The Text of Grosseteste's De Cometis

Author(s): S. Harrison Thomson

Source: Isis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Apr., 1933), pp. 19-25
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/225185 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Text of Grosseteste'sDe Cometis

The manuscript tradition available to Dr. LUDWIG BAUR (I) for
the edition of this work was hardly a satisfactory one. He had
three Mss, all from the second half of the fourteenth century, offering, apparently, two recensions. That at least seemed the reasonable solution of the problem presented by the fact that one Ms
(Berlin Ms lat. 963, ff. I29rb-13ora) had a considerable section
of the tractate De Cometis in common with the other two Mss
(Erfurt Amplon. Q. 36I, f. i26r-v and Clm 588, ff. 113v&-I I4rb).
The latter " recension " was an undisguised paraphrase of a short
section of PTOLEMY'S Almagest, describing nine stellae cum caudis,
Veru, Conaculum, Pertica, Miles, Dominus Aschone, Maculia
or Aurea, Argentum, Rosa and Virga, to which had been added
a section by GROSSETESTE in which he sums up the causes and
nature of comets. But this " recension," taken as a work by
itself, lacks GROSSETESTE's customary clearness and careful workmanship. BAUR rightly recognized this weakness by relegating
it to a footnote.
The first " recension " (in the Berlin Ms) was more successful,
in that it treated fairly thoroughly, albeit succinctly, the source
and nature of comets. But what it had gained in completeness
it had lost in arrangement. It begins (BAUR, op. cit., p. 36)
Relictis opinionibus de natura tricarum, quas possibile est, ut formet
sibi animus ab experimentisin rebusnaturalibus, cum non profundaverit
in eis ratiocinationes scientiarum spiritualium... (BAUR here remarks
sine dubio lacuna) Cum autem in regione... etc. One is immediately
struck by the fact that the work begins by a reference to something
with which the reader is expected to be familiar.
(i) LUDWIG BAUR, Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs
von Lincoln, in Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Bd. IX
(Muinster i. W., I9I2), in Introduction, 69*-72*, text, 36-4I.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

S. H. THOMSON

Appended to this text in the Berlin Ms is a short section:

Opiniones circa cometam, beginning: Dico tamen quod hi qui
considerant et experiuntur in rebus... de natura tricarum..., and
giving four current opiniones. It would appear that the tract
in course of transmission had been turned end for end. Were
there these four opiniones at the beginning of the work, we could
better understand the Relictis opinionibus de natura tricarum...
But we would have no right to reconstruct the tract without
definite Ms authority. Fortunately we have such authority in a Ms
not known to BAUR in the Biblioteca Marucelliana in Florence,
Cod. C. I63. Dr A. G. LITTLE, in his " List of Roger Bacon's
Works " in Roger Bacon, Essays, (Oxford, I9I4,) P. 379, item I2,
lists this tractate, found among works of BACON in Florence,
Bibliotheca Riccardiana, Ms. 885, if. II3-I14.
It is not here
specifically ascribed to BACON, however. It is more likely to
have been used by BACON in his De Multiplicacione Specierum,
pt. I, cap. ii. The absence of a Ms. attribution to BACONwarrants us in recognizing the ascription in the three Mss. of the
various recensions in which the work appears as determinative.
This is a paper codex, large quarto size, written in two columns
by an Italian scribe in the latter half of the fourteenth century.
Its value is, furthermore, greatly enhanced by the fact that it
contains more of the philosophico-naturalia of GROSSETESTE than
any Ms used by BAUR. Of the 28 genuine works of GROSSETESTE edited by BAUR, this Florence Ms contains 23 (z), in
addition to an opus ineditum, De Accessu et Recessu Maris, i.e.
all but the De Impressionibus Aeris, De Anima, De Sphaera, De
Luce, De Potentia et Actu. This is the most extensive attempt
to build a corpus of GROSSETESTE'S opera physica thus far
known. Although the text in itself is not above reproach, the
whole represents an excellent tradition. This fact is strikingly
illustrated by the form in which the De Cometis is presented.
There are two tractates instead of one. The first contains the
substance of the Berlin Ms, with a few additional sections;
(2) The S. Marco, Venice, Ms VI. I63, BAUR'Smost extensive codex, contains
i8 of the 28 works. A fourteenth century paper codex in the National Museum
in Prague, XII. E. 5, contains I9 of the 28 and the De Accessu et Recessu Maris
(a tract recently noticed by F. Pelster in an Assisi Ms. Cf. Scholastik I (I926),
572 f.), which I am publishing elsewhere.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'S DE COMETIS
THE TEXT OF GROSSETESTE

