1 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, lat. F I 11, ff. 4^r–85^r (Ba)

Paper; ff. II+209+I; mm 291 × 204; 1369

Date and origin. The colophons of the texts transmitted in this manuscript inform us about the date and the origin of this codex, which was copied in 1369 at Prague University: “Expliciunt questiones super librum De anima per reverendum magistrum Byridanum, Parysius compilate, Prage reportate, etc.” (f. 118^ra); “Expliciunt questiones totius libri De celo per reverendum magistrum Albertum compilate et finite sub anno domini 1369°” (f. 209^ra). The term reportate indicates that the text derives from a pronuntiatio, which was a common practice at Prague University. It consisted of a sort of collective dictation, which the Prague masters and bachelors used to teach the Aristotelian texts, based on the commentaries of famous masters from Paris and Oxford.² The manuscript was bought by Peter of Ulma, physician and master, at Heidelberg; Peter sold it in 1559 to the University of Basel.³

Composition. Wooden binding partially covered with white leather. Clasps on the front cover. The strap and catch plate are missing. The binding is identical to that of manuscript F II 5 (see below). Two guard-leaves are numbered by a modern hand “1” and “2”. On the first leaf, a medieval hand wrote: “Librum hunc emebat universitas † de Olma et continentur primo questiones super libris Metheororum Aristotelis; secundo continet questiones Biridani super libris De anima; tertio questiones super libris De generatione et corruptione; quarto questiones Alberti super libris De celo et mundo. [alia manu] Ex libris bibliotece Basileiensis Academie, 1559”. The guard-leaves are followed by 209 leaves grouped according to this formula:⁴ I (3–19)⁸⁺⁸; II (19–30)⁷⁺⁷; III (31–46)⁸⁺⁷; IV (46–55)^{(8–1)+(7–4)}; V (56–69)⁷⁺⁷; VI (70–83)⁷⁺⁷; VII (84–85)¹⁺¹; VIII (86–99)⁷⁺⁷; IX (100–113)⁷⁺⁷; X (114–121)⁴⁺⁴; XI (122–129)⁴⁺⁴; XII (130–143)⁷⁺⁷; XIII (144–153)⁵⁺⁵; XIV (154–155)¹⁺¹; XV (156–167)⁶⁺⁶; XVI (168–179)⁶⁺⁶; XV (180–191)⁶⁺⁶; XVII (192–201)⁵⁺⁵; XVIII (202–210)^5+(5–1). At the end of the volume, we find another guard-leaf, numbered 211. Catchwords: f. 17^v, f. 45^v, f. 55^v, f. 69^v, f. 99^v, f. 113^v. Signatures: f. 156^r (pus); f. 168^r (2); 180^r (3); f. 192^r (4); f. 202^r (5).

The volume consists of two main parts: ff. 1–119 and ff. 120–211, which present two different medieval foliations. A modern hand has numbered the leaves from the beginning to the end of the volume.⁵ As a consequence, the medieval and the modern foliations are shifted by 119 units in the second part of the volume. In the first part, the gap between the two foliations is three units wide, since the medieval foliation starts with Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (numbered 4 according to the modern foliation), while the modern one also includes the guard-leaves (numbered 1 and 2) and the table of contents (numbered 3).

Content. This manuscript contains a collection of commentaries on natural philosophy by Parisian masters of the fourteenth century: Nicole Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 3^ra–85^vb) is followed by a short version of the redactio A of Buridan’s Questions on De anima (ff. 86^ra–118^ra),⁶ by the redactio B of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 120^ra–155^vb)⁷ and by Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo (ff. 156^ra–209^ra). This codex also contains some texts on logic: a fragment from the Libellus de terminis naturalibus, a dictionary of basic terminology used by the Oxford Calculators (ff. 118^r–^v)⁸ and a fragment of Albert of Saxony’s Expositio on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (ff. 209^rb–210^va).

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon attributes the commentary to Nicole Oresme: “Expliciunt questiones libri Meteororum vel Metheororum seu Methaurorum reverendi magistri Nycolai Orem, viri multum experti, ut in istis dictis suis poterit apparere” (f. 85^vb). The text is copied in two columns of about fifty lines each. The content of ff. 52^v and 53^r has been crossed out with a big X that covers the entire page. On f. 53^rb, the copyist wrote: “verte folium et invenies ultra quantum ad secundum, etc. Et hic nichil deficit, ut videbis, sed indirecte et incorrecte nimis scriptum erat, ideoque absasum [sic] est et secundario scriptum est, et hoc magis correcte et bene. Deo gratias”. On f. 75^vb, l. 6, the hand changes, as happens on f. 83^ra. The incipits are written in textualis but the decoration has not been completed, since the white space set aside for the initials is at times left blank (for example at f. 39^vb). Moreover, the headings of the questions only reach question I.6, on f. 9^rb, after which the space set aside for them remains empty. The pilcrows stop at f. 10^rb. At the beginning of the text, a big Q extends over the space of eight lines. Pointing hands (f. 5^va); some rare marginal notes related to the structure of the text. Some nota bene in a medieval hand (for example at f. 49^rb: “nota bene quod templa et monasteria percutiantur a fulmine sepius quam alie structure”). On f. 3, we find a table of contents.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 4^ra–26^va: Queritur circa librum Metheororum primo ista questio: utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de eis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi’, etiam concedo. Sed tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea in isto libro propter hoc quia plures antiquorum tradiderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic est finis questionum huius libri primi. Explicit primus liber Metheororum.

II, ff. 26^vb–39^vb: ⟨C⟩irca secundum librum Metheororum queritur utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo.

III, ff. 39^vb–78^rb: ⟨Q⟩ueritur consequenter circa tertium librum Methaurorum utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit calida, quia sic sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic patent questiones tertii Metheororum.

IV, ff. 78^rb–85^vb: Circa quartum librum Metheororum queritur primo ista questio: utrum sunt quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne. Et sic patet ultima questio istius. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum magistri Nycolai Orem. [85^vb] Expliciunt questiones Meteororum vel Metheororum seu Methaurorum reverendi magistri Nycolai Orem, viri multum experti, ut in istis dictis suis poterit apparere.

2 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, lat. F V 2, ff. 2^ra–63^va (Ba¹)

Paper; mm 288 × 213; 140 ff.; 1369

Date and origin. Just like the manuscript F I 11, this codex comes from the University of Prague. The first part, which contains Nicole Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology, dates to 1369, as is evident from the colophon at f. 63^rb: “Anno domini millesimo CCC° sexagesimo nono finite sunt questiones Metheororum”. But the similarities between this codex and manuscript F I 11 do not stop there. Like the latter, this manuscript was also bought by Peter of Ulma, who resold it to the University of Basel. On the first inside cover and on the first leaf we find a possession mark: “Ex libris Bibliothece Academie Basileiensis, 1559”; and at f. 1^r: “Hunc librum emebat universitas de libris magistri Petri de Olma”. On f. 63^ra, between Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology and the table of contents, we find an epigram that is considered the oldest document in Old Prussian: “Kayle rechyse / Thoneaw labonache thewelyse /eg koyte poyte nykoyte pennega doyte”.⁹

Composition. Wooden binding partially covered with white leather. Two clasps on the front cover. The strap and the catch-plate are missing. The binding is identical to that of manuscript F I II. A paper guard-leaf, numbered 1, contains the following statement: “Hunc librum emebat universitas de libris magistri Petri de Olma et continetur in eo vide signa. Item primo continentur in eo questiones super libris Metheororum magistri N. Orem; secundo questiones Biridani super libris De generatione et corruptione; tertio questiones super libris De anima; quarto questiones super libris De celo et mundo; quinto quedam puncta circa computum manualem”. The guard-leaf is followed by 139 paper leaves grouped mainly in senions, according to the following formula: I (2–13)⁶⁺⁶; II (14–25)⁶⁺⁶; III (26–37)⁶⁺⁶; IV (38–49)⁶⁺⁶; V (50–63)⁷⁺⁷; VI (64–74)⁶⁺⁶;¹⁰ VII (75–86)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (87–98)⁶⁺⁶; IX (99–111)⁶⁺⁶; X (112–121)⁵⁺⁵; XI (122–135)⁷⁺⁷; XII (136–140)^{(4–1)+(4–2)}.

The manuscript consists of two main parts: the first one covers fascicules I–V (ff. 2–63); the second one, senions VI–XII (ff. 64–140). Fascicules I–V contain signatures that prove that the volume was arranged differently during the Middle Ages. These senions are numbered: “nonus”, “decimus”, “undecimus”, “duodecimus”, “tredecimus”. Another arrangement is suggested by signatures in fascicules IX (2us), X (3us) and in fascicules XI (1us) and XII (2us). Fascicules IX and X are in fact the second and the third fascicule of the Questions on De anima, while fascicules XI and XII are the first and the second quire of the Questions on De celo. Other signatures in the lower margins of senions IV and V, between the columns, reflect the current arrangement of the volume: “quartus” and “quintus”.

The original division of the volume into two parts is confirmed by the medieval foliations: the first one covers fascicules I–V, numbered 2–63 by a medieval hand; the second one covers fascicules VI–XII, numbered 1–78 by a medieval hand too. A third foliation, written by a modern hand, stretches across the whole volume.¹¹ An error in the modern foliation occurs between f. 72 and f. 73 (9 and 11, according to the second medieval foliation): f. 72 is followed by another 72, which was therefore numbered 72°. In the first part of the volume, the medieval and the modern foliation correspond to each other. In the second part of the volume, they are shifted by 63 units until f. 72 according to the modern foliation, and by 62 units from the subsequent folio, numbered 72° according to the modern foliation.

Content. The content of this codex is very similar to that of ms. F I 11. As in the latter manuscript, Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 2^ra–63^va) is followed by the redactio B of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 64^ra–86^rb), by a short version of the redactio A of Buridan’s Questions on De anima (ff. 87^ra–120^ra) and by Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo, this time in a shortened form (ff. 122^ra–139^rb).¹² The codex also contains an anonymous question on logic (120^va–121^ra)¹³ and some Puncta on the Computum manuale (ff. 139^rb–140^va).¹⁴

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon and the table of contents ascribe the commentary to Nicole Oresme: “Et sic est finis questionum Oren super Metheororum”, f. 63^ra; “et tantum de questionibus Metheororum magistri N. Orem”, f. 63^va. The text is copied by different hands using different inks (some examples are: the change of hand and ink on f. 9^vb, l. 14; the change of ink on f. 20^vb; hands repeatedly changing on ff. 22^v–23^r; abrupt change of hand on f. 30^v) and laid out in two columns. Brown-inked pilcrows are highlighted with a vertical red stroke. Some marginal notes refer to the structure of the text. Corrections in black ink (particularly recognisable between ff. 2^ra–9^vb in contrast with the pale brown ink of the main text). The first words of the questions between ff. 2^ra–10^va are in textualis. From f. 11^va onwards, the questions are separated by a simple blank space. On f. 35^v and f. 43^r, we find drawings related to the text. The commentary is followed by a table of contents (ff. 63^r–63^v) written by a different hand from those that copied the text.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 2^ra–17^ra: ⟨C⟩irca primum librum Metheororum utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheoroloycis haberi scientia simul et opinio. Et arguitur quod non, quia de eis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si esset [17^ra] de natura celi’, etc., dico: tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic est primi libri finis.

II, ff. 17^ra–25^vb: Utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo.

III, ff. 25^vb–57^ra: Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non, quia non sit exalatio calida, quia si sic, sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborat ex quo aliam artem ignorat. Et sic est finis questionum tertii.

IV, ff. 57^ra–63^ra: Incipiunt quarti Metheororum questiones. Utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur quod non, quia ⟨quod⟩ per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne. Et sic est finis questionum Oren super Metheororum. Ad honorem Dei gloriosi. Amen. Deo gratias. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum. [alia manu]: anno Domini millesimo CCC sexagesimo nono finite sunt questiones Metheororum per manus illius qui scripsit eas, etc., et in vigilia Epiphanie per manus illius qui scripsit eas. Omnibus omnia non mea sompnia dicere possumus. Amen.

3 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol. 631, ff. 39^r–114^r (Be)

Paper; mm 250 × 190; ff. III+118+II; 1470

Date and origin. The colophons of the texts transmitted in this codex inform us that they were copied between 1470 and 1471: “Rescripte sunt hee questiones venerabilis magistri Nicolai Orem super libros Metheororum Aristotelis. Anno Domini 1470” (f. 114^r); “finis anno 1471. He sunt questiones, puto magistri Christiani de Ackoy, super Sphera materialis” (f. 37^v). The origin of the manuscript is unknown, but various elements prove that it circulated in Central Europe. On f. 38^v, we find a medieval note that has later been scraped. It refers to the apparition of a halo around the moon that could be seen from Basel: “anno 63 […] apparuit Basilea halo circa lunam diu durans […]”. On the second guard-leaf, we find a modern possession mark: “Eduardo Machado, Hamburgo, Mayo 29, 1868”. In 1903, the Prussian state library bought the manuscript from the antiquary J. Halle of Munich (see the note on the front cover: “acc. 1903, 177”).

Codicology. Modern pasteboard binding covered with brown leather. Three modern paper guard-leaves numbered I–III at the beginning of the volume; at the end of the volume, we find three medieval paper guard-leaves numbered 115–117, followed by two modern guard-leaves numbered IV and V. The leaves are grouped primarily into quaternions: I (III–3)²⁺²; II (4–11)⁴⁺⁴; III (12–19)⁴⁺⁴; IV (20–27)⁴⁺⁴; V (28–35)⁴⁺⁴; VI (36–43)⁴⁺⁴; VII (44–51)⁴⁺⁴; VIII (52–59)⁴⁺⁴; IX (60–66)⁴⁺⁴; X (67–74)⁴⁺⁴; XI (75–82)⁴⁺⁴; XII (83–90)⁴⁺⁴; XIII (91–98)⁴⁺⁴; XIV (99–106)⁴⁺⁴; XV (107–114)⁴⁺⁴; XI (115–IV)²⁺². Modern numbering in pencil in the upper outer margin. Two subsequent folios were numbered 62 and 62bis. Watermark P similar to Piccard XII 641 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1472).¹⁵

Content. The manuscript contains two texts: at ff. 1^r–37^v, some Questions on Sacrobosco’s De spera, which the colophon hesitantly ascribes to Christianus de Ackoy;¹⁶ at ff. 39^r–114^r, the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology.

The Questions on Meteorology. The text, which is ascribed to Nicole Oresme in the colophon (f. 144^r), was copied by a German scribe in the fifteenth century. The handwriting, a bastarda, is regular and very readable. The text is laid out in one column with fifty-three lines per page. The first words of the questions are written in textualis. Some marginal notes by a different hand from that of the copyist are written alongside the last question of the third book, which discusses the artificial transformation of metals (for example, on the lower margin of f. 39^r we read: “Nihil agit ultra gradum suum proprium / Nihil agit ultra suam speciem / Activa non producunt formas substantiales / Nihil producit perfectius se ipso”).

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 39^r–58^r: Circa primum Metheororum queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis habere simul scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de impressionibus metheorologicis non contingit habere scientiam et opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt gallaxiam esse de natura elementari, propter eorum oppinionem ipse talem materiam hic tangit, etc. Explicit primus Metheororum.

II, ff. 59^r–68^v: ⟨C⟩irca secundum Metheororum queritur primo utrum locus generationis pluviarum sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod non, nam nullum elementum debet generari extra suum locum naturalem …X… Rationes patent in secundo articulo huius questionis, etc. Explicit secundum Metheororum, etc.

III, ff. 69^r–105^r: Circa tertium Metheororum queritur, secundum distinctionem istius totius in principio positam ab Alberto, utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida et sicca …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant.

IV, ff. 105^v–114^r: ⟨C⟩irca quartum [corr. sup. lin. ex: secundum] Metheororum queritur primo utrum tantum quatuor sint qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, frigiditas, humiditas, siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne, et non quod nutriatur ab igne nec in eo dominetur ignis, sed illo modo quo dictum est, scilicet quod sit inustibile ab ipso igne. Rescripte sunt hee questiones venerabilis magistri Nicolai Orem super libros Metheororum Aristotelis. Anno Domini 1470.

4 Erfurt, Universitäts- und Forschungsbibliothek, Dep. Erf. CA 2° 334, ff. 158^v–167^r (E)

Paper; mm 305 × 105; ff. III+208+II; 1421

Date and origin. The colophon of the Questions on Meteorology informs us that the text was copied in 1421 (f. 167^v: “Expliciunt questiones Metheororum reverendi magistri Biridani finite ac peracte in festo sancti Mathie per me, per Petrum filium Francisci de Grinstad. Quarum conservator est reverendus magister Petrus dictus Culmach; Paulus vero de Tr. harum est possessor. Domo Domini 1421”). This part of the codex was copied in Göttingen, as stated in the colophon of f. 179^v: “Explicit liber De sensu et senssato [sic] et dicta per me Henricum Wetter [Wecter or Voecter] in Gottingen”. The volume belonged to the library of the Collegium Porta Celi, founded at Erfurt University by Amplonius Rating de Berka in 1433, and was registered under the signature “7” in Amplonius’s catalogue.¹⁷

Codicology. Wooden binding covered with brown leather, restored in 1974. Two intact clasps attached to the back cover. Two modern paper guard-leaves, followed by a medieval parchment guard-leaf. The first guard-leaf is glued to the inside cover. On the recto of the parchment guard-leaf, a medieval hand has written in black ink: “liber librarie collegii porte celi” and “septimus naturalis in novis”. Another medieval hand has written in red ink: “liber collegii porte celi”. On the verso of the same guard-leaf, a third medieval hand has written: “septimus philosophie naturalis in novis Collegii Porte Celi”. There is also a table of contents by the same hand: “In isto volumine continentur: Questiones Parvorum Naturalium reverendi magistri Marsilii de Inghen; Questiones Meteororum reverendi magistri Biridani; Commentum Parvorum Naturalium reverendi magistri Marsilii; Problemata Aristotelis principis philosophorum; item quod quatuor modis febris cotidiana solet evenire”. The volume consists of three parts, of different sizes with different kinds of paper: I (ff. 1–63); II (ff. 64–167); III (168–208). The leaves are bound as follows: I (1–13)^6+(6+1); II (14–25)⁶⁺⁶; III (26–37)⁶⁺⁶; IV (38–49)⁶⁺⁶; V (50–63)⁷⁺⁷; VIII (64–75)⁶⁺⁶; (76–87)⁶⁺⁶; (88–99)⁶⁺⁶; (100–111)⁶⁺⁶; (112–123)⁶⁺⁶; (124–135)⁶⁺⁶; (136–147)⁶⁺⁶; (148–159)⁶⁺⁶; (160–167)^6+(6–4); (168–177)⁵⁺⁵; (178–189)⁶⁺⁶; (190–205)⁸⁺⁸; (206–208)^{(3–2)+(3–1)}. At the end of the volume, we find two modern paper guard-leaves; the second one is glued to the inside back cover, in the same manner as at the beginning of the volume. The first four fascicules of the second part contain signatures in red ink, in the central lower margin: f. 64^r (i); f. 76^r (ii); f. 88^r (iii); f. 100^r (iiii). Ff. 61^v–63^r are blank. Modern foliation in pencil in the upper outer margin. Two consecutive leaves were numbered 196; for this reason, an additional foliation starts with the second leaf numbered 196, to correct the previous one.

Content. This manuscript contains Marsilius of Inghen’s commentaries on the Parva naturalia;¹⁸ a set of “problems” concerning the body of animals, which is partially taken from Aristotle’s Problemata,¹⁹ a note on four different kinds of fever²⁰ and a set of questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology (ff. 64^ra–167^rb), which the colophon ascribes to John Buridan.

The Questions on Meteorology. Although the colophon ascribes the whole commentary to Buridan, this only applies to the first three books, the fourth being by Oresme.²¹ The text is laid out in two columns of about forty-five lines each. The ink is brown and the decoration has not been completed, as the rubrics stop on f. 68^va and the incipits of the questions in textualis only reach question I.2, on f. 65^vb. Only the incipit of the first book has been copied: in some other cases, the space intended for this purpose has been left blank (see for example f. 121^va).

Incipit and explicit of the books

Prol.: Ut habetur in prohemio De anima, constat quod scientiam libri Metheororum valde reputare debemus aliis nobiliorem et super cetera appetibilem; opera namque metheoroloyca inter cetera nobis apparentia sunt mirabiliora.

I, ff. 64^rb–104^rb: Queritur primo utrum de impressionibus metheoroloicis sit tradenda scientia naturalis distincta a scientia De celo et mundo et De generatione et corruptione, De mineralibus et De anima et animatis. Arguitur primo quod non sit scientia de eis, quia non est scientia de singularibus, contingentibus et potentibus aliter se habere …X… Veniunt enim alia mineralia de alio loco ad illum. Et sic sit finis huius questionis et primi libri.

II, ff. 104^rb–121^va: Circa secundum librum Metheororum queritur primo de perpetuitate vel generatione maris, scilicet utrum mare fuit perpetuum vel aliquando factum. Arguitur quod non fuit perpetuum …X… Solutiones aliarum rationum satis haberi possunt ex predeterminatis. Et sic patet questio, et per consequens secundus liber.

III, ff. 121^va–158^va: Circa principium tertii libri primo notandum, et verum est, quod ab antiquo solet istum totum librum Metheororum dividi in quatuor partes …X… Sive lapidibus, sive plantis, sive avibus, sive earum plumis et metallis. Et sic finitum tertii libri [sic] Metheororum, date a reverendo magistro Biridano.

IV, ff. 158^va–167^rb: Circa principium quarti libri Metheororum queritur utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Arguitur quod non …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non duratur ignis in quantitate nec ibi nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ratio quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal non est ustibile ab igne. Et sic patet questio, etc.

5 Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek—Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek, 2° Phys. et hist. nat. 12, ff. 1^v–107^r (Ka)

Paper; mm 220 × 331; ff. 203; 1424

Date and origin. This manuscript, which is dated 1424 (f. 107^r: “Expliciunt questiones Orem, reverendi magistri Wilhelmi super Metheororum. Anno domini millesimo quadragentesimo vicesimo quarto, sabbato post festum sancti Egidii”), was owned by the library of the Augustinian Canons of Fritzlar and came into the possession of the Murhardsche Bibliothek of Kassel in 1804.

Codicology. Wooden binding covered with leather. The manuscript contains 203 paper leaves grouped as follows: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–24)⁶⁺⁶; III (25–36)⁶⁺⁶; IV (37–48)⁶⁺⁶; V (48–60)⁶⁺⁶; VI (61–72)⁶⁺⁶; VII (73–84)⁶⁺⁶; IX (85–96)⁶⁺⁶; X (97–108)⁶⁺⁶; XI (109–120)⁶⁺⁶; XII (121–132)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (133–144)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (145–156)⁶⁺⁶; XV (157–166)⁵⁺⁵; XVI (167–179)^(1+6)+6; XVII (180–191)⁶⁺⁶; XVIII (192–203)⁶⁺⁶. Modern page numbering in pencil in the outer margin. Signatures in the upper margin of the recto leaves: f. 61 (6us); f. 73 (7us); f. 85 (octavus); f. 97 (nonus).

Content. In addition to Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 2^ra–107^rb), this manuscript contains an incomplete set of anonymous questions on Aristotle’s Physics (109^ra–198^rb). These questions are preceded by a table of contents of the questions for the first three books (ff. 107^vb–108^ra).²²

The Questions on Meteorology. The commentary is ascribed to Guillaume Oresme in the colophon (f. 107^r).²³ The text, copied in a single hand, is laid out in two columns of about fifty lines each. On f. 1^r, there is a sort of draft of the first question, which stops after the words: “ex parte ipsius opinantis”. The handwriting is not as polished as that of the following text. On f. 1^r, we find many pen testing marks (“amice benignissime contrariam doctrinam exquiris fraternitatem; ave maria, ave maria gratia”). After the table of contents on f. 1^v, the text starts from scratch on f. 2^r. The words that mark the beginning of the books are in textualis and are placed so as to form a square. Rubrics and pilcrows in red. Marginal notes in red or brown ink. Some discontinuous notes refer to the content of the text (see for example f. 38^r, marg. sup.: “nota distinctionem marium et quare unum sit salsum et aliud non”). The initials of the words that introduce new paragraphs are marked by a red stroke. The decoration is incomplete: on f. 2^vb, for instance, the space left for the title of the question has been left blank; similarly, on f. 92^ra, the space for the initial words of the fourth book has been left blank. On f. 1^v, we find a table of contents for the first three books; the table of contents of the fourth book can be found on f. 107^va.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 2^ra–24^vb: Circa initium primi libri Metheororum queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis simul habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metheorologicis non contingit habere scientiam et opinionem, ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia non esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo. Sed tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt quod galaxia esset de natura elementari. Et sic est finis questionum primi libri. Et sic est finis primi libri Metheororum. Sequuntur questiones Metheororum libri secundi.

II, ff. 25^ra–^va: ⟨C⟩irca initium secundi libri Metheororum queritur primo utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes ante oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis questionum secundi Metheororum.

III, ff. 39^vb–91^vb: ⟨C⟩irca tertium librum Metheororum queritur utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida, nam si sic, sequeretur quod temporibus ventosis aer debet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic patet questio. Et sic est finis questionum tertii libri Metheororum, de quo laudetur Sancta Trinitas in secula seculorum. Amen.

IV, ff. 92^ra–107^rb: Utrum tantum quatuor sunt qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, siccitas et frigiditas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per habundantiam dicitur, uni soli rei convenit …X… Et quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod ipsum habitet in igne. Et sic est finis.

6 Klagenfurt, Bischöfliche Bibliothek, XXXI b 5, ff. 1^r–124^r (Kl)

Paper; mm 290 × 200; ff. 168; ca. 1395–1405

Date and origin. Very little is known about this manuscript. According to Michael, it comes from southern Germany or Carinthia.²⁴ The codex is mentioned in a manuscript catalogue of Gurk’s diocesan library from about 1700 under the signature 138.²⁵ The watermark, a long bell with three parallel clips, which appears in fascicules X–XII, was particularly widespread between the last decade of the fourteenth and the first years of the fifteenth century.²⁶

Codicology. Wooden binding covered with leather. A parchment sheet glued to the inside front cover contains the table of contents of Oresme’s Questions. The leaves are grouped mainly in senions, according to the following formula: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–24)⁶⁺⁶; III (25–36)⁶⁺⁶; IV (37–48)⁶⁺⁶; V (49–60)⁶⁺⁶; VI (61–72)⁶⁺⁶; VII (73–84)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (85–96)⁶⁺⁶; IX (97–106)⁵⁺⁵; X (107–118)⁶⁺⁶; XI (119–124)³⁺³; XII (125–136)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (137–148)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (149–161)⁶⁺⁶; XV (162–168)⁴⁺⁴. Another parchment leaf is glued to the inside back cover. This leaf contains a fragment from Alanus of Lille’s De planctu nature.²⁷ Signatures: f. 25^r (3us Metheororum), f. 36^v (3us), f. 48^v (4us), f. 60^v (5us), f. 72^v (6us), f. 83^v (7us), f. 96^v (8us), f. 106^v (9us), f. 118^v (10us), f. 123^v (11us), f. 136^v (primus). Catchwords: f. 36^v, f. 48^v, f. 72^v, f. 83^v, f. 96^v, f. 106^v. Medieval foliation in the outer upper margin of the recto leaves. The foliation skips from 159 to 161

Content. The codex contains Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 1^v–124^r) and John Buridan’s Questions on the Parva naturalia (ff. 125^rb–168^vb).²⁸

The Questions on Meteorology. The commentary, which is anonymous, is laid out in two columns of about forty lines each. The text was copied by two scribes. The first one copied ff. 1^v–41^ra (l. 28); 107^ra–108^ra (l. 2); ff. 112^ra–124^rb; the second one, which has a curvier handwriting, copied ff. 41^ra (l. 29)–106^vb; ff. 108^ra (l. 3)–111^vb.

A table of contents of the Questions is copied on a parchment sheet glued to the inner front cover. This sheet is numbered 119 in the upper margin. On f. 119, we find an alphabetical index that presents the content of the questions in alphabetical order (for example: “aqua an naturaliter ascendat ad orificia fontium”, “animalia habitantia in locis calidis, an sint”). It is interesting to notice that the subjects listed do not always match the titles of the questions. In compiling this alphabetical list, the copyist therefore wished to provide the reader with as detailed an index as possible.

In the upper margin, we find a medieval numbering in brown ink. In some cases, the first words and the structural parts of the questions are copied in textualis (see for instance f. 7^rb and f. 28^vb). More often, however, the space set aside for these words has been left blank (f. 7^v and f. 8^r). The first words of the text (⟨C⟩irca initium libri Metheororum Aristotelis queritur questio talis) are placed so as to form a square of a width of about seventeen lines. The decoration is incomplete: the space intended for the initials of the books has been left blank (see, for example, the incipit of the first book on f. 1^ra and the explicit of the second book on f. 33^rb).

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 1^va–33^rb: ⟨C⟩irca initium libri Metheororum Aristotelis queritur questio talis: utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheroloicis [sic] simul habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metholoycis [sic] non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo tamen quod Aristoteles determinat de ea propter quod quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic patet questio. Hoc de isto primo libro. Deo laus.

II, ff. 33^rb–40^va: ⟨C⟩irca librum secundum Metheororum Aristotelis queritur questio prima, circa secundum huius, secundum distinctionem in principio positam ab Alberto, et est questio ista: utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet in secundo articulo.

III, ff. 40^va–109^va: ⟨C⟩irca tertium, secundum distinctionem illius libri totius in principio positam ab Alberto, sit questio prima: utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant.

IV, ff. 109^va–124^r: ⟨C⟩irca principium istius quarti queritur primo utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas, siccitas. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad quartam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne nec etiam nutritur ab igne; ratio huius quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne. Hoc de questione et per consequens de omnibus. Ecce finis.

7 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, cod. 749, ff. 59^v–110^v (Kr)

Paper; mm 300 × 215; ff. 110 + III; ca. 1360–1370

Date and origin. This manuscript comes from the University of Prague, as stated by the colophon on f. 59^r: “Expliciunt questiones De generatione et corruptione Byrydani magistri Parariensis [sic] Prage reportate”. The majority of the texts contained in this manuscript were copied by a certain Iohannes (see below the colophon of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology). The watermarks allow us to date the manuscript to the 1370s.

Composition. See the modern catalogue, 5, 293.²⁹

Content. The manuscript contains some commentaries on the Aristotelian natural books by Parisian masters of the fourteenth century: Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo (ff. 1^r–42^v); John Buridan’s redactio B of the Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 43^r–59^r), as well as the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 59^r–110^r).

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon ascribes the text to Nicole Oresme: “Expliciunt questiones Metheororum magistri Nicholai dicti cognomine Orem, finite per manus Iohannis et reportate ante festum Sancti Galli” (f. 110^va). The text is laid out in two columns of about sixty-five lines each. The handwriting is tiny and compact; the ink is brown. From f. 60^rb onwards, we notice an abrupt change in ink. The copyist, who stopped writing at f. 60^ra and restarted on f. 60^rb, completely skipped the main body of question I.2 (Utrum impressiones metheorologice fiant secundum naturam inordinatiorem quam sit natura celi) jumping directly from the contrary arguments (f. 60^ra) to the answer. On f. 59^va, some space has been left for the initial that should have introduced the text. The titles of the questions are in textualis. The folios have been numbered with a pencil by a modern hand. Another modern hand has numbered the questions with a pencil.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 59^va–69^vb: Queritur circa librum Methorum [sic] primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metlogicis [sic] habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de eis non convenit habere scientiam nec opinionem; ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi’, etc., concedo, tamen Aristoteles determinat de ea propter hoc quia [69^vb] plures antiqui crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic patent questiones primi libri.

II, ff. 69^vb–76^va: ⟨T⟩unc restat tractare questiones secundi Metheororum. Utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis secundi libri Metheororum.

III, ff. 76^va–101^rb: ⟨T⟩unc secuuntur questiones tertii libri Metheororum. Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit exalatio calida, quia si sic, sequitur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant.

IV, ff. 101^rb–110^v: ⟨Q⟩ueritur circa quartum librum et ultimum Metheororum. Queritur circa quartum librum utrum sunt tantum quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Sed tale animal non est combustibile ab igne et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod ipsum habitat in igne. Et sic est finis, etc. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum magistri Nicolai dicti cognomine Orem. Finite per manus Iohannis et reportate ante festum sancti Galli [16th October]. Laus Christo sit etc.

8 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, cod. 751, ff. 3^r–53^r (Kr₁)

Paper; mm 275 × 220; 150 ff.; ca. 1360–1370

Date and origin. The watermarks allow us to date this manuscript to around 1360–1370. Some notes in Czech prove its Bohemian origins (see f. 114^v). The manuscript was brought to Krakow in the second quarter of the fifteenth century by a Polish scholar. Starting from 1462, it belonged to master Iacobus Boksicze, as witnessed by the mark of possession on the inside cover: “Liber magistri Boxicze”.³⁰

Composition. See Kowalczyk [et al.], Catalogus, 5, 299.

Content. The manuscript mainly contains commentaries on the Aristotelian corpus by Parisian masters of the fourteenth century: a fragment from Albert of Saxony’s Questions on Meteorology (f. 2^ra–^vb);³¹ the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 3^ra–53^rb); the short version of Buridan’s Questions on De anima (ff. 54^ra–73^vb); Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo (ff. 74^ra–124^ra) and the redactio B of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 124^ra–147^rb).

The Questions on Meteorology. The commentary is ascribed to Nicole Oresme in the colophon and in the table of contents that precedes the text (“Expliciunt tabule questionum libri Metheororum a magistro Horem confectarum”, f. 1^v; “Et sic est finis Metheororum Horem”, f. 53^rb). The text is laid out in two columns of about fifty-five lines each. The handwriting is compact and regular, in brown ink. Corrections (possibly by the copyist himself) above the line and in the margins (e.g. on f. 1^r, l. 4 and l. 9). Some marginal notes in another hand refer to the structure of the text and its contents (e.g. on f. 3^ra: “prima”; “oppositum”; “que sit scientia”). The questions are numbered in red by a medieval hand. There is an error in question III.25, Utrum yris solum dupliciter et non multipliciter possit apparere: the number 25 has erroneously been replaced by 21. The wrong numbering is consistently used until the end of the third book. A modern hand has corrected this numbering by writing the correct number in pencil and putting the incorrect one in parentheses. There are two foliations, both by modern hands: the first one, in grey pencil, in the upper margin of each recto; the second one, in red pencil, in the lower margin. The former is not always present or clearly readable: this might explain why a second foliation was added. The decoration has not been completed: the lines intended for the initial and the incipit of the third book, on f. 22^va, have been left blank, just as the space intended for the titles of books and questions. The pilcrows are marked with a stroke in red ink. The numbering of the book in the upper margin of each verso leaf is also in red, sometimes using Roman numerals, sometimes the Arabic equivalent.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 3^ra–14^vb: Utrum de impressionibus metheorologicis possibile sit habere scientiam simul et opinionem. Arguitur quod non, quia de eis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi’, etc., concedo, tamen Aristoteles determinat de ea hic propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic est primi libri finis.

II, ff. 14^vb–22^rb: Utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic patet questio. Incipiunt questiones tertii libri Metheororum.

III, ff. 23^ra–47^va: Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod non sit exalatio calida …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic est finis questionum tertii libri Metheororum.

IV, ff. 47^va–53^rb: Utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne. Et sic est finis Metheororum Horem ad honorem Dei etc.

9 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, cod. 2095, ff. 245^r–307^r (Kr₂)

Paper; mm 210 × 150; ff. I+308; 1406

Date and origin. The colophons of the texts contained in this manuscript offer plenty of information about its history. The manuscript was copied at the University of Prague by a Polish student, Iohannes Stolle de Glogovia, in 1406.³² Iohannes attended the course on Aristotle’s Physics held by Master Lindore of Scotland (f. 221^rb: “Et sic terminantur questiones totius libri Physicorum Aristotilis summi philosophorum principis, compilate per honorabilem magistrum Laurentium Londoriensem de Scotia, reportate vero per Johannem Stolle de Glogovia Maiori in Studio alme Universitatis Pragensis, anno Domini M° quadragintesimo sexto”) and listened to the Questions on Meteorology by Nicole Oresme, which was also used at the University of Prague (f. 307^rb: “Et sic patent questiones totius libri Metheororum compilate per reverendum magistrum Orem Parisiensem et comparate per Johannem Stolle in Studio alme Universitatis Pragensis, a. D. 1406”). The possession marks on the second guard-leaf and on the first leaf confirm the Prague origin of this codex and the fact that it belonged to Iohannes Stolle: “Liber Johannis Stolle de Glogovia, scriptus ab eodem in Studio Pragensi” (this possession mark has been written from right to left by inverting the orientation of each letter); “liber comitatis Maioris Collegii Artistarum. [alia manu] Nicolai a Schadek Prokopiadis liber vetustissimus Pragensis Studii”.

Composition. Wooden binding covered with brown pasteboard. Traces of the central boss and of pegs on both covers. The front cover is detached. The first guard-leaf has been torn away. On the second guard-leaf, numbered II by a modern hand, a medieval hand, probably Iohannes Stolle himself, has sketched out a table of contents.³³ This guard-leaf is followed by 308 leaves grouped mainly in senions according to the following formula: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–24)⁶⁺⁶; III (25–36)⁶⁺⁶; IV (37–48)⁶⁺⁶; V (49–60)⁶⁺⁶; VI (61–72)⁶⁺⁶; VII (73–84)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (85–96)⁶⁺⁶; IX (97–108)⁶⁺⁶; X (109–120)⁶⁺⁶; XI (121–132)⁶⁺⁶; XII (133–144)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (145–156)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (157–169)^6+(6+1); XV (170–181)⁶⁺⁶; XVI (182–193)⁶⁺⁶; XVII (194–205)⁶⁺⁶; XVIII (206–217)⁶⁺⁶; XIX (218–230)^(6+1)+6; XX (231–244)⁷⁺⁷; XXI (245–256)⁵⁺⁵, f. 255 is a piece of paper bound to the fascicule; XXII (256–267)⁶⁺⁶; XXIII (268–279)⁶⁺⁶; XXIV (280–292)⁶⁺⁶, f. 292 is a piece of paper bound to the fascicule; XXV (293–297)^4+(4–3); XXVI (298–308)^6+(6–1).

Catchwords on ff. 156^v and 169^v. Signatures: f. 157^r (14); f. 170^r (15us); f. 182^r (16); f. 194^r (17us); f. 206^r (18); f. 231^r (20). A medieval foliation on the right side of the upper margin. The numbering skips one leaf between 107 and 108. This is why, from that point on, a modern foliation accompanies the medieval one: the two foliations are shifted by one unit up to f. 199 (200 according to the modern foliation). The leaf after 199 has been numbered 110 by the medieval hand: the numbering thus continues with 111, 112, 113, and so on. The modern hand numbers these leaves 209, 210, 211, and so on. The leaf that follows 120 has been numbered 200 by the medieval hand. The medieval foliation stops at f. 231 (225 according to the modern numbering).

Content. The manuscript contains Lawrence of Lindores’ Questions on Aristotle’s Physics (ff. 1^ra–221^rb); some anonymous questions on matter and form (ff. 221^va–226^vb);³⁴ a set of problemata collected from Aristotle’s Problemata (ff. 227^ra–244bis^r), and the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 245^ra–307^rb).

The Questions on Meteorology. The initium and the colophon ascribe the commentary to Nicole Oresme: “Incipiunt questiones Metheororum reverendi magistri Orem, Parisius date ac ab ipso collecte” (f. 245^ra); “Hoc de questione et per consequens de omnibus questionibus librorum Metheororum, compilate per reverendum magistrum Orem Parisiensem et comparate per Johannem Stolle in Studio alme Universitatis Pragensis A.D. 1406, pro quarum complectione Dominus noster Iesus Christus” (f. 307^rb). The text is laid out in two columns of about fifty lines each. The handwriting is very readable while being rather rushed. In the margins we find some notes in cursive handwriting, probably by a different hand than that of the copyist (see f. 246^v, 247^r). A modern foliation in blue pencil in the upper outer margin. The initial words of the text (“Incipiunt questiones Metheororum reverendi magistri Orem”), in textualis, are placed so as to form a square with a height of about eighteen lines. Pointing hands (see f. 246^rb), rubrics and pilcrows in red. The words that refer to the structure of the text are sometimes underlined in red (see f. 245^v). Questions I.10 and III.16 are copied on separate leaves of reduced size that were then bound to the manuscript and included in the foliation. On the verso of one of them, the copyist has drawn a polygon around whose perimeter he has written: “hic nichil desinit nisi aurum et argentum, oves et boves et alia multa quorum non est numerus” (f. 292^v). On f. 297^r, after question III.19, we find a table of contents corresponding to the questions on Physics, which continues until the following verso leaf. Many leaves have been torn out, and the remaining questions of the third book (III.20–35) are missing. The fourth book begins at f. 298^r.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 245^ra–265^ra: Incipiunt questiones Metheororum reverendi magistri Orem, Parisius date ac ab ipso collecte, quarum prima est: utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis habere scientiam et opinionem. Arguitur quod non, quia de eis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem, ergo questio falsa …X… propter hoc quod plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari.

II, ff. 265^ra–276^vb: Circa secundum librum Metheororum: utrum ⟨locus⟩ generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Arguitur quod non, quia nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo.

III, ff. 276^vb–297^ra: Circa tertium: utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit exalatio calida, quia, si sic, sequeretur …X… in hoc seculo nichil scimus. Hoc de questione.

IV, ff. 289^ra–307^rb: Queritur circa principium ipsius quarti primo utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia …X… sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne, nec etiam nutritur ab igne. Ratio huius, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne. Hoc de questione et per consequens de omnibus questionibus librorum Metheororum, compilate per reverendum magistrum Orem Parisiensem et comparate per Johannem Stolle in Studio alme Universitatis Pragensis a. D. 1406.

10 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, cod. 2117, ff. 195^r–322^v [pp. 389–643] (Kr₃)

Paper; mm 215 × 155; I+326; 1444–1450

Date and origin. This manuscript consists of two parts. The first one (ff. 1–74) was copied in 1444 in Głogów (Lower Silesia), as emerges from the colophon on f. 74^ra: “Finitus 6 feria sub sermone ante festum Michaelis per Vincentium Kenczel in Glogouia Maiori, sub anno Domini 1444”. The second part (ff. 75–322) was copied in 1450 by Paulus de Zorawia, a student in Frankfurt (Oder), as proved by the colophon on f. 322^v: “Et finito libro post festum Pasce, quarta feria in die Viti anno Domini 1450 per Paulum de Zorawia imbuens scientys gymnasy Frankenfordensis”.

Composition. A parchment guard-leaf, followed by 326 paper leaves grouped in senions: I (1–14)⁶⁺⁶;³⁵ II (15–26)⁶⁺⁶; III (27–38)⁶⁺⁶; IV (39–50)⁶⁺⁶; V (51–62)⁶⁺⁶; VI (63–74)⁶⁺⁶; VII (75–86)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (87–98)⁶⁺⁶; IX (99–110)⁶⁺⁶; X (111–122)⁶⁺⁶; XI (123–134)⁶⁺⁶; XII (135–146)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (147–158)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (159–170)⁶⁺⁶; XV (171–182)⁶⁺⁶; XVI (183–194)⁶⁺⁶; XVII (195–206)⁶⁺⁶; XVIII (207–218)⁶⁺⁶; XIX (219–230)⁶⁺⁶; XX (231–242)⁶⁺⁶; XXI (243–254)⁶⁺⁶; XXII (255–266)⁶⁺⁶; XXIII (267–278)⁶⁺⁶; XXIV (279–290)⁶⁺⁶; XXV (291–302)⁶⁺⁶; XXVI (303–315)⁶⁺⁶;³⁶ XXVII (316–326)⁶⁺⁶, the last leaf has been torn out. In the outer margin, we find a pagination in black ink and a foliation in grey pencil, both by modern hands.

Content. This manuscript contains some texts on natural philosophy: a commentary on Peter of Dresden’s Compendium of natural philosophy (ff. 1^r–74^v);³⁷ Marsilius of Inghen’s Questions on the Parva naturalia (ff. 75^r–194^v); Nicole Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 195^r–322^v). These texts are followed by the corresponding table of contents: that of Oresme’s commentary on ff. 325^r–336^v, and that of Marsilius’s Questions on ff. 323^r–324^v.

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon ascribes the commentary to Guillaume Oresme: “Et sic est finis Metheororum reverendi magistri Wilhelmi de Orem”, f. 322^v. The text has been assembled from two copies by different copyists. The first part (ff. 195–206) stops in the middle of question I.7. The page layout of the two parts is different. In the first part, the text is displayed in two columns of about fifty lines each. The words that refer to the internal structure of the questions are in textualis. The second part (ff. 207–322), copied by Paulus de Zorawia, is written longis lineis. The space intended for the internal divisions of the questions has remained blank. A modern hand has numbered the questions in grey pencil, restarting the numbering at the beginning of each book. Signatures in the upper margin, between the two columns (ai, aii, aiii …).

The last question of the third book ends on the recto of a piece of leaf that has been bound to the manuscript, as in the case of ms. 2095. The fourth book begins on the verso of the same leaf, which is numbered 304. The decoration has not been completed. On f. 195^r, the first words of the text (“⟨C⟩irca materiam Orem super Metheorum queritur primo utrum”) are written in textualis and placed so as to form a square with a width of nineteen lines; the space intended for the initial “C” has also been left blank. The pilcrows start on f. 195^va and stop shortly thereafter on f. 196^rb. On ff. 195^v–196^r, the words that refer to the structure of the questions are written in large characters and surrounded by a red frame. We do not find any rubrics in the rest of the text.

The manuscript was misbound before it was foliated. On the bottom margin of f. 218^v, a medieval hand wrote “quere in quarto sexternio” and a modern hand added: “= 509”. This anomaly is also indicated by a pointing hand on f. 218^v, next to which we find a small a. The pointing hand, just like the a, reappears on f. 255^r. The text stops again at f. 266^v: another pointing hand tied with a thin string to the letter a shows up, this time without any reference to a specific folio. In the upper margin of f. 243^r, we find another pointing hand next to the letter b. The text then proceeds until f. 254^v, where another interruption occurs, and we find another letter b in the upper margin. In the upper margin of f. 219^r, we find the letter c; in the upper margin of f. 242^v, the letter d, and in the upper margin of f. 267^r the letter e. The correct order of the folios would thus be: ff. 195–218; 255–266; 243–254; 219–242; 267–322.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, f. 195^ra–257^v: ⟨C⟩irca materiam Orem super Metheorum [sic] queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metroloycis [sic] simul habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de impressionibus metroloycis [sic] non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; ergo etc. …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo. Et cum dicitur: ‘tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic’, respondetur quod hoc fecit propter hoc quod plures antiquorum crediderunt quod galaxia est de natura elementari, et propter eorum opinionem ipse talem materiam hic tetigit. Et sic est finis questionum primi libri Metheororum.

II, ff. 257^v–250^r: Circa secundum librum Metheororum queritur primo utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis secundi libri Me …

III, ff. 250^r–304^r: Queritur primo utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida, nam sic sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis …X… Ad ultimam dico quod in vanum laborant [sic], ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Sequitur quartus.

IV, ff. 304^v–322^v: Circa initium quarti libri Metheororum queritur primo utrum tantum quatuor sunt qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, siccitas et frigiditas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli rei convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate ⟨nec⟩ etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod ipsum habitat in igne. Et sic est finis Metheororum reverendi magistri Wilhelmi de Orem, pro quo sit benedictus Deus in secula seculorum. Et finito libro post festum Pasce, quarta feria in die Viti anno Domini 1450 per Paulum de Zorawia imbuens sciencys gymnasy Frankenfordensis.

11 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, ms. 1387, ff. 181^r–275^r (L)

Paper; mm 300 × 210; ff. I+276+I; 1429–1438

Date and origin. The first two texts contained in this manuscript, Marsilius of Inghen’s Questions on Metaphysics and Questions on De generatione et corruptione, were copied in Frankfurt (Oder) by Iacobus Thysenaw of Prettin (see below, codicology).³⁸ The colophon of the second text informs us of the date when the copy was made: “Et sic est finis huius libri De generatione et corruptione venerandi magistri Marsilii anno Domini m° cccc xxxvii, quarta feria ante festum Viti, reportatum per quemdam Iacobum de Prettin et ab eodem pronuntiatum” (f. 176^vb). The third text transmitted in this manuscript, Nicole Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology, was copied in Leipzig in 1429, as stated by the colophon on f. 274^rb: “Expliciunt questiones magistri Orem super libros Metheororum scripte in studio Lipzii et finite anno domini millesimo quadragintesimo vicesimo nono”. Ff. 275^r–276^v contain some texts related to the Council of Basel of the years 1437–1438 and that were written in Frankfurt and Leipzig. The manuscript is mentioned in the catalogue of the Leipzig Faculty of Philosophy of 1480 under the signature “H inferior n. 150” and in a catalogue of the same library compiled around 1560 under the signature 209.

Codicology. Wooden binding. Traces of pegs and of the central boss. On the inside front cover, we find a paper guard-leaf with a medieval inscription: “Questiones Marsilii de Inghen super Methaphysicam et super De generatione et corruptione. Item questiones Wilhelmi Orem super Metheororum”. On a parchment guard-leaf we read: “Liber magistri Jacobi Thysenaw de Prettin, quem ipse propriis manibus conscripserat et ipsum estimat in valore vi f. renensium in auro. Metaphisicam ipse exemplar collegit Frankfenfordis ibidem pro tunc locatus existens. Marsilium Lipczk pronunciavit et pronunciando sic conscripsit Orem super Metheororum, intendita pro pecunia comparavit. [alia manu]: super De generatione et corruptione”. This guard-leaf is followed by 275 paper leaves: I (2–13)⁶⁺⁶; II (14–25)⁶⁺⁶; III (26–37)⁶⁺⁶; IV (38–49)⁶⁺⁶; V (50–61)⁶⁺⁶; VI (62–73)⁶⁺⁶; VII (74–85)⁶⁺⁶; VI (86–98)⁶⁺⁶; IX (99–100) two cut folios + 2; X (101–112)⁶⁺⁶; XI (113–124)⁶⁺⁶; XII (125–133)^5+5–1; XIII (134–144)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (145–156)⁶⁺⁶; XV (157–168)⁶⁺⁶; XVI (169–180)⁶⁺⁶; XVII (181–192)⁶⁺⁶; XVIII (193–204)⁶⁺⁶; XIX (205–216)⁶⁺⁶; XX (217–228)⁶⁺⁶; XXI (229–240)⁶⁺⁶; XXII (241–252)⁶⁺⁶; XXIII (253–264)⁶⁺⁶; XXIV (265–276)⁶⁺⁶. At the end of the volume, we find a parchment guard-leaf numbered 277 by a modern hand. Signatures on the recto leaves: f. 38 (traces of a crossed out signature); f. 74 (7); f. 86 (8? cut off); signature 9 on the remains of a cut off leaf after f. 98; f. 113 (10); f. 125 (11); f. 134 (12? cut); f. 145 (13); f. 157 (14); f. 169 (15).

The manuscript has two foliations: a medieval one in brown ink, in the upper margin between the two columns, and a modern one in pencil, in the outer margin. The medieval foliation begins with the second leaf of the first text, the Questions on Metaphysics, numbered 2, while the modern foliation assigns this number to the preceding leaf. This discrepancy of one unit between the two foliations continues up until f. 89 (88 according to the medieval foliation). Leaf 42 is numbered 43 by the medieval hand, but this mistake has no effect on the overall numbering, as the following leaf is also numbered 43. Starting with f. 89, the difference between the medieval and the modern numbering increases to two units due to the modern one jumping from 89 to 91. Another error occurs in the modern numbering, which numbers the leaf between 141 and 142 as 141a, thus reducing again the gap between the two numberings. Leaves 168–169 (169–170 according to the modern numbering) have not been numbered by the medieval hand, which however resumes the numbering correctly with f. 170 (171 according to the modern numbering). In the same way, leaves 178–179 (179–180 according to the modern numbering), which are blank, have not been numbered by the medieval hand, which restarts with f. 180 (181 according to the modern numbering).

Content. This manuscript contains Marsilius of Inghen’s Questions on the Metaphysics (ff. 2^ra–112^rb: books I–II, IV–X, XII),³⁹ followed by a corresponding table of contents (ff. 112^rb–vb); Marsilius of Inghen’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 113^ra–176^vb);⁴⁰ an anonymous question about universals (ff. 177^va–178^ra);⁴¹ the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 181^ra–274^rb), followed by the corresponding table of contents (ff. 274^va–275^ra), and some juridical texts concerning the University of Leipzig.⁴²

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon ascribes the commentary to Oresme (though without mentioning his first name), while the references on the front and on the back plates ascribe it to Guillaume Oresme. The text is copied in two columns of about forty lines each. The handwriting is widely spaced and easy to read; the ink is brown. We find two foliations: the first, a medieval one, in the central upper margin; the second, a modern one, in the outer upper margin. Marginal notes by the copyist refer to the content of the text. At the beginning of the books, we find large initials. In the first and second books, the initials are bichrome, red and blue. The incipit of the fourth book is written in the shape of a square around a big initial C in red. Rubrics and pilcrows in red. Some structuring words are sometimes surrounded by a squared box in red (as for example on f. 181^vb). The first words of the questions, in textualis, are also squared in red.

An error in the numbering of the questions occurs at the end of the third book. The question that in other manuscripts is numbered III.33 (Utrum, visa yride et Sole vel astro elevato notabiliter super horizontem, apparet minor portio maioris circuli quam appareat Sole existente in fine horizontis) is referenced as III.34, without III.33 appearing anywhere else. Consequently, the subsequent questions, which in the other manuscripts are numbered III.34 and III.35, are numbered III.35 and III.36. Another error occurs at the end of the fourth book. The question that is numbered IV.7 in the other manuscripts (Utrum balnea conferant ad digestionem), is numbered IV.6 here, just like the previous one. As a result, question IV.8 (Utrum sint tantum tres digestiones) becomes question IV.7. This discrepancy continues until the end of the fourth book. It is important to notice that this difference in the Leipzig manuscript does not affect the questions themselves, but only their numbering, as no question has been added or removed.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 181^ra–203^va: Circa initium Metheororum, utrum possibile sit de impressionibus meteorologicis habere scientiam simul et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metroloycis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem, ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo. Et cum dicitur: ‘tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic’, respondetur quod fecit propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari, et propter eorum opinionem ipse talem materiam hic tetigit. Et sic est finis libri primi. Explicit liber primus Metheororum.

II, ff. 203^vb–216^vb: Circa initium libri secundi Metheororum primo queritur utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Rationes patent in secundo articulo huius questionis. Et tantum de ista questione, et per consequens de toto libro secundo huius Metheororum.

III, ff. 216^vb–261^rb: Liber tertius Metheororum. Circa initium tertii libri Metheororum primo queritur utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit exalatio calida …X… Ad ultimum: quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant, etc. [rubr.: Sequitur liber quartus, etc. Ave Gertrudis virgo grata ex regali stirpe nata leprosos mundare non sprevisti ob amorem Iesu Christi, cecis viam demonstrasti, etc. Sponsa mea].

IV, ff. 261^va–274^rb: Circa primum quarti Metheororum primo movetur ista questio, utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad ultimam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate, sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne nec uritur ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne, etc. Expliciunt questiones magistri Orem super libros Metheororum, scripte in Studio Lipczensi et finite anno domini millesimo quadragintesimo vicesimo nono.

12 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4376, ff. 1^r–64^r (M)

Paper; mm 285 × 215; ff. II + 152; 1365–1386

Date and origin. The texts contained in this manuscript were copied at Prague University between 1365 and 1386, as emerges from the initia and the colophons: “Expliciunt questiones primi [corr. sup. lin. ex secundi] libri Metheororum, finite die beati Erhardi martiris atque pontificis, anno Domini 1366” (f. 15^vb); “expliciunt questiones quatuor librorum Metheororum Byridani, finite Prage anno Domini 13°66to, in vigilia beate Dorothee virginis, per pedes Johannis Krichpaumi de Ingol⟨stat⟩” (f. 64^rb); “incipit declaratio magistrorum sancte theologie sancte Universitatis studii Pragensis […], anno Domini 1386” (f. 66^va); “expliciunt questiones super totalem librum De senso et sensato collecte Parysius per reverendum magistrum