204

April

The 'Lost' Sirmond Manuscript of Bede's

' Computus'
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 inferred 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 exemplar, especially for the pseudo-Anatolian Canon.6 The complete

IN

1 De Doctrina
Temporum, 2
2 See
vol. i.

vols., folio, Paris, 1627.

227, 538, 559, 583, 592, and the Prologue (pages unnumbered) and
esp.
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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

MANUSCRIPT

OF BEDE'S

'

COMPUTUS '

205

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 consulting 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 inference and a comparison of Petavius and Bucherius. He surmised 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 manuscript 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).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

206

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

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 Victorius, 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 numbered 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.
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 '.
2

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '

207

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 computistical material in the Bodleian. S came into the Bodleian the year
after the publication of the Old Catalogue (1697); it was not included 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 content. 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.
4A
comparative study of Carolingian computi, which exist in profusion, shows us
how easily these errors, interpolations, and false ascriptions occur. After an examination of Oxford MS., Digby 63, fos. 70-1, I believe I can explain the false ascription of

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

208

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

which there are discrepancies as spurious, but such action leads

to confusion. Bernard MacCarthy 1 condemned twelve as 'forMost of them were supposed to have been written in
geries'!
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 unimpeachable.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 indirectly 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 [Liberde 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 'Successor 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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S

'COMPUTUS'

209

[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 KlostersFulda, 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 probably 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 pseudoMorinus (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.
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
2

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

210

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

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 manuscripts 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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S

' COMPUTUS '

211

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 sometimes 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 extension 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 comparison 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.
Werner, Beda, pp. 125-6, and later works.
3 The variants from S will be included in
my edition of Bede's computistical works.
2

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

212

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

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, eliminated 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 exemplar 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
This work appears in M and C, but in no
pseudo-Athanasius.
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 EspaCiaSagrada, 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. cxxvcxxxi, 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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

OF BEDE'S ' COMPUTUS '

1937

213

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 pseudoAthanasius 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
V

Items 4-5
Dijon 448

Anon. Comp.
Krusch, pp. 227 f.

/\

Munich 14456

English D, Be
/ Computus
/0C
Items 4-9
Ba

Bede's Cooputus
Items 13-45
S Group(S, G, P, R)
Items 4-9 with Prologue
(Item 3) added
Items 13-45
Bern 610, &c.
THE CONTENTSOF OXFORDMS., Bodl. 309

1. Fos. 3V-61v. 'Incipit prefacio bedae presbiteriDe natura rerum

et ratione-mereamur accipere palmam.' Bede's De
Temp. Rat. with
Chronicleand last chaps. (Giles, Bedae OperaOmnia, 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
Chronicleor last chaps.); P, pp. 27-212. All from differentfamilies.
2. Fo. 61V. A list of Greeknumbers.
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 sententiaesci. 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 manuscripts of the St. Gallen group.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

214

THE 'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

Printed as 'De Computo

compoti, Augustinus dixit de quattuor -'.
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 TemporumLiber '),
from Hervagius,i. 117 ff., but departsat P.L. xc. 657B and continueswith
full discussion of 14 units of time. Unpublishedin 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 perspiciendumest quomodo
crescitper xviiii annos, De saltu lunae pauca dicamus. De hoc ergodicitur. 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. ' Argumentumde saltu lunae monstrando,Si scire volueris

quomodo dies lunaris-qui dicitur saltus.' Froben, ii. 361 (Pat. Lat.
ci. 989-90).
8. Fo. 78v. 'Argumentumde 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 desiderasaugmentumlunare-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,Scaliger38 (saec.xi). No. 114in 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 monstrandaper tria alfabetaargunentum,
Quod si adeo--providit antiquitas.' Bede's De Temp. Rat.. Chap. 23
(Giles, vi. 192-3). See Item 12.
12. Fo. 80r-v. ' De lunaecursuper xii signa et per litterasdemonstranda
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

investigatasolertia.' Formulae of Dionysius Exiguus, reprintedfrom Jan

in Pat. Lat. lxvii. 497-505. They include the material Jan has bracketed,
but stop with ArticleX: 'Expliciuntargumentapaschaliumtitulorum'. One
of the few unalteredMSS.; not in this form in G, P, R. The same rubrics
with altered formulaein Ba, fo. 37v, from an exemplar written A.D.789.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S

