The first discovered copy of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology, the Darmstadt manuscript, also transmits a literal commentary (Sententia) on Aristotleâs Meteorology.1 The commentary is ascribed to Oresme in the colophon of the first book: âExplicit Sententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorumâ (f. 106ra). This attribution is repeated by the fifteenth-century possessor of the manuscript, Philip of Othey, at the beginning of the text, in the upper margin of f. 100r: âSententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorum.â
The commentary is based on Moerbekeâs Greek-Latin translation, from which the lemmata of the Aristotelian text are quoted. The Darmstadt copy is the result of the work of two students: Iohannes de Margan and Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche. Ff. 100raâ112va, which transmit the first three books of the commentary, are by the hand of Iohannes Margan. The first book is the only one that is complete. The second book is interrupted at f. 109rb, in the middle of chapter II, 6 of the Aristotelian text, dedicated to winds.2 The text resumes at the end of f. 109va with chapter II, 7, in which Aristotle deals with earthquakes.3 The third book is interrupted at f. 112vb, chapter III, 5, dedicated to the rainbow.4 Starting with f. 116ra, we find a copy of the fourth book of the commentary by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche, which ends unfinished at f. 123ra.
Paleographical elements enable us to determine where a given lecture ends and the following one begins. Studies on other scholastic reportationes have shown that the writing is more compact at the beginning of a lecture and more spread out at the end, as a result of the scribeâs becoming tired (see for instance, in our text, f. 101va and f. 111rb).5 Another element that can help us to evaluate the length of a lecture is the difference in handwriting due to a change in the composition of the ink and different cut of the pen (particularly evident at f. 107rb, f. 109ra, f. 110rb, f. 110va, f. 111vb, f. 112rb). A further indicator is some additional remarks squeezed in between two lectures (as at f. 102ra and f. 108ra). In contrast to the question-commentary, in which the end of a lecture is usually announced by specific formulas such as âet sic patet ad questionem,â âet sic est finis,â âet hec de questioneâ, in the literal commentary the lectures follow one another without explicit transitions.6 The average length of each lecture is about three columns, but there are shorter lectures of two columns and longer ones of four columns. In most cases, a lecture covers a chapter (capitulum) of the Aristotelian text, but shorter chapters related thematically are sometimes discussed in the same lecture (such as chapters I, 6â7, devoted to comets; chapters I, 8â9, devoted to atmospheric phenomena; and chapters III, 2â3, devoted to the halo). On the other hand, longer and more complex chapters are sometimes split in two lectures, as happens with chapter III, 4, which deals with the rainbow.7 The following table illustrates synoptically the correspondence between the passages from Aristotleâs Meteorology (last two columns) and the lectures in Oresmeâs literal commentary (first two columns), for the portion of the course transmitted in Iohannes de Marganâs reportatio.
|
Lecture |
Folios |
Lemma of the lecture |
Aristotle |
|---|---|---|---|
|
I |
100raârb |
â¨Dâ©e primis quidem |
338 a 20 |
|
II |
100rbâva |
â¨Râ©esumentes igitur |
339 a 34 |
|
III |
100vaâ101va |
â¨Râ©elicuum autem |
340 a 19 |
|
IV |
101vaâ102ra |
â¨Hâ©iis autem determinatis |
341 b 1 |
|
V |
102raâ103rb |
â¨Dâ©e cometis autem et vocato |
342 b 25 |
|
VI |
103rbâvb |
â¨Qâ©ualiter autem et propter quam |
345 a 11 |
|
VII |
103vbâ104vb |
â¨Dâ©e loco autem et positione |
346 b 17 |
|
VIII |
104vbâ105va |
â¨Dâ©e ventis autem et spiritibus omnibus |
349 a 13 |
|
IX |
105vaâ106ra |
Non semper autem |
351 a 20 |
|
X |
106rbâva |
De mari autem et que natura ipsius |
353 a 32 |
|
XI |
106vaâ107rb |
â¨Dâ©e generatione autem ipsius |
354 b 1 |
|
XII |
107rbâ108ra |
â¨Dâ©e salsedine autem |
356 b 4 |
|
XIII |
108raârb |
â¨De spiritibus autemâ© |
359 b 27 |
|
XIV |
108vaâ109ra |
