Newhauser2013 the Optics of Ps-Grosseteste_Editing Peter of Limoges’s Tractatus Moralis de Oculo

8/19/2019 Newhauser2013 the Optics of Ps-Grosseteste_Editing Peter of Limoges’s Tractatus Moralis de Oculo

1/28

O P -G :E P L ’

Richard Newhauser

W hen preachers o the ourteenth and feenth centuries wanted expand a sermon by drawing moral lessons rom the physiolo eyesight, or by quoting a biblical passage on vision that mserve as the basis or a lesson on how to see spiritually, they ofen made a preaching aid beginning ‘Si diligenter uoluerimus in lege Domini medAbove all, they turned to this treatise orexempla illustrating the principles ooptics, or just as requently those giving a narrative orm to more generaedication (or or passages o verse unctioning in the same way romas diverse as Juvenal, Horace, Johannes de Hauvilla, or anonymous MedLatin sententiae). Tis Latin text, theractatus moralis de oculo,1 was composedin Paris in the late thirteenth century by a French author, Peter o Limogesit was transmitted in almost every country in Europe. It may, thus, be excuto begin an essay examining the textual basis or an edition o theractatus by justi ying its place in a volume devoted to editing texts rom medieval B

1 For the most recent list o manuscript witnesses to the wide transmission o the texRichard Newhauser and István Bejczy, A Supplement to Morton W. Bloomeld et al., ‘Incipits o Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices, 1100–1500 A.D.’ , Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia,Research on the Inheritance o Early and Medieval Christianity, 50 ( urnhout: Brepols, 2no. 5532.Richard Newhauser is Pro essor o English and Medieval Studies at Arizona State Univer

empe. He has recently nished a translation o Peter o Limoges’sractatus moralis de oculo and is currently working to complete the rst critical edition o the Latin text.

Probable ruth: Editing Medieval exts om Britain in the wenty-First Century, ed. by Vincent Gillespieand Anne Hudson, ( urnhout: Brepols, 2013), 167–194 BREPOLS PUBLISHERS10.1484/M. -EB.1.101739


2/28

168 Richard Newhauser

Te grounds or including such an essay in a British context are essentiallygogical: Peter o Limoges was among the most inuential authors in theopment o later medieval homiletic literature in the British Isles whoseremained wholly unknown in Britain throughout the Middle Ages. Te reaching importance o Peter’sractatus or the English pulpit has not receivedadequate assessment partially because o the lack o a modern, criticalTis essay hopes to help lay the oundations or the modern edition o work and at the same time unction as a prolegomenon to making theractatus better known to a scholarly audience.

Te medieval transmission o Peter’s work in the British Isles has conuted to a lack o recognition o its true authorship there. Many o theor attested copies o the treatise o British provenance come with no rial attribution. In an early codex rom England one does nd an attribto an author ‘e lymochia’, but that notation is in a i teenth-chand.2 wo other feenth-century English copies o the text also attribute work to ‘magister de Limochia’ (or ‘Lunochia’).3 It is, however, unclear whatlocation Lymochia was thought to designate. Only one manuscript noEngland carries an attribution to Peter o Limoges (‘magister Petrus de CLemouicensis dyocesis’), but this is a feenth-century codex rom Ger4

On the other hand, Robert Grosseteste’s well-documented interest in botscience o vision and pastoralia made him a likely candidate or the authorshipo a work on moralized optics, especially in the British Isles. Moreover, position on the eye made a tting companion to the treatise De lingua that wasalso attributed to the Bishop o Lincoln in the Middle Ages and occasicirculated with theractatus moralis de oculo.5 Tis attribution o theractatus

2 Durham, Durham University Library, MS Mickleton & Spearman 89 (end o the teenth century), ol. 1r ( olio torn) (MS D5). It was in the library o the Benedictine cathed priory o St Cuthbert in Durham in the late feenth to early sixteenth century (it is signHenry Tew, monk in Durham romc . 1483 into the 1530s, on ol. iv v ). See N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 5 vols (Ox ord: Clarendon Press, 1969–2002), (1977), 51N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain: A List o Surviving Books, 2nd edn (London:Royal Historical Society, 1964), p. 72; A. I. Doyle and F. J. W. H[arding], ‘Unrecorded MManuscript’, Durham Philobiblon, 1 (1949–55), 44.

3 Ox ord, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 315 (SC 2712), ol. 28rb (MS O3); and Ox ord,Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 742 (SC 2756), with attribution by Tomas Barlow (Bodleianlibrarian in the seventeenth century) (MS O4).

4 Ox ord, Bodleian Library, MS Hamilton 21 (SC 24451), ols 174 va–194 vb.5 On the De lingua see Edwin D. Craun, Lies, Slander, and Obscenity in Medieval English

Literature: Pastoral Rhetoric and the Deviant Speaker , Cambridge Studies in Medieval


3/28

- 169

to Grosseteste is, in act, ound in twenty-nine extant manuscripts anattested copies o the text, the vast majority o them completed in Englathem, Grosseteste is named as the author o theractatus either in the hand othe scribe or in that o later readers and librarians. Other English names ain manuscripts as the author o Peter’s text, as well: John o Wales incopies and, especially in Germany, John Pecham, under whose name theeditio princeps appeared. But Grosseteste was the author o choice or many medEnglish scribes and librarians.

Te earliest attributions to Grosseteste occur in a manuscript written iBritain in the late thirteenth or early ourteenth century (Bryn Mawr, BMawr College Library, MS 18 (MS By)) and in a codex rom the begino the ourteenth century, also probably o English provenance (LonLambeth Palace Library, MS 483 (MS L11)).6 From this relatively early period in the transmission o Peter’s work outside Paris the spurious atttion to the bishop o Lincoln was recapitulated throughout the ourteenthfeenth centuries, especially in the British Isles, disseminated in partic

rom the priory o St. Cuthbert in Durham, where MS L11 ormed part collection in the ourteenth century (see also below, MSS C2, D3, and Altogether, Durham was a centre or the transmission o Peter’s work, w

attributed to Grosseteste or not: eight extant manuscripts o Peter’s workbe associated with the priory there in the Middle Ages.7 In the feenth cen-tury, the same spurious attribution is ound in manuscripts in central Eur where Grosseteste is ofen re erred to as ‘Linconiensis’ (see below, MSS

Literature, 31 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 18–19; Carla Casagrand Silvana Vecchio, I peccati della lingua: disciplina ed etica della parola nella cultura medievale, Bibliotheca Biographica Sezione Storico-Antropologica (Roma: Istituto della Enciclo

Italiana, 1987), pp. 141–74. For evidence o John o Wales as the author o this texSieg ried Wenzel, ‘Te Continuing Li e o William Peraldus’sSumma vitiorum’, in Ad litteram: Authoritative exts and their Medieval Readers, ed. by Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr, NotreDame Con erences in Medieval Studies, 3 (Notre Dame, IN: University o Notre Dame1992), pp. 135–63 (pp. 142–43).

6 Te sigla are taken rom the list o manuscript witnesses o the complete transmio the text that I have compiled. In the list below, I have given the olios on which Petesurvives and indications o the manuscript’s provenance.

7 Besides MSS D1, D2, D3, D4, and L11 mentioned in the list below, copies o theractatusmoralis de oculo completed in Britain with an unclear authorial attribution or none at all aralso extant in the ollowing manuscripts associated with Durham: Durham, Durham UnivLibrary, MS Cosin V.I.13, ols 148 v –155 v (s. xiv ex), which ormed part o the collection o theEpiscopal library in Durham (MS D6), and MS D5, ols 1r–94 v , mentioned above in n. 2.


4/28


Kw1, M4, M5, and W3). Te early interest in the text in Britain, even transted anonymously, resulted in an important and unique witness to the d

or abbreviated copies o Peter’s work,8 but by the mid- ourteenth century,complete and pro essionally prepared copies o theractatus were being madeavailable in Britain.9 Where the name o the bishop o Lincoln was addedmanuscripts o theractatus, this was ofen done by later hands in what one cansuspect was an attempt to overcome the burden o anonymity (see belowC2, C5, D1, L1, L4, L9, O7, O10, and O11).10 Still, at least some English bookowners or librarians elt reservations about ascribing the work to Grossthe evidence o Ox ord, Magdalen College, MS lat. 6 (MS O10) indicaby the feenth century there was some uncertainty about including the teGrosseteste’s oeuvre (the table o contents o the manuscript notes tha people ascribe the work to the Bishop o Lincoln, but others to John o and a later title added to Ox ord, Merton College, MS 216 (MS O15) rethat the work is only ‘said’ to be by Grosseteste. One can also observe thies o theractatus continued to be produced in Britain throughout the ourteenth and feenth centuries without the need or any authorial attributi11 Nevertheless, the attractiveness or post-medieval owners o ascribing tise to a well-known and historically important author with a docume

interest in optics may be indicated in Douai, Bibliothèque municipale451 (MS Da1), where in spite o a contemporary feenth-century attribuo the text to Peter o Limoges, a modern hand (perhaps rom Englaninscribed Grosseteste as the author at the end o the treatise. In all, an ation o theractatus moralis de oculo to Robert Grosseteste is ound in the ol-lowing extant manuscripts:

8 allinn, allinna Linnaarhiiv, MS . 230, n. 1, s. Cm 3, ols 257r–272 v (s. xiv 1) (MS n),discussed below, p. 188.

