No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
De Die Natali is an obscure little treatise on human life, the influence of the planets and the divisions of time, written by the Roman grammarian Censorinus and dedicated to Q. Caerellius for his forty-ninth birthday in A.D. 238. It was not a very popular work before the fifteenth century, and there is no reason why it should have been. Even its Italian revival was probably due to its brevity, which encouraged its copying as an adjunct to the larger, more interesting works which accompanied it in the earliest manuscripts. The increasing popularity of astrology may also have influenced its dissemination during the Renaissance. It was not, however, completely lost from sight during Europe’s first millennium. The study of its early transmission and use throws some interesting light upon the revival of classical literature in that period, though it is unlikely to improve the state in which the text has come down to us.
1 RE 3.1908–10; Schanz-Hosius-Krüger, Geschichte der ròmischenLiteratur (München 1907–22), 3, nos. 632 and 633;Google Scholar standard edition by Hultsch, F.Censorini de Die Natali Liber ad Q. Caerellium (Leipzig 1867);Google Scholar the later edition by Cholodniak, F. (St. Petersburg 1889)Google Scholar I have not seen. It was unfavourably reviewed by Hultsch.
2 Its fortuna from the ninth century and its Italian revival are studied by Billanovich, G. ‘Dall’ antica Ravenna alle Biblioteche Umanistiche’, Aevum 30 (1956), 319–53,Google Scholar expanded in Università del Sacro Cuoro, Annuario per gli Anni Accademica 1955–7 (Milan 1958), 73–107. I cite the later version.
3 Lowe, E.A.Codices Latini Antiquiores (Oxford 1934–71), 8, no. 1160,Google Scholar and Billanovich, G. ‘Il Petrarca e i Retori Latini Minori’, Italia Medievale e Umanistica 5 (1962), 107–8.Google Scholar
4 Mynors, R.A.B. (ed.), Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones (Oxford 1937), 2. 5. 1;Google Scholar cf Jones, L.W.Cassiodorus, An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings (Columbia 1946), 189 n. 9.Google Scholar
5 Bischoff, B.Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften (Miinchen 1974), 30, 66;Google ScholarLagorio, V. ‘Text of Cassiodorus’ De Rhetorica in Codex Pal. lat. 1588’, Scriptorium 30 (1976), 43–5;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Billanovich, ‘Il Petrarca’ (note 3 above), 111–12.
6 Billanovich, ‘Dall’ antica Ravenna’ (note 2 above) 95; ‘Il Petrarca’, 109–10; on Heiric see Quadri, R.I Collectanea di Eirico di Auxerre (Spicilegium Friburgense 11 [1966];Google Scholar on his MS., Barlow, C. ‘Codex Vaticanus latinus 4929’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 15 (1938), 87–124 and pis. 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Beeson, C.H. ‘The Collectaneum of Hadoard’, CP 40 (1945), 201–22;Google ScholarBischoff, B. ‘Hadoardus and the MSS. of Classical Authors from Corbie’, in Didascaliae: Studies in Honor of Ans elm Albareda, ed. Prete, S. (New York 1961), 41–57,Google Scholar reprinted (in German) in Bischoff’s, Mittelalterliche Studien (Stuttgart 1966–7), 1. 49–63;Google ScholarSchmidt, P.L.Die Überlieferung von Ciceros Schrift ‘DeLegibus‘ (Miinchen 1974), 134–52 (citing earlier literature).Google Scholar
8 Ed. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae 2 (1884), 683–5.
9 He drew on the so-called Zurich Collection, ed. Meyer, W.Sitz.-Berichte der Münchener Akad. der Wiss. 2 (1872);Google Scholar Beeson (note 7 above) 204–5.
10 Institutes, ed. Mynors,2.1.1,2. 5.1,2. .5.10,2.6. 1; Keil, Grammatici Latini 3. 531Google Scholar (Priscian), 7. 583 (Cassiodorus etc.).