' COMPUTUS'

215

' Incipit calculatio quomodo repperiri possit quota

15. Fo. 82v.
feria I singulis annis xiiii luna paschalis id est circuli decennovenalis,A
primo anno--lna paschalis xiiii. Haec argumentahic finiuntur.' Published by Jan as ArgumentumXIV 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, VallicelliE 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 suggestionisboni sci. primice, De sollemnitatibus et sabbatis-ora pro me venerabilis papa.' The rubric,
which comes at end of col. 1, fo. 82v, belongs to the ExemplumBoni,
publishedby Krusch,NeuesArchiv,ix (1884),109. MacCarthy'sarguments
(Annalsof Ulster,iv [1901],cxlvii ff.) that this is a forgeryare 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; Munich14725 (Regensburg, saec. ix), fo. 23v. The text is not ExemplumBoni, 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. hieronimide sollempnitatibuspaschae.' 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. Collationof Bucherius
and S shows Bucheriuscertainly used S. Krusch, p. 250, tried unsuccessfully to account for variants in B.

18. Fos. 85r-86r. ' Incipit epla.dionisii de rationepaschae.' 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. OtherMSS. 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.
(Prologueto 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. 75v78v; and elsewhere.
20. Fos. 88r-89V. 'Incipit epistola sci. proterii alexandrini epc. ad
beatissimumpapam leonemromaeurbisepm.de rationepaschali.' Bucherius,
pp. 82 ff.; Petavius, ii. 871-4 (collation shows both used Bodl. 309).
Krusch, Studien, pp. 269-78, enumeratesseven printed editions. Jan in
Pat. Lat. lxvii. 507-14 used 0, L, and Bodl. F. NE. 3, 5 (nowAuct. F. 3, 14)
with CodexRhem. 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'sletters. 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 assertion that the letter was written in England is not conclusive. There is
another epistle of Cyril published by Muratori,iii. 191 (Pat. Lat. cxxix.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

216

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

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 liberanatoliigreci.' 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 reconstructedby each of the five scribes,but Bucheriusand BodI. 309 agree.
23. Fos. 93v-94r. 'Eusebius caesariensisdicit, Dignumnmichi fecerat
mundum.'

Extracts

from Eusebius,

Jerome,

&c., about Anatolius.

Rufinustranslationof Eusebius' Hist. Eccles.not used. G, fos. 130v-131v;

P, pp. 236-8; not in R or C.
24. Fo. 94r-v. ' Disputatio worini alexandriniepi. de rationepaschali,
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
seuChronicon
Paschale(CorpusByzantinaeIlistoriae,
(DuCange),IaaXraAcov,
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); Muratoriin 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 unintelligibilityof 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 assumption that Morinusrefersto Item 21; Item 33 is probablymeant, although
the information might come from Item 19. Although not mentioned by
Kenney, Sourcesfor the Early History of Ireland, i. 217, this and Item 22
are the only clear Insular forgeries; Morinusis apparentlythe answering
document to pseudo-Anatoliusand favours the Alexandrianusage, 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, publishedthree recensions: (A), as in Bern MS. 645 (c. 750Wilmart), by Baluzius, Nova CollectioConcilii, 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., publishedby Dom Wilmart,Studi e testi, lix (1933). 19-27, fromVatican,Regin.
39 (saec. ix). [I owe this referenceto ProfessorVan de Vyver.] The many
MSS. include: St. Gallen 251 (c. 810); Paris, Nouv. Acq. 1615 (saec.ix);
Karlsruhe229 (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
Opusculade TemporumRatione (1537), fo. 99r, who used Cologne MSS.
102 (saec.xi) and 103 (saec.ix); and in F. Lorenzana'sedition 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-transmittedcomputistical
tract possibly written by the unknownPhilippus. Wilmart(p. 2) suggests
with some reasonthat the originalwas 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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S

'COMPUTUS'