9 Worcester, Worcester Cathedral Library, MS Q.14, ols 115r–183r (s. xiv) (MS Wr2); Worcester, Worcester Cathedral Library, MS Q.72, ols 125ra–160 va (s. xiv med) (MS Wr3).

10 Attributing the text to an author rom ‘Lymochia’ can be seen in the same light, asalready in MS D5 (see above, in n. 2), and MS O3, ols 28rb–59 vb (s. xv in) and MS O4, ols302ra–340 va (anno 1444/5 or afer), both mentioned above in n. 3.

11 Tese can be ound in Ox ord, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 122 (SC 1985), ols 6r–54 v (s. xiv in) (MS O2); Wisbech, own Library, MS 7, ols 41r–76r (s. xiv ex) (MS Ws); Ox ord,Bodleian Library, MS Barlow 29 (SC 6426), ols 42ra–48 vb (s. xv 1) (MS O18); and, i it is oBritish provenance, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 3605, pp. 1–213 (MS P13).


5/28

- 171

B1: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS lat439, ols 228ra–256 va [tabula on ols 257r–260r] (anno 1450) attributedto ‘dominus linconiensis’ [ sic ].12

By: Bryn Mawr, Bryn Mawr College Library, MS 18, ols 44ra–102rb (s. xiii/ xiv) attributed to ‘Lincolniensis’ (in a different hand than the scribe’s written in England; the manuscript belonged to William Wynham in tmid- ourteenth century, was in the possession o the dukes o Newuntil 1937/8, and was donated to Bryn Mawr College in 1995 by PhyGoodhart Gordan (olim Goodhart MS 66).13

C2: Cambridge, Jesus College, MS Q.G.19 (67), ols 170r–225 v (s. xiv 2)attributed to ‘Lincolniensis’ (in a later hand) — the manuscript wasthe library o the Benedictine cathedral priory o St. Cuthbert in Dham (it was MS G and is mentioned twice in the 1395 list o books served in the cloister).14

C5: Cambridge, St John’s College, MS D.16 (91), ols II.1r–24 v [tabula ochapter and section headings on ol. 25ra–vb] (s. xiv 1) attributed to ‘Domi-nus [in the colophon: ‘venerabilis’] Robertus Lincolniensis’ (in a lhand),olim Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 279, pt II (the manuscript ismentioned in the Peterhouse catalogue o chained andelectio booksrom 1418 with later additions [as MS 163; Peter’s text is item 2] was donated to St John’s College by William Beale, master o the co1633–44.15

12 Isabella Schiller-Dienstbier, ‘Die handschri tliche Überlie erung der Werke Heiligen Augustinus in Ostdeutschland nebst Edition einer bisher unbekannten Predigt Kirchenvaters’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Universität Wien, 2009), p. 80; Rainer K Die handschrifliche Überlie erung der Werke des Heiligen Augustinus, Sitzungsberichte derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschafen, 8 vols (Wien: Böhlau, 1969–79), . 1 (19102; with in ormation supplied by Dr Peter Jörg Becker.

13 Description available at Bryn Mawr College Library Special Collections: Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts [accessed 12 May 2011].

14 Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 62; Montague Rhodes James, A DescriptiveCatalogue o the Manuscripts in the Library o Jesus College, Cambridge (London: Clay, 1895), pp. 103–04;Catalogi veteres librorum ecclesiae cathedralis Dunelm[ensis] , [ed. by J. Raine],Publications o the Surtees Society, 7 (London: Nichols, 1838), pp. 77, 79.

15 Peter D. Clarke,Te University and College Libraries o Cambridge, Corpus o BritishMedieval Library Catalogues, 10 (London: British Library in association with the BrAcademy, 2002), pp. 485–86; Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue o the


6/28


Da1: Douai, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 451, ols 44ra–61 vb (s. xv med)attributed to ‘magister Petrus de Sapiera Lemovicensis dyocesis’ (aa modern hand at the end o the text to ‘Robertus Lincolniensis’) — xvii it was in the Benedictine English College, where it belonged toliam Hyde who gave it to the Bibliothèque municipale in 1646.16

Db: Dublin, rinity College Library, MS 115 (A.5.3), pp. 301–61 [alphacal tabula or letters A–V on pp. 362–65] (c . anno 1375–77) attributedto ‘lincolniensis’ in the colophon o the text and in the list o contethe manuscript added in the late ourteenth century — rom Englthe scribe was Adam de Stocton,lector in the Convent o Austin riars in

Cambridge.17

D1: Durham, Durham Cathedral Library, MS A.IV.18, ols 1r–62 v (s. xv 1)attributed by Tomas Rud in the early eighteenth century to RobeGrosseteste — most olios are severely damaged and trimmed at ththe text begins now near the end o the Prologue with the words ‘respectu ceterarum’ and ends shortly afer the beginning o Chapte with the words ‘ad te ugit territa turba’ (with the loss o olios af point).18

D2: Durham, Durham Cathedral Library, MS B.III.18, ols 292ra–319ra (s. xv 1) attributed to ‘Lincolniensis’ in a medieval hand in the table o tents o the volume on ol. i v , in the scribal hand in the colophon o thetext on ol. 319r, and in a modern hand on ol. 292r; it is probably basedon MS D3 — the manuscript is among the books connected with Ric

Manuscripts in the Library o St John’s College Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1913), pp. 121–22.

16 Robert Grosseteste, De decem mandatis, ed. by Richard C. Dales and Edward B. King,Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, 10 (Ox ord: British Academy by Ox ord Universit1987), p. xi;Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements, 7 vols(Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1849–1885), (1878), 261–63.

17 Marvin L. Colker,rinity College Library Dublin: Descriptive Catalogue o the Medieva and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts, 2 vols (Aldershot: Scolar, 1991), , 238–44; Marvin LColker, rinity College Library Dublin: Descriptive Catalogue o the Medieval and Renaissa Latin Manuscripts, Supplement One (Dublin: Four Courts, 2008), pp. 180–81; Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 24; Tomas K. Abbott,Catalogue o the Manuscripts in the Libraryo rinity College, Dublin (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1900), p. 14.

18 Tomas Rud,Codicum manuscriptorum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis catalogus cla sicus (Durham: Humble, 1825), p. 70.


7/28

- 173

Bell, monk o Durhamc . 1426–79; it was in the library o the Benedictinecathedral priory o St Cuthbert in Durham by the later feenth century19

D3: Durham, Durham Cathedral Library, MS B.III.19, ols 203 va

–239 va

[theindex to the our texts in the manuscript, ound on ols 253 va–258ra,attributes all o them to ‘Lincolniensis’] (s. xiv ex) attributed to ‘Liniensis’ by a later hand in the table o contents o the volume on v — written in England (e.g., an English gloss ‘help mary’ on ol. 237r [nearthe beginning o Chapter 14 o Peter’s text] is probably in the schand); the manuscript was in the library o the Benedictine cathed priory o St Cuthbert in Durham by the mid-feenth century.20

D4: Durham, Durham Cathedral Library, MS B.IV.29, ols 128ra–163 vb (s. xiv 1) attributed to ‘Lincolniensis’ in a medieval hand at the bottom o163 v , in the hand o Tomas Swalwell (d. 1539) in the table o contentthe volume on ol. i v , and in Tomas Rud’s hand at the top o ol. 128r —the manuscript was in the library o the Benedictine cathedral priorSt. Cuthbert in Durham by the mid-feenth century; the last ew woo the treatise (‘qui sine ne uiuit et regnat. Amen.’) were added in a ern hand on ol. 163 vb rom MS D3.21

F1: Frank urt, Stadt- u. Universitätsbibliothek, MS Praed. 16, ols 3ra–434ra [alphabetical tabula on ols 434r–437r] (c . anno 1460) attributedto ‘dominus Linconiensis’ — written in Germany; it was MS 820 inDominican library in Frank urt (and still belonged to the Dominicanthe beginning o the sixteenth century).22

Kw1: Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 1214, pp. 233–278 (s. xv 2), attrib-uted to ‘Linconiensis’ — rom Cracow; apparently owned by Arnuo Mirzinec (d.c . 1490); perhaps an example o the abbreviated versiomentioned below, pp. 186–87.23

19 Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 67; Rud,Codicum manuscriptorum, pp. 161–63; with in ormation kindly supplied by Mr Alan J. Piper.

