys in the life of Louis the Pious, chap. 19: MGH SS 2:616- 17.

28 The commentary on Leviticus is unpublished, preserved apparently in only one manuscript, Reims 123, saec. ix in.; preface in MGH Epp 4:602-5, PL 104:615-20.

29 Preserved apparently only in Paris lat. 2391, saec. xII; preface in MGH Epp 4:609-10.





printed for the first time in 1974.30 The commentary on Kings was published in two editions, first together with the commentary on Genesis in Basel in 1532 under the name of Eucherius, and again by Giovanni Crisostomo Trombelli in Bologna in 1755.31 The commentaries on Matthew and Paul enjoyed a significant diffusion in the ninth century. Eleven copies of Claudius on Matthew are listed below in Appendix 1, but it remains unpublished.32 The commentaries on the Epistles of Paul are preserved in at least thirteen manuscripts.33 Of these, only the commentary on Galatians, first printed under the name of Claudius of Auxerre in Paris in 1542,34 the commentary on Philemon, edited for the first time by Angelo Mai,35 and those on Colossians, Titus, and Hebrews, first printed under the name of Atto of Vercelli,36 have been published. The commentaries on Romans, 1 and 2 Corin- thians, Ephesians, and Philippians-certainly the more important from a historical and theological point of view-lie unedited in several manuscripts.

Fifteen manuscripts of Claudius's commentaries survive from the ninth century.37 Most were diffused from a limited number of centers or areas: Poitiers (Paris lat. 9575), Auxerre (Paris lat. 2394 + 2395),38 Fleury (Paris lat. 12289 + 12290), Reims (Reims 123; Berlin Phillipps 1708), northern France (New York, H. P. Kraus, s.n.), southern France (Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C.3), and northern

30 I. M. Douglas, "The Commentary on the Book of Ruth by Claudius of Turin," Sacris erudiri 22 (1974-75), 295-320.

31 PL 50:1047-1208 = PL 104:623-834; prefaces printed in incomplete versions in MGH Epp 4:605-8. Trombelli utilized an extant manuscript, Pistoia, Archivio capitolare, C.96, saec. xII. See my forthcoming article in Filologia mediolatina (above, n. 18); and also I. M. Douglas, "Bede's De templo and the Commentary on Samuel and Kings by Claudius of Turin," in Famuluus Christi: Essays in Com0memoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede, ed. Gerald Bonner (London, 1976), pp. 325-33; and Giuliana Italiani, La tradizione esegetica nel commento ai Re di Claudio di Torino (Florence, 1979); "Per un'edizione critica delle Triginta quaestiones super libros

Regum di Claudio di Torino," Studi medievali 29 (1988), 625-40; and "II De templo Salomonis di Beda e il commento ai Re di Claudio di Torino," in Immagini del medioevo, Biblioteca del Centro per il collegamento degli Studi medievali ed umanistici in Umbria 13 (Spoleto, 1994), pp. 179-90.

32 Preface in MGH Epp 4:593-96, PL 104:835-38. The sources used by Claudius in his commentary on Matthew have been studied by A. E. Sch6nbach, "Uber einige Evangelienkommentare des Mittel- alters," Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlich zind kdniglich Akadenzie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.- Hist. Klasse, 146/4 (1903), pp. 90-108, and Brigitta Stoll, "Drei karolingische Matthaus-Kommen- tare," Mittellateinisches Jah-rbuch 26 (1991), 49-54.

33 Ferrari, "Note su Claudio di Torino" (above, n. 10), pp. 291-306. Prefaces in MGH Epp 4:596- 602, 608-9, PL 104:837-42.

34 PL 104:841-918. Edited by Pierre de la Pesseliere (Petrus Pesseliaerius), Claudii Altissiodorensis uel (ut certior coniectura est) Taurinensis episcopi . . . in Epist. D. Pauli ad Galatas doctiss. enarratio, nunc primum luce donata (Paris, 1542). Reprinted with the note of Trithemius in the Magna bibliotheca ueterum patrum (Cologne, 1618), 9:64-89, and then with a note from Philippe Labbe in the Maxinma bibliotheca ueterum patrum, 14 (Lyons, 1677), pp. 141-66. On these editions, see Pierre Petitmengin, "Les patrologies avant Migne," in Migne et le renouveau des etudes patristiques: Actes du colloque de Saint-Floua; 7-8 juillet 1975, ed. A. Mandouze and J. Fouilheron (Paris, 1985), pp. 27-28.

35 PL 104:911-18. Angelo Mai, Spicilegium Romanurtn, 9 (Rome, 1843), pp. 109-17. 36 PL 134:607-44, 699-720, 725-834. Attonis sanctae Vercellarilum ecclesiae episcopi opera ad

autographi Vercellensis fidem nunc primtum exacta, praefatione et commentariis illustrata a D. Carolo Burontio del Signore (Vercelli, 1768). Only the commentaries on Colossians, Titus, and Hebrews are preceded by a list of chapter headings (capituzlatio).

37 See Appendix 1, below, pp. 320-23. 38 The 1542 edition of the commentary on Galatians was based on a now-lost Auxerre manuscript.



Claudius of Turin

Italy (Monza, Biblioteca capitolare, c-2/62; Vatican City Vat. lat. 5775). The name of Claudius was clearly attached to his commentaries in the ninth-century manuscripts.39 No damnatio memoriae was inflicted on Claudius and his works after the iconoclastic controversies of the 820s, nor does there seem to be evidence that Claudius was excommunicated, condemned, imprisoned, removed from his see of Turin, or forced into exile.40 Where his commentaries were ordered, copied, and read, they were attributed to him and recognized to be his. Books like Paris lat. 12289 + 12290 represented a considerable investment of resources, and whoever ordered them had a serious interest in Claudius and his commentaries on the Bible. If we knew who zealously perpetuated the expensive and handsome copies of Claudius's works throughout the ninth century, we could write a new chapter in ninth-century intellectual history. After the ninth century, it would seem that his works fell into oblivion, probably because they were too long and difficult for most readers. Claudius himself did not fall into disgrace, either during his lifetime or later in the ninth century.41 His positions were attacked, but even the casual reader could see from the prefaces to his commentaries that he worked at the request of the emperor Louis the Pious himself.

THE PREFACE ADDRESSED TO DRUCTERAMNUS

In the preface to the three books of his commentary on Genesis, preserved in Paris lat. 9575, and addressed to Dructeramnus, abbot of Monastier Saint-Chaf- fre,42 Claudius enumerates some fundamental questions raised by Genesis by citing passages from Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram and De ciuitate Dei, works that he had evidently studied at first hand, expressing his aim of providing both a literal and an allegorical expositio for the entire book, an exceedingly ambitious proposal that had not been realized in the patristic period. He also explains that source marks were inserted into the work so that no one would think he was plagiarizing the works of the patristic authorities or appropriating their words improperly. The

39 The manuscripts listed in Appendix 1 where the name of Claudius appears (or can be assumed to have been originally present, as in the case of Paris lat. 12290, where the first folio is cut out) are marked with an asterisk. Note that all ninth-century copies originally bore his name.

40 Walahfrid Strabo seems to have been under the impression that Claudius was damnatus, but it is difficult to understand exactly what is meant by the word damnatus in this context and where he

might have gotten this idea; see the passage cited by Ferrari, "Note su Claudio di Torino," p. 291. 41 Claudius was honored by inclusion in the 1557 Index of Paul IV; see J. M. De Bujanda, Index de

Rome, 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index ronmains de l'index du Concile de Trente, Index des Libres Interdits 8 (Sherbrooke, Quebec, 1990), p. 394, item 121: "Claudius Taurinensis, qui scripsit de imaginibus. Claudius Taurinensis in indice Veneto et Florentino, conatus est reuocare heresin id est canomasticorum, qui suo iudicio damnatus interiit."

42 Jean Mabillon suggested that Dructeramnus was the abbot of Calmeliacense monasterium (Mo- nastier Saint-Chaffre in Velay, south of Le Puy in the Haute-Loire), who is known to us from charters; see Ernst Diimmler, MGH Epp 4:590, n. 1; "Monasterium Calmeliacense," Gallia Christiana, 2:763; Chevalier, 2:1967-68; Cottineau, 2:1877-78. Another Dructeramnus was abbot of Solignac, just south of Limoges in the Haute-Vienne; "Abbatia Solemniacensis," Gallia Christiana, 2:567; Chevalier, 2:2983; Cottineau, 2:567. Monastier Saint-Chaffre was the most important abbey in the Velay during this period. Perhaps the same Dructeramnus was abbot first at Saint-Chaffre and then at Solignac, or vice versa?

286



use of the topos of breuitas and the phrase "non mea legit, sed illorum relegit" reveal Claudius's debt to Isidore's commentary on the Old Testament,43 but it seems highly inappropriate to raise the theme of breuitas in the preface to such a very long and complicated work, as Claudius does here. Note that Bede's commentary was considered a difficult work, an opusculum operosum.44 Claudius tells us many details about how his work came to be compiled:

We not only believe but see and hold the Lord to be faithful to his words and holy in all his works, who through the prophet Isaiah deigned to promise to his church that the earth would be filled with knowledge, like the waters of the sea. This came to pass after the evangelical and apostolic Scriptures, when innumerable works were written by the holy Fathers, the defenders of the orthodox faith of the church. After all these, I, un- worthy and the last, driven not by recklessness but by love, undertook not to interpret

-the Book of Genesis but rather, like a judge weighing evidence, to collect together in one work excerpts from commentators to answer those who with a sacrilegious mouth and a blind mind foolishly slander God, not knowing, as the Apostle said about some, They do not speak, nor do they affirm, and since they were not disciples of truth, they remain masters of error. If their insane blasphemy and hateful foolishness were directed at me, I would bear it somewhat calmly, but I cannot tolerate this against God, and it seemed right to bark on behalf of my God as much as I could against swarming frogs or mad wolves who have turned utterly away from the truth and run mad with the deadly sickness of impiety....

But since, while I was preparing with God's help a literal commentary, many other questions arose, I treated the entire Book of Genesis in a historical and allegorical commentary, so that, by carefully balancing text and allegory, the weight of the commentary did not overwhelm any topic, nor was anything neglected. Many statements in this book are so pregnant with allegories that anyone who tries to interpret them only in a historical sense will because of his mistake fail to understand them. Some indeed must be understood literally, so that if anyone wishes to study these in more detail, he will not find any additional meaning inside, but will merely be hiding from himself what is clearly expressed.

After studying and investigating opinions on historical events taken from mystical treasure troves of learned men, I abridged them in a brief compendium of one codex. The reader does not read my words. Instead, he reads theirs again. I have collected their words like beautiful flowers from many meadows, so my treatise is a work of theirs. And so no one will think me presumptuous and rash because I took arms from the cabinet of another, I have indicated the name of each learned authority by placing letters in the margin, just as the blessed priest Bede did. But his work is difficult in some places, and I think it cannot be understood by everyone. The work I began in Lyons when I was with the venerable father Leidrad, by the grace of God archbishop of the church there, when we advanced to some extent in our knowledge of the Bible, with his help and

43 "Brevi enim expositione succincta non faciunt de prolixitate fastidium. Prolixa enim et occulta taedet oratio; brevis et aperta delectat.... Has autem rerum gestarum figuras de mysticis thesauris sapientium, ut praediximus, depromentes, in unam formam compendio brevitatis contraximus; in quibus lector non nostra leget, sed veterum releget. Quod enim ego loquor, illi dicunt; et vox mea ipsorum est lingua": PL 83:207C-209A.

44 See Judith McClure, "Bede's Notes on Genesis and the Training of the Anglo-Saxon Clergy," in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood (Oxford, 1985), pp. 17-30; her remarks strike me as correct. See also C. W. Jones, "Some Introductory Remarks on Bede's Commentary on Genesis," Sacris erudiri 19 (1969-70), 115-98.





God's. But since I was ordered by a royal decree of the pious prince, lord Louis, to come to the province of Aquitaine, I finished here in the prince's palace of Chasseneuil with God's help what I had begun there.45

THE MANUSCRIPTS

The commentary on Genesis compiled by Claudius of Turin at the request of Louis the Pious is apparently preserved in only two medieval manuscripts, Paris lat. 9575, written in 808-11, and Vienna 691, saec. xII, from the abbey of G6tt-

weig in Austria.46 The Heiligenkreuz manuscript used by Brassicanus and Froben for the editio princeps published in Basel in 1531 is apparently no longer extant.

Excerpts from the commentary are found in Diisseldorf B.3, written in the early ninth century. A copy of Paris lat. 9575 made at Chambery early in the last century, valuable for several reasons, is today Lyons, Institut catholique F 37.

Paris lat. 9575 As one of a mere handful of securely dated manuscripts from the reign of Char-

lemagne,47 Paris lat. 9575 deserves greater attention than it has received.48 The oldest manuscript of a commentary of Claudius and evidently the only one written during his lifetime to survive,49 it was executed in at least four distinct phases. The

45 Published in MGH Epp 4:590, lines 8-22, and p. 592, lines 2-23, but not together with the work in PL 50:893-1048. Three readings have been adopted from the nineteenth-century copy of Paris lat. 9575 now in Lyons: p. 590, line 15, "et in unum" for "ex ... m"; p. 590, line 19, "contra me" for

"contrarie"; and p. 590, line 20, "aequanimiter aliquantum ferrem" for ". . . ferrem." 46 1 have examined Paris lat. 9575 often, but I know Vienna 691 only from a microfilm and printouts

furnished by Susan Brix, Sebastian Gregory, and Eric Hollas of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library in Collegeville, Minn., and Diisseldorf B.3 from a microfilm lent by Heinz Finger of the Universitats- bibliothek in Duisseldorf. Monika K6stlin kindly and very quickly sent me Bernhard Bischoff's notes on the ninth-century manuscripts, cited below in Appendix 1, and her assistance is greatly appreciated, on this occasion as on many others. Every printed edition discussed here was examined personally, in the Biblioteca Braidense in Milan, the Vatican Library, or the Bibliotheque nationale de France. This

project could not have been completed without the help and assistance of a great number of people; for helpful comments, suggestions, and assistance of all kinds I wish to thank Karen Corsano, Mirella

Ferrari, Ann Freeman, Ann Matter, Patricia Stirnemann, Anne-Marie Turcan, Veronika von Bfiren, Dorothea Weber, Laura Zumkeller, John Cavadini, Francois Dolbeau, lain Douglas, Burton Van Name

Edwards, Raymond Etaix, Jacques Fontaine, David Ganz, Joshua Lipton, Istvan Nemeth, James O'Donnell, Pierre Petitmengin, Steven Stofferahn, Charles D. Wright, Stefano Zamponi, and especially Paolo Chiesa, John Contreni, Paul Meyvaert, and Armando Petrucci. Bernhard Bischoff first brought the manuscripts of Claudius, a student of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram, and their problems to

my attention in the late 1970s; his interest and encouragement are fondly remembered. 47 In the six volumes of Mantscrits dates for France, only one other item from Charlemagne's time

seems to bear a definite date (805), Paris lat. 11710; for this manuscript, see Bernhard Bischoff, "Li- braries and Schools in the Carolingian Revival of Learning," in Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne, trans. Michael Gorman (Cambridge, Eng., 1994), p. 35, n. 68.

48 Armando Petrucci and I plan to make a detailed paleographical study of this manuscript, and

many issues mentioned briefly here will be addressed more thoroughly later. Paris lat. 9575 would seem to contain one of the earliest extant personal letters; see Armando Petrucci, "La lettera missiva

nell'Europa medievale: Tecniche e materiali," Gazette du livre medievale 25 (1994), 30-31. 49 Reims 123 might have been written during Claudius's lifetime; see Bischoff, "Libraries and

Schools," p. 33, n. 62.



'it-· ^^·......!y:i:i --

,nr: .e;wt''·· iA··arLsn c*aL. : aq

...^ *, E~... .-~

,~ "~7'1 .....Ie.. " * ., ......

pS,^:..rôr«U^^^f^^ :i::'..1 " : "

|- -E I mdvLf twuAf lx . i^î.fs .*:.A O«^ ^'.^Î^*^ ^*.i. A . . .

l: ..:, :, ... ..... ......l.~m:q"'"'w -'"~""l':"* ^ . ... 7- 1.... .. . :. :I

j^-:- ... K L :tr:.;f' *nrvufl *.:.. -,~. -~ aL44... ..,,, n .q.......h

Fig "~ t~4*~W AsnaLrCn.. 1. F S . .

(Al phtgah repodce by#0I £ p4ermissionLJ.)uCl

Xix ..ul~' - : . . o A A 4

.15. :. :

Fig. 1. Paris, Biblioth~que nationale de France, MS lat. 9575, fol. 87r.

(All photographs reproduced by permission.)

A4 -A· i·L



·:"z :':.~· .... * ' '' '! Sr i::··. t. . * . '' zi s K & 'i - "1 . S

'`" - s; | s:: ~~~t ~ ,4 oo: 'l:' '

: . .S

~ . " ' ~.. :bx.~ :

" ^ '~t ^ * e S aN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

->*" *^ 4 ? . "

^ . e . I , Z

s e. ; E - _

- t o -It3

..* .. ..

.*.-.

*J._ ; /. ·· t4 '* ·:

W qe k

5'' '§ 'c;r

tE s _

*' + A . . ,s,, . .;. . . ~.i:

ci ..

...

I-

-.'

--- ---

"" "":'A~' -" 'O ~.?.; , ,'l

.. ii Xi

... I

.,

j

. I 1r

r .'0

X . .



Js4n.t*s& $ twu r Ct^Wt tnt nP r I ;

^:?:%:h:: a. .... ..l ^.% :lL ... 4 ... r.......-

qtEi4nb rt4Je15i (v1AA44r^ s.*nErl^ a

hSLL4W11n sUan*01umc 0J42 rTtr4rtm rrcra cm44tW 7

hka«ntf etnunj' tey^otJfftT < » n act jaoen emufltl7W

Iu4t ;JM w*r.n) pcm I m t4*fi erttt<t tO 4IUIrrt7 P

Z I4flt 1-.f!^ r 44 p f tt tna ^ 3 t Es

r2. $1tL rx£ p bUo, tn rsnC6.r>WAtfl545f rkrwr Ljuteniresw

di.. iY$ . *" f

lr{hstt'.waC rq cC& qustn r v > tin aCT e tfre1v flk'r*r t'

j

L rr;-rjt- j ^ttP sh ifnrtfl efr crlL 14) meA 1$!9:

.x. .. . ..! . ..:i. ...;;: ..

rg$¶X. CM (npr r. C tttI ?.<:iMsr

c °= -hm a

&Ap ,- «

..O '.