â¨Sol autem et cessareâ© |
361 b 15 |
|
XV |
109raârb |
â¨De positione autemâ© |
363 a 21 (incomplete) |
|
XVI |
109vaâvb |
De agitatione autem et motu terre8 |
365 a 15 |
|
XVII |
110raâva |
â¨Sed quoniam manifestum estâ© |
365 b 21 |
|
XVIII |
110vaâ111ra |
â¨De coruscatione autemâ© |
369 a 10 |
|
XIX |
111raârb |
â¨De residuisâ© |
370 b 3 |
|
XX |
111rbâvb |
â¨De halo autemâ© |
371 b 19 |
|
XXI |
111vbâ112rb |
â¨Iris autem quod quidemâ© |
373 a 32 |
|
XXII |
112rbâvb |
â¨Quia autem color talisâ© |
374 b 7 |
The fourth book (ff. 116raâ123ra) is not by the hand of Iohannes Margan, but was copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche. The paleographic features of this copy offer a strong contrast with the first three books of the commentary: the lemmata reappear, the writing is regular and the transitions between the lectures are not noticeable. We can therefore reasonably suppose that the text copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche is not an original reportatio, but, possibly, a corrected copy of a reportatio written by himself or by his colleague, Iohannes Margan. If this hypothesis is correct, we can further suppose that the two students worked together and divided their tasks, Iohannes Margan being appointed for the first draft (reportatio) and Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche for the corrected version (compilatio). This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the textual transmission of the Questions. As I will show in more detail, the Darmstadt manuscript in fact contains two different copies of Oresmeâs question-commentary on Aristotleâs Meteorology: a longer one (ff. 58raâ79vb; 85raâ93ra), copied by Iohannes Margan, which can be considered to be a reportatio, and a fragmentary one (ff. 80raâ82rb), copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche. The colophon of the latter informs us that the text was revised under the supervision of Nicole Oresme: âExpliciunt questiones primi Metheororum compilate ante magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme Normannumâ (f. 81rb). The term compilatus indicates that the text is of a different nature than the one copied by Iohannes Margan, which is rather reportatus: while the latter was written down directly during the lecture, the former was corrected and revised afterwards (âExplicit Sententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorum,â f. 106ra).9
Although in the Sententia Oresme generally accepts Aristotleâs views, he departs from his source on the subject of the Milky Way. Aristotle contends that this phenomenon occurs within the sublunar region and is caused by the ignition of dry exhalations due to the motion of the sphere of the fixed stars (I, 8, 345 b 33â346 b 15). Oresme opposes this theory by invoking the authority of astronomers, among whom he mentions Ptolemy: according to him, the Milky Way is a celestial, and not a sublunar phenomenon. Oresme explains that heavenly matter is not uniform, some of its parts being denser than others. The stars, for instance, are denser than the orbs. Since denser bodies reflect more light, denser parts of the heavens appear to be more luminous than less dense ones. This explains the luminosity of the Milky Way, which is situated in a part of the celestial sphere containing many big stars. Oresme stresses the coherence of this explanation with the Arabic-Latin translation of Aristotleâs Meteorology, and refers to his question-commentary for the refutation of the theory defended in the Greek-Latin translation.10
This is far from the only reference to the Questions in the Sententia. Several other similar references can be found throughout the whole literal commentary, as can be observed from the following table:
|
Folio |
Quotation |
Source |
|---|---|---|
|
100ra |
Iste dicitur âliber Metheororumâ, et quare sic vocatur patuit in prima questione. |
I.1, 7 |
|
100rb |
Ponit causam efficientem, dicens quod de necessitate iste mundus inferior est continuus et contiguus lationibus superioribus, id est celo, ut omnis virtus gubernetur inde tamquam a principali agente, ut dictum est in questione. |
I.2, 17 |
|
100rb |
Etiam quod celum sit causa motuum inferiorum ponit Albertus per duas rationes factas in questione. |
