The First Redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology

Jump to Content

The First Redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology

äºNicole Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura

ç¼èï¼

Aurora Panzica

Aurora Panzica
Search for other papers by Aurora Panzica in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

ç±»å:: ç« è

Page Range:: 16â90

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004689237_004

æ¨è·å¾è®¿é®çæ¹å¼ï¼

Dar Hadith al Hassania

ä¸è½½PDF

My research at the Bavarian State Library of Munich and at the Jagellonian Library in Krakow enabled me to identify five copies of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology, which must be added to the two copies discovered by Stefano Caroti and transmitted in the Darmstadt manuscript:

Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek (formerly Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek), Hs. 2197, ff.Â 58^raâ79^vb; 85^raâ93^ra = D
MÃ¼nchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4375, ff.Â 19^raâ46^rb = M
KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 753, ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb = C
KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 635, pp.Â 194^aâ209^a = C¹ (I.19â31)
KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, ff.Â 110^vbâ120^ra = C² (I.19â31)
KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, ff.Â 81^raâ97^va = C^2a (I.3; I.12â32)
Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 80^vaâ82^rb; 125^raâ127^vb = D¹ (I.30â32; II.1â2)

The text of D stops abruptly in the middle of the question Utrum iris debeat apparere secundum circuli periferiam (II.14 in D; III.5 in C and M) with the words: âetiam tota nubes apparet unum continuum, quamvis sit divisa per guttas.â M transmits two other questions: Utrum iris possit apparere maior semicirculo and Utrum iris quandoque appareat secundum portionem maioris et quandoque minoris circuli, the latter finishing with the words: âquoniam eius gloria pleni erunt celi et terra.â C contains one more question, Utrum yris potest fieri a Luna, which ends with the words: âad ultimam conceditur quod non, sed non videtur tota nocte. Et sic est finis tertii libri Metheororum.â D¹ transmits three questions on the fourth book that are missing in the other witnesses: IV.1, Utrum sint tantum quatuor qualitates prime; IV.2, Utrum qualitatum primarum due sint active et due passive, scilicet caliditas et siccitas active et alie passive; IV.3, Utrum caliditas sit magis qualitas activa quam frigiditas.

The following table provides a synoptic overview of the correspondence between the questions transmitted in manuscripts D, C and M. The portion of text transmitted by the other witnesses is too scant to ascertain the book division they adopted.

List of questions	D		M		C
Utrum impressiones metheorologice fiant secundum naturam inordinatiorem ea que est primi elementi corporum, id est secundum naturam minus ordinatam quam natura celi.	I.1	58^ra	I.1	19^ra	I.1	51^ra
Utrum iste mundus inferior sit contiguus ipsi celo.	I.2	58^vb	I.2	19^va	I.2	51^vb
Utrum omnis virtus inferior a superioribus, scilicet supercelestibus, gubernetur.	I.3	59^va	I.3	20^ra	I.3	52^va
Utrum aliquis motus localis in istis inferioribus sit effective a celo.	I.4	60^ra	I.4	20^va	I.4	53^ra
Utrum, cessante motu celi, fierent generationes, alterationes, impressiones et similia in istis inferioribus.	I.5	60^vb	I.5	21^rb	I.5	53^vb
Utrum, solo primo motu superiorum cessante, fierent generationes, impressiones, etc., posito quod Sol et alii planete moverentur.	I.6	61^va	I.6	21^va	I.6	54^va
Utrum motus localis sit causa caloris.	I.7	62^ra	I.7	22^ra	I.7	54^vb
Utrum aer superior et ignis in suis speris calefiant ex motu celi.	I.8	63^ra	I.8	22^vb	I.8	55^vb
Utrum lumen in istis inferioribus a corporibus celestibus generetur.	I.9	63^va	I.9	23^rb	I.9	56^rb
Utrum quatuor elementa sint continue proportionalia.	I.10	64^rb	III.7	45^ra	I.33	71^rb
Utrum omne lumen sit calefactivum.	I.11	66^rb	I.10	23^vb	I.10	56^vb
Utrum omne corpus oppositum luminoso sit calefactibile per lumen.	I.12	67^rb	I.11	24^va	I.11	57^ra
Utrum aliquod agens possit agere in passum distans ab eo sine hoc quod agat in intermedium.	I.13	68^rb	I.12	25^ra	I.12	58^rb
Utrum aliquod agens fortius agat in remotum quam in sibi propinquum.	I.14	69^ra	I.13	25^vb	I.13	59^rb
Utrum unum contrarium possit movere localiter alterum sibi contrarium.	I.15	69^vb	I.14	26^rb	I.14	59^vb
Utrum media regio aeris sit semper frigida.	I.16	70^va	I.15	27^ra	I.15	60^va
Utrum flamme apparentes de nocte in aere fiant ibi naturaliter.	I.17	71^ra	I.16	27^va	I.16	61^ra
Utrum, serenitate existente, appareant in celo de nocte iatus, seu aperture, et voragines et sanguinei colores.	I.18	71^va	I.17	28^ra	I.17	61^va
Utrum stelle comate sint de natura celi aut elementari.	I.19	72^ra	I.18	28^va	I.18	62^rb
Utrum motus stelle comate sit naturalis.	I.20	72^va	I.19	29^ra	I.19	62^vb
Utrum comete significant guerras, mortes principum, pestilentias et huiusmodi.	I.21	73^rb	I.20	29^va	I.20	63^va
Utrum omnes comete sint eiusdem speciei inter se et cum galaxia.	I.22	73^vb	I.21	29^vb	I.21	64^ra
Utrum impressiones humide fiant a calido.	I.23	74^ra	I.22	30^rb	I.22	64^va
Utrum omnes impressiones aquee sint eiusdem speciei.	I.24	74^vb	I.23	30^vb	I.23	65^ra
Utrum nix et pluvia generentur in media aeris regione.	I.25	75^rb	I.24	31^rb	I.24	65^vb
Utrum grando debeat magis fieri in yeme vel estate aut in temporibus mediis, sicut in vere aut autumno.	I.26	76^ra	I.25	32^ra	I.25	66^va
Utrum nebula sit signum serenitatis.	I.27	76^rb	I.26	32^va	I.26	66^vb
Utrum aqua naturaliter ascendat ad orificia fontium.	I.28	77^ra	I.27	33^ra	I.27	67^va
Utrum fontes et fluvii veniant ex aqua pluviali vel ex mari vel aliunde.	I.29	77^va	I.28	33^va	I.28	68^rb
Utrum fontes et flumina derivantur a montibus.	I.30	78^rb	I.29	34^rb	I.29	68^vb
Utrum habitationes permutentur.	I.31	79^ra	I.30	34^vb	I.30	69^va
Utrum habitatio terre permutetur propter mare.	I.32	79^rb	I.31	35^rb	I.31	70^ra
Utrum habitatio terre permutetur propter intemperantiam in qualitatibus secundis.	I.33	85^ra	I.32	35^vb	I.32	70^vb
Utrum locus naturalis elementi aque sit ubi nunc est mare.	II.1	85^va	II.1	36^rb	II.1	73^ra
Utrum mare fluat et refluat.	II.2	86^ra	II.2	36^vb	II.2	73^va
Utrum aqua maris sit salsa.	II.3	86^va	II.3	37^rb	II.3	74^ra
Utrum fontes et fluvii debeant esse salsi.	II.4	87^ra	II.4	37^vb	II.4	74^va
Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca.	II.5	87^va	II.5	38^rb	II.5	75^ra
Utrum Auster veniat a polo antartico et Boreas ab artico.	II.6	88^rb	II.6	39^ra	II.6	75^vb
Utrum terremotus sit possibilis.	II.7	88^vb	II.7	39^va	II.7	76^va
Utrum terremotus, ventus et tonitruum et similia sint eiusdem nature.	II.8	89^rb	II.8	40^ra	II.8	77^ra
Utrum fulgur sit exalatio calida et sicca ignita.	II.9	89^vb	II.9	40^va	II.9	78^ra
Utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis et politis.	II.10	90^va	III.1	41^ra	III.1	78^vb
Utrum halo fiat ex refractione radiorum ab ipsa nube.	II.11	91^va	III.2	42^ra	III.2	79^vb
Utrum sit aliquis color spiritualis.	II.12	92^ra	III.3	42^rb	III.3	80^rb
Utrum colores apparentes in iride sint ibi vere et realiter.	II.13	92^rb	III.4	42^vb	III.4	80^vb
Utrum iris debeat apparere secundum circuli periferiam.	II.14	92^vb	III.5	43^rb	III.5	81^va
Utrum iris possit apparere maior semicirculo.			III.6	44^ra	III.6	82^ra
Utrum iris quandoque appareat secundum proportionem maioris et quandoque minoris circuli.			III.7	44^va	III.7	82^va
Utrum iris potest fieri a Luna.					III.8	83^ra
Utrum sint tantum quatuor qualitates prime.	IV.1	125^ra
Utrum qualitatum primarum due sint active et due passive, scilicet caliditas et siccitas active et alie passive.	IV.2	125^rb
Utrum caliditas sit magis qualitas activa quam frigiditas.	IV.3	125^vb

1 Descriptions of the Manuscripts

In the following pages, I shall present the descriptions of the manuscripts transmitting the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology. The descriptions are not of the same length, since I differentiated my method according to the availability of information on these codices. Whenever recent and detailed descriptions are available, I only provide essential information concerning the origin and the content of the manuscripts and I focus on the part transmitting the Questions on Meteorology. This is the case with manuscripts 635, 686 and 753 from the Jagellonian Library in Krakow, whose composition and content have been carefully described in the new catalogue of Latin manuscripts.¹ By contrast, I provide more information concerning the Darmstadt and the Munich manuscripts, since no detailed printed descriptions of these codices are yet available.

1.1 The Complete Manuscripts

1.1.1 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 58^raâ79^vb; 85^raâ93^ra = D

Paper; II, ff.Â 232; I: 1^râ192^v; II: 193^râ232^v; 1346

Date and origin.² This manuscript was copied in 1346 at the University of Paris, as is evident from the colophon of the Questions on De anima: âExpliciunt Questiones supra librum De anima reportate ante magistrum Johannem de Wesalia in vico straminum Parisius per manus Johannis Margan de Yvia, anno DominiÂ MÂ° CCCÂ° 46Â°â (f.Â 192^vb). The terminology of the colophons, as well as the material features of the codex, show that the manuscript consists of course notes taken by students under the dictation of the masters (reportationes), and of redactions revised by the masters (compilationes): âExpliciunt Questiones primi Metheororum compilate ante magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannumâ (f.Â 81^rb); âExplicit Sententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorum. Incipit Sententia secundi eiusdem reportata ab eodemâ (f.Â 106^ra); âExpliciunt Questiones supra primum et secundum De anima in numero 37 reportate ante magistrum Johannemâ (f.Â 176^rb); âExpliciunt Questiones supra librum De anima reportate ante magistrum Johannem de Wezalia in vico straminum Parisius per manus Johannis Margan de Yvia anno domini MÂ° CCCÂ° 46Â°â (f.Â 192^vb); âExpliciunt Questiones libri Elencorum scripte coram reverendo magistro Johanne de Wezaliaâ (f.Â 231^rb).

As we have already seen, the texts transmitted in this manuscript were copied by two students at the Paris Arts Faculty: Iohannes de Margan and Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche, both natives of the diocese of LiÃ¨ge. When they returned to their country, they brought the texts with them: this is how the codex ended up in the Abbey of St. James in LiÃ¨ge. In 1407, the volume was bought by the prior Philip of Othey, who left in it, along with his possession mark, many annotations concerning the ascription of the texts and their location in the volume. It was at this time that the codex was bound and acquired its current form. After the secularisation of the Abbey of St. James in 1788, the manuscript passed into the possession of Baron Adolf von HÃ¼psch and, after his death in 1805, into the collection of the Darmstadt Hofbibliothek (currently UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek). The history of this manuscript is related to codex 516 from the same library, which Christoph FlÃ¼eler regarded as its âtwin.â³

Codicology. Modern binding, restored in 1976 by the book-binder of the then Hessische Landes -und Hochschulbibliothek Wolfgang Eisenhauer. The fragments of the old binding suggest that it dates back to around 1721, or at least, that it was restored from fragments of a previous binding by Philipp Fiesen, librarian in LiÃ¨ge.⁴ Some fragments of the old binding are conserved: a rectangle of paper on which we read: âQuestiones Nicolai de Orem et Iohannis de Vesaliaâ (medieval hand); a rectangle of very worn paper on which we read: âGÂ 19â (hand of the fifteenth century); a square of paper on which we read: ââ¦ s De OresÂ â¦ / corruptioneâ (hand of the eighteenth century); a square of paper on which we read: â501â (hand of the eighteenth century);⁵ two squares of paper on which we read: 642 (hands of the nineteenth century); a rectangle of paper on which we read: 266 (hand of the nineteenth century).⁶ At the beginning of the manuscript, after a modern paper guard-leaf, we find a pasted leaf of parchment, followed by a paper leaf (f.Â 1). The parchment leaf, numbered 197 by a modern hand, bears the signature âGÂ 19â on the back, written in red ink by a medieval hand. This leaf informs us that the manuscript belonged to the Abbey of St. James in LiÃ¨ge and that it was bought in 1407 by the prior Philip of Othey. This leaf also gives us precise indications on the content of the codex (see below).

The manuscript consists of five materially distinct but contemporary parts, written by the same scribes: I (ff.Â 1â135); II (ff.Â 136â192); III (ff.Â 193â198); IV (ff.Â 199â202); V (ff.Â 203â231).

The composition of the quires is quite irregular, as we can see from the following formula:⁷ I (2â11)^5â¯+â¯5; II (12â18)^{4â¯+â¯(4â1)}; III (19â24)^3â¯+â¯3; IV (25â27)^(2â1)â¯+2; V (28â35)^4â¯+â¯4; VI (36â43)^4â¯+â¯4; VII (44â51)^4â¯+â¯4; VIII (52â57)^3â¯+â¯3; IX (58â67)^5â¯+â¯5; X (68â75)^4â¯+â¯4; XI (76â88)^{7â¯+â¯(7â1)}; XII (89â95)^{(3â¯+â¯1)â¯+3}; XIII (96â99)^2â¯+â¯2; XIV (100â109)^5â¯+â¯5; XV (110â115)^3â¯+â¯3; XVI (116â127)^6â¯+â¯6; XVII (128â135)^4â¯+â¯4; XVIII (136â143)^4â¯+â¯4; XIX (144â151)^4â¯+â¯4; XX (152â157)^3â¯+â¯3; XXI (158â165)^4â¯+â¯4; XXII (166â173)^4â¯+â¯4; XXIII (174â179)^3â¯+â¯3; XXIV (180â187)^4â¯+â¯4; XXV (188â192)^{4â¯+â¯(4â3)}; XXVI (193â198)^3â¯+â¯3; XXVII (199â202)^2â¯+â¯2; XXVIII (203â210)^4â¯+â¯4; XXIX (211â218)^4â¯+â¯4; XXX (219â226)^4â¯+â¯4; XXXI (227â232)^{4â¯+â¯(4â2)}.

Catchwords: f.Â 75^v (52 miliarum modo miliare); f.Â 79^v (putridos exalatos); f.Â 143^v (et non solvatur unde etc.); f.Â 165^v (necessariis et ideo alicui membro etc.); f.Â 173^v (cadavera sed constat quod ad tantam distantiam). Signatures on the upper margin, in the space between the two columns: f.Â 28^r (1 quaternus); 76^r (3 quaternus); 88^v (3us quaternus primi libri Metheororum). Blank leaves: ff.Â 2^râ3^v, 6^vâ7^v, 10^râ11^v, 16^vâ18^v, 23^râ27^r, 41^râ43^v, 52^râ57^v, 83^râ84^v, 93^vâ99^v, 113^râ115^v, 123^vâ124^v, 150^vâ151^v, 178^râ179^v, 198^v, 202^râ^v.

Modern foliation in Arabic numerals and in pencil, on the upper outer margin of each recto leaf. Medieval foliation in Roman numerals, in black ink, on the versoâand not, as usual, on the recto. Old signatures: âEÂ 31,â in black ink, on the upper margin of f.Â 1^r and f.Â 4^r; âGÂ 19,â in red ink, on the upper margin of the parchment sheet and on the outer margin of f.Â 1^r.

Watermarks. I: key similar to Briquet 3809/3810 (1340, Arezzo; 1343, Torcello) and Piccard 8 IIÂ 136 (1357, Bologna);⁸ IIâIII, XII: oxhead similar to Briquet 14120 (1346, Arles); IVâV, VII, IXâX, XIIIâXIV, XVI: key similar to Briquet 3808 (1346, Reggio Emilia) and Piccard 8 IIÂ 46 (1344, Treviso); VI, XIâXII, XV: ox similar to Briquet 2749 (1346, Montpellier; 1348, Paris; 1351, Bologna), 2750 (1347, Cividale), 2752 (1347, Lyon); VI, VIII, XVII, XIXâXX, XXIIâXXIV: fruit similar to Briquet 7346 (1338, Torcello) and Piccard 14 IIÂ 623 (1350, Bologna), 645 (Bologna, 1347); XVIII, XXI: fruit similar to Briquet (1365, Fano; Malines 1338) and Piccard 14 IIÂ 1359/60 (1346, Treviso); XXVI: a vase that, according to the online database Watermarks of the Middle Ages/Wasserzeichen des Mittelalters, can be dated to the years 1346â1355;⁹ XXVII: tongs similar to MoÅ¡in 7099 (1337, Lucca);¹⁰ XXVIIIâXXIX: angel similar to Briquet 596 (1343, Pisa); XXXâXXXI: eagle similar to MoÅ¡in 72 (1340/1350) and 73 (1340).

The bifolios 2/11 and 3/10, were added in 1407 by the bookbinder Petrus de Wint. They bear a watermark with a âPâ motif similar to Briquet 8477 (1398, Paris) and Piccard 4.2 IÂ 482/483 (1405, Arnhem, Zartbommel). All of the other watermarks, as we have seen, date back to the period 1330â1350. Some of these watermarks also appear in manuscript 516 from Darmstadt University Library, which was copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche and described by FlÃ¼eler.¹¹

Content. The manuscript gathers together commentaries on the Aristotelian corpus by masters who taught at the Paris Faculty of Arts during the academic year 1345â1346, as well as texts on logic by William of Ockham. In his edition of Oresmeâs Questions on De generatione et corruptione, Stefano Caroti provided a detailed description of the content of this manuscript.¹² This is why I will limit myself to giving an overview, redirecting the reader to Carotiâs edition for the list of problems discussed in the question-commentaries.

The manuscript contains an anonymous and incomplete literal commentary (Sententia) on Aristotleâs De generatione et corruptione (ff.Â 1^raâ14^va); some questions from an anonymous commentary on De generatione et corruptione (ff.Â 15^raâ16^vb and 19^raâ22^vb); an incomplete copy (qq. I.2âII.14) of Oresmeâs Questions on the same text (ff.Â 28^vaâ51^vb); the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (ff.Â 58^raâ79^vb; 85^raâ93^ra);¹³ a fragmentary copy (I.30â32; II.1â2) of the same text (ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb); an incomplete copy of Oresmeâs literal commentary (Sententia) on Aristotleâs Meteorology (ff.Â 100^raâ123^rb); three anonymous questions on the same text (ff.Â 125^raâ127^vb); eleven anonymous questions on the Physics that Philip of Othey ascribes to Buridan (ff.Â 128^raâ135^vb);¹⁴ an incomplete literal commentary (Sententia) on Aristotleâs De anima by John of Wezalia (ff.Â 136^raâ157^vb);¹⁵ John of Wezaliaâs Questions on De anima (ff.Â 158^raâ192^vb); two anonymous questions on De sensu et sensato (ff.Â 176^vaâ177^va);¹⁶ an incomplete and anonymous copy of William of Ockhamâs commentary on Porphyriusâs Isagoge (ff.Â 193^raâ198^rb);¹⁷ an incomplete and anonymous copy of William of Ockhamâs commentary on Aristotleâs Perihermenias (ff.Â 199^raâ201^vb);¹⁸ an incomplete copy (qq. 1â20) of John of Wezaliaâs commentary on Aristotleâs Prior Analytics (ff.Â 203^raâ210^vb);¹⁹ an incomplete copy of John of Wezaliaâs commentary on Aristotleâs Posterior Analytics (ff.Â 211^raâ218^vb);²⁰ John of Wezaliaâs Questions on the Sophistical refutations (ff.Â 219^raâ231^rb).²¹

The codicological study of the sources, too often neglected by the historians of philosophy, turns out to be particularly fruitful when it comes to manuscripts resulting from original reportationes, such as the Darmstadt codex. In these cases, the study of the material support allows us to make inferences on the practical circumstances surrounding the preparation of the texts. Thus, the presence of identical watermarks in specific quires (sometimes non-consecutive) indicates that these texts were written concurrently. This is why I consider it useful to illustrate in a table the correspondence between watermarks, quires and texts transmitted.

Watermarks	Quires	Texts²²
key A	I	SdG
oxhead	II, III, XII	SdG, QdG, QsM
key B	IVâV, VII, IXâX, XIIIâXIV, XVI	QdG, QsM, SsM
ox	VI, XIâXII, XV	QdG, QsM, SsM
fruit A	VI, VIII, XVII, XIXâXX, XXIIâXXIV	QdG, QsM, QsP, SdA, QdA, QdS
fruit B	XVIII, XXI	SdA, QdA
pot	XXVI	SsI
tongs	XXVII	SpH
angel	XXVIIIâXXIX	SAp, SAâ¯s
eaglehead	XXXâXXXI	QsE

The fact that the literal commentaries on Aristotleâs De generatione et corruptione, Meteorology and De anima were copied on the same block of paper as the set of questions on these texts, indicates that the students followed the two types of lecture in parallel, thus studying the three treatises cursorie and ordinarie.²³

Layout. The manuscript was copied by two students: Johannes de Margan (ff.Â 1^râ79^v; 83^râ112^v; 136^râ201^v) and Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche (ff.Â 80^râ82^v; 116^râ135^v; 203^râ231^r). The texts are laid out in two columns of fifty to sixty lines each. Several graphical features confirm the origin of this codex, composed by course notes (reportationes) and versions of the commentaries approved by the masters, written under their direct supervision (compilationes). Among these features, we must first point out the rather hasty and sloppy handwriting, particularly at the end of the questions (for instance at f.Â 5^vb and f.Â 87^va); the change of ink or handwriting in the transition between two lessonsâthat is, in the case of question-commentaries, in the passage from one question to another (e.g. at f.Â 4^rb; fÂ 45^vb; f.Â 46^vb; f.Â 86^va; f.Â 87^ra; f.Â 92^ra) or, in the case of literal commentaries, in the passage from one major division of the text to another, as we have seen for Oresmeâs Sententia on Meteorology; the lack of initials and lemmata in the literal commentaries (f.Â 12^râv); the omission of large portions of text (f.Â 13^raârb; f.Â 14^raârb; f.Â 14^vaâvb; f.Â 15^vaâvb; f.Â 22^rbâ^va; f.Â 109^rbâva; f.Â 147^rbâva; f.Â 172^rb), likely occurred on occasions when the students were unable to attend (part of) the lectures.

On f.Â 65^ra, we find a table illustrating one of the theories of the proportionality of the elements exposed in questionÂ I.10, Utrum elementa sint continue proportionalia ad invicem of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology. Other figures appear in the bottom margin of the same column. The table announced at f.Â 74^ra (l.Â 40, âut potest demonstrari in figuraâ) is missing. Some figures concerning the halo and the rainbow can be found in the margins of ff.Â 90^vâ91^r.

The texts present some graphic peculiarities: the scribes tend to redouble the sibilants preceded by a vowel (asscensus, asspectus, desscensus, dessiccare, disstractio, quiesscere), the occlusive consonants (oppacitas, supperior) as well as the liquids between two vowels (pollita). Fricatives are sometimes assimilated (confrigatio instead of confricatio, discrecare instead of disgregare).