<.ce,-, . :si:rr r:<plr "

: ..: ;'

PttLO·t bct f.u.f.u rc

t'

.::a:,,.~P~~4~6' ·r ,~rtt,-~- te~'"i~z ... o~,,rr~ Lt, t, 4&,, ... .... :':*~

~L~~ Ilr,*"so~ mg-~ tOdl '¢'t~¢ e ~:· ..'~.' ~,a:"...

~~~~~~~~~~~: pI·. .P :::~ ~uSr ?* 1n~"·f)mk~m~rcr:-

,ii' L :~;,.a ~,,..tI l:~p~,,=,, r. w du ¢,~s rr" 1'~,~ .~ ,.,~ .?, ft'.~ ::.,~ ,-, :?,::vs

·qini·n prrrr mcr 4 'U lul punIdrrs

/CIiUjb

::'~'.....:_n"-*i n7t .tn '

: ' ~(PP· .... :.. 4 r)npm~~~~~~Bnr· m ~~~~~- ·~~~r *I.*:·r cp·cPlm y~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ '': · :·i~~~~~~~S.';:;iiiii~.' :j

t , ... .

. :... .. . . . ·,,

Fig. 3. Paris .at. 9575, fol. 109r.

Fig. 3. Paris lat. 9575, fol. 109r.

*'. '::

;: ::.: . :

,... .. r..:: ,.... *.:::.,.~]~

:..

...:::

*·:·

,. X. .: a/j

* :' ^...: u·: _i

* . .: . . :1:.s

i *

·: F.··: :: ..

.: :e::Ngr

*:::.e

.. :r : ·: :..:z:

z y

*

. :.:

!'.' '.i

:I.: :XS:.: :

. p .:.· :.d . d f

* :Y.,{

*' i:,S 1

ib0

.c· :Y! '

i.. iiN: h:

:"" :I;r

·'n::l·· 6; S' :iC ·;·

.· Li: i'V:"'

i :? :i' 1 : ,·i· d i;··

'' : ii::*:....:ir:Iij;·:··..r8·

I,:::. :.

I : i'



I s J r· |

f 12

Ci.

'*d~~ rt< a4 ' 2

'4t

~~ ,

*s ;·., ,_ 4

'. 0

00

<-» -Il

*

i

t- #.

I

'9

li .



text of the commentary (fols. 7r-109r) was copied in two stages, first using eleven quaternions ruled with twenty-seven lines (fols. 7r-83v-the first folio of the original first quire is now missing), then (after an interruption that lasted perhaps for weeks or months?) four quaternions ruled with twenty-eight lines (fols. 84r- 109r). The principal scribe (whose name was Faustinus) worked from fol. 7r up to the penultimate line of fol. 86v, writing all of books 1 and 2 and the first nineteen chapters of book 3 (ending at PL 50:1018B, "esse fatebuntur"). In this part of the manuscript, omissions are marked in a variety of ways, usually with a cross answering a cross in the lower margin, but also with "dh" answering "SR" in the lower margin (fol. 50r) and supplied by the scribe.50

In a second phase, a scribe whose turn of duty had begun on the last line of fol. 86v wrote only the last line on fol. 86v and the first seven lines and the first four words on line 8 on fol. 87r. A third hand took up quaternions ruled in twenty- eight lines, but immediately made a serious mistake (see Fig. 1), omitting the last words of chapter 19 on fol. 87r, line 12 (PL 50:1018C, "positum ... salvus erit"). He marked his error by placing "dh" in the text and "SR" in the lower margin, as did the principal scribe, which is the customary practice in Visigothic manuscripts.51 At the top of fol. 89r, the new scribe must have made an even more serious mistake, for sixteen lines had to be later erased and twenty-six new lines (PL 50:1021A, "Tria canistra"-1021C, "cervicibus tuis") written in by a corrector. (See Fig. 2.) The passage in question is clearly marked "CL FG" (Claudius figurate) in the margin to note that the passage was an allegorical interpretation written by Claudius and not taken from the patristic authorities-could the corrector have been Claudius himself? At this point the third scribe evidently got hold of himself, for no omissions are noted from fol. 89r (see Fig. 2) to the end of the text on fol. 109r (see Fig. 3).

By the time the text was completed, the quires had probably been numbered by the scribes and the running headers written in the upper margins of the flesh-side openings (from fol. 12v onwards).52 The abbreviations "FG" and "FIG" (figurate or figuraliter) and "SQ" (sequitur), usually in red ink, are used frequently to mark the beginning of new passages in the text, whereas source marks, such as "AG" (Augustinus), "IH" (Hieronymus), or "YSD" (Isidorus), were entered into the margins by the scribes as the text was copied using the same dark brown ink used for the text. Lemmata are usually in red, too. A Greek word is written with the letters of the Greek alphabet on one occasion (fol. 81r, PL 50:1010A); Greek words and phrases are also written with the letters of the Roman alphabet (fol. 65r, PL 50:970D; fol. 79r, PL 50:1006C); and Greek letters are also used for a Hebrew word (fol. 8r, PL 50:895B)-an above-average performance for early-ninth-

50 Omissions occur on fol. 27v, line 19, PL 50:918B-C; fol. 42r, line 23, 935D-936A; fol. 50r, line 12, 946B; fol. 50r, line 18, 946B; fol. 60v, line 15, 964B.

51 See the 1946 article of E. A. Lowe, "The Oldest Omission Signs in Latin Manuscripts: Their Origin and Significance," repr. in Palaeographical Papers, 2 (Oxford, 1972), p. 367.

52 Seven quires are signed (vi, fol. 53v; vii, fol. 59v; viii, fol. 67v; x, fol. 75v; xi, fol. 83v; xii, fol. 91v; xiii, fol. 99v); the bottoms of many leaves in the first quires are cut away.




century scribes.53 These details lead me to believe that this book was the presentation copy made from the archetype and not the archetype itself, which would have been prepared from Claudius's wax tablets, annotated manuscripts, or scraps of parchment (schedulae).

The third stage included preparing a ternion (fols. lr-6v) with the preface addressed to Dructeramnus (fols. lv-3v) and the index of chapter headings for all three books (fols. 4v-6v). The title on fol. lv, "Incipit prefatio Claudii presbiteri," clearly attributes the work to Claudius, as in most manuscripts of Claudius. A

"signed" praefatio is usually a feature of manuscripts of Claudius's works, which he probably adopted from observing how the works of his principal authorities, such as Augustine and Bede, often begin with a preface dedicated to a well-known recipient. It may be that the chapter divisions were decided and the chapter headings composed by Claudius only after the text had been copied out. I believe the chapter numbers were entered in the margins after the book was completed.

In a final stage, to fill up the folios left blank (fols. 109v-lllr), excerpts from Eugippius's anthology of Augustine were written on forty-two to forty-three lines in small handwriting in a manner recalling books prepared for Theodulf.54 At some point, presumably long after the book had been completed, the first nine lines on fol. 76r were erased (PL 50:1001C-1002C, "-enis juxta . . . exterioribus format"), and entries from a glossary were written in a contemporary hand.55 As it stands today, the text is incomplete and has been so for many centuries, for the original ninth quire (after fol. 67, PL 50:974C-990A) and the central bifolium of the seventh quire (after fol. 56, PL 50:955D-958D) were already missing by the twelfth century when the notes "Hic desunt due cartule" (fol. 56v) and "Hic deest unus quaternus" (fol. 67v) were entered.

According to the famous subscription on fol. 109r (see Fig. 3), Paris lat. 9575 was written by Faustinus in 808-11 at the royal palace of Louis the Pious at

53 Walter Berschin, "Greek Elements in Medieval Latin Manuscripts," in The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: The Study of Greek in the West in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Michael W. Herren and Shirley Ann Brown, King's College London Medieval Studies 2 (London, 1988), pp. 85-104 with 16 plates.

54 See my article, "The Manuscript Tradition of Eugippius' Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini," Revue benedictine 92 (1982), 258. Folios lr-109r are ruled for twenty-seven to twenty-nine lines, whereas thirty-five lines are written on fol. 109v, forty-two on fol. 110r, and forty-three on fol. 110v.

55 The glosses are "Annalitel: Vna quoque causa quae in anno geritur. Summ[it]ates. Principes. Sep- ticius. Malus iudex. Achemenus. Rex Caldeorum fuit ad cuius iram refrenandam septem uiri interfi- ciebantur a quo ita Achemenia ira dicta est. Cautes. Petras. Fando. Narrando. Restat. Quod superest. O. Interieccio dolentis est. Heu. Interieccio iementdi. Iubas. Capillos. Odas. Cantus. Siluia. Mata romoli. Cuncto. Interrogo. Inconsonantia. Qui non bene sonant. Numen. Volumen dei. Stragio. In- ferno. Strategi. Principes. Demisi. De alto posui. Felinusi. Laxaui. Despicio. De alto aspicio. Caribdi. Vmbilicus maris. Teristrum. Pallium cooperiunt femine capita sua auri usque ad scapulas." The last gloss is somewhat similar to an item found in the glosses of Theodore and Hadrian on Gen. 38.14, "Theristrum. Id est, pallium lineum subtile quo se puellae cooperiunt et meretrices maxime," but otherwise the words here do not appear to be taken from Genesis; see Biblical Commenltaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, ed. Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge, Cam- bridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 10 (Cambridge, Eng., 1994), p. 338. On this edition, see my review, "Theodore of Canterbury, Hadrian of Nisida and Michael Lapidge," Scriptorium 50 (1996), 184-92.




Chasseneuil near Poitiers where Claudius completed the compilation.56 When the subscription was published first by Leopold Delisle and then by Ernst Diimmler the first line was omitted:

Continet haec historia libri Genesis secundum Hebraicam ueritatem annos II CCCVIIII.

Finitum opusculum in Casanolio palatio, suburbio Pictauino, prouintia aquitanica, anno uicesimo septimo regnante pio principe domno Hlodohico rege, filio gloriosi Caroli imperatoris, era DCCCXLVIII, qui est annus incarnationis domini nostri Iesu Christi DCCCXI. Faustinus scripsit.57

In 1965 Bernhard Bischoff suggested that Paris lat. 9575 was perhaps corrected by Claudius of Turin himself:

Visigothic script, or writing influenced or coloured by it, can be a symptom of origin in South France. The great majority of refugees from Spain landed here. Septimania, where the Visigothic language was still alive even during the time of Theodulf, was part of the Spanish kingdom until its collapse. Thus, it is no surprise that Visigothic script endured here for a long time and remained a fundamental influence .... Spanish influence is more clearly seen in the script of the priest Faustinus who, in 811 at the royal palace at Chasseneuil near Poitiers, copied Paris lat. 9575, the manuscript of the commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin, which was revised by a Spanish scribe, perhaps Claudius himself.58

Evidently Bischoff believed some corrections or additions in the manuscript were

authorial, but he nowhere explained what this belief was based on, nor did he

specify where in the manuscript Claudius might have entered revisions. Armando Petrucci has noted how the manuscript was written by several hands:

II manoscritto 6 scritto da pii mani. La mano della sottoscrizione di Faustinus (c. 109r) non corrisponde a quella dello scriba che ha finito il testo (e forse a nessun'altra). [See Fig. 3.] La mano che ha scritto la lettera e coeva alle altre, ma probabilmente diversa. Il che potrebbe confermare la tesi che sia, se non autografa, fatta scrivere da Claudio. Ii manoscritto contiene qua e la correzioni, rasure, aggiunte di mani coeve che potrebbero essere d'autore. Si nota che fra c. 86v e 87r c'6 un netto cambio di mano (che comincia in verita con l'ultimo r. di c. 86v) e che altro cambio avviene a 87r a r. 8. [See Fig. 1.] Ma non 6 fine fascicolo. A c. 89r si inserisce una mano fitta e piccola, coeva, che effettua (su rasura?) un lungo inserimento di ben 26 righe. [See Fig. 2.] E coeva; forse gia presente nel ms. (6 l'autore?).59

56 This may be the oldest subscription dated from the year of the Incarnation. The twenty-seventh year of the reign of Louis the Pious, who was crowned king of Aquitania in Rome on 15 April 780 by Hadrian I, would be 807. For the date, see Charles Samaran and Robert Marichal, Catalogue des manuscrits en ecriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, 3 (Paris, 1974), p. 127, pl. VI (showing the principal hand on fol. 76r). See also The New Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, 2nd ser., 1 (London, 1913), pl. 120; Benedictins du Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siecle, 2 (Fribourg, 1967), p. 65, item 4046.

57 MGH Epp 4:593, where the first line of the subscription was omitted by Diimmler. 58 Bernhard Bischoff, "Manuscripts in the Age of Charlemagne," in Manuscripts and Libraries, p.

33. It would be interesting to know why Bischoff here assumed Faustinus was a priest. 59 am grateful to Armando Petrucci for kindly sharing his unpublished notes on this manuscript

with me and for allowing me to quote them here.




The subscription on the last five lines of fol. 109r (see Fig. 3) was probably composed by Claudius himself. Claudius was fond of offering precise details about where exactly his works were prepared and also of dating them.60 On other oc- casions, too, he refers to Louis as "pius princeps."61 The phrase "iuxta Hebraicam veritatem" is also found at the beginning of his Chronicle to indicate the Old Testament.62 In the light of Petrucci's observations that the subscription was not written by one of the scribes who copied the text and that the correction on fol. 89r (see Fig. 2) might have been written by Claudius himself, I suggest that the subscription was first prepared and then copied out by Claudius himself in his own hand; in this case, it would be authentic and not copied from an exemplar. (If we could find a manuscript marked up or annotated by Claudius while he was preparing his commentaries, this hypothesis could be confirmed.)63 It seems to me that the hand that wrote the subscription on fol. 109r is the same hand (described by Petrucci as a "mano fitta e piccola, coeva") that entered the passage in the erasure on fol. 89r and marked "CL FG" (Claudius figurate). If this is true, this manuscript offers us two examples of Claudius's own hand: fols. 89r and 109r (see Figs. 2 and 3).

Paris lat. 9575 could either be the archetype prepared by Claudius for his own use or the presentation copy prepared to be sent to Dructeramnus at Monastier Saint-Chaffre. I believe it is more likely to be the presentation copy for the following reason: the chapter headings were copied altogether at the beginning of the book (not before each of the three books, as in Vienna 691 and other manuscripts of Claudius's biblical commentaries), after the letter to Dructeramnus. If this book is the presentation copy made for Dructeramnus, which was to be sent to Mo- nastier Saint-Chaffre near Le Puy in Velay, the letter appended at the beginning of the book would be original, the very copy destined for Dructeramnus himself.

Paris lat. 9575 was acquired from the Parisian bookdealer Edwin Tross on 3 September 1861.64 Where was this manuscript after the ninth century and before 1861? The work is extremely rare, but a copy of it was listed in the eleventh- century catalogue of the Cluny library: "Volumen in quo continetur Claudius in librum Genesis."65 Paris lat. 9575 is perhaps to be identified with this item. By the early nineteenth century the manuscript was in the library of the Cordeliers at Chambery, where the copy now in Lyons was made, and it may have come to

60 Ep. 2, MGH Epp 4:593, line 37; 603, line 26. 61 Ep. 2, MGH Epp 4:593, line 38; 596, line 21. 62 PL 104:917C. Only portions of this work have been published. The dedication was published for

the first time by Ferrari, "Note su Claudio di Torino" (above, n. 10), pp. 307-8. 63 For the hands of ninth-century authors that have been identified, see Bernhard Bischoff, "Palao-

graphie und Geschichte," Bibliotheksforum Bayern 9 (1981), 6-14. 64 The manuscript bears the numbers Suppl. lat. 1858 and RC5670. The manuscript evidently did

not appear in a Tross catalogue prior to its acquisition by the Bibliotheque Nationale. I am grateful to Patricia Stirnemann for kindly supplying this information.

65 Leopold Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque imperiale, 2 (Paris, 1863), p. 468, item 286. On the date of the library catalogue of Cluny, see Veronika von Biiren, "Le grand catalogue de la bibliotheque de Cluny," in Le gouvernement d'Hugues de Semiur a Cluny: Actes du colloque scientifique international (Cluny, 1988), pp. 245-63, and "Le catalogue de la bibliotheque de Cluny du XIe siecle reconstitue," Scriptorium 46 (1992), 256-67.




Tross from there. Delisle notes that some manuscripts once in the possession of the Cordeliers of Chambery were sold in Paris by Tross on 29 November 1861, but by that date Paris lat. 9575 had already been acquired.66 A hypothetical re- construction of the vicissitudes of Paris lat. 9575 would be that, after having been created at the palace at Chasseneuil, it was sent to Dructeramnus at Monastier Saint-Chaffre near Le Puy. In the course of the following centuries, it may have arrived at Cluny before eventually ending up at Chambery.67 Several annotations (fols. 13r, 14v, 17r, 18r) show that the text was read carefully by at least one reader in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The book was perhaps already at Chambery when the entry "Frater Johan Rapines" (saec. xvII-xvIII) on fol. 6r was made.

Vienna 691 In Vienna 691 (olim Theol. 77), fols. 26r-126v, saec. xII, the text of the com-

mentary on Genesis compiled by Claudius of Turin stands without an attribution, but on the front pastedown we read, "Anshelmus cur deus homo. Eucherius in Genesim libri III. Eiusdem in Regum libri IIII in hoc uolumine." The writing on the pastedown is by the same hand that copied the texts in the manuscript. In addition to Claudius on Genesis, the manuscript contains Anselm, Cur Deus homo (fols. lr-25v) and Claudius on Kings (fols. 127r-215r).68 Vienna 691 was probably copied in the Benedictine abbey of G6ttweig, about sixty kilometers up the Danube from Vienna, where it remained for centuries, as we read on the front pastedown, "Iste liber pertinet ad sanctam Mariam Kotwic, quem si quis per uim uel fraudem anathema sit. Amen." At the bottom of fol. 215r are the words "Scri- benti salus, legenti uita, possidenti uictoria, Witigario Christique pontifici gloria sempiterna," perhaps a reference to Witigarius of Ottobeuron (t902), as Michael Denis suggested, or to Witgar of Augsburg, as Bischoff conjectured.69 Many G6tt-

66 Cabinet des manuscrits, 2:352. Raymond Etaix informs me that provenances of volumes are not recorded in the Tross catalogue for this sale.

67 This is not as far-fetched as it sounds, since we know there were relations between Cluny and Monastier Saint-Chaffre; see F Lacroix, "L'abbaye de St-Chaffre du Monastier et ses rapports avec

Cluny," Annales de I'Acadenmie de Macon 9 (1892), 8-14. 68 The date "1170-1180, G6ttweig" has been offered by Werner Telesko, Gottweiger Buchmalerei

des 12. Jahrhunderts: Studien zur Handschriftenproduktion eines Reformklosters, Studien und Mit- teilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, Erginzungsband 27 (St. Ottilien, 1995), pp. 167-69 with pl. 40 (of fol. 26r). According to Hermann Julius Hermann, Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der illuminierten Handschriften in Osterreich: Die deutschen Ronanischen Handschriften, 8/2 (Leipzig, 1926), p. 205, item 121, with pl. 125 (of fol. 26r), the manuscript probably came to Vienna with Wolfgang Lazius (1514-65), professor of medicine at the University of Vienna, who is known to have brought other manuscripts from G6ttweig to Vienna. See also Otto Mazal, Buchkunst der Roianzik (Graz, 1978), p. 228; Tabulae codiczm manu scriptoruni praeter Graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorzmn, 1 (Vienna, 1864), p. 116.

69 Item CCLXXXV in the first volume of the great catalogue of Michael Denis, Codices manuscripti theologici Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonenzesis Latini aliarulmque Occidentis lingutarumn, 1/1 (Vi- enna, 1793), cols. 1061-63, with the following note: "In calce porro Codicis nostri a nemine, quod sciam, hactenus consulti eadem manu adnotatum est: Scribenti salus. legenti uita. posidenti uictoria, Witigario Christique pontifici gloria sempiterna. Primo item codicis folio in summa ora adscriptum reperio Witigarus. Itaque inducor, ut credam illum in Coenobio Ottoburano exaratum fuisse, cuius Abbas Witigarius, aliis Widegardus, Wiggerus uir sanctus, ad Augustanas insulas euectus, Heluetio-




weig manuscripts were alienated in the sixteenth century, and some ended up in the Hofbibliothek in Vienna.70 The preface addressed to Dructeramnus is missing. The text is not divided into chapters, but the list of chapter headings is presented at the beginning of each of the three books (fols. 26r, 54v-55r, 90r-v), not altogether at the beginning of the manuscript as in Paris lat. 9575-that was probably Claudius's original intention, since it corresponds to the practice found in other manuscripts of his biblical commentaries. The source marks noted in the margins in Paris lat. 9575, such as "Aug," "Cl," "Cln," "Or" and "Orig," "Iher," "Greg," and "Ysid" also appear in the margins in Vienna 691. The abbreviation "FG" is not written in the text as in Paris lat. 9575, but in the margins, for example, "FG Ysid AMBROS" on fol. 104v, the folio that corresponds to what is seen in Fig. 4. Scriptural citations are marked with an ss-like flourish in the margins.

Was the attribution to Eucherius invented by the scribe of Vienna 691 or a contemporary in the twelfth century, or was the work perhaps already attributed to Eucherius of Lyons as early as the ninth century? If the latter is the case, the choice of Eucherius as the name under which to hide Claudius's work may also indicate that the attribution was made in or near Lyons, where several manuscripts of Claudius were written or preserved already in the ninth century.

The Lost Heiligenkreuz Manuscript The manuscript that Brassicanus and Froben used for the editio princeps of the

commentary on Genesis attributed to Eucherius came from the library of Heili- genkreuz, the famous Bibliotheca sanctae Crucis, about ten kilometers outside Vienna to the southwest. No such manuscript is there today.71 The edition of Brassicanus thus has value as an independent witness to the text. An item in the short Heiligenkreuz catalogue of 1363-74 refers to Eucherius on Genesis and Kings, "8. Eucherii Lugdunensis super genesim et regum." In the great catalogue of 1381, we find two items, "Super genesim" and "Super libros regum," listed first in the section devoted to "Eucherius Lugdunensis episcopus" along with several other spurious works;72 perhaps the commentaries of Claudius had arrived at Heiligenkreuz under the name of Eucherius of Lyons, and their presence led li- brarians to enlarge the collection of works under his name. If the manuscript used

rumque Apostolus a. 902 and Superos abiit." Denis notes the index capitum and the source marks, remarks that the work cannot be by Eucherius, and suggests the author is "Anglum quendam, fortassis ipsum Bedam." Denis conjectured that the commentaries in Vienna 691 and Vienna 710 (Theol. 106; Denis I, LXXVII; Claudius on Kings) were by Bede; in fact, they could not have been written much before Bede's time. He refers to the version of the text published in 1677 in the Maxima bibliotheca of Lyons. His description is far more useful than what is published in the 1864 Vienna catalogue. On Witgar of Augsburg see Bernhard Bischoff, Die siidostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, 2: Die vorwiegend osterreichischen Di6zesen (Wiesbaden, 1980), p. 193, where the manuscript is dated "saec. xn" and the contents given as "Ps.-Eucherius, Comm. in Genesin et librum regum."

70 See Theodor Gottlieb, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Osterreichs, 1 (Vienna, 1915), p. 5, n. 1, where Vienna 691 is mentioned. The manuscript does not seem to be listed in any extant medieval library catalogue from G6ttweig.

71 The catalogue of the manuscript books in the library of Heiligenkreuz was published in Xenia Bernardina (Vienna, 1891), 2/1:115-272.

72 Gottlieb, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Osterreichs, 1:25, 60.





by Froben ever comes to light, we will probably discover that the chapter headings and the chapter numbers of Genesis had been entered in the margins by the editors and the source marks canceled, in order not to confuse the printer.73

Dusseldorf B.3 Extracts from the commentary on Genesis are written in ab-script in Dusseldorf

B.3, fols. lv-24v (CLA 8, no. 1183).74 Consequently, the manuscript cannot have been written as early as the date assigned to it in Codices Latini antiquiores: "saec. viII-Ix." It must have been written after 811, and a date in the 820s is not unlikely. Such a late date confirms the suspicion of E. A. Lowe that ab-script lived on well into the ninth century: "It seems incredible that this curious artificial type could have survived into the second decade of the ninth century."75 It was copied by T. A. M. Bishop's scribe 60, "the best calligrapher of them all," who also wrote Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve 63 (Bede) and 55 (Cassiodorus), and by seven others.76 It seems to have been at Essen later in the ninth century.77

The incipit on fol. lv reads, "Sententiae de libro Genesis," and the explicit on fol. 24v, "Expliciunt sententiae de libro Genesis. Deo gratias. Amen." A list of the contents was written in a fourteenth-century hand on fol. lr:

EXPOSITIO SUPER CANTICA CANTICORUM. In hoc libro continentur Sententiae de libro Genesis Augustini, Gregorii, Ysidori, Fulgentii, et questiones de Genesi ad litteram, de libro Regum et de Parabolis, Ecclesiaste, et Cantica canticorum, et expositio eorum, et item expositio Gregorii super Cantica usque Equitatui meo in curribus, et de Ysaia, Ieremia, Ezechiele, De Epistulis Pauli et Epistulae canonicae, Apocalipsis, Omelia de

73 For manuscripts marked up for the printers responsible for Johann Herwagen's edition of Bede (Basel, 1563), see Heinrich Weisweiler, "Die handschriftlichen Vorlagen zum Erstdruck von Pseudo- Beda, In Psalmorum librum exegesis," Biblica 18 (1937), 197-204, with plates of Munich Clm 14387, fol. 24r, and Stuttgart Theol. Phil. Fol. 206, fol. 71r; and Bernhard Bischoff, "Zur Kritik der Heer- wagenschen Ausgabe von Bedas Werken (Basel 1563)," in his Mittelalterliche Studien, 1 (Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 112-17. See also Bertram Colgrave and Irvine Masson, "The Editio Princeps of Bede's Prose Life of St. Cuthbert, and Its Printer's XIIth Century Copy," The Library 19 (1938-39), 289- 303, with plates of Bern 392.

74 Bonifatius Fischer pointed this out in Verzeichnis der Sigel fiir Kirchenschriftsteller (Freiburg, 1963), p. 511, n. 1217, although the note about Claudius's commentary on Genesis on p. 208 is incorrect; see Hermann Josef Frede, Kirchenschriftsteller: Verzeichnis und Sigel (Freiburg, 1995), p. 829-the note on p. 383 is still uncorrected. In 1930 A. E. Anspach printed a few passages from this manuscript as though they were from a lost literal commentary of Isidore; see below, p. 309, n. 106. On this manuscript, see David Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (Sigmaringen, 1990), pp. 50, 53, and 55, who kindly brought it to my attention in 1987. Steven Stofferahn is preparing a detailed study of this manuscript at Purdue University under the supervision of John Contreni.

75 CLA 6:xxv. In the exhibition catalogue Karl der Grof/e: Werk und Wirkung (Aachen, 1965), pp. 210-11, item 366, Bischoff identified the text merely as "Alkuin, Quaestiones et Responsiones in Genesin und anderes" and offered the date "8.-9. Jh." See also Bonifatius Fischer, "Bibeltext und Bibelreform unter Karl dem Grogen," in Karl der Grof/e: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, 2: Das geistige Leben (Dusseldorf, 1965), p. 187; repr. in Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im friihen Mittelalter (Frei- burg, 1985), p. 153.

76 See T. A. M. Bishop, "The Scribes of the Corbie a-b," in Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840), ed. Peter Godman and Roger Collins (Oxford, 1990), pp. 523-36. Note that the shelfmark for Bishop's MS XXIV is given by mistake as Dusseldorf "V. 3" on p. 529.

77 B. C. Barker-Benfield, "The 'Werden' Heptateuch," Anglo-Saxon England 20 (1991), 59.




uigilia Natali, Vita Eufrosinae, Marinae et ymni, Cantica et Sententiae Augustini de opere monachorum, Libellus Augustini de disciplina Christianorum.78

The text of Gregory on the Song of Songs in this manuscript (fols. 134r-161r) was examined by Patrick Verbraken79 and the hymns (fols. 255v-271v) by D. A. Bullough and Alice L. H. Correa in their investigation of the origin and diffusion of the New Hymnary, of which Diisseldorf B.3 would seem to be a very early exemplar.80

Thirty-nine excerpts from Claudius's commentary on Genesis were carefully written into this manuscript, but the twenty-sixth (fols. 15v-16r) was copied out of order and marked "SR" on fol. 15v; where it should have been inserted on fol. 14v is marked "DR."8' Most of the excerpts are set off by an initial or a source mark.82 Source marks, which were present in the exemplar, are indicated on nearly

78 In addition to excerpts from Claudius on Genesis, the manuscript contains the following items: (2) Alcuin on Genesis (fols. 25r-83v); (3) "Benedictio cerei" (fols. 83v-841; added by a tenth-century hand on folios left blank); (4) "Sententiae de libro regum" (fols. 84v-95r-excerpts from the Books of Kings, as Steven Stofferahn has pointed out: "The excerpts emphasize spiritual concerns and lessons, but were, I think, specifically selected for the benefit of a female audience. Prominent biblical women are highlighted in the passages, often to the exclusion of men-one section even skips over the birth of Samuel in order to make more room for Hannah!"); (5) "Parabolae Salomonis" (fols. 95r-101r-

excerpts from a commentary on Proverbs); (6) excerpts from Bede on the Song of Songs (fols. 101r- 134r); (7) Gregory on the Song of Songs (fols. 134r-161r); (8) "Sententiae de Esaia propheta" (fols. 161r-162v); (9) "Sententiae in Ezechihel propheta" (fols. 162v-169r); (10) excerpts from commentaries on the Epistles of Paul (fols. 169r-228v); (11) an acephalous fragment of a homily or commen-

tary on a Gospel (the first folio of the quire is missing, fols. 229r-234v); (12) "Sequentia sancti euangeli secundum Matheum" (homilies, fols. 234v-239v); (13) "Incipit uita sanctae Eufrosynae uirginis" (fols. 240r-247v; eight quires numbered M-T are missing after fol. 247v); (14) a fragment of a saint's life (fols. 248r-252r); (15) "Incipit uita sanctae ac beatae Marinae uirginis" (fols. 252r-255v); (16) "In nomine domini incipiunt ymni" (fols. 255v-271v, perhaps incomplete, since a quire, originally marked B, seems to be missing after fol. 271v); (17) "Incipiunt canticum de aduentu domini canticum Esaiae

prophetae" (fols. 272r-279v, perhaps incomplete, since a quire, originally marked D, seems to be

missing after fol. 279v); (18) "Sententiae de libro sancti Augustini de opere monachorum ad Aurelium

episcopum" (fols. 280r-290r); (19) "Sententia Efrem" (fol. 290r-v); (20) "Libellus sancti Augustini de

disciplina christianorum" (fols. 291r-304r); (21) theological excerpts (written in Caroline, fols. 304v-

305r); and (22) "a schoolgirl's letter to 'domna magistra Felhin' ca. saec. Ix-x" (written poorly in

Caroline, fol. 305v; this description is taken from CLA). The manuscript was described by H. Dausend, Das ilteste Sakranmentar der Miinsterkirche von

Essen (Essen, 1920), pp. 28-35. For a plate of fol. lr, see Gerhard Karpp, "Bemerkungen zu-den mittelalterlichen Handschriften des adeligen Damenstifts in Essen (9.-19. Jahrhundert)," Scriptoritum 45 (1991), pl. 15.

79 Patrick Verbraken, "Un nouveau manuscrit du Commentaire de S. Gregoire sur le Cantique des

cantiques," Revue benedictine 75 (1965), 143-45. 80 D. A. Bullough and Alice L. H. Corr&a, "Texts, Chant, and the Chapel of Louis the Pious," in

Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and Collins, pp. 498-99 et passim. 81 See Lowe, "The Oldest Omission Signs in Latin Manuscripts" (above, n. 51), p. 379. 82 The excerpts are as follows: (1) fols. lv-2r: "Dixit quoque deus, Congregentur... nuncupentur,"

PL 50:898A-B; (2) fol. 2r-v: "Dixit quoque deus, Producat ... datae," 899D-900A; (3) fol. 2v: "Fa- ciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. In interiore homine est conditoris sui imago," 900B-C; (4) fols. 2v-3r: "Inter similitudinem . . . sanctis aequalis," 900D; (5) fol. 3r: "Et fons ascen- debat ... inrigabant," 904D; (6) fol. 3r-v: "In quacumque die ... desertio dei," 908A-B; (7) fols. 3v- 4r: "Formatis igitur ... nomine alio," 908D-909A; (8) fol. 4r-v: "Erunt enim uterque nudi ... de

corpore suo," 910A-B; (9) fols. 4v-5r: "Vocauitque dominus . . . erubescere," 913A-B; (10) fols. 5r-



every folio. Especially frequent are "AGVS," "AG" (Augustinus) and "IH" or "IHERONI" (once on fol. 20r) for Hieronymus; less frequent are "ISIDOR," "ISID" for Isidorus, "GREGOR," "GR," "GRE" for Gregorius, "ORG" (fols. 15r, 18v, 19v), "ORIG" (fol. 17v) for Origenes. "FVLG," entered in the margin on fol. 4r opposite a passage of allegorical interpretation from Isidore (PL 50:909A, "sig- nificans gentes" = PL 83:217A) shows that even in the ninth century the use of the abbreviation "FG" to stand for figurate or figuraliter was confusing to at least one scribe, who took it to refer to Fulgentius. "CLA" (to indicate a passage written by Claudius) occurs on fols. 4r and 10r. The excerptor seems to have avoided passages clearly marked Isidore and accorded favor to those marked with the name of Augustine and Jerome. Scriptural citations are marked with an s-like flourish in the margins.

Lyons, Institut catholique F 37

Lyons, Bibliotheque de l'Institut catholique, F 37 (94 folios, 350 x 240, saec. xix1), was evidently copied directly from Paris lat. 9575, fols. lr-76r, at the con- vent of the Cordeliers in Chambery when the ninth-century manuscript was in somewhat better condition than it is today.83 This copy was annotated by Alexis Billiet (t1873), who was professor at the Grand Seminaire at Chambery in 1808, bishop of Saint-Jean de Maurienne in 1825, archbishop of Chambery in 1840, and cardinal in 1861; his handwriting has been identified by Fernand Roulier, an expert on Billiet, and perhaps the copy was made for Billiet himself. Raymond Etaix informs me that Billiet possessed another manuscript from the Cordeliers of Chambery, today Lyons 1536, a fifteenth-century martyrology, which bears an ex libris written with a stylus, "Alexis Billiet professor philosophiae 1808." The

6r: "Ecce Adam ... intrare," 915B-916A; (11) fol. 6r-v: "Cherubin namque ... est caritas," 916B; (12) fol. 6v: "Vnde scire ... altare," 916D; (13) fols. 6v-8v: "Responditque Cain .. . ciuitatem," 917B- 918C; (14) fols. 8v-9r: "Noe uero . . . finem," 924C; (15) fol. 9r: "Certe et illi .. . mitto angelum meum," 924D-925A; (16) fols. 9r-10r: "Dixit quoque deus, Non permanebit . . . destinato," 925B- D; (17) fol. 10r-v: "Odoratusque est ... credentium," 933A; (18) fol. 10v: "Quod autem iam ... auctoritas," 945B-C; (19) fol. 11r: "Quis autem alius ... obtutibus," 946A-B; (20) fols. 11r-12r: "Facta est autem fames ... non negauit," 946C-D; (21) fols. 12r-13r: "Dictumque est ad eum, Scito ... nominare," 954A-C; (22) fol. 13r-v: "Dixit quoque deus ad Abraham, Sarai ... princeps," 957B- C; (23) fols. 13v-14r: "Apparuit autem ... parceret illis," 958D-959; (24) fols. 14v-15r: "Dixititaque dominus, Clamor ... agnoscuntur," 960D-961A; (25) fol. 15r-v: "Nam et quinque ... uxoris Loth," 965B-D; (26) fols. 15v-16r: "Festinauit Abraham ... aufertur," 959B-C (out of order and marked "SR"); (27) fol. 16r-v: "Cumque uidisset Sara ... filio meo Isaac," 968D-969A; (28) fol. 16v: "Queri- tur quomodo scriptum ... corrigendus adorator," 974C-D; (29) fols. 16v-17r: "Quid est quod Abra- ham . . . uniuit," 975B-C; (30) fols. 17r-18r: "Duo gentes . . . cedent," 980D-981B; (31) fol. 18r-v: "Coxit autem ... fratri suo," 982C; (32) fols. 18v-20r: "Habuit quoque ... immergunt," 984D- 985C; (33) fol. 20r-v: "Surgens ergo ... domus dei," 991D-992B; (34) fols. 20v-21r: "Ex uirgis ... liberata est," 1000D-1001A; (35) fols. 21v-22r: "Dina quippe ... in delictis," 1007B-C; (36) fol. 22r-v: "Quod dicit Iacob ... et infernorum," 1012B-C; (37) fols. 22v-23r: "Somnium uero... domus Israel," 1015C-D; (38) fols. 23r-24r: "Et ait, Ponite panes ... utile est," 1027B-C; and (39) fol. 24r-v: "Ait quoque Iacob ... cernitur," 1037D-1038A.

83 This remarkable manuscript was first mentioned by Jean Vezin, "Le commentaire sur la Genese de Claude de Turin: Un cas singulier de transmission des textes wisigothiques dans la Gaule carolin- gienne," in L'Europe heritiere, ed. Fontaine and Pellistrandi (above, n. 11), p. 223, n. 2. I am grateful to Raymond Etaix for sending me Xerox copies and his description of it.




manuscript was purchased for twenty dollars at the Bottega d'Erasmo in Turin in December 1970 (Catalogue 122, no. 53). The title in this "modern" manuscript is "Commentarium in Genesim Claudii episcopi Taurinensis ex manuscripto codice Camberiensi Bibl. PP. Minorum conuentualium s. Francisci." The text corre- sponding to the missing ninth quire of Paris lat. 9575 (after fol. 67r) was evidently copied from a printed edition (the Lyons 1677 edition?), but the lacuna is noted: "Ab hac linea usque ad ultimam huius libri paginam deest in codice manuscripto" on fol. 67r; the passage erased at the top of fol. 76r in the Paris manuscript could not be copied, and a note on fol. 89r records the fact: "Hic aliquid deest in codice manuscripto."

Rarely does a copy of a ninth-century manuscript made in the nineteenth century suddenly come forth to illuminate the historical vicissitudes of its ancient exemplar. The only manuscript of a work of Claudius that has so far made the trip back to the city where he grew up and was trained, it can be of use to fill in the many lacunae in Diimmler's edition of the preface addressed to Dructeramnus and it can also supply some variant readings.

THE PRINTED EDITIONS

The commentary of Claudius of Turin was published for the first time in 1531 in Basel at the officina Frobeniana of Hieronymus Froben (t1563) and Nikolaus Episcopius (t1564)84 in the opera omnia of Eucherius of Lyons edited by Iohannes Alexander Brassicanus under the title Diui Eucherii Lugdunensis episcopi doctis- simi lucubrationes aliquot non minus piae quam eruditae, cura ac beneficio loannis Alexandri Brassicani iureconsulti recens editae, quarum haec est summa. The commentary on Genesis was printed in the first volume, and the commentary on Kings of Claudius of Turin, along with Eucherius's authentic works, the Formulae, Instructiones, and the De contemptu mundi, in the second volume. The title under which Brassicanus published the work, "D. Eucherii Lugdunensis episcopi commentariorum in Genesim ad Veranium et Salonium fratres episcopos liber primus," is repeated at the beginning of books 2 and 3.

On the verso of the title page, Brassicanus printed notices on Eucherius taken from Gennadius's De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis85 and from Isidore's De uiris illustribus,86 where only the work De laude heremi (Clauis 492) is mentioned. The authentic works of Eucherius, the Formulae and Instructiones, apparently un- known to Isidore, were dedicated to his sons, Veranius and Salonius. Brassicanus did not include in his edition the one work Isidore specifically mentions. Brassi- canus embroidered the notice from Isidore, for the last sentence in it, "Breuitas, ut ait quidam, laus est interdum in aliqua parte dicendi, in uniuersa eloquentia laudem non habet," has been replaced with a reference that is so tailored to de-

84 Josef Benzing, Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts in deutschen Sprachgebiet (Wies- baden, 1982), p. 36. Hieronymus was the son of Johann Froben. His stepfather, Johann Herwagen the Younger, married Froben's widow and published the editio princeps of the collected works of Bede. Herwagen himself worked with Hieronymus Froben and Episcopius. See also above, n. 73.

85 PL 58:1096-97. Brassicanus had published his edition of Gennadius two years before, in 1529. 86 PL 83:1098.




scribe the new works of Eucherius he "discovered" that it must have been a delib- erate fabrication:

ISIDORVS EPISCOPVS HISPALENSIS in Catalogo uirorum illustrium. EVCHERIVS Episcopus Lugdunensis in Gallia, elegans in sententiis, nec minus ornatus in uerbis, aedidit ad Hilarium Arelatensem episcopum solitudinis deserta petentem, opusculum unum De laude eremi, luculentissimum, et dulci sermone compositum: in quo opere laudamus oratorem: etsi pauca, tamen pulchra dicentem. Scripsit alias in multos sacros libros Com- mentaria non minus necessaria quam utilia, praecipue uero In Genesim, ac libros Regum Ad Salonium et Veranium fratres Episcopos, opus prolixum et doctissimum.

Verbatim excerpts from authors who lived well after Eucherius, like Gregory and Isidore, are extensive throughout the commentary on Genesis, and since both extant manuscripts contain source marks clearly indicating such authors, the Hei- ligenkreuz manuscript used by Brassicanus probably contained them, too. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Brassicanus overlooked the evidence of the source marks and deliberately attempted to strengthen the attribution of the works to Eucherius, which he perhaps found in his manuscript, as it is in Vienna 691, by falsifying the citation from Isidore and inventing a new title for the work, "D. Eucherii Lugdunensis episcopi commentariorum in Genesim ad Veranium et Sa- lonium fratres episcopos liber primus." In any case, any scholar with even a pass- ing familiarity with the works of Gregory and Isidore (such as presumably Bras- sicanus was) could not have failed to recognize selections from their works and to note how utterly different the commentaries are from the authentic works of Eucherius of Lyons.

Iohannes Alexander Brassicanus (Kol1, Koll, 1500-1539)87 was born in Tii- bingen, where he attended university and later taught and studied law. In 1519 he entered the service of Maximilian of Bergen, ambassador of Charles V. He was crowned poet laureate by the emperor Maximilian I shortly before the publication of his Latin poems in 1519, and his elegy on the death of Maximilian I was published the same year. From 1520 onwards, he was in contact with Erasmus, who is mentioned prominently (and with pride) in the preface to his edition of the commentary on Genesis: "Erasmus ille Roterodamus tuus."88 At the same time he made the acquaintance of Ulrich von Hutten. He seems to have been a protege of Iohannes Fabri, later archbishop of Vienna (1530-41), in whose house he lived in 1520 and 1521. In 1522 he succeeded Johann Reuchlin as professor of philol- ogy at Ingolstadt, where he obtained a degree in law. With the help of Fabri, Brassicanus was appointed to the King's College in Vienna in 1524 by Ferdinand I (1503-64) and there taught rhetoric, Greek, and civil law until his death in 1539. The Collegium regium is regularly mentioned in the prefaces to his editions.

87 On Brassicanus, see the note in P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Ro- terodami, 2 (Oxford, 1922), pp. 351-52; and the article of Ilse Guenther in Contemporaries of Eras- mus: A Bibliographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, 2, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz (To- ronto, 1986), pp. 191-92.

88 As in many Italian copies, the name of Erasmus has been obliterated in the preface of Brassicanus's edition in the Biblioteca Braidense in Milan. On the fate of Erasmus in Italy, see M. and P. Grendler, "The Erasmus Holdings of Roman and Vatican Libraries," Erasmus in English 13 (1984), 2-29; and S. Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia, 1520-1580 (Turin, 1987), pp. 232-38.




In addition to some early books of poetry and his edition of Eucherius and Claudius of Turin (Froben, Basel, 1531), Brassicanus also published editions of Gennadius (Andreas Cratander, Basel, 1529), Salvian (Froben, Basel, 1530),89 the commentaries of Haimo of Halberstadt (Johannes Prael, Cologne, 1531), commentaries on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes under the name of Salonius (Johann Setzer, Haguenau, 1532),90 and other authors. A year before he died, Bede's commentary on Genesis was printed for the first time in Basel in 1538 under the name of Iunilius from a manuscript that came from the library of Brassicanus, for on the frontis- piece of this edition we find the title lunilii episcopi Africani in priora aliquot Geneseos capita ualde doctus et utilis Commentarius, ad Primasium Episcopum, nunc primum in lucem editus. Ex uetustissimo exemplo Bibliothecae loannis Alex- andri Brassicani poetae.91 Searching out manuscripts of works from the patristic and medieval periods and publishing them was a passionate interest of Brassi- canus. He discovered manuscripts in abbey libraries near Vienna, such as Heili- genkreuz and Melk. His report on the famous library of Matthias Corvinus in Buda, destroyed by the Turks a few years after Brassicanus had inspected it, appeared in the preface to his 1530 edition of Salvian. He was able to carry away manuscripts from all these libraries, some of which are today in the library in Vienna, including the manuscripts used for his edition of Salvian, Vienna 826 (Univ. 102), saec. xv, and for his edition of Pseudo-Salonius, Vienna 1278 (Univ. 273), saec. xII; both contain marginal notes in his hand.

To judge from the prefaces he wrote for his editions,92 Brassicanus was com-

89 The Antikeimenon of Julian of Toledo was printed in an appendix, evidently for the first time. The edition of Salvian, apparently his most successful and influential, was reprinted in 1575, 1594, 1608, 1629, and 1633.

90 Brassicanus was fond of inventing works for authors in fifth-century southern Gaul: Eucherius of Lyons and his son, Salonius, Salvian of Marseilles, and Gennadius of Marseilles. For his edition of Pseudo-Salonius on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, which is today a fairly rare book, Brassicanus converted two Carolingian sets of quaestiones et responsiones into dialogues between Salonius and Veranius. No manuscript evidence links either commentary with Salonius, and there is no reason to consider seriously Brassicanus's attribution. The last word on this subject was written by Jean-Pierre Weiss, "Salonius de Geneve," in Dictionnaire de spiritualite, 14 (Paris, 1990), cols. 247-50. For recent bibliography, see Raffaele Savigni, "II commentario di Alcuino al libro dell'Ecclesiaste e il suo significato nella cultura carolingia," in Letture cristiane dei Libri Sapienziali: XX incontro di studiosi dell'antichita cristiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 37 (Rome, 1992), p. 277, n. 7.

91 The manuscript used is probably Vienna 1004 (Univ. 54), saec. xnI, which is perhaps to be identified with an entry in the Heiligenkreuz catalogue of 1381, "Super Genesim, De operibus sex dierum cuiusdam, Explanacio Exodi Vinchwoldi ex libris sanctorum patrum, Explanacio Levitici cuiusdam," which appears among the works of Alcuin; see Gottlieb, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Oster- reichs (above, n. 70), 1:59. The title for Bede's commentary in this manuscript is "Explanatio cuiusdam de operibus sex dierum," and the work is followed by Wigbod on the Octateuch. "Vinchwoldi" would be a mistake for "Wigbodi." Bede's commentary was reprinted with Iunilius's authentic De partibus diuinae legis in 1545. According to C. W. Jones in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (CCSL), 118A:iv, the editio princeps of Bede's commentary was printed by Herwagen in 1563, but Herwagen probably just reprinted the 1538 edition. See my article, "The Commentary on the Pentateuch Attrib- uted to Bede in PL 91.189-394," Revue benedictine 106 (1996), 63, n. 4.

92 The rhetorical preface to the commentary on Genesis is dedicated to Christoph von Stadion (1478- 1543), bishop of Augsburg, on whom see P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 7 (Oxford, 1928), pp. 446-47; Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed., 9 (Freiburg, 1964), cols. 1003-4; and the article of Michael Erbe in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Bibliographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, 3, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz (Toronto, 1990), pp. 274-




pletely at home in the world of Greek and Latin learning. In the preface to the commentary on Kings, he tells us how, like Aeneas bearing Anchises from burning Troy, he carried the manuscript of the commentaries out of the library of Heili- genkreuz when Vienna was besieged by the Turkish armies in 1529-30:

Nam anno superiore quum immanissimi Turcae Viennam inaudita obsidione premerent, et omnia circumiecta, nimirum urbes, arces, coenobia, uillas, pagos, agros, uineas, ferro et igne uastarent, exusserunt etiam regium hoc, instituti Diui Bernardi Coenobium, quod ad S. Crucem Diuo Leopoldo Archiduci Austriae appellare placuit: et quum hoc ita miseris modis accepissent, ut iam Coenobium quereretur in coenobio, libros tamen omnes et ueteres, et adhuc minime uulgatos, incorruptos, et ex nulla parte deminutos reli- querunt, ita ut ignis iis non aliter pepercisse uideatur, quam Aeneae Anchisem patrem humeris efferenti, nec flammarum uis, nec hostium infelix occursus obesse potuit, aut Aethnae incendium, pios illos adulescentes, parentum suorum latera claudentes, saluos ac incolumes abire permisit. Pepercit igitur incendium hoc atrocissimum Eucherio, et ab eo libris isthic omnibus omne ius belli Turcae abstinuerunt. Cum interea nostri milites, intra moenia, libros omnes discerperent, omnia uolumina corrumperent, ita ut uix a publicis etiam bibliothecis diripiendis aut ui prohibiti, aut autoritate submoti fuerint.

Not only did Brassicanus and his printer in Basel, Froben, do a splendid job of

presenting the text in type, but if they had not printed it under the name of Eu- cherius of Lyons, it would probably still be unpublished today, like the commentaries of Claudius on Leviticus, Matthew, and Paul. An index of numbered chapter headings is printed before each of the three books as a table of contents (not at the beginning of the entire work, as in Paris lat. 9575), and, for the convenience of the reader, the heading for each chapter is repeated in italics in the margin opposite the start of each chapter-an admirable initiative that should be followed today. Sources of the work are not noted. The biblical lemmata are set off with a closing parenthesis; italics are not used. Sources of the biblical citations are not given. Brassicanus also indicates in the margin which chapter of Genesis is under discussion, and a new paragraph starts when a new chapter of Genesis is taken up. The first word in the new paragraph is set in letterspaced small capitals.

The Index of Paul IV, promulgated in 1557, created a new market for editions of patristic authors in Italy. Those published in Basel by Erasmus and others as- sociated with him were forbidden,93 and Paulus Manutius, Aldi filius, was brought to Rome from Venice in 1564 to provide books for this new market. Manutius was active as a printer in Rome until 1570, and one of the first books he produced was a reprint, or pirate edition, of the 1531 edition of the works of Eucherius

prepared by Brassicanus, a friend of Erasmus, which he published in 1564 under

76. The more interesting preface to the commentary on Kings, which recounts the conditions in Vienna

during the Turkish siege and how he got the manuscript from Heiligenkreuz, is addressed to his aiicuis, Janus a Suolla (Jan von Suolla), an eques and lawyer who must have been a close friend and collab- orator, for he is also mentioned in the editions of Potho of Priim's De statu domus Dei (Haguenau, 1532) and Constantine VII's Geoponika, siue De re rustica (Basel, 1539); see the life of Brassicanus by W. Hartl and K. Schrauf in their "Nachtrage" to Joseph Ritter von Aschbach, Geschichte der Wiener Universitit (Vienna, 1898), p. 81, n. 127. I owe this information to the kindness of Dorothea Weber.

93 The optimism in Rome of these years is echoed in the words of Pietro Galesini's preface to his edition of Gregory of Nyssa's De uirginitate, quoted by Pierre Petitmengin, "A propos des editions

patristiques de la Contre-Reforme: Le 'Saint Augustin' de la Typographie Vaticane," Recherches augustiniennes 4 (1966), 202, n. 5.




the title Diui Eucherii episcopi Lugdunensis Commentarii in Genesim et in libros Regum. Reliquos eiusdem libros uersa pagina indicabit. The exact titles for each book fabricated by Brassicanus were preserved: "D. Eucherii ... ad Verannium et Salonium fratres, episcopos." Pietro Galesini (1520-90), the protonotarius apostolicus who served Carlo Borromeo in Milan and Sixtus V, founder of the Typographia Vaticana, in Rome, wrote a preface of six pages for the editio Manu- tiana.94 It is an effective piece of Counter-Reformation rhetoric, which gracefully combines pious sentiments with inaccurate and deceptive information about the work, which no doubt passed for eruditio at the time. Following the lead of Bras- sicanus, Galesini decided to strengthen the claim of Eucherius to the commentaries of Claudius of Turin on Genesis and Kings. He begins by affirming, "Commen- tarios in Genesim, & Regum libros conscripsit: in quibus tanta uirtutum orna- menta elucent, ut multarum rerum, quae in illis libris obscurae uidentur, ratio nobis explorata, & plane explicata esse possit." He explains the unfavorable cir- cumstances surrounding Brassicanus's edition and tells his readers how the works of Eucherius were saved from the ravages of the Turkish forces by divine provi- dence, but the name of Brassicanus, the friend of Erasmus, is never mentioned. Galesini concludes by reprinting from the earlier edition the testimonials of Gen- nadius and Isidore, complete with Brassicanus's interpolations, and adds two new testimonials of his own devising, one from Ado of Vienne (c. 880),95 the other from the well-known Renaissance guide to medieval Latin literature, the De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis of Ioannes Trithemius.96 Trithemius, of course, does not mention that commentaries on Genesis and Kings were written by Eucherius,97 so Galesini inserted into the list of Eucherius's works as given by Trithemius a new entry: "Initium commentariorum in Genesim."98

In the Rome edition, the chapter headings are still set in italics in the margins, but apparently the indices of chapter headings were no longer useful as tables of contents, since they are not presented before each book. Several original headings were modified.99 The indications of the chapters of Genesis are preserved, and the sources of the scriptural citations were added.

The commentary on Genesis was reprinted from the 1564 Rome edition in the sixth volume of the Maxima bibliotheca ueterum patrum, which was published in 1677 in Lyons, as the editors state in the preface: "Feruntur etiam sub eius

94 For the career and works of Galesini, see Giovanni Casati, in Dizionario degli scrittori d'Italia, 3 (Milan, 1934), p. 55.

95 PL 123:103D. Galesini apparently did not come across the notices about Eucherius in the bibliography compiled by Honorius of Autun (t1145), De luminaribus ecclesiae (PL 172:218-24). Eu- cherius is not mentioned by Sigebert of Gembloux (t1112) in his De ecclesiasticis scriptoribus (PL 160:547-88).

96 Galesini's intention is clear from his introductory comments: "Sed ne quae de hoc sanctissimo Patre in medium attuli, a me ficta putentur, eorum omnium religiosissimos auctores habeo, Gennadium, Isidorum, Adonem, Trithemium, quorum de eo testimonia adscribere uolui."

97 Reprinted by Ioannes Albertus Fabricius, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica (Hamburg, 1718), p. 45. 98 An interesting discussion of editorial practices in the Counter-Reformation period is found in

Pierre Petitmengin, "De adulteratis patrum editionibus: La critique des textes au service de l'orthodoxie," in Les peres de l'eglise au XVIIe siecle: Actes du colloque de Lyon, 2-5 octobre 1991, ed. Emmanuel Bury and Bernard Meunier (Paris, 1993), pp. 17-31.

99 For example, those for chapters 19-20 on p. 16.




nomine, licet perperam, Commentaria in Genesim et in libros Regum ex editione Romana, haec habes ibid. fol. 868." By this time it had been recognized that the commentaries were not by Eucherius. The text is presented in two columns, and the lemmata are set in italic, introduced by a square bracket. The commentary on Genesis appears on pages 868-939 under the title "Commentarii in Genesim, Sancto Eucherio Lugdunensi Episcopo falso ascripti." As in the Rome edition, chapter headings are set in small italics in the margins opposite the beginning of each original chapter, and the index of chapter headings is omitted at the beginning of each book. Scriptural references are taken over from the Rome edition as well. The number of the chapter of Genesis under discussion is given in the margins, too, as it is in the 1531 and 1564 editions.

