Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The University of Chicago Press The History of Science Society
The University of Chicago Press The History of Science Society
The University of Chicago Press The History of Science Society
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
44":
Compotusminor, Dublin, TrinityCollege MS 441, fol. 107v. See also S. HarrisonThomson, The
Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, 1235-1253 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,
R. W. Southern, Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Ox-
ford: ClarendonPress, 1986),pp. 127-131;JenniferMoreton, "RobertGrosseteste, John of Sacrobosco, and the Calendar," in Proceedings of the Warburg Institute Grosseteste Symposium (May
74
GROSSETESTE'SCOMPUTI
75
the Compotus minor (although she concedes his authorshipof the Compotus
correctorius).She arguesinstead that both are early versions of Sacrobosco's De
anni ratione, into which more advancedcalculationswere subsequentlyinserted.
In fact, there is much material common to Sacrobosco and the two computi
attributedto Grosseteste. Moretonhas raised some interestingquestions, and we
are obliged to consider the possibility that Grosseteste may not have written the
first two computi.
The work that Thomson designatesas the CompotusI exists in a single manuscript from the second quarterof the thirteenthcentury, Oxford, Bodleian MS
679, folios 65r-75r. It is ascribedat both the beginningand the end: "Hic incipit
compotus magistriRobertiGrosseteste"across the top of folio 65r and "Explicit
compotusmagistriRobertiGrosseteste"on folio 75r. The manuscriptcontainsno
diagramsor tables, althoughthe text refers to the lines and columns of tables. Its
chapters are the usual ones for a computus:De duplici anno, De septimana,De
mense, De anno, De concurrentibus,De regularisolari, De bissexto (i.e., leap
year), De ciclo solari, De divisione anni, De anno lunari, De epactis et regularibus, De regularilunari, De saltu lune, and De festis mobilibus.The authorities
this computus mentions-Gerlandus, John Beleth, Dionysius Exiguus, and
Theophilusof Alexandria-were alreadyout of date by the late twelfth century,
as was Isidore of Seville, whose work it uses but who is not named. It contains a
numberof mnemonic verses and frequently quotes Ovid's Fasti for illustrative
purposes. Althoughthere is no trace of Arabicastronomy,the authordoes tell us
that "the Arabs begin the day at noon, saying that the sun was made at noon"
(folio 65r) and that the Arabs begin the year at the summer solstice (folio 67r).
The CompotusI also contains an Aristoteliandictum based on Physics 2.195a:
"Nam posita causa efficiente et immediate,et ponitureius effectus" (folio 65r).
Since there is a great deal of similarityamongcomputiin general, and much of
the computationalinstructionin both the CompotusI and De anni ratione appears nearly verbatim in dozens of twelfth- and thirteenth-centurycomputi, I
shall concentrateon the distinctivecharacteristicsof the CompotusI that hint at
its authorshipand date of composition. It begins by distinguishingbetween the
practice of computus, whose purpose is simply to contrive devices for determining the movable feast days of the church and which is thereforeconcerned only
with the motions of the moon and sun, and the science of astronomy, which is
concerned with the true measurementof time and with the motions of all the
planets.4But the author does not confine himself to this. He is very concerned
about the errors in the calendar and in the computistic traditionthat have resulted in the feast days coming earlierthan they should. Because of such errors,
he complains, we do not know the exact days of the solstices or equinoxes. The
summer solstice is supposed to coincide with the birth of John the Baptist and
the winter solstice with the birthof Christ.But they do not, because we make the
year too long. The author calculates how much time has been lost as a result:
assumingthat the solstices did coincide with the birthsof John and Jesus, he says
that "from the birth of the Lord, there have elapsed one thousand and two
are ten times 120 years, and
hundredyears, and more than that. In this nunmber
thus the winter solstice has now retrogressed by ten days."5 After a lengthy
4 "Subiectumautem huius scientie est tempus-non dico tempus secundumsubstantiamtemporis
nequeinquantumest numerusprimimobilis, sed inquantumdividiturin partessuas que considerantur
ab ecclesia secundum motum solis et lune. ... Compotistaenim considerattempora mensurata
secundummotumistorumduorumplanetarum... Nec curat motus aliorumplanetarum":Oxford,
Bodl. MS 679, fol. 65r.
s "Sed a nativitatedominielapsi sunt .M. et CC. anni et eo amplius,in quo numerosunt X.es .C.
et .XX. anni, et ita per .X. dies retrogressitiam solstitiumhiemale":ibid., fol. 69v.