The fifteenth-century owner of the manuscript, Philip of Othey, left several annotations in it, beginning with the table of contents copied on the verso of a parchment leaf at the start of the volume: âTitulus huius voluminis talis est: Nicholaus de Oresme, item Iohannes de Wezalia in uno volumine. Liber monasterii Sancti Iacopi Leodicensis, in quo continentur ista: primo sententia supra De generatione et corruptione, sed est incompleta (tenet V folia tantum), quere supra secundum VII; item supra secundum De generatione et corruptione (sed non sunt nisi tria folia), quere XI; item una questio De generatione et corruptione, quere XIIII; item questiones supra secundum librum De generatione (sed non sunt nisi quatuor folia), quere XIX; item questiones De generatione et corruptione (nota: puto quod sint a Nicholao de Oresme normanno, sed deest prima questio, et non sunt complete), quere XXX [sup. lin.: supra primum librum habentur hic 19 questiones, preter primam, que hic non habetur; et supra secundum librum non habentur nisi XIII questiones]; item questiones Metheororum compilate ante magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannum, et non sunt complete, quere LXI [sup. lin.: non sunt nisi questiones primi libri, et de questionibus secundi libri, questiones quatuordecim tantum]; item sententia Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorum, quere CVI; item questiones supra quartum Metheororum (sed non sunt nisi tria folia), quere CXXXI; item questiones primi libri Physicorum, et non est nisi unus quaternus, quere CXXX (puto quod sunt a Buridano); item sententia libri De anima (nota: puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezalia), quere CXLII; item questiones De anima reportate ante magistrum Iohannem de Vezalia in vico straminum Parisius, anno domini millesimo CCCÂ°XLVIÂ° (nota quod eodem anno legebat magister Iohannes Buridanus Parisius); quere CLXIIII; item sententia supra Porphirium sive Veterem artem (nota: puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezalia, et non sunt nisi V folia cum dimidio), quere CLXXXXIX; item sententia libri Periermeniarum [sic], sed non sunt nisi tria folia (nota: nescio quis composuit), quere CCV; item questiones libri Priorum (nota: puto quod sint a Iohanne de Vezalia, sed non est nisi unus quaternus, quere CCIX; item sententia libri Posteriorum (nota: puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezalia, sed non est nisi unus quaternus), quere CCVII; item questiones libri Elencorum scripte coram reverendo magistro Iohanne de Vezalia, quere CCXXV.Â Hunc librum emit dominus Philippus de Othey, prior huius loci, anno DominiÂ MÂ°CCCCÂ°VIÂ°. Orate pro eo.â

These annotations, which not only concern the titles of the commentaries transmitted in the codex and their attributions, but also their incomplete and lacunar state, are also found throughout the volume: âSententia supra De generatione et corruptione, sed est incompleta et non tenet nisi v foliaâ (f.Â 1^r, marg. sup.); âhic desunt quasi duo folia: âibi suscipiendum dat modumââ¯â (f.Â 1^v, marg. inf.); âhic deest de sententia primi libri, sed posset scribi in isto folioâ (f.Â 6^rb, marg. dext.); âSententia supra secundum librum De generationeâ (f.Â 8^r, marg. sup.); âIste tertius tractatus est incompletus et deest 4usâ (f.Â 9^v, marg. sin.); âSequitur supra secundum librum De generatione et corruptione, sed non sunt nisi tria foliaâ (f.Â 12^r, marg. sup.); âIsta duo folia sequentia non pertinent ad precedentia, sunt tamen questiones De generatione et corruptioneâ (f.Â 15^r, marg. sup.); âQuestiones supra secundum librum De generatione, sed non sunt nisi quatuor foliaâ (f.Â 19^r, marg. sup.); âQuestiones libri De generatione et corruptione. Puto quod sint a Nicholao de Oresme normanno. Sed deest prima questio. Sequitur secunda questioâ (f.Â 28^v, marg. sup.); âQuestiones Metheororum compilate ante magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannum. Sed de questionibus secundi non sunt nisi quatuordecim questionesâ (f.Â 58^r, marg. sup.); âIstud folium est idem quod precedens, quere ad tale signumâ (f.Â 80^r, marg. sup.); âIsta questio et due sequentes habentur etiam post quintum folium et sunt idemâ (f.Â 80^v, marg. inf.); âIsta questio habetur etiam in quinto folio precedentiâ (f.Â 85^r, marg. sup.); âcompilate ante venerabilem magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannum. Incipiunt questiones secundi eiusdem ab eodemâ (f.Â 85^r, marg. inf.); âQuestiones secundi libri Metheororum compilate ante magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannum. Sed de questionibus secundi non sunt nisi quatuordecim questionesâ (f.Â 85^v, marg. sup.); âSententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorumâ (f.Â 100^r, marg. sup.); âIllud quod hic deficit posset scribi in isto spatioâ (f.Â 109^rb, marg. dex.); âQuod autem neque circulum possibile est fieri yridis, etc. Hic deficit de tertio libro quasi unum folium vel duoâ (f.Â 112^vb, marg. sup.); âSententia quarti libri Metheororumâ (f.Â 116^r, marg. sup.); âHic deficit de quarto libro Metheororumâ [delevit: âbene scribi in istis duobus foliis possesâ] âquasi unum foliumâ (f.Â 123^r, marg. sup.); âQuestiones supra quartum Metheororum, sed non sunt nisi tria foliaâ (f.Â 125^r, marg. sup.); âQuestiones primi libri Phisicorum, sed non est nisi unus quaternus. Nescio quis composuit. / Buridanus composuitâ (f.Â 128^r, marg. sup.); âSententia seu glosa libri De anima. Nota: puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezaliaâ (f.Â 136^r, marg. sup.); âEst finis secundi libri, et aliquid deficit, sed modicum estâ (f.Â 150^rb, marg. dext.); âQuestiones De anima reportate ante magistrum Iohannem de Vezaliaâ (f.Â 158^r, marg. sup.); âSententia seu lectura supra Porphirium sive supra Veterem artem. Puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezalia, sed non sunt nisi quinque folia cum dimidioâ (f.Â 193^r, marg. sup.); âSupra librum Periermeniarum, sed non sunt nisi tria foliaâ (f.Â 199^r, marg. sup.); âSupra librum Posteriorum. Puto quod sit a Iohanne de Vezalia, sed non est nisi unus quaternusâ (f.Â 203^r, marg. sup.); âSententia libri Posteriorum a Iohanne de Vezalia, ut puto. Et non est nisi unus quaternusâ (f.Â 211^r, marg. sup.); âQuestiones libri Elencorum scripte coram reverendo magistro Iohanne de Vezaliaâ (f.Â 219^r, marg. sup.).

Iohannes Margan wrote two annotations: âIste papirus est Iohannis Margan de Yvia, Leodiensis Dyocesis. Bona vita sit sibi. Amen. Et continetur etc.â (f.Â 25^r, marg. sup.); âIsta questio est incorrecta quia scribendo dormiviâ (f.Â 90^v, marg. sin.). Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche wrote in the inferior margin of f.Â 210^r: âet ideo iste quaternus est Henrici de Dandrediche, etcâ.

Catalogues

Ch.Â Lohr, âAristotelica GermanicaÂ I: Bonn, Darmstadt, Koblenz, Paderborn,â Studia Mediewistyczne 34/35 (1999/2000), 289â298, esp.Â 294â296; T.Â Falmagne, The Surviving Manuscripts and Incunables from Medieval Belgian Libraries, Brussels 2009 (Corpus catalogorum Belgii. The Medieval Booklists of the Low Countries, 7), 201, n.Â 2571; Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries, 1, 34, 351â353

Literature

Nicole Oresme, Questiones super De generatione et corruptione, ed. Caroti, 35*â46*; FlÃ¼eler, âFrom Oral Lectures to Written Commentaries,â 511â512 fn. 43; Panzica, âUne nouvelle rÃ©daction,â 257â264; Ead., âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 7â89.

1.1.2 MÃ¼nchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4375, ff.Â 19^raâ46^rb = M

Paper; ff.Â 267â¯+â¯III; 14th C

Date and origin. The manuscript consists of several parts of different dates and provenances. The part that includes the Questions on Meteorology (ff.Â 19^raâ86^rb), of unknown provenance, is undated; ff.Â 88^raâ156^rb, also of unknown provenance, date from 1367, as emerges from the colophon of Albert de Saxonyâs Questions on De celo: âExpliciunt questiones quatuor librorum, scilicet De celo et mundo, complete per Ulricum dictum Werder anno DominiÂ MÂ°CCCÂ°LXVII, in die Lucie beate virginis, et bene date per reverendum magistrum Alberhtum [sic] de Rykmerspurgâ (f.Â 156^rb); ff.Â 157^raâ231^ra date from 1394 and were copied in Cologne: âExpliciunt questiones super primum et secundum De generatione et corruptione de ultima lectura magistri Marsillii de Inghen, pronunciate in Studio Haidelbergensi [sic] anno Domini 1389, finite sunt Colonie sub anno Domini 1394, septima idum februarii, hora vesperarumâ (f.Â 231^ra).

The manuscript belonged to Narcissus Pfister, who was also the rubricator. A note informs us that, in 1395, Narcissus bought this codex in Cologne, where he had studied: âIstum librum emi Colonie sub anno Domini 1395 in die sancti Erhardi Episcopi pro 15 albisâ (f.Â 232^v). Around 1422â1424, Narcissus entered the Benedictine order and brought his collection of manuscripts, including our codex, to the abbey of SS.Â Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg.²⁴ In the upper margin of f.Â 1^r, a modern hand wrote: âMonasterii S.Â Udalrici Augustae.â

Composition. Wooden binding covered with brown leather. A paper diamond with an old signature by a medieval hand (â4 P Jâ) on the front cover. Two clasps on the back cover. On the front inside cover, we find a votive image of the Abbey of SS.Â Ulrich and Afra, accompanied by the words: âP.P.Â Benedictinorum, Lib. et Imp. Monasterii S.S.Â Udalrici et Affrae Augustae.â²⁵ Two blank, unnumbered paper guard-leaves, on the first of which a medieval hand wrote: â41,â and a little lower: âMarsilii.â The composition of the quires is as follows: I (1â12)^6â¯+â¯6; II (13â18h)^7â¯+â¯7; III (19â30)^6â¯+â¯6; IV (31â46)^8â¯+â¯8; V (47â58)^6â¯+â¯6; VI (59â70)^6â¯+â¯6; VII (71â77b)^4â¯+â¯4; VIII (78â87)^5â¯+â¯5; IX (88â100)^6â¯+â¯6, a rectangle of paper measuring mm 180â¯Ãâ¯750, numbered 95, was bound between f.Â 93 and f.Â 95; X (101â112)^6â¯+â¯6; XI (113â124)^6â¯+â¯6; XII (125â136)^6â¯+â¯6; XIII (137â148)^6â¯+â¯6; XIV (149â156)^{6â¯+â¯(6â4)}; XV (157â178)^{11â¯+â¯11}; XVI (179â190)^6â¯+â¯6; XVII (191â198)^4â¯+â¯4; XVIII (199â211)^7â¯+â¯5, the foliation skips from 207 to 209; XIX (212â219)^4â¯+â¯4; XX (220â227)^{6â¯+â¯(6â4)}; XXI (228â231)^2â¯+â¯2; a paper guard leaf (f.Â 232) at the end of this part of the codex; XXII (233â239)^4â¯+â¯4, f.Â 234 is followed by f.Â 234a; XXIII (240â250â¯m)^{11â¯+â¯11}. A paper guard-leaf at the end of the volume. Two glued parchment rectangles on the back inside cover. Seven unnumbered blank leaves between f.Â 18^v and f.Â 19^r. On the right margin of the third of these leaves, a modern hand wrote in pencil: 18c. The first two white leaves present the ruling, the others do not. An unnumbered blank leaf between f.Â 77^v and f.Â 78^r; f.Â 232 is blank. After f.Â 250, there are eleven blank leaves, which present the ruling.

Foliation by a modern hand, written in black ink, on the upper outer margin of each recto leaf. It is the hand of a librarian: the same type of discontinuous foliation is found in several manuscripts of the Bavarian State Library. Another modern hand, writing in pencil, completed this foliation. Ff.Â 19^râ87^v (which contain the Questions on Meteorology, the Questions on De celo and the treatise De obligationibus) also have a medieval foliation, in the upper margin between the two columns. This foliation (Ium, 2um, and so on) restarts at the beginning of the Questions on De celo (f.Â 47^r, according to the modern foliation). Catchwords: f.Â 58^v (erit mundus); f.Â 70^v (in alio exemplo sicut); f.Â 100^v (combustibile apponatur); f.Â 112^v (intensiones opacitatis); f.Â 124^v (superficies); f.Â 136^v (inferiorem attingunt); f.Â 148^v (probatur).

Watermarks. Guard-leaf I: oxhead similar to Piccard 2.3 XIIÂ 200 (1487, NÃ¼rnberg) and Briquet 14732 (1485, Udine; 1488, Leipzig; 1495, Venice); guard-leaf II: oxhead similar to Piccard 2.2 VIIIÂ 151 (1399â1400, Leonberg, Minzenberg, NÃ¶rdlingen); I: circle similar to Briquet 3116 (1398, St. Gallen?); II: oxhead similar to Piccard 2.3 XIIÂ 231 (1394â1399, Brixen, Innsbruck, Meran, NÃ¼rnberg, WÃ¼rzburg) and Briquet 14742 (1397, Frankfurt a. M.); III: fruit similar to Piccard 14 IIÂ 429 (1349, Bologna), 14 IIÂ 430 (1350, Bologna) and Briquet 7416 (1345, Genoa, Bourges; 1345â1347, Palermo; 1346, Bologna, Perpignan, Montpellier; 1347, Udine; 1347â1356, Grenoble; 1348, Venice; 1349, Treviso, WrocÅaw; 1351, Paris); IV: bird similar to Piccard online 42039 (1345, Bologna);²⁶ V: key similar to Piccard 8 IIÂ 37 (1344, Bologna) and Briquet 3080 (1336, Reggio Emilia); VIâVII: axe similar to Piccard 9.2 VIIIÂ 793 (1358, Lucca) and Briquet 7497 (1354, Draguignan); VIII scissors similar to Piccard 9.1 IIIÂ 794 (1345, Pisa) and Briquet 3737 (1344, Perpignan; 1344, Palermo; 1345, Pisa); XIâXIV: two circles similar to Briquet 3230 (1367, Verona); XVâXVIII: balance similar to Piccard 5 IIIÂ 24 (1382â1383, Arnhem) and Briquet 2381 (1370, Autun; similar variants: 1372, Chastellux; 1381â1382, Namur; 1382, Maastricht); XIX: fleur-de-lis similar, albeit distantly, to Briquet 6747 (1370, Paris; similar variants: 1371, Arras; 1371â1382, Paris); XXâXXI: star similar to Piccard online 41610 (1367, Tiel) and Briquet 6131 (1364, Montpellier; 1363, Florence; 1366, Pisa; 1367, Siena; 1367, Siegen); XXIIâXXIII: circles similar to Briquet 3205 (1329, Dijon; similar variant: 1334, Lucca); last guard-leaf: oxhead similar to Piccard 2.3 XIIÂ 202 (1467, SchwÃ¤bisch Hall).

The study of the watermarks indicates that the majority of texts within this manuscript date from the fourteenth century. The watermarks in the guard-leaves date back to the second half of the fifteenth century and prove that the volume acquired its current form only at this time. The watermarks in the quires IIIâVIII (ff.Â 19â87) and XXIIâXXIII (ff.Â 233â269), which transmit the Questions on Aristotleâs De celo and Meteorology, the reportatio on the treatise De obligationibus and the Questions on the Sentences, prove that these parts are older than the others. This fact is confirmed by the characteristics of the handwritings.

Content and layout. The manuscript contains commentaries on Aristotleâs treatises on natural philosophy and politics, a commentary on the logical treatise De obligationibus, as well as two fragments of commentaries on Peter Lombardâs Sentences (books II and III). The codicological study reveals that the manuscript is made up of heterogeneous parts. Since this heterogeneity also characterizes the content and layout, I deemed it reasonable to describe it part by part.

1. Ff.Â 1^raâ18^va: Anonymus, Commentaria in libros IâVIII Politicorum Aristotelis.

Inc.: âConclusio prima Polliticorum: [sic] omnis civitas ordinatur in aliquod bonum tamquam in eius finem;â expl.: ânon tamen dicent ipsum sicut regem dare primum monusculum.â²⁷ The text, copied in a single hand, is laid out in two columns of about fifty-five lines each; the writing is regular and easily readable. In the margins there are notes in red ink, which relate to the argumentative structure of the text, and notes in black ink, which relate to the content. Pilcrows in red; rubrics; large rubricated initials at the beginning of the main text divisions.

2. Ff.Â 19^raâ46^rb: Nicolaus Oresme, Questiones in IâIII libros Meteororum Aristotelis de prima lectura.

l.Â I, ff.Â 19^raâ36^rb: âCirca librum Metheororum sit prima questio utrum impressiones metheorologice fiant secundum naturam inordinatiorem ea que est primi corporum, id est secundum naturam. Et arguitur primo quod non secundum naturam, quia fiunt raro et in paucioribus â¦ XÂ â¦ nec ab eis formidare, et sic patet questio;â l.Â II, ff.Â 36^rbâ41^ra: âCirca secundum librum Metheororum queritur utrum locus naturalis elementi aque sit ubi nunc est mare. Et arguitur primo quod non â¦ XÂ â¦ sicut dictum fuit in tractatu de grandine;â l.Â III, ff.Â 41^raâ46^rb: âQueritur consequenter utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis et politis. Videtur quod non, quia visio non fit extramittendo â¦ XÂ â¦ ideo ratio solum est persuasiva. Et sic finitur.â

The text, transmitted anonymously, was copied in a single hand, arranged in two columns of approximately sixty-five lines each. Annotations in the margins, by the hand of the scribe (for example, f.Â 19^r: âcorrelarium primum,â âconclusio primaâ). There are rubrics and rubricated pilcrows. Drawings help to understand the text (f.Â 23^v; f.Â 26^r, f.Â 30^rb, outer margin). Signatures on the upper margin; pointing hands (f.Â 27^v). Book indication on the upper margin (âMetheororum primusâ).

3. Ff.Â 46^rbâva: Index questionum Nicolai Oresme in IâIII libros Meteororum Aristotelis de prima lectura.

This table of contents of the Questions on Meteorology was copied by a different hand than the main text, and was subsequently crossed out.

4. Ff.Â 47^raâ76^va: Nicolaus Oresme (?), Questiones in IâIV libros De celo et mundo Aristotelis.²⁸

L.Â I, ff.Â 47^raâ56^ra: âCirca librum De celo et mundo queruntur aliqua. Et primo, circa primum, ut sit questio prima, utrum maxima pars scientie naturalis sit circa corpora aut magnitudines. Arguitur quod non. Primo, quia talis scientia de corporibus et magnitudinibus â¦ XÂ â¦ ad sextum dico quod non est possibile naturaliter de speciebus que sunt de perfectione universi, etc.;â l.Â II, ff.Â 56^raâ74^ra: âCirca secundum De celo queritur utrum celum moveatur sine labore et fatigatione et sine pena. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia omnis virtus naturalis est fatiganda â¦ XÂ â¦ nisi eo modo quo dictum est propter equalem distantiam a centro, etc.;â l.Â III, ff.Â 74^raâ74^va: âConsequenter queritur circa tertium librum De celo utrum quatuor elementa determinent sibi figuras a natura. Quod sic, quia omne corpus â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam dico quod in naturalibus non valent persuasiones ex mathematica, licet Aristoteles adducat aliquando, quasi pro concordantia;â l.Â IV, f.Â 74^vaâ76^ra: âQueritur circa quartum librum utrum quodlibet grave vel leve simplex moveatur de potentia essentiali a suo generante. Et arguitur inquisitive primo sic: nullum leve movetur naturaliter a suo loco naturali â¦ XÂ â¦ et non est ita de gravibus et levibus, ut dictum est in precedenti questione. [rubeo: Finitum anno Domini 1423 in die Sancti Apollinari domo sororis hora tertia. Deo gratias]. Expliciunt questiones super librum De celo et mundo.â

The text has been copied in two columns of approximately sixty-five lines each. Ff.Â 47^raâ58^ra have been copied by different scribes with irregular handwritings. From f.Â 58^ra, until the end of the text, at f.Â 76^ra, we find the same handwriting, which is fairly regular. This handwriting was already present from f.Â 55^vb, but discontinuously, alternating with other ones. There are rubricated pilcrows; pointing hands; marginal notes relating to the argumentative structure of the text. At f.Â 55^vb, the first lines of a question had been copied: âConsequenter queritur utrum corpus infinitum, si esset, posset moveri. Arguitur quod sic. Primo, quia omne corpus est mobile, ut patet primo huius et primo Physicorum. Modo infinitum, si esset, esset corpus, et esset mobile. Secundo, quia celum nunc movetur circulariter, et adhuc possibile esset si esset duplo.â These lines were subsequently crossed out. The following question reads: âConsequenter queritur utrum sit aliqua magnitudo infinita.â The question about the possibility of the movement of an infinite body begins again at f.Â 56^rb. At the end of this question, at f.Â 57^ra, a white space precedes the following question: it was probably left for the end of the first one, which turned out to be shorter than expected.

5. Ff.Â 76^rbâ77^va: âRegistrum eorum que in hoc volumine continentur. Questiones libri De anima [these questions are not transmitted in the volume in its current form]; questiones libri Meteororum; questiones libri De celo et mundo; reportata super tractatum De obligationibus.â

This register is from the same hand that copied the preceding text. The questions are numbered in Arabic numerals.

6. Ff.Â 78^raâ86^va: Anonymus, Reportata super tractatum De obligationibus.²⁹

Prologue, f.Â 78^ra: ââ¨Iâ©ntellectus tui accidunt sermones contrarii â¦ XÂ â¦ propter facilem intellectum huius artis iste tractatus est compilatus. Hys visis ad litteram accedamus.â Text: ââ¯ââ¨Câ©um in singulis secundum materiam subiectamâ. Iste tractatus, cuius subiectum est obligatio secundum se sumpta, prima sui divisione dividitur in tres capitula principalia.â The commentary is interrupted at f.Â 87^vb with the words: âarguitur in simili, quia quod est simpliciter album, necesseÂ â¦â The text, copied by several hands, is laid out in two columns of approximately eighty lines each. The handwritings are very small and compact. The lemmata, written in textualis libraria, have been copied up until f.Â 80^vb, after which the space set aside for them remained blank.

7. Ff.Â 88^raâ156^rb: Albertus de Saxonia, Questiones in IâIV libros De celo et mundo Aristotelis.

Prologue, f.Â 88^ra: âLiber Aristotelis De celo et mundo, qui est secundus liber librorum in ordine naturalium, considerat de totali mundo et de corporibus naturalibus â¦ XÂ â¦ secundum hoc volo tractare istas [que que] questiones; ergo, etc.â Text, ff.Â 88^raâ156^rb: âPrima questio est ista: utrum cuilibet corpori simplici sit naturaliter tantum unus motus simplex. Secunda, utrum in mundo sint quatuor corpora simplicia â¦ XÂ â¦ Ad sextam dico quod hoc non est propter hoc quod ignis talem figuram sibi determinet, sed hoc est magis propter aerem circumstantem corrumpentem istam flammam et dividentem, quanto remotius est ab eius origine. Et sic est finis questionum super De celo et mundo, etc. Expliciunt questiones quatuor librorum scilicet De celo et mundo, complete per Ulricum dictum Werder anno DominiÂ MÂ°CCCÂ°LXVIIÂ° in die Lucie beate virginis et bene date per reverendum magistrum Alberhtum [sic] de Rykmerspurg. [a.m.] Correctura completa fuit anno Domini 1418, secunda die mensis iunii. [rubeo a.m.] Rubricatura confecta fuit anno Domini 1419 idus maii, que tunc fuit secunda feria post cantare âDominus sit benedictusââ¯â.³⁰

The text, written by different hands, is laid out in two columns of about sixty lines each. The incipits of the structural parts of the text are written in textualis libraria, with rubricated initials. There are pubricated pilcrows and rubricated marginal notes relating to the argumentative structure of the text. A medieval hand introduced some marginal notes and corrections in a pale brown ink.

8. Ff.Â 157^raâ231^ra: Marsilius de Inghen, Questiones in IâII libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis.

L.Â I, ff.Â 157^raâ199^ra: âCirca librum De generatione primo queritur utrum ens mobile ad formam sit subiectum libri De generatione. Arguitur primo quod non â¦ XÂ â¦ pro conclusionibus secunda et quarta. Et sic est finis questionis, et ex consequenti totius primi De generatione. Sit benedictus Deus;â l.Â II, ff.Â 199^raâ231^ra: âCirca secundum De generatione primo queritur utrum sunt quatuor qualitates prime et non plures neque pauciores, scilicet caliditas, frigiditas, humiditas, siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non sint pauciores â¦ XÂ â¦ ratio post oppositum est pro questionis ultima conclusione. Hec de questione, et per consequens de secundo libro. Expliciunt questiones super primum et secundum De generatione et corruptione de ultima lectura magistri Marsilii de Inghen, pronunciate in studio Haidelbergensi [sic] anno Domini 1389. Finite sunt [â¦] Colonie sub anno Domini 1394, septima iduum februarii, hora vesperarum. Deo gratias [rubeo, a. m.] Rubricatura completa est Augusta anno Domini 1419.â³¹

The text, copied by several hands, is laid out in two columns of sixty-five to seventy lines each. The first words of the questions are written in textualis libraria and the initials of the questions are rubricated. There are rubricated pilcrows and marginal, sometimes rubricated, notes relating to the argumentative structure of the questions.

9. Ff.Â 231^rbâva: Index questionum Marsilii de Inghen super IâII libros De generatione et corruptione Aristotelis.

10. Ff.Â 233^raâ239^vb: Durandus de Sancto Porciano, Scriptum super secundum Sententiarum de tertia lectura, dd. 1â29, excerpta.³²

F.Â 233^ra: ââ¨Câ©irca secundum Sententiarum queritur de tribus in generali. Primum est de possibilitate creationis; secundum de eius communicabilitate; tertium est de actione et de intentione creantis. Adhuc circa primum queruntur tria. Primum est de possibilitate creationis absolute; secundum, utrum creatura habens esse permanens potuerit ab eterno produci; tertium, utrum aliquid successivum, puta motus, potuerit esse ab eterno; f.Â 233^vb: â¨Câ©irca tertium principale queruntur duo, scilicet utrum Deus agat immediate in omni actione creature. Secundum est utrum Deo conveniat agere propter finem; f.Â 234^ra: â¨Câ©irca distinctionem istam queruntur de celo empireo duo. Primum est utrum locus â¨sitâ© corporeus; secundum est utrum habeat influentiam in alia corpora; f.Â 234^rb: â¨Câ©irca distinctionem istam queruntur quatuor. Primum est de angelorum simplicitate; secundum est de eorum pluralitate seu individuatione; tertium est de eorum multiplicatione, et quartum est de eorum cognitione; f.Â 234^va: â¨Câ©irca cognitionem angelorum iterum queruntur duo. Primum est utrum potentia cognoscitiva sit idem quod sua essentia; secundum, utrum intellectus angeli sit semper in actu [â¦].â

The text, written in a single hand, is laid out in two columns of about ninety lines each. The handwriting is extremely tiny and compact. There is no decoration of any kind. The initials of the divisions of the text are missing. The copyists left some marginal notes related to the structure of the text. The commentary is anonymous in the manuscript, but a comparison with the 1571 printed edition of the third redaction of Durandusâs Questions showed that the text is the same. The Munich copy does not transmit all the questions concerning the distinctions 1â29 from Durandusâs commentary.³³

11. 240^raâ250^ra: Anonymus, Scriptum super tertium Sententiarum, fragmentum.