20 Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 67; Rud,Codicum manuscriptorum, p. 163.21 Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 68; Rud,Codicum manuscriptorum,

pp. 233–34; with in ormation kindly supplied by Mr Alan J. Piper.22 Gerhardt Powitz, Die Handschrifen des Dominikanerklosters und des Leonhardstifes

in Frank urt/Main, Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frank urt/Main, 2. 1(Frank urt am Main: Klostermann, 1968), pp. 30–36.

23 M. Kowalczyk and others,Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi Latinorum quiin Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur, vol. : Numeros continens inde a 1191 usq


8/28


L1: London, British Library, MS Additional 16167, ols 84ra–107 va [tabulaon ol. 83 va–vb] (s. xv) attributed in a modern hand to ‘Robertus Grosstete, Licolniensis [!] episcopus’.24

L3: London, British Library, MS Arundel 200, ols 15r–43 v [alphabeticaltabula o topics on ols 43 v –48 v ] (s. xv 1) attributed to ‘Robertus GrostesteLincolniensis episcopus’ in the colophon — the outer leaves have lost rom the rst quire so that the text is now missing rom the Proto Chapter 6, v (the copy begins in Chapter 6, v [Inc., ol. 1r: ‘ab aliquibusnon videri prodit in publicum’]) and rom Chapter 7, iii to Chapter(the last words in Chapter 7, iii, ol. 18 v , being: ‘Per comes cogitationeseo quod sint’; and the rst words in Chapter 7, x, ol. 19r, being: ‘con erre potuit salutis incrementa’); it was donated by Henry Howard, o -

olk, to the Royal Society.25

L4: London, British Library, MS Cotton Otho D. x, ols 2r–21 v (s. xiv med)attributed by a later hand to ‘Robert […]’ — it was severely damagre in 1731.26

L5: London, British Library, MS Cotton Vitellius C. xiv, ols 7ra–30rb (s. xivex/xv in) attributed to ‘Lyncolniensis’ in the colophon — it, too, was

aged by re.27

1270 (Kraków: Księgarnia akademicka, 2000), pp. 108–13. Arnulphus de Mirzyniec acha BA at the university in Cracow in 1451 and was later elected rector o the university. like to thank A. Sobańska in the Department o Manuscripts or checking this manuscr

24 J. A. Herbert,Catalogue o Romances in the Department o Manuscripts in the Britis Museum, 3 vols (London: British Museum, 1910; repr. Bath, 1962), , 413; CharlesMartin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum atris Johannis Peckham, archiepiscopi cantuarien sis […] Published by the Authority o the Lords Commissioners o Her Majesty’s reasurythe Direction o the Master o the Rolls, ed. by Charles rice Martin, Rerum Britannicarum

Medii Aevi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials o Great Britain and Ireland duriMiddle Ages, 77, 3 vols (London: Longman, 1882–85), , p. xcvi;Catalogue o Additions tothe Manuscripts in the British Museum in the Years – (London: BritishMuseum, 1864), p. 157; description available through the ‘Search our Catalogue ArchivManuscripts’ page at the British Library web site [accessed 25 July 2013].

25 Ron B. Tomson, ‘Jordanus de Nemore: Opera’, Mediaeval Studies, 38 (1976), 97–144(p. 114); Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvi;Catalogue o the Manuscripts inthe British Museum, New Series 1.1: Te Arundel Manuscripts (London: British Museum, 1834), p. 53; description available through the ‘Search our Catalogue Archives and Manuscripat the British Library web site [accessed 25 July 2013].

26 Elizabeth C. eviotdale, ‘Some Classied Catalogues o the Cottonian Library’, British Library Journal , 18. 1 (1992), 74–87.

27 Walter Röll, ‘Der “Convertimini”- raktat als uelle der “Gesta Romanorum”’, in Fest-


9/28

- 175

L6: London, British Library, MS Royal 6 E.v, ols 211rb–227rb (s. xiv 2) attrib-uted to ‘Lincolniensis’ in the opening rubric — the manuscript was inlibrary o the Augustinian priory in Merton (Surrey).28

L9: London, British Library, MS Royal 12 E.xxi, ols 105r–145r (s. xv 1) attrib-uted to ‘Lincolniensis alias Grostheed’ in a later hand — some secto the chapters are missing (e.g., Chapters 6, vi; 6, viii; 6, ix; 6, xi; 7, vii; etc.) and the rest is highly abbreviated; the manuscript belongeArchbishop Cranmer and John, lord Lumley.29

L11: London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 483, ols 4r–70 v [tabulae on ols1r–3r (chapter and section headings) and 70 va–74 va (alphabetical registero topics)] (s. xiv in) attributed to ‘dominus Robertus grostest episcoLyncolniensis’ — the manuscript was in the library o the Benediccathedral priory o St Cuthbert in Durham.30

M4: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS Clm 17477, ols 217ra–256 vb [tabula on ols 211r–216 v ] (anno 1490) attributed to ‘Rudbertus Lin-

schrif Walter Haug und Burghart Wachinger , ed. by J. Janota and others, 2 vols ( übingen:Niemeyer, 1992), , 485–504 (p. 487); Grosseteste, De decem mandatis, ed. by Dales and King, p. xv; Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvii; Herbert,Catalogue o Romances, ,136–43; A Catalogue o the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, Deposited in the British Museu (London: Hansard, 1802), p. 427; description available through the ‘Search our CataloArchives and Manuscripts’ page at the British Library web site [accessed 25 July 2013].

28 Stuart Jenks, ‘Astrometeorology in the Middle Ages’, Isis, 74 (1983), 185–210; ServusGieben, ‘Robert Grosseteste at the Papal Curia, Lyons 1250’,Collectanea Franciscana, 41 (1971),340–93 (p. 345); Sieg ried Wenzel, ‘Robert Grosseteste’s reatise on Con ession “Deu Franciscan Studies, 30 (1970), 218–93 (pp. 226–27); Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain,

p. 130; George F. Warner and Julius P. Gilson,Catalogue o Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections, 4 vols (London: Te rustees, 1921), , 155–57; Martin, ‘Pre ace’in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvi; description available through the ‘Search our CataloArchives and Manuscripts’ page at the British Library web site [accessed 25 July 2013].

29 Warner and Gilson,Catalogue o Western Manuscripts, , 57–58; Herbert,Catalogue o Romances, , 155–66; Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvi; description avail-able through the ‘Search our Catalogue Archives and Manuscripts’ page at the British L web site [accessed 25 July 2013].

30 Ker, Medieval Libraries o Great Britain, p. 74; Montague Rhodes James and Claude Jenkins, A Descriptive Catalogue o the Manuscripts in the Library o Lambeth Palace: Mediaeval Manuscripts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), pp. 667–68; Henry John odd, A Catalogue o the Archiepiscopal Manuscripts in the Library at Lambeth Palac (London: Law and Gilbert, 1812), p. 61.


10/28


11/28

- 177

O11: Ox ord, Magdalen College, MS lat. 27, ols 111r–142 v (s. xiv) attributedto ‘lyncolniensis’ in a feenth-century hand in the title — rom Eland.35

O12: Ox ord, Magdalen College, MS lat. 202, ols 183 va–216 va [alphabeticaltabula on ols 216 va–220rb] (s. xv 1) attributed to ‘venerabilis dominusLincolniensis’ in the colophon — rom England.36

O14: Ox ord, Merton College, MS 82 (B.1.8), ols 64ra–95rb (s. xv in) attrib-uted to ‘Lincolniensis’ in a later hand (on the ylea in the table otents o the manuscript) — rom England, partially written in Oxby Tomas Lovecock, ellow o Balliol College rom 1417 until atc . 1422; acquired by Merton College in the feenth century.37

O15: Ox ord, Merton College, MS 216 (N.1.10), ols 203ra–229ra (s. xiv 1)attributed to ‘Robertus Lyncolniensis vt dicitur’ (in a later title) — manuscript was given to William Rede [Reed], provost o Winghby Nicholas o Sandwich, and by Reed to the college in 1374; it belonged to Walter Robert; the manuscript may have been intended Dominican use (it contains works by Simon Boraston, prior provinciathe Dominicans in England, 1327–36).38

O16: Ox ord, Oriel College, MS 20, ols 272r–310 v (s. xv in) attributed to‘Lincolniensis’ in the colophon — rom England, the manuscript donated to Oriel College by Robert Grafon, ellow o the college inmid-feenth century.39

35 Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , pp. xcv–xcvi; Coxe,Catalogus Codicum,, 18–19; with in ormation supplied by Dr B. C. Barker-Beneld.