76
RICHARD C. DALES
n. 2), p. 128; and Thomson, Writings of Grosseteste (cit. n. 1), pp. 95, 97.
GROSSETESTE'S COMPUTI
77
This may be. It is also possible that the marginalnote refers to the date when the
abridgmentwas made. But these are only guesses. All we can say for certain is
that it does not refer to the compositiondate of the Compotusminor. In fact, as I
have suggested, the Compotusminor should be regardedmerely as a condensation of the CompotusI made sometime after the composition of the latter and
before circa 1325, when the Dublin manuscriptwas written.
We know, on the evidence of Oxford MS Bodleian, Savile 21, that by
1215-1216Grosseteste had come into contact with a considerableamountof Arabic astronomy. In this manuscriptGrosseteste has written out, in his own distinctive hand, several works of Thebit (Thabitibn Qurra), some Arabic astronomical tables (including eclipse tables), and several astrological tables and
diagrams.The date that Grosseteste copied this materialcan be determinedfrom
internal evidence as 1215-1216.10This provides a terminus ante quem for the
CompotusI, since that treatise shows no knowledgeof Arabicastronomybeyond
the fact that the Arabs began the day at noon and the year at the summer solstice. Grosseteste had promisedin the CompotusI that he would look into some
of the traditionalcomputisticalproblemswhen he got a chance; the works copied
in the Savile manuscriptshow that he got the chance by about 1215.
The resultingwork was the Compotus correctorius.This is a much more advanced work than the CompotusI. It retains many of the mnemonicverses and
some of the wording of the earlier work, but its focus is on solving the most
10
See S. Harrison Thomson, Latin Bookhands of the Later Middle Ages, 1100-1500 (Cambridge:
RICHARD C. DALES
78
serious problemsof the computusratherthanprovidinga handyelementarymanual for provincial clergy. Its chapter headings immediatelysignify its more advanced purpose:
1. De causa bissexti et de modis magis verificandikalendarium,et de ratione inveniendi annumbissextilem. 4. De ostensione erroriskalendariinostri in sumptioneprimationum,et in positione cicli novadecimaliset cicli epactarum,et de modo sumendi
primacionessecundumveritatem.5. De modo extrahendiannos et menses Arabumex
annis Christi. ... 10. De ostensione erroris nostri in sumptioneterminorumet locorum festorummobilium,et de modo sumenditerminoset loca festorummobilium
secundum doctrinamkalendariinostri. 11. De ratione compositionis tabularumad
inveniendafesta mobilia."
Compotusminor.14But there are many more unascribed than ascribed manuscripts of the Kalendarium,and the ascriptionswe do have are too late to be
trustworthy.Moreover, it is simply not true that Grosseteste referredto his Kalendarium in his computi. The phrase "our calendar" often appears in these
works, but always in the sense of "the ecclesiastical calendarin common use."
Finally, Moreton has pointed out that this Kalendariumis nearly identical with
that of Roger of Hereford.
This study, I hope, has clarified some problems concerning Robert Grosseteste's computisticalworks. The most importantquestionis his authorshipof the
CompotusI and its date. I thinkwe may be reasonablysure that Grosseteste was
Opera ... Rogeri Baconis, ed. Steele (cit. n. 1), pp. 212-213.
Ibid., pp. 235 (Almagestcitation),217 (quotation).
13 For the Latin version see al-Bitrfiji,
De motibuscelorum,ed. FrancisJ. Carmody(Berkeley/Los
Angeles: Univ. CaliforniaPress, 1952).For the Hebrewand Arabicversions and Englishtranslation
see al-Bitrtiji,On the Principlesof Astronomy,ed. BernardR. Goldstein,2 vols. (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale Univ. Press, 1971).See also Southern,RobertGrosseteste(cit. n. 2), pp. 130-131.
14 Thomson,
Writingsof Grosseteste(cit. n. 1), p. 106.
12
GROSSETESTE'SCOMPUTI
79
This study should provide a firmerbasis for the study of Grosseteste's other
astronomical works: De impressionibus aeris, De motu supercaelestium, and De
sphaera.