-
April
The 'Lost' Sirmond Manuscript of Bede's ' Computus'
IN his great compendium of chronology,l Petavius relied on
published sources, especially Scaliger, but also introduced
new material from manuscripts in Paris or transcripts sent by
friends. The bulk of this material was drawn from a manuscript of
Pere Sirmond [S]. Despite Petavius' reticence, customary in the
seventeenth century, we know from statements scattered through the
two volumes and the appendix of texts at the end of the second
volume that the manuscript contained the Prologue and complete
tables of Victorius of Aquitaine, the inventor of the 532 year
Easter-table and the first Latin adapter of the Metonic cycle.2 It
also contained the Prologues of Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria,
a letter of Cyril, the spurious Canon of Anatolius, letters of
Dionysius Exiguus on Easter, and a 'farrago of computistical
information .3 There can be no doubt from his statements that
Petavius, who was thoroughly versed in the available manuscript
material, thought that S provided a unique and valuable testimony.
This same manuscript was the primary source for Bucherius in his
text and commentary on Victorius (Antwerp, 1634); he, too, borrowed
the manuscript from Sirmond.4 Bucherius emended the texts Petavius
had published and added other texts from the same manuscript.
Krusch correctly in- ferred 5 that Bucherius treated his source
with great freedom, although, as we now know, he departed from S
primarily in those works already published; in the new texts he
held to his ex- emplar, especially for the pseudo-Anatolian Canon.6
The complete
1 De Doctrina Temporum, 2 vols., folio, Paris, 1627. 2 See esp.
vol. i. 227, 538, 559, 583, 592, and the Prologue (pages
unnumbered) and
Appendix, pp. 871-88, to vol. ii. 3' Vetus Codex, qui est penes
P. Sirmondum, quae est farrago Computisticarum
disputationum ', i. 583. 4 Krusch's surmise (Studien, p. 210)
that Bucherius saw the manuscript in the year 1615 is not supported
by the facts. The few corrections of Krusch to follow should not
veil the fact that I am everywhere indebted to his invaluable work.
5 Studien, p. 85.
6 Bucherius (p. 494), while his book was in press, came across a
' codex S. Augendi', by which he corrected the proof in places.
Professor A. Van de Vyver has recently drawn my attention to
Montpellier MS., Ecole de Medecine 157, which I have not seen.
204
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
1937 MANUSCRIPT OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '
work of Victorius, with tables emended, remained the primary
source of knowledge of the tables until Krusch came across Gotha
MS. 75 (saec. vii).1
S then disappeared. At all events Noris, Hoffman and Jan,
Ideler, and Jaff6 corrected Bucherius by inference, and Hagen
published two volumes of correction and surmise without con-
sulting a manuscript.2 Sirmond's collection passed into the Jesuit
college at his death and was dispersed by auction in the year 1764.
Krusch3 surmised that no. 632 in the auction catalogue might be the
missing manuscript, but that work is a computus composed in the
ninth century, whereas S seemed to come from earlier antecedents.4
S was not listed in the catalogue.
Krusch, following Hagen, skilfully reconstructed S by in-
ference and a comparison of Petavius and Bucherius. He sur- mised
that Bern MS. 610 might be the missing manuscript (p. 246); it
contained certain elements similar to S, and several gatherings are
now missing that might have contained other similar material. Later
Krusch chanced on Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. Lat. 16361 [P], which seemed
to him close to S; but his examination was cursory.5 Since there
were obviously parts missing after p. 18 and p. 288, any argument
for Bern 610 would hold equally for P, for the readings were
equally close to S. But the rubricator stopped work at p. 176 and
the contents thereafter were difficult to isolate; since no tables
followed the Prologue of Victorius, where they logically should
have been, Krusch assumed P was not S.6 From a passage quoted by
Bucherius (p. 438) from S, Krusch (Studien, p. 211) deduced that
the manu- script or its exemplar was written A.D. 865 or later; his
reasoning is not clear, but since the passage is found verbatim in
Geneva
This manuscript certainly appears to be the one referred to, if
we can judge by the wretched catalogue description (Cat. Gen. des
MSS. Bibl. Pub. 1 [1849], 347-8). It contains letters of Leo,
Proterius, Paschasinus, Cyril, Dionysius, and extracts of Paschal
discussions from Bede's history, but no Anatolius. The 'Goffridi
abbatis epistola' is evidently the letter of Abbot Ceolfrid in
Bede, Hist. Eccl. v. 21. There are some undescribed cycles. 1
Mommsen, Chronica Minora (Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant.), i.
672-3.
2 See, e.g., Observationes (Amsterdam, 1733), p. 367, and Diss.
in Cyclis (1734) throughout. Many times he says, as on p. 43: ' An
Bucherius ita in suo MSt? legerit, dubito; mihi potius videtur
correctio Bucheriana'.
3p. 84. 'Cyclus decennovenalis Latinorum, Grecorum, Victorii et
Eusebii.' A table
of Paschal terms in four columns headed 'Latinorum, Grecorum,
Victorii, Eusebii', is found in Berlin MS., Preuss. Bibl. 131
(saec. ix), fo. 128; Vatican MS., Regin. 309, fo. 74 ; Paris, Bibl.
Nat. MS., Lat. 7296, fo. 1lyv; and in other manuscripts of purely
Carolingian origin. The table of terms, of course, was a
decennovenal cycle. 5 Neues Archiv, x (1885). 84 ff. 6 How hurried
was his examination is shown by his publishing a pseudo-Jerome
letter from P and advancing the theory that it was the work of
Columban (Neues Archiv, x. 84-8), although five years before he had
correctly described the letter and named its published source
(Studien, p. 204).
205
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
206 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
MS. 50 [G], fo. 130v, which was written about the year 800 and
certainly not later than 805, the deduction must have been faulty.
Mommsen, who relied on Bucherius when he re-edited Vic- torius,
consulted over seven hundred manuscripts of chronicles; 1 it
amounts to a comedy of errors (none of them his) that S and its
related manuscript G escaped him.
In studying the computistical manuscripts of Bede, I have used a
number that contain a part of the material of S, but four of them
form a family undoubtedly in the direct tradition: Vatican,
Rossiana Lat. 247, saec. xi [R] ; Paris, Bibl. Nat. Lat. 16361
(Sorb. 283), saec. xi [P]; Geneva, Bibl. de la Universite 50, saec.
ix [G]; and Oxford, Bodl. 309 (Western 8837), saec. xi [S]. Of
these, the last-named is unquestionably the codex of Petavius and
Bucherius, as collations of texts and a catalogue of the contents
show.
