Penelope's Odyssey to Ninth-century Ireland.
Penelope, the heroine of Homer's work, the Odyssey, is generally studied in two different eras, the classical period and the Renaissance. It is convenient to think of her as having disappeared in those centuries within which Homer was no longer accessible, and thus far scholars have followed this pattern, recommencing study of this Greek heroine with the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance in the fourteenth-century. Her presence, however, in Latin grammars associated with ninth-century Irish scholarship speaks of continuity, and points to an acceptance of a pagan woman as a suitable model within the education of the male elite. This paper will present a possible path for the character of Penelope, once she had transferred into Latin texts and into the works of ninth-century monks.
Initially, this paper was designed around the presence of Penelope in two commentaries on the third-century grammarian Donatus, both written in the Ninth Century; the anonymous Lorsch commentary and that of Sedulius Scottus. In the attempt to find a source for this odd inclusion, Penelope's name was also found in several commentaries on Priscian, a sixth-century grammarian from Constantinople, with at least three of these also having an Irish connection. In each of these manuscripts, her name is used as an example of a proper noun used to describe an abstract concept, the abstract concept being modesty (pudicitia). A striking aspect of Penelope's inclusion in these texts is the lack of contextualising information. Penelope is not described as 'Homer's Penelope' or as the wife of Ulysses (the Latin name for the Greek Odysseus). Similarly, the suitors are ignored, as are her actions of weaving during the day and unweaving at night. When all of these commentaries describe the 'modesty of Penelope" (pudicitia Penelopae), it is assumed that the readers will not need her identity explained. She is invoked to qualify a type of modesty, not vice versa.
Penelope's first appears in one of the earliest works of western literature, Homer's Odyssey. She is the long-suffering wife of Odysseus, forced to wait twenty years for his return from the battle of Troy. Homer does not use epithets such as loyal or chaste in describing his heroine. Modern studies of Homer and his representation of Penelope discuss the words 'kerdea' (cunning),[1] 'kleos' (fame),[2] and her 'homophrosyne', (like-mindedness) to her husband.[3] Marilyn Katz has analysed the plot of the Odyssey to demonstrate that the tension of the whole story depends on the possibility that Penelope might not remain loyal to her husband. Some early writers do pick up on this tension and suggest that she might not have been faithful, such as the Hellenic writer Lycophron in the Alexandra. Similarly Cicero mentions that Penelope bore a child, Pan, to the god Mercury, a story that does not suggest life-long devotion to one man. By the time of the Roman Empire, however, her fidelity was treated as proverbial. For a society that was based on the need for men to be away fighting for their country, she represented the stability of home.[4] She was a character that represented cherished values within Roman society, and was used as such by several authors. Her story was so well known, that no-one needed to describe the ruse used by her to delay choosing a new husband. Her name and an appropriate adjective were sufficient to invoke her fidelity to her husband. The connection between Penelope and pudica, the Latin adjective for modesty, was so strong in this period, that the Lewis and Short Classical Latin Dictionary cites Penelope in its description of the word. As Madeleine Mactoux devoted a whole book to the use of Penelope's name in classical times, both Greek and Roman, this paper will merely present some edited highlights.