This fragment, copied in another quire and by a different hand from the previous one, presents a different structure, divided in lectures (lectiones). The text starts abruptly with the words: âorganum corporale, nec per consequens esse suum trahit a materia,â and stops unfinished with the words: âet sic patet ad aliam, et stat prima propositio.â A new lectio is announced, but not copied down: the rest of column a, as well as column b, are blank.

The following table illustrates synoptically the correspondence between the folios and quires, the content and the date of the parts of this composite volume.

Texts	Quires and folios	Date
Anonymus, In Politica	IâII (1â18d)	ca.Â 1397
Nicolaus Oresme, Q.Â Meteor.	IIIâIV (19â46)	ca.Â 1345â1350
Nicolaus Oresme (?), Q. de celo	VâVII (47â77b)	ca.Â 1340â1350
Anonymus, Report. de oblig.	VIII (78â87)	ca.Â 1340â1350
Albertus de Saxonia, Q. de celo	IXâXIV (88â156)	ca.Â 1360â1370
Mars. de Inghen, Q. de gener.	XVâXXI (157â232)	ca.Â 1360â1380
Durandus, Q. in II Sent.	XXII (233â239)	ca.Â 1330
Anonymus, Q. in III Sent.	XXIII (240â250)	ca.Â 1330

Catalogues

K.Â Halm,Â G. von Laubmann, and W.Â Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis. I.2: Codices num. 2501â5250 complectens, Munich 1894 (Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis III.2), 181; Markowski, Buridanica, 65â66, 69, 70, 77, 133.

Literature

N.Â BÃ¼hler, Die Schriftsteller, 37â44; Meier, âDer Studiengang des Ex-Dominikaners Narcissus Pfister,â 228â257; S.Â Kirschner, âAn Anonymous Medieval Commentary on Aristotleâs Meteorology Stating the Supralunar Location of Comets,â in M.Â Folkerts, R.Â Lorch (eds.), Sic itur ad astra. Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Festschrift fÃ¼r den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 2000, 334â361; S.Â Kirschner, âEine weitere Fassung,â 209â222; Kirschner, âA Possible Trace,â, 353â354; Panzica, âUne nouvelle rÃ©daction;â Ead., âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 13, 25â26; Ead., âRevisiting Manuscript Munich, BSB, Clm 4375,â 429â437.

1.1.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 753, ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb = C

Paper; ff.Â 132; I: ff.Â 1â50; II: ff.Â 51â84; III: ff.Â 85â132; ca.Â 1362

Date and origin. This manuscript, which consists of three parts, was copied around 1362.³⁴ The first and the second part (ff.Â 1â84), which include the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology, were copied in Erfurt, as stated in the colophon: âExpliciunt reportata Herfordie a magistro Rudolpho valde bona et subtilia per manus cuiusdamâ (f.Â 48^rb). The third part (ff.Â 85â132) was copied in Prague by Nicolas de Kyrchay.³⁵ The codex was brought to Krakow by a student at the beginning of the fifteenth century.

Content. The manuscript contains Rodolphus de Erfordiaâs Questions on Aristotleâs De anima (ff.Â 1^raâ48^rb),³⁶ some questions about the intellect (ff.Â 48^vaâ50^vb);³⁷ the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb); some questions on moral philosophy (ff.Â 83^vâ84^r);³⁸ Buridanâs Questions on Porphyriusâs Isagoge (ff.Â 85^raâ96^vb); Buridanâs Questions on Aristotleâs Categories (ff.Â 97^raâ117^vb); Buridanâs Questions on Aristotleâs De interpretatione (ff.Â 117^vbâ132^rb).

The Questions on Meteorology.³⁹ The text, transmitted anonymously, is laid out in two columns of approximately sixty-five lines each. There are red rubrics up to f.Â 51^v. At the beginning of the text, some space was left for a large initial and for the incipit, both of which have not been copied. Similarly, at the beginning of the questions, some space was left aside for the initials; this space is often occupied by a modern numbering of the questions. The copyist included marginal annotations to help the reader to orient himself in the text (f.Â 51^rb: âprima conclusio, secundus articulus, ordo in tribus consistitÂ â¦â). Other medieval scribes added pointing hands (f.Â 54^ra) and marginal notes (f.Â 53^v). Drawings help the reader to understand the demonstrations presented in the commentary (f.Â 57^r; f.Â 59^r; f.Â 60^v; f.Â 63^rb, f.Â 64^va). A medieval hand, writing in a different ink from that used for the copy, introduced some corrections (for example at f.Â 57^ra, l.Â 6, or at f.Â 57^rb, l.Â 19). The text presents the same typology of orthographic peculiarities as D.

At the end of f.Â 77^ra, after a few lines of the question Utrum terremotus, ventus et tonitruum et similia sint eiusdem nature, we notice a sudden change of ink and content: the text, which has been copied in a very diluted ink, no longer corresponds to Oresmeâs commentary. The question copied in place of Oresmeâs also addresses phenomena resulting from dry exhalation, but its focus is more on their common nature. The title of the question has not been copied, but it might have been Utrum omnes impressiones ignite sint eiusdem speciei, a problem currently discussed in Latin commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology (see AppendixÂ II). After a white column, Oresmeâs commentary resumes at f.Â 78^ra, with the question Utrum fulgur sit exalatio calida et sicca ignita.

Catalogues

Kowalczyk [et al.], Catalogus, 5: 304â308; M.Â Markowski and Z. WÅodek, Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem latinorum quae in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, WrocÅaw 1974, 61â62.

Literature

Panzica, âUne nouvelle rÃ©daction,â 259 fn. 15; Ead., âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 27; Ead., âCommenter les MÃ©tÃ©orologiques Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Cracovie: de lâassimilation des modÃ¨les parisiens Ã la naissance dâune tradition polonaise,â Recherches de ThÃ©ologie et Philosophie MÃ©diÃ©vales 87/1 (2020), 103â192, at 110â111.

1.2 The Incomplete Manuscripts

1.2.1 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 635, pp.Â 194^aâ209^a = C¹

Paper; p.Â 348â¯+â¯IV; 1362â1363

Date and origin. The manuscript was copied in the years 1362â1363 in Erfurt, as appears from the colophons: âExpliciunt questiones Pyridani [sic] reportate Erfordie anno DominiÂ MÂ°CCCÂ°LXIII feria tertia, terminate et finite hora exâ¨erâ©citationis proxima ante festum Iohannis, videlicet decollationis [28th August] per manus Iohannis de Leone Mediiâ (p.Â 170^b); âExpliciunt Questiones De anima reportate Erfordie anno DominiÂ MÂ°CÂ°CÂ°CÂ°LXII in vigilia sancte Crucisâ [13th September] (p.Â 339^b). Purchased in 1370 by the Polish scholar Nicolaus de Gorzkow, who was studying at the Faculty of Arts in Prague, the codex was brought to Krakow. On the front cover there is a possession mark: âLiber magistri Nicolai de Gorzkow [a. m.] episcopi Wilnensis: questiones Alberti Phisicorum et Metheororum Alberti. Item De anima. Liber collegii.â

Content. The manuscript contains texts of natural philosophy: a set of questions on the Physics (pp.Â 1^aâ170^b);⁴⁰ a compilation from Albert of Saxonyâs and the first redaction of Nicole Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (pp.Â 177^aâ236^b); an anonymous set of questions on the first book of Aristotleâs De anima (pp.Â 237^aâ244^a);⁴¹ and the Questions on the same text by Rodolphus de Erfordia (pp.Â 244^bâ339^b) that we have already found in codex BJÂ 753.

The Questions on Meteorology.⁴² The colophon attributes the text to Albert of Saxony: âExpliciunt Questiones Metheororum magistri Alberti Parysiensisâ (p.Â 236^b). Nevertheless, Aleksander Birkenmajer had already noticed that the text was contaminated and that thirteen questions were drawn from an anonymous commentary which could be found in its entirety at ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb of manuscript BJÂ 753.⁴³ Based on the collation of the text, I came to the conclusion that the questions interpolated in this copy of Albert of Saxonyâs commentary are drawn from the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology. The composite text transmitted in manuscript BJÂ 635 therefore consists of qq. I.18âI.31 from the first redaction of Oresmeâs commentary and qq. I.1âI.14, II.7â17, along with books III and IV from Albert of Saxonyâs commentary.⁴⁴

The text is copied in two columns of approximately sixty-five lines each. The writing is tiny and compact; the ink is brown. At p.Â 223^a, we notice a sudden change of ink and hand: a scribe writing in black ink and in somewhat larger characters takes over and continues copying until p.Â 224^b. At the end of this page, in the middle of the answer to the question Utrum specula representant colorem tantum, et non figuram, the text stops and is followed by a blank space extending over twelve lines. In this space, the second copyist wrote: âHic non est defectus.â The first scribe then resumed copying. A modern hand numbered the questions using Arabic numerals. Most of the answer to the question Utrum stelle comate sint de natura celi vel elementari (p.Â 194^b) is missing: in its place, we find a blank space. At p.Â 195^b (question Utrum motus stelle comate sit naturalis), we find a large drawing related to the text. The text stops in the middle of the question Utrum habitationes terre permutentur, the last one of the first book from Oresmeâs commentary, with the words: âquandoque apparet maior, quandoque minor. Tertio supponiturÂ â¦â (p.Â 209^a). The copy resumes at p.Â 209^b with the second book of Albert of Saxonyâs commentary. We will find the same interruption in the commentary transmitted in manuscript BJÂ 686.⁴⁵

Catalogues

M.Â Kowalczyk, A.Â KozÅowska, M.Â Markowski,Â S. WÅodek, and M.Â Zwiercan, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi latinorum qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, 4: Numeros continens inde a 564 usque ad 667, WrocÅaw/Warsaw 1988, 361â364; Markowski, WÅodek, Repertorium, 22â23.

Literature

Birkenmajer, Ãtudes dâhistoire des sciences en Pologne, 222; Michael, Johannes Buridan. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinen Werken und zur Rezeption seiner Theorien im Europa des spÃ¤ten Mittelalters, Berlin 1985 (2 vols.), 2, 576; 662 fn. 17; Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 9, 10, 27, 34, 57, 79â86; Ead., âAlbert of Saxonyâs Questions on Meteorology,â 251â252 (from which the present description is partially drawn); Ead., âCommenter les MÃ©tÃ©orologiques Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Cracovie,â 110â111, 173.

1.2.2 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, ff.Â 110^vbâ120^ra = C²

Paper; ff.Â 158â¯+â¯I; second half of the 14th century

Date and origin. This manuscript was copied at Prague University in the second half of the fourteenth century, as evidenced by the inclusion of Prague quodlibetal questions and geographical examples related to Prague. It belonged to Franciscus de Brega, who obtained the degree of master of Arts at Prague Arts Faculty in 1396.⁴⁶ Around 1400 Franciscus moved to Krakow, bringing this codex along with him. Franciscus obtained the degree of doctor in theology at Krakow University in 1409. The manuscript subsequently belonged to the master Iohannes de Iuniwladislavia. On the front cover, we find a possession mark claiming Franciscus de Brega as its owner: the name of the previous possessor was scraped off and replaced by that of the new one (Iohannes de Iuniwladislavia).

Content. The manuscript contains some sophistical disputations (ff.Â 1^raâ79^rb),⁴⁷ some questions drawn from the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (ff.Â 81^vaâ97^vb), and the same compilation from Albert of Saxonyâs and the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (ff.Â 101^raâ134^va) that we have found in ms. BJÂ 635. At f.Â 158^va, we find a table of contents of this text.⁴⁸

The Questions on Meteorology.⁴⁹ The text is laid out in two columns of approximately fifty lines each. The layout and the type of handwriting are similar to those of ms. BJÂ 753, ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb. A modern numbering in blue pencil accompanies the questions, just like in ms. BJÂ 635. In the fourth book, this numbering causes some confusion: after the question Utrum diffinitio digestionis sit bona, which occupies the fourth position, the next question, Utrum frigus preservat a putrefactione, et secundo utrum animal generatur a putrefactione, has a double numbering: 4/5, instead of 5/6. However, the next question, which is the last in the fourth book, has correctly been numbered â7.â The text of questionÂ I.27, Utrum habitationes terre permutentur, from Oresmeâs commentary, is interrupted in the middle of the answer (f.Â 120^ra): a space had been left for the rest of the question. As in manuscript BJÂ 635, the text resumes with the second book of Albertâs commentary.

This table illustrates the structure of the compilation of questions on Aristotleâs Meteorology transmitted at ff.Â 101^raâ134^va. I have listed the questions, transcribed their incipit and explicit, and indicated their source in Albertâs or in Oresmeâs commentaries.

Folio	Order	Title of the question	Incipit and explicit of the question	Source
101^ra	I.1	Utrum de impressionibus meteoroloycis sit scientia.	Et arguitur primo quod non, quia huiusmodi impressiones, sicut sunt nubes et tonitrua, non sunt perpetue â¦ XÂ â¦ ita quod fiunt â¨magisâ© inordinate quam ista que fiunt in celo, sed non sine ordine, etc.	AlbertÂ I.1
101^va	I.2	Utrum impressiones meteoroloyce fiunt secundum naturam inordinatiorem quam sit natura celi.	Et arguitur quod non fiant [sic] secundum naturam, quia aliqua talia fiunt raro et non frequenter, sicut comete et terre motus â¦ XÂ â¦ non tenet semper, licet ut in pluribus forte. Et sic patet questio ista, etc.	AlbertÂ I.2
102^va	I.3	Utrum iste mundus inferior gubernetur a motibus celi.	Et arguitur primo quod non, quia sequeretur quod ista inferiora fierent ita ordinate sicut motus celi, quod est contra Aristotelem â¦ XÂ â¦ sed si sequitur inclinationem naturalem et impetum celi, etc.	AlbertÂ I.3
103^rb	I.4	Utrum eedem opiniones reiterentur pluries vel infinities [et] apud homines.	Et arguitur quod non. Primo: sicut sensus ad sensibilia, ita intellectus ad intelligibilia â¦ XÂ â¦ et propter hoc non sequitur quod ita sit in istis speculativis. Et sic patet questio.	AlbertÂ I.4
104^ra	I.5	Utrum quatuor elementa sint sibi invicem equalia.	Et arguitur quod sic, quia si unum esset magis in quantitate, tunc esset magis in virtute â¦ XÂ â¦ et forte est ibi plus de caliditate in mundo quam de frigido. Et sic est de similibus.	AlbertÂ I.5
104^vb	I.6	Utrum quatuor elementa sint continue proportionalia.	Arguitur quod sic. Primo: quia sunt continue proportionalia in raritate et densitate â¦ XÂ â¦ ita est ut apparebit in sequenti. Et sic est finis huius.	AlbertÂ I.6
105^rb	I.7	Utrum quatuor elementa semper et immutabiliter habeant eandem proportionem, ita quod terra non sit maior una vice quam alia, et sic de aliis.	Et arguitur quod sic, quia continue est equaliter in densitate â¦ XÂ â¦ per accessum et recessum in zodiaco, sed etiam per propinquitatem.	AlbertÂ I.7
105^vb	I.8	Utrum motus celi â¨sitâ© causa calefactionis ignis in spera sua et etiam aeris superioris.	Et primo in generali arguitur quod motus non sit causa caloris, quia â¦ XÂ â¦ quia sunt alie cause frigefacentes. Sequitur alia questio.	AlbertÂ I.8
106^rb	I.9	Utrum omne lumen sit calefactivum.	Et arguitur quod nullum, quia omne lumen quod fit, fit a sibi simile â¦ XÂ â¦ dico quod non sunt luminosa, et etiam frigefaciunt per alias causas. Et sic patet questio.	Albert I.9
107^ra	I.10	Utrum contrarium circumstans aliud contrarium fortificet â¨illudâ©.	Et videtur quod non: omne contrarium applicatum alteri agit [ms.: agat] â¦ XÂ â¦ et sic dictum est de fortificatione illa quam Aristoteles vocat âantiparistasimâ. Et sic est finis questionis.	AlbertÂ I.10
107^va	I.11	Utrum media regio aeris sit frigida semper.	Quia statim sophistice opponeretur quod nullus aer est semper â¦ XÂ â¦ et sunt alie cause frigiditatis, ut demonstratum est. Et sic patet finis questionis.	AlbertÂ I.11
108^vb	I.12	Utrum vapor et exalatio sint materia [im] impressionum meteoroloycarum, et nichil aliud.	Et videtur quod non, quia ista segregantur ex terra et aqua, ut dicit Aristoteles â¦ XÂ â¦ quia ille partes sunt mixte per iuxtapositionem vel proportiones vel iuxta alia. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ I.12
109^va	I.13	Utrum sydera volantia et flamme tales apparentes in aere fiant naturaliter.	Et videtur quod non, quia talia sunt de natura ignis â¦ XÂ â¦ et propter hoc non dicuntur fieri naturaliter, sed alio modo bene. Et sic est finis huius questionis.	AlbertÂ I.13
110^ra	I.14	Utrum, serenitate existente, appareant de nocte in celo hyatus, seu aperture, et voragines et sanguinei colores.	Et arguitur quod non de nocte, ymo magis de die in lumine â¦ XÂ â¦ concedatur, nec hoc est inconveniens propter distantiam.	AlbertÂ I.14
110^vb	I.15	Utrum stelle comate sint de natura celi aut elementari.	Et videtur primo quod sint de natura celi, et ex motu, quia istud quod naturaliter movetur circulariter sicut celum â¦ XÂ â¦ et iste est unus de primis effectibus, ideo suspicamur alia evenire. Et sic patet questio ista.	OresmeÂ I.19
111^ra	I.16	Utrum motus stelle comate sit naturalis.	Et videtur primo quod non, quia nullum inanimatum movetur ad utramque differentiam positionis â¦ XÂ â¦ ad ultimam, dicens quod motus violentus, etc.: verum est nisi violentiaâ¨mâ© causantes fortificentur vel in eodem statu manent. Et sic est finis huius questionis.	OresmeÂ I.20
112^rb	I.17	Utrum comete significent mortem principum, guerras, pestilentias et huiusmodi.	Et videtur primo quod non, quia in eadem regione habitant simul â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quintam solutum est, quia de per se significat siccitatem, et si eveniat inundatio aquarum, hoc est per accidens et per antiparistasym, etc. Et sic patet questio ista.	OresmeÂ I.21
113^ra	I.18	Utrum omnes comete sint eiusdem speciei cum se et cum galaxia.	Et arguitur primo quod non, quia comete differunt in figura â¦ XÂ â¦ secundum hoc quod disponitur ad diversas cometas. Et sic patet questio.	OresmeÂ I.22
113^va	I.19	Utrum impressiones humide fiant a calido.	Et videtur quod non, quia contrariorum cause sunt contrarie â¦ XÂ â¦ est parum de materia illa que sic posset elevari. Et sic est finis illius questionis.	OresmeÂ I.23
114^ra	I.20	Utrum omnes impressiones aquee sint eiusdem speciei.	Et videtur primo quod non, quia que sunt ex materia grossa, ut grando et pluvia â¦ XÂ â¦ non conceditur quod nix est aqua, licet ex ea possit fieri aqua. Sic est finis huius.	OresmeÂ I.24
114^vb	I.21	Utrum nix et pluvia generantur in media regione aeris.	Et videtur quod non generantur in eodem loco, quia aliquando simul cadunt â¦ XÂ â¦ vel ad talem impeditur, sicut videmus de pluvia, et ita equaliter est de nive, licet quandoque modicum velociter, etc.	OresmeÂ I.25
115^vb	I.22	Utrum grando magis debet fieri hyeme vel estate vel temporibus mediis, sicut vere et autumpno.	Et arguitur primo quod numquam [ms.: non quam] potest fieri, ratione Aristotelis in textu â¦ XÂ â¦ propter causam dictam in positione, nec etiam in estate, sicut dictum est. Et per hoc solvitur quartum. Sequitur alia.	OresmeÂ I.26
116^rb	I.23	Utrum nebula sit signum serenitatis.	Et arguitur primo quod non, quia nulla nubes et pluvia pluvie [sic] non est signum serenitatis â¦ XÂ â¦ sed nebula post pluviam est signum serenitatis, ut patet in questione. Ad secundam dicitur de eodem.	OresmeÂ I.27
117^ra	I.24	Utrum aqua ascendat ad orificium fontium et ad locum [ms. add.: et] fluviorum.	Et videtur quod sic, quia omne elementum naturaliter exit et movetur de loco sibi naturali â¦ XÂ â¦ de monte in quo est generatio aque que descendit ad montem istum. Et sic patet questio.	OresmeÂ I.28
117^vb	I.25	Utrum fontes et flumina veniunt ex aqua pluviali vel ex mari vel aliunde.	Et arguitur primo quod non ex pluviali, per rationem Senece â¦ XÂ â¦ sed pauci vapores super terram, ideo similiter sub terra.	OresmeÂ I.29
118^vb	I.26	Utrum fontes et pluvia deriventur ex montibus.	Et videtur primo quod non, quia non ex quolibet monte â¦ XÂ â¦ magis sunt ex aqua pluviali quam fontes, et ideo aqua fontis est melior.	OresmeÂ I.30
119^va	I.27	Utrum habitationes terre permutentur.	Et videtur primo quod non, quia descriptio orbis terrarum que olym fuit facta â¦ XÂ â¦ et ideo quandoque apparet maior, quandoque minor. Tertio supponiturÂ â¦	OresmeÂ I.31
120^rb	II.1	Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca.	Et primo videtur quod sit aer motus, nam aliquis aer motus est ventus â¦ XÂ â¦ ad octavam dico quod illa exalatio movetur sursum, ut dictum est, nec repellatur a frigido. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ II.7
120^vb	II.2	Utrum Sol faciat cessare ventos.	Et videtur quod non, nam movet eos, ut dicit Aristoteles â¦ XÂ â¦ et possibile est quod fiunt magis de nocte maiores. Et sic est finis huius.	AlbertÂ II.8
121^va	II.3	Utrum Auster veniat a polo antartico et Boreas ab artico.	Et primo videtur quod sic de Austro, nam venti contrarii veniunt a locis contrariis â¦ XÂ â¦ sed forte Aristoteles negaret istam experientiam.	AlbertÂ II.9
122^ra	II.4	Circa tractatum de motu terre, â¨queriturâ© utrum terre motus sit possibilis.	Et sciendum quod potest ymaginari quod terra moveatur secundum se totam simul circulariter â¦ XÂ â¦ sed habet viam liberam, et ita fortiter movetur. Et sic est finis huius questionis.	AlbertÂ II.10
122^va	II.5	Utrum tranquillitas sit signum terre motus.	Et videtur quod non, nam sepe est tranquillitas quod [sic] non sequitur terre motus â¦ XÂ â¦ sic dictum sit de causis et signis et effectibus circumstationis [sic] terre motum. Et sic patet ista questio.	AlbertÂ II.11
123^ra	II.6	Utrum tonitruum sit extinctio ignis in nube.	Et videtur quod sic per Aristotelem et Lyncolniensem â¦ XÂ â¦ ad tertiam concedo quod est simile; non tamen omnino, sicut dictum fuit. Et sic patet questio.	AlbertÂ II.12
123^vb	II.7	Utrum coruscatio sit possibilis.	Et videtur quod non, nam exalatio inflammata in nocte serena â¦ XÂ â¦ et etiam, postquam talia sunt inflammata, propter siccitatem materie statim consumitur et deficit flamma.	AlbertÂ II.13
124^rb	II.8	Utrum fulgur sit exalatio calida et sicca ignita.	Et videtur quod non, nam tunc moveretur sursum, quod est falsum, ymo deorsum â¦ XÂ â¦ fit in media regione, nam circumdatur calido ab utraque parte. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ II.14
124^vb	II.9	Utrum quoddam fulgur penetrat et aliud adurit.	Et primo arguitur quod nullum sit penetrans, nam tunc sequeretur quod posset exire de nube â¦ XÂ â¦ nisi forte valde rarissime, et tunc erit solum tempore sereno, sicut prius tractatum est. Et sic patet questio ista per dictum.	AlbertÂ II.15
125^rb	II.10	Utrum indifferenter quodlibet aliquando percutiatur fulmine aut possit percuti.	Et videtur quod sic, nam eadem ratione qua unum percutitur, alia ratione aliud â¦ XÂ â¦ ad rationes: omnes solute sunt ex positione. Et sic patet ista questio.	AlbertÂ II.16
125^vb	II.11	Utrum iste impressiones, videlicet tyffo, enephya, incensio, sunt exalationes sicce.	Et primo, de tyffone, arguitur quod non, nam movetur circulariter, ut dicit Aristoteles â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam dico quod possibile est tantam exalationem includi in nube, sed tamen hoc est raro contingens. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ II.17
126^rb	III.1	â¨Qâ©ueritur circa tertium librum utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis.	Et videtur quod non. Primo: istud esset capiendo âvisumâ pro ipsa potentia visiva â¦ XÂ â¦ et habet reflecti et etiam refrangi, ut postea videbitur. Et sic patet questio ista, etc.	AlbertÂ III.1
127^ra	III.2	Utrum in visione fiat reflexio a corporibus politis et densis.	Et videtur quod non, nam reflexio significat motum localem â¦ XÂ â¦ ad tertiam concedo quod a corporibus spericis fit reflexio, sed quomodo istud fit maior quam ab aliis videbitur postea. Et sic patet questio.	AlbertÂ III.2
127^va	III.3	Utrum aliqua specula representant colorem tantum et non figuram.	Et videtur quod non, nam nichil representat visum nisi secundum aliquam figuram â¦ XÂ â¦ ad tertiam dicetur per idem. Et sic patet questio ista, etc.	AlbertÂ III.3
128^rb	III.4	Utrum halo fiat per fractionem radii visualis.	Arguitur quod sic. Primo auctoritate Aristotelis, ubi sepe dicit hoc â¦ XÂ â¦ non est ita de isto radio, ymo reflectitur a tali superficie ad modum speculi. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ III.4
129^ra	III.5	Utrum halo fiat per reflectionem aâ¨bâ© ipsa nube.	Arguitur quod non, nam tunc semper appareret quando est nubes inter Solem et Lunam â¦ XÂ â¦ de hiis dictum est, et patet quod sit halo. Et sic est finis huius.	AlbertÂ III.5
129^va	III.6	Utrum colores apparentes in yride sint in ipsa.	Et videtur quod sic: sicut dicitur in secundo De anima, sensus non decipitur â¦ XÂ â¦ ad tertiam concedo quod per hoc videtur nigredo et densitas ipsius nubis. Et sic est finis huius questionis. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ III.6
130^ra	III.7	Utrum omnis yris sit tricolor.	Et videtur quod non, nam sicut sunt dicti colores tres, pari ratione deberent alii â¦ XÂ â¦ ad rationes in oppositum: et sunt solute. Et sic patet questio, etc.	AlbertÂ III.7
130^va	III. 8	Utrum yris appareat secundum circuli peryferiam.	Et arguitur quod non, nam dictum est prius quod â¦ XÂ â¦ ad rationes patet solutio, nam licet colores â¨sintâ© ubique, tamen apparent ad determinatum situm aut angulum.	AlbertÂ III.8
130^vb	III.9	Utrum yris posset apparere omni hora diei.	Videtur quod sic, nam ita est de halo â¦ XÂ â¦ tunc videtur remotior ceteris paribus: ex hoc videtur minor, et sic patet in perspectiva.	AlbertÂ III.9
131^ra	IV.1	â¨Qâ©ueritur, circa quartum huius, utrum primarum qualitatum due sunt active, â¨sicutâ© calidum et frigidum et due passive, sicut humidum et siccum.	Arguitur quod calidum et frigidum sunt qualitates passive, nam frigidum corrumpitur a calido â¦ XÂ â¦ ad rationes: prius solute sunt per primam conclusionem, et alie per alias.	AlbertÂ IV.1
131^va	IV.2	Consequenter queritur utrum generatio simplex â¨fiatâ© a calido et frigido.	Et arguitur quod non, nam ille sunt qualitates alterative, ergo non sunt effective â¦ XÂ â¦ et per hoc ultimo respondetur ad rationes in oppositum. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ IV.2
132^ra	IV.3	Utrum putrefactio fit a calido extrinseco et a frigido intrinseco.	Et videtur quod non a tali calido, nam generatio est contraria putrefactioni â¦ XÂ â¦ per hoc ad aliaâ¨mâ© dicetur quod quandoque planta generatur ex putrefactione, et sic de aliis. Patet questio ista.	AlbertÂ IV.3
132^vb	IV.4	Utrum diffinitio digestionis sit bona, quando dicit: âdigestio est perfectio a naturali et a principio calido ex oppositis passivisâ.	Et videtur quod non sic perfecta, nam sola forma sine alio est perfectio mixti â¦ XÂ â¦ sicut ad inclusum aerem, et postea aer putrefacit istud. Et sic patet.	AlbertÂ IV.4
133^ra	IV.5â6	Utrum frigus preservat a putrefactione; et secundo utrum animal generatur a putrefactione.	Ad primum arguitur quod non, nam putrefactio est preservatio â¦ XÂ â¦ ad ultimam dico: per âoppositaâ intendit humidum et siccum.	Albert IV.5â6
133^va	IV.7	Utrum sint tres digestiones tantum.	Et videtur â¨quod nonâ©, nam digestio est alteratio facta a calido â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam dictum est, quia licet sint plures, possunt tamen reduci [et] ad illas.	AlbertÂ IV.7