P alone was known to Krusch and Mommsen, by whom it was
adequately described; only a comparatively small part of S is
contained in it. R, whose scribe copied only a few items from the S
family, has not yet been catalogued in print; with other
manuscripts of de Rossi it entered the Vatican since the war, but
it seems to have escaped all comment. It is not found in the old
Rossiana catalogues, although another computistical manuscript
containing Bede's works is properly listed.2 G has been neglected
in late years and the ecstatic article of Senebier,3 who suggested
that it might be the personal property of Bede, still remains the
most complete description. He summarized earlier articles. Pertz
later mentioned G4 and published the annals 5 without giving a
clear idea of the contents. G was written at the Benedictine
monastery of St. Martin at Massai, near Bourges, probably in the
year 804 since the scribe num- bered annalistic lines 805-64 which
were never filled in. A second hand has entered annals of Massai on
the Easter-cycles, A.D. 732-824, and later hands continue the
annals to A.D. 1013. Fos. 170V-174v, in later hands, do not concern
us.
S is the only one of the four manuscripts to give Victorius'
tables. They had passed from popular use long before A.D. 800, and
only the fortunate antiquarian interest 6 or mental laziness of the
scribe preserved them for Bucherius.
S was purchased by the Bodleian in 1698 with Professor 1
Chronica Minora, iii. 697-715. 2 See Jeanne Bignami-Odier in
Milanges de l'Vcole Frangaise de Rome, li (1934).
226-7, and the literature she cites. 3 Cat. des MSS. de Geneve
(1779), pp. 126-41. 4Archiv, vii (1839). 177.
5 Mon. Germ. Hist. Scriptores, iii. 169-70. 6 Even the hand is
archaic, a Carolingian miniscule deceptive at first glance. It
may have led Petavius to think the manuscript ' very old '.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '
Bernard's collection.1 Bernard's researches in weights and
measures probably account for its presence in his library. I am
unable to verify Dr. Rose Graham's assertion 2 that Andre Duchesne
made a transcript before 1635 at the Abbaye de la Trinite at
Vendome of the annals of the monastery contained in S; the annals
were not published until after Duchesne's death. It may be that he
interested Sirmond in the manuscript; in the seventeenth century
many manuscripts from Vendome filtered away to various collections
in Paris,3 for some of the best and least scrupulous scholars of
the period made a practice of permanently borrowing abbey
manuscripts. Miss Graham is, so far as I know, the only recent
scholar to use the manuscript in the Bodleian. Jan, who collated
Digby 63 for his edition of Dionysius, consulted other manuscripts
in the library, including the late and uncertain Auct. F. 3, 14
(Bodl. F. NE. 3, 5). Had he consulted S his text for the formulae,
which are badly transmitted, would have been much improved; but he
never used it. Nor was S used by the editors of Victorius' Calculus
or Boethius' Arithmetic, or by the indefatigable MacCarthy, who
searched for early Irish computis- tical material in the Bodleian.
S came into the Bodleian the year after the publication of the Old
Catalogue (1697); it was not in- cluded in the Quarto Catalogues,
and was very badly described in the Summary Catalogue (iii [1895].
13). Neither Victorius nor Dionysius, for example, is
mentioned.
It has long been evident that the Paschal controversy of the
seventh century developed computistic knowledge in England and
Ireland to a far higher point of interest and skill than was known
on the Continent for several centuries previous, and that English
scholars rescued many neglected works from Continental libraries
which became the basis for their studies. It becomes evident, too,
to a reader of Bede, that his primary source of information was a
computus of letters, excerpts, fragments, &c., very much
resembling extant Carolingian computi like Berlin MS. 128, St.
Gallen MS. 248, and Munich MS. 210 in make-up, but not in con-
tent. In these computistic notebooks the excerpts and letters,
frequently anonymous, were subjected to the maltreatment suffered
by all notebooks or working manuals that pass through the hands of
several copyists.4 Perhaps it is easiest to condemn all tracts
in
1 Possibly no. 7538(192), ' Victorii Aquitani Chronicon
Paschale', in Bernard's Cat. MSS. Angliae (1697), p. 228. He bought
many manuscripts on the Continent. His Latin MSS, 'with hardly an
exception', came from Nicholas Heinsius' library, as Dr. Craster
kindly informs me.
2 Ante, xiii (1898). 695-700. 3 H. Omont, Cat. Bibl. Vend6me, p.
395. 4 A comparative study of Carolingian computi, which exist in
profusion, shows us
how easily these errors, interpolations, and false ascriptions
occur. After an examina- tion of Oxford MS., Digby 63, fos. 70-1, I
believe I can explain the false ascription of
1937 207
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
208 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
which there are discrepancies as spurious, but such action leads
to confusion. Bernard MacCarthy 1 condemned twelve as 'for-
geries'! Most of them were supposed to have been written in
Ireland.2 That in the heat of the Paschal controversy at least two
documents were forged (asserted to be what they were not) is
unquestioned; but surely it is impossible for so large a body of
fraud to live undetected in a land where, according to the
testimony of Ceolfrid,3 'numerous scholars could compose a 532-year
cycle '. English scholars of the seventh century produced a
workable cycle, based on Alexandrian principles, that formed the
basis for all medieval chronology. For five centuries thereafter
nothing of primary importance was added to computistical science,
and what additions there were were refinements of detail, not
changes in structure. Inevitably, therefore, we must look for the
materials on which they based their work. In any reconstruction of
texts we have the witness of Bede, who has as yet proved unimpeach-
able.4
By a study of S we can in large part recover the computus used
by Bede and his forerunners. A catalogue of the contents of S,
citing parallel manuscripts and printed editions, is appended
below. Of the many computistical manuscripts I have examined, only
the following contain our material and are directly or in- directly
to be traced to Britain:
[L] London, Brit. Mus., Cotton Caligula A XV, sazc. viii
(Thompson, Cat. Anc. MSS. ii. 66; Lowe, Cod. Lat. Ant. ii. 19 [no.
183]).
[0] Oxford, Bodl. Lib., Digby 63, saec. ix (Macray, Cat. Bibl.
Bodl. ix. 64). [C] Cologne, Dombibliothek, 83", c. 805 (Krusch,
Studien, pp. 195-205;
Leslie Jones, Script of Cologne, pp. 37-40). [M] Milan,
Ambrosiana, H 150 Inf., c. 810 (printed in full in Patr. Lat.
cxxix. 1273-1372 [Liber de Computo] from Muratori, Anec. Lat.,
Tom. iii; Krusch, pp. 206-9).
[D] Leyden, Scaliger 28, saec. ix (Jaffe in Abh. d. Kon. Sdch.