36 Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvi; Coxe,Catalogus Codicum, ,91–92; with in ormation supplied by Dr B. C. Barker-Beneld.

37 R. M. homson, with N. G. Wilson, A Descriptive Catalogue o the Medieval Manuscripts o Merton College, Ox ord (Cambridge: Brewer, 2009), p. 78; Gieben, ‘RobertGrosseteste at the Papal Curia, Lyons 1250’, p. 346; Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum,

, p. xcv; F. M. Powicke,Te Medieval Books o Merton College (Ox ord: Clarendon, 1931), p. 230; Coxe,Catalogus Codicum, , 45.

38 Tomson and Wilson, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. 155; Powicke,Te Medieval Bookso Merton College, pp. 172–73; Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcv; Coxe,Catalogus codicum, , 83.

39 Martin, ‘Pre ace’, in Registrum epistolarum, , p. xcvi (who calls this ‘MS 200’); Coxe,Catalogus codicum, , 7; with in ormation supplied by Dr B. C. Barker-Beneld.


12/28


W3: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 4343, ols 34r–55 v (c . anno 1433) attributed to ‘linconiensis’ — this is a ragment (the ends in Chapter 8, vii), it belonged to the Ho bibliothek in Vienna bearly seventeenth century.40

In addition, the name o the bishop o Lincoln was associated with theractatus in a number o attested copies o the text. All o these codices are atteslibraries in Britain:

1. Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 78, item 1, attributed to Grosseteste —manuscript is mentioned in the catalogue o chained andelectio books

rom 1418 with later additions.41

2. Cambridge, St Catharine’s College, MS 3, attributed to Grossetesthe manuscript is mentioned in the list o bene actors and their b1504–22, donated by the ounder o the college, Robert Wodelarke42

3. Durham, Cathedral Priory o St Cuthbert, MS K, attributed to Gseteste — the manuscript is mentioned in the 1395 list o books served in the cloister and again in the list o books preserved in th

or novices (under ‘Libri Lincolniensis’).43

4. Durham, Cathedral Priory o St Cuthbert, MS M, attributed to Gseteste — the manuscript is mentioned in the 1395 list o books served in the cloister and again in the list o books preserved in th

or novices (under ‘Libri Lincolniensis’).44

5. Durham, Cathedral Priory o St Cuthbert, MS 9, attributed to Gseteste — the manuscript is mentioned in the 1395 list o books

40 Guido Hendrix, Hugo de Sancto Caro’s raktaat ‘De doctrina cordis’ , DocumentaLibraria, 16, 4 vols (Leuven: Bibliotheek van de Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, 1995),, 99, 108;Franz Unterkircher, Die datierten Handschrifen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek von1401 bis 1450 , Katalog der datierten Handschrifen in lateinischer Schrif in Österreich, 2.(Wien: Böhlau, 1971), p. 90;abulae codicum manu scriptorum […] in Bibliotheca PalatinaVindobonensi asservatorum, 10 vols (Wien: Geroldi, 1864–99; repr. Graz: Akademische Drucund Verlagsanstalt, 1965),, 246; with in ormation supplied by Dr Eva Irblich. Descriptioavailable at Mittelalterliche Handschrifen in österreichischen Bibliotheken [accessed 15 May 2011].

41 Clarke,Te University and College Libraries o Cambridge, p. 465.42

Clarke,Te University and College Libraries o Cambridge, p. 593.43 Catalogi veteres, [ed. by Raine], pp. 79, 83.44 Catalogi veteres, [ed. by Raine], p. 82.


13/28

- 179

served in the cloister and again in the list o books preserved in theor novices (under ‘Libri Lincolniensis’).45

6. Ipswich, Franciscan Convent, MS (unnumbered), attributed to Groseteste — the manuscript is mentioned as item 1 in the list o donorbooks rom the ourteenth century.46

7. Isleworth, Syon Monastery, MS K 45 (655), item 8, attributed to ‘Lcolniensis’ — the manuscript was donated to the monastery by JoBracebridge, priest at Syon; it is mentioned in theregistrum o the libraryo the Brethren romc . 1500–c . 1524.47

8. Isleworth, Syon Monastery, MS N 19 (873), item 1, attributed to ‘Lcolniensis’ — the manuscript was donated to the monastery by JoBracebridge, priest at Syon; it is mentioned in theregistrum o the libraryo the Brethren romc . 1500–c . 1524.48

9. Leicester, Abbey o the B.V.M. de Pratis, MS 584, item 3, attributGrosseteste — the manuscript is mentioned in the catalogue o bookthe abbey romc . 1477–94.49

10. London, Austin Friars, MS 1, attributed to Grosseteste — the manusc was describedc . 1545 by John Leland.50

In their quotations rom theractatus, English readers ofen repeated the spuri-ous attribution o the work to Grosseteste. When, or example, the feecentury author o a recently edited vernacular sermon or the Tird Sun

45 Catalogi veteres, [ed. by Raine], p. 83.46 Richard Sharpe, British Medieval Library Catalogues: List o Identications (updated

10 September 2008), p. 570; available at


14/28


in Lent, arguably the Benedictine Hugh Legat, wanted to warn his listto practise what they preach, he quoted anexemplum about a ool who con-

ounded the theologians o the university in Paris by asking them a simption: whether it is better or someone to put into practice what he knowscontinue to learn what he does not know:

Tes philosophi, musing gretlych o þys questyoun, arguit pro and contra to heiþ party. Tys ol stode style, alwey heryng afer solucioun o thys questioun. So atlaste yt was diffinit and determit amonge hem that hyt was beter and more meritrie to do that man kowde and knewe than to lere that he knode nawȝt. ‘Qwere osemyt me’, quod thys ole, ‘Ȝe be more lewdyr and vnkonyng than I, in that ȝeso gretlyche abowȝt þat ȝe can nowȝt, nat ul yllyng in dede that ȝe haue y-and can’.

Tus, says the preacher, this narrative rom ‘Lincolne, De oculo morali’ showsthat some may preach devout sermons, but they remain ‘wonder lewdrepreuabyl’.51 Te entire passage has nothing to do with Grosseteste, o courit is taken, in partially close translation, rom Peter’sractatus.52 Elsewhere inEngland the Benedictine Robert Rypon (d. afer 1419) quotes the treatistwo sermons, as do a number o other preachers o the feenth century texts are preserved in both Latin and English.53 As anexempla collection, the

51 ‘A Sermon or the Tird Sunday in Lent rom Ox ord, Bodleian Library, MS Laud706’, 62–76, ed. by Alan Fletcher, in Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland.

exts, Studies, and Interpretations, Sermo, 5 ( urnhout: Brepols, 2009), pp. 86–87. See alsoPatrick J. Horner, ‘An Edition o Five Medieval Sermons rom MS Laud misc. 706’ -lished doctoral dissertation, State University o New York at Albany, 1975), pp. 111–46

52 See the entireexemplum in the earliest printed edition o Peter’s text: Johannis Pithsani archiepiscopi Canthuariensis ordinis ratrum minorum liber de oculo morali oeliciter in (Augsburg: Sorg, 1475 [?]), Chapter 6, xi, unpaginated [hereafer Pr1]: ‘Pulcre semel conParisius quorundam theologorum multitudinem quidam stultus. Multis enim theologis ibusdam scolis Parisius congregatis ingrediens quidam stultus: “ uero”, inquit, “a vobis oquid horum est melius: acere, quod homo scit, vel addiscere, quod nescit”? unc illis smota questione disputantibus et pro et contra arguentibus stultus eorum audiens altercactacuit, expectans vt videret nem. andem conclusum est et probatum, quod melius est quod homo iam nouit, quam addiscere, quod non nouit, quia sicut dicit Apostolus, ad Roii: Non auditores legis tantum sed actores iusticabuntur. Et Ysidorus De summo bonLector strenuus potius ad implendum, que legat, quam ad sciendum erit promptissimus. enim peccatum est nescire, quod appetas, quam ea, que noueris, non implere. “Ergo”,stultus, “omnes estis dementes, qui tantum die ac nocte laboratis, vt addiscatis, quod nesnon curatis opere adimplere, quod scitis”’.

53 Sieg ried Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections om Later Medieval England: Orthodox


15/28

- 181

ractatus moralis de oculo became an important part o the pastoral work o thlate-medieval church in Britain.