Catalogues

Kowalczyk [et al.], Catalogus, 4: 42â47; Markowski, WÅodek, Repertorium, 37.

Literature

Birkenmajer, Ãtudes dâhistoire des sciences en Pologne, 222; Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 9, 10, 27, 34, 57, 79; Ead., âAlbert of Saxonyâs Questions on Meteorology,â 252 (from which this description is partially drawn); Ead., âCommenter les MÃ©tÃ©orologiques Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Cracovie,â 110â111, 173â174.

1.2.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, 81^vaâ97^va = C^2a

The set of questions on Aristotleâs Meteorology found at ff.Â 81^vaâ97^va of ms. BJÂ 686 is transmitted anonymously.⁵⁰ The collation of this text with the other manuscripts of Oresmeâs commentary enabled me to establish that it is a selection of questions from the first book of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (I.3; I.12â32).⁵¹

The text is laid out in two columns of approximately forty-six lines each. The handwriting is small and fairly compact. The text was copied by a different hand than that of the Questions on Meteorology, which follows at ff.Â 101^raâ134^va. In the upper margin of f.Â 81^va, we read: âquestiones de impressionibus meteoroloycis bone.â At ff.Â 81^vaâ82^vb and 91^raâ97^vb, we find pilcrows in red ink; in the rest of the copy, the pilcrows are traced with the ink used for the main text. The commentary is incomplete, stopping at f.Â 97^vb with the words: âet ideo dicit Avicenna.â The subsequent sheets (97^raâ100^vb) have remained blank.⁵²

1.2.4 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb = D¹

I consider this text as an independent witness from D, and not as a part of it, since the questions transmitted at ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb (Utrum habitatio terre permutetur propter mare, from the second article, f.Â 80^rb; Utrum habitatio terre permutetur propter intemperantiam in qualitatibus secundis, f.Â 80^vb; Utrum locus naturalis elementi aque sit ubi nunc est mare, f.Â 81^rb; Utrum mare fluat et refluat, f.Â 81^vb) present some variant readings when compared with the corresponding questions in D.⁵³ In contrast to D, copied by Iohannes Margan, D¹ is by the hand of Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche. Although the rest of the copy by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche has not survived (or has not yet been identified), we can presume that this student also transcribed the whole commentary. We can therefore infer from the colophon at f.Â 81^rb that he was responsible for the final, corrected version of the text (compilatio).

Three questions on the fourth book of Aristotleâs Meteorology, transmitted at ff.Â 125^raâ127^vb of the Darmstadt manuscript, have been copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche. Due to the incompleteness of the text, no colophon identifies the scribe; however, a comparison of the handwriting with that of ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb easily enables us to recognize Henricusâs hand. For reasons that I will explain in the following, I considered it more prudent to publish these questions in the form of an appendix instead of including them in the edition of the first redaction of Oresmeâs commentary.⁵⁴

1.3 Overview of the Manuscripts

Signature	Siglum	Date	Origin
Darmstadt, UB, 2197	D	ca.Â 1346	Paris
Munich, BSB, Clm 4375	M	ca.Â 1345â1350	?
KrakÃ³w, BJÂ 753	C	1362	Erfurt
KrakÃ³w, BJÂ 635	C¹	1362	Erfurt
KrakÃ³w, BJÂ 686	C²	ca.Â 1360	Prague

In the light of these data concerning the manuscripts of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology, it is possible to make some observations about the dissemination of the text. First, it should be noted that most of the copies come from Central European universities. This fact is not surprising, since the masters who taught in these institutions frequently used in their courses commentaries by famous Parisian colleagues. According to our knowledge, only the texts contained in the Darmstadt codex were copied at the University of Paris, when Oresme was teaching at the Arts Faculty. The colophon of the first book in D¹ states that the text was compiled under the supervision of Oresme himself. The Darmstadt manuscript therefore represents a privileged witnesses to the reconstruction of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology.

2 The Manuscript Tradition

2.1 The Complete Manuscripts: D, C, M

2.1.1 The Darmstadt Manuscript: A Direct Witness to Oresmeâs Teaching

As we have seen above on the basis of a paleographical analysis of the Darmstadt manuscript, we have good reason to believe that D is a reportatio, as it resulted directly from notes taken by the hand of Iohannes Margan de Yvia during Oresmeâs course.⁵⁵ To the historical and paleographical arguments mentioned above, we can add other arguments of a philological nature. This copy presents a number of errors which could be the result of Iohannes Margan transcribing sounds which he did not grasp or understand.⁵⁶ This is the case for the following errors:⁵⁷

I.4, 24 dicto] quinto D
I.7, 27 in illo] ideo D
I.10, 6 adhuc] actum D
I.10, 11 de somnio scipionis] de summo cribionis D
I.11, 19 ad cuius] alicuius D
I.18, 13 in celo] infero D
I.19, 7 olei] aurei D
I.24, 10 talia] calida D
I.24, 14 interstitio] interspissio D
I.25, 3 nix] ignis D
I.25, 8 caldaria] calcarea D
I.26, 16 cadit] vadit D
I.27, 7 cum primum] comprimit D
I.27, 13 tumor] fumor D
I.32, 10 de palude meotide] de palude in eotide D
I.33, 16 ex auditu] est auditu D
III.3, 17 exagone] ex algone D
III.3, 19 viridis] iridis D

Other variants in D prove that the scribe was transcribing the speech of the master. This is suggested by the form âliis,â for âlexâ (I.1, 11), and by the use of feminine relative pronouns instead of neuter or masculine ones. For instance, D employs the feminine singular pronoun âque,â instead of the neuter âquod,â for the noun âmare, marisâ (I.12, 25 âde mari, que calefit a Soleâ), which is neuter in Latin, but feminine in French. Similarly, in D the noun âvapor, vaporisâ is feminine, like in French, although it is masculine in Latin. This substantive is, in fact, accompanied by feminine pronouns, in singular as well as in plural forms (I.1, 2, âelevatio vaporis, que est gravis;â III.1, 25 âvapores que sunt inter nos et res visasâ). In questionÂ III.3, 19, the same happens with the noun âcolor, coloris,â masculine in Latin, but feminine in French, and treated as a feminine noun in D: âcolor puniceus est ubicumque in ista nube, quia ubicumque potest videri a diversis sitibus, et similiter viridis et alie,â where alie replaces âcolores.â⁵⁸ These French influences in a Latin text can be easily explained if we admit that Iohannes Margan was transcribing Oresmeâs lectures directly.

The oral origin of D is confirmed by the fact that this copy contains very few omissions by homoioteleuton compared to C and M. In fact, for bookÂ I alone, C and M have more such omissions than D does for the entire commentary.⁵⁹

2.1.2 The Relationships between the Complete Manuscripts D, C, M

The collation shows that C and M, which do not share the hearing errors, nor many other ones of D, do not directly depend on this witness. For instance, let us consider an error in D that is unrelated to pronunciation and cannot be found in C nor in M. Having established, in questionÂ I.7, that motion is a cause of heat, Oresme considers and solves some difficulties that seem to defy this principle. One of them comes from the motion of falling bodies. Starting from the observation that light bodies, such as fire, tend to move upwards, while heavy bodies, such as stones, tend to move downwards, Aristotle elaborated a qualitatively determined notion of place and motion. In this framework, a lower place and a downward motion are associated with cold, while a higher place and upward motion are associated with heat (Phys., IV, 1, 208Â bÂ 9â23; De celo, IV, 3, 310Â aÂ 30â35). However, if we accept Oresmeâs assumption that local motion generates heat through friction, we would need to reject Aristotleâs claim that a falling body becomes colder and colder. In an attempt to reconcile these two theses, Oresme concedes that the cooling action of downward motion is stronger than the heating effect resulting from the friction of the falling body with air. Nevertheless, as he points out, the friction somehow diminishes (âaliqualiter remittitâ) the cooling effect of the downward motion, causing the body to cool down somewhat less (âaliquantulum minus frigefitâ):

Ad aliam, de lapide, dico quod possibile est quod aliquantulum calefiat in descendendo. [â¦] Et cum additur quod dum movetur a generante fit grave et frigidum [fit grave et frigidum: etc. CÂ M], concedo, quia actio generantis est fortior quam illa parva calefactio que fieret ex confricatione cum aere, cum hoc etiam quod rei veritas est quod aliquantulum minus frigefit [calefit D] propter talem confricationem que aliqualiter remittit actionem agentis [hoc est satis minus forte add. CÂ M].

By replacing âfrigefitâ with âcalefit,â D affirms that the falling body heats up somewhat less (âaliquantulum minus calefitâ) due to the friction with air, which is in contradiction with Oresmeâs theory of the production of heat as presented in the same question.

Another example of a wrong reading in D not shared by C and M can be found in the following question, I.8, par.Â 18. According to Oresme, the sphere of fire and the upper part of the sphere of air perpetually move in a circular way due to the impulsion of the celestial sphere. This motion generates friction and, as a consequence, heat. While this condition seems to be natural for fire, it is violent for air. But how could this motion be perpetual, if, according to Aristotle, no violent motion can last eternally (De celo, II, 3 286Â aÂ 17â18)? Oresme solves this difficulty by explaining that the portions of air that move and heat up due to the circular motion are not numerically the same, but keep changing, since they are continuously generated and corrupted. In this sense, it is possible to rule out, with Aristotle, a perpetual state of violence in one and the same body:

Ad secundum potest concedi quod aer et ignis condensantur et rarefiunt et moventur violente [circulariter add. CÂ M]âet hoc videtur dicere Aristoteles in textu [I, 4, 341Â bÂ 19â24]âet quod aer calefit violente. Et cum dicitur quod nullum violentum, etc., conceditur, et ideo nullus aer est ibi perpetuus aut movetur perpetue [violente D], sed continue est ibi generatio et corruptio.

The replacement of the adverb âperpetueâ to âviolenteâ makes not only the answer to the objection meaningless, but also contradicts Oresmeâs own reasoning, as a few lines before, he does affirm that air and fire move violently. These examples of wrong readings in D not shared by C or M show that they do not depend on D.

The fact that D, in turn, does not depend on C or M, is proved on many levels. On a historical one, as we have seen, a paleographical and codicological study of D revealed that it is an original reportatio of Oresmeâs course. These facts are complemented, on a philological level, by errors and omissions in C and M that render their text incomplete or even unintelligible, and which are not shared by D. Let us start with the omissions. In questionÂ I.1, par.Â 13â14, Oresme addresses the notion of order, distinguishing between a uniform order, such as that experienced in the daily rotation of the celestial sphere, and a difform one, which characterizes the motions of the planetary orbs. While the first kind of order is not susceptible to degrees of intensity (ânon suscipit magis et minusâ), the second one can be more or less regular. Referring to Campanusâs Theorica planetarum, Oresme explains that there is much more variety in the motion of the planet Mercury than in that of the Sun. Still, both motions are included in the notion of cosmic order: âsicut patet in Theorica, in motu Mercurii est multo maior varietas quam in motu Solis, et tamen totum est ordinatumâ (par.Â 14 in this edition). By omitting the end of the sentence, âet tamen totum est ordinatum,â C and M skip the main idea of Oresmeâs reasoning, namely that the universe constitutes an ordered and regulated system.

Let us consider a second omission shared by C and M. In questionÂ I.2, Oresme presents an argument excluding the contiguity between the celestial sphere (âcelumâ) and the terrestrial one. According to this argument, the celestial sphere cannot be touched. In the first book of Aristotleâs On the heavens, we read that the heavens are not subject to generation, corruption, and alteration (I, 3, 270Â aÂ 12â35), which implies that they do not contain any tangible (tangibilis) quality.⁶⁰ This does not mean, however, that in the heavens there is no quality at all, since they are luminous, and light is a quality, both according to Aristotle and according to Oresme (see for instance q.Â I.9, par.Â 6, and q.Â I.12, par.Â 15 in this volume).⁶¹ By omitting the key word âtangibilis,â C and M therefore misrepresent both Aristotleâs quotation from On the heavens and Oresmeâs line of reasoning (as applied particularly in q.Â I.12, 18â19):

Et arguitur quod non, quia contigua se invicem tangunt; modo celum non est tangibile [sed intangibile add. C], ut patet tertio Physicorum, etiam quia in eo non est aliqua qualitas tangibilis [tangibilis om. CÂ M], ut patet [patet om. D] primo Celi, quia non est calidum nec frigidum.

Other notable omissions in C and M that affect the content and are not shared by D can be found in questionÂ I.9, on light. Oresme considers three possibilities concerning the duration of light in the medium (lumen): either every light is newly generated (novum); or every light is eternal; or some light is generated, and some is eternal. Oresme rules out these three possibilities one by one. The generation of every light is excluded by the fact that celestial light, such as that around the Sun, cannot be generated, as nothing can be generated nor corrupted in the heavens. The eternity of every light is excluded by experience. The fact that some light is generated and some is eternal is ruled out by their belonging to the same species. The text of D runs as follows:

I.9, 3. Tertio: aut omne lumen esset novumâet hoc non, quia lumen prope Solem est eternum; aut omne esset eternumâet hoc falsum ad sensum; aut aliquod eternum et aliud novumâet hoc falsum, quia sunt eiusdem speciei [â¦].

Both C and M transmit a corrupted text in this passage. C contains an omission making the reasoning unintelligible:

Tertio: aut omne lumen esset novumâet hoc non, quia lumen prope Solem est eternum; aut omne esset eternumâet hoc falsum, quia sunt eiusdem speciei.

M shares a part of this omission while transmitting a segment of the sentence absent in C. However, M adds other errors that make its text even less intelligible than that of C: it omits the conjunction aut introducing the first alternative, and it replaces the negation non with est, which would make sense only if it were followed by a word like falsum.

Tertio: omne lumen esset novumâet hoc est, quia lumen prope Solem est eternum; aut omne esset eternumâet hoc falsum, ut patet ad sensum, quia sunt eiusdem speciei.

Despite these important differences, which separate C M from D, there are a number of indications that the three witnesses derive from the same source. First of all, some errors are shared by the whole manuscript tradition. Let us consider a particularly significative instance in questionÂ I.10, the most difficult and technical one, which is devoted to the problem of the proportionality of the elementary spheres. Oresme explains that to obtain the distance from the centre of the Earth to the upper limit of the sphere of fire, we must add the radii of the Moon and its epicycle and subtract them from the distance between the centre of the Earth and the Moon. In all the manuscripts of the prima lectura, we read that the radius of the Moon measures 0^r; 10, 32, and the radius of the epicycle of the Moon measures 5^r; 10, where ^r indicates the radius of the Earth. Considering with Oresme that the distance between the centre of the Earth and the Moon measures 39^r; 22, we will thus have: 39^r; 22â¯ââ¯(5^r; 10â¯+â¯0^r; 10, 32) = 39^r; 22â¯ââ¯5^r; 20, 32 = 34^r; 1, 28. This result does not correspond to that given by Oresme, namely 33^r; 54, 27. In order to find the key to this problem, I resorted to Albert of Saxonyâs Questions on Meteorology, a text which closely follows Oresmeâs ultima lectura, sometimes complementing it, as in this case, with the prima lectura. In Albertâs text, we read that the radius of the Moon measures 0^r; 17, 33. Repeating the calculation with this value, we find: 39^r; 22â¯ââ¯(5^r; 10â¯+â¯0^r; 17, 33) = 39^r; 22â¯ââ¯5^r; 37, 33 = 33^r; 54, 27, which corresponds to the result provided by Oresme.⁶²

Other (minor) errors shared by the entire manuscript tradition, on which I will elaborate later,⁶³ confirm that the three complete copies of Oresmeâs prima lectura on Aristotlesâ Meteorology derive from the same source. Given the nature of D (a reportatio) and of these errors, I find it unnecessary to postulate an intermediary step between Oresmeâs lecture and the existing manuscripts, as these inaccuracies could directly stem from Oresmeâs delivery of his lectures. This hypothesis is further supported by the absence of any common omission resulting from homoioteleuton.

Additional evidence that the three complete copies of Oresmeâs commentary derive from the same sourceâwhich, if my hypothesis is correct, should be none other than Oresmeâs lecturesâemerges from a codicological analysis of D, which reveals that this copy contains traces of words and phrases present in C and M:

In questionÂ I.1, par.Â 8, C and M have: âcuiusmodi est inflammatio, condensatio,â while manuscript D, has: âsicut est inflammatio, condensatio.â However, the scribe of D wrote and then crossed-out the word âcuiusmodiâ after the word âsicutâ (f.Â 58^ra).
In questionÂ I.5, par.Â 5, C and M contain the term âconnexio,â whereas in D it has been crossed-out and substituted with âconiunctio,â written above the line (f.Â 60^vb).
In questionÂ I.7, par.Â 8, C and M have: âquia dum lapis descendit deorsum partes inferiores moventur irregulariter quia velocius in fine,â whereas the explanation âquia velocius in fineâ is missing in D. However, after the term âirregulariter,â we find two crossed-out words: âquia veâ (f.Â 62^rb), which appear to correspond to the beginning of the sentence added in C and M.
In questionÂ I.8, par.Â 15, M reads: âeo quod celum movetur imprimitur in istis quedam virtus motiva circulariter.â While the adverb âcirculariterâ is missing in C, it is replaced by âlocaliterâ in D. This term is nevertheless followed by a crossed-out word: âcirculaâ (f.Â 63^rb), which proves that the scribe of D had also begun to write âcirculariter.â
In questionÂ I.9, par.Â 9, D has: âqui retro ipsum causant,â while C and M read: âqui retro ipsum generant.â However, in D, the verb âcausantâ is preceded by a âgâ (f.Â 63^vb), which might prove that the scribe of D also started writing âgenerant,â before opting for âcausant.â
In questionÂ I.9, par.Â 12, C and M read: âsi fieret unum celum vel una spera circa Terram rubea,â where D reads: âsi fieret unum celum circa Terram rubea.â Yet the scribe of D corrected the word ârubeaâ by crossing out the ending âaâ and adding an âmâ above the line (f.Â 64^ra). The presence of the feminine form of the adjective in D can be easily explained if we admit that the scribe also heard the expression âvel una spera,â transmitted by C and M, but did not have time to write it down.
In questionÂ I.13, par.Â 18, C and M read: âseptimo Physicorum Commentator commento decimo dicit,â where D reads: âseptimo physicorum dicitur.â Next to the term âdicitur,â however, we find a crossed-out word written in the margin: âdecimoâ (f.Â 68^va).
In questionÂ I.15, par.Â 8, C and M read: âpono distinctiones et conclusiones,â while D reads: âpono distinctiones.â The last word is preceded by a âqâ (f.Â 70^ra), a sign used in gothic writings to abbreviate the prefix âcumâ or âcon.â It is therefore possible that the scribe of D had also started to write the word âconclusiones.â
In questionÂ I.27, par.Â 7, C and M read: ânon potest lux Solis ita cito apparere propter aeris densitatem.â D reads âmediiâ instead of âaeris,â but the first term is preceded by âaeÂ â¦,â which was crossed-out by the scribe (f.Â 76^va).
In II.4, par.Â 1, C and M read: âinfra terram ad originem fontium et fluviorum,â where D reads: âinfra terram ad originem fontium sive puteorum.â The word âputeorumâ is nevertheless preceded by âfluvi,â subsequently crossed-out by the scribe (f.Â 87^ra).
In questionÂ III.1, par.Â 28, manuscripts C and M have: âquia perpendiculares super curvam continue approximantur,â while D has: âquia perpendiculares super convexum continue approximanturâ (f.Â 91^rb). The term âconvexumâ is however preceded by a crossed-out word: âcurvam.â
In questionÂ III.3, par.Â 14, C and M read: âspiritus est minus sensibilis et subtilis,â while D only has: âspiritus est minus subtilisâ (f.Â 92^ra). The term âsubtilisâ is however preceded by a crossed-out âsen,â which indicates that the scribe had started writing âsensibilis.â

From these examples, we can infer that the scribes of C and M had access to a different text, which is sometimes more complete than D. This can be easily explained if we suppose that C and M derive from another reportatio of Oresmeâs course. The scribe of this text, faster than Iohannes Margan de Yvia, could have recorded words that the latter began but was unable to transcribe fully, subsequently choosing to cross them out (examples 3, 5, 7, 9, 12). Those cases in which Iohannes Margan started to write down words which are found in C and M, and then substituted other terms for them (examples 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11), can be explained by assuming that Oresme had actually proposed both terms, either to give an equivalent (1, 6, 9, 10), or to correct himself (11), and that the two scribes opted for different solutions. The fact that C and M could derive from a more complete text than D seems to be confirmed by the fact that they often supplement statements in D with examples, explanations, and authorities. It is important to emphasize that, in most cases, the text of D is perfectly intelligible without these additions. Here are some examples of these additions in questions I.1â8:

I.1, 13 musica] quando non est variatio add. CÂ M
I.2, 5 est] propinqua vel add. CÂ M
I.2, 6 huius] primo capitulo add. CÂ M
I.2, 8 mundum] sicut axis spere add. CÂ M
I.3, 2 previdere] ut ibidem dicitur add. CÂ M
I.3, 2 intellectum] ut patet duodecimo metaphysice add. CÂ M
I.3, 7 intellectum] unde omne gubernans vel regens debet previdere add. CÂ M
I.3, 9 astrologos] et hoc dicit etiam virgilius in georgica add. CÂ M
I.3, 9 plenilunio] et in littera sunt alia experimenta add. CÂ M
I.3, 9 alchimia] et in mineralibus add. CÂ M
I.3, 10 occasum] solis add. CÂ M
I.3, 14 celi] quia est regularis add. CÂ M
I.3, 16 ignis] qui est sursum add. CÂ M
I.4, 2 orbi] ex duodecimo metaphysice add. CÂ M
I.4, 5 alium] naturalem ut dictum est add. CÂ M
I.4, 11 tertio] specialiter add. CÂ M
I.4, 17 aut aliquid tale] sicut dicit witelo in libro de natura demonum add. CÂ M
I.4, 24 lune] et ita velociter add. CÂ M
I.4, 33 illo] sicut celum add. CÂ M
I.5, 6 esset] secundo si unus solus in alia questione add. CÂ M
I.5, 7 est] ex alia questione add. CÂ M
I.5, 20 essent] et ideo melius est nunc add. CÂ M
I.6, 9 motu] solo add. CÂ M
I.6, 9 mense] mars in duobus add. CÂ M
I.6, 12 in tantum] quod priorem compleret et add. CÂ M
I.6, 12 celum] quia dicunt theologi quod sol stetit tempore iosue add. CÂ M
I.6, 18 coadiuvaret] et dirigeret add. CÂ M
I.6, 18 causarum] alie rationes sunt pro ista positione add. CÂ M
I.7, 1 localis] tamquam add. CÂ M
I.7, 2 calefactio] esset causa add. CÂ M
I.7, 2 infinitum] patet conclusio tripliciter add. CÂ M
I.7, 2 levitas] causa add. CÂ M
I.7, 2 alterum] per motum add. CÂ M
I.7, 3 movetur] quantum ad membra add. CÂ M
I.7, 7 ultra] modum et add. CÂ M
I.7, 7 tranquillus] et pacificus add. CÂ M
I.7, 9 caliditas] ut patet secundo physicorum add. CÂ M
I.7, 11 actu] movens et add. CÂ M
I.7, 11 resistens] per tertiam add. CÂ M
I.7, 11 nobiliori] dispositione add. CÂ M
I.7, 11 nobiliorem] qualitatem add. CÂ M
I.7, 11 moveretur] patet quarto huius add. CÂ M
I.7, 13 difformis] sicut circulariter add. CÂ M
I.7, 14 calefiunt] ex motu add. CÂ M
I.7, 14 unctura] ut oleum add. CÂ M
I.7, 16 quiescentis] sicut ligni add. CÂ M
I.7, 17 sicut] lapis add. CÂ M
I.7, 17 motu] et tamen movetur ita velociter add. CÂ M
I.7, 18 iste] et quis non add. CÂ M
I.7, 22 aqua] mota add. CÂ M
I.7, 22 dura] sed mollia add. CÂ M
I.7, 26 agentis] hoc est satis minus forte add. CÂ M
I.7, 27 dicendum] de illo qui tremit propter frigus add. CÂ M
I.8, 1 agit] aut calefacit add. CÂ M
I.8, 12 nisi] esset sic approximatum et add. CÂ M
I.8, 13 motu] turbido et add. CÂ M
I.8, 14 tertio] principali add. CÂ M
I.8, 14 rarefactione] et etiam ex recto et circulari add. CÂ M
I.8, 16 alia] secundum eandem altitudinem add. CÂ M
I.8, 16 polos] ad ista add. CÂ M
I.8, 17 celum] calefacit add. CÂ M
I.8, 18 violente] circulariter add. CÂ M
I.8, 18 nullus] aer add. CÂ M
I.8, 19 latitudinis] spissitudinis et latitudinis CÂ M
I.8, 21 qui] non poneret add. CÂ M

For all these reasons, it cannot be ruled out that C and M depend on a revised text of Oresmeâs lectures. As we will see in the following pages, the archetype of C and M is indeed quite close to the compilatio copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche (D¹), although it cannot be identified with this text.

As for the relationships between C and M, it appears that we can rule out the possibility that one is a copy of the other. While they often agree with each other, at times M aligns with D rather than C, and C agrees with D, and not with M. In cases of omissions and errors, this behavior seems to rule out both the dependence of C on M and the dependence of M on C. Beginning with M, it exhibits some omissions due to homoioteleuton, as seen in the following sentences, in which I italicized the omitted text:

I.7, 3. Primo: aqua currens per motum suum non calefacit, immo potius frigefit ac etiam frigefacit; et adhuc est frigidior quam si quiesceret in tranquillitate.⁶⁴ Secundo: aer dum movetur per ventum est frigidior quam si quiesceret in tranquillitate.

I.9, 2. Secundo: aut lumen generaretur inferius ab omni parte celiâet hoc non, per Commentatorem secundo Celi, sed solum a Sole et stellis; aut ab aliqua et alia nonâet hoc non, quia sunt eiusdem rationis, ut probat Commentator secundo Celi, et eiusdem speciei specialissime.

I.9, 6. Sed âlumenâ dicitur esse qualitas medii perspicui generata a corpore luminoso per lucem. Sed splendor est dispositio seu qualitas corporis opaci transita a corpore luminoso sibi opposito mediante luce et lumine.

I.11, 14. Tunc ad propositum dico primo quod lux Solis est calefactiva primo modo [quia est dispositio calefactivi add. CÂ M]; et dico secundo quod lux vel splendor opaci, sicut lapidis, est causa caloris secundo modo, quia est dispositio passi; tertio, quod lumen medii est causa tertio modo.

I.12, 10. Tunc sunt suppositiones. Prima est quod nullum corpus est simpliciter opacum. Probatur, quia sit a aliquod corpus opacum, sicut lapis, et b minus, sicut aqua; tunc cum a non sit in infinitum magis opacum quam b, igitur in aliqua proportione. Igitur, si aliquod lumen transit per b, lumen in eadem proportione maius transiret per a; ergo a non est opacum simpliciter.

III.6, 21. Sexta conclusio est quod e contrario, visa iride, altitudinem Solis, et per consequens horam diei, facile est invenire. Patet iam, quia visa iride poterit haberi locus centri vel poli eius.

III.7, 15. Dico ergo quod tota nubes est colorata quolibet istorum colorum et sua nigredine sic quod ubicumque est quilibet color, et si videretur ad omnem angulum aut situm, tunc esset coloris indistinctio.

Yet the dependence of M on C seems to be ruled out as well, as C contains omissions by homoioteleuton and errors in passages where M has good readings. Regarding the omissions by homoioteleuton, C omits the words in italics in a quotation from Senecaâs Natural questions:⁶⁵

I.19, 9. ne quid temere, neque imprudenter aut ignorantes affirmemus aut scientes mentiamur, nec miremur tam tarde erui que tam alte iacent.

Another notable omission by homoioteleuton can be found in a conclusion concerning the rainbow:

III.6, 13. Quarta conclusio est quod eadem hora, quanto aliquis a Sole est remotior, tanto apparet sibi iris maior, sicut si alicui apparet iris a septentrione, tunc, quanto regio esset magis septentrionalis, tanto apparet sibi iris maior, quia tunc esset minor elevatio Solis; ita similiter comparando ad orientem et occidentem.

As for errors in C, in q.Â I.1, par.Â 2, for example, Oresme mentions certain meteorological phenomena that, according to the principles of Aristotleâs physics, occurr violently. This is the case of the upward motion of vapor, a heavy body of the same nature of water, which should therefore rather move downwards: âaliqua fiunt violente, sicut elevatio vaporis, que est gravis et de natura aque.â Instead of âque est gravis et de natura aque,â C reads âaque gravis,â which makes the sentence less intelligible. A few lines below in the same question, the violent motion of vapor leads the scribe of C to another bad reading: âquedam fiunt aliqualiter violente, quando vapor per levitatem suam elevatur sursum naturaliter.â Instead of the reading âelevatur,â found in D and M, C has âalteratur,â a verb less suitable for describing the ascending motion of vapor.

Omissions of C not shared by M confirm the fact that the latter does not depend on the former. A significant example occurs in questionÂ I.18, devoted to luminous phenomena visible at night (Meteor. I, 5, 342Â aÂ 34â36). Oresme writes that some blood-red colours, between black and red, sometimes appear not only during clear nights, but also shortly before sunrise and after sunset. At those times, the edges of the clouds can appear to be red:⁶⁶

I.18, 7. Similiter apparent ibi colores purpurei quasi inter nigrum et rubeum, et non solum de nocte in serenitate, sed quandoque modicum post occasum vel ante ortum extremitates grossarum nubium apparent sic colorate quasi rubedine vel quodam colore tendente ad rubedinem.

Manuscript C omits the word âortum,â thus referring the temporal indication âanteâ to the preceding term, âoccasum.â According to C, then, these colors are not visible shortly after sunset and before sunrise, but shortly before and after sunset, which does not correspond to the situation Oresme is describing. Just as with the question about the proportionality between the elements, Albert of Saxonyâs text, closely following Oresmeâs one, provides us with an important point of comparison for evaluating variant readings in Oresmeâs manuscripts. Now in Albertâs commentary, we read that the edges of the clouds appear to be coloured before the sunrise and after the sunset:

Quarta est quod aliquando, de sero prope Solis occasum vel de mane ante ortum, apparent nubes in extremitatibus vario modo colorate, sicut sanguinee vel punicee, etc.⁶⁷

This confirms that the omission of the term âortumâ in C is an error. The fact that M does not share it, proves that it has not been copied from C.

2.2 The Incomplete Manuscripts: C¹, C², C^2a, D¹

As for the incomplete manuscripts, C¹, C², C^2a, and D¹, I have differentiated my collation method, according to the transmitted portion of text. In the absence of a question contained in all of these witnesses, it is impossible to compare the text of manuscripts C¹, C² and C^2a with that of D¹. I have therefore collated the first three witnesses at questionÂ I.19 (Utrum cometa sit de natura celi aut elementari), and I have compared their variants both with each other and with those of the full witnesses C, D and M. As for D¹, I have chosen questionÂ I.32 (Utrum habitatio terre permutetur propter mare), which I have compared with the complete witnesses.

2.2.1 The Krakow Group: C, C¹, C², C^2a

The Krakow manuscripts C¹, C², C^2a belong to the same family as C and M, as shown by this sample collation including a significant variant (11 and 12) and an interesting error (14), which I will discuss later on:

I.19, 1 movetur] circulariter add. MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 1 dominantis] predominantis MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 1 ipsius] celi MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 2 patet] per aristotelem et add. MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 2 consequentia tenet] inv. MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 4 ascendat et habeat] ascendens habeat MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 5 tertio] tertia ratio M] tertia ratio est CÂ C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 7 quinta] ratio add. MÂ C C¹ C² ratio est add. C^2a
I.19, 9 recitanda] ponenda MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 9 celi] in celo MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 10 quinque] septem MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 10 planete] et quinque add. MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 10 illas] quinque add. MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a
I.19, 10 tabulas] fabulas MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a

Within the group MÂ C C¹ C² C^2a, the Krakow manuscripts form a subfamily, because they do not share some of the errors of M, such as the substitution of the term âegrotantesâ for the term âignorantesâ in the quotation from Senecaâs Natural questions. In the same paragraph, M presents another significant variant, which can be interpreted as an error. According to the text of D, we read in fact that Seneca proved that the comet is not of elementary nature: âEt probat quod non sit de natura elementari.â M replaces the key term âelementariâ with the word âaeris.â Of course, air is an elementary body, so M does not completely subvert Senecaâs reasoning. Still, at this level, the question does not ask of which elementary nature the comet is made up (air or fire, for instance), but, in a more general way, whether it is of celestial or elementary nature. In this sense, the reading of M can be considered to be an error compared to the text of D, an error which is not shared by the Krakow manuscripts CÂ C¹ C² C^2a, and which therefore proves that they do not depend on M.

If we try to further clarify the relationships between C, C¹, and C², we can affirm that neither C¹ nor C², i.e. the incomplete witnesses, seem to have been copied from C. This is evident since they transmit passages that are missing in C and without which the text is unintelligible. As a significative example, we can consider, once again, the quotation from Senecaâs Natural Questions (I.19, par.Â 9), a challenging text for students not accustumed to Classical Latin, which is particularly useful for an editor to compare their errors:

ait D agit MÂ C¹ C² an C agitur C^2a
debemus C¹ C² DÂ M om. C debere C^2a
magis hoc facere D hoc magis facere M hoc facere C hoc facere magis C² et hoc etiam fieri C^2a
neque imprudenter aut ignorantes affirmemus aut scientes mentiamur C¹ C² DÂ M om. hom. C

As evident from this comparison, C contains an error (1) and three omissions (2, 3, and 4) that render the text unintelligible, and which are not shared by the other Krakow manuscripts. As a consequence, although C is the only complete copy of this group, it cannot be considered the model for the other Krakow manuscripts. The dependence of C on the other witnesses seems in turn to be ruled out by their incompleteness. As we have seen in the descriptions of these manuscripts, C¹ and C² only contain qq. I.19â31 from the first redaction of Oresmeâs commentary, the rest of the text being by Albert of Saxony. In both copies, Oresmeâs question Utrum habitationes terre permutentur ends abruptly with the words: âtertia suppositio,â to resume with the second book by Albert of Saxony (q.Â II.7). As for C^2a, we have seen that it only contains some questions from the first book of Oresmeâs commentary (I.3; I.12â32).

Still, it should be proven on a philological level that C did not rely on one of the other manuscripts C¹, C² or C^2a for the parts they transmit. Coming back to Senecaâs quotation, for instance, we correctly read in C, D, and M that one should show some deference when addressing the nature of the planets, of the gods and of the stars: âcum de syderibus, de deorum natura et de stellis disputamus,â we read in the complete copies C, D and M (with a minor addition and an inversion in C, though, as it reads âet de natura deorum,â while C and D read âde deorum naturaâ). Interestingly, the three incomplete Krakow manuscripts C¹, C², and C^2a, exclude the gods from this list. They replace the genitive plural form of the substantive âdeusâ with that of the demonstrative pronoun âisâ, resulting in the phrase: âet eorum naturaâ, which is therefore referred to the substantive âsydus.â This variant, undoubtedly arising from the graphical similarity between the forms âdeorumâ and âeorum,â significantly impacts the meaning of the text, and can be considered as an error of C¹, C², and C^2a.

A second error shared by these manuscripts, but not by C, concerns one of Senecaâs arguments in favor of the celestial nature of comets. According to this argument, all the bodies situated in the atmosphere undergo continuous changes, a characteristic not shared by comets, whose appearance, on the contrary, remains quite stable.⁶⁸ The premise is demonstrated by the continuous transformation of air: âaer est semper in continua transmutatione.â The words âin continuaâ are absent in manuscripts C¹ and C². The former reads âmo^taâ and the latter âmotÄâ, thus making the argument unintelligible:

I.19, 3. Deinde arguitur rationibus Senece, libro quarto de Questionibus [temporibus C^2a] naturalibus. Prima est quia [quia om. C C¹ C² C^2a] quecumque fiunt in aere sunt continue transmutabilia, ergo talis stella esset continue variabilis [transmutabilis M], cuius oppositum experitur. Et patet assumptum, quia aer est semper [semper om. C^2a] in continua [mo^ta C¹ motÄ C²] transmutatione.

This passage confirms that C does not depend on C¹ or C². It also sheds some light on the position of the third incomplete Krakow manuscript, C^2a. On one side, this witness does not share the confusion of C¹ and C² concerning the expression âin continua,â indicating that it probably does not depend on these copies. On the other side, C^2a presents an omission not shared by any of the other manuscripts (the adverb âsemperâ) and a trivial error in the title of Senecaâs work (âde temporibus naturalibus,â instead of âde questionibus naturalibusâ) which is absent in the other manuscripts.

Another instance proving that C and C^2a do not depend on C¹ or C² is found at questionÂ I.19, par.Â 9, where Oresme announces that he would first discuss Senecaâs opinion, and then Aristotleâs: âPrimo recitanda est opinio Senece, deinde opinio Aristotelis.â C¹ and C² replace the name âAristotelesâ with the indefinite pronoun âaliorum,â an error which is not shared by C nor by C^2a.

As already emerges from these few passages, C^2a exhibits a rather idiosyncratic behaviour: it is independent of C¹ and C², not sharing their errors, but having its own, which, in turn, are not shared by any of the manuscripts in this group. Other passages show that C^2a tends to shorten the text, and, more interestingly, reworks it in difficult passages. Here are some examples of the first type of variants:

I.19, 7. quia ista inferiora que significant talia sicut scintillatio olei significant de prope et non sunt signa respectu longe futuri sicut est cometa CÂ C¹ C² igitur etc. C^2a
I.19, 9. nec miremur tam tarde erui tamque alte iacent CÂ C¹ C² om. C^2a
I.19, 9. est una stella in celo et est erratica stella CÂ C¹ C² est stella in celo erratica C^2a

An example of the second type of variants is in questionÂ I.19, par.Â 1, in the first argument proving the celestial nature of comets. Oresme argues that every body naturally moving like the heavens, namely in a circular way, is of celestial nature. The tacit premise of this argument is the Aristotelian principle according to which the motion of a body results from its nature (Phys., II, 1, 192Â bÂ 20â23). Since the comets display a circular motion, this would confirm their celestial nature:

Et primo arguitur quod sint de natura celi ex motu, quia istud quod naturaliter movetur sicut celum est de natura celi; tales stelle sunt huiusmodi; igitur etc.

The version found in C^2a has been profoundly altered by the addition of two negations:

Et arguitur primo quod non sint de natura celi ex motu, quia istud quod naturaliter movetur circulariter sicut celum est de natura celi; tales stelle non sunt huiusmodi; igitur etc.

The copyist of C^2a (or that of his model) might have, in anticipation of the questionâs answer, found it more reasonable to argue against the thesis of the celestial nature of comets. What confirms that this variant is not the result of an error, but of an intentional correction, is the fact that the negation of the minor premise of the syllogism (âtales stelle non sunt huiusmodiâ), which alone would invalidate the reasoning, is accompanied by the negation of the conclusion (âand arguitur primo quod non sint de natura celi ex motuâ). It is also possible that the scribe of C^2a found one of these negations in his model, and that he introduced the other one in order to keep the argument consistent.

The second example of this ârewritingâ can be found in the answer in questionÂ I.19, par.Â 10. According to Seneca, comets are celestial bodies (stelle) whose movements are too irregular for astronomers to elaborate calculation tables describing them. In D, we read: âauctores non fecerunt tabulas de motu eius propter varietatemâ. Curiously, manuscripts M, C, C¹, and C², replaced the term âtabulasâ with âfabulas:â âauctores non fecerunt fabulas de motu eius propter varietatem.â Faced with this rather strange statement, the copyist of C^2a (or that of his model) considered it necessary to correct the text by omitting the negation: it is indeed because of the irregular movement of the comet that astronomers get caught up in fables, âauctores faciunt fabulas de motu eius propter varietatem.â These examples show that the copyist of C^2a (or that of the manuscript from which it was copied) always takes a critical look at his source. At the same time, the abundance of these individual variants in C^2a rules out that its role as the ancestor of any other manuscripts in its group.

Having first excluded the dependence of C¹, C² or C^2a on C, then the dependence of C or C^2a on C¹ or C², as well as the dependence of C, C¹ or C² on C^2a, it remains to clarify the relationship between C¹ and C². We have seen that these manuscripts share some errors affecting the meaning of the text, such as the replacement of âAristotelisâ with âaliorumâ and of ânatura deorumâ with ânatura eorum.â A third accident, namely an omission proving that the two manuscripts have a common source, can be found in questionÂ I.19, par.Â 10, where Oresme exposes Senecaâs reply to Aristotleâs critics against the idea that comets are planets. Aristotle argues that there are only five planets, plus the Sun and the Moon (the numbers given by D on the one side and CÂ C¹ C² C^2a M on the other are both consistent, although expressed differently). However, at times, a comet appears when all the planets are visible, which proves that comets are not counted among the known planets (Meteor., I, 6, 343Â aÂ 30â35):

Primum [est add C¹ C² C^2a] quia [quia om. C^2a] non [non om. C¹ C²] sunt nisi quinque [septem CÂ C¹ C² C^2a M] planete [et quinque add. CÂ C¹ C² C^2a M] preter Solem et Lunam. Modo, aliquando videntur omnes quinque, et cum hoc videtur illa stella.

If the numerous accidents displayed in this passage further confirm the groups and the tendencies we have already discussed (such as the division between D and CÂ C¹ C² C^2a M and the rather individual behaviour of C^2a), the omission of the negation ânonâ provides a third example of the proximity between C¹ and C². As for their relationships, the fact that C¹ omits a large part of the answer, as well as the beginning of the answer to the contrary arguments of questionÂ I.15, while these portions of text are present in C², makes the hypothesis of a dependence of C² on C¹ very unlikely. On the other hand, the dependance of C¹ on C² seems to be ruled out as well. In fact, in the part of the text I have collated, C² shares the errors of C¹ and adds its own. An example is provided again by Senecaâs quotation. At the end of this passage, C² causes some confusion by adding an additional tam in an unlikely place of the sentence: ânec miremur tam tarde erui que alte iacentâ thus becomes, in C², ânec miremur tam tarde erui tam que alte iacent.â

2.2.2 Manuscript D¹

D¹ belongs to the same family as C and M, despite being transmitted in the same codex as D. The presence of correct readings in D¹, C, and M, in cases in which D has errors, proves that D is not their model. For instance, addressing the myth of Atlantis in Platoâs Timaeus (24eâ25d), Oresme explains that on this island there was a noble region whose kings dominated almost the entire world:

I.32, 15. Secundo patet in Timeo Platonis, in principio, ubi narrat de insula Atlantide, ubi quedam fuit nobilissima terra in tantum quod reges illius insule dominabantur quasi toto mundo.

D replaces the adjective ânobilissimaâ with ânovissima,â a substitution which cannot be found in manuscripts D¹, C, and M. Other examples of wrong readings or omissions in D not shared by D¹, C, and M can be found in a passage where Oresme explains that the extension of the sea is limited so that it would never completely cover dry lands, for when it grows on one side, it diminishes on another:

I.32, 20. Ad quartam sufficit dicere quod mare sic est conclusum limitibus quod numquam cooperiet totam terram; sed [sed om. D], si noviter exeat super [propter D] aliquam partem, tunc dimittet [ducet D] aliam [novam discoopertam add. C novam add. M].

While the omission of the conjunction âsedâ and the substitution of the preposition âpropterâ to âsuperâ are just minor errors of D (not shared by D¹, C or M), the replacement of the verb âdimittoâ (to leave) by the verb âducoâ (to lead) is a quite significant error of D, which cannot be found in D¹, C or M. Another interesting error in D not shared by D¹, C, and M occurs in a quotation from the ordinary gloss on Job 38. According to D, we read that God burns (âcomburitâ) the sea against the enemies: âDeus comburit mare hostiis.â This is clearly a corruption from the perfect of the verb âto closeâ (âconclusitâ), which can be read in D¹, C, and M, as well as in the source of the passage.⁶⁹ Other instances could certainly be mentioned, but these few examples already show that D¹, C, and M do not depend on D.

D¹ also shares with C and M a feature that we have already discussed concerning the relationships between D and C M, namely the addition of terms, sentences, and explanations that clarify the meaning, but without which, the text of D remains intelligible. The following list presents some of these additions:

Shared additions D¹ CÂ M

I.32, 1 locum] cursus sui add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 2 quam] mare add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 11 gravitatis] aggregate add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 11 mare] simpliciter add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 12 incerta] id est add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 13 tertia causa est] tertia causa est finalis C tertia causa est finalis scilicet M alia est causa finalis videlicet D¹
I.32, 13 animalium] ut patet in tractatu de spera add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 13 quarta potest esse] quarta potest esse persuasiva C quarta potest esse scilicet M alia est persuasiva D¹
I.32, 14 augmentum] et alterationem add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 14 terre] in illa parte add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 16 patet] sensibiliter add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 17 aliam] et dimittit ab una parte quam ab alia ut rodanus ideo dicitur quasi rodens ripas tertio dicit ovidius quod quidam fluvius dimisit cursum suum et accepit alium add. CÂ M et dimittit ab una parte et capit ab alia unde dicit ovidius quod unus fluvius dimisit cursum et accepit alium cursum et ideo etc. add. D¹
I.32, 18 omnes alias potest cooperire] potest simul cooperire omnes alias D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 19 bassa] et tunc fluit aqua add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 19 submerguntur] sicut dictum fuit add. D¹ M sicut add. C
I.32, 19 tunc] iterum add. D¹ CÂ M
I.32, 20 aliam] novam discoopertam add. D¹ C aliam novam add. M

Despite the proximity between C, M, and D¹, and the fact that the latter was copied under Oresmeâs supervision around 1346, it does not seem that C and M depend on D¹. In fact, D¹ presents variants not shared by C and M, and which rather relate them to D. These cases concern not only additions in D¹ compared to Dâwhich, in and of itself, would not rule out the dependence of C and M on D¹âbut also omissions of D¹ (as in examples 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22) and significative variants (15, 16) compared to D, which makes this hypothesis much more difficult:

I.32, 2 sequeretur quod DÂ C M tunc D¹
I.32, 3 ut patet DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 3 quia DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 5 aristotelem DÂ C M in add. D¹
I.32, 6 alia DÂ C M est facta add. D¹
I.32, 6 sicut DÂ C M et D¹
I.32, 6 questione DÂ C M notandum quod add. D¹
I.32, 6 sex DÂ C M etiam add. D¹
I.32, 6 patet DÂ C M in add. D¹
I.32, 8 vel etiam inundatio DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 15 in principio DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 17 ad primam cum dicitur sicut est de cursu D sicut est de cursu D¹ ad primam cum dicitur etc. CÂ M
I.32, 17 magis DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 17 parvus DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 17 concessa similitudine DÂ C M hoc concesso D¹
I.32, 18 forte semper est equaliter DÂ C M aliquid hic semper est D¹
I.32, 19 cum dicitur quod aqua etc. DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 19 concedo DÂ C M maiorem add. D¹
I.32, 19 ideo DÂ C M dico add. D¹
I.32, 19 cooperire DÂ C M de novo add. D¹
I.32, 19 per alterationem DÂ C M om. D¹
I.32, 19 comprimitur D deprimitur CÂ M om. D¹

For these reasons, it seems to me that manuscripts C and M depend on a common witness that does not derive directly from either D or D¹.