11 Thorndike, L. and Kibre, P.Incipits of Medieval Scientific Works in Latin2 (Cambridge, Mass. 1963), col. 656Google Scholar (but giving the shelf-marks of two Miinchen MSS. wrongly, following Manitius, M.Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur im Mittelalter [München 1911–39], 2. 741).Google Scholar Partly edited by Mortet, V.Notices et Extraits 35. 2 (1898), 520–50;Google Scholar discussed by Manitius, M. ‘Collationen aus einem geometrischen Tractat’, Hermes 39 (1904), 291–300,Google Scholar and ‘Collationen aus der Ars Geometrica’, Hermes 41 (1906), 278–92. There is a thorough analysis of it in Thulin, C. ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Corpus Agrimensorum. Exzerptenhandschriften und Kompendien’, Gôteborgs kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhetssamhàllets Handlingar, ser. 4, 14 (1911), 44–54.Google Scholar
12 Significant readings with D, taken from the earliest MS. (Clm 13084; see below) are: Hultschp. 22 line 3 carpere (but l. capere over line); collegit; line 15 stilon;p. 23 line 2 dimidii ad terrae: dimidiaterrae D: dimidiiaterrae d(D’s corrector): dimidii terrae V.
13 Institutes, ed. Mynors, 2. 5. 1–2; Manitius, ‘Collationen’ 1. 293–4; Thulin, ‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ (note 11 above), 44.Google Scholar
14 Thulin, ‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 49,Google Scholar reports a fifth, tenth-century MS. of the work, as ‘Schlestadt Stadtbibl. Catal. 1153 bis’. No such MS. of this date, contents or shelf-mark is listed among the 137 Schlestadt (Schlettstadt, Sélestat) MSS. catalogued in the Catalogue Genérale des MSS. des Bibliothèques Publiques des Départements (Paris 1849–85), 3. 545–602. Thulin had evidently not seen this MS. himself, citing Giry, A. ‘Notes sur un MS. de la Bibliothèque de Schlestadt’, Revue de Philologie n.s.3 (1879), 16–18Google Scholar and Mortet, V. in Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 57 (1896), 288.Google Scholar It is not listed by Manitius, or Thorndike and Kibre (note 11 above). I have not succeeded in tracing it. [See now the Addendum.]
15 On the dates and provenance of these two see Bischoff, B.Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit 13 (Wiesbadèn 1974), 90, 119 and n. 1Google Scholar (referring to Clm 6404 in error for 6406), 120.
16 Glauche, G.Schullektüre im Mittelalter. Entstehung und Wandlungen des Lektürekanons bis 1200 nach den Quellen dargestellt (Münchener Beitritge zur Mediüvistik und Renaissance-Forschung 5 [1970]).Google Scholar
17 Thulin (‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 48) maintained that Clm 6406 and 14836 were copied from 13084, but my own collation of the Censorinus extracts in these three manuscripts suggests that this could hardly be the case.
18 Onthe sources used in the Ars see Manitius, ‘Collationen’ 1Google Scholar and 2(note 11 above); Thulin, C. ‘Die Handschriften des Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum’, Abhandl. der kbnigl. preuss. Akad. der Wiss., phil.-hist. Klasse, Anhang 2 (1911), 1–102;Google Scholar idem, ‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 52–4; idem, Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum 1 (Leipzig 1913, re-issued with additional bibliography 1971), vi–viii for the MSS.; Beeson, C.H. ‘The Archetype of the Roman Agrimensores’, CP 23 (1928), 1–14, esp. 13–14.Google Scholar According to Thulin, the MS. of the Corpus Agrimensorum used by the author of the Ars was closely related to Vat. pal. lat. 1564 (P) of the ninth century, perhaps from Fulda (fully described by Thulin, ‘Die Handschriften’ 41–58).Google Scholar
19 Vogel, G.S.The Major MSS. of Cicero’s ‘De Senectute’ (Chicago 1939);Google ScholarWilleumier, P.Ciceronis De Senectute2 (Paris 1961), 61–2;Google ScholarKeil, Grammatici Latini 6. 418.Google Scholar
20 E.g. the Ars has: p. 23 line 3 carpere; line 5 collegit; line 15 stilon, for Leiden’s capere, colligit, stilbon.
21 Thulin, ‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 12–14.Google Scholar
22 Ibid. 13–14; James, M.R.Catalogue of Western MSS. in the Library of Trinity College Cambridge (Cambridge 1901–4), 2. 349;Google Scholar the opinion on its earliest provenance I owe to Dr M. Lapidge of Cambridge University.