Te author o theractatus is that Peter o Limoges, who was born in therst hal o the thirteenth century in Donzenac in the diocese o Limog who died on 2 November 1306.54 He was a member o the Sorbonne who wasinvolved with both the arts and the theology aculties, achieved both thecalaureate and themagister in theology,55 served as a canon o Évreux, was acopyist o sermons, and was also widely known as an astronomer.56 His treatiseon the eye, a medieval best seller, was written while he was at the Sorbbetween 1275/6 and 1289,57 and was transmitted extensively. In spite o therebeing many anonymous copies o the work, the evidence points to PetLimoges as its author. First, though none o the pecia copies (including theimportant one in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 16395 P7)) contains an authorial attribution, Peter’s name appears in other early ies o the text (and those centred around Paris) more ofen than that o other person.58 Some o the best copies o the text also come rom Peter’slibrary. As will be seen, one o these latter manuscripts, Paris, Bibliothnationale de France, MS lat. 16396 (MS P8), is another important copy has corrections to the text and marginal comments in what may be Peter’s

Preaching in the Age o Wycli , Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 53 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 328.

54 Barthélemy Hauréau, ‘Sermonnaires’, in Histoire littéraire de la France, 41 vols in 42(Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1733–1981), (1873), pp. 460–63; see also HieronySpettmann, ‘Das Schrifchen “De oculo morali” und sein Ver asser’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 16 (1923), 317–22.

55 Nicole Bériou, ‘La Prédication au béguinage de Paris pendant l’année liturgiq1272–1273’, Recherches augustiniennes, 13 (1978), 105–229 (p. 108 and n. 13).

56 Léopold Delisle, Le Cabinet des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale, HistoireGénérale de Paris, 6, 3 vols in 4 (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1868–81), (1874), 16Peter’s activity as an astronomer see Lynn Torndike, ‘Peter o Limoges on the Comet o Isis, 36 (1945–46), 3–6. Peter’s university dossier is ound in Paris, Bibliothèque nationaFrance, MS lat. 16390, ols 9r–14 v .

57 Richard Newhauser, ‘Der “ ractatus moralis de oculo” des Petrus von Limoges und exempla’, in Exempel und Exempelsammlungen, ed. by Walter Haug and Burghart Wachinger,Fortuna vitrea, 2 ( übingen: Niemeyer, 1991), pp. 95–136 (pp. 99–100).

58 See Spettmann, ‘Das Schrifchen “De oculo morali” und sein Ver asser’, pp. 318–19see the observation on this point, rst mentioned by Spettmann, in A. eetaert, ‘Jean Pecin Dictionnaire de Téologie Catholique, ed. by A. Vacant and others, 15 vols (Paris: Letouzey etAné, 1903–50), . 1 (1933), pp. 100–40 (pp. 114–15).


16/28


hand. Furthermore, entries in Peter’s handwriting in the more than sevbooks still extant rom his personal library emphasize a number o pasthe texts he commented on that are directly used in the treatise on the e59 But the last, and most telling, bit o evidence is provided by Peter’s exta versity papers in which he not only explicitly re ers to the treatise oubut also gives a summary o some o his sources or Chapter 11.60

Te work was originally intended or university members and prelatParis; they are addressed — and chastised — requently in the treatise. C11 is devoted entirely to the presuppositions necessary or scolares to lead amoral li e. Chapter 12 is devoted to the vision o prelates. But even bthis, all parts o the work are lled to overowing with citations rom-

ully named authorities who would have been impressive in the school as evidence o one’s advanced learning. From Latin patristics all major

59 See Peter’s additions to his copy o Bacon’s Perspectiva in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale deFrance, MS lat. 7434, ols 13r–48 v , a selection rom which can be ound in Madeleine Mabill‘Pierre de Limoges et ses méthodes de travail’, in Hommages André Boutemy, ed. by G. Cambier,Collection Latomus, 145 (Brussels: Revue d’études Latines, 1976), pp. 244–51 (p. 247text in this manuscript was identied by Alexandre Birkenmajer as Bacon’s Perspectiva in ‘Pierrede Limoges commentateur de Richard de Fournival’, Isis, 40 (1949), 22.

60 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 16390, ol. 13 va: ‘Ad hoc autem, quodscolaris ad hanc scienciam per eccionem attingat, tria principaliter requiruntur, videlicetitas in intellectu, puritas in affectu, studiositas in effectu. Primo, dico, requiritur humiintellectu, vnde Salomon, Proverbiorum xi: Vbi humilitas, ibi sapiencia, et Mathei xi decia increata: Conteor tibi pater etcetera, et asina Balaam etcetera, et Bernardus de scalaet Ysidorus Libro soliloquiorum et Ptolomeus in Almagesti: ui inter sapientes humiliorera. Hec omnia requirelibro de oculo, xi capitulo de scolaribus, primo capitulello. Hec autemscolaris humilitas secundum Hugonem Didascalicon libro tercio tria continet documentalicet ut a nemine discere erubescat; ut nullam scienciam uel scripturam uilem habeat; uscienciam adeptus uerit, ceteros non contempnat. Propter primum ait Augustinus: Egoet tot annorum episcopus etcetera, et Paulus ab Anania et Gamaliele ibi. Hec omnia requsupra, scilicetlibro de oculo, xi capitulo de scolaribus, primo capitulello […]. Secundo requiriin uiro scolastico puritas in affectu. Sapiencia enim, cum sit speciosior sole, ut dicitur S7, mundum requirit hospicium et immundum habitaculum detestatur, sicut enim candela

acta etcetera, et oculus lippus etcetera. Hec omnia require in dictolibro de oculo, predicto capit-ulo xi, primo capitulello […]. ercio requiritur studiositas in effectu — Bernardus adde Monte Dei: De cotidiana lectione, et Seneca: Cum multa percurreris, et idem: ui ssua torquerent. Sed multi sunt scolares desides etcetera, Seneca: Desidioso studere etcettalibus poeta: Sunt quidam, qui scire uolunt etcetera. Hec omnia require dictolibro de oculo, xicapitulo, capitulello v o’. (My emphasis.) Te text has been printed in Louis-Jacques Bataillo‘Sermoni e orazioni d’ambiente universitario parigino nel sec. ’, Documenti e studi sullatradizione losoca medievale, 5 (1994), 297–329 (pp. 307–11). See Bériou, ‘La Prédication abéguinage de Paris pendant l’année liturgique, 1272–1273’, p. 108, n. 13.


17/28

- 183

texts are mentioned rom Ambrose to theVitae Patrum; Athens is representedby Aristotle and Plato; medieval historiography by, among others, Helino Froidmont; medicine by Urso Salernitanus, and so on. Peter’s list o nauthorities is very extensive, but it represents at times the nal (not the imdiate) sources he used. Such names as Roger Bacon are not mentioned itreatise, though as I demonstrated some years ago Bacon’s Perspectiva suppliedPeter with the oundation o his method o coordinating the science oand theology.61 Trough Peter’s work, the development o Perspectivist opticthat is so prominent in Bacon’s text was made t or the pulpit. Peter’s bo-ings are clear not only rom what he quotes rom Bacon’s treatise but alshis glosses in his own manuscript o Bacon’s work, Paris, Bibliothèque nale de France, MS lat. 7434. Tis manuscript was copied or him by the scribe whose hand we nd in MS P8, a codex that orms part o the bequthe author’s library. Peter’s technique o supplying his readers with whatbe described as an overabundance o authoritative quotations in conjunc with the subject matter o moralized natural science resulted in a highlycess ul work. It was rst disseminated through the pecia system recently devel-oped at the university in Paris and elsewhere, and it is included in the 1taxation list o books available at the de Sens amily’s stationarius shop where,

as Louis-Jacques Bataillon demonstrated, Peter o Limoges was a veryestablished customer.62 Very soon afer its original publication it was transmit-ted not only in university circles but also in monastic, raternal, and sececclesiastical environments (initially, and with the greatest requency, a

61 Richard Newhauser, ‘ Inter scientiam et populum: Roger Bacon, Peter o Limoges, andthe “ ractatus moralis de oculo”’, in Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie und Teologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und exte / Afer thCondemnations o 1277: Philosophy and Teology at the University o Paris in the Last Quaro the Tirteenth Century. Studies and exts, ed. by Jan A. Aertsen, Kent Emery, Jr, and AndreasSpeer, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 28 (Berlin: Gruyter, 2001), pp. 682–703.

62 Te 1304 taxation list is ound in theChartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. byHeinrich Denie and Emile Chatelain, 4 vols (Paris: Delalain, 1889–97). Peter’s work is tioned in the later list by Andreas de Sens in . 1 (1891), 109 (= no. 642). On the workde Sens amily see Hugues V. Shooner, ‘La Production du livre par la pecia’, in La Production dulivre universitaire au moyen âge: exemplar et pecia, ed. by Louis J. Bataillon and others, Actes dusymposium tenu au Collegio San Bonaventura de Grotta errata en mai, 1983 (Paris: Éddu Centre national de la recherche scientique, 1988), pp. 17–37 (pp. 23–24), and in the s volume Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, ‘Te Book rade at the University o Par1250–ca. 1350’, pp. 41–114 (pp. 56–64; with urther bibliography on the pecia system). In thesame collection see also Louis Jacques Bataillon, ‘Comptes de Pierre de Limoges pour lde livres’, pp. 265–73.