217

The latter part, referringto the laterculus, in Pat. Lat. cxxix. 1306A, is
found commonly in MSS.
27. Fo. 96r-v. 'Incipit calculatio quomodoreperire- erroresublato
reperies.' Cf. Item 16; but here three long formulaeare given, using the
Victorian system of calculatingfrom 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 martianumimperatorei,,
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. Published 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. theophilialexandriniepi. ad theodosium
. . Scm. quidemet beatum pascham - paschalisdiei. Finit de exemplariscosmographi. Incipitprologustheoph.' Theexplicitiserroneous. The
lost (?) LiberCosmographi(cf. Giles, Bedae OperaOmnia,iv. 386; vi. 218)
may have been in the exemplar. Publishedby 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 derselbenHandschrift geschopft
haben'. Krusch,Studien,p. 85. Collationshows 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, publishedanotherrecensionfrom D, fos. 34v-36r, which
is also in Be, fo. 65r-v.

32. Fo. 99r-v. Formulafor holiday dates. G, fo. 161v.

33. Fos. 99V-101r. ' Incipit prologussci. 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. 213v215r; not in R or P. The last part of Krusch'sedition (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 'Praefatiosci. cirilli epi.' in
ChartresMS. 70 (saec. ix), fos. 77v-79r, is this work in another recension.
Discussionby Hagen, Diss. in Cyclis (1734),pp. 41-91, based on Bucherius.
34. Fos. 101r-105. ' Incipit anni ordoapud aegyptiospriemusinventus
ut refert macrobiustheothisius,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; 61.2662.3; 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 innumerableCarolingiancommentaries,as in Pat. Lat. xl. 662C-664;

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

218

THE

'LOST'

SIRMOND

MANUSCRIPT

April

761A ff., &c. Only other knownMSS.: G,fos. 163r-164V;C, fos. 204r-205v
(both MSS. incomplete).
35. Fos. 105v-106r. ' Issio [Isidorus]dt. Temporaautem momentisimpleat 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 computisticalitems,
only partially from Isidore. Not in other MSS.
37. Fo. 107. ' Incipit cyclus decennovenalisquem greci enneakededecimus lunaris est. Finit enneakedeconkete. 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). InnumerableMSS.
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 clemensromanuspontifex inveni in canonibuset in actibus apostolorum
dnm. dixisse meo magistropetro. si quis os ieunaveritin 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
enumerationof the 12 days. I can find no analoguefor 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 fragments in M, D, &c.
44. Fos. 120r-131v. Dionysiac 19-year Easter cycles, A.D. 532-1421,
the last cycle brokenat bottom of page, anno 16. Longish annals to A.D.
1347, published by Rose Graham, ante, xiii (1898). 695-700, after Andre
Duchesneand others. The scribeof the MS.appearsto have written annals
to A.D. 1062.

45. Fos. 132r-140v. 'Incipit cyclus[calculus]quemVictoriuscomposeit.'

The tables (fos. 132r-138r) as published by Gott. Friedlein, Bullettinodi
bibliografiae di storia delle scienze matematichee fisiche, iv (Rome, 1871).
447-63, without the Prologue. Followed by (fos. 138r-140V)prose texts
as in Friedlein, Zeitschriftfir Mathematikund Physik, xvi (1871), pp.
69.1-70.17; 72.5-75.8; 72.5-75.21 (in a differentrecension); 75.22-76.18.
These are followed by two unpublishedpassages: ' Ianua calculandi,Bis
media sescla-quinquies mediasescla. De Ponderibus,Pondusdictumestquod statuerunt romani. Mensuraest res aliqua modo suo vel temporecompletur. hoc onus cameli.' Then follow pp. 76-7, as in Hultsch, Metro.
script. reliquiae, pp. 121.8-123.10, followed by two unknown fragments.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC

1937

OF BEDE'S

'COMPUTUS

219

'

Cf. Wm. von Christ, Sitzungsb.d. Akademiezu 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 interrogati fuerint responsiones quoque eorum quales et ordine quae redditaefuerint
hic pariter ostenduntur. I. Quot annos ab incarnatione dei usque in presentem 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.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 04:22:19 UTC