Gesellschaft, phil.-hist. Classe, iii [1861]. 677-89).
the continuation of Dionysius' cycle to Felix of Gillitanus, as
I was not able to do before (Speculum, ix (1934). 415-17). Krusch
(Studien, p. 207) was misled by M into believing two paragraphs
formed the prologue to the continuation. In Digby 63 there is no
mention of Felix, and but one paragraph, which bears the rubric
'Suc- cessor dionisi '. Jan took the name Felix from its single
occurrence on the single paragraph in the Codex Rhemensis, which
has apparently disappeared. As it is anonymous in the Digby MS., so
was it anonymous to Ceolfrid (Bede, Hist. Eccl. v. 21), who assumed
that Dionysius composed ten cycles, instead of five. The name '
Felix of Gillitanus ' seems almost certainly to have been attached
to the preceding Easter-cycle as an obit, with only an identifying
mark to show to what year it belonged. From there it was attached
to one paragraph in Jan's manuscript and then to a second
paragraph, which has nothing to do with the continuation, in the
Milan MS.
1 Annals of Ulster, Introduction in vol. iv (1901). 2 But see
Esposito in Hermathena, xlv (1930). 235. 3 Bede, Hist. Eccl. v. 21.
4A possible misrepresentation is considered in Speculum, ix (1934).
412 ff.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S 'COMPUTUS'
[B] Bern, 610, saec. x (Hagen, Cat. Cod. Bernensis, p. 478).
[Be] Besan9on, 186, saec. ix (Castan, MSS. Bibl. de BesanFon, i.
127-8). [Ba] Basel, F III 15k, saec. ix (Christ, Die Bibl. des
Klosters Fulda, p. 168). [V] Vatican, Vaticani Lat. 642, saec. xi1
(Vattasso and de' Cavalieri, Cod.
Vat. Lat. i. 492). We can at once eliminate S's items 1-2,
10-12, and 46-54 as they
appear in the appended catalogue. The remaining items fall into
two books, 3-9 and 13-45. These two groups are found in separate
classes of manuscripts, with the only overlapping in the Sirmond
group (S, G, R, P) and a single item (5) contained in C and Munich
MS. 14456, in corrupt form. The second group, which is, of course,
complete only in S, is nearly complete in G and partially contained
in P, R, L, O, C, M, D, Be, and B.
No trace of a debt to any of Bede's works is found in the first
group, nor does Bede show any knowledge of it. The latest author
quoted is Isidore (Etymologiae, A.D. 627). The last possible date
of composition is A.D. 804, when G was written. But since one piece
is found in C, and since collation of S and G shows that they were
derived from a common exemplar, and not S from G, the date must be
placed before 800. Absence of all reference to Bede's works
(Isidore is constantly mentioned) suggests an early date, for
Bede's works appear to have been in every school by the end of the
eighth century. Moreover, it would appear that all the items were
written in Ireland, at least before A.D. 718 and prob- ably in the
seventh century, since Munich MS. 14456, from an exemplar written
in Ireland in 718, contains Item 5 in another recension.2 Its
presence in C helps us to place the background of C. Item 6
contains the only known quotation from pseudo- Morinus (Item 24)
outside the letter of Cummian (Ireland, A.D. 632).3 The composer of
Item 6 must have had access to at least a part of the second book
(Items 13-45). If the first book was added to the second book, as
was probably the case, it must have
1 Saec. xii in catalogue. 2 MacCarthy, op. cit. iv. lxvii ff.
There is, of course, no foundation for MacCarthy's statement that
the Augustine referred to is the Irish Augustine (whose very
existence is hypothetical). His work, except for a casual reference
to the Victorian cycle, had nothing to do with Paschal reckoning.
The specious similarity (p. lxx, n. 1) arises from two authors
using a common and well-known source. Cummian's reference to
Augustine is the first of a series of such references that stretch
through the Middle Ages; it refers to some gathering of passages
from the work of Augustine of Hippo that related to matters
mathematical. One such set of passages is Item 4; it is barely
possible that this particular work is meant, in which case we would
have to put its date of composition even earlier. Nor is
MacCarthy's induction (p. lxix) sound that 'we ' necessarily means
Irish.
3 In following Kenney, I erroneously stated (Speculum, ix. 417,
n. 2) that the unique Cotton MS. of Cummian was lost. I have since
examined it (Brit. Mus. MS., Cotton Vitell. A. XII (12), fos.
79r-83r); although the margins are burned and some words are
illegible it attests the accuracy of Ussher's transcript. It is
correctly entered in the Cotton (1802) Catalogue (p. 380). More
recently I have seen the article of M. Esposito, Hermathena, xlv
(1930). 240-5, who gives variants from the manuscript.
VOL. LII.-NO. CCVI. O
1937 209
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
210 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
been added after the exemplars of O, L, M, and D-Be had been
made, and almost certainly after Bede (A.D. 725) or in some region
remote from him. Items 3-9 are in the same order in S, G, P, and R,
no one of which was copied from another. It is fair in judging S,
therefore, to assume that two or three whole books were joined in
making it, and that it does not contain a variety of selections
from many exemplars, as is undoubtedly the form of C.
The second group, Items 13-45, comprise many separate works and
might have come from more than one source. But G and S contain
virtually the same material in the same order, and many of the
items are in the same order in L, which was written well before the
end of the eighth century and appears to have come from a pre-Bedan
exemplar. A study of the manuscripts of this second group shows how
definite is the Insular background, although all but one were
written on the Continent. M (from Bobbio) contains a unique Irish
Easter cycle. D, C, and G have definite Insular characteristics of
handwriting and abbreviation. O, which was written at Winchester or
Canterbury, A.D. 867, surprisingly contains no allusions to Bede's
works, although it contains many of the works Bede used. Except for
certain manu- scripts of this group (0, L, and Munich 14456), no
computistical manuscript I have examined fails somewhere to reveal
its debt to Bede. It is definitely possible that 0 is a copy of a
manuscript written before A.D. 725. 0 and C are the only known
manuscripts to contain an anonymous Paschal work published by
Krusch (Studien, pp. 227-44). This work certainly appears to be the
one described by Bede in his Letter to Plegwin,l although Levison 2
rejects this belief without stating his reasons. Since Bede had not
seen the manuscript since his boyhood, it was not in the Jarrow
library and could not have been in his computus. 0, from its
content, seems to represent a computus used in southern England in
the early eighth century, as does L.