23 It is identifiable as no. 1007 in the fifteenth-century library-catalogue from the house; James, M.R.The Ancient Libraries ofCanterbury and Dover (Cambridge 1903), 303;Google ScholarKer, N.R.Medieval Libraries of Great Britain2 (London 1964), 41.Google Scholar
24 Bénédictins de Bouveret, Colophons des MSS. Occidentaux des Origines à XVIe Siècle (Spicilegium Friburgense, Subs. 2 [1965]), no. 3143.
25 Thulin, ‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 9–12.Google Scholar
26 However, according to Thulin, (‘Exzerptenhandschriften’ 36–43),Google Scholar the items common to T, bn and the Naples MS. were derived from a MS. of the Corpus Agrimensorum belonging to his EF class, but more complete than any of its surviving representatives (for which see idem, ‘Die Handschriften’ 72–95, esp. 86–7). The author of the Ars, as stated above (note 18), used a Corpus Agrimensorum MS. of the Ρ class.
27 I record variants of Tbn from the DV group, not from Hultsch’s printed text; that is, I have not given obvious errors common to TbnDV. The readings of bn were recorded for Hultsch by Halm, not entirely accurately (Hultsch, xii–xiii).
28 Billanovich, ‘Dall’ antica Ravenna’ 95–6.Google Scholar
29 Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini 2. 189;Google ScholarBillanovich, ‘Dall antica Ravenna’ (note 2 above) 96;Google Scholar, R.H. and Rouse, M.A. ‘The Florilegium Angelicum’, in Medieval Learning and Literature; Essays presented to R.W. Hunt, ed. Alexander, J.J.G. and Gibson, M.T. (Oxford 1976), 72 n. 2.Google Scholar
30 Billanovich, ‘Dall’ antica Ravenna’ 97–8.Google Scholar Fifteenth-century MSS. of Censorinus not mentioned by him are: Leiden, Voss. lat. Q. 11 ; London, Wellcome Historical Medical Library 127 ; Vat. Ottob. 1170, Rossi 1050, Vat. lat. 5190.1 have to thank the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes for these references.
31 There is no recent study of the Orleans schools in the twelfth century, but see Rouse, R.H. ‘Florilegia and Latin Classical Authors in Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Orleans’, Viator 10 (1979), 131–60,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and R.H. and Rouse, M.A. ‘The Florilegium Angelicum’ 11 n. 1 for earlier literature.Google Scholar
32 32 On which see R.H. and M.A. Rouse, art. cit.
33 Manitius, Beeson and Ullman have wrought confusion by calling Hadoard’sflorilegium and the Florilegium Angelicum a single florilegium compiled by Censorinus. The matter is clarified by R.H. and M.A. Rouse, 86–7.
34 Reeve, M.D. and Rouse, R.H. ‘New Light on the Transmission of Donatus’s Commentum Terentii’, Viator 9 (1978), 235–49.Google Scholar
35 A Catalogue of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum (London 1808–12), 3. 100; Thomson, R.M. ‘The Reading of William of Malmesbury’, Revue Bénédictine 85 (1975), 362–402,CrossRefGoogle Scholar with earlier literature.
36 Idem, ‘The Reading of William of Malmesbury; Further Additions and Reflections’, Revue Bénédictine 89 (1979), 313–6.Google Scholar
37 Harl. begins at Hultsch p. 7 line 9 reperiri. Specimen readings: with V (and its ninth-century corrector V2) line 17 atque; hac; line 20 esse natos; p. 9 line 10 exortus as V2 in marg. Emendations: p. 9 line 11 lucumones D correctly: lucum honestum V; artem honestius Harl.; line 18 adiri DV; oriri Harl. Hultsch; p. 10 lines 20–1 uniueri DV: uniuersi Harl. Hultsch; line 21 arbitrantur V: arbitrentur D ante ras. Harl. Hultsch.
38 Omont, H. ‘Anciens catalogues des bibliothèques anglaises’, Centralblattfur Biblio-Jhekswesen 9 (1892), 215 no. 288.Google Scholar
* I wish to thank Mme G. Contamine of the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris, for information about Censorinus MSS., Dr M. Lapidge of Cambridge University for collating the Trinity College MS. and for offering his opinion of its date and provenance, and Professor R.H. Rouse of the University of California, Los Angeles, for reading a draft of this paper and offering suggestions and helpful criticisms.