I.3, 15 |
|
101raârb |
Tertio sciendum quod causa quare ibi fiunt nubes et similia est quia est continue frigida, et de causa frigiditatis eiusdem videtur in questione. |
I.16, 13â19 |
|
100va |
Removet cavillationem, dicens quod si â¨elementaâ© numquam fierent ex se invicem, adhuc non obstat quin deberent esse equalia in virtute et proportionalia in magnitudine, et illa que sunt dicenda hic videbuntur in questione. |
I.10 |
|
103vb |
Verum est quod concordat cum antiqua translatione, et non potest stare illa opinio que dicit quod est in aere, sicut probabitur in questione. |
I.22, 12â14 |
|
111rb |
Aliquando tonitrua dividunt et frangunt sine combustione, propter impetum motus, et etiam aliqua fulgura fiunt sine sono. Circa istam materiam auctores ponunt multa alia, de quibus videbitur in questione. |
II.9 |
References to the Questions are more frequent at the beginning of the literal commentary, and, in these cases, they are in the past tense. As the reader progresses in the Sententia, references to the Questions become scarce and are in the future tense. This may indicate that Oresme taught the two commentaries in parallel: since the topics are discussed in more detail in the question-commentary, he advanced more slowly with it. This explains why, at the beginning of the Sententia, Oresme had already discussed the corresponding topics in the question-commentary, while in subsequent lectures he was farther along in the literal commentary than in the question-commentary. Interestingly, the same shift in tenses used for the references between literal and question commentaries can be observed in other texts of the same milieu, namely Oresmeâs Questions and Expositio on Aristotleâs De anima, Buridanâs Questions and Expositio on Aristotleâs De celo, and Buridanâs Questions and Expositio on Aristotleâs De generatione et corruptione.11
I, ff. 100raâ106ra: ââ¨Dâ©e primis quidem igitur causis nature et de omni motu naturaliterâ. Iste dicitur âliber Metheororumâ, et quare sic vocatur patuit in prima questione. Ordo istius libri ad alios precedentes et sequentes patet in prohemio ⦠X ⦠et ibi: âquod quidemâ, etc., hic recapitulat. Et patet in littera. II, ff. 106rbâ111ra: ââ¨Dâ©e mari autem et que natura ipsiusâ. Hic assignatur secundus liber, unde in primo determinavit de impressionibus que sunt ex exalatione calida et sicca ⦠X ⦠media regio aeris est valde frigida existente caliditate inferius supra terram. III, ff. 111raâ115vb: Hic incipit tertius liber secundum expositores. Et patet continuatio ad precedentia. Aristoteles volebat determinare de hiis que fiunt ex exalatione calida et sicca ⦠X ⦠ipsa est ita debilis et ita obscura quod non potest videri ⦠[incomplete]. IV, ff. 116raâ123ra: ââ¨Qâ©uoniam quidem cause determinate quatuor suntâ. etc. Iste est quartus liber Metheororum qui continuatur, sicut prius Aristoteles determinavit de passionibus metheorologicis ⦠X ⦠ad secundam patet ex dictis, quia solum aqua calida a frigido. Minor patet, quia talia ⦠[incomplete]. See Caroti (ed.), Nicole Oresme. Questiones super De generatione et corruptione, 40* fn. 6; Flüeler, âFrom Oral Lectures to Written Commentaries,â 511â512 fn. 43; Panzica, âNicole Oresme à la Faculté des Arts,â 13 fn. 28, 18 fn. 45, 32 fn. 83.
The text is interrupted with the words: âet sic patet qualiter sunt contrarii et quomodo sunt, scilicet principales.â Philip of Othey wrote in the outer margin: âIllud quod hic deficit posset scribi in isto spatio.â
The text resumes with the words: ââ¯âDe agitatione autem et motu terreâ. Iste est tertius tractatus, in quo determinatur de motu terre, et potest dividi in duo capitula.â
The text is interrupted while Oresme is explaining why it is impossible to see more than two rainbows, with the words: âSecunda causa est quia, si adhuc superius fiat aliqua refractio, ipsa est ita debilis et ita obscura quod non potest videri.â After these words, Philip of Othey copied the following lemma: âQuod autem neque circulum possibile est fieri yridisâ (Meteor. III, 5, 375 b 16). Philip wrote thereafter: âHic deficit de tertio libro quasi unum folium vel duo.â It is worth noticing that the lemmata are missing at ff. 107vbâ112vb, namely the last part of the text copied by Iohannes Margan.