But in transferring our attention to content, the evidence is
more striking. Items 21, 22, 24, and 25, according to Krusch,
MacCarthy, and others, were written in Britain. In addition, Items
18-20, 33, 43, and 44 were known to the Irish, as evinced by the
letter of Cummian. An investigation of the sources of Bede's De
Temporum Ratione reveals that he has used Items 14 (D.T.R., Chap.
193), 18 and 19 (47, 56), 20 (44), 22 (30), 25 (47), 27 (21), 28
(44), 31 (59, 61 as in S, not Krusch's text), 33 (42), 40 (51), 43
(42, 51), and 44 (47). This leaves only five items (16, 17, 29, 30,
34) unaccounted for except for formulae and excerpts either too
short or too common in mnanuscripts to be traced.
1 To be re-edited with Bede's other computistical works. 2 A.
Hamilton Thompson, Bede, p. 115. 3 I am not attempting here to give
an exhaustive list of Bede's citations.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '
Item 16, Exemplum Boni, despite the arguments of MacCarthy,
appears to be an authentic notation sent to Pope John. The only
scholars of the period who were using the papal archives were the
English. If the letter was not ' published ' at the time it was
written, it would appear to have been copied for the English during
the course of their Paschal contentions. The presence of the rubric
alone in S and the absence of the work in G suggests that P and R,
which both contain the text, must have broken away from SG quite
early. The letter attributed to Jerome was assumed by Krusch from
its style to have been written by the Irish. It is not found
outside our group of manuscripts (P, C, G, L, V) to my
knowledge.
Item 17, a letter of Paschasinus to Pope Leo, travelled with the
letters of Dionysius Exiguus and the translation of the letter of
Proterius, since Dionysius drew it from the archives.1 Of Item 29
nothing is known to me; it is contained in S and G and may trace
back only as far as their common exemplar. Item 30 has some- times
been inaccurately catalogued as De Temporum Ratione, Chap. I. A
comparison of the two shows that, although basically the same, De
Temporum Ratione contains illustrative material drawn from the
Fathers, games for Bede's students, and an ex- tension and
clarifying of some passages. Bede's chapter was often adapted by
scribes who eliminated the patristic references and the games, but
nowhere, except in this group of manuscripts and some late
manuscripts derived from them, are Bede's enumerations altered.
Since it is found in L, which otherwise contains only pre-Bedan
material, it would appear that Item 30 was Bede's source, instead
of deriving from Bede.
Item 34 can, however, clearly be traced. It has long been
assumed that Bede knew the works of Macrobius,2 but I have
previously noted that he knew only Saturnalia, i. 12-15. A com-
parison of the excerpts in Item 34 with the Macrobius passages in
Bede's works shows, however, that he only knew this group of
excerpts, almost all of which he quoted, but not one word more.
Moreover, collation of passages shows beyond doubt that S and
Bede's excerpts come from a common source. S is now the only
complete manuscript of these excerpts, since part of a page of G
has been torn out.3
Apparently, then, S (Items 13-45) is a transcript of a computus
used in the school at Jarrow when Bede was teaching there. Despite
its late date, the tradition seems clear and reasonably accurate,
and from it can be derived a fair notion of the material on which
the English based their Paschal calculations. That this
1 Krusch, pp. 246-7. 2 Werner, Beda, pp. 125-6, and later works.
3 The variants from S will be included in my edition of Bede's
computistical works.
1937 211
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
212 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
complete copy of an early and partially antiquated computus
should have been made in the eleventh century is remarkable. We
have noted how G, written over two and a half centuries earlier,
elimin- ated the tables of Victorius because they were no longer
useful; P and R show the steadily increasing elimination. This fact
and the comparative accuracy of the texts in S suggest that the
exem- plar was very early and that the scribe wished to preserve
the material for its historic value.
It will be noted that all the works that have given rise to the
term ' Irish Forgeries' are in S except one, a tract known as
pseudo-Athanasius. This work appears in M and C, but in no other
manuscript of our series or of English provenance. Muratori, who
edited M, sent it to Bernard de Montfaucon to publish in his
edition of Athanasius, ii. 471 (Migne, Patr. Gr. xxviii. 1605-10).
Krusch collated both manuscripts for his edition.1 One sentence
agreed verbatim with Item 25, and some other material was similar.
Having 'proved' that Item 25 was an Irish Forgery, Krusch
necessarily assumed that pseudo-Athanasius was also written in
Ireland. The Paschal criteria, based on the 84-year cycle once used
throughout the West, were employed in Ireland in the seventh
century. The attribution to an Eastern bishop in the Milan MS. (the
tract was anonymous in C) probably persuaded Krusch more than any
other consideration. Unfortunately he did not know Karlsruhe MS.
229 (saec. ix) or Carpentras MS. 1792 (saec. xv), which is possibly
a copy of an ancient computus from Limoges; neither manuscript
shows Insular traits, and in each the tract is attributed to
Jerome. As Krusch observed, the tract differed from other
fabrications in being intelligible; the others were purposely vague
in the hope that the name of the Eastern bishop would be sufficient
protection against criticism.
Unknown to Krusch, Florez had already published the work from
two Spanish manuscripts, one at Madrid, the other at Toledo, as an
authentic work of Martin of Braga.2 Yet earlier it had been
published by the unreliable Tamayo Salazar from an unknown
manuscript.3 In the two manuscripts of Florez, the work appears as
one of a number of tracts of Martin. One passage parallels, in part
verbatim, Martin's De Correctione Rusticorum, Chap. 10.4 Moreover,
there is a verbal identity between pseudo-Athanasius and Item 33,
which according to Krusch (pp. 88-98) was composed
1 Studien, pp. 328-35. 2 EspaCia Sagrada, xv (1759). 413-17. Cf.
xv. 383. 3 Anamnesis, ii (1652). 325-8. He cited manuscripts for
some other works. 4 C. P. Caspari, Martin von Bracara's Schrift,
pp. xlvi-l, advances cogent arguments
that the work is authentically Martin's. A. E. Burn (Niceta of
Remesiana, pp. cxxv- cxxxi, 92-107) has combined the texts of
Krusch and Florez in an unsuccessful attempt to show that the tract
is the lost De Agni Paschalis Victina of Niceta (saec. iv). See Dr.
Wilhelm Paten, Niceta (Munich, 1909), p. 23; Bardenhewer,
Geschichte (2nd edn.), iii. 601.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '
in Spain. His reasoning, as with Item 25, is based on tenuous
ground, but it is safe to assume that Item 33 was not composed in
Ireland. There is no allusion to or quotation from pseudo-
Athanasius in the works of Bede, and we know how completely Bede
used available Irish material. Although it is possible that the
text of M was 'edited ' in Ireland, we can hardly continue to call
the tract an 'Irish Forgery '.