2.3 Genealogical Hypothesis and Manuscripts Chosen for the Edition

On the basis of the results of the collation, it is possible to propose a hypothesis to explain the relationships between the witnesses of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology. According to this hypothesis, Oresmeâs course would have given rise to a first reportatio, D, and to a second, lost reportatio, which is the source of the fragmentary compilatio D¹. The common origin of D and the lost reportatio is proved by the presence of some shared errors, as in questionÂ I.10, par.Â 12. The distinction between the two branches of the tradition is proved by some errors in D (some of which can be regarded as hearing errors), which are not shared by the other manuscripts. I postulated the existence of a lost reportatio, as none of the manuscripts C, C¹, C², C^2a, M seem to be the ancestor of this family. Omissions in D¹ not shared by manuscripts C, C¹, C², C^2a, M, and D led me to postulate the existence of a common ancestor Î± which depends directly on the lost reportatio. Omissions in M not shared by the Krakow manuscripts required the hypothesis of a common ancestor Î², as none of them can be considered the model for the others. Within this family, manuscript C¹ and C² are very close to each other, to the point that they share some errors. As none of them seems to be the antigraph of the other, I postulated the existence of a common ancestor, Î³. These considerations can be schematically represented as follows:

3 Editorial Principles

3.1 Text

The first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology resulted from his teaching activity at the Faculty of Arts in Paris. The Darmstadt manuscript contains a reportatio (D, transmitted at ff.Â 58^raâ79^vb; 85^raâ93^ra) and a fragmentary compilatio (D¹, transmitted at ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb) of Oresmeâs lectures. The colophon of the first book of the compilatio (f.Â 81^rb) informs us that the text was produced under Oresmeâs direct supervision. No similar colophon qualifies D as a reportatio. However, as we have seen, the Darmstadt manuscript contains other reportationes copied by Iohannes Margan de Yvia, namely Oresmeâs Sententia on Aristotleâs Meteorology (âExplicit Sententia primi Metheororum reportata ante magistrum Nicholaum Oresme nationis Normannorum. Incipit Sententia secundi eiusdem reportata ab eodemâ, f.Â 106^ra) and John of Wezaliaâs Questions on Aristotleâs On the soul (âExpliciunt Questiones supra librum De anima reportate ante magistrum Johannem de Wezalia in vico straminum Parisius per manus Johannis Margan de Yvia anno domini MÂ° CCCÂ° 46Â°â, f.Â 192^vb). The uniform layout of these texts, with relatively minimal corrections and legibleâalbeit not calligraphicalâhandwriting, akin to the Questions on Aristotleâs Meteorology, provides further confirmation that D is indeed a reportatio by Iohannes Margan de Yvia.

One could wonder how a text resulting from note-taking could be as clearly structured and (relatively) polished as the version of Oresmeâs Questions transmitted in D and, with small variations, in D¹. The answer probably lies in the teaching methods employed at the Paris Arts Faculty, where masters used to dictate their coursesâlegere ad pennam, âreading for the penââ, as witnessed by the colophons and by the mention of this practice in the university statutes.⁷⁰

Aristotelian commentaries used for university lectures are, in most cases, fluid texts available in several versions, and they exhibit substantial variations from one manuscript to another. Due to the absence of an autograph (namely, the text Oresme was dictating) and the lacunosity of the manuscript tradition, reconstructing the original text of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology is challenging. The collation shows that the archetype of C and M is quite close to the compilatio copied by Henricus Iohannis de Dandrediche (D¹), but it cannot be identified with this text. In fact, C and M share omissions and errors that cannot be found in D and that, in my opinion, cannot be ascribed to Oresme. In light of these considerations, producing a mixed text from D and a reconstruction of the archetype of C and M could have been a viable option for editing Oresmeâs prima lectura on Aristotleâs Meteorology. However, this would have implied a great degree of arbitrariness, as it would have been necessary to evaluate, for each variant opposing D to CÂ M, which one may have been closer to Oresmeâs intention. The choice would, therefore, solely depend on the editorâs understanding of the text. The availability of an almost complete original reportatio of Oresmeâs commentary, D, a document of great historical importance, which generally provides the best text, convinced me to stay as close as possible to its variants. For this reason, I have chosen D as the base text and have adopted the readings from C and M only in cases where D was visibly faulty. This does not mean, of course, that variant readings and additions from C and M could not be ascribed to Oresme. However, this choice enabled me to avoid presenting a contaminated text, thus reducing the arbitrariness in my editorial choices.

An example of this approach is provided by questionÂ I.27, devoted to the signs of atmospheric weather. At the end of the question, D omits the answer to the two contrary arguments. C and M behave differently from one another. While C replies to the objections, M states, in a general way, that they were already solved (ârationes in oppositum sunt soluteâ). The answers from C do not elucidate the matter further. The first one simply summarizes what has been shown above, explicitly referring to the body of the question (par.Â 8); the second answer merely states that the argument is to be solved in the same way as the first one.⁷¹ The discordant behavior of C and M, usually very close to each other, may indicate that the answer to the objections was missing in their model. Consequently, they freely completed the question in a way that seemed more reasonable to their scribes. While following C could have seemed the best option to provide the reader with a complete text, I considered it too arbitrary an editorial choice. This approach would have implied favoring the individual variants of a text copied in Central Europe fifteen years after Oresmeâs course. Therefore, I preferred sticking to D and presenting the texts of C and M in the variant apparatus as additions of these copies rather than as omissions ofÂ D.

The lacunosity of the manuscript tradition imposed some flexibility on my editorial principles. As I have pointed out in the description of C, this manuscript only transmits the first lines of the question Utrum terremotus, ventus et tonitruum et similia sint eiusdem nature. For the rest of the question, I have therefore collated D and M. Similarly, as we have seen above, manuscript D stops in the middle of the answer to the question Utrum iris debeat apparere secundum circuli periferiam, with the words âetiam tota nubes apparet unum continuum, quamvis sit divisa per guttas.â For the remaining part of the question, as well as for the other two questions in the third book, I have chosen C as the base text and collated the variants of M. This choice is justified by the fact that C is generally more correct than M. In AppendixÂ I, I present the three questions on the fourth book transmitted only in D¹; AppendixÂ II contains two questions on Aristotleâs Meteorology interpolated into Oresmeâs prima lectura in C, namely Utrum iris potest fieri a Luna and a question whose title is missing, but, judging from the content, could have been Utrum omnes impressiones ignite sint eiusdem speciei.

3.1.1 Editorial Interventions

The university origin of this commentary is evident in the somewhat neglected style of the text. Sentences are frequently interrupted by âetc.â, and the third person of the verb âto beâ is often omitted. I have preserved these peculiarities of the scholastic style when they do not impede the comprehension of the text. Generally speaking, I preferred to stay as close as possible to the manuscript tradition, especially as far as readings shared by the whole of it are concerned, and avoid hypercorrection. Following this criterion, in three instances, I have retained certain morphological inaccuracies in quotations from classical authors, a context particularly prone to errors in scholastic texts. In the following list, I present the version printed in this edition along with references to the classical source in a modern critical edition:

I.21, par.Â 17. â[â¦] non illum navita tuto, non impugne [sic codd.] vident populi, sed crine minaci nuntiat aut ratibus ventos aut urbibus hostes;â cf. Claudianus, De raptu Proserpinae, I, vv.Â 233â236, ed. Charlet, 21: âpraepes sanguineo delabitur igne cometes / prodigiale rubens: non illum navita tuto, / non impune uident populi, sed crine minaci / nuntiat aut ratibus uentos aut urbibus hostes.â

I.27, par.Â 6: âquid cogitet humidus Auster, Sol tibi signa dabit. Sole [sic codd.] quid [sic codd.] dicere falsum audeat;â cf. Vergilius, Georgica, vv.Â 462â464, ed. De Saint-Denis, 17: âquid cogitet umidus Auster, / sol tibi signa dabit. Solem quis dicere falsum audeat?â

I.27, par.Â 14. Unde ibidem: âatque hoc [sic codd.] ut certis possumus dicere signis estusque pluvias et agentes frigora ventos, ipse pater statuit quod menstrua Luna moneret quo signo caderent Austri;â cf. Vergilius, Georgica, vv.Â 351â353, ed. De Saint-Denis, 14: âAtque haec ut certis possemus discere signis / aestusque pluuiasque et agentis frigora uentos, / ipse Pater statuit quid menstrua Luna moneret, / quo signo caderent Austri [â¦].â

The first of these errors could be attributed to pronunciation. The other two might have arisen from Oresmeâs reliance on memory when quoting these texts or from the manuscripts he consulted. In my edition, I have chosen to retain the erroneous variants shared by the entire manuscript tradition as they appear (impugne; Sole, quid; hoc). I believe this decision could help us to identify the text that Oresme had access to when referencing these classical texts.⁷² To indicate to the reader that these variants are supported by the entire manuscript tradition, I used the formula âsic codd.â in the critical apparatus.

The same applies to the quotations from bookÂ X of Witeloâs Perspectiva, whose numbering diverges from Risnerâs edition by two units: in questionÂ III.5, 16, proposition 62 is referred to instead of proposition 64 in Risnerâs edition; in questionÂ III.7, 2, proposition 76 is referred to instead of proposition 78 in Risnerâs edition. I have retained the reading of the manuscripts in the text while referencing, in the source apparatus, the correct passages in Witeloâs work. In fact, as noticed by Stephen McCluskey, two fourteenth-century Parisian copies of Witeloâs Perspectiva present the same numbering found in Oresmeâs text, namely mss. BnF, latin 7248 and latin 14739.⁷³ These hints are therefore precious indications of the manuscript sources available when Oresme was lecturing at the Paris Arts Faculty.

Another source-related error pertains to the reference of Anselm (âAnselmusâ) as the author of De ymagine mundi, a cosmological work by Honorius of Autun (I.30, par.Â 22). Since all the manuscripts contain the same attribution to Anselm, I have chosen to preserve this reading, with a reference to Honoriusâs text in the source apparatus.

Following the same criterion of adhering closely to the manuscript tradition, I have preserved words that result in some redundancy, as they likely stem from Oresmeâs dictating his lecture:

I.25, par.Â 8. Dicit etiam Algazel quod aliquando pluvia fit non solum ex tali condensatione, sed aliquando cum hoc ex reflexione.

I.31, par.Â 15. Secundo sequitur: eo quod aux movetur motu tardo et forte secundum totum circulum figurarum, ideo sequitur quod aliquando erit oppositum [â¦].

II.4, par.Â 8. Ideo possibile est quod, propter dispositionem loci, quod ibi fiat ita fortis antiparistasis ex qua causatur predictus effectus.

In contrast, I deemed it useful to complete the manuscripts in some instances in which Oresmeâs text might appear flawed or somewhat elliptical to the contemporary reader.

I.1, par.Â 1. Arguitur primo quod non â¨fiuntâ© secundum naturam [â¦].
I.22, par.Â 9. Unde quidam ponunt septem modos, secundum naturas septem planetarum, qui dicunt etiam quod quelibet stella celi est de natura â¨planetarumâ©, hoc est habet virtutem consimilem alicui septem planetarum.
I.11, par.Â 24. Ad primum dicunt aliqui quod solummodo lux Solis calefacit â¨per lumenâ©, vel directum vel refractum, et non lux istorum inferiorum, immo ignis calefacit per suum calorem et non per suum lumen.
II.1, par.Â 9. Tertio dico quod corrumpitur continue calore Solis alterante, et sic quantum ad â¨aliquasâ© partes est continua generatio et quantum ad alias continua corruptio.
II.4, par.Â 12. Similiter dicit Aristoteles in tertio De animalibus quod est quidam fons â¨de quoâ© [om. DÂ M quod C], si grex ovium potaverunt et coant, generabunt oves albas.
II.2, par.Â 34. Item dicit Lyncolniensis quod, quando fluxus est in una quarta terre, tunc â¨refluxusâ© est in quarta sibi opposita.
III.1, par.Â 30. Et secundum hoc quod multipliciter variatur figura speculi, secundum â¨hocâ© iuxta istam apparet ymago multum differens.
III.2, par.Â 18. [â¦] propter nimiam remotionem et parvitatem luminis aliarum stellarum respectu â¨visuiâ© nostri non potest fieri.

In the third case, the integration â¨per lumenâ© is necessitated by the genus of the adjectives âdirectumâ and ârefractumâ. Philosophically, the sentenceâs context makes it evident that the âlightâ of the Sun and of fire heats up through the âlumen.â

In another instance, pertaining to the agreement of gender, I amended the masculine adjective associated in all the manuscripts to the substantive ânubesâ:

I.26, par.Â 13. Alio modo fit grando si generetur sursum in media regione, quia nubes non condensatur per antiparistasim quia sit circumdata [circumdatus codd.] calido, sed quia pervenit ad locum frigidum, et ideo cito congelatur; etiam illa nubes est calida.

In the same way, I emended the masculine adjective accompanying, in one instance, the substantive âdyameterâ:

III.2, par.Â 16: Tertia differentia est in magnitudine, quia dicitur in quodam tractatu quod dyameter halo est subdupla [codd. subduplus] ad dyametrum iridis.

Although the form âsubduplusâ is attested in all the manuscripts transmitting this passage, I corrected the adjective into the feminine form. In fact, in the following, the manuscripts treat the substantive â(semi)dyameterâ as feminine, associating it with feminine adjectives. I therefore deemed it reasonable to adopt the most frequently attested form in the manuscript tradition:⁷⁴

III.5, par.Â 17. Secunda conclusio: quod dyameter halo est subdupla dyametris iridis.

III.6, par.Â 10. et ideo tanta est semidyameter iridis et tanta est tota dyameter halo [â¦] immo tota eius dyameter esset sub terra.

III.6, par.Â 20. Et quia semidyameter eius est nota [â¦].

The manuscripts exhibit inconsistency regarding the genre of the substantive cometa-e, variably considered as feminine or masculine. For the sake of coherence, I have opted for the feminine form, given its more frequent attestation, particularly in instances where the substantive âstellaâ is presupposed. I have recorded the genre oscillations in the variant apparatus.⁷⁵

Finally, I rectified one instance in which all the manuscripts pair a plural subject with a singular verb and a singular adjective:

I.21, par.Â 24: influentia [influentie codd.] celi quoad illa que possunt immutare politiam est maior super illos.

3.1.2 Orthography

Faced with the vexata questio of orthography (medieval or ânormalizedâ), I have opted for moderate normalisationâan attitude that could be synthesized with the expression, only at first glance contradictory, of ânormalizedâ medieval spelling, which consists in standardizing the spellings that result from the orthographic peculiarities of one or more witnesses, without altering those which are shared by the whole tradition. On the one hand, I have endeavoured to respect medieval orthography as much as possible, avoiding the imposition of forms foreign to it, such as the diphthong ae.⁷⁶ However, for the forms on which the manuscripts disagree, I have adopted standardized spellings. Following this principle, I have written corusca*, desicca*, mund*, descen*, ascen*, distra*, superior*, poli*, instead of corrusca*, dessicca*, mond*, desscen*, asscen*, disstra*, supperior*, polli* (forms attested, for example, in manuscripts D and C). This choice is justified not only by the desire to avoid attributing to Oresme the orthographic peculiarities of a specific scribe, but also by a concern for consistency, given that the same manuscript often oscillates between two or more alternative forms. In order not to weigh down the critical apparatus, I have not mentioned these orthographic peculiarities. I have nevertheless pointed out the most important of them in the manuscript descriptions. I have also refrained from including in the critical apparatus the oscillation between the forms meteorolog*, metheorolog*, metâ¨eoâ©roloy*, because it derives from the individual habits of the scribes and because several competing forms are present in the same manuscript. Moreover, the system of abbreviations adopted in Gothic handwritings often makes it impossible to determine exactly the form used by the scribe. This is why I have always opted for the form metheorolog*, which seems to be the most current one.

I have adopted the normalized orthography ti instead of ci in combination with the diphthongs ie, ia, and io, first of all, because in Gothic handwritings it is often impossible to distinguish the letter c from the letter t, and, second, because the use of one form or another is not systematic in the manuscripts. For the same reason, I have chosen sicut instead sicud; immo instead of ymo, ymmo, imo; saltem instead of saltim. I have nevertheless retained the medieval forms correlarium and diffinitio instead of the normalized corollarium and definitio because they are not the result of the orthographic peculiarities of one or more witnesses but are shared by the entire manuscript tradition.

As far as proper nouns are concerned, I have followed the same criterion of the most-attested form. I have therefore written Pythagoras instead of Pitagora or Pytagora; Macrobius, instead of Magrobius; Ptolemeus instead of Tolomeus or Tholomeus, Olimpus instead of Olympus, and so on. The qualifications Philosophus, Commentator and Lyncolnsiensis, used respectively for Aristotle, Averroes, and Robert Grosseteste, have been treated as proper nouns and capitalized. Upper-case letters are also used in the names of celestial bodies (Sol, Luna, Terra, when the latter does not indicate the element earth or the Earthâs surface). All abbreviations have been solved except for etc.

3.1.3 Internal Divisions

Aristotleâs Meteorology consists of four books. As we have seen, the manuscripts of the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions do not adopt the same book division. M and D¹âat least judging from the scant part of D¹ that has survivedâtransmit thirty-two questions in the first book, while D and C count thirty-three. This difference is due to the fact that D and C include the question Utrum quatuor elementa sint continue proportionalia in the first book, although in different places (I.10 in D; I.33 in C), while this question is missing in the surviving part of D¹ and inserted at the end of the third book in M. I decided to follow D and consider this question as related to Meteor., I, 3, as it is the case in all the scholastic commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology I could study so far, including the ultima lectura of Oresmeâs Questions.

Another important difference concerns the third book. While D includes the questions on vision and luminous phenomena, such as the rainbow and the halo, in the second book, C and M transmit them in the third book, which in the two manuscripts starts with the question Utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis et politis (II.10 in D). We look in vain, in the Darmstadt manuscript, for the beginning of the third book: from the second book onwards, the questions follow one another without any transition and are numbered continuously. In my opinion, this should be regarded as an oversight of the reportator, rather than as Oresmeâs choice. In fact, in his literary commentary on Aristotleâs Meteorology, the Sententia transmitted at ff.Â 100^raâ123^ra of the Darmstadt manuscript, Oresme discusses luminous phenomena caused by the reflection and refraction of light in the third, and not in the second book. As we have seen above, according to the division of the Sententia, the third book starts with the chapter devoted to hurricanes, whirlwinds and thunderbolts (III, 1, 370Â bÂ 3, De residuis, according to Moerbekeâs translation). In the prologue of the Sententia, Oresme refers to two different commentary traditions concerning the beginning of the third book: some commentators start with the chapter devoted to hurricanes, whirlwinds and thunderbolts (de residuis, 370Â bÂ 3), others, with the chapter devoted to the halo (de halo, 371Â bÂ 19).⁷⁷ To cite an example from the same intellectual milieu, in both his literal and question-commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology, Buridan adopted the first division mentioned by Oresme.⁷⁸

Yet the discussion of fiery phenomena, such as hurricanes, whirlwinds and thunderbolts, is more strongly related to the end of the second book than to the following part of the third book, which is devoted to luminous phenomena caused by the reflection and refraction of light in water drops. This is why, from the fourteenth century onwards, some masters, including Albert of Saxony, Themo Iudaeus and Blasius of Parma, discussed hurricanes, whirlwinds and thunderbolts at the end of the second book, leaving the third book for luminous phenomena.⁷⁹ I have therefore chosen to adopt this division in the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology as well. In support of this choice, we have not only documentary evidence from contemporary question-commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology, but also the witness of two manuscripts of Oresmeâs commentary, namely C and M, which start the third book with the question on refraction (Utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis et politis). Another conjectural argument arises from f.Â 90^rb of the Darmstadt manuscript. At the conclusion of the question Utrum fulgur sit exalatio calida et sicca ignita, a four-line blank space is observed. It is plausible that this space was designated for the colophon of the second book, which remains untranscribed.

For ease of consultation, I have numbered the questions and assigned a title to each of them. These titles, introduced by the traditional formula âUtrum,â are also present in the tables of contents of manuscripts M and C². I have numbered the paragraphs in angular brackets. New columns in the collated manuscripts are indicated by a vertical line, referenced by the folio in the margin. I have separated the main structural parts of each question with spaces (arguments against and in favour of the questions; divisio textus; different articles in the answer; solution to the objections).

3.1.4 Figures

The commentary contains several figures, which are referred to in the text with expressions like: âsicut patet in figuraâ and can be found in the margins of the manuscripts. Most of the figures illustrate the geometrical demonstrations concerning luminous phenomena in the third book. Each copy of the text exhibits varying levels of understanding and accuracy in representing the figures. Therefore, I found it useful to provide the reader with reproductions of the original figures from the manuscripts.

A table with numbers illustrating the theory of the proportionality between the four elements is announced in questionÂ I.10, par.Â 14, and appears in each of the three complete manuscripts (FigureÂ 1). The numbers provided in the manucripts are consistent with each other and with the text. I have included a reconstruction of the table to make the labels and the numbers more easily recognizable for the reader. In the same questionÂ I.10, par.Â 19, a second figure is announced in the text, but it only appears in D and C. It illustrates the absurd consequences of postulating a different centre for the spheres of water and air. The eccentricity of the spheres is exaggerated in the figures, to the point that they appear completely separated and no longer overlap (FigureÂ 2). The eccentricity of the spheres of water and earth is discussed again in questionÂ II.1, par.Â 10, devoted to the natural place of the sea. In this case, the eccentricity of the spheres is not as exaggerated as in the previous figure, and the path of water and earth to their respective centres is made visible. Both the figure and the expression âut patet in figuraâ are only transmitted in D and are missing in C and M (FigureÂ 5).

The third figure announced in the text, in questionÂ I.14, par.Â 10, is transmitted only in manuscript M. It illustrates the propagation of the action according to two geometrical figures: the sphere and the pyramid. The first one exemplifies the fact that every agent spreads its virtue around it in a circular way. In the image of the pyramid, the base represents the agent, and the cone represents the patient. The two models are represented both separately and combined, with the help of four schematic subfigures (FigureÂ 3).

The figure illustrating the Milky Way, in questionÂ I.22, par.Â 13, is transmitted in C and M and is missing in D. Its belonging to the text is nevertheless confirmed by the fact that it is introduced by the expression âpotest demonstrari in figuraâ, repeated twice and transmitted also in D. The figures illustrate, in a somewhat confusing way, the Milky Way (labeled as âgalaxiaâ) in relation to the sphere of the fixed stars (labeled as âcelum stellatumâ) when observed from different regions of the Earth (labeled as âTerraâ). The points marked in the manuscripts are not mentioned in the text, which does not present a geometrical demonstration of the vision of the Milky Way (FigureÂ 4).

The figures in bookÂ III pertain to the propagation of light, particularly as applied to luminous atmospheric phenomena. Most of them are related to questionÂ III.1, which focuses on refraction. The first figure, announced in the text (âet potest patere in figuraâ) and found in all three manuscripts, illustrates the different types of rays in relation to reflection and refraction, elucidating the concepts of the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection (par.Â 13â15). Letter c, which should be at the centre of the figure, is not marked in the manuscripts. The only witness that designates a letter in the centre of the figure is D, which erroneously writes d instead of c. The copyist of C, who usually tends to provide more information by adding explanatory sentences to the figures, wrote âangulus incidentieâ and âangulus reflexionisâ. The first label is correctly placed, namely close to the angle ACE, but the second one appears in the wrong place, referring to the angle formed by the perpendicular to the surface DCE and the incidental ray. In fact, the angle of reflection is BCD.Â The figure in M is positioned very close to the margin and was consequently partly cut off due to the trimming process. Moreover, it is the most approximate of the three (FigureÂ 6).

After having explained the general principles of reflection and refraction, Oresme studies some visual phenomena resulting from refraction through two media with different densities. He first demonstrates that an object seen through two media, with the second being denser than the first, appears bigger than its actual size (par.Â 18). The figure, introduced by the words âet patet figuraâ, is present in all three manuscripts. It illustrates that the lines BD and AC, originating from an object in a dense medium (let us say, water), are refracted at the surface of a thinner medium CD. As a result, for the observer e, these lines form a larger angle than they would if they were not refracted. Point f, which is marked in the manuscripts but not mentioned in the text, represents the point where the two lines coming from the extremities of the observed body would converge if it were to be seen in a uniform medium, i.e., without refraction taking place. Again the figure in manuscript M is not entirely visible, since it was cut off. Also in this case, it is very approximate, as if the student was not trying to reconstruct the demonstration, but just copying the figure in his model. As usual, C tends to provide more details, while labelling the media of water and air. However, its figure is somewhat confused in relation to that of D (FigureÂ 7).