W.O. Duba, The Forge of Doctrine. The Academic Year 1330â1331 and the Rise of Scotism at the University of Paris, Turnhout 2017 (Studia Sententiarum, 2), 35, and Ch. Flüeler, âFrom Oral Lectures to Written Commentaries,â 497â521. On the genre of the reportatio, see. J. Hamesse, âReportations, graphies et ponctuation,â in A. Maierù (ed.), Grafia e Interpunzione del latino nel Medioevo, Seminario internazionale, Rome 1984 (Lessico intellettuale europeo, 41), 135â151; Ead., âReportatio et transmission de textesâ in M. Asztalos (ed.), The Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages, Stockholm 1986 (Acta Universitatis StockholmiensisâStudia Latina Stockholmiensia, 30), 11â34; Ead., âLes problèmes posés par lâédition critique des reportations,â Franciscan Studies 46 (1986), 107â117; Ead., âLa méthode de travail des reportateurs,â Medioevo e Rinascimento 3 (1989), 51â67; Ead., âLa technique de la reportation,â in O. Weijers and L. Holtz (eds.), Lâenseignement des disciplines. Actes du colloque international, Turnhout 1997 (Studia Artistarum, 4), 405â421.
I have found only one exception: at the end of lecture X, at f. 106va, we read: âet sic finitur.â
My conclusions concerning the average length of a lecture in terms of commented text and columns in the manuscripts confirm the results of Christoph Flüeler, who studied Buridanâs literal commentary (Sententia) on Aristotleâs Metaphysics: Flüeler, From Oral Lectures to Written Commentaries, 517.
This lemma was added by Philip of Othey.
In the following pages, we will see that D shows also other characteristic features of a reportatio, namely errors of oral nature: see below, p. 51.
Nicole Oresme, Sententia in Meteorologica, ms. Darmstadt, Universitäts -und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, f. 103vb: âEst notandum quod ista opinio non videtur habere veritatem, ymmo astrologi et omnes alii philosophi et Ptolomeus dicunt quod talis claritas est in ipso celo. Unde, sicut corpus lunare est difforme et est ibi quedam macula, et etiam stella est densior pars orbis, ideo est verisimile quod in aliis partibus orbis sit etiam quedam difformitas, ita quod etiam una est densior alia, et tunc apparet ibi maius lumen etiam propter multitudinem stellarum. Verum est quod concordat cum antiqua translatione, et non potest stare illa opinio que dicit quod est in aere, sicut probabitur in questione.â In his Almagest, Ptolemy considers the Milky Way to be a group of stars: G.J. Toomer (ed.), Ptolemyâs Almagest, London 1984, VII.2, 400â404. The Arabic-Latin translation of Aristotleâs Meteorology diverges from the Greek text, as it states that the Milky Way is the light of a group of stars: P.L. Schoonheim, Aristotleâs Meteorology in the Arabico-Latin Tradition: A Critical Edition of the Texts, with Introduction and Indices, Leiden/Boston (MA)/Cologne 2000 (Aristoteles Semitico-latinus, 12), 17â19. On the differences between the two translations on the subject of the Milky Way, see P. Lettinck, Aristotleâs Meteorology and Its Reception in the Arab World. With an Edition and Translation of Ibn SuwÄrâs Treatise on Meteorological Phenomena and Ibn BÄjjaâs Commentary on the Meteorology, Leiden/Boston (MA)/Cologne 1999 (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus, 10), 76â77. The theory according to which celestial matter is not homogeneous, but presents different degrees of density, is a specifically Averroistic one: Averroes, Commentarium magnum in De celo, II, comm. 42, eds. J.F. Carmody â and R. Arnzen, Leuven 2003 (Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales, Bibliotheca 4) (2 vols.), 2, 35054â352101; comm. 49, 2, 367â368; De substantia orbis, ed. A. Hyman in Averroesâ De substantia orbis. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text with English Translation and Commentary, Cambridge (MA)/Jerusalem 1986 (Corpus philosophorum Medii Aevi. Opera Averrois), 92â94; In libros Meteorologicorum expositio media, I, 3, Venice, apud Iuntas, 1562 (Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois Commentariis, 5), ff. 413 Iâ414 B. On Oresmeâs account of the Milky Way, and more generally on scholastic discussions of this phenomenon in commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology, see Panzica, De la Lune à la Terre, ch. 17.3.
B. Patar (ed.), Nicolai Oresme Expositio et Quaestiones in Aristotelis De anima, Louvain-la-Neuve 1995 (Philosophes médiévaux, 32), 105*; B. Patar (ed.), Iohannes Buridani Expositio et Quaestiones in Aristotelis De caelo, Louvain-la-Neuve 1996 (Philosophes médiévaux, 33), 46*â47*; M. Streijger, P.J.J.M. Bakker and J.M.M.H. Thijssen (eds.), John Buridan, Quaestiones super libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis, Leiden/Boston (MA) 2010 (Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Science, 14), 7.