The following graph illustrates the interrelation of contents in
the manuscripts discussed: it is not based on variant readings:
Items 6-9 Items 4-5 Anon. Comp. V Dijon 448 Krusch, pp. 227 f.
?
/ I /\ Munich 14456 English D, Be
/ Computus
/ 0C M L
Items 4-9 Bede's Cooputus Ba Items 13-45
S Group (S, G, P, R) Items 4-9 with Prologue (Item 3) added
Items 13-45
Bern 610, &c.
THE CONTENTS OF OXFORD MS., Bodl. 309 1. Fos. 3V-61v. 'Incipit
prefacio bedae presbiteri De natura rerum
et ratione-mereamur accipere palmam.' Bede's De Temp. Rat. with
Chronicle and last chaps. (Giles, Bedae Opera Omnia, vi. 139-342;
Pat. Lat. xc. 293-578). Chap. 15 ('De Mensibus Anglorum') is
missing (see Item 50) as in MSS. Brit. Mus. Regius B XIX, Munich
18158, and other MSS. related to either. G, fos. 45r-120 ;1 R, fos.
70r-140r (without Chronicle or last chaps.); P, pp. 27-212. All
from different families. 2. Fo. 61V. A list of Greek numbers. 3.
Fo. 62rv. Prologue and Capitula of an unpublished computus:
'De numero igitur-De victorio et dionisio. De boetio. De
calculo.' The capitula, probably 55, are run together and
unnumbered. They may refer to Items 4-6, which are in the same
order in G, fos. 135v-153r; R, fos. 152v-176r; P, pp. 248-88.
4. Fos. 62v-64v. 'Incipiunt sententiae sci. agustini et isidori
in laude 1 The texts of the three works of Bede in this manuscript
are in a later hand,
possibly saec. ix exeunte. Fos. 45r-46r have been added still
later in saec. ix and contain De Temporum Ratione, Preface and
Capitula. The text is related to manu- scripts of the St. Gallen
group.
1937 213
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
214 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
compoti, Augustinus dixit de quattuor -'. Printed as 'De Computo
Dialogus' in the spurious works of Bede, Pat. Lat. xc. 647-52. from
Hervagius' folio (1563) edition, i. 111 ff. See Item 5.
5. Fos. 64v-73V. 'Item de xiiii divisionibus temporum.' At first
identical with Pat. Lat. xc. 653-64 (' De Divisionibus Temporum
Liber '), from Hervagius, i. 117 ff., but departs at P.L. xc. 657B
and continues with full discussion of 14 units of time. Unpublished
in this version. Items 4, 5 in Ba, fos. 21r-34V, and Dijon 448
(saec. xii), fos. 29-37. Another version of 5, also unpublished, in
C, fos. 37r-44r, and Munich 14456, fos. 17r ff.
6a. Fos. 74r-76r. 'Incipit de bissexto, De bissexto primum-'.
Froben, Alcuini Opera, ii. 365-7, from Vatican MS. Regin. 226; Pat.
Lat. ci. 993 (from Froben). Ba, fos. 52r-55V; V, fos. 83r-85v.
b. Fos. 76r-78r. 'Nunc de saltu lunae perspiciendum est quomodo
crescit per xviiii annos, De saltu lunae pauca dicamus. De hoc
ergo- dicitur. Huc usque de saltu.' Froben, ii. 358-61 (Pat. Lat.
ci. 984-9). Ba, fos. 49r-52r; V, fos. 85V-87v.
7. Fo. 78r-v. ' Argumentum de saltu lunae monstrando, Si scire
volueris quomodo dies lunaris-qui dicitur saltus.' Froben, ii. 361
(Pat. Lat. ci. 989-90).
8. Fo. 78v. 'Argumentum de materia bissexti id est de quadrante,
Si ergo nosse vis-et vi hor. Huc usque de bissexto haec pauca
diximus.' Froben, ii. 367-8 (Pat. Lat. ci. 998-9). Ba, fos.
52r-55V.
9. Fos. 78v-79r. ' Si nosse desideras augmentum lunare-in
augmento noctis.' Not in Froben. Ba, fo. 57r.
10. Fos. 79r-80r. Without heading: 'Annus solis continetur-deo
soli secula.' Published as authentic work of Bede by Giles, i. 54-5
(Pat. Lat. xciv. 605-6). Anonymous in Pat. Lat. cxxix. 1369-72,
from M, G, fo. 154r-v; R, fos. 176r-177v; Paris, Nouv. Acq. 1613
(saec. ix), fo. 1r-; Vatican, Vat. Lat. 642, fos. 88V-89r; and
passim. Not in P. Attributed to Bede in late MSS., e.g. Leyden,
Scaliger 38 (saec. xi). No. 114 in Strecker, Poetae Latini Aevi
Carolini (Mon. Germ. Hist.), iv. 2 (1923), pp. 682-6, who used
several MSS. of saec. x, xi.
11. Fo. 80r. 'De etate lunae monstranda per tria alfabeta
argunentum, Quod si adeo--providit antiquitas.' Bede's De Temp.
Rat.. Chap. 23 (Giles, vi. 192-3). See Item 12.
12. Fo. 80r-v. ' De lunae cursu per xii signa et per litteras
demonstranda argumentum, Si quis vero--observatione traditum.' De
Temp. Rat., Chap. 19 (Giles vi. 186-7). This and Item 11 appear in
MSS. passim, to accompany tables invented by Bede, as in Pat. Lat.
cxxix. 1334-5, from M; R, fos. 177v-178v. Not separate in G or
P.
13. Fos. 80v-81r. Three formulae: ' De annis dni.' ' De
indictione.' 'De Pascha.' Passim in MSS. The first in Pat. Lat.
lxvii. 498D from Codex Rhemensis 298.
14. Fos. 81r-82r. ' Incipiunt argumenta grecorum de titul.
paschalibus investigata solertia.' Formulae of Dionysius Exiguus,
reprinted from Jan in Pat. Lat. lxvii. 497-505. They include the
material Jan has bracketed, but stop with Article X: 'Expliciunt
argumenta paschalium titulorum '. One of the few unaltered MSS.;
not in this form in G, P, R. The same rubrics with altered formulae
in Ba, fo. 37v, from an exemplar written A.D. 789.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS'
15. Fo. 82v. ' Incipit calculatio quomodo repperiri possit quota
feria I singulis annis xiiii luna paschalis id est circuli
decennovenalis, A primo anno--lna paschalis xiiii. Haec argumenta
hic finiuntur.' Pub- lished by Jan as Argumentum XIV of Dionysius
Exiguus, but of later date, at least in this form. Pat. Lat. lxvii.