21

the second is essentially that of BAUR'S second " recension,"

which, if regarded as an appendix to the main tractate, presents
no difficulties, because making no great claims to completeness
or unity.
The arrangement of the substance of the first " recension,"
however, is the important feature of the Florence text. There
is first the occasion for the treatment of the subject at all, lacking
in the Berlin copy, then the Opiniones circa cometam, with a few
unique sections, noted in the appended transcription, then
GROSSETESTE's own argument. It is thus a neatly arranged
treatise, exhibiting the compactness and order of the vigorous
period of Scholastic thinking, and, though short, a credit to
ROGER BACON'S predecessor.
In the subjoined text brackets around a section indicate that
it is present in the Florence text, but absent entirely from the
Berlin copy. The numbers of the paragraphs are arbitrarily
added to make convenient an explanation of the order
in which the matter appears in the Berlin Ms. An attempt
to date the composition of the tract will follow the text. The
spelling of the text is retained throughout. Variants from the
Berlin Ms, though numerous, are not noted; it may be pointed
out, however, that the text is superior to the printed tradition.
Florence, Biblioteca Marucelliana, Cod. C.

I63.

LYNCONIENSIS DE COMETIS ET CAUSIS IPSARUM

(i)
[Occasione comete que nuper apparuit animum applicui
ad cogitandum aliquid de natura cometarum. (f. zoD) Mihi indagenti innotuerit deus (3) ad utilitatem communem in lucem
proferre curavi.]
(z) Dico ergo in principio quod hii qui considerant et experiuntur in rebus et formant sibi opinionem ex experimentis suis
absque profundidate racionum necessario incidunt in oppiniones
falsas, sed de natura cometarum eciam est diversitas secundum
diversitates experimentorum suorum quibus usi sunt in radia-

(3) This is the reading of the codex. The Florence Ms (s. XIII) has a better
reading:... cometarum, et quod mihi indaganti de eis innotuit ad communem... etc.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22

S. H. THOMSON

tionibus et generationibus ignium, in apparitionibus in visu per

medium diafanorum. Qui autem experti sunt quod radii solis
incidentes in speculum reflectantur multoties cum radiatione
visibili et sciunt cum hoc quod stelle sunt specula reverberantia radios super se incidentes, prope sunt ut opinentur caudam
quam trahit esse radiositatem solis a stella reflexam.
(3) [Sed hec opinio refellitur duobus modis. Primo quia non
est radiositas reflexa visibiliter nisi cum radii reflexi admiscentur
dyafono naturali terrestri, non celesti.]
(4) Secundo quia non semper protenditur cauda comete in
oppositum solis cum radii omnes reflexi eant in oppositum,
incidunt autem ad angulos equales.
(5) Qui eciam sunt experti quod ex concursu radiorum multorum
attenditur ignis et inflammatur res inflammabilis prope sunt ut
opinentur radios multos concurrere in summo aere quo elevantur
fumi accensibiles, ibique per concursum radiorum fumum inflammari ipsamque inflammationem apparere stellam caudatam. Ista
iterum opinio falsificatur, quia si esset concursus radiorum a
stellis recte descendentium, cum non possit esse a stellis fixis,
tantum, quia concursus ille semper esset stabilis et manens
accendens radiorum recte descendentium a planetis tantum, et cum
planete permutent velociter suum situm, non posset ille concursus
diu accendere. Comete autem vise sunt per sex (4) menses
durasse.
(6) Si autem concursus radiorum ascendentium per reflexionem
factam sicut a speculo concavo vel per congregationem sicut per
transitus per medium perspicuorum spericorum, tunc occasio
ibi concursus radiorum esset corpus naturale sublunare, si vapor
concavus aut spericus cuius figure mansio non potest esse diuturna
nec sequitur eius motus motum celi necessario. Duratio autem
comete quandoque diuturna est, ut diximus, et motus eius sequitur
motum celi diurnum.
(7) Qui autem considerant quod res multe propinque a distantia
a se apparent continue sciuntque cum hoc quod gallaxio est
congregatio stellarum propinquarum in iudicio visus concursarum,
prope sunt ut ex hac similitudine formant sibi opinionem quod
cometa sit aggregatio plurium stellarum propinquarum secundum
(4) The Berlin Ms has octo menses.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE TEXT OF GROSSETESTES DE COMETIS

