theDe opificio hominisof Gregory of Nyssa, and the
Solutiones ad Chosroemby Prisicianus Lydus, which
was doubtless the source of John’s citations of Aris-
totle. He apparently also made his own translations of
the passages cited from Epiphanius’s Ancoratus.
Although John Scottus is admired today princi-
pally for his two works, the De praedestinationeand
thePeriphyseon, his activity as a scholar was highly
diverse, comprising learning aids, commentaries and
scholia collections, translations, and original compo-
sitions. John moved easily between secular and reli-
gious material. Grammar (in the broadest sense of
the word) appears to have been his foundational dis-
cipline. Among the learning aids that can be linked
to John is an edition of Macrobius’s treatise De dif-
ferentiis et societatibus graeci latinique uerbi. It is
also likely that John contributed to the paradigms of
Greek words found in the famous codex Laon 444,
edited by his colleague Martin. Another manuscript,
British Library, MS Harley 2688, also contains Greek
paradigms and a word list transmitted under the name
“IWANHC.”
Tolist John’s activity as a scholiast and commen-
tator is not easy, since some scholia appear in manu-
scripts mixed with scholia by other writers and because
some attributions are disputed. Four fully fledged
commentariesone scriptural, one patristic, and two
secularcan be attributed to John with certainty. The
first is his commentary on the Gospel of John, on
whose prologue Eriugena also wrote a homily. While
the commentary survives in a single manuscript with
corrections and additions in his own hand, the homily
appears in fifty-four manuscripts; clearly the latter
work was the most influential of all John’s composi-
tions during the Middle Ages. His commentary on the
Celestial Hierarchyof Pseudo-Dionysius was based
on his own translation of the work but shows a deeper
grasp of Greek. The third commentary, the Annota-
tiones in Marcianum (Capellam), surviving in two
chief recensions, is usually thought to be an early
work. It was surely intended to be a complete com-
mentary on one of the most-studied authors of the early
Middle Ages, but large parts of it consist of only brief
scholia. It is remarkable in its day for its classical
erudition and offers insights into Eriugena’s exegetical
methods that have not been fully explored. The fourth
commentary is on Priscian’s Institutionesand is not
yet edited. Other commentaries have been assigned to
John, namely one on Boethius’s opuscula sacraand
another on the poet Prudentius.
Various scholia collections must also be considered.
The recent demonstration that the so-called Glossae
divinae historiaewere indeed written by John contrib-
utes to the appreciation of our author as a pedagogue.
The scholia, consisting primarily of “hard words”
drawn from both the Old and New Testaments, are
explained (usually but not always correctly) by “eas-
ier” Latin, by Irish, or, less helpfully, by Greek! The
collection can be studied with profit for clues to John’s
Irish education. Other scholia sets also represent recent
discoveries. It is now recognized that the copy of Pris-
cian, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS B.P.L. 67,
written by the Irishman Dubthach in 838, contains
numerous glosses and scholia in the hand of Eriugena
(now firmly identified as i-1). Of special interest
regarding John’s classical enthusiasms is the fact that
he recopied Priscian’s citations of Homer and other
ancient Greek authors in the margins of several folios
of this manuscript and attempted to translate them into
Latin. John also left some scholia to the “philosophical”
sections of Book 6 of Vergil’s Aeneid. These appear in
an Irish miscellany of scholia to classical Latin poets:
Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 363. John is also credited
(not wholly implausibly) with a life of Vergil.
John’s translations of Greek patristic works and of
Priscianus Lydus have been mentioned above. To these
might be added a translation of the gospels in St. Gall,
Stiftsbibliothek, MS 48, which some scholars assign
to the circle of Sedulius. In any case, the interlinear
Latin translation of the Greek text (both were written
in an Irish hand) bears witness to Irish biblical schol-
arship in the mid-ninth century. The translation, which
cannot be classified by a siglum, was specially com-
posed to serve as a crib to the Greek text to enable the
most industrious scholars of the day to appreciate the
original.
Of John’s free-standing compositionsthecarmina
(poems),De praedestinatione, and Periphyseonthe
carminaare exceptionally valuable for what they tell
us about John’s enthusiasm, friendships, and attitudes,
his passion for Greek, his affection and respect for his
king, even his undisguised anti-Jewish attitudes. They
also record events of the day: the civil war of 858,
Charles the Bald’s donation to the abbey of St. Denis
(867), and the king’s plan to construct a major church
dedicated to St. Mary at Compiègne (870).
TheDe praedestinatione was commissioned by
Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, to combat the imputed
heresy of Godescalc (Gottschalk of Orbais), who
argued that God predestined not only the elect but also
the damned and denied any notion of free will, even
the efficacy of the sacraments, since they could offer
no help to those already condemned. Eriugena’s refu-
tation of Godescalc apparently went too far in the
direction of asserting free will, for it inspired attacks
by Prudentius of Troyes and Florus of Lyon and led
to the official condemnations mentioned above. Inter-
estingly, Eriugena’s work reveals his deep knowledge
of Augustine, for John used passages from Augustine
to refute Godescalc’s claims for double predestination!ÉRIUGENA, JOHN SCOTTUS (fl. 848–870)