505-6; cxxix. 1308-9. MSS.: Rouen 26 (saec. ix), fo. 156r; Rome,
Vallicelli E 26 (saec. ix), fos. 72v-74r; Paris, Nouv. Acq. 1615
(saec. ix), fo. 187r; Vatican, Pal. Lat. 1448 (saec. ix), fos.
73v-74r; &c.
16. Fos. 82V-84r. 'Exemplum suggestionis boni sci. primice, De
sol- lemnitatibus et sabbatis-ora pro me venerabilis papa.' The
rubric, which comes at end of col. 1, fo. 82v, belongs to the
Exemplum Boni, published by Krusch, Neues Archiv, ix (1884), 109.
MacCarthy's arguments (Annals of Ulster, iv [1901], cxlvii ff.)
that this is a forgery are unconvincing. MSS.: L, fos. 77r-78V; 0,
fo. 59r; R, fos. 167V-168r; Paris, Nouv. Acq. 1615, fos. 155V-156r;
Nouv. Acq. 1613, fo. 12V; Munich 14725 (Regens- burg, saec. ix),
fo. 23v. The text is not Exemplum Boni, but a spurious letter of
Jerome (ed. Maur. i. 1103 [Pat. Lat. xxii. 1220]) and published by
Krusch, Neues Archiv, x. (1885), 84-9, from P, pp. 212-17. The only
other MSS. are C, fos. 201r-203r; G, fos. 121r-123r; L, fos.
86v-90r; V, fos. 89r-90v. In them the rubric is: 'Disputacio sci.
hieronimi de sol- lempnitatibus paschae.' Not in R.
17. Fos. 84r-86r. Letter of Paschasinus to Pope Leo. Bucherius,
pp. 75-7; Krusch, Studien, pp. 247-50. For MSS. and printed
editions see Krusch, pp. 245-7. In G, R, P, L, C, B, 0, M.
Collation of Bucherius and S shows Bucherius certainly used S.
Krusch, p. 250, tried unsuccess- fully to account for variants in
B.
18. Fos. 85r-86r. ' Incipit epla. dionisii de ratione paschae.'
The letter to Boniface and Bonus. Bucherius, pp. 489-93; Petavius,
ii. 876-8. Petavius (Prologue to vol. ii) says he took this letter
from S. Collation shows Bodl. 309 the same MS. Jan in Pat. Lat.
lxvii. 513-20 from 0, fos. 67v-70v. Other MSS. include L, fos.
84r-86v; C, fos. 172r-173r; M, fo. 72r; B (incomplete), fos.
78V-80V. Not in G, R, or P.
19. Fos. 86r-87V. 'Incipit epla. dyonisii.' Letter to Petronius.
Bucherius, pp. 485-9. Petavius, ii. 874-6, took his text from
another MS. (Prologue to vol. ii). Jan in Pat. Lat. lxvii. 483-4
from 0, fos. 63r-67r. Also in L, fos. 90r-93v; C, fos. 181v-184r;
M, fo. 81V; B, fos. 75v- 78v; and elsewhere.
20. Fos. 88r-89V. 'Incipit epistola sci. proterii alexandrini
epc. ad beatissimum papam leonem romae urbis epm. de ratione
paschali.' Bucherius, pp. 82 ff.; Petavius, ii. 871-4 (collation
shows both used Bodl. 309). Krusch, Studien, pp. 269-78, enumerates
seven printed editions. Jan in Pat. Lat. lxvii. 507-14 used 0, L,
and Bodl. F. NE. 3, 5 (now Auct. F. 3, 14) with Codex Rhem. 298.
Also in C, G, R, P, M, D, Be.
21. Fos. 89v90V. 'Incipit epistola sci. cyrilli episcopi.'
Bucherius, pp. 72 ff.; Petavius, ii. 884-5; Krusch, pp. 344-9; and
in editions of Cyril's letters. Krusch, Studien, pp. 101-2, note 6,
cites a homoeoteleuton in the Sirmond MS. (copied by both Petavius
and Bucherius) found in Bodl. 309. Krusch, pp. 101-9, shows this is
not Cyril's work; his asser- tion that the letter was written in
England is not conclusive. There is another epistle of Cyril
published by Muratori, iii. 191 (Pat. Lat. cxxix.
215 1937
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
216 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
1353-4) from M, fo. 68r. MSS.: B, fos. 71v-73v; C, fos.
173r-175r; G, fos. 126r-127r; L, fo. 95r; R, fos. 145r-146v; P, pp.
225-7; 0, fos. 60r ff.; M, fo. 74v.
22. Fos. 90v-93v. ' Incipit liber anatoliigreci.' Bucherius, pp.
439-49. Krusch, pp. 316-27, collated Bucherius with C, fos.
188r-191v. See his introduction, pp. 311-16. Only other MSS.: G,
fos. 127r-130v; R, fos. 146v-152r; P, pp. 227-36. The table
(Krusch, pp. 324-5) being, and intended by its author to be, a
hopeless jumble, it was emended and re- constructed by each of the
five scribes, but Bucherius and BodI. 309 agree.
23. Fos. 93v-94r. 'Eusebius caesariensis dicit, Dignum nmichi
fecerat mundum.' Extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, &c., about
Anatolius. Rufinus translation of Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. not used.
G, fos. 130v-131v; P, pp. 236-8; not in R or C.
24. Fo. 94r-v. ' Disputatio worini alexandrini epi. de ratione
paschali, Eo quod senserunt -.' Published by J. B. Pitra,
Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 14-15 (cf. pp. xii-xiv), from L, fo.
82v, and P, pp. 238-40; C. DuFresne (DuCange), IaaXraAcov, seu
Chronicon Paschale (Corpus Byzantinae Ilistoriae, Paris, 1688),
App. 23, pp. 480-1 (' De Paschate Judaeorum '), from Paris, Bibl.
Nat. 4860 (saec. x, Mainz), fo. 150r-V (his source ascertained by
collation); Muratori in Pat. Lat. cxxix. 1387-8 from M, fo. 80r.
Jan (Pat. Lat. lxvii. 460D) quoted a passage from 0, fo. 79r. Only
other MS. G, fos. 131v-132r. Because of the unintelligibility of
the printed editions comment has been avoided; see, however, Hagen,
Diss. in Cyclis, p. 165. Esposito (Hermathena, xlv. 233) dates it
A.D. 606-32 on the faulty assump- tion that Morinus refers to Item
21; Item 33 is probably meant, although the information might come
from Item 19. Although not mentioned by Kenney, Sources for the
Early History of Ireland, i. 217, this and Item 22 are the only
clear Insular forgeries ; Morinus is apparently the answering
document to pseudo-Anatolius and favours the Alexandrian usage, as
in Dionysius Exiguus, although an earlier recension may be found in
ll (Milan MS.).