23

figuram in qua apparet cometa orta in hora apparitionis illius

concurrentium.
(8) Et hec opinio destruitur quia non semper apparent comete
in via stellarum erraticarum sed extra eam pluries. Qui autem
experti sunt quod propter figuram (f. 2ia) perspicui interpositi inter
videntem et rem visam possibile est ut res una appareat alterius
figure qualiscunque secundum exigentiam figure perspicui interpositi prope (5) sunt ut opinentur cometam stellam esse apparentem.
(g) [In magnitudine et figura non solita propter vaporem perspicuum interpositum figuratum proportionaliter magnum et figure
comete vise. Ex hac enim apparent multocies soles plures et
lune plures. Hanc vero destruit id quod dictum est, scilicet
quod vapor elevatus non retinet diu figuram unam nec sequitur
necessario motum celi.]
(io) Hec ergo sunt opiniones de natura talium apparitionum
quas possibile est ut preformet sibi animus experimentis in rebus
naturalibus cum non profundaverunt cum eis rationes scientiarum
specialium. Cum in regione superlunari nichil renovatur preter
situm et ea que ex situ renovato accidunt ut eclipsis et radiorum
proiectiones visibiles et crementum et decrementum lune, manifestum est quod cometa non est stella nova nec aliquod novum
in regione superlunari. Quid igitur in visione comete est res
existens sub globo lunari ? Palam autem ex luce et splendore
comete quem trahit cometa quod cometa illa nichil aliud est
quam ignis, quia sub luna et supra nos nichil lucet et splendet nisi
solus ignis. Ignis autem duplex est quia aut est manens non
simul cum generatur desinens qualis est ignis elementum in sua
spera; alius est ebulitio fumi accensi simul cum generatione sua
desinens qualis est flamma apud nos genita. Non est autem
possibile ut materia comete sui sit ignis simul cum generatione
sua transiens, quia non haberet materiam continue foventem eam
in diuturnitate sue permanentie, nec sequitur materia illum
motum celi diuturnum cum esset natura terrestris non complete
sublimata. Non enim videmus aliquos ignes ex materia terrestri
in aere generatos diuturne permanentie nec motum celi sequentes.
Relinquitur ergo quod cometa (6) ignis manens non cum generatione sua transiens. Hunc autem descendere in regionem aeris
(5) Cod. proprie.
(6) Supple sit.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