Several Latin writers included Penelope in their works. Unfortunately the third-century BCE translation of Homer by Livius Andronicus is largely lost to us, but our heroine would certainly have figured in it. But we do have works from many other authors. Most of them, like the grammars in question, are just glancing references, perhaps highlighting an educated audience's familiarity with her character. Of all the sources I have found, not one refers to her modesty. She is not placed in the adjectival position to describe the concept of modesty, but various adjectives are used to describe her, for example 'pudica Penelope'. In Epistulae ex Ponto, the exiled Ovid suggests that his wife, left behind in Rome, would rival Penelope in frustrating suitors by modest deception.[5] This is not a direct link of pudica to Penelope but to her deception, but by inference, it is clear that Ovid is presenting her as an example of a modest woman. Martial is quite playful with his use of pudica in relation to Penelope. He suggests a libidinous aspect to her character while in the company of her husband, but without challenging the fact that she was modest.[6] Seneca's use of the work pudica is ambiguous, presented as a debate over whether Penelope was (or not) [in]pudica.[7] It is an early reference to the use of Penelope within education, as the quote arises in a discussion on what is important within teaching. How to lead a good life, with love of country, father and wife were presented as more important than debates on Penelope's fidelity, and on whether or not she recognised Ulysses disguised as a beggar. The adjective casta (chaste) is also used by several classical authors. Propertius, in praising Aelia Galla, suggests she would beat Penelope's chaste devotion to her husband.[8] One of the anonymous poems collected in the earthy Priapea refers to Penelope's decision to remain chaste, despite having so many candidates for her pleasure on hand.[9] In one of Martial's epigrams, Laevinia Saebinis was described as having arrived chaste like Penelope only to then depart like Helen (who left her husband Melanaus for the Trojan prince Paris). As a chaste woman , Penelope was a convenient foil for other women. Ovid also offers 'candida Penelope' (spotless Penelope) and 'Penelope mansit... inter tot iuvenes intemerata procos' (Penelope remained inviolate among so many youthful wooers) in Amores._[10] Other adjectives used to describe Penelope in this era are _pia (pious) and digna (worthy). Her untouched state was the issue, not how she maintained it. Penelope thus became divorced from the narrative within which she had become, and became a symbol, representing an ideal worthy of Roman matrons whose husbands were away at war.
The use of the word pudicitia, the noun as opposed to the descriptive adjective in relation to Penelope appeared later, possibly with the rise of Christianity. Tertullian's Ad Nationes, written in the second-century CE states that if a woman was to be deified for her 'pudicitia' as Bona Dea had been, then Penelope would have been more worthy.[11] 'If the daughter of Faunus so excelled in chastity, that she would hold no conversation with men, it was perhaps from rudeness, or a consciousness of deformity, or shame for her father's insanity. How much worthier of divine honour than this "good goddess" was Penelope, who, although dwelling among so many suitors of the vilest character, preserved with delicate tact the purity which they assailed!' As you can see, Tertullian is dealing with the concept of modesty and considers Penelope more worthy than a goddess who presumably was deified for her modesty. As it was Tertullian who warned his students against the dangers in pagan literature, his inclusion of Penelope in such a positive light is interesting.[12] The inclusion of pagans in this work relates to the intended addressees. It was written to foreigners to explain the error of their ways.[13] Penelope is not included in another of Tertullian's works, De Pudicitia. Despite the inclusion of Penelope in a work designed to condemn pagan beliefs, it became a permanent record of Penelope's worthiness, as described by a Christian. There is one extant manuscript of Ad Nationes, and it too can be dated to the Ninth Century.
Dictys Cretensis' story of the Trojan War was translated from the Greek into Latin, possibly in the third century by Septimus, also described Penelope's pudicitia.[14] _There have been many versions of the Trojan story, from early medieval times to the Renaissance. None of them give Penelope the prominence of Homer's heroine, but their number would certainly have assisted in the maintenance of Penelope's reputation. Magnus Ausonius, a fourth century writer also turned to Homer, and wrote a slightly more detailed summary of both works in the _Periochae Homei Iliadis et Odyssiae.[15] At one point he refers to the strength of Ulysses and the modesty of Penelope ('virtus Ulyxis et Penelopae pudicitia').
The phrase also appears in a poem Laus Serenae by Claudius Claudianus, published in his Carmina Minora.[16] It is a poem in praise of Serena, who was the adoptive daughter of the Emperor Theodosius and wife of Stilicho, written in the late Fourth Century. Again, the word 'pudicitiae' is used in relation to Penelope: Penelopae decus est, uni cui tanta paratur scaena pudicitia' (all these [Ulysses' adventures] do but redound to the glory of Penelope, and the whole scene is set to display her chastity alone). All of these works, from Dictys to Claudianus might be seen as continuing a classical theme, and maintaining classical forms of epic or panagyric. The use of the noun 'pudicitia' in their descriptions of Penelope, however, does indicate a change in the way she is presented. That change continues into the more Christian society of Jerome, who in his Adversus Iovinianum, very matter-of-factly points out that Homer sings of Penelope's modesty: 'et Penelopes pudicitia homeri carmen est'.[17] This work is described as being pivotal to the development of later anti-feminist and anti-matrimonial literature.[18]
At this point, it is fitting to look at what the ninth-century grammars said about Penelope, and look at how they reflect the past starting with the commentaries on Donatus. Identical quotes are used to discuss the use of proper names to represent abstract (or incorporeal) concepts, the abstract concept being modesty, or pudicitia in the Latin. Each work is a commentary on the Ars Maior of Donatus, written in the fourth century, which was the basis of Latin teaching for much of the early medieval period. The diffusion of the Donatus texts and their commentaries has been described in great detail by Louis Holtz and it is believed that both of our grammars were derived from a copy of Donatus once housed in Ireland but no longer extant.[19] The author of one of theese texts, the Lorsch commentary on Donatus, Expositio in Donatum Maiorem is unknown,[20] but the second and more detailed of the two works, In Donati Artem Maiorem, was written by Sedulius Scottus, a well-known Irish teacher who moved to the continent in the mid-ninth century.[21] A third commentary, also based on the lost Irish manuscript, was written by Murethach but it does not include any reference to Penelope.[22] These three texts are regularly discussed together due to their common source material and the minor difference between them concerning Penelope piqued my curiosity. The variations within these three works have been fodder for several studies on the diffusion of early Donatus' commentaries and other Latin grammars.[23]
Before looking at what our grammars say in more detail, it might be useful to see what Donatus, the third-century grammarian originally said: alia incorporalia, ut pietas iustitia dignitas (other [things] are abstract like piety, justice, dignity).[24] Very basic, and no Penelope! Compare this to the Lorsch commentary: 'Alia incorporalia, ut pietas iustitia dignitas. Similiter quoque inueniuntur incorporalia in appellatiuis, ut uirtus communis; in propriis, ut Virtus dea et pudicitia Penelopae, [25] (Other [things] are abstract like piety, justice dignity. Similarly also [incorporeal] abstract things are found with a common name, such as common virtue; or with a proper name such as the goddess Virtue or the modesty of Penelope.) We see Penelope's name being used to qualify modesty. How her modesty was manifest, or the context within which it was achieved is not mentioned. There is nothing here to explain who Penelope is, so we can only assume that the students and teachers that used this work would have already known. In contrast, this is what Sedulius Scottus wrote:
Alia sunt appellatiua incorporalia nomina, id est incorporalem rem significantia, id est quae incorporalem rem demonstrant, quia carent corpore, unde nec uideri nec tangi possunt et incorporalibus adhaerent creaturis. Nam nomen semper incorporale manet.
Pietas dicitur religio et cultus dei; ab eo quod est pius uenit pietas, unde inpius dicitur irreligiosus, qui deum nescit; omnis homo igitur peccator, sed non omnis homo impius. Dignitas, id est honor [vel pietas dicitur misericordia]. Iustitia dicitur sanctitas[dignitas dicitur altitudo].
Similiter quoque inveniuntur incorporalia in appellatiuis, ut virtus communis; in propriis, ut Virtus dea et pudicitia Penelopae. [26]
(There are abstract things which have a common name (nouns), that is signifying an abstract thing, that is which they [the names] show the thing as abstract because they lack a body, so they cannot be seen or touched and they belong to abstract creations. For the name always stays abstract.Piety is said to be reverence and worship of god; piety comes from that which is said to be pious, so an impious man is said to be irreverent, who does not know god. Every man is therefore a sinner, but not every man is impious. Dignity is honour (or piety is said to be compassion). Justice is said to be holiness (dignity is said to be loftiness). Similarly also abstract [things] are found among common names, such as common virtue; and among proper names such as the goddess Virtue and the modesty of Penelope.)
It is apparent that Sedulius had much more to offer on the subject of abstract nouns, but nothing more on Penelope. This is a clear indication that both writers were working from a common source. Just as a point of comparison, it might be interesting to see what other commentators said, starting with Murethach, the third of our Irish writers. He does offer more than the original Donatus quote, but takes a different approach to the explanation, thus: 'Alia incorporalia ut pietas iustitia dignitas. Cur dixit corporalia esse nomina, cum omnia nomina incorporalia sint, uel quaedam corporalia, quaedam incorporalia? Idcirco, quia illa adherent creaturis corporalibus, haec vero incorporalibus.[27] (Other things are abstract (incorporeal) such as piety justice and dignity. Why does he say a noun has a body since all nouns are without a body, or certain ones have substance and certain ones are abstract? It is for the reason that although these things belong to created bodies, they are truly incorporeal.) His focus is the on quality of the nouns. He continues onto the next section of Donatus's work, not including any reference to Penelope or the goddess Virtue. Now, due to the common source for each of these grammars having been described as Irish, we need to remember that they are all now found on the continent.
Of the other commentaries on Donatus published in Keil, none appear to mention Penelope. These include the works of Servius, a late fourth-century grammarian, Cledonius, Pompeius, Consentius, a fifth-century grammarian, Asper (sixth-century Gaul) and two more anonymous works. They all worked within a similar framework, generally citing pietas, iustitia or dignitas as abstract nouns, but not Penelope.
In the footnotes to the Lorsch and Sedulius grammars, Priscian is cited as the immediate source for the Penelope quote. Priscian was a sixth-century Byzantine grammarian whose work, Institutiones grammaticae, became the basis for more advanced Latin learning. This is not surprising in itself, as Priscian's attempt to map subtypes of the common noun - corporeal, incorporeal etc, onto Aristotelian categories is now seen as the basis dialectical discussions in the ninth-century.[28] Interestingly, when the text is investigated in the definitive Keil collection of Grammatici Latini, Penelope is found in the notes and not in the main text. She was not present in all copies of the work and was therefore probably a gloss that has been written into the text at an earlier date. The work of Priscian is thought to have been known in Ireland from the seventh-century with a layering of glosses from each generation.[29] Hofman comments that the Irish glosses can be dated to the seventh century on linguistic grounds, but that the Latin glosses are more difficult to date.[30] As these ninth-century manuscripts are the earliest commentaries on Priscian, isolating when and how Penelope entered into them becomes a difficult task. The standard form dealing with the abstract nouns is: 'alia incorporalia in appellativis, ut 'virtus', in propriis, ut 'Pudicitia'.[31] (Other abstract things (have) common names, such as virtue, and proper names such as 'Modesty'). Why is 'Pudicitia' considered a proper noun? Did the inclusion of Penelope in this context help the text make sense? The versions most like those of Lorsch and Sedulius are all of the ninth century, now found at St Gall, Leiden and Karlsruhe, generally signified by the letters G, and L and K by Keil.[32]
Manuscript G, now house in St Gall, is believed to have been written in Castledermot in Ireland, possibly in 845 CE.[33] The manuscript has been identified as being taken to the continent by Sedulius around 848 CE to the court of Charles the Bald, but it cannot be attributed to him.[34] L is another ninth-century manuscript dated to 838 CE in Irish miniscule. Unlike the previous manuscript, it is thought to have been written in an Irish centre on the continent, before the arrival of Johannes and Sedulius Scottus.[35] It was connected to Laon or Soisson in the mid-ninth-century. The Karlsruhe manuscript, is similarly dated to the ninth-century, probably between 836 and 855 at Laon or Soisson.
To recap, there are at least five manuscripts from the ninth-century, which mention Penelope as descriptive of a type of modesty. At this point, one could ask how we know that the Donatus commentaries are based on Priscian commentaries, as all these references to Penelope all appear to have been written in the same couple of decades. That matter is well beyond the scope of this paper. What interests me is that they all pair Penelope with the Goddess Virtue, a personification of the abstract concept of 'virtus'. What strikes me is that Penelope must have been recognisable at this time to be used as such an exemplar. She is not described as Homer's Penelope, or Ulysses'. There is no mention of the suitors, or her weaving. Her fame for modesty was so great that her name alone was sufficient for Latin scholars of the early medieval period to recognise her.
I think it is certainly relevant that from the second century we have the noun 'pudicitia' being used, even indirectly, in relation to Penelope. Its continued presence into the early medieval period, when it had not been used in the classical period is surely more than coincidence. Of these works, I believe those of Tertullian, and Jerome, to have been the most influential in the choice of Penelope to designate a type of modesty in their works. It is in Tertullian's work that she is first paired with a goddess. Bona dea was a goddess worshiped by Roman women. Only one manuscript containing Ad Nationes is extant, currently housed in the Bibliotheque Nazionale in Paris, and it was written in the ninth century. It belonged to Argobard, the Archbishop of Lyon from 814 to 840 CE. Unfortunately, as this is the only manuscript left, and it has no obvious links to Irish scholarship, its involvement as a direct source for my Penelope quote is spurious. The Penelope reference in Jerome's work is found in Adversus Iovaninium, a late fourth-century work that was pivotal in the development of the Christian ascetic ideal. Jerome's works were known to insular scholars, some of his texts are thought to have been housed in the library at Iona,[36] and he was one of the authors used by scholars of the Middle Ages as a Greek source.[37] Both of these writers, with their distinctly Christian outlook, would have given a respected stamp of authority in the attribution of modesty to this pagan heroine.
It could certainly be said that the other works of late antiquity and the earlier medieval period might have influenced the use of Penelope in these grammars. The fact that Septimus, Ausonias and Claudianus all use variations on the phrase 'pudicitia Penelopae'certainly would have assisted in the maintenance of Penelope's reputation. What I think is important at this point is to notice that it was not classical sources as such, the Roman writers such as Horace, Martial or Ovid that gave us this combination of noun and the genitive of Penelope. None of them refer to Penelope's modesty in this form. The use of 'pudicitia' in relation to Penelope is witnessed first in late antiquity, in the writings of a Christian, one that otherwise directs students away from pagan literature. The subsequent use of this word by several others can be seen as an acceptance of this woman by a changing society, one with a developing Christian ideology, as still worthy of recognition. Penelope had been given a Christian stamp of approval.
R. Natasha Amendola
PhD. Candidate, Monash University.
October, 2007
----[1] Hanna M. Roisman, 'Penelope's Indignation', Transactions of the American Philological Association, 117, (1987), pp. 59-68 at p.66; Patricia Marquardt, 'Penelope "Polutropos", The American Journal of Philology, 116, (1985), pp. 32-48, at p. 32.
[2] Wendy Helleman, 'Homer's Penelope: A Tale of Feminine Arete', Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views, 39 (1995), pp. 227-250 at p. 228.
[3] Marilyn Katz, Penelope's Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the 'Odyssey', (Princeton, N J 1991), PP. 11, 148, 159-60, 173, 177, 182: Nancy Felson-Rubin, Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics, (Princeton N J, 1994), pp. 54-65; Helleman, 'Homer's Penelope', p.229.
[4] Madeleine Mactoux, Pénélope: Légende et Mythe, Paris, 1975).
[5] ' aemula Penelopes fieres, si fraude pudica instantis velles fallere nupta procos' Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto, 3.1.5 trans. Peter Green, obtain details and page number.
[6] Martial, Epigrammata, 11.104.11, trans D R Shackleton Bailey, (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), vol 3, p 85.
[7] 'Quid inquiris, an Penelopa [in]pudica fuerit, an verba saeculo suo dederit?' Seneca, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, 88.8, trans Robin Campbell, Letters from a Stoic, (Harmondsworth, 1969),p 153.
[8] 'quia casta domi persederat uxor: vincit Penelopes Aelia Galla fidem.' Propertius, Elegiae, 3.12, trans. Vincent Katz, The Complete Elegies of Sextus Propertius, (Princeton and Oxford, 2004), p. 281
[9] 'Penelopea...quae sic casta manes' Priapea, 68,.28 trans W H Parker, Priapea: Poems for a Phallic God, (London and Sydney, 1988), p.177.
[10] Ovid, Amores, 2.18.27 and 3.4.23-4 trans Grant Showerman in Ovid: Heroides and Amores, (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 436-7 and 460-1.
[11] Tertullian, Ad Nationes, include quote in Latin and other details.
[12] Vivien Law, Linguistics in the Early Middle Ages, 74.
[13] I would like to thank Geoff Dunn for pointing this out to me when this paper was presented at the Australian Early Medieval Association Fourth Annual Conference in September, 2007.
[14] 'de Penelope eius que pudicitia praeclara fama' 'As for Penelope, her reputation for virtue is famous' The Trojan War: The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian, trans R.M. Frazer, Jr, (Bloomington and London), 124
[15] Magnus Ausonius, Periochae Homeri Iliadis et Odyssiae, 24.6.
[16]Claudius Claudianus, Claudii Claudiani Carmina, ed. John Barrie Hall, (Lipzig, 1985), 379. English translation obtained from the Carmina Minora of Claudian (Loeb Classical Library) 1922, obtained from the web at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Theyer/E/Roman /Texts/Claudian/Carmina_Minora*/30 Accessed 29/10/2007.
[17] Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum, 1.45.39
[18] Silva, D. S. and John P. Brennan, Jr., 'Medieval Manuscripts of Jerome against Jovinian" in Manuscripta, Vol 13, (1969), pp161-166, at p.161.
[19] Louis Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l'enseignement grammatical: etude sur l'Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IV℮-IX℮ siècle) et edition critique, (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1981), 488.
[20] Ars laureshamensis: Expositio in Donatum Maiorem, ed. Bengt Löfstedt, (Turnholt: Brepols, 1977)
[21] Sedulius Scottus, In Donati Artem Maiorem, ed. Bengt Löfstedt, (Turnholt: Brepols, 1977)
[22] Murethach (Muridac), In Donati Artem Maiorem, ed Louis Holtz, (Turnholt: Brepols, 1977)
[23] Holtz Rijcklof Hofman, 'The Priscian Text Used in Three Ninth-Century Irish Donatus Commentaries,' in Anders Alquist (ed.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Liguistics, (Amsterdam, 1992), 7-15.
[24] Donatus, Ars maior, 373,12. (include details of Keil's edition)
[25] Ars laureshamensis: Expoitio in Donatum Maiorem, ed. Bengt Löfstedt, (Turnholti, 1978), 14, 64-7. I have maintained the pattern within the published text of capitalised V and miniscule u.
[26] Sedulius Scottus, In Donati Artem Maiorem, ed. Bengt Löfstedt, (Turnholti, 1977), 77, 43-55.NATASHA AMENDOLA Page 6 9/11/2007
[27] Murethach (Muridac), In Donati Artem Maiorem, ed Louis Holtz, (Turnholti, 1977) , 61, 38-42.
[28] Vivien Law, "Carolingian Grammarians" in Anders Alquist (ed.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Liguistics, _(Amsterdam, 1992)_, 27-37, 33.
[29] Rijcklof Hofman, 'Linguistic Preoccupations of the Glossators of the St Gall Priscian' in Vivien Law, History of Linguistic Thought in the Early Middle Ages, (Amsterdam, 1993), 111.[30] Hofman, 'The Linguistic Preoccupations of the Glossators of the St Gall Priscian, in Vivien Law, (ed), History of Linguistic Thought in the early Middle Ages, (Amsterdam, 1993), 111-126, at 111
[31] Priscian, Institutionum Grammaticarum, ed Martini Hertzii in Henrici Keilii, Grammatici Latini, Vol.2, (Hildesheim, 1961), 59;12.
[32] There are some other manuscripts that mention Penelope without the goddess, or with a variation on the spelling of her name, but they have not been included in this study as they are not likely to provide any more detailed information at this stage.
[33] These facts are a composite from Francis John Byrne, 'Introduction" in Timothy O'Neill, The Irish Hand, (Mountrath, 1984), xi, cited in Anders Alquist, 'Notes on the Greek Materials in the St.Gall Priscian(Codex 904) in Michael W. Herren, The Sacred Nectar of the the Greeks: The Study of Greek on the West in the Early Middle Ages, (London, 1988), 196; and Rijcklof Hofman, 'Glosses in a Ninth Century Priscian Ms. Probably Attributable to Heiric of Auxerre (†ca. 876) and Their Connections,' in Studi Medievali, 3rd ser. 29 (1988), 805-839, 809-810.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid., 811.
[36] Thomas Owen Clancy and Gilbert Markus, Iona: The Earliest Poetry of a Celtic Monastery, (Edinburgh , 1995), 214.
[37] Bernice M. Kaczinski, 'Greek Glosses on Jerome's Ep.CVI, Ad Sunnima et Fretelam, in E.Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, MS Phillipps 1674' in Michael W. Herren (ed.) The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: The Study of Greek in the West in the Early Middle Ages, (London, 1988), 215-227, 226, n.20