18/28


the Cistercians), and it was copied in almost every European region. Te is still extant in 219 manuscripts, with evidence o at least orty- ourcopies that have been lost or were destroyed. Peter’s treatise was printedtimes at the end o the feenth and beginning o the sixteenth centuriestimes in the middle o the seventeenth century, and is available in an Itranslation by Teolo Romano printed in 1496.63

With all o Peter’s attention to the ndings o contemporary opticsis still justied in maintaining that the treatise on the eye was used primas a preaching aid because o two acts that touch on the overall transmo the work as well as on its treatment in individual copies. First, a unreception analysis reveals that medieval audiences understood the tebelonging to the system o preaching aids and that it was perceived genas typical o the genre o theexempla collection.64 In nearly one-third o allextant manuscripts Peter’s text has been transmitted with other works thclear representatives o this genre, such as Caesarius o Heisterbach’s Dialogusmiraculorum, Gregory the Great’s Dialogi, Robert Holcot’sConvertimini (i itis by Holcot), Jacobus de Cessoli’s Libellus super ludo schachorum, and a largenumber o alphabetically ordered, anonymous collections oexempla.65 Even inthose cases in which Peter’s text has been preserved withexempla collections in

miscellany manuscripts, one is generally dealing with codices that were-bled at the latest in the feenth century.66 Tey, too, are witnesses to the effort

63 Te rst complete English translation o the text is now available:Te Moral reatise onthe Eye, trans. by Richard Newhauser, Medieval Sources in ranslation, 51 ( oronto: PontInstitute o Mediaeval Studies, 2012).

64 On questions o method in unctional reception analysis, consult Georg S‘Gebrauchs unktionale ext- und Überlie erungsanalyse’, inÜberlie erungsgeschichtliche

Prosa orschung. Beiträge der Würzburger Forschergruppe zur Methode und Auswertung , ed. byKurt Ruh, exte und extgeschichte, 19 ( übingen: Niemeyer, 1985), pp. 5–36.65 It should be noted that the 1304 taxation list mentions theractatus among a list o other

preaching aids. See also Louis-Jacques Bataillon, ‘Les Problèmes de l’édition des sermouvrages pour prédicateurs au e siècle’, inTe Editing o Teological and Philosophical exts

om the Middle Ages. Acts o the Con erence Arranged by the Department o Classical LaUniversity o Stockholm, 29–31 August 1984 , ed. by Monika Asztalos, Acta UniversitatisStockholmiensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 30 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 105–20 (pp. 115–16).

66 See, or example, the excerpts rom Peter’s treatise and their surroundings in Convento dei Frati Minori, MS Com. 442 (rst hal o the ourteenth century). CompaCittà del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 1042, and London, BLibrary, MS Royal 12 E.xxi (rst hal o the feenth century).


19/28

- 185

to align Peter’s text with its generic peers. I one, then, also includes cothe ractatus that have been preserved in manuscripts with sermon collectio(even leaving aside the ew codices that contain the treatise and copies lated sermons), one can take account o nearly two-thirds o all the copthe ractatus. On the other hand, it is striking that the text has been preservein only our manuscripts that demonstrate an exclusive interest in worknatural science or natural philosophy.67 Second, the scribal treatment o Peter’s work in individual manuscript copies reveals that medieval scribes expengreat deal o effort in drawing attention to those portions o the text that whave been o greatest service or developing and embellishing a sermoning clearly thedivisiones o the topics o the chapters, composing sometime very elaborate topical indices, and noting the presence o the text’s manyexem- pla in the margin o the manuscripts. Te notations o the illustrative matein the text by scribes and readers alike are not simply a matter o the comtransmission o the work; they show the way in which the treatise was ally used. No oneexemplum is identied as such in the margins o all copies othe text, and no two textual witnesses treat the work’s illustrative materia completely identical manner. Some manuscripts, such as MS O7; ErlanUniversitätsbibliothek, MS 277 (oc . 1309) (MS E); and Soest, Stadtarchiv

und Wissenschafliche Stadtbibliothek, MS 18 (o the late ourteenth cent(MS So), contain in the margins up to ninety or more notations o theexempla in Peter’s text. Teexempla show how the emphasis in Peter’s work lies onthe meaning ulness o the nature o vision as it moves rom a merely phenomenon to a moral and spiritual one. Seeing correctly — that is tousing the principles o Perspectivist optics to interpret visual perceptionequated here with moral edication.68

67 In the ollowing I have given the olios on which the copies o theractatus moralis de oculo can be ound. 1) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz (olim DeutscheStaatsbibliothek), MS Hamilton 630, ols 136ra–186 va (alphabetical index 186 va–188rb) ( our-teenth century). Te manuscript is rom northern Italy and belonged at one time to the Jesin orino. 2) Frank urt am Main, Stadt- u. Universitätsbibliothek, MS Praed. 44, ols 293r–310r (c . 1440). Te copy is incomplete; the scribe broke off his work in Chapter 7. Te manuscris rom Germany and was in the library o the Dominican cloister in Frank urt (whereMS 1071) be ore the eighteenth century. 3) Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea LaurenzianaPlut. XXX cod. 24, ols 29ra–66 vb (feenth century). Te manuscript was copied by a certain Johannes. It is part o the original collection o the library and contains many texts on t ject o astronomy. 4) London, British Library, MS Royal 6 E.v, ols 211rb–227rb (second hal othe ourteenth century), attributed to ‘Lincolniensis’ (MS L6). Te manuscript contains mtexts on natural science which are all attributed here to Robert Grosseteste.

68 For recent studies o the implications o Peter’s view o moral vision, consult H


20/28


Te textual transmission o Peter’s work demonstrates that these endeducating vision were thought to be achieved best by having the ull consult. One is struck, in other words, by the relative lack o redactions work: most copies o the treatise I have seen are attempts to reproduentire text, though they may no longer be complete in their current sta preservation. Tere is, however, one important abbreviation in the transmsion history o Peter’s work that deserves urther mention. his redis preserved in at least nine codices, all o them apparently rom soGermany or Austria, where they were eagerly circulated early in the hisPeter’s text in a monastic environment. Te earliest manuscript in this grhowever, Sigmaringen, Fürstlich Hohenzollern’sche Bibliothek, MS 12Sg), which is also the earliest dated copy o theractatus moralis de oculo, showssome connection to Paris, where the copy was nished in 1303 accordingcolophon. Other manuscripts rom the ourteenth century that are witnto this redaction are monastic productions: Kremsmünster, BenediktinerMS CC 336 ( rom the beginning o the ourteenth century) (MS K3Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS Teol. lat120a, which was in Cistercian use (second quarter o the ourteenth ce(MS B5). But copies o this line o transmission also moved out o the

tery. Some circulated among the canons regular: Klosterneuburg, AugusChorherren-Stif, Stifsbibliothek, MS 1100 (dated 1393) (MS Ks); and VoAugustiner-Chorherren-Stif, MS 390 (early ourteenth century) (MS VStill other copies demonstrate that there was an interest in this abbrev version among the secular clergy and raternal orders: Wien, ÖsterreicNationalbibliothek, MS 1571 ( ourteenth century) (MS W2), was ownea ‘plebanus de oberndor ’ in the late Middle Ages; and Wien, BibliothTeresianums, MS 2° 26 (anno 1436) (MS W5), is a Dominican product

written by ‘ rater Fridericus de ullna’ in Krems, who was a ‘cappellathe Dominican nuns in Imbach (near Krems).69 Tus, there is a airly circum-

L. Kessler, ‘Speculum’,Speculum, 86 (2011), 1–41; Richard Newhauser, ‘Peter o LimogesOptics, and the Science o the Senses’, in Pleasure and Danger in Perception: Te Five Senses inthe Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. by Corine Schlei and Richard Newhauser (=Te Senses& Society, 5. 1 (2010)), pp. 28–44; Dallas G. Denery, II,Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics, Teology, and Religious Li e, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Li e andTought, 4th ser., 63 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 75–115.

69 Also in this line o transmission: Ox ord, Bodleian Library, MS Lat. th. e. 15; andNárodní knihovna ČR, MS XIV.E.25 (2559). wo other copies may belong here, asKraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 1214 (second hal o the feenth century); and K


21/28

- 187

scribed geographical reach o this line o transmission, once it lef Francan initial monastic concentration o the copies, ollowed by a widening sphere o its inuence.