When Jacques-Paul Migne reprinted the commentary on Genesis in volume 50 of his Patrologia Latina in 1865 among the dubia et spuria in an "Appendix ad opera s. Eucherii continens scripta vel dubie vel falso s. patri attributa," both the chapter headings and the original chapter divisions, clearly printed in the 1531, 1564, and 1677 editions, were completely omitted. Migne reprinted indications of the chapters of Genesis and added indications of the verse numbers. He probably never saw the 1531 or 1564 editions. Each time the Genesis commentary was reprinted, it diverged more and more from the format Brassicanus had found in his manuscript, and any edition is better than what ended up by chance in the Patrologia Latina.

An accurate edition of Claudius's commentary on Genesis would include Clau- dius's preface addressed to Dructeramnus, the original chapter divisions, the index of chapter headings that correspond to them, printed together at the beginning of each chapter, and also an indication of the source marks. Such an edition would allow us to study the work as Claudius designed it to be read. In the meantime, in order to make Migne's version of the commentary on Genesis useful, the chapter headings for the work based on Paris lat. 9575 (the edition of Brassicanus is not reliable) are given below in Appendix 2 along with an indication of the original chapter divisions.

THE COMMENTARY ON GENESIS IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP

Since an early-ninth-century manuscript of the commentary on Genesis of Clau- dius that was probably copied under his supervision still exists with his name clearly written on it, the reader might wonder how the work has remained confused with Eucherius up to the present day. Many scholars, including Ernst Diimmler, Karl Wotke, Max Manitius, A. E. Anspach, Paolino Bellet, and Fried- rich Stegmiiller, have published inaccurate and confusing reports about Claudius's commentary on Genesis. It is therefore useful to review their positions briefly, although nearly everything that has been written about Claudius and his commentary is incorrect or misleading (or both). The fate of the commentary on Gen- esis of Claudius of Turin has remained intimately linked to the works and editions of Eucherius of Lyons. It was attributed by mistake to Eucherius in the manuscript from G6ttweig, Vienna 691, and probably also in the now-lost Heiligenkreuz manuscript. It was published for the first time under the name of Eucherius by




Brassicanus in 1531. Finally, it was confused with one of its sources, the Visigothic commentary on Genesis (the Intexuimus) in Autun 27 (S.29), by the modern editor of Eucherius, Karl Wotke.

At the beginning of the first volume of Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Biblio- theque imperiale, published in 1863, Delisle featured Paris lat. 9575 prominently. The antiquity of its dated subscription with the reference to Louis the Pious and his palace at Chasseneuil had captured his attention; Paris lat. 9575 had entered the library a mere two years earlier. A long quotation from Claudius's preface to the commentary on Genesis was inserted in a footnote, but the work in the manuscript is not discussed, nor is it identified with the text that was published by Brassicanus in 1531 and reprinted several times afterwards. The subscription is given, but the first line was omitted. It is clear that Delisle did not actually understand much of the preface, for he repeated the traditional opinion found in Gallia Christiana that the commentary was addressed to Theodemirus of Psal- mody, not to Dructeramnus. Delisle states, "On ignorait jusqu'a present dans quel- les circonstances Claude avait compose son commentaire sur la Genese. On savait seulement qu'un exemplaire, peut-etre une seconde edition, avait ete envoye en 815 a Theodemir, abbe de Psalmodi."100

As noted above, the commentary on Genesis printed by Brassicanus is found in Paris lat. 9575, where it is preceded by the preface addressed to Dructeramnus. When this document was first published by Diimmler in 1895,101 he did not notice that the commentary to which it was attached in Paris lat. 9575 was the work published in PL 50. Because of this, it has not been easy for scholars to realize that the text in both cases is the same. Unfortunately, Diimmler seems to have paid little attention to the text of the commentary in the Paris manuscript to which the preface he edited belonged. He did not discuss its structure and chapter headings, nor did he mention the interesting fact that sources are indicated in the margins.

While preparing the edition of Eucherius's Formulae spiritalis intellegentiae, which appeared in volume 31 of Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum in 1894, Wotke came across a commentary on Genesis of Visigothic origin in Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. CXCI, saec. ix 1/4; this is the work I have elsewhere called the Intexuimus.102 The text in the Karlsruhe manuscript seemed to him closely related to that published by Brassicanus in 1531, but he did not know that the same text was to be found in Autun 27, whose Visigothic minuscule script is probably to be dated saec. vii ex., a century older than the Karlsruhe manuscript. Wotke was not in a position to appreciate the relation between the text he found in Karlsruhe Aug. CXCI and the text published by Brassicanus, which was not written by Eucherius, although he thought it was. Wotke also did not know of Paris lat. 9575, where the work is attributed to Claudius; he seems to have been unaware of the publication of the preface ad-

100 Leopold Delisle, Le cabinet des mzanuscrits de la Bibliotheque imperiale, 1 (Paris, 1863), p. 5, n. 11.

101 MGH Epp 4, Epistolae Karolini Aevi, 2:590-93. 102 See my article, "The Visigothic Commentary on Genesis in MS. Autun 27 (S.29)," Recherches

augustiniennes 30 (1997), forthcoming.




dressed to Dructeramnus by Diimmler from this manuscript. When he published the text he found in Karlsruhe Aug. CXCI in 1897,103 Wotke used the citations of this work in Claudius's commentary as published in PL 50 to correct some passages.104

In his discussion of Claudius of Turin, published in 1911, Max Manitius mentions the commentary in Paris lat. 9575. He knew Diimmler's edition of Claudius's preface addressed to Dructeramnus in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, but he did not realize that the commentary in Paris lat. 9575 had been published by Brassicanus in 1531 and reprinted in PL 50. Manitius was convinced that Paris lat. 9575 was the only extant manuscript, calling it the "einzige Hs.!" He repeated his mistake: "Die Erklarung zur Genesis findet sich nur im Paris. 9575 a. 811"5105- an unnecessary affirmation, which is always dangerous and often (as in this case) false.

Believing that some material from a lost commentary on Genesis by Isidore of Seville was to be found in the work on Genesis in Dusseldorf B.3, fols. lv-24v, A. E. Anspach printed some passages from the text in that manuscript in 1930.106 In fact, as noted above, the first text in Dusseldorf B.3 is a set of excerpts taken from the commentary on Genesis compiled by Claudius of Turin.107 In his discussion of the commentary on Genesis attributed to Eucherius, Anspach revealed that he had personally examined Vienna 691, noting that the abbreviations "FIG" and "FG" used there were believed to stand for Frigulus, a much-discussed Irish exegete.l08

An article published in 1950 by Paolino Bellet confused nearly all of the issues related to the commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin and the Intexuimus, the text published by Wotke and found in Autun 27 and Karlsruhe Aug. CXCI.109

103 Karl Wotke, "Der Genesiscommentar (I-IV.1) des Pseudoeucherius im Codex Augiensis CXCI," Jahresbericht des k. k. Staatsgymnasiumns im XVII. Bezirke von Wien 23 (1897).

104 Since the Intexuimus was one of Claudius's sources, his work is of little use in erending its text. To be useful, Claudius's text would have to be edited critically. My collations against the PL version show that his version was most closely related to The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 130.E.15.

105 Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatul des Mittelalters (above n. 4), 1:394-95. 106 A. E. Anspach, "De Isidori Hispalensis operibus nonnullis adhuc incognitis," in Taionis et Isidori

noua fragmenta (Madrid, 1930), pp. 101-4. Anspach's excerpts were reprinted in PL Supp. 4:1847- 48; Friedrich Stegmiiller assigned them the number 5264,1 in his Repertorinum biblicumn inedii aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1950-80), and Eligius Dekkers the number 1217 amidst the "dubia et spuria" of Isidore in his Clanis patrumn Latinorui-m, 3rd ed. (Turnhout, 1995).

107 Anspach's mistaken idea that the excerpts in Diisseldorf B.3 might be a fragment of Isidore's lost literal commentary on Genesis was repeated by Manuel C. Diaz y Diaz; see the introduction to his edition, Etimologias (Madrid, 1982), p. 150, n. 140.

108 See the article by J. F Kelly, "Frigulus: An Hiberno-Latin Commentator on Matthew," Revue benedictine 91 (1981), 363-72.

109 Paolino Bellet, "Claudio de Turin, autor de los comentarios In Genesimn et Regtum des Pseudo

Euquerio," Estudios biblicos 9 (1950), 209-23. Another unfortunate publication of Bellet that has misled scholars was the article "El Liber de imaginibus sanctormn bajo el nombre de Agobardo de

Lyon, obra de Claudio de Turin," Analecta sacra Tarraconensia 26 (1953), 151-94, where he rejected (p. 151, n. 3) the evidence assembled by Celestin Charlier, "Les manuscrits personnels de Florus de

Lyon et son activite litteraire," in Melanges Pierre-Claude-Emmanuna el Podechard (Lyons, 1945), p. 80, n. 2, that Florus of Lyons perhaps had a hand in helping prepare selections from Bede's De templo for the Liber. See also Charlier, "Florus de Lyon" (above, n. 24), col. 520. There is no reason to take




After much study and consideration of the matter, Bellet arrived at the mistaken conclusion that the Intexuimus was the first recension of Claudius's commentary on Genesis as published in PL 50: "El comentario que empieza Verentes multiplicia congerere es el mismo que publico Brassicanus bajo el nombre de Euquerio. El comentario que Claudio comenz6 en Lyon esta representado por los c6dices de Autun, de Reichenau y de La Haya."110 Ever since it was published, this article has misled scholars who have no way of knowing that most of Bellet's statements are unreliable. Bellet did not know R. P. Robinson's monograph on Autun 27, published in 1939,111 nor was he familiar with Lowe's discussions of Autun 27;112 the sixth volume of Codices Latini antiquiores, with its description of Autun 27, appeared in 1953, three years after Bellet's article.113 As a result, it was not easy for Bellet to realize that Autun 27 must have been copied very early in the eighth century, if not indeed in the late seventh century, and could not possibly be the first recension of a Carolingian work. Bellet also considered Anspach's notion that the abbreviations "FG" and "FIG" might stand for Frigulus. He believed they stood for Fulgentius. Bellet was thinking of Fulgentius because he is mentioned in the praefatio to Isidore's commentaries on the Old Testament: "Sumpta itaque sunt ab auctoribus Origene, Victorino, Ambrosio, Hieronymo, Augustino, Ful- gentio, Cassiano, ac nostri temporis insigniter eloquenti Gregorio."11

In fact, "FIG" and "FG" are not source marks. They are not placed in the margins but written in the text in Paris lat. 9575 immediately before selections from Isidore's allegorical commentary on Genesis, and they stand for figurate or figuraliter. (Bellet's mistaken suggestion was repeated by Bischoff.)115 Bellet was evidently also confused about the chapter headings in Paris lat. 9575, considering

seriously Bellet's suggestion that the author might have been Claudius and not Agobard, as Ferrari

pointed out long ago, "In Papia conueniant ad Dungalum" (above, n. 21), pp. 10-11. See the comments of R. van Acker, CCCM 52:xxiv-xxxii.

10 Bellet, "Claudio de Turin," p. 215. 111 R. P. Robinson, Manuscripts 27 (S. 29) and 107 (S. 129) of the Municipal Library of Autun,

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 16 (Rome, 1939). 112 The first date Lowe supplied for Autun 27 in print was offered in 1924: "saec. vII-vIII" for the

half-uncial Isidore (fols. 16r-62r); see "A Hand-List of Half-Uncial Manuscripts," in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle: Scritti di storia e paleografia, 4, Studi e Testi 40 (Rome, 1924), p. 38. In his 1910 article, "Studia palaeographica," Lowe refers to Autun 27 and Verona, Biblioteca capitolare, LXXXIX as "the oldest known Visigothic manuscripts": repr. in Palaeographical Papers, 1 (Oxford, 1972),-p. 41. At that time, he knew Autun 27 only from facsimiles (see p. 44, n. 1). To illustrate a correction in Visigothic cursive, Lowe chose Autun 27, fol. 63v, in "The Oldest Omission Signs in Latin Manu-

scripts" (above, n. 51), p. 367 and pl. 68b, where he offered the date "saec. viII" for the section

containing the Intexuinmus. 113 In CLA 6, no. 728, Lowe prefers "saec. vII ex." for the Visigothic half-uncial section, whereas

the Visigothic minuscule of the Intexuimus is dated "saec. vmIII." These dates were repeated in 1966; see CLA 11:viii.

114 PL 83:209A. 15 Bernhard Bischoff, "Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Friihmittelalter,"

Mittelalterliche Studien, 1:252; "Turning-Points in the History of Latin Exegesis in the Early Middle Ages," trans. Colm O'Grady, in Biblical Studies: The Medieval Irish Contribution, ed. Martin Mc- Namara (Dublin, 1976), p. 123. After I had explained that "FG" could only mean figurate or figuraliter, Bischoff wrote me, in a letter dated 15 October 1981, "Ich kann zufrieden sein, das ich mich in 'Wendepunkte' beziiglich 'FG' etc. so zuriickhaltend geiaugert habe."




them to be primitive chapter headings for the Book of Genesis itself. It would seem that Bellet had not examined the edition of Brassicanus or the Vienna manuscript.

Bellet attempted to identify the entries in the Heiligenkreuz catalogues with Vienna 691, but the manuscript is from G6ttweig, not Heiligenkreuz, and the contents of the manuscript do not fit the fourteenth-century catalogue descrip- tions, where there is no mention that the Eucherius manuscript also contains An- selm's Cur Deus homo, which is the first work in the book. Most importantly, since the Vienna manuscript shows no sign of having been prepared for a printer or of having passed through a printshop, Brassicanus would have had to have made a transcription of the work to pass to the printer. This is unlikely. Once liberated from its monastic owners, the Heiligenkreuz manuscript used by Bras- sicanus, perhaps the very book mentioned in the 1363-74 catalogue, but now

apparently lost, probably made a one-way trip to Froben's printshop in Basel and was afterwards discarded. With this evidence in hand, we must dismiss Bellet's theory of the provenance of the manuscript, a mistaken notion repeated by Bi- schoff.ll6

On the other hand, Bellet has the merit of explaining-evidently for the first time-that the text published under the name of Eucherius in PL 50 is the same text we find in Paris lat. 9575. Bellet knew Diimmler's edition of Claudius's letters and appreciated the significance of Paris lat. 9575, which he had examined personally. Bellet read Diimmler's edition carefully and correlated the indications of sources found in the margins of Paris lat. 9575 with what Claudius says in his preface addressed to Dructeramnus. Bellet also made a thorough search of catalogues for the texts of Claudius and brought to light Vienna 691, Vienna 710, and The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek 130.E.15. It is unfortunate that Bellet, having examined the problem at length, was unable to understand the relationship between the Intexuimus and Claudius's commentary. Bellet did not realize how ancient Autun 27 is, but a comparison of Wotke's edition (which he had) with the text in PL 50 should have convinced him that his idea was mistaken. M. L. W. Laistner repeated Bellet's mistaken notions in a convincing way and guaranteed them a wider diffusion than they otherwise might or should have had.117

Friedrich Stegmiiller was influenced by Bellet, since two numbers were assigned by him to the commentary on Genesis by Claudius of Turin in his Repertorium biblicum medii aeui, published in 1950: no. 1949 was given to the text in Paris lat. 9575 and no. 1950 to the same text in Vienna 691 and PL 50:893-1048,118 which was termed the "redactio definitiua" in his update published in 1976, where Bellet's article is cited. At the same time, Stegmiiller assigned no. 1948.1 to the commentary in Autun 27 as though it were an early version, what he calls the "redactio prima," of Claudius's commentary, following Bellet's notion of "la doble

116 According to Bischoff, the manuscript used by Brassicanus was Vienna 691. See "Wendepunkte," p. 252; "Turning-Points," p. 123.

117 M. L. W. Laistner, "Some Early Medieval Commentaries on the Old Testament," Harvard Theo- logical Review 46 (1953), 45-46, repr. in The Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), pp. 200-201.

18 Stegmiiller, Repertorium biblicum medii aeui, 2:242-43.




recension" and citing Wotke's edition.119 Stegmiiller combined the misinformation about Claudius's commentary on Genesis supplied by Manitius, who stated that there was only one manuscript of the work, with Bellet's mistaken theory of two "recensions." Since the publication of Bellet's article and Stegmiiller's Reperto- rium, it has been nearly impossible to figure out the correct relation among the works and manuscripts involved.120

THE SOURCE MARKS IN PARIS LAT. 9575

Claudius was an exceptionally diligent scholar who had the interests of his readers at heart. Like most of his works, his commentary on Genesis was equipped with an index to the contents in the form of lists of chapter headings, which were to be placed at the beginning of each book of a work, and the names of some authors whose works were used as sources were indicated by abbreviations in the

margins. In this way Claudius provided his reader with a table of contents and a

primitive attempt at an apparatus fontium, as we would say today. Chapters were numbered in accordance with the headings in the index, and the beginning of most

chapters is indicated not only with a number but also set off by the word sequitur. As Claudius tells us, he was influenced by Bede's practice of inserting source marks for the citations in the margin.'21 Hrabanus Maurus acquired the habit of indi-

cating his sources in the margins from his teacher Alcuin and used the letter M to indicate a comment of his own: "I have noted their names in the margins next to their words. Where I have expressed their meaning in my own words, or where,

119 Ibid., 8:379. 120 In two recent articles Jean Vezin has suggested that Autun 27 was brought to Lyons, used by the