The next figure, in par.Â 20, illustrates the opposite phenomenon, namely that an object seen through two media, with the second being thinner than the first one, appears smaller than it is in reality. The figure is announced in all three manuscripts (âpotest etiam probari in alia figuraâ) and transmitted in each of them. Again, C adds more details, namely the names of the surfaces of water and earth. The figure transmitted in M is, as usual, the poorest of the three. Lines are traced by hand, some letters are missing, others are not visible because of the cutting of the page, and the copyist does not seem to fully understand Oresmeâs demonstration (FigureÂ 8).

After having dealt with refraction phenomena, Oresme addresses reflection. A new figure is announced in par.Â 27 of questionÂ III.1 (âEt patet in figuraâ) and transmitted by all the witnesses. Oresme proves that an object observed in a plain mirror appears to have the same size as it is in reality. C and M add labels to indicate where the observed object and the mirror are (FigureÂ 9).

The figures illustrating vision in concave and convex mirrors (par.Â 28â29) are announced in the text (âet ista patent in figuraâ) and transmitted in all three copies. Oresme shows that in convex mirrors, the observed object appears to be smaller than it is in reality. In concave mirrors, the object can appear to be larger than it is in reality and, depending on the position of the observer, reversed. The text does not mention any specific points, but the three manuscripts mark the surface of the observed object as a segment AB.Â The image in D seems to be incomplete, as it only illustrates vision in convex mirrors, while C and M encompass the case of concave mirrors as well. The phenomenon of inversion of the reflected image in concave mirrors is represented by two lines coming from the extremities of the observed body, intersecting at the centre of the mirror, and reaching the observer (labelled as âfacies hominisâ, in C, which inverts the letters of this label, as well as those of the points a and b, to make the phenomenon clearer). However, none of the manuscripts represents the intersection accurately (FigureÂ 10).

No other figures are announced in the text nor transmitted in D. However, C and M, the two other complete copies of Oresmeâs commentary, contain a figure accompanying the demonstration of the circular shape of the halo (III.2, par.Â 13). The figure is the same in both manuscripts, although point g is not visible in M. Point k, which is mentioned in the text, is not represented in the manuscripts: it should be imagined on the circumference, because the segment EK is mentioned as a radius of the circumference (FigureÂ 11).

The last figure illustrates the relationship between the diameter of the halo and that of the rainbow, as demonstrated in questionÂ III.5, par.Â 20. The figure is only transmitted by C. The fact that D stops unfinished at par.Â 12 of the same question does not allow us to determine whether the presence of the figure in C should be regarded as a peculiarity of this copyâin which case the figure would not belong to the textâor as an omission of Mâin which case it would. Despite the figure not being announced in the text, I lean towards the second hypothesis. In fact, the demonstration mentions many points and segments: similar cases in Oresmeâs text are always accompanied by figures. The figure is generally correct but incomplete, as it only represents the rainbow, stretching above the base of the triangle. The manuscript indicates that point d is the centre of the rainbow, labelling it as âcentrum vel polus yridisâ. The Sun, indicated by the label âSolâ, faces the rainbow at point b. Point a, mentioned in the demonstration but not represented in the figure, is at the centre of the circle of the altitude. The halo is not depicted in the figure: it should be imagined between points a and b. The demonstration aims to show that the angle formed at a and facing the rainbow is double of the angle formed at b and facing the halo (FigureÂ 12).

In questionÂ I.18, par.Â 10, which addresses luminous phenomena resulting from the Sunâs and starsâs light, and in questionÂ I.20, par.Â 19, which is dedicated to comets, two figures are indicated in C and M, but notably absent in D.⁸⁰ The figures, however, are not present in any of the manuscripts. This absence, coupled with their non-mention in manuscript D, substantiates the assertion that the sentences pertaining to these figures were added by C and M, rather than being omitted by manuscript D.

In summary, D transmits the best figures among the complete witnesses of the prima lectura of Oresmeâs Questions. As we have seen, these figures are not exempt from inaccuracies (FigureÂ 6), but they are generally more precise than the ones in C and in M. The scribe of C, and sometimes the one of M, tend to be more explicit, adding labels to help the reader interpret the figures. However, sometimes these labels are misplaced (FigureÂ 6) and the figures are somewhat confusing. The worst figures are those of M. They are traced by hand and, in most cases, only partially visible due to the trimming of the codex. Moreover, they are often approximate and erroneous, as if the scribe was merely copying the figures from his model without fully comprehending Oresmeâs demonstrations.

The comparison of the figures in the three manuscripts complements the results of the collation, confirming D as the best witness to reconstruct Oresmeâs lectures, C, as the work of an intelligent, somewhat interventionist scribe, and M as the poorest copy of the three. The presence of similarities between the figures in C and M (such as the use of labels) further confirms their closeness in opposition to D.⁸¹

All in all, the figures in the manuscripts often do not contribute significantly to understanding Oresmeâs text, due to their inaccuracy and incompleteness. However, I deemed it useful to include them in the edition, at least for two reasons. First, they enable the reader to appreciate the quality of the copies and their relationships with each other; secondly, they bear witness to the efforts and difficulties faced by students at medieval Arts faculties dealing with technical contents, both when listening to lectures, as in D, and when copying their textbooks, as in the case of C and M.

3.2 Critical Apparatus

3.2.1 Variants

Variants that do not affect the content but are only relevant for the study of the manuscript tradition and the relationships between the witnesses have not been included in the apparatus. Among these variants are synonymous substitutions (et/ac; sive/seu; scilicet/videlicet/id est; sic/ita/taliter; nec/neque; super/supra; ergo/igitur; vel/aut); equivalent pronouns (iste/ille, illud/istud for example) and variations in word order and verb tenses that do not alter the meaning. For the same reason, the apparatus does not mention lapsus-calami, dittographies and minor errors of the copyists.⁸² However, I have always mentioned in the apparatus the readings from D when I have departed from it.

I have not found it useful to mention in the apparatus the differences between the transition formulas which appear in the manuscripts to introduce and conclude the questions and their main parts.⁸³ These differences do not affect the meaning of the text and do not help us much in clarifying the relationships between the manuscripts. Mentioning them would, therefore, only unnecessarily weigh down the critical apparatus. By contrast, I have retained in the apparatus the variants which affect the content of the text: notable additions which are not simple repetitions, omissions not conditioned by the context, and inversions and transpositions that affect the meaning.⁸⁴

3.3 Abbreviations and Signs Adopted

3.3.1 Signs⁸⁵

In the text

\|	beginning of a new column in the manuscript indicated in the margin

]	announces the variants
â¦	substitutes non repeated words in a lemma

3.3.2 Abbreviations

In the critical apparatus

add.	addidit
a.m.	alia manu
cod.	codex
codd.	codices
col.	columna
corr.	correxit
coni.	conieci
del.	delevit
des.	desinit [definitive interruption of a manuscript]
eras.	erasit
expl.	explicit
f.	folium
fort.	fortasse
inv.	invertit
inf.	inferior
iter.	iteravit
lec. dub.	lectio dubia
marg.	in margine
om.	omisit
om. hom.	omisit per homoioteleuton
spat. vac.	spatium vacuum
suppl.	supplevi
transp.	transposuit

AL	Aristoteles Latinus
cap.	caput (capitulum)
cf.	conferatur, etc.
comm.	commentarium
ed.	editio
ed. Colon.	editio Coloniensis
f.	folium
ff.	folia
ibid.	ibidem
inc.	incipit
lib.	liber
ms.	codex manu scriptus
mss.	codices manu scripti
n.	numerus
q.	questio
tract.	tractatus

3.4 Sources

I have indicated the sources of the citations whenever I have been able to identify them. When Oresme refers to a certain author or opinion via another one, I have tried to identify the intermediary source. For instance, in q.Â I.12, par.Â 8, Oresme refers to Heraclitusâs opinion according to which the Sun is the âprince, the moderator and the source of celestial lightâ (âducem et principem, moderatorem fontemque totius celestis luminisâ). This quotation is taken literally from Macrobiusâs commentary on De somnio Scipionis (lib. 1, cap. 20, par.Â 3), which I have mentioned in the apparatus. Additional references to loci paralleli in Oresme or in other authors are introduced by the abbreviation cf. From a doctrinal, as well as a textual point of view, many loci paralleli can be found between the prima lectura of Oresmeâs Questions on Aristotleâs Meteorology and his question-commentaries on the Physics, De celo, De generatione et corruptione, De anima, as well as other Oresmian works such as the De visione stellarum, the Livre du ciel et du monde and even the Le livre de Politiques. I have referred to these loci paralleli in the critical apparatus. However, as one can imagine, most of the loci paralleli concern the previously known redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology (ultima lectura). As a rule, I have refrained from mentioning the loci paralleli between the two redactions of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology, in order to avoid cluttering up the apparatus.⁸⁶

Internal references in Oresmeâs commentary are indicated by a Roman numeral corresponding to the book, followed by two Arabic numerals. The first numeral indicates the question, while the second indicates the paragraph in this edition. To prevent overburdening the source apparatus, I have refrained from indicating internal references when the relevant passage is only a few paragraphs away.

For passages in the Aristotelian corpus, I refer to the pagination of the Bekker edition.⁸⁷ I have mentioned the Auctoritates Aristotelis when the relevant passage can be found in this collection.⁸⁸ For Averroesâs Long commentary on De celo, I have relied on Carmody and Arnzenâs edition;⁸⁹ for Averroesâs commentary on De anima, to Crawfordâs edition;⁹⁰ for the other commentaries by Averroes, I have referred to the Renaissance Venice edition⁹¹. For the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De causis proprietatum elementorum, I have relied on the edition published together with Albert the Greatâs commentary in the editio Coloniensis.⁹² In the absence of a critical edition of Gerard of Cremonaâs Latin translation of Ptolemyâs Almagest, I have consulted both the Venice Renaissance edition published in 1515 and Toomerâs English translation, based on Heibergâs edition of the Greek text.⁹³ For the remaining texts, I have used the editions listed in the bibliography at the end of this volume.

M.Â Kowalczyk, A.Â KozÅowska, M.Â Markowski,Â S. WÅodek, G.Â Zathey, and M.Â Zwiercan, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi latinorum qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, 4: Numeros continens inde a 564 usque ad 667, WrocÅaw/Warsaw 1988; M.Â Kowalczyk, A.Â KozÅowska, M.Â Markowski,Â S. WÅodek, and M.Â Zwiercan, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi Latinorum, qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, 5: Numeros continens inde a 668 usque ad 771, WrocÅaw/Warsaw 1992.

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Ulrike Spyra, member of the Manuscript Department of the WÃ¼rttembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, for sharing the results of her research on the Darmstadt manuscript 2197. Dr. Spyra recently described this codex in the context of the project âKatalogisierung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek (vormals: Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek) Darmstadtâ, funded by the DFG.

FlÃ¼eler, âTwo Manuscripts of Buridan on the Methaphysics,â 85.

On Fiesenâs bindings, see P.Â Volk, Der Liber Ordinarius des LÃ¼tticher St. Jakobs-Klosters, MÃ¼nster i. W. 1923 (BeitrÃ¤ge aus der Geschichte des alten MÃ¶nchtums und des Benediktinerordens, 10), 329, 337; A.M.Â Lucas, P.J.Â Lucas, âLost and Found. Some Manuscripts From LiÃ¨ge Now in Maynooth,â Scriptorium 58 (2004), 83â99, esp.Â 85.

This is the signature under which the manuscript was registered in the catalogue compiled by Nicolas Paquot in 1788.

This is the signature under which the manuscript was registered in the inventory of the collection of Baron von HÃ¼psch for transportation from Cologne to Darmstadt.

For the system adopted in this volume to express the codicological formulas, see Panzica (ed.), Nicole Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de ultima lectura, 12 fn. 4.

C.M.Â Briquet, Les Filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dÃ¨s leur apparition vers jusquâen 1600, Geneva 1907. Second edition: Leipzig 1923; reprint: Amsterdam 1968 (4 vols.); G.Â Piccard, Die Wasserzeichenkartei im Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, Stuttgart 1961â1997 (17 vols.).

http://www.wzma.at/14096.

V.A.Â MoÅ¡in, S.M.Â TraljiÄ, Filigranes des XIII^e et XIV^e ss, Zagreb 1957.

FlÃ¼eler, âTwo Manuscripts of Buridan on the Methaphysics,â 84.

Caroti (ed.), Nicole Oresme. Questiones super De generatione et corruptione, 35*â46*.

l.Â I, ff.Â 58^raâ82^rb: ââ¨Pâ©rimo queritur circa primum librum Metheororum utrum impressiones metheorologice fiant secundum naturam inordinatiorem ea que est primi elementi corporum, id est secundum naturam minus ordinatam quam natura celi. Arguitur primo quod non secundum naturam â¦ XÂ â¦ quia hoc contingit raro, ideo non est verisimile nec debemus continue formidare hoc. Expliciunt questiones super primum Metheororum [a. m.:] compilate ante venerabilem magistrum Nicholaum de Oresme normannum. Incipiunt questiones secundi eiusdem ab eodem.â l.Â II, ff.Â 85^vaâ93^ra: ââ¨Pâ©rimo circa secundum Metheororum queritur utrum locus naturalis elementi aque sit ubi nunc est mare. Et videtur quod non. Primo, quia aqua deberet circuire totam terram â¦ XÂ â¦ etiam tota nubes apparet unum continuum, quamvis sit divisa per guttasÂ â¦â.

Nine of these questions bear a strong resemblance to the questions I.9, 11, 12, 15, 23, 13, 14, 20, 16 from Buridanâs ultima lectura. A critical edition of Buridanâs text was published recently: M.Â Streijger and P.J.J.M.Â Bakker (eds.), John Buridan, Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (secundum ultimam lecturam). LibriÂ IâII, Leiden/Boston (MA) 2015 (Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Science, 25).

On John of Wezalia (Vessalia, Vesalia, Vezalia), active at the University of Paris between 1344 and 1353, see O.Â Weijers, Le travail intellectuel Ã la FacultÃ© des arts de Paris: textes et maÃ®tres (ca.Â 1200â1500), 5 (J, Ã partir de JohannesÂ D.), Turnhout 2003 (Studia Artistarum, 11), 176â177, and Ch.Â Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Medieval Authors, Florence 2010â2013 (2 vols.), 1, 351â353.

I: âUtrum lumen sit qualitas distincta existens realiter in medio;â II: ââ¨Utrumâ© sit aliqua virtus interior que simul remittetur ab omnibus sensibilibus diversorum sensuum particularium exteriorum.â Caroti does not distinguish these questions from those discussed in John of Wezaliaâs commentary on De anima: Caroti (ed.), Nicole Oresme. Questiones super De generatione et corruptione, 42*.

Critical edition by E.A.Â Moody in Guillelmi de Ockham opera philosophica et theologica ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum edita cura Instituti Franciscani Universitatis S.Â Bonaventurae, St. Bonaventure (NY) 1978 (Opera philosophica, 2), 3â80. The Darmstadt manuscript is not mentioned among the copies transmitting this text.

Critical edition by A.Â Gambatese and S.Â Brown in Guillelmi de Ockham opera philosophica et theologica ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum edita, 345â382. In this case too, the Darmstadt manuscript is not mentioned among the copies of this text.

Cf. Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Medieval Authors, 2, 352.

See ibid.

SdG = Sententia super De generatione et corruptione; QdG = Quaestiones super De generatione et corruptione; SsM = Sententia super Meteorologica; QsM = Quaestiones super Meteorologica; QsP = Quaestiones super Physicam; SsA = Sententia super De anima; QdA = Quaestiones super De anima; QdS = Questiones super De sensu et sensato; SsI = Sententia super Isagogem; SAp = Sententia super Analytica priora; SAâ¯s = Sententia super Analytica posteriora; SpH = Sententia super Peri hermeneias; QSE = Quaestiones super Sophisticos elenchos.

On the difference between lectio cursoria and lectio ordinaria, see J.A.Â Weisheipl, âCurriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Oxford in the early 14th century,â Medieval Studies 26 (1964), 143â185, at 150â151; O.Â Weijers, Terminologie des universitÃ©s au XIII^e siÃ¨cle, Firenze 1987 (Lessico intellettuale europeo, 39), 307â308, 329; A.Â MaierÃ¹, âLes cours: lectio et lectio cursoria (dâaprÃ¨s les statuts de Paris et dâOxford),â in Weijers and Holtz (eds.), Lâenseignement des disciplines, 373â391.

On Narcissus Pfister, doctor in Theology at Cologne University in 1408, see N.Â BÃ¼hler, Die Schriftsteller und Schreiber des Benedektinerstiftes St. Ulrich und Afra in Augsburg wÃ¤hrend des Mittelalters, Bern/Leipzig 1916, 37â44, n.Â 9; L.Â Meier, âDer Studiengang des Ex-Dominikaners Narcissus PfisterÂ O.S.B. an der UniversitÃ¤t KÃ¶ln,â Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 4 (1934), 228â257; Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries, 2, 25â26.

We find the same image on the first cover of the manuscript Clm 4376, which transmits the second redaction of Nicole Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology: Panzica (ed.), Nicole Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de ultima lectura, 42â46.

I did not find this watermark either in Briquet or in the printed version of Piccardâs catalogue.

On this commentary, see M.Â Grabmann, Die mittelalterlichen Kommentare zur Politik des Aristoteles, Munich 1941 (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 1941, 2, 10), 63â64, and Ch.Â FlÃ¼eler, âMittelalterliche Kommentare zur Politik des Aristoteles und zur Pseudo-Aristotelischen Oekonomik,â Bulletin de philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale 29 (1987), 193â229, esp.Â 222. This text is not mentioned in Markowskiâs catalogue of commentaries on Aristotle at the Bavarian State Library: M.Â Markowski, Buridanica quae in codicibus manu scriptis bibliothecarum Monacensium asservantur, WrocÅaw/Warsaw/Krakow 1981.

S.Â Kirschner, âEine weitere Fassung eines lateinischen De caelo-Kommentars von Nicolaus Oresme?â in B.Â Fritscher and G.Â Brey (eds.), Cosmographica et Geographica. Festschrift fÃ¼r Heribert M.Â Nobis zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich 1994 (Algorismus, 13) (2 vols.), 1, 209â222; Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 29; Ead., De la Lune Ã la Terre. The list of questions of this commentary, as well as a comparison with the commentary traditionally ascribed to Nicole Oresme, can be consulted in Di Liscia and Panzica, âThe Works of Nicole Oresme: a Systematic Inventory,â AppendixÂ I, 358â362.

This text is not mentioned in E.J.Â Ashworth, âObligations Treatises. A Catalogue of Manuscripts, Editions and Studies,â Bulletin de philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale 36 (1994), 118â147.

For a modern edition of this text, see: B.Â Patar (ed.), Alberti de Saxonia Quaestiones in Aristotelis De caelo, Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris/Dudley (MA) 2008 (Philosophes mÃ©diÃ©vaux, 51). Patar does not mention this copy in the list of manuscripts of Albertâs commentary provided at p.Â 27*â28*.

Although this text exerted a notable influence on late medieval philosophy, a modern edition is still unavailable. We have therefore to refer to a Renaissance edition: Marsilius de Inghen, Quaestiones in libros De generatione et corruptione, Venice, Gregorius de Gregoriis, 1505, reprint Frankfurt a. M. 1970, ff.Â 65â129.

The following distinctions from the second book of redactions A/B from Durandusâs commentary on the Sentences have been critically edited in the framework of the âDurandus projectâ at the Thomas Institute in Cologne: F.Â Retucci (ed.), Durandi de Sancto Porciano scriptum super IV libros Sententiarum. BuchÂ II, dd. 1â5, Leuven 2012 (Recherches de thÃ©ologie et philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vales. Bibliotheca 10.2.1); F.Â Retucci (ed.), Durandi de Sancto Porciano scriptum super IV libros Sententiarum. BuchÂ II, dd. 22â38, Leuven 2013 (Recherches de thÃ©ologie et philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vales. Bibliotheca 10.2.3); M.Â Perrone (ed.), Durandi de Sancto Porciano scriptum super IV libros Sententiarum. BuchÂ II, dd. 39â44, Leuven 2014 (Recherches de thÃ©ologie et philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vales. Bibliotheca 10.2.4). The volume containing dd. 6â21 has been edited by T.Â Jeschke and F.Â Ventola and will be published soon.

Durandus a Sancto Portiano, In Sententias commentaria, Venice, Ex typographia Guerraea, 1571, f.Â 126^raâ180^vb. For a more detailed description of the copy of Durandusâs commentary in the Munich manuscript, and for a comparison of the list of questions with those transmitted in the Renaissance and in the modern critical edition of Durandusâs text, see A.Â Panzica, âRevisiting Manuscript Munich, BSB, Clm 4375: A Newly Discovered Copy of Durand de Saint PourÃ§ainâs Commentary on the Sentences, redactio C,â in A.Â Petagine, V.Â Braekman (eds.), Les anges dans la philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale et moderne, Rome 2023, 429â437.

The dating was established by the authors of the catalogue on the basis of the watermarks: M.Â Kowalczyk, A.Â KozÅowska, M.Â Markowski,Â S. WÅodek, and M.Â Zwiercan, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi latinorum, qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, 5: Numeros continens inde a 668 usque ad 771, WrocÅaw/Warsaw 1993, 307.

Nicolas de Kyrchay obtained the bachelorâs degree from the University of Prague in 1402. See Liber decanorum Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Pragensis, ab anno Christi 1367 usque ad annum 1585, Prague 1830â1832, 1, 371.

Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Medieval Authors, 2, 147. Lohr mentions only this copy of Rodolphusâs question-commentary on De anima. However, as we will see later, this commentary is also transmitted in another manuscript from the same library containing the first redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology: BJÂ 635.

Inc.: âUtrum intellectus possit producere actus suos;â expl.: âubi subiectum supponit pro tota propositione: omnis cognitio est cognitio.â

âUtrum omne operans est gratia sui operis; Utrum anima separata possit elevari ex influxu divini luminis ad cognoscendum substantias separatas; Utrum voluntas creata in utendo sit libera libertate conditionalis.â

L.Â I, ff.Â 51^raâ72^vb: âQueritur primo circa librum Methaurorum utrum impressiones methauroloyce fiant secundum naturam inordinatiorem ea que est primi elementi corporalis, et secundum naturam minus ordinatam quam natura celi. Et arguitur primo quod non â¦ XÂ â¦ quod propter hoc sint ita secundum magnitudinem, ideo responsio solum est persuasiva. Et sic est finis questionum primi libri.â L.Â II, ff.Â 73^raâ78^vb: âUtrum locus elementi aque sit ubi nunc est mare. Arguitur quod non, quia aqua debet circuire â¦ XÂ â¦ et per accidens aqua generatur in locis calidis, sicut fuit dictum in tractatu de grandine. Et sic est finis secundi libri.â L.Â III, ff.Â 78^vbâ83^vb: âUtrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis et politis. Et arguitur quod non, quia visus [sic pro visio] non fit extramittendo; ergo nichil est ibi quod exeat ab oculo â¦ XÂ â¦ sed non videtur dormientibus tota nocte. Et sic est finis [est] tertii libri. In nomine Domini amen.â

Inc.: âQueritur primo circa librum Phisicorum utrum de omnibus rebus pertineat considerare ad scientiam naturalem. Arguitur primo quod non;â expl.: âad alias rationes dicendum quod Aristoteles non intendebat loqui nisi de potentiis activis, ille auteum sunt de passivis, etc.;â colophon: âQuidquid agunt alii, semper tibi proximus est. Qui me scribebaâ¨tâ©, non nullum nomen habebat. [a. m.] Expliciunt questiones Pyridani [sic] reportate Erfordie anno DominiÂ MÂ°CCCÂ°LXIII, feria tertia, terminate et finite hora exâ¨erâ©citationis proxima ante festum Iohannis, videlicet decollationis, per manus Iohannis de Leone Medii, cuius manus sit benedicta, etc. Buntschuch hadern.â The questions are ascribed to Oresme in the modern catalogue of Latin manuscripts at the Jagiellonian Library. This ascription, proposed by MieczysÅaw Markowski, has been challenged on several occasions. See M.Â Markowski, âLes âQuaestiones super IâVIII libros Physicorum Aristotelisâ de Nicolas Oresme retrouvÃ©es?,â Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 26 (1982), 19â41; J.M.M.H.Â Thijssen, âThe Short Redaction of John Buridanâs Questions on the Physics and their Relation to the Questions on the Physics Attributed to Marsilius of Inghen,â Archives dâhistoire doctrinale et littÃ©raire du Moyen Ãge 52 (1985), 237â266, esp.Â 239â240; S.Â Kirschner, Nicolaus Oresmes Kommentar zur Physik des Aristoteles: Kommentar mit Edition der Quaestionen zu Buch 3 und 4 der aristotelischen Physik sowie von vier Quaestionen zu Buch 5, Stuttgart 1997 (Sudhoffs Archiv. Beihefte, 39), 11, 18â22; S.Â Caroti, J.Â Celeyrette, S.Â Kirschner, and E.Â Mazet, Nicolaus Oresme: Quaestiones super Physicam, Leiden/Boston (MA) 2014 (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 112), XXâXXIV.