What makes this redaction distinctive textually is the act that it is about hal as long as most o the other copies o theractatus moralis de oculo.Because the transmission o this redaction began during Peter’s li etimmust ask whether it is not evidence o a sanctioned abbreviation. Such asibility, however, can easily be denied because o a very telling scribal vthe transmission o the redaction seen in all o its copies. Chapter 6 o work has the rubric ‘On thirteen extraordinary phenomena that contain mlessons on eyesight’ in all copies o the Prologue o the work, where given o the chapter headings.70 Te rubric o the chapter itsel varies some- what rom what is given in the Prologue, but it also states explicitly thateen extraordinary phenomena will be analyzed in the chapter. Tis is also the rubrics or Chapter 6 are treated in the Prologue and text o the abbrev version, and yet Section ix o Chapter 6 is missing rom all copies o thtion. Tis section is, to be sure, merely a very brie paragraph, but it has nably been skipped over by the scribes o the redaction, and they either cthe numbering o all the ollowing sections by giving Section x the num

Section xi the number x, and so on, thus arriving at a total o twelve seor Chapter 6, or they skip the number nine and ollow on sequentially Section x, which yields a broken numerical ordering: vii, viii, x, xi, and Nor is this the only material missing rom the abbreviation: the end o thsection o Chapter 6 has been dropped rom this redaction, as have alsosequences o material rom the ends o Sections vii, x, and xii in ChaSections i, v, and vi in Chapter 8; and so on. What is missing here amoto the ull range oexempla that Peter included in his text to make it use ul

or preachers. Tis abbreviated redaction, then, reveals itsel to be a kin Reader’s Digest version o the treatise on the eye: everything that one mig want to read in Peter’s work as the bare bones o what would help prepsermon, but not all o the extensive citations that would have made it mtime-consuming to have duplicated, and more expensive to have acquircopy o the complete text.

Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 1245 (second hal o the ourteenth century). I have not beto examine these two codices yet.

70 Prol [Pr1]: ‘Sextum de tredecim mirabilibus circa oculi uisionem moralem continebus in ormacionem’.


22/28


It is testimony to the early perception o how use ul Peter’s work cothat the southern German and Austrian redaction is not the only abbreviao the work that was completed within or shortly afer Peter’s li etime. A pendent abbreviation, written partially in an Anglicana hand early in theteenth century, was brought to the Baltic region presumably by DominiIt probably ormed part o the library o the Dominicans in allinn today still in the City Archives there. Tough it is not complete, breaking Section i o Chapter 11, it too demonstrates that preachers wanted to mao the moral and scientic material Peter o Limoges had made availabl pulpit shortly afer it had been published even i they did not want to taktime or the expense to acquire a complete copy o the work.71

Te transmission o Peter’s work by pecia veries how much o the text ismissing in the later abbreviations. Tis method o transmission also accor the relatively high number o early manuscripts o the completeractatus

produced in the environment o the university in Paris, and in act o t-tively large number o complete thirteenth-century copies still extantgether. Te system aimed to provide students and other readers with accucopies o texts they would need at a much aster rate than had been pbe ore. It allowed the stationers ( stationarii in the narrow sense o this term),

or university-affiliated book procurers, to acquire an exemplar o a textit into numbered pieces, or peciae, o equal length and offer these pieces orent to scribes at a predetermined ee so that many copies o the workbe produced simultaneously, this entire process alling under the sup-sion o the university apparatus. Te presence o pecia marks in three codices(Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS Plut. XXXI sin. 8 ( ourcentury) [MS Fz2]; Linz, Oberösterreichische Landesbibliothek [ ormBundesstaatliche Studienbibliothek], MS 314 (olim 90) ( ourteenth century)[MS Lz]; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 16395 (c . anno1285–95) [MS P7]), ensures that these manuscripts are, at least theoreti witnesses to the state o the complete text in its earliest transmission iin the orm in which Peter delivered it to the de Sens amily’s stationarius shop

or publication. Furthermore, indications o pecia copying are ound in oneother witness (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 15942 (c . anno1275–89) (MS P6)), such as a change in the ductus o the scribal hand pecia breaks come in other manuscripts, indicating that this manuscript,

71 Tis is MS n; see above at n. 8. See also Richard Newhauser, iina Kala, and MFriedenthal, ‘Te Work o an English Scribe in a Manuscript in Estonia’,Scriptorium, 62 (2008),139–48 and pl. 19.


23/28

- 189

is a product o the pecia system. Finally, two manuscripts o Peter’s work thacome rom his own library have an obvious claim to be included in the pus used to establish the text: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, M16396 (c . anno 1300) (MS P8), and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de FrancMS lat. 16435 (thirteenth century) (MS P9). hese six manuscripts, thhave a theoretically ounded or historical claim to be included in the corpestablish a ‘semi-critical’ edition, that is to say, not one that represents a-nicant variants rom all 219 witnesses to the work’s transmission, but oncan legitimately be taken to represent the orm o the text as it was conand rst published by its author.

O course, a theoretical oundation that assures us o a manuscript’s pthe more or less direct line o descent rom the archetype does not alsoantee in practical terms a per ect text. Pecia copies clearly descend rom a textthat is close to the author’s original, but it cannot be claimed that the pecia system provides more security or the value o a witness than must ultibe demonstrated by the quality o its text. Although the presence o pecia indi-cations in a codex certies that its scribe worked within a sanctioned syonly a comparative analysis o the copy can tell how worthwhile it actuMS Fz2, or example, completed in the ourteenth century, probably in

is only a second-rate witness to the actual language o Peter’s work. Te so MS Fz2 committed many eye skips, passing over several lines o tetime, including what must have been an entire side o a olio o his copythe midst o his work on Chapter 8. When he looked up rom the text, h writing about Pride; when he looked back down, he was in the middle osection on Envy. He seems never to have noticed the difference:

[MS Fz2, ol. 187Brb] [Pride:] In hoc similes vespertilionibus que ideo debiliter vid-ent quia humor cristallinus, qui est oculo necessarius ad videndum, transit [other

copies continue at this point: in substanciam alarum […] [424 words, equivalento two columns o text in this copy, are missing. Te text continues without pausein the section on Envy:] Hinc est quod illi, qui sunt [ ol. 187B va] illustrioris meriti,magis subiacent invidie et detractioni.

([Pride:] In this they are similar to bats which see poorly because the crystalline uthat is necessary or the eye to see is trans erred [other copies continue: into the sstance o the wings […]. Te text continues in the section on Envy:] For that reaso people who are o more distinguished worth are more subject to envy and slander

Te scribe also on some occasions wrote two variants into his text whencould not resolve the abbreviation o a word, sometimes going back to out the wrong expansion and sometimes simply leaving both possibilities


24/28


text. Te sloppiness o this scribe is not completely his ault; his copy bin a group with MS P6, the earliest datable copy o Peter’s work that w produced through the pecia system. ogether, they offer a series o variants amisreadings that by comparison with the other witnesses in the corpus hshed light on the best text o Peter’s work. Some examples will make th

Chapter 2: [P7P8P9Lz] Sed hodie propter duriciam [diuicias P6, diuiciam Fz2 prelatorum sepe contingit contrarium. (But today because o the hard-heartedne[P6Fz2: wealth] o prelates, the opposite ofen happens.)

Te hardness or sofness o the coverings o the eye, and their metaphoqualities, are at issue in this chapter, not the corruption o money. How variant in P6Fz2 occurred can be easily understood because Peter comthroughout theractatus about the deleterious effect o money on the clergFurthermore, in abbreviated orm,duriciam anddiuiciam/diuicias can beclosely similar, leading to a reading o the ormer as the latter.

Chapter 7, prol.: [P7P8P9Lz] Est enim oculus numero geminus, compari suo simillimus, colore diuersus, gura spericus, palpebra uelatus, in capite collocatus, scierum uisibilium [diuisibilium P6Fz2] receptiuus

(Now, the eye is doubled in number; each one being exactly like its companio varied in colour; spherical in shape; covered by an eyelid; located in the heareceptive to visible [P6Fz2: divisible] species)

As becomes clear in the discussion in Chapter 7, vii, the orm o an obje perceived in vision, the visible species in the technical sense, are at issue here, notthe possibility o dividing or separating the species. Perhaps the proximity o the worddiuersus encouraged the addition o the prex touisibilium to make o itdiuisibilium. Te other pecia copies are the work o scribes who took more cato veri y the readings o their text and while they show a range o eye other scribal mistakes, they are not as consistently wrong as a group as is

In particular, MS P7 can be taken as a more accurate, and early, witnthe wording andordinatio o Peter’s text in its pecia transmission, even be ore it was ormally registered in the 1304 taxation list. According to that list,treatise was available or rent in twenty peciae. MS Lz is clearly a product othat transmission: it does not contain pecia notations or all the pieces, but itdoes have marks or peciae viii, x, xi, xiii, xvi, and xviii. But MS P7 has only hthe number o pecia marks one would expect rom the 1304 list: it shows ninotations or peciae in the margins or the entire length o the text, numberethrough x. What makes the difference in the numbers o peciae is the act thatthe pieces o MS P7 are each our bi olia in length instead o the mor


25/28

- 191

two bi olia.72 Te number o peciae in a work sometimes varied when a stationerrealized that a work was in sufficient demand to justi y increasing the nuo peciae to be offered or rent, so that a variation in the number o peciae isnot necessarily an indication o a separate edition. I MS P7, then, reprthe pecia transmission o theractatus at an early stage, be ore the number o peciae in which the work was made available was doubled, it also demonstthat in this early transmission theordinatio o the work called or headings orthe sections o all the longer chapters. Most o the witnesses have titles sections o the long chapters earlier in the treatise (Chapter 6 has thirteen-tions; Chapter 7 has twelve; Chapter 8, seven). Tat Peter’s work was desigin its early pecia transmission to circulate with section headings as part o ttext o the long chapters also ound later in the treatise (Chapter 11 thr14) is indicated by the presence o section headings or these chapters iMS P7 and MS Lz, which do not derive rom each other. Te section head were not a standardized eature in all copies o the text: the other witnethe corpus omit all section headings afer Chapter 8. But their presence in MP7 and Lz indicates that in at least one line o transmission o the text sheadings were treated uni ormly in all the long chapters.

MS P7, too, is not without scribal mistakes, as a ew examples will mak

Chapter 8, i: [P8P9LzP6Fz2]: Per cecum natum ille congrue designatur qui de suorigine uel bonis naturalibus inaniter glorians excecatur [exhortatur P7].(Te man blind rom birth appropriately designates someone who glories vainly inhis lineage or his gifs o nature, and is blinded [P7: admonished].)

Spiritual blindness is at the centre o this examination o pride. One can ustand the variant by the scribe o P7 as inspired by the intent o the pa which goes on to suggest that the proud person should contemplate the

ness o the beginning and end o human li e as a way to cure the sin obut the reading in P7 also demonstrates that the scribe was anticipating admonition.

Chapter 12, iii: [P8P9LzP6Fz2]: Uidere poterit quodnon deciat de domo sua uxum seminis sustinens, et leprosus, tenens usum, et cadens gladio, et indigens pan [pene P7], ii Regum iii.(He will be able to see that ‘his house is not without someone suffering a discharo semen, and one who is leprous, one holding a spindle, and one elled by t

sword, and one lacking bread [P7: punishment]’, Samuel 3.)72 See Bataillon, ‘Les Problèmes de l’édition des sermons’, pp. 115–16.


26/28


All six witnesses subsequently concur that it is a lack o bread (‘panis itiam’) that is to serve as the basis or moral interpretation, as is suggeste passage rom the Vulgate. Tus, those lacking bread are taken to designavaricious among the people close to a prelate. Here, again, the scribe oanticipated a conclusion drawn rom this passage, namely that prelates exercise discipline in their own households by punishing those who are But variants o these kinds are airly limited in an otherwise relativelcopy that must be consulted to establish a critical text o theractatus.

Te copies o the treatise in Peter’s own library orm a special grouP9 is a rough version o the text, perhaps a working draf o the treatisePeter completed it ully to his satis action. It has numerous gaps in the tidiosyncratic ormulations, but it also agrees enough with the rest o th pecia copies to make it use ul as a witness or a critical edition. MS P8, on thhand, is a care ul copy that contains Peter’s text in the hand o a scribe to reproduce other material. Because it is later than the other Parisian meo the corpus, it may have been conceived as a air copy or a new pecia exemplar or a presentation copy, but it remained in Peter’s library because themade a mistake near the beginning o the text that caused him to cancel third o a page. Furthermore, a ew o the early olios o the manuscri

ols 5r

–6 v

) contain some corrections o the text rst written by the scribe. Tcorrections, entered by the scribe himsel , may indicate that he was winitially on the early chapters o Peter’s treatise rom an uncorrected cobut then went back to revise his work using a corrected copy. In any cascribe’s corrections here represent the best line o transmission o theractatus that is also ound in the pecia copies. Most important, in the margins o thecodex one also nds comments, apparently by the author and in what mihis own hand. Finally, P8 is also the only codex o some eighty I have eat greater length that provides a valid reading or a passage which amoan error in the archetype. At the end o Chapter 6, which is devoted to oillusions, Peter re ers to what is called the ‘moon illusion’, by which hbodies appear to be larger when they are closer to the horizon than whenare seen at a higher angle o incidence. Te manuscripts representing the pecia transmission read at this point (with minor variants): ‘Et sicut reputamus -bile quod stella cum ascenderit ad celi medium maior appareat, cum iaintuentis oculum non magis accedat, sic eciam […]’ (And just as we cextraordinary that when a star ascends to the middle o the sky it appearsalthough at the same time it is not drawing closer to the eye o the obse just the same way […]). Many later witnesses o the text have the wormaior here, thus making it seem as i a heavenly body would appear larger the


27/28

- 193

it climbs in the sky, but in a number o the later manuscripts this is also schanged tominor . Te wordmaior also contradicts the scientic description othe moon illusion that Peter had just given at the beginning o Chapter 6though it anticipates the moral lesson in humility that is to be drawn romoptical phenomenon, namely that it is extraordinary when people in high tion turn out to be small, that is humble. Some scribes who paid attentiothe scientic error undertook changes in the text to make it more scientiaccurate, as apparently the scribe o the copy-text represented in Pr1 did (reads: ‘Et sicut reputamus mirabile quod stella cum ascenderit ad celi meminor appareat, cum tamen ad intuentis oculum magis ascendat, sic eciam(And just as we consider it extraordinary that when a star ascends to the mo the sky it appears smaller, although to the eye o the observer it is aschigher, in just the same way […])). Te scribe o MS P9 noticed the proble well, and attempted a simple x, but in some ways he made the problem w

[MS P9] Et sicut reputamus mirabile quod stella cum ascenderit ad celi mediummaior non appareat, cum iam ad intuentis oculum magis accedat, sic etiam […]

(And just as we count it extraordinary that when a star ascends to the middle o thsky it does not appear larger, although at the same time it is drawing closer to th

eye o the observer, in just the same way […])In MS P8, the reading o the pecia transmission is also altered, so thatmaior hasbeen corrected tominor , ad intuentis oculum to ab intuentis oculo, and accedat to recedat , to yield the ollowing: ‘Et sicut reputamus mirabile quod stella ascenderit ad celi medium minor appareat, cum iam ab intuentis oculo magis recedat, sic eciam […]’ (And just as we count it extraordinary thata star ascends to the middle o the sky it appears smaller, although at thetime it is not moving any urther rom the eye o the observer, in just th way […]).73 It might have been Peter himsel who corrected MS P8, thouclearly not be ore the erroneous reading had begun to circulate in pecia copieso his treatise and through much o the transmission o the text in the ceto ollow. Tus, we are lef with a situation in which copies o the text clothe archetype and the copy which shows signs putting it in direct contact

73 Te completed sentence in P8 reads in more uid translation: ‘We count it extraordnary that when a star ascends to the middle o the sky it appears smaller, although at thit is not moving any urther rom the eye o the observer, and in just the same way we extraordinary that the more exalted someone is in honor, the more humble he wants to be since this is a rare occurrence.’


28/28


the author do not agree with each other. Te reading o MS P8 is uniquesince all other signs point to the special nature o this manuscript as a withe text, i we assume that this is Peter’s last, and belatedly corrected, wthe subject, the reading might be accepted in the edition.

Te relationship between the witnesses used in the corpus o manuscor a critical edition still needs to be made more precise, but the value

P7 and MS P8 in establishing that text stands out clearly. Just as clearlcan see the relative value o multiple pecia copies or the establishment o a texttransmitted through the pecia system. Tough they give a theoretical advantageto the editor in that they guarantee a view o the text close to the origin promulgation, that view may be obscured by the actual abilities o thecopying the text rom a pecia exemplar or another pecia copy. Te general lacko attention o the scribe o MS Fz2 to his copy-text should give ever pause. While pecia copies represent theoretically sanctioned texts, and may

act be prepared as care ully as MS P7, they may never be as authoritacopy commissioned by the author that became a volume in the author’slibrary. It is part o the capricious luck o the preservation o medievalthat MS P8 has survived to make the work o the editor o Peter’s text tarduous. Tere are many more remarkable actors connected with theractatus

moralis de oculo, rom a mistake in the archetype to the general anonymitymuch o its transmission, but as an important inuence on medieval pastoralia in the British Isles the work and its author — not Robert Grosseteste but o Limoges — deserve to be better known today.

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	grossetestis-studiosus
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Newhauser2013 the Optics of Ps-Grosseteste_Editing Peter of Limoges’s Tractatus Moralis de Oculo

Documents