name is required. The inference would rather be, that in the MS. in question the word Bedam had been inadvertently omitted.
I had already noticed this difficulty, when I accidentally referred to Mr. Hardy's edition of William of Malmesbury, where he gives a different reading of the same MS., which clears up the whole question. "From what is here stated, the tradition that Bede visited Rome met probably with supporters in Malmesbury 's time, though he does not seem to attach great weight to it. The letter of Pope Sergius, however, affords the strongest presumption that Bede was invited over: and the argument of the learned Wilkins assigns a probable reason why the journey was not undertaken: he thinks that the letter was written in the last year of the pontificate of Sergius (A.D. 701), and conjectures that the subsequent arrival of messengers in England with tidings of the pontiff's decease occasioned Beda to relinquish his purposed journey. An opinion, however, has been lately expressed, that 'the story of Beda's summons to Rome is founded upon an error committed by Malmesbury, who, having met with a letter in which Pope Sergius requested Ceolfrid, Abbot of Jarrow, to send one of his monks to Rome, concluded that Beda was that individual, and most unjustifiably inserted his name therein.' In support of this
