María Rosa Lida, who sees (La General Estoria... I, 111-112) Petrus Comestor as motivating «la inserción de la gran mayoría de las noticias extrabíblicas», considers as proof the increase in such noticias in both Alfonso and Petrus, having passed the Pentateuch, without noting that not only does Eusebius pass this test, but that he includes many items not found in Petrus Comestor.

Note the misreading of «Matica» for «in Attica».

O. H. Hauptmann, The General Estoria of Alfonso el Sabio and Escorial Biblical manuscript I. j. 8, HR, XIII, 1945, 45-59, demonstrates a number of errors occurring in both the GE and the Biblical manuscript mentioned. These could not be coincidental, or misreadings in a common Vulgate manuscript. He only examines a small portion, however (Deut. XXXII and XXXIII), and disavows any intent to question the Vulgate as the general source.

He likewise avoids speaking of Priapus, «por que... lo entendran assaz los entendudos» (I, 677), but includes the episode of Pasiphae (II, 1, 396b), which later copyists balked at.

I refer to the only modern edition of Petrus Comestor, that in Volume 198 of Migne's Patrologiae Latinae (henceforth abbreviated PL).

See Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., New York 1952, 56-60. The only modern edition is the inadequate one in the PL, Vols. 113-114, which abbreviates the longer commentaries. All material relative to the published text of the GE is found in Vol. 113.

See Smalley, pp. 60-64 on the problems involved.

I have omitted those times where his name appears in lists, as at I, 341b.

See María Rosa Lida, La General Estoria... I, 115.

As might be expected, considering his intellectual career, Alfonso attributes considerable importance to the translator of a work. In those cases when he knew the translator of a source, he often names him along with, or even in place of, the author.