25. Fos. 94v-95v. 'Incipit epistola philippi de pascha.' Krusch,
pp. 306-10, published three recensions: (A), as in Bern MS. 645 (c.
750- Wilmart), by Baluzius, Nova Collectio Concilii, i. 14; (B) in
Bucherius, pp. 469-71, who used Bodl. 309, as collation shows; (C)
in Muratori (Pat. Lat. cxxix. 1350-3). A fourth version, found in
several MSS., pub- lished by Dom Wilmart, Studi e testi, lix
(1933). 19-27, from Vatican, Regin. 39 (saec. ix). [I owe this
reference to Professor Van de Vyver.] The many MSS. include: St.
Gallen 251 (c. 810); Paris, Nouv. Acq. 1615 (saec. ix); Karlsruhe
229 (saec. ix), fos. 12r-16r (not identified by Holder); 0, fos.
49r-51v; L, fo. 80v; G, fo. 132r-v; P, pp. 240-1; not in R. Printed
among works of Bede in all complete editions, after Noviomagus,
Bedae Opuscula de Temporum Ratione (1537), fo. 99r, who used
Cologne MSS. 102 (saec. xi) and 103 (saec. ix); and in F.
Lorenzana's edition of Isidore's works, Rome, 1798, Tom. iii. App.
III. Listed as forgery by Kenney, i. 217, after Krusch, p. 304, but
actually a badly-transmitted computistical tract possibly written
by the unknown Philippus. Wilmart (p. 2) suggests with some reason
that the original was written in Africa.
26. Fos. 95v-952r. 'Victorius in quo ordine-ionas in medio
coeti.' Excerpts unpublished in this form. G, fos. 132v-133v; P,
pp. 241-2.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S 'COMPUTUS'
The latter part, referring to the laterculus, in Pat. Lat.
cxxix. 1306A, is found commonly in MSS.
27. Fo. 96r-v. 'Incipit calculatio quomodo reperire - errore
sublato reperies.' Cf. Item 16; but here three long formulae are
given, using the Victorian system of calculating from Kal. Ian.,
later adapted by Bede for use with the Dionysiac system. Possibly
these formulae originated with Victorius. Not in G, R, or P.
28. Fos. 96v-97r. 'Epistol. pap. leonis ad martianum
imperatorei,, per darianum.' Bucherius, pp. 78-80; Krusch, pp.
257-60; no. 121 in editions of Leo's letters since Ballerini. MSS.,
passims, including G, fos. 158v-159v, but not R or P.
29. Fo. 97r-v. 'De pascha autem tanquam maximo sacramento
illuminante comedamus.' A short tract on the mystical significance
of Easter. Not published to my knowledge. G, fos. 159v-160r; not in
R or P.
30. Fos. 97v-98r. 'Romana computatio ita digitorum - aures retro
respicientes.' Probably source for Bede's De Temp. Rat., Chap. 1.
Pub- lished by Muratori, as in Pat. Lat. cxxix. 1349 (138), from M.
L, fos. 77r-78v; G, fo. 160r-; Munich MS. 14725 (saec. ix); St.
Gallen 251 (saec. ix), p. 9; not in P or R.
31. Fos. 98r-99r. 'Incip. prol. theophili alexandrini epi. ad
theodosium . . Scm. quidem et beatum pascham - paschalis diei.
Finit de exem-
plariscosmographi. Incipitprologustheoph.' The explicitis
erroneous. The lost (?) Liber Cosmographi (cf. Giles, Bedae Opera
Omnia, iv. 386; vi. 218) may have been in the exemplar. Published
by Petavius, ii. 879-81 (Greek version from Spanish codex; cf. ii.
893); Bucherius, pp. 471-3; cf. Hagen, Diss. in Cyclis (1734), pp.
1-16. Petavius and Bucherius vary: 'Man kaum glauben wirde, dass
sie aus derselben Handschrift geschopft haben'. Krusch, Studien, p.
85. Collation shows Petavius used Bodl. 309 with no emendations. I
cannot account for the variants in Bucherius. Only other MS., to my
knowledge, G, fos. 160v-161v. Not in R or P. Krusch, pp. 220-6,
published another recension from D, fos. 34v-36r, which is also in
Be, fo. 65r-v.
32. Fo. 99r-v. Formula for holiday dates. G, fo. 161v. 33. Fos.
99V-101r. ' Incipit prologus sci. cirilli.' Petavius, ii.
881-3;
Bucherius, pp. 481-4; Krusch, pp. 337-43; Muratori as in Pat.
Lat. cxxix. 1275-8. MSS.: G, fos. 161V-163r; M, fos. lr-4v; C, fos.
213v- 215r; not in R or P. The last part of Krusch's edition (pp.
342-3, ' Item ratio,' &c.) does not belong to the Prologue.
Krusch, pp. 89-98, believes this work written in Spain after
Dionysius. A 'Praefatio sci. cirilli epi.' in Chartres MS. 70
(saec. ix), fos. 77v-79r, is this work in another recension.
Discussion by Hagen, Diss. in Cyclis (1734), pp. 41-91, based on
Bucherius.
34. Fos. 101r-105. ' Incipit anni ordo apud aegyptios priemus
inventus ut refert macrobius theothisius, Arcades annum suum iii
mensibus-huic deae consecraverunt.' A book of excerpts from
Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 12-15 (ed. Eyssenhardt [1868], pp.
59.4-60.12; 61.1-4; 61.7-25; 61.26- 62.3; 62.5-16; 62.26-8;
64.21-3; 64.28-65.4; 65.12-79.8), known to Bede as ' disputatio
hori et praetextati ' (De Temp. Rat., Chap. 12 [Giles, vi. 172,
175]). This book forms the basis, directly or through Bede, for
innumerable Carolingian commentaries, as in Pat. Lat. xl.
662C-664;
217 1937
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
218 THE 'LOST' SIRMOND MANUSCRIPT
761A ff., &c. Only other known MSS.: G, fos. 163r-164V; C,
fos. 204r-205v (both MSS. incomplete).
35. Fos. 105v-106r. ' Issio [Isidorus] dt. Tempora autem
momentis- impleat cursum suum.'
36. Fos. 106r-107V. ' Item Isidorus, Itaque luna per
tricenos-maius iii et sic de ceteris.' This and Item 35 are groups
of computistical items, only partially from Isidore. Not in other
MSS.
