74 Dan Batovici this case, at the outset, the possibility that the Johannine variants he is mentioning as Greek variants are altered in the transmission history of the commentary. The Greek reading as recovered in the analysis is offered first, followed by the relevant Eriugenian text in Latin and English translation (O’Meara’s for the Hom., my own for the Comm.), and then by a discussion of and argument for the proposed reading. The formatting of the Latin text is that of the CCCM edition: the citation proper of the Johannine text is given in small caps when in Latin, and in all caps when in Greek. Jn 1:2 αὐτὸς [ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν Hom. vi. [...] Hoc erat in principio apvd devm. Ac si diceret: Hoc uer- bum, quod deus est apud deum, ipsum est, et non aliud, quod erat in principio. Sed significantius ex graecorum exemplaribus potest intelligi. In eis enim ΑΥΤΟC scribitur, id est ‘hic’, et potest referri ad utrumque, ad uerbum uidelicet et ad deum; haec quippe duo nomina, ‘theos’ et ‘logos’ (deus et uerbum) apud graecos masculini generis sunt. Ac per hoc, ita potest intelligi: Et deus erat uerbum, hic erat in princi- pio apud deum, tamquam si luce clarius dixerit: Hic deus uerbum apud deum ipse est de quo dixi: In principio erat verbvm. “This was in the Principle with God.” As if he said: ‘This Word, which is God with God, is the same as and not other than what was in the Principle.’ This meaning can be seen more clearly in the Greek manus- cripts. There the term αὐτός is written, that is, ‘he himself,’ and this can refer to both, that is, to the Word and to God; for these two nouns theos and logos, God and Word, are masculine gender in Greek. And for this reason one can in this way understand: ‘and the Word was God, he was in the Principle with God,’ as if he said more clearly than light: ‘this God-Word with God is the same of whom I said: “In the Principle was the Word.”’18 Eriugena is explicitly and confidently presenting here the variant αὐτὸς for the οὗτος of Jn 1:2, a variant that does not seem to appear in any other witness we have. Both the Italian and the French editor of the homily see it as belonging to the Greek gospel manuscript used by Eriugena; perhaps overconfidently, since other scenarios are equally possible. For instance, he could have found it in a Patristic or lectionary manuscript. In fact, there is no way to ascertain in any of the cases presented here whether the reading Eriugena quotes comes from a Patristic or gospel manuscript. 18 Translation from O’Meara, Eriugena, 162.