^{page 17 note 1} e.g. Sutcliffe, E. F., ‘The Venerable Bede's Knowledge of Hebrew’, Biblica xvi (1935). 300–306Google Scholar. and esp. 300–1, where the Retractatio is used to show ‘that the Venerable Bede was well acquainted with Greek’.

^{page 18 note 1} Ed. Laistner, M. L. W., Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractalio (Cambridge, Mass., 1939) (hereafter Bede), p. 93Google Scholar. Bede used a bilingual manuscript for these revisions, almost certainly Bodleian MS. Laud Greek 35; cf. Bede, pp. xxxix–xl and the references there.

^{page 18 note 2} Bede, p. 113; cf. his similar remarks on Acts vii. 56, xx. 9, xxi. 39. In many, if not all, the manuscripts the Latin alphabet is used for Greek words.

^{page 18 note 3} Bede, p. 145. Jones, C. W., C.R. xlvi (1932), 248–249Google Scholar, says that Vegetius ii. 25 is the source, but MacDonald, G., C.R. xlvii (1933), 124Google Scholar, suggests that Bede used a glossary, not De re militari itself. There are in fact two relevant passages in Vegetius, ii. 25 and iii. 7: ‘Scafas quoque de singulis trabibus excauatas … secum legio portat, quatenus contextis eisdem, sicut dicunt, monoxylis, superiectis etiam tabulatis, flumina … transeantur’; ‘Sed commodius repertum est, ut monoxylos, hoc est paulo latiores scafulas ex singulis trabibus excauatas … secum portet exercitus.’ (Ed. C. Lang, Leipzig, 1885.)

^{page 18 note 4} The form of ‘μονοξ⋯λας’ is doubtful. Bede is freely paraphrasing, and the fem. acc. plur. may be meant for an adjective; or, if it is a noun and thus a mistake for a neut. acc. plur., the error may be scribal and not a reflection of Bede's intention. Vatican MS. 4493 of Vegetius (saec. xii; Lang, pp. xxxi–xxxii) has ‘monoxillas’ in 3. 7, and Bede's source may have been a manuscript of this type. (British Museum, Harley MS. 1915 [saec. xiii], fol. 192¹, has ‘monoxillas’ with the marginal correction ‘quasi diceret monixilla’ [sic].) But the similarity of De re militari ii. 25 and iii. 7 suggests that Vegetius was copying, not from himself, but from another source now lost, and it may be that Bede saw this source and not Vegetius at all.

^{page 18 note 5} Ed. Colgrave, Bertram, Felix's Life of St. Guthlac (Cambridge, 1956), p. 88 and note 20.Google Scholar