scribe of Paris lat. 9575 in Chasseneuil, and then ended up at Autun: "Manuscrits presentant des traces de l'activite en Gaule de Theodulfe d'Orleans, Claude de Turin, Agobard de Lyon et Prudence de

Troyes," in Coloquio sobre circulaci6n de c6dices y escritos entre Europa y la Peninsula en los siglos VIII-XIII (Santiago de Compostela, 1988), pp. 164-67, and "Le commentaire sur la Genese de Claude de Turin" (above, n. 83), pp. 223-29. Vezin speculates that Autun 27 was brought from Spain to Lyons by Leidrad (t816), overlooking the evidence marshaled by Robinson (and repeated by Bischoff) that the manuscript had probably crossed the Pyrenees nearly a century earlier. The manuscript was probably at Flavigny about the year 800, where the first section (fols. lr-15r) was copied in an attempt to restore the book. Claudius seems to have created his own exemplar, now lost, of the Intexuimus in which sources are indicated, as explained below. It is unlikely that Faustinus, the scribe of Paris lat. 9575, had Autun 27 in front of him as he copied, or that Claudius studied the text of the Intexuimus in Autun 27, since the citations from the Intexuimus in Claudius agree more closely with the text of The Hague 130.E.15 than with Autun 27. Nor could Karlsruhe Aug. CXCI derive from Autun 27. See my forthcoming article in Recherches augustiniennes (above, n. 102).

121 See above, p. 287. See Bede's words in the preface to his commentary on Luke, CCSL 120:7, PL 92:304. For source marks in Bede's commentaries on Mark and Luke, see E. J. Sutcliffe, "Quotations in the Venerable Bede's Commentary on St Mark," Biblica 7 (1926), 428-39, where Vat. lat. 637 and Vat. lat. 10662 containing Bede on Mark are examined in detail, and M. L. W. Laistner, "Source Marks in Bede Manuscripts," Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933), 350-54, where many manuscripts of Bede on Mark and Luke that contain source marks are listed. C. W. Jones, "Manuscripts of Bede's De natura rerunm," Isis 27 (1937), 436-38, mentions that some manuscripts of De natura rerum have indications of sources written in the margins, but he confused these with the original source marks inserted by Bede himself, which Sutcliffe and Laistner had discussed. In his edition of Bede on Genesis, Jones states (CCSL 118A:iii) that he did not encounter source marks in any manuscript of that work.




as far as divine grace allowed me, I said something similar to what they meant, I have placed the letter M, which stands for the name 'Maurus,' as my teacher of blessed memory Alcuin instructed me, so that the diligent reader may know what each author stated in his own words or find out what he should think about specific passages."122

The major sources for Claudius on Gen. 1-3 (Paris lat. 9575, fols. lr-25v) were the Intexuimus (the commentary on Genesis of Visigothic origin, saec. vII, found in Autun 27 and other manuscripts, which is largely drawn from Augus- tine's De Genesi ad litteram and is fundamentally literal in orientation-passages from Isidore's commentary are rigorously excluded),123 the Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini (a set of sixty-five interrogationes and responsiones drawn almost exclusively from the works of Augustine),124 and Isidore's allegorical commentary on Genesis.'25 Brief excerpts were also taken from Augustine's De ciuitate Dei (rarely), Jerome's Hebraicae quaestiones (more frequently), and Alcuin's In- terrogationes et responsiones in Genesim. In this section, source marks used for Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, and Isidore ("AG," "IH," "GR," "ISD") all refer in fact to passages culled from the Intexuimus. Claudius must have had access to a copy in which sources were thus indicated, or else he prepared such an exemplar himself for his own private use. (Could Leidrad have taught Claudius these re- search skills?) In general, the indications are accurate.126 Passages from the Quaes- tiones Orosii are always marked "AG"; Wigbod, too, was convinced that this work was by Augustine, and Ann Freeman has noted that Theodulf considered it to be by Augustine as well, although his colleagues, responsible for correcting the Libri Carolini, had doubts.127 In fact, only the passages from Isidore are accurately marked with the name of the immediate source from which they were taken. One excerpt from Alcuin (fol. 24v) is marked "AG"-understandably enough, since

122 See the preface to his commentary on Kings, PL 109:10A. A similar statement is made in the

preface to his commentary on Matthew, PL 107:729B-C. See Burton Van Name Edwards, "The Com-

mentary on Genesis Attributed to Walahfrid Strabo: A Preliminary Report from the Manuscripts," Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova University 15 (1990), 73.

123 See the edition in my forthcoming article (above, n. 102). 124 For a note on this work, which has never been studied, and its manuscripts, see my article,

"Wigbod and the Lectiones on the Hexateuch" (above, n. 1), p. 336, n. 54, and Freeman, "Theodulf of Orl6ans" (above, n. 11), p. 186. The notice on this work in the latest edition of the Clauis patrum Latinorum (1995), no. 373a, pp. 149-50, offers an incorrect title for the work and no useful indication of its origin.

125 For this work, see my article, "The Commentary on the Pentateuch Attributed to Bede in PL 91.189-394," Revue benedictine 106 (1996), 61-108 and 255-307. My edition of Isidore on Genesis will be published by Etudes augustiniennes in Paris; in the meantime, it is available in a color version on the World Wide Web (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/genesis). Of fundamental importance for the

study of Isidore's exegesis are the recent remarks of Jacques Fontaine, "Isidore de Seville, p6dagogue et theoricien de l'ex6gese," in Stilmuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum.

Festschrift fur Ernst Dassmann (Miinster, 1996), pp. 423-34. For the manuscript traditions of Isidore, see my article, "A Note on the Manuscript Traditions of Isidore's Works," forthcoming.

126 Just how accurate can be determined by the future editor of Claudius on Genesis, who will be able to use my edition of Isidore on Genesis, my forthcoming edition of the Intexuimus in Recherches

augustiniennes, and also my planned edition of the Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini. 127 See her article, "Theodulf of Orleans" (above, n. 11), p. 186, n. 13.




the text is Augustinian in inspiration-but none is marked "AL" or "ALC." Many passages in Paris lat. 9575 are set off by "FG," written in the text itself in a light brown ink, whereas source marks are written in the margins in black ink. Since almost every passage so indicated is an excerpt from Isidore, it is clear that "FG" stands for figurate or figuraliter and was used to indicate an allegorical interpretation of exceptional interest.128 Claudius did not follow Bede's stated practice of indicating a passage by placing in the margin the first letter of an abbreviated name, for example, A, at the beginning of an excerpt and the second letter, for example, G (to indicate Augustinus), at the end.129

Like every early-medieval exegete working on the first book of the Bible, Clau- dius had limited resources at his disposal for the commentary on Gen. 4-50. For his work on these chapters (Paris lat. 9575, fols. 26r-109r), he drew upon Au- gustine's De ciuitate Dei, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, and Contra Faustum; Jerome's Hebraicae quaestiones, De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum, E- pistula 36, and Epistula 73; Origen's Homiliae in Genesim (frequently); and Pate- rius's florilegium of Gregory, Isidore on Genesis, and Alcuin's Interrogationes in Genesim. (With the exception of De ciuitate Dei, Origen, and Alcuin, these are the same sources that had been used by Wigbod when he compiled a very different kind of commentary on Gen. 4-50 at the request of Charlemagne.) In his commentary on these chapters, "AG" marks passages taken from De ciuitate Dei and other works of Augustine; "IH" those from Jerome, especially from his Hebraicae quaestiones; "OR" and "ORG" those from Origen's homilies; and "GR" those from Paterius's Gregorian florilegium. Of the many passages from Isidore, who is perhaps the dominant source, few are marked "ISD" or "YSD" (fols. 68r, 83v, 90v, 107v). This is because Claudius had discovered that Isidore was using Am- brose's works in many passages chosen for his commentary on Genesis. An Isi- dorian passage marked "ysd et ambrosi" is found in the margin on fol. 83v, line 11; "FG" can be seen in the text. (See Fig. 4.) This passage of Isidore includes excerpts from Ambrose's De patriarchis and De Ioseph.130 The next passage on fol. 83v, line 27, marked "ambr," is taken from Isidore, who drew freely on Am- brose,131 and Claudius must have recognized that fact. Twenty-one passages from Isidore are marked in this fashion with the name of the ultimate source, "AMBR" or "ABR."132 When the critical edition of Claudius on Genesis is prepared, it will be seen that Claudius invariably recognized the ultimate source of the citations in the Intexuimus as he did those provided by Isidore. He must have prepared a copy

128 Bellet noticed that no work of "Fulgentius" was referenced by the passages marked "FG" and invented an improbable excuse: "Claudio, pues, probablemente copiaba algunas de sus fuentes de colecciones exegeticas u homileticas anteriores con mala atribuci6n" (p. 214).

129 See Bede's preface to his commentary on Luke, CCSL 120:7, PL 92:304. 130 PL 50:1013B, "Joseph unus ex duodecim" = Isidore, PL 83:271B-272C = Ambrose, De pa-

triarchis 11.48, CSEL 32/2:151, lines 16-19; De loseph 2.8, CSEL 32/2:76, lines 14-17. 131 PL 50:1013D-1014B, "Invenit ergo Joseph fratres suos" = Isidore, PL 83:272A-C = Ambrose,

De Ioseph 3.15, CSEL 32/2:82, line 21; 3.15, p. 82, line 18; 3.18, p. 84, lines 14-17; and 3.18, p. 84, line 20-p. 85, line 6.

132 The reader can find specific details about the sources of excerpts selected by Claudius for his commentary in the second volume of Silvia Cantelli, Angelomo e la scuola esegetica di Luxeuil (Spoleto, 1990).




of Isidore on Genesis with the Ambrosian passages indicated as well as a copy of the Intexuimus with the patristic sources marked. The preparation of such annotated manuscripts, from which passages were ultimately copied out into his own compilation, betokens a level of scholarship and awareness of sources that are rare in the ninth century and that clearly set Claudius apart from predecessors like Wigbod. Claudius's concern to treat his sources accurately is remarkable, and the effort expended to track down the ultimate sources used in the Intexuimus and Isidore's commentary must have been tremendous. Having recently edited both works, I can only marvel at his industry and accomplishment. In the preface to his commentary on Leviticus, written some years after his commentary on Gen- esis, Claudius mentions the disillusion he faced while tracking down the ultimate sources of the works he employed:

You ask me to mark on the page the opinion of each doctor cited in our commentaries. I note that only Bede has done this, and he did it only in his commentaries on Mark and Luke. I have not done this because the opinions of some, which I at first found under one name, were afterwards, following a diligent search, discovered to belong to others.'33

Many passages in his commentary on Gen. 4-50 are marked "CL" (including an excerpt from Alcuin on fol. 27r), "CLN" (Claudii nota) or "NCL" (nota Clau- dii). "CL," "CLN," and "NCL" highlight passages reworked by Claudius or composed by him. No passage is so marked in the commentary on Gen. 1-3. Several passages marked Claudius and Ambrosius in the margins are marked "FG" in the text; some passages marked "ORG" (fols. 57r, 61v, 64v, 66v, 78v, 95v), "AG" (fol. 62v), "YSD" (fol. 68r), and "GR" (fol. 79v) are also marked with "FG" in the text. These all indicate explanations of an allegorical nature.

Without a critical edition (or indeed, without even a truly legible text) of Clau- dius on Genesis at hand, I have given here only approximate indications of his interesting use of source marks, a little-studied phenomenon of early-medieval manuscripts. Since several manuscripts of Claudius on Matthew (an unpublished work), such as Berlin Phillipps 1708 (Rose 51),134 saec. ix 3/4; New York, H. P. Kraus s.n.,135 c. 830; and London Royal 2.C.X,136 saec. xII, contain source marks, it may be that his commentaries on Genesis and Matthew were considered par- ticularly important, and for this reason, indications of sources were supplied. Or it may be that he tired of the practice of recording his sources with source marks and discontinued it after these early commentaries. A definitive judgment on this matter could only be reached after a systematic examination and description of

133 Ep. 7, MGH Epp 4:603; PL 104:616-17. 134 See Valentin Rose, Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin, 1

(Berlin, 1893), pp. 96-98. According to Rose, "CLD" is one of the source marks used, presumably to set off one of Claudius's own opinions, as is done in his commentary on Genesis.

135 Described in detail in H. P. Kraus, One Hundred Distinguished Manuscripts and Printed Books, Catalogue 181 (New York, 1991), pp. 8-10 with a plate of fol. Ir; and discussed by Rosamond McKitterick, "Script and Book Production," in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation (Cam- bridge, Eng., 1994), p. 223.

136 George F Warner and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections (London, 1921), 1:53.




all extant Claudius manuscripts, a task that has not yet been undertaken but that should be the starting point of any investigation of his works and career.137

We happen to possess additional information about exactly how Claudius prepared excerpts for his commentaries. Claudius and his contemporaries used wax- coated tablets (tabellae) and little pieces of parchment (schedulae), the 3 x 5 cards and Post-It notes of their day.138 In the preface to his commentary on Matthew, Claudius inadvertently provides us with some details of how he worked:

Although some things are presented less clearly than they should be in the manuscript, do not attribute everything to lack of skill. You must forgive some because of the limited means available and others because of the weakness of the body and my poor eyesight, since they were not excerpted on wax tablets or arranged on pieces of parchment, but copied into the manuscript as they were found or set out by me.139

From this remark we know that he personally prepared the archetype of his work and that he in general employed two different schemes for putting the various selections together into a new commentary: either by working directly from manuscripts where they were marked off or by recopying them from wax tablets. The commentary on Matthew was compiled without the use of tabellae and schedulae.

The text of the commentary on Matthew (unpublished) in three ninth-century manuscripts, Berlin Phillipps 1708; Rome, Vallicelliana C.3; and New York, H. P. Kraus s.n., as well as in Vatican City Vat. lat. 3828, saec. xi, is divided into 355 numbered sections, and the original was evidently copied directly from the various manuscripts used as sources without any intermediate steps, such as writing out the various excerpts on wax tablets or on pieces of parchment. The passages destined for the commentary on Matthew would have been numbered in a list and in the manuscripts; and when these passages were copied out, the numbers were copied into the archetype as well, probably by Claudius himself. If a manuscript used by Claudius for his commentary on Matthew one day turns up, the selections he chose would undoubtedly be indicated and numbered. Similar techniques are known to us from the work of Florus of Lyons140 and the great exegetical project that Bischoff once attributed to Helisachar.141

137 The essential items are listed below in Appendix 1, pp. 320-23. 138 Hadoard of Corbie also refers to using wax tablets while putting together his collectaneun of

classical texts, of which Vatican City Reg. lat. 1762, is the unique copy; see Bernhard Bischoff, "Ha- doardus and the Manuscripts of Classical Authors from Corbie," in Didaskaliae: Studies in Honor of Anselm M. Albareda, ed. Sesto Prete (New York, 1961), p. 43; and "Hadoard und die Klassikerhand- schriften aus Corbie," Mittelalterliche Studien, 1:51. On the use of wax tablets in the Middle Ages, see Elisabeth Lalou, "Inventaire des tablettes medievales et presentation generale," in Les tablettes a ecrire de l'antiquite a l'epoque moderne: Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris, Institut de France, 10-11 octobre 1990, ed. Elisabeth Lalou, Bibliologia 12 (Turnhout, 1992), pp. 233-88. No wax tablets seem to survive from the time of Claudius, but in 1924 some eleventh-century tablets were discovered at Angers, which are now in the Musee du chateau (Lalou, pp. 242 and 249, and fig. 6 on

p. 283). 139 Ep. 2, MGH Epp 4:595, lines 13-17. 140 Charlier, "Les manuscrits personnels de Florus de Lyon" (above, n. 109), pp. 71-84. 141 See Bernhard Bischoff, "Libraries and Schools" (above, n. 47), pp. 111-13, where additional

manuscripts used for the project are listed. See also Michel Huglo, "D'Helisachar a Abbon de Fleury," Revue benedictine 104 (1994), 211-15; and Paul-Irenee Fransen, "Traces de Victor de Capoue dans la chaine exegetique d'H6lisachar," Revue bene'dictine 106 (1996), 53-60.




Claudius of Turin

WIGBOD AND CLAUDIUS: TOWARD A NEW EXEGESIS

The aim of Claudius was original: to produce a complete commentary on the entire book of Genesis, discussing in turn nearly every statement and element in the narrative. His achievement will become more clear if it is compared with Wigbod's. How does the commentary on Genesis of Claudius differ from Wig- bod's? In what sense does it mark an advance in biblical studies over the compendium that was prepared for Charlemagne about twenty years earlier?

Wigbod's long commentary on Genesis is a catena, a series of citations. No original material was introduced, and no liberties were taken with what is quoted. To assemble his commentary on Gen. 1-3, many passages were taken from hand- books, epitomes, and collections of interrogationes such as the Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini, the Exhymeron, the pseudo-Ambrosian Recapitulatio de paradiso, the Explanatio sex dierum, and Paterius. Wigbod was capable of tapping original patristic sources when he wanted to, such as Augustine's De Ge- nesi contra Manichaeos, Jerome's Hebraicae quaestiones in Genesim, Iunillus's Instituta diuinae legis, and Isidore. On Gen. 4-50 Wigbod relied almost exclusively on Jerome and Isidore. The sources available to and used by Claudius are much the same, but his attitude to them is new and different. Although Claudius also used the Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini and took many passages from the Intexuimus, a work that would undoubtedly have appealed to Wigbod had he known it, Claudius preferred to go directly to the major sources: Augustine, Jerome, and Isidore. Isidore was his guide in this endeavor, and it was Isidore who led Claudius to study the sources of his own works, such as Origen's homilies and Ambrose's De loseph (a work that Claudius knew, as we have seen), and showed him how Augustine's De ciuitate Dei and Contra Faustum could be used to put together a Genesis commentary. Although Claudius's knowledge of patristic works did not rival Isidore's, the independence displayed in his approach to his sources is refreshing. He had learned how each could be exploited, and he even recognized indirect citations; his citation of a passage from Cicero's Horten- sius, which he had found in Augustine's De Trinitate in the preface to his commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, is exemplary in this regard.142 Nevertheless, Claudius, like Wigbod, avoided direct use of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram, preferring to get its doctrine as well as its words from intermediary sources like the Intexuimus and the Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini. In short, Wigbod collected excerpts, while Claudius studied the text of the Bible before examining the exegetical sources and the sources used by his sources. Wigbod did not go beyond the work of compiling, a task that was, in his day, remarkable enough in itself for the many sources he knew, handled, and combined into a useful compendium. Charlemagne evidently ordered a convenient volume of this sort so that the ideas of Augustine, Jerome, and Isidore on the Old Testament could be read to him. This is precisely what Wigbod delivered.

A comparison of their treatment of the story of Joseph (Gen. 37.1-36, 39.1- 49.1) will highlight some of the fundamental differences between Wigbod and

142 Ep. 6, MGH Epp 4:601.

317



Claudius. Wigbod's discussion of Joseph occupies seven columns of the Patrologia Latina (PL 93:348C-355B), somewhat more than Isidore's (PL 83:271B-276C) if one takes into account the notes, whereas Claudius's commentary on Joseph in book 3 of his commentary, chapters 17-18 and 20-37, runs to twenty-eight columns (PL 50:1011D-1038B). Wigbod's consists of simply four passages, two from Jerome and two from Isidore.143 Claudius, on the contrary, prepared seventy- one discrete comments on the story of Joseph, each of which follows, and is directly linked to, words from the text of Genesis. Unlike Wigbod, Claudius did not copy out long passages. Far from being a catena compiler, shackled to his fontes, Claudius related a very large number of relatively short excerpts to the actual words of the text of Genesis.

In Claudius, unlike Wigbod, the text of Genesis takes primacy over the sources of the exegetical tradition. The words of the text of Genesis are always placed immediately before the comment on them. Wigbod, on the other hand, usually picks up the words of Genesis from his sources, if at all, and he took no care to consistently insert them into his commentary.144 In addition, Claudius rigorously follows the order of Scripture. For example, he puts the passages on the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38), including chapter 29 of Isidore's commentary on Genesis (PL 83:268A-270D), into their proper place (PL 50:1014B-1018D), following the comments on chapter 37 and before his comments on chapter 39 of Genesis. After inserting excerpts from this chapter of Isidore, he notes, "Ad or- dinem redit scriptura" (PL 50:1018D). Nothing is allowed to interrupt the order of the narrative of Scripture. Wigbod copied Isidore's chapter 29 in its entirety (PL 93:346C-348C), but he followed Isidore's order of topics, not the order of the narrative of Genesis, inserting the passage on Gen. 38 before his treatment of Gen. 37 and the beginning of the story of Joseph (PL 93:348C). This kind of easy solution is always avoided by Claudius.

A certain independence from the sources can be perceived in Claudius's exegesis. He was able to elaborate an idea from Isidore and reuse it in a different context, something Wigbod never attempted. For example, Isidore's explanation of the three great ages or divisions of history, what he calls the tria tempora (ante legem, sub lege, sub gratia), which was expressed originally in his commentary on Genesis in his explanation of the sacrifice of Isaac (PL 83:251A), is reused by Claudius (PL 50:1020C-D) when he discusses the meaning of the three branches of the vine in the dream of Pharaoh's butler (Gen. 40.9-13). Claudius is also capable of writing original comments, although a new edition of his commentary is necessary before this topic can be discussed confidently. It would seem that many of the comments for which he is personally responsible are marked "CL," "NCL," and "CLN."

In short, Claudius was the first in the Carolingian period to break free from what might be called the "catena mentality." His aims and methods seem to me to be completely different from scholars like Wigbod who believed that an interpretation of a scriptural passage could be built up by linking together excerpts

143 Jerome: CCSL 72:59-62, 49-52. Isidore: PL 83:271B-276B, 276B-C. 144 When there is a critical edition of Claudius's text, it will be worthwhile to study his version of

Genesis.




without much regard for the text of Scripture itself. Claudius, on the other hand, began to return to the fontes of patristic wisdom indicated by Isidore, who showed him how reflection on such works could result in a new, original commentary. When I read his commentary, I seem to hear him suggesting that the words and narrative of Scripture are to be understood before the patristic authorities are consulted. In his commentary on Genesis, Claudius steered clear of the sterile, artificial genre of the quaestio and the interrogatio et responsio, which would have limited his imagination and ability to relate theological discussions to the text of Scripture,145 and, at the same time, he avoided falling into the temptation of writing comments so simple that they become no more than glosses.

In the early Middle Ages, few biblical scholars had the courage or the means to confront the task of creating a commentary on the Pentateuch, Heptateuch, or Octateuch. Isidore addressed the task by composing (with the help of many sources) short treatises on a limited number of themes raised by a given book of the Old Testament and never planned to create what we would call a running commentary on the opening books of the Old Testament. After Isidore and before the year 814, there were at least three new attempts: the Pseudo-Bede commentary on the Pentateuch in PL 91, Wigbod, and then Claudius. The Pseudo-Bede commentary on Genesis in PL 91, which I have suggested elsewhere was compiled in Spain in the last half of the seventh century, was comprehensive in scope, treating every chapter in Genesis and virtually all the material in each chapter; although the excerpts are put together in a more creative way than in Wigbod, it remains primarily a series of excerpts, not a commentary based on a direct, personal study of Scripture.146 Claudius gives the impression that he actually read carefully the words of the text of the Book of Genesis and thought about them before going off to collect passages from his sources.

Like Wigbod, who I believe compiled his work for Charlemagne in the library at Lorsch, Claudius had access to the best library facilities of his day, first at Lyons, then in libraries near to or perhaps even at the royal palaces of Chasseneuil and Aachen, and finally in northwest Italy. He could have also gotten books on loan from Dructeramnus of Monastier Saint-Chaffre, Theodemirus of Psalmody, lustus of Charroux, and other prominent abbots and bishops with whom he was in contact. His collection of Augustine's works must have been one of the best of the age.147 He knew Augustine's Retractationes and perhaps used it as a guide in hunting down manuscripts of his works.148 Claudius certainly took his annotated

145 One thinks immediately of Alcuin's work, Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesim ad litteram, PL 100:515-66. Many similar sets of quaestiones on Genesis from the early Middle Ages lie unpublished in manuscripts; see my article, "The Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Auxilius in MS. Monte Cassino 29," Revue benedictine 93 (1983), 302-13.

146 See "The Commentary on the Pentateuch Attributed to Bede" (above, n. 125). 147 For Augustine manuscripts in the period of Claudius, see my article, "Augustine Manuscripts

from the Library of Louis the Pious: Berlin Phillipps 1651 and Munich Clm 3824," Scriptorium 50 (1996), 98-105. On Claudius's use of Augustine, see the remarks of John Cavadini, "Claudius of Turin and the Augustinian Tradition," Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova University 11 (1986), 43-50.

148 MGH Epp 4:599. Using the Retractationes as a guide to Augustine's works had become common

by the twelfth century, but it probably began in the ninth century, if not before; see Mary A. Rouse




copies of the Intexuimus and Isidore with him from Lyons to Chasseneuil if he continued to work on his Genesis commentary there, for it is hard to see how he could have prepared the final draft and added the source marks without having his own annotated copies. From this it follows that he possessed the nucleus of a small, private library. In addition to biblical books, and undoubtedly many other works besides, it probably contained some, if not all, of the following items:

Origen, Homiliae in Vetus Testamentum; John Chrysostom, Homiliae; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, De ciuitate Dei, De Trinitate, De doctrina Christiana,

De uera religione, De libero arbitrio, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Conta Faustum, De cura pro mortuis gerenda, De correptione et gratia, De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simpli- cianum, De VIII quaestionibus ad Dulcitium, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Retractationes, Expositio epistulae ad Galatas, and De consensu euangelistarum;

Ambrose, De Ioseph; Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones in Genesimn, De nominbus Hebraicorum, Epistula 36,

Epistula 73, and In Matthaeum; Ambrosiaster; Paterius-Gregory, Moralia in Iob; Caesarius of Aries, Sermonies; Isidore on the Old Testament and Etymologiae; Bede on Mark and Luke, XXX Quaestiones in libros Regum, De templo, and VIII

quaestiones; Quaestiones Orosii et responsiones Augustini; Intexuimus; Alcuin, Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesim.

Determining precisely how Claudius of Turin treated the texts he found in libraries and isolating those passages that he may personally have composed are some of the challenges that await the scholar who one day gives us a new edition of his commentary on Genesis. The future editor can also explain to us how Paris lat. 9575 is related to Vienna 691, to the lost Heiligenkreuz manuscript used by Brassicanus and Froben, and to the excerpts in Diisseldorf B.3.

APPENDIX 1

Manuscripts of the Biblical Commentaries of Claudius of Turin

The name of Claudius is (or was) to be found in the items marked with an asterisk. Intentionally excluded from this list is Monte Cassino 48, saec. xi in. The incipits and explicits are furnished by Stegmiiller, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, nos. 1949-73.'

and Richard H. Rouse, "Bibliography before Print: The Medieval De uiris illustribus," in Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame, Ind., 1991), p. 479. The oldest Augustine manuscript with the relevant passage from the Retractationes is Paris lat. 12214 + St. Petersburg, Publichnaja Biblioteka, Q.v.I.4 (CLA 5, no. 635, 11, no. *'635), saec. vI, written in Italy, perhaps in Verona, which contains the first ten books of De ciuitate Dei; see my article, "The Manuscript Traditions of St. Augustine's Major Works," in Atti del Congresso internazionale su S. Agostino nel XVI Centenario della Conversione, 1, ed. Vittorino Grossi, Studia EphemeridisAugustini- anum 24 (Rome, 1987), p. 384.

] Except for the manuscripts now in England, Germany, and Austria, I have personally examined




Genesis (Ep. 1 to Dructeramnus) Diisseldorf, Universitatsbibliothek, B.3, fols. lv-24v, saec. ix 1/4 (CLA 8, no. 1183).

Excerpts. 'Lyons, Bibliotheque de l'Institut catholique, F 37, 94 folios, saec. xix1, Chamb6ry

(Etaix). 'Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 9575, fols. lr-109r, ante 808-11, Chas-

seneuil, near Poitiers. Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 691 (Theol. 77), fols. 26r-136v, saec. xII,

Gottweig.

Leviticus (Ep. 7 to Theodemirus) "Reims, Bibliotheque municipale, 123 (olim B.62), 154 folios, saec. ix in., "probably

North or East France" (Bischoff), later at Saint-Remi, Reims.2

Joshua and Judges (Ep. 11) "Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 2391, 117 folios, saec. xII.

Ruth *Mantua, Biblioteca comunale, 361 (olim C.V.2), fols. 60r-62r, saec. xII, San Benedetto

Po. Mons, Bibliotheque de l'Universit6 de Mons-Hainaut, 2/225, fols. 107r-112r, saec. xII,

later at Bonne Esperance.3 "Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 17380, fols. 70v-72r, saec. xiv, southern

France.

Kings (Ep. 8-10 from and to Theodemirus)4 -Mantua, Biblioteca comunale, 361 (olim C.V.2), fols. 62v-134v, saec. xII, San Bene-

detto Po. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28344, fols. 9r-18v and 59r-60r, saec. xIII,

from Murano (near Venice). Excerpts. *Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 17380, fols. 72r-147v, saec. xiv, southern

France. "Pistoia, Archivio capitolare, C.96 (olim G.84), 160 folios, saec. xII 2/4-med., "probably

Pistoia" (Zamponi). Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 691 (Theol. 77), fols. 137r-215r, saec. xII,

Gottweig. Attributed to Eucherius.

all these items. I thank Mirella Ferrari, Timothy Graham (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge), Istvan Nemeth (Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek), and Stefano Zamponi for kindly offering opinions about the dates of these items, and Monika K6stlin (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) for sending me Bischoff's notes on several of the ninth-century manuscripts listed here.

2 According to his note on this manuscript dated 5 December 1962, Bischoff believed this manuscript was written about the year 800, "saec. vIII-Ix," but it could only have been written at least one or more decades later. See above, n. 49; and Catalogue general des inanuscrits des bibliotheques publiques de France: Departenments, 38 (Paris, 1904), pp. 114-15.

3 It was in this manuscript, on fol. 77r, that Bischoff discovered the poem of Muridac published in his article "Muridac doctissimus plebis, ein irischer Grammatiker des IX. Jahrhunderts," in his Mit- telalterliche Studien, 2 (Stuttgart, 1967), pp. 51-56.

4 For the manuscripts of Claudius on Kings, see my article, "The Commentary on Kings of Claudius of Turin and Its Two Printed Editions (Basel, 1531; Bologna, 1751)," Filologia mediolatina 4 (1997), forthcoming.




Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 710 (Theol. 106), 56 folios, saec. x ex. (Ne- meth).

Zwettl, Stiftsbibliothek, 89, fols. 147r-194r, saec. xII.

Matthew (Ep. 2 to Iustus of Charroux) ''Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Phillipps 1708 (Rose 51), 242 folios, saec. ix 3/4, Reims (Bi-

schoff).5 'Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 88, 192 folios, saec. x-xi or xi1, England (Gra-

ham).6 "Cambridge, Pembroke College, 12, 146 folios, saec. II.7

lLondon, British Library, Royal 2.C.X, 184 folios, saec. xII, England.8 "London, British Library, Royal 4.C.VIII, 166 folios, saec. xII.9 'New York, H. P. Kraus, s.n., 207 folios, c. 830, northern France (Bischoff), later at

Lyons.10 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 774 (SC 2557), fols. 115r-171r, saec. xv, England." *Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C.3, 200 folios (numbered 1-48, 50-51, 53-202), saec.

ix1, southern France (Bischoff), later at Lyons. -Toulouse, Bibliotheque municipale, 44, 210 folios, 1299, Albi.12 *Troyes, Bibliotheque municipale, 676, 169 folios, saec. ix1, Tours (Bischoff), from

Clairvaux.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 3828, fols. lr-121v, saec. xi

(Mai).l4

Epistles of Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- sians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews (Ep. 3 to Dructeramnus, Ep. 4 to Louis the Pious, Ep. 5, Ep. 6 to Theodemirus)15

Monza, Biblioteca capitolare, c-2/62, fols. 166v-206v, saec. ix ex., Monza (Ferrari).16 Contains only the commentary on Hebrews.

"Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 2392, fols. 3r-147v, + lat. 2394A, fols. 23r-217r, saec. ix ex.-x (Ferrari), from Limoges. Contains the complete corpus of Claudius on Paul, as in Paris lat. 12289 + 12290.17

5 Valentin Rose, Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin: Die Meerman-Handschriften des Sir Thomas Phillipps, 1 (Berlin, 1893), pp. 96-98.

6 M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 1 (Cambridge, Eng., 1912), pp. 173-74.

7 M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge (Cambridge, Eng., 1905), p. 11.

8 See above, n. 136. 9 George F. Warner and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and

King's Collections, 1 (London, 1921), p. 88. 10 See above, n. 135. 11 Falconer Madan and H. H. E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the

Bodleian Library at Oxford, 2/1 (Oxford, 1922), pp. 424-25. 12 Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques des departements, 7 (Paris, 1885),

pp. 21-22. 13 Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques des departements, 2 (Paris, 1855),

pp. 283-84. 14 The date was offered by Angelo Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, 4 (Rome, 1840), p. 301. 15 For these manuscripts see Ferrari, "Note su Claudio di Torino" (above, n. 10), pp. 294-301. 16 Annalisa Belloni and Mirella Ferrari, La Biblioteca capitolare di Monza (Padua, 1974), pp. 45-

48. 17 Bibliotheque Nationale, Catalogue general des manuscrits latins, 2 (Paris, 1940), pp. 441-42.




*Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 2393, fols. lr-58r, saec. ix1, France (?) (Ferrari). The commentary on Romans with the retractatio of Claudius, found only here on fol. 58r (MGH Epp 4:600).18

'Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 2394, fols. lr-118r, saec. Ix2-ex., Auxerre (Ferrari). Contains the commentaries on Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.19

'Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 2395, fols. 20r-93v, saec. Ix2-ex., Auxerre (Ferrari). Contains only the commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians.20

'Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 10878, fols. 65r-217v, saec. ix 4/4 (Bi- schoff). Contains only the commentaries on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.

"Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, lat. 12289, 197 folios, saec. ix 2/4 (Bischoff) + lat. 12290, 132 folios, saec. ix 3/4 (Bischoff), from Fleury. Evidently the oldest manuscripts containing all the commentaries on Paul by Claudius.

"'Troyes, Bibliotheque municipale, 221, 264 folios, saec. xII, Clairvaux. Contains the commentaries on Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians.21

'Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 5775, 156 folios, 862, written at Tortona for Bobbio. Contains only the commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians.

'Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 98, 181 folios, saec. xII, France (?) (Ferrari). Complete except for the commentaries on Galatians and Hebrews.22

Vercelli, Biblioteca capitolare, XXXIX, fols. 130v-140r and 156r-193r, saec. x med. (Ferrari). Contains the commentaries on Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews that are printed under the name of Atto of Vercelli, PL 134:607-44, 699-720, 725- 834.

APPENDIX 2

Chapter Headings and Chapter Divisions

for the Commentary on Genesis of Claudius of Turin

An index to the three books of the commentary on Genesis is found in Paris lat. 9575, fols. 4v-6r, and also in Vienna 691, fols. 26, 54, and 90; the chapter headings given here are taken from the Paris manuscript. Claudius undoubtedly intended that an index precede each book. An index was printed by Brassicanus at the beginning of each book using the inferior text he found in his now-lost Heiligenkreuz manuscript. Chapter divisions are indicated using the lemmata from the Book of Genesis as given in the Paris manuscript with a cross-reference to the text in PL.

CAPITVLA LIBRI PRIMI

I. De creatione caeli et terrae. [PL 50:893B, In principio fecit (Gen. 1.1)] II. De conditione lucis. [895C, Dixit deus, Fiat lux (Gen. 1.3)] III. De firmamento. [897B, Dixit quoque deus, Fiat firmamentumn (Gen. 1.6)] IV. De congregatione aquarum in locum unum. [898A, Dixit quoque deus, Congregentur

(Gen. 1.9)]

18 Ibid., p. 441. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., pp. 442-43. 21 Catalogue general des manuscrits des departements, 2:114-15. 22 Andre Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini, 1 (Vatican City, 1937), pp. 213-15.




V. De creatione solis et lunae et stellarum. [899A, Dixit autem deus, Fiant luminaria (Gen. 1.13)]

VI. De eo quod scriptum est, Producant aquae reptile animae uiuentis. [899C, Producant aquae reptile (Gen. 1.20)]

VII. Item de productione terrae animae uiuentis in genero suo iumenta et reptilia. [899D, Dixit quoque deus, Producat terra (Gen. 1.24)]

VIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. [900B, Faciamus hominem (Gen. 1.26)]

VIIII. De perfectione caeli et terrae. [901D, Igitur perfecti sunt (Gen. 2.1)] X. De completione operum in die septimo. [902D, Compleuitque deus die septimo (Gen.

2.2)] XI. De generatione caeli et terrae quando creata sunt. [904C, Istae generationes (Gen.

2.4)] XII. De formatione hominis ex limo terrae. [905C, Formavit igitur dominus (Gen. 2.7)] XIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Plantauerat autem dominus deus paradisum uoluptatis a

principio. [906D, Plantauerat autem dominus deus (Gen. 2.8)] XIIII. De fluuiis paradisi. [907B, Et fluuius egrediebatur (Gen. 2.10)] XV. De conlocatione hominis in paradiso. [907C, Tulit ergo dominus deus hominem

(Gen. 2.15)] XVI. De ligno scientiae boni et mali. [907D, Ex omni ligno paradisi (Gen. 2.16)] XVII. De eo quod scriptum est, Quacumque die comederitis ex eo, mortem moriemini.

[908A, Quacumque die ederitis ex eo (Gen. 2.17)] XVIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Non est bonum esse honminem solum, faciamus ei ad-

iutorium. [908B, Dixit quoque deus, Non est bonum (Gen. 2.18)] XVIIII. De impositione nominum cunctarum animalium, uolatilium et bestiarum. [908D,

Formatis igitur dominus deus (Gen. 2.19)] XX. De Adam quod non inueniebatur adiutor similis sui. [909A, Adae uero non inveni-

ebatur (Gen. 2.20)] XXI. De costa extracta et ex ea mulier facta. [909B, Et aedificavit dominus deus costam

(Gen. 2.22)] XXII. De eo quod scriptum est, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis. [909C, Et adduxit earn ad

Adam (Gen. 2.23)] XXIII. De nuditate protoplastorum. [910A, Erat autem uterque nudus (Gen. 2.25)] XXIIII. De calliditate serpentis et de allocutione domini. [910B, Sed et serpens erat cal-

lidior (Gen. 3.1)] XXV. De uisione ligni quod inspexit mulier. [911A, Vidit igitur mulier (Gen. 3.6)] XXVI. De apertione oculorum. [911C, Et aperti sunt oculi (Gen. 3.7)] XXVII. De eorum nuditate. [911C, Cumque cognouissent (Gen. 3.7)] XXVIII. De folia ficus unde sibi fecerunt perizomata. [912B, Consuerunt folia ficus (Gen.

3.7)] XXVIIII. De uoce domini dei deambulantis in paradiso. [912C, Et cum audissent vocem

dei deambulantis (Gen. 3.8)] XXX. De inimicitiis inter muliere et serpente. [914A, Inimicitias ponam (Gen. 3.15)] XXXI. De tunicis pelliceis. [915B, Fecit quoque dominus deus Adae (Gen. 3.21)] XXXII. De cognitione Adam et Euae uxoris eius et natiuitate Cain. [916B, Adam uero

cognouit Euam (Gen. 4.1)] XXXIII. De muneribus Abel et Cain. [916C, Fuit autem Abel (Gen. 4.2)] XXXIIII. De Enoch filio Cain et eius posteritate. [920A, Cognouit autem Cain (Gen.

4.17)] XXXV. De natiuitate Seth et eius posteritate. [921B, Cognouit quoque Adam adhuc

(Gen. 4.25)]




XXXVI. De quaestione annorum Mathusalae. [924A, Porro Enoch uixit (Gen. 5.21)] XXXVII. De uxoribus Lamech. [924B, Dixit quoque Lamech uxoribus suis (Gen. 4.23)] XXXVIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Noae cum quingentorum esset annorum genuit tres

filios. [924C, Noe uero cum quingentorum esset (Gen. 5.31)] XXXVIIII. De gigantibus. [925B, Dixit quoque deus, Non permanebit (Gen. 6.3)] XL. De paenitudine dei quod hominem fecisset. [926A, Videns autem deus quod multa

(Gen. 6.5)] XLI. De arca et mensuram cubitorum. [926D, Fac ibi arcam (Gen. 6.14)] XLII. De recordatione dei in Noe cunctorum animantium. [929B, Recordatus est autem

dominus Noe (Gen. 8.1)] XLIII. De constructione altaris et de pecoribus mundis et immundis. [932C, Aedificavit

autem Noe (Gen. 8.20)] XLIIII. De benedictione Noe et filiorum eius. [933A, Benedixitque deus Noe (Gen. 9.1)] XLV. De arcu in nubibus in signum foederis dato. [934D, Dixitque deus, Hoc signum

foederis (Gen. 9.12)]

CAPITVLA LIBRI SECVNDI

I. De eo quod scriptum est, Coepit Noae uir agricola exercere terran, plantauit uineam, bibensque uinum inebriatus est. [935A, Coepitque Noe uir agricola (Gen. 9.20)]

II. De maledictione Chanaan et benedictione duorum filiorum. [935D, Euigilans autem Noe a uino (Gen. 9.24)]

III. De genealogia filiorum Iaphet. [937A, Vixit autem Noe (Gen. 9.28)] IIII. Item de filiis Cham. [937C, Filii Cham, Chus et Mesraim (Gen. 10.6)] V. De filiis Sem et eius posteritate. [938D, De Serm quoque nati (Gen. 10.21)] VI. De constructione turris. [940A, Erat autem terra labii (Gen. 11.1)] VII. De eo quod scriptum est, Descendit dominus ut uideret ciuitatem et turrim quam

aedificabant filii Adam. [940B, Descendit autein dominus (Gen. 11.5)] VIII. De generationibus Sem. [942B, Hae generationes Serm (Gen. 11.10)] VIIII. De generationibus Thare. [943B, Hae sunt generationes Thare (Gen. 11.27)] X. De morte Aran. [944A, Porro Aran genuit Loth (Gen. 11.27)] XI. De egressione Tharae de terra Chaldaeorum. [944B, Erat autem Sarai sterilis (Gen.

11.30)] XII. De annis Thare. [944C, Facti sunt autem omnes dies (Gen. 11.32)] XIII. De egressione Abraham de terra sua et de cognatione sua et de domo patris sui.

[945C, Et dixit (deus) ad Abraham, Egredere (Gen. 12.1)] XIIII. De descensione Abrahae in Egypto. [946C, Facta est autem fames (Gen. 12.10)] XV. De diuisione Abrahae et Loth et iurgio pastorum eorum. [947B, Ascendit ergo

Abraham de Aegypto (Gen. 13.1)] XVI. De apparitione domini ad Abraham, postquam diuisus est ab eo Loth, et habita-

tione eius in conualle Mambrae. [948B, Dixitque dominus ad Abraham, postquam divisus est Loth (Gen. 13.14)]

XVII. De praelio Amraphel regis Sennaar, et Arioch regis Ponti, et Chodorlaomor regis Elamitarum, et Thadal regis gentium contra Bara regem Sodomorum. [949B, Factum est illo tempore, ut Amraphel rex Sennaar (Gen. 14.1)]

XVIII. De Melchisedech sacerdote rege Salem. [950B, At vero Melchisedech rex Salem (Gen. 14.18)]

XVIIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Factus est sermo domini ad Abraham per uisionem dicens, Noli timere, ego protector tuus et merces tua magna nimis. [952B, His ita transactis, factus est sermo domini (Gen. 15.1)]




XX. De eo quod scriptum est, Sume, inquit, mihi uaccam triennem et capram trimam et arietem annorum trium. [953A, Sume, inquit, mihi uaccam triennem (Gen. 15.9)]

XXI. De ingressu Abrahae ad Agar ancillam Sarai. [955A, Igitur Sarai, uxor Abram (Gen. 16.1)]

XXII. De fuga Agar et angelo qui apparuit ei. [955C, Affligente igitur earn Sarai (Gen. 16.6)]

XXIII. De allocutione dei ad Abraham et mutatione nominis eius. [956A, Ego deus

omnipotens, ambula (Gen. 17.1)] XXIIII. De circumcisione Abrahae et domus eius. [956C, Dixit iterum deus ad Abraham,

Et tu custodies (Gen. 17.9)] XXV. De mutatione nominis Sarai. [957B, Dixit quoque deus ad Abraham, Sarai uxorem

tuam (Gen. 17.15)] XXVI. De promissione natiuitatis Isaac. [958A, Dixitque Abraham ad dominum, Vtinam

(Gen. 17.18)] XXVII. De apparitione trium uirorum Abrahae in conualle Mambrae. [958D, Apparuit

autem ei deus (Gen. 18.1)] XXVIII. De clamore Sodomorum et Gomorrae. [960D, Dixit itaque dominus, Clamor

Sodomorum (Gen. 18.20)] XXVIIII. Vni uenerunt duo angeli Sodomam uespere sedente Loth in foribus ciuitatis.

[961D, Veneruntque duo angeli (Gen. 19.1)] XXX. De subuersione Sodomae. [963C, Igitur dominus pluit super Sodomam (Gen.

19.24)] XXXI. De ebrietate Loth. [964B, Dixit maior ad minorem, Pater (Gen. 19.31)] XXXII. De profectione Abrahae in terram australem et peregrinatione eius in Geraris.

[966A, Profectus inde Abraham in terram australem (Gen. 20.1)] XXXIII. De muneribus Abimelech datis Abrahae et Sarae. [966C, Tulit igitur Abimelech

oues et boves (Gen. 20.14)] XXXIIII. De natiuitate Isaac. [968A, Visitauit autem dominus Saram (Gen. 21.1)] XXXV. De lusu Isaac et Ismahel et eiectione ancillae cum filio suo. [968D, Cumque

uidisset Sara filium Agar (Gen. 21.9)] XXXVI. De eo quod scriptum est, Dixit Abimelech et Sichel princeps exercitus eius ad

Abraham, Dominus tecum est in uniuersis quae agis. [970C, Eodem tempore dixit Abi- melech et Fichol princeps (Gen. 21.22)]

XXXVII. De nemore quod plantauit Abraham in Bersabeae. [971A, Abraham uero plantauit nemus (Gen. 21.33)]

XXXVIII. De temptatione Abrahae et immolatione filii sui. [971A, Tentauit deus Abra- ham (Gen. 22.1)]

XXXVIIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Nuntiatum est Abraham quod Melcha quoque genuisset filios Nachor fratri suo. [974A, Nuntiatum est Abraham quod Melcha (Gen. 22.20)]

XL. De morte Sarae et catalogo annorum eius. [974B, Vixit autem Sara (Gen. 23.1)] XLI. De eo quod scriptum est, Erat Abraham senex dierumque multorum, et de seruo

seniore domus suae, et de positione manus sub femore suo. [974D, Erat Abraham senex

dierumque multorum (Gen. 24.1)] XLII. De Cethura uxore Abrahae. [979C, Abraham uero aliam duxit uxorem, nomine

Cethuram (Gen. 25.1)] XLIII. De morte Abrahae. [979D, Fuerunt autem dies Abrahae (Gen. 25.7)] XLIIII. De generationibus Ismahel. [980A, Hae sunt generationes Imahel (Gen. 25.12)] XLV. De eo quod scriptum est, Deprecatus est Isaac dominum pro uxore sua, eo quod

esset sterilis. [980C, Deprecatusque est Isaac dominum (Gen. 25.21)]




XLVI. De eo quod scriptum est, Ad Rebeccam duae gentes et duo populi in utero tuo sunt. [980D, Duae gentes in utero tuo sunt (Gen. 25.23)]

XLVII. De natiuitate Esau et Iacob. [981B, Iamque tempus pariendi uenerat (Gen. 25.24)]

XLVIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Factus est Esau uir gnarus uenandi, Iacob autem tir simplex. [982B, Quibus adultis, factus est Esau uir gnarus (Gen. 25.27)]

XLVIIII. De coctione pulmenti et uenditione primogeniturae Esau. [982C, Coxit autem Iacob pulmentum (Gen. 25.29)]

L. De eo quod scriptum est, Orta autem fame super terram abiit Isaac ad Abimelech regem Palestinorum in Gerara. [982D, Orta autem fame super terram (Gen. 26.1)]

LI. De eo quod scriptum est, Seminauit Isaac in terra illa et inuenit in ipso anno centu- plum. [984A, Seminauit autem Isaac (Gen. 26.12)]

LII. De puteis quod foderant pueri patris Isaac. [984D, Habuit quoque possessionem ouium (Gen. 26.14)]

LIII. De senectute Isaac et caligatione oculorum eius et benedictionibus filiorum. [987B, Senuit autem Isaac (Gen. 27.1)]

LIIII. De odio Esau in Iacob pro benedictione sublata. [990A, Oderat autem semper Esau Iacob (Gen. 27.41)]

CAPITVLA LIBRI TERTII

I. De eo quod scriptum est, Egressus Iacob de Bersabea pergebat Haran. [991B, Igitur egresus Iacob (Gen. 28.10)]

II. De aduentu Iacob ad terram orientalem et quod uidit puteum in agro et greges ouium accubantes iuxta eum. [992B, Profectusque inde Iacob (Gen. 29.1)]

III. De seruitute Iacob qua seruiuit Laban pro Lia et Rachel. [995A, Auditis autem Laban causis itineris (Gen. 29.13)]

IIII. De natiuitate filiorum Liae et Rachel et ancillarum earum. [993D, Videns autem donminus quod despiceret Liam (Gen. 29.31)]

V. De eo quod scriptum est, Dixit Isaac ad Laban, Gira omnes greges et separa cunctas oues uarias et sparso uellere et maculosum uariumque fuerit, tam in ouibus quam in capris erit inerces mea. [1000C, Dixitque Laban, Quid (Gen. 30.31)]

VI. De reuersione Iacob in terra Chanaan et persecutione Laban post eum. [1003A, Surrexit itaque Iacob (Gen. 31.17)]

VII. De nuntiis quos misit Iacob ante se ad Esau fratrem suum in regione Edom. [1004C, Misit autem nuntios ante se ad Esau (Gen. 32.3)]

VIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Leuans Iacob oculos suos, uidit uenientem Esau et cumn eo quadringentos uiros. [1006A, Leuans autem Iacob oculos (Gen. 33.1)]

VIIII. De aduentu Iacob in Sochol. [1006D, Et Iacob uenit in Sochol (Gen. 33.17)] X. De eo quod scriptum est, Egressa est Dina filia Liae, ut uideret mulieres regionis illius.

[1007A, Egressa est Dina filia Liae (Gen. 34.1)] XI. De morte Deborae nutricis Rebeccae. [1008C, Eodem tempore mortua est Debbora

(Gen. 35.8)] XII. De morte Rachel ad terram quae ducit Effrata. [1009A, Egressus autem inde (Gen.

35.16)] XIII. De stupro Ruben in concubina patris sui. [1009C, Cumque habitaret in illa regione

(Gen. 35.22)] XIIII. Catalogus duodecim filiorum Iacob. [1009D, Erant autem filii Iacob duodecim

(Gen. 35.22)] XV. De generationibus Esau. [1010D, Hae sunt autem generationes Esau (Gen. 36.1)]




XVI. De regibus qui regnauerunt in terra Edom. [1011B, Reges autem qui regnauerunt (Gen. 36.31)]

XVII. De eo quod scriptum est, Accusauit Ioseph fratres suos apud patrem crimine pes- simo. [1011D, Ioseph cum sexdecim esset annorum (Gen. 37.2)]

XVIII. De somniis Ioseph et uenditione eius in Egyptum. [1012B, Accidit quoque ut uisum somnium (Gen. 37.5)]

XVIIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Eodem tempore descendens Iudas a fratribus suis diuer- tit ad uirum Odollamithem nomine iram uiditque ibi filiam Honis Diananei uocabulo suo. [1014B, Eo tempore descendens Iudas (Gen. 38.1)]

XX. De eo quod scriptum est, Emit autem Ioseph Putiphar eunuchus pharaonis uir Egyptius, et de eo quod iniecit domina sua oculos suos in Ioseph. [1018D, Emitque eum

Putiphar (Gen. 39.1)] XXI. De eo quod scriptum est, His auditis dominus et nimium credulus uerbis coniugis

iratus est ualde, tradiditque Ioseph in carcerem. [1019D, His auditis dominus et nimium (Gen. 39.19)]

XXII. De somnio eunuchorum pharaonis pincernae et pistoris. [1020A, His ita gestis (Gen. 40.1)]

XXIII. De somnio pharaonis. [1021D, Post duos annos uidit Pharao somnium (Gen. 41.1)]

XXIIII. De principatu Ioseph super terram Aegypti. [1022D, Dixit Pharao ad Ioseph, Quia ostendit (Gen. 41.40)]

XXV. De eo quod scriptum est, Audiens Iacob quod alimenta uenderentur in Aegypto. [1024A, Audiens autem Iacob quod alimenta (Gen. 41.56)]

XXVI. De eo quod scriptum est, Recordatusque somniorum quae aliquando uiderat, dure locutus est fratribus suis, tradiditque eos in custodia tribus diebus, tollensque Simeon et ligans, illis praesentibus iussit ministris ut implerent saccos eorum tritico. [1024C, Re- cordatus somniorum quae aliquando uiderat (Gen. 42.9)]

XXVII. De eo quod scriptum est, Narrauerunt omnia patri suo dicentes, Locutus est nobis dominus terrae dure et putauit nos exploratores prouinciae. [1025D, Et narrauerunt ei omnia quae accidissent eis (Gen. 42.29)]

XXVIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Adtollens autem oculos Ioseph, uidit Beniamin fratrem suum uterinum. [1027A, Adtollens autem oculos Ioseph (Gen. 43.29)]

XXVIIII. De eo quod scriptum est, Praecepit autem Ioseph dispensatori domus suae, Imple saccos eorum frumento quantum possunt capere et pone pecuniam singulorum in summitate sacci et scyphum meum argenteum. [1027C, Praecepit autem Ioseph dispensatori (Gen. 44.1)]

XXX. De manifestatione Ioseph ad fratres suos et munerum largitate. [1029B, Manebo itaque seruus tuus pro puero (Gen. 44.33)]

XXXI. De profectione Iacob in Egyptum. [1031B, Surrexit Iacob a puteo iuramenti (Gen. 46.5)]

XXXII. Numerus filiorum Iacob qui ingressi sunt in Aegyptum. [1031D, Cunctae animae

quae ingessae sunt cum Iacob (Gen. 46.26)] XXXIII. De eo quod dixit Pharao ad Ioseph, Pater tuus et fratres tui uenerunt ad te, in

optimo loco fac habitare eos. [1034A, Dixit itaque rex ad Ioseph, Pater tuus (Gen. 47.5)] XXXIIII. De eo quod ait Ioseph ad populum, En ut cernitis et uos et terram uestram

Pharao possidet, Accipite semina et ferite. [1035B, Dixit ergo Joseph ad populum, En, ut cernitis (Gen. 47.23)]

XXXV. De eo quod scriptum est, Ait Iacob ad Ioseph, Si inueni gratiam in conspectu tuo, pone manum tuam sub femur meum. [1035D, Cumnque appropinquare cerneret Israel diem mortis suae (Gen. 47.29)]




XXXVI. De eo quod scriptum est, Nuntiatum est Ioseph quod adgrotare pater eius. [1036C, His ita transactis, nuntiatum est Ioseph quod aegrotaret pater eius (Gen. 48.1)]

XXXVII. De eo quod scriptum est, Ait quoque Iacob ad Ioseph, En morior et erit deus uobiscum, reducetque nos ad terram patrum uestrorum. [1037D, Ait quoque Iacob ad filium suum Ioseph, En ego morior (Gen. 48.21)]

XXXVIII. De benedictionibus patrum. [1038B, Vocavit autem Iacob filios suos (Gen. 49.1)]

XXXVIIII. De morte Iacob et obsequio corporis eius. [1046A, Finitisque mandatis, quibus filios (Gen. 49.32)]

XL. De annis uitae Ioseph et morte eius. [1047B, Vixitque Ioseph centum et decem annos (Gen. 50.22)]

Michael Gorman lives at Via Quadronno 9, 20122 Milan, Italy (e-mail: mmgorman@ micronet.it; World Wide Web: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/genesis).