S. H.

THOMSON

spera ignis elementi non est possibile, quia non descendit ignis
elementum cum corpulentia a spera sua sed virtus eius tantum
descendet cum radiis stellarum in spera eius ignitis, nec attingit
ad speram ignis generatus ex materia desursum veniente sed a
materia deorsum veniente, quia non est possibile ut generetur
ignis habens diuturnitatem permanentie nisi cum fuerit materia
sublimata separata a materia terrestri et assimilata nature celesti.
Palam igitur est quod cometa est ignis sublimatus separatus a
natura terrestri et assimilatus nature celesti. Cum agens et
paciens completa actione assimilentur cum prius fuerint (f. Zib) dissimilia causa naturalis comete necessario est virtus celestis, scilicet
virtus stelle fixe vel errative, et verisimile est quod unicuique
comete est causa effectiva propria stella e directo cum movetur
cum qua apparet in iudicio nostri sensus. Cum autem comete
moveantur motu celi diurno, patet quod virtus celi primi est
causa motica in ipsis, et obedientia ista quam habent comete
ad mutationem celi primi signum est sublimationis eorum, id est
separationis a natura terrestri et assimilationis nature celesti.
Locatio autem comete e directo unius stelle plusquam e directo
alterius non est nisi per assimilationem maiorem illi stelle e
directo cuius locatur que propter similitudinem quam habent
cum stella illa cuius virtus eam sublimavit; trahetur a stella illa
sicut ferrum ab adamante. Cum autem stella que sublimavit
comam sit de natura unius septem planetarum eo quod omnis
stella est de natura unius eorum, palam eciam est quoniam eciam
coma est ignis sublimatus assimilatus nature unius septem planetarum. In omni enim re complexionata terre sunt res corporales
spiritales assimilate naturis celestibus incorporate ipsis rebus
complexionatis que res spiritales separabiles sunt a rebus complexionate per actionem corporum celestium. Cum sit hec
separatio relinquitur res complexionata a natura celesti et infirmatur
aut corrumpitur. Partes autem mundi huius sensibiles sunt
facilioris et velocioris resolutionis quam sint partes rerum complexionatarum, licet totus mundus sensibilis sit incorruptibilis
et quelibet res complexionata tota sit corruptibilis.
Ex hiis ergo apparet quod cometa que est ignis sublimatus
(ii)
a parte mundi sensibilis signum est precedentis sublimationis
et separationis nature spiritualis incorrupte rebus complexionatis
et assimilatis terre in natura spirituali quapropter signum est

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE TEXT OF GROSSETESTES DE COMETIS

25

infirmationis aut corruptionis rerum complexionatarum quibus

dominatur planeta vel stella alia de natura planete.

A comparison of our text with that of the Berlin codex, as

printed by BAUR, shows that the latter has but seven of the eleven
sections and in the following order:

Section (iO) p. 36, 1. I4

39, 11 5 (2) p. 40, 11. i8 -

(I I) p

(4) p. 40, 11. 29 (5) p. 40, 1. 32 (7) p. 4, 1 . I 3 -

p.

39, 1. 5

28
3I

P.

4I,

1. I2

19

(8) p. 4I, 11. 20 -26

Sections I, 3, 6 and 9 of the Florence Ms are wanting in the
Berlin copy, yet they are all necessary to the even development
of the argument. But between sections I I and 2 the Berlin
codex has the section which it has in common with the second
"recension," which, though belonging in the paraphrase of
PTOLEMY, is but a resume of the argument already elaborated in
section io, and consequently quite out of place in this tractate.
The mention, at the beginning of the tractate, of a comet
que nuper apparuit may be of some use in dating the composition
of the work. It may be of interest to suggest that, with an orbit
of ? 75.9 years, HALLEY'S comet, first definitely observed in I456,
was due some time during the year I228, that is, its third
appearance previous to I456.
There has hitherto been no reference to its appearance in this year which is more verifiable than
this conjectural one by GROSSETESTE. If that is so, we have
GROSSETESTE, early in the period of his teaching activity at Oxford,
from I229, using HALLEY'S comet as an occasion for a general
treatment of the subject of the cause and nature of comets.
It may be added that internal evidence, of a somewhat doubtful
nature, be it said, such as a certain lack of finish and definiteness
in expression, would tend to class this short tract as an early
composition. Reliance on such evidence must be controlled
by the pertinent fact that the Ms ascription is not of the thirteenth
century, but certainly the second half of the fourteenth.
S. HARRISON THOMSON.
Oxford

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.179 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions