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