Isidore of Seville and the Etymologies

Chapter 9 Isidore of Seville and the Etymologies

Jacques Elfassi

1 Introduction

The Etymologies are considered Isidore’s masterwork: his longest work, the one that, as far as we know, most occupied the bishop until his death; the one that, along with the Sententiae and the Synonyma, was the most appreciated in the Middle Ages; the one that has been the most studied in our time; the one re- sponsible for Isidore’s recent designation as Patron Saint of the Internet. And yet, much about the Etymologies remains unknown, although, as we shall see, great strides have been made in the past few years. Furthermore, recent research has also invited new questions. For example, we are no longer sure to- day that Isidore divided his encyclopedia into twenty books, nor even that some of these books were part of the project as conceived by its author. While covering the basic facts, it seemed to me important to touch on these new hypotheses and even to suggest a few paths for new research. This chapter is in- tended less as a declaration of the current “state of the question” than as a declaration of research in progress.

2 The Genesis of the Work

The surviving documents shedding light on the genesis of the Etymologies fall into two groups: the first consists of the oldest manuscripts; the second in- cludes Isidore’s correspondence and Braulio of Zaragoza’s Renotatio.1 Because these sources are often very difficult to interpret, they have given rise to many more hypotheses than certainties. The major facts conveyed by the oldest manuscripts are as follows:2 first of all, certain witnesses contain a dedication

1 See Carmen Codoñer’s brief but very clear presentation, “Problemas de transmisión en la primera parte de las Etimologías: algunas reflexiones,” in L’édition critique des œuvres d’Isidore de Séville. Les recensions multiples. Actes du colloque organisé à la Casa de Velázquez et à l’Université Rey Juan Carlos de Madrid (14–15 janvier 2002), eds. María Adelaida Andrés Sanz, Jacques Elfassi, and José Carlos Martín (Paris: 2008), 195–98. 2 Not only is the account below a mere sketch, but the reader should recall that extant manuscripts all bear some signs of contamination. For a discussion in greater depth, see the classic

246 Elfassi to King Sisebut (612–21); furthermore, in certain manuscripts, the first ten books (in the modern division into books) are divided into three books and there is a notable correlation between the copies that show signs of this division into three books and those dedicated to Sisebut. In all cases, in this first grouping of ten books, three (of the modern division into books) are problem- atic. Book 4 is missing from some manuscripts or appears in the second part of the Etymologies. Book 5 is sometimes in two parts (De legibus and De tempori- bus), and its final section (the chronicle in chapter 39) contains major variants. Some manuscripts contain only the second prologue of book 10. Although it involves going beyond the evidence of the manuscript tradition, it can also be noted that the contents of chapter 5.39 and of book 10 seem to confirm their heterogeneous character: chapter 5.39 is an abbreviated form of Isidore’s Chronicle, and book 10 is a kind of dictionary which is the only part of the Ety- mologies to be classified alphabetically. Carmen Codoñer suggested that Etym. 5.39 might contain the marks of a smaller independent work later inserted into the Etymologies.3 The same can be said for book 10.4 Finally, we should men- tion that several rather long passages (for example, 1.34–37 and 2.21.3–48) are found in only a few manuscripts, which might indicate intentional reworkings (by Isidore or others). Isidore’s correspondence with Braulio of Zaragoza is a source of other kinds of information. In letter ii, dated after 631,5 Braulio asks Isidore for a copy of the Etymologies, which he has heard has been completed. In letter iv, sent to Isidore in 632–33, Braulio writes that there is already an incomplete version of the Etymologies circulating among many people, and he reminds Isidore that he had already asked him for a copy of the work seven years ago (that is to say, around 625–26). In letter v, from the same period, Isidore replies, sending a copy of his work and explaining that, due to ill health, he has not been able to correct any errors, and asking that his friend do so.

article (still valid) by Marc Reydellet, “La diffusion des Origines d’Isidore de Séville au haut Moyen Âge,” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome 78 (1966), 383– 437; and the more recent review by Carmen Codoñer, “Isidorus Hispalensis ep., Etymologiae,” in La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo. Mediaeval Latin Texts and their Transmission, vol. 2, eds.. Paolo Chiesa and Lucia Castaldi (Florence: 2005), 274–99. 3 Carmen Codoñer, “El ‘De descriptione temporum’ de las ‘Etymologiae’ (5,39) dentro de la transmisión manuscrita de la ‘Chronica,’” Filologia mediolatina 20 (2013), 217–54. 4 See Carmen Codoñer, Introducción al Libro x de las “Etymologiae”: su lugar dentro de esta obra, su valor como diccionario (Logroño: 2002), 46. 5 For the numbering and dating of Braulio’s letters to Isidore, I follow the conclusions of Ruth Miguel Franco, “Introducción,” in Braulionis Caesaraugustani Epistulae et Isidori Hispalensis Epistulae ad Braulionem, ed. Ruth Miguel Franco (with the collaboration of José Carlos Mar- tín), ccsl 114B (Turnhout: 2018), 9*–56*.