Inc.: âQueritur primo circa principium libri De anima, et sit prima questio utrum de anima sit scientia. Et videtur primo quod non, nam vel enim illa scientia foret uno modo vel plures.â The text is interrupted at the contrary arguments of the third question, with the words: âet patet sexto De animalibus, unde dicimus quod hoc non est.â

L.Â I, pp.Â 177^aâ209^a: âUtrum de â¨impressionibusâ© metroloycis sit scientia. Et arguitur quod non, quia huiusmodi impressiones, sicut nubes, tonitrua, non sunt perpetue â¦ XÂ â¦ quandoque apparet maior, quandoque minor. Tertio supponiturÂ â¦â [incomplete]; l.Â II, pp.Â 209^bâ221^a: âUtrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et primo arguitur quod sit aer motus, nam aliquis aer motus est ventus â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam dico quod possibile est tantam exalationem includi in nube, sed tamen hoc raro contingit. Et sic est finis questionum secundi libri. Incipiunt questiones tertii Metheororum;â l.Â III, pp.Â 221^aâ230^b: âUtrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis. Videtur quod non. Primo: istud esse capiendo âvisumâ pro ipsa potentia visiva â¦ XÂ â¦ tunc videtur remotior, vel ceteris paribus ex hoc videtur maior, et sic patet in perspectiva;â l.Â IV, pp.Â 230^bâ236^b: âQueritur circa quartum librum Methaurorum utrum primarum qualitatum due sunt active, videlicet calidum et frigidum, et due passive, sicut humidum et siccum â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam satis dictum est, quia licet sint plures, possunt reduci ad illas, etc. Patet. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum magistri Alberti Parysiensis.â

Birkenmajer, Ãtudes dâhistoire des sciences en Pologne, 222: âLes mss. Crac. 635 et Crac. 686 sont Ã cet Ã©gard [i.e., contamination] trÃ¨s instructifs; ils contiennent les Quaestiones Meteororum dâAlbert de Saxe, mais pas dans leur forme authentique (p. ex. celle du cod. Ampl. Qu. 299 ou du cod. Berol. Lat. Fol.Â 387): les questions I, 1â14, II, 7â17 et la totalitÃ© des livres III et IV sont dâAlbert; les questions I, 15â22 et II, 1â6 manquent complÃ¨tement, Ã leur place figurent 13 questions Ã©trangÃ¨res, relatives au livre I (I, 18â30) et empruntÃ©es Ã un recueil anonyme (assez intÃ©ressant) que le cod. Crac. 753 nous a conservÃ© dans sa forme authentique.â

Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 27 and AppendixÂ V, 79â86 (list of questions with incipit and explicit of each question and references to Oresmeâs commentary); Ead., âAlbert of Saxonyâs Questions on Meteorology,â 242, 251â252; Ead., âCommenter les MÃ©tÃ©orologiques Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Cracovie,â 110â111, 173.

See infra, the description of this manuscript.

See the mark of possession at f.Â 158^v, marg. sup.: âIste liber est magistri Francisci, in quo continentur questiones Metheororum.â On Franciscus de Brega, see J.Â Firley (ed.), Polski SÅownik Biograficzny, 7, Krakow 1948, 75â76.

Inc.: âUtrum quatuor sunt questiones scibiles, ut pr [sic]. Quoniam quatuor sunt questiones scibiles;â expl.: âconsequentia mala est conditionalis; antecedens patet; igitur.â On this text, see E.P.Â Bos, âTwo Sophistria-Tracts from about 1400 (Ms. Cracow, Bibl. Jag. 686, ff.Â 1^raâ79^rb; ms. Vienna, Ãsterreichische Nationalbibl. VPLÂ 4785, ff.Â 233^vâ280^v),â in O.Â Pluta (ed.), Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski, Amsterdam 1988 (Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, 10), 203â243, and Id., Logica Modernorum in Prague about 1400. The Sophistria Disputations âquoniam quatuorâ (Ms. Cracow, Jagiellonian Library 686, ff.Â 1^raâ79^rb), with a Partial Reconstruction of Thomas of Clevesâ Logica, Leiden/Boston (MA) 2004 (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 82).

The modern catalogue indicates that the manuscript is contaminated and refers to Markowski: âSecundum M.Â Markowski investigationes codex noster contaminatus esse videtur: in libro primo quaestiones 15â22 desiderantur; in secundoâillae 1â6, quarum loco aliae quaedam insertae sunt quaestiones tredecim ex quaestionibus anonymis super ibro I in cod. BKÂ 753, f.Â 62^râ69^v contentis depromptae. Idem textus in cod. BJÂ 635 pp.Â 177â236 et 751, f.Â 2^râv),â M.Â Kowalczyk [et al.], Catalogus, 4: 42â43. See M.Â Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce w okresie przedkopernikaÅskim: studium z historii filozofii nauk ÅcisÅych na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku, WrocÅaw 1971, 405. As we have seen above, this case of contamination had already been noticed by Birkenmajer, Ãtudes dâhistoire des sciences en Pologne, 222.

L.Â I, ff.Â 101^raâ120^ra: âUtrum de impressionibus meteoroloycis sit scientia. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia huiusmodi impressiones, sicut sunt nubes et tonitrua, non sunt perpetue â¦ XÂ â¦ et ideo quandoque apparet maior, quandoque minor. Tertio supponiturÂ â¦â [incomplete]; l.Â II, ff.Â 120^rbâ126^rb: âUtrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et primo videtur quod sit aer motus, nam aliquis aer motus est ventus â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam dico quod possibile est tantam exalationem includi in nube, sed tamen hoc est raro contingens;â l.Â III, ff.Â 126^rbâ131^ra: ââ¨Qâ©ueritur circa tertium librum utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis. Et videtur quod non. Primo, istum esset capere pro ipsa potentia visiva â¦ XÂ â¦ tunc videtur velocior ceteris paribus, ex hoc videtur minor, et sic patet in perspectiva;â l.Â IV, ff.Â 131^raâ134^va: ââ¨Qâ©ueritur circa quartum huius utrum primarum qualitatum due sunt active (calidum et frigidum) et due passive, sicut humidum et siccum â¦ XÂ â¦ ad quartam satis dictum est, quia licet sint plures, possunt tamen reduci [et] ad illas. Et sic est finis istarum questionum. Laudetur Dominus noster. Et sic expliciunt questiones optime et bone. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum, etc. Homo quidam misit servum suum hora cena et fecit cenam magnam, etc.â

See for instance Markowski and WÅodek, Repertorium, 37.

Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 27; Ead., âCommenter les MÃ©tÃ©orologiques Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Cracovie,â 110â111, 192â193.

For the list of these questions with their incipit and explicit, as well as with indication of their sources in Oresmeâs and Albertâs commentaries, see Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â 87â89.

For the description of D¹, see above, the description of D. For the comparative collation of the questions common to the two witnesses, see below, the study of the manuscript tradition.

See below, p. 376ss.

See above, p. 19 and below p. 72.

On hearing errors, see the introduction to Aquinasâs Leonine edition of the Quaestiones de veritate, where Antoine Dondaine analyses a text directly dictated by Aquinas, ms. Vat. lat. 781: Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera omnia iussu LeonisÂ XIII P.M. edita, tomus XXII, Quaestiones disputate de veritate, cura et studio fratrum Praedicatorum, volumen I: Praefatioâqq. 1â7, Rome 1975, 44â61, esp.Â 60*, and J.Â Cos, âEvidences of St. Thomasâs Dictating Activity in the Naples Manuscript of His Scriptum in Metaphysicam (Naples, BNÂ VIII F.Â 16),â Scriptorium 38/2 (1984), 231â253, esp.Â 246.

The text before the brackets is taken from the present edition; the Roman number refers to the book; the first Arabic number refers to the question; the second Arabic number refers to the paragraph.

A.Â Rey (ed.), Dictionnaire historique de la langue franÃ§aise contenant les mots franÃ§ais en usage et quelques autres dÃ©laissÃ©s, avec leur origine proche et lointaine, leur apparition datÃ©e, Paris 1998 (3 vols.), 1, 917 (couleur); 2, 2199 (mer); 3, 3998 (vapeur).

I found only three omissions by homoioteleuton in D, two for bookÂ I, and one for bookÂ III: I.10, par.Â 44, âAlia conclusio est quod si elementa essent imparia, sicut tria aut quinque, tunc omnia possent converti in unum, puta in medium, verbi gratia si esset unum medium inter aerem et aquam, ut ponebant Antiqui;â I.27, par.Â 1â2: âArguitur quod non, quia materia nubis et pluvie non est huiusmodi signum; modo nebula est huiusmodi, quia ex vapore fit nebula, deinde fit nubes, ex qua fit pluvia. Secundo: numquam vel raro fit pluvia quin prius apparuit nebula;â III.3, par.Â 6: âEt ideo iuxta hoc sciendum est secundo quod omne accidens dicitur âmaterialeâ quod non causatur ex sola presentia agentis sine alteratione primarum qualitatum, que sunt condiciones materiales, et istud dicitur âspiritualeâ quod generatur ex sola presentia sine tali alteratione.â The text is from my edition; I italicized the omitted words. For some examples of omissions by homoioteleuton in M, see below, p. 61.

On tangible qualities see Aristoteles, De generatione et corruptione, II, 2.

Cf. R.Â Pasnau, âScholastic Qualities, Primary and Secondary,â in L.Â Nolan (ed.), Primary and Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, Oxford 2011, 41â61, at 43â44.

Nicolaus Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura, I.10, par.Â 12, ed. Panzica, which contains the wrong reading: 0^r; 10, 32. The correct reading can be found in Albertus de Saxonia, Questiones in Meteorologica, I.6, ed. Panzica, 291, par.Â 8. For the relationships between Oresme and Albertâs commentaries on Aristotleâs Meteorology, see the introduction to Albertâs edition, esp.Â 232â241. For the radius of the sphere of the Moon as calculated in Ptolemyâs Almagest, see Ptolomaeus, Almagestus, V, 15, ed. G.J.Â Toomer, London 1984, 255 and the commentary by O.Â Pedersen, A Survey of the Almagest, London 1984, 213. In the present edition, I chose not to emend Oresmeâs text, deeming it a too heavy editorial intervention, but instead, I directed the reader to the correct variant in Albertâs text.

See below, p. 75.

The variant âquam si quiesceret in tranquillitateâ is attested in manuscripts C and M. Manuscript D, however, reads âquam si staret in stagnoâ.

Seneca, Questiones naturales, lib. 7, cap. 30, par.Â 1â2, ed. Oltramare, 2, 332: âEgregie Aristoteles ait numquam nos uerecundiores esse debere quam cum de diis agitur. Si intramus templa compositi, si ad sacrificium accessuri uultum submittimus, togam adducimus, si in omne argumentum modestiae fingimur, quanto hoc magis facere debemus, cum de sideribus de stellis de deorum natura disputamus, ne quid timere, ne quid impudenter aut ignorantes affirmemus, aut scientes mentamur! Nec miremur tam tarde erui quae tam alte iacent.â I will refer back to this quotation again when discussing the errors of the Krakow family.

For scholastic debates on these phenomena, see Panzica, De la Lune Ã la Terre, ch.Â 17.1.2.3.

Albertus de Saxonia, Questiones in Meteorologica, I, 14, ed. Panzica, 319, par.Â 11.

Seneca, Questiones naturales, lib. 7, cap. 22, par.Â 1.

Biblia latina cum glosa ordinaria, Job 38, 11, ed. A.Â Rusch, Strasbourg 1480â1481, reprint Turnhout 1992 (4 vols.), 2, 443: âquis conclusit mare hostiis et circumdedit illud terminis suis.â

H.Â Denifle and A.Â Chatelain (eds.), Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Paris 1889â1897, 2, 674: âItem vos jurabitis quod tenebitis de modo legendi sine penna, videlicet sic ac si nullus scriberet coram vobis, sicut fiunt sermones in Universitate, et sicut legunt in aliis facultatibus legentes;â 3, 39: âTemptatis duobus modis legendi artium liberalium, primis quidem philosophie magistris in cathedra raptim proferentibus verba sua, ut ea mens auditoris valeret capere, manus vero non sufficeret exarare, posteris autem tractim nominantibus, donec auditores cum penna possint scribere coram eis; diligenti examine hiis invicem collatis, prior modus melior reperiturâ (statutes issued in 1355); 4, 727: â[â¦] sive legant ad pennam sive non, nonobstante antiquo statuto de non legendo ad pennam, super quo dispensamusâ (statutes issued in 1452); cf. MaierÃ¹, âLes cours: lectio et lectio cursoria,â 372â391.

I.27, par.Â 14, variant apparatus, C, f.Â 117^ra: âAd primum principale: materia nubis et pluvie non est signum serenitatis, conceditur; et cum dicitur in minori quod nebula est huiusmodi, dicitur quod verum est de nebula ante pluviam, sed nebula post pluviam est signum serenitatis, ut patuit prius. Ad secundam dicitur eodem modo.â

For an example of this approach, see I.Â Costa, Le questiones di Radulfo Brito sullâ âEtica Nicomacheaâ. Introduzione e testo critico, Turnhout 2008 (Studia Artistarum, 17), 126â132.

McCluskey, Nicole Oresme on Light, Color, and the Rainbow, 433â434, fn. 3. I am grateful to LukÃ¡Å¡ LiÄka for discussion on this issue.

The dictionaries of medieval Latin do not agree on the gender of the term â(semi)di(/y)ameter,â with some of them mentioning it as both feminine and as masculine. P.Â Lehmann, and J.Â Stroux, Mittelateinisches WÃ¶rterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, 3 (DâE), MÃ¼nchen 2007, 566â567, mentions âdiameter,â masculine, âdiametrum,â neuter, and âdiametrus,â feminine and masculine; R.K.Â Ashdowne, D.R.Â Howlett, and R.E.Â Latham, Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, 1 (AâG), Oxford 2018, 847, presents the substantives âdiameter/diametrusâ as masculine or neuter, but in some of the examples they appear to be feminine; the example concerning the substantives âsemidiameter/semidiametrusâ show that they are feminine (3, QâZ, 3366); J.W.Â Fuchs â and O.Â Weijers, Lexicon Latinitatis Nederlandicae Medii Aevi, 1 (AâB), Leiden 1977, 1430â1431, presents the substantive âdiameterâ both as feminine and as masculine; âsemidiameterâ (4537) is mentioned as masculine; L.Â Varcl, and J.Â MartÃnek, Latinitatis medii aevi Lexicon Bohemorum, 2 (DâH), Prague 1993, 130, considers âdiametros, diametrusâ as feminine and âdiameterâ as masculine; M.Â Plezi (ed.), SÅownik Åaciny Åredniowiecznej w Polsce, 3 (DâE), WrocÅaw/Warsaw/Krakow/GdaÅsk 1974, 493â494, mentions âdiameterâ as feminine. I wish to thank Barbora KocÃ¡novÃ¡ for her kind help.

In questionÂ I.22, par.Â 10, however, all the manuscripts use the masculine form, which I have retained. This choice is probably influenced by the presence of the substantive âmodusâ: âDicunt tamen quod sunt nove modi cometarum. Unus attribuitur Saturno â¦â.

An important exception to this principle consists in the introduction of the distinction u/v, which in the Middle Ages was absent in spelling but not in pronunciation. See G.Â Polara, âProblemi di ortografia e di interpunzione nei testi latini di etÃ carolina,â in MaierÃ¹ (ed.), Grafia e Interpunzione, 31â52; R.Â Hissette, âAverrois ou mystice plutÃ´t quâAverroys ou mistice? Ã propos des graphies dans les Ã©ditions des textes scolastiques latins,â Bulletin de philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale 40 (1998), 77â90, esp.Â 79â80; F.Â Vieillard and O.Â Guyotjeannin (eds.), Conseils pour lâÃ©dition des textes mÃ©diÃ©vaux. Fascicule I.Â Conseils gÃ©nÃ©raux, Paris 2001, 25.

Nicole Oresme, Sententia in Meteorologica, ms. Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, f.Â 100^ra: âSimiliter etiam diversimode incipiunt tertium. Aliqui incipiunt: âde residuisâ, et alii: âde haloâ.â

Buridanâs literal commentary on Aristotleâs Meteorology is transmitted in three manuscripts: Erfurt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Forschungsbibliothek, Dep. Erf., CAÂ 4Â° 342, ff.Â 30^râ65^v; CittÃ del Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Vat. lat. 2160, ff.Â 1^râ60^v; 2162, ff.Â 80^râ108^v. According to the ms. Vat. lat. 2160, the third book opens with the following words: ââ¯âDe residuis autemâ. Iste est tertius liber Methaurorum, in quo Aristoteles determinat de aliis impressionibus nobis ocultis, et patet continuatio ad precedentes libros secundum distinctionem factam in principio,â f.Â 31^va. At the beginning of the third book of Buridanâs Questions on Meteorology, two questions devoted to fiery phenomena (III.1, Utrum enefie et typhones descendant de nubibus ad terram; III.2, Utrum fulmina fiant per potentias demonum vel per naturas inanimatas) are followed by a question on refraction (III.3, Utrum omnis radius visualis multiplicatus per media dissimilis vel difformis densitatis seu raritatis, refrangitur in occursu secundi medii). For the list of questions of Buridanâs Questions on Meteorology, see E.Â Faral, âJean Buridan: notes sur les manuscrits, les Ã©ditions et le contenu de ses ouvrages,â Archives dâhistoire doctrinale et littÃ©raire du Moyen Ãge 21 (1946), 1â53, at 22â24, and S.Â Bages, Les Questiones super tres libros Metheororum Aristotelis de Jean Buridan. Ãtude suivie de lâÃ©dition du l.Â I, ThÃ¨se de Doctorat de lâÃcole des Chartes, 1986 (2 vols.), 1, 27â30.

Six questions at the end of the second book of Albert of Saxonyâs Questions on Meteorology are devoted to fiery phenomena. The third book starts with a general question concerning refraction: Utrum visus refrangatur a corporibus densis. In the same way, three questions concerning fiery phenomena are discussed at the end of the second book in Themo Iudaeusâs Questions on Meteorology; the third book opens with a question on refraction analogous to that of Albert: Utrum omnis radius visualis refrangatur in occursu medii densioris vel rarioris. Blasius of Parma adopted the same model: three questions on lightning, whirlwinds and thunderbolts close the second book, and a question concerning refraction opens the third one: Utrum radius visualis occurrens diversis mediis frangatur in incessu eius. For the list of questions of Albertâs commentary, see Panzica, âNicole Oresme Ã la FacultÃ© des Arts,â AppendixÂ II, 57â63; for the list of questions of Themoâs commentary, see ibid., AppendixÂ III, 64â72. The second redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology adopts a different book division, starting the third book with the theory of winds (Meteor., II, 4, 359Â bÂ 27). This division, which was no longer common in the fourteenth century, can be found in Albert the Greatâs commentary on Aristotleâs Meteorology (ed. Hossfeld, 104).

I.18, par.Â 10: âet potest iam iudicari in figuraâ C; âet posset statim videre in fyguraâ M. I.20, par.Â 19, âet consequentia declaratur in figuraâ CÂ M.

On the value of geometric diagrams to reconstruct the relationships between the manuscripts, see D.Â Raynaud, âBuilding the Stemma codicum from Geometric Diagrams: A Treatise on Optics by Ibn al-Haytham as a Test Case,â Archive for History of Exact Sciences 68/2 (2014), 207â239.

For instance, in questionÂ I.2, D has: âoppositum patet per Aristotelem, primo huius,â while manuscript C has: âoppositum patet de aliis, primo huius.â The erroneous form âaliisâ can easily be explained by an error in reading the abbreviation for the name âAristotelesâ.

For instance, in questionÂ I.3, D reads: âtunc pono conclusiones. Prima est quod;â while C reads: âconclusio prima: quod;â and M: âtunc pono conclusiones: prima quod.â

For these principles, see A.Â Dondaine, âVariantes de lâapparat critique dans les Ã©ditions de textes latins mÃ©diÃ©vaux,â Bulletin de la SociÃ©tÃ© internationale pour lâÃ©tude de la philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale 4 (1962), 82â100.

According to the conventions recommended by the S.I.E.P.M.Â See A.Â Dondaine, âAbbrÃ©viations latines et signes recommandÃ©s pour lâapparat critique des Ã©ditions de textes mÃ©diÃ©vaux,â Bulletin de la SociÃ©tÃ© internationale pour lâÃ©tude de la Philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vale (S.I.E.P.M.) 2 (1960), 142â149.

A detailed doctrinal comparison between the two redactions of Oresmeâs commentary can be found in Panzica, De la Lune Ã la Terre.

I.Â Bekker (ed.), Aristotelis Opera, Berlin 1831â1870 (5 vols.).

J.Â Hamesse (ed.), Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: un florilÃ¨ge mÃ©diÃ©val. Ãtude historique et Ã©dition critique, Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris 1974 (Philosophes mÃ©diÃ©vaux, 17).

J.F.Â Carmody â and R.Â Arnzen (eds.), Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De caelo et mundo, Leuven 2003 (Recherches de thÃ©ologie et philosophie mÃ©diÃ©vales. Bibliotheca, 4) (2 vols.).

F.S.Â Crawford (ed.), Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis De anima libros, Cambridge (MA) 1953 (Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem. Versiones latinae 6/1).

Averroes, Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis, Venice, apud Iuntas, 1562â1574, reprint Frankfurt a. M. 1962 (9 vols.).

Albertus Magnus, De causis proprietatum elementorum, ed. P.Â Hossfeld, MÃ¼nster i. W. 1980 (Alberti Magni Opera omnia V/2), 47â106.

Ptolemaeus, Almagestus (tr. Gerard of Cremona), Venice, Petrus Liechtenstein, 1515; Ptolemyâs Almagest, Translated and Annotated by G.J.Â Toomer, London 1984; J.L.Â Heiberg, Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia, I: Syntaxis mathematica, Leipzig 1898â1903, 2 vols.

å¼ç¨ä¿¡æ¯

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://brill.edhh.ma/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004689237/BP000003.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Nicole Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura

Critical Edition and Study of the Manuscript Tradition

ä¸ç¼ï¼ Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Science, å·ï¼ 41

Cover Nicole Oresme, <i>Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura</i>

ISBN:: 9789004689237

åºçç¤¾:: Brill

å°å·åºçæ¥æ:: 21 Oct 2024

Subjects
- History
  - Early Modern History
- Philosophy
  - Medieval Philosophy

Front Matter

Introduction

Nicolaus Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura

Back Matter

ç»è®¡æ°æ®

	å¨é¨æé´	è¿å»ä¸å¹´	è¿å»30å¤©
æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ°	0	0	0
å¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ°	321	135	37
PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ°	183	107	16

African Studies	Education	Media Studies
American Studies	History	Middle East and Islamic Studies
Ancient Near East and Egypt	Human Rights and Humanitarian Law	Musicology
Art History	International Law	Philosophy
Asian Studies	International Relations	Religious Studies
Biblical Studies	Jewish Studies	Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Biology	Languages and Linguistics	Social Sciences
Book History and Cartography	Life Sciences	Theology and World Christianity
Classical Studies	Literature and Cultural Studies

Subjects

AppBar-Authors 2025

AppBar-Open Access 2025

AppBar-Product Information 2025

AppBar-Company 2025

AppBar-Contact 2025

The First Redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology

1 Descriptions of the Manuscripts

1.1 The Complete Manuscripts

1.1.1 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 58raâ79vb; 85raâ93ra = D

Catalogues

Literature

1.1.2 MÃ¼nchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4375, ff.Â 19raâ46rb = M

Catalogues

Literature

1.1.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 753, ff.Â 51raâ83vb = C

Catalogues

Literature

1.2 The Incomplete Manuscripts

1.2.1 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 635, pp.Â 194aâ209a = C1

Catalogues

Literature

1.2.2 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, ff.Â 110vbâ120ra = C2

Catalogues

Literature

1.2.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, 81vaâ97va = C2a

1.2.4 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 80raâ82rb = D1

1.3 Overview of the Manuscripts

2 The Manuscript Tradition

2.1 The Complete Manuscripts: D, C, M

2.1.1 The Darmstadt Manuscript: A Direct Witness to Oresmeâs Teaching

2.1.2 The Relationships between the Complete Manuscripts D, C, M

2.2 The Incomplete Manuscripts: C1, C2, C2a, D1

2.2.1 The Krakow Group: C, C1, C2, C2a

2.2.2 Manuscript D1

2.3 Genealogical Hypothesis and Manuscripts Chosen for the Edition

3 Editorial Principles

3.1 Text

3.1.1 Editorial Interventions

3.1.2 Orthography

3.1.3 Internal Divisions

3.1.4 Figures

3.2 Critical Apparatus

3.2.1 Variants

3.3 Abbreviations and Signs Adopted

3.3.1 Signs85

3.3.2 Abbreviations

3.4 Sources

å¼ç¨ä¿¡æ¯

Share Link

Nicole Oresme, Questiones in Meteorologica de prima lectura

Critical Edition and Study of the Manuscript Tradition

ç®å½

ç»è®¡æ°æ®

ç»è®¡æ°æ®

The First Redaction of Oresmeâs Questions on Meteorology

1.1.1 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 58^raâ79^vb; 85^raâ93^ra = D

1.1.2 MÃ¼nchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4375, ff.Â 19^raâ46^rb = M

1.1.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 753, ff.Â 51^raâ83^vb = C

1.2.1 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagielloÅska, cod. 635, pp.Â 194^aâ209^a = C¹

1.2.2 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, ff.Â 110^vbâ120^ra = C²

1.2.3 KrakÃ³w, Biblioteka JagelloÅska, cod. 686, 81^vaâ97^va = C^2a

1.2.4 Darmstadt, UniversitÃ¤ts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2197, ff.Â 80^raâ82^rb = D¹

2.1.1 The Darmstadt Manuscript: A Direct Witness to Oresmeâs Teaching

2.2 The Incomplete Manuscripts: C¹, C², C^2a, D¹

2.2.1 The Krakow Group: C, C¹, C², C^2a

2.2.2 Manuscript D¹

3.3.1 Signs⁸⁵

å¼ç¨ä¿¡æ¯

ç»è®¡æ°æ®