37. Fo. 107. ' Incipit cyclus decennovenalis quem greci
enneakede- decimus lunaris est. Finit enneakede conkete. Pi JAC.'
Introductory words to Dionysiac cycle, Pat. Lat. lxvii. 493-4;
Krusch, Neues Archiv. x (1885). 83, from Paris MS., Bibl. Nat. 5543
(saec. ix). Innumerable MSS. Cf. Krusch, Studien, p. 99. The rest
of the page blank.
38. Fo. 108r. Rota in 12 parts. Lunar and solar months and
number of days in seasons.
39. Fo. 108r. 'Victor natione aquitanicus-traditionem sequitur
victorius.' Based on Gennadius, Vir. Illust. p. 89 (ed.
Richardson). P, p. 242; not in G or R.
40. Fos. 108r-110v. Hilarius' Letter to Victorius and Victorius'
Prologue, followed by 4 formulae. Bucherius, pp. 1-10; Mommsen,
Chron. Min. i. 677-84; A. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, i
(1868). 130. Add to Mommsen's MSS.: G, fos. 133r-135V; Be, fos.
54v-58r.
41. Fo. 110V. In a later hand: "Isti sunt xii dies veneris de
quibus ego clemens romanus pontifex inveni in canonibus et in
actibus apostolorum dnm. dixisse meo magistro petro. si quis os
ieunaverit in pane et aqua usque ad vesperum certissime sciat quia
in exitu animae suae angeli deducent eum in paradisum si confessus
fuerit peccata mea.' Followed by an enumeration of the 12 days. I
can find no analogue for this bit of lore.
42. Fos. lllr-113r. Chronicle: Olympiad 157 to A.D. 32, with
selections from Eusebius-Jerome.
43. Fos. 113r-120r. Victorius' 532-year cycle, with no duplicate
dates. A very few annals. Bucherius, pp. 14-69, freely emended the
MS. Mommsen, i. 686-735, used Gotha MS. 75, Bucherius, op. cit.,
and the frag- ments in M, D, &c.
44. Fos. 120r-131v. Dionysiac 19-year Easter cycles, A.D.
532-1421, the last cycle broken at bottom of page, anno 16. Longish
annals to A.D. 1347, published by Rose Graham, ante, xiii (1898).
695-700, after Andre Duchesne and others. The scribe of the MS.
appears to have written annals to A.D. 1062.
45. Fos. 132r-140v. 'Incipit cyclus [calculus] quem Victorius
composeit.' The tables (fos. 132r-138r) as published by Gott.
Friedlein, Bullettino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze
matematiche e fisiche, iv (Rome, 1871). 447-63, without the
Prologue. Followed by (fos. 138r-140V) prose texts as in Friedlein,
Zeitschrift fir Mathematik und Physik, xvi (1871), pp. 69.1-70.17;
72.5-75.8; 72.5-75.21 (in a different recension); 75.22-76.18.
These are followed by two unpublished passages: ' Ianua calculandi,
Bis media sescla-quinquies media sescla. De Ponderibus, Pondus
dictum est- quod statuerunt romani. Mensura est res aliqua modo suo
vel tempore- completur. hoc onus cameli.' Then follow pp. 76-7, as
in Hultsch, Metro. script. reliquiae, pp. 121.8-123.10, followed by
two unknown fragments.
April
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC
-
OF BEDE'S 'COMPUTUS '
Cf. Wm. von Christ, Sitzungsb. d. Akademie zu Miinchen,
philo.-hist. Cl. i (1863). 100-52; Van de Vyver in Revue
Benedictine, xli (1935). 137-40. Since I could adduce no evidence
either way about this item, it has not been considered in the
article above; however, the probability is that it was not a part
of Bede's computus.
46. Fos. 141r-141v. 'Capitula de quibus convocati compotistae
inter- rogati fuerint responsiones quoque eorum quales et ordine
quae redditae fuerint hic pariter ostenduntur. I. Quot annos ab
incarnatione dei usque in pre- sentem tenere velint ? R.
dcccviiii-Hic responsum est ex lectione quam adalbardus venerabilis
abba composuit-respondere non potuerunt.' A question-and-answer
book, professedly based on Augustine, Jerome, Dionysius, and Bede.
Adalbardus is possibly Adalard, abbot of Corbie (ob. 826).
Unpublished.
47. Fos. 141v-142r. Greek alphabet and numerals. 48. Fo. 142v.
Horologium of months. 49. Fos. 143r-146V. Calendar. Four columns:
series AEIOU; golden
nos.; Dominical letters; Roman dates. Cf. Pat. Lat. xc. 759 ff.
Column 1, at least, was invented after Bede, possibly as late as
Abbo, but was probably added by a later hand; see Item 51.
Astronomical notices and martyrology. Extensive descriptions of
months, like Pat. Lat. xc. 759 ff., but not the same, although both
based on Item 34.
50. Fo. 146V. ' De mensibus anglorum' Bede's De Temp. Rat.,
Chap. 15, broken at end of page (' - plenilunio -' [Giles, vi. 179,
3]). Probably the MS. originally ended here and the scribe, who
found Chap. 15 in the MS. he used for correction, perhaps at a
somewhat later date, copied it on the blank last page after
inserting the marginal comment on fo. 15V: 'Hic una sententia
deest. De mensibus anglorum. Antiqui autem anglorum populi. Require
eam inferius.'
51. Fos. 147r-148v. Inserted leaves (later hand) with
computistical items including: 'Nonae aprilis norunt quinos -';
table 19 X 12 of epacts; table of yearly concurrents, regulars, and
epacts (fo. 147r); genealogy of Frankish kings (fos. 147v-148r);
table to accompany column 1 of calendar (fo. 148V).
52. Fos. 149r-164r. Boethius, De arithmetica, beginning i. 17 '-
cabit. Hic quoque uti - ' and ending ii. 26 ' - altera longiores ut
sub -' (Gott. Friedlein, Boetii de institutione arithmetica [1867],
pp. 86.9-116.6; Pat. Lat. lxiii. 1095B-1134D. For other MSS. not
known to Friedlein, see Manitius, Geschichte, i. 26. This work was
not known to Bede.
53. Fo. 165r. (Later hand) Rota of Paschal cycles: 19 years
outside; 28 years inside. Computistical notes in margin.
54. Fo. 165v. (Later hand) 532-year Easter table (19 X 28), A.D.
1064-1595.
CHARLES W. JONES.1 1 This paper has been prepared by the author
as Research Fellow of the American Council of Learned
Societies.
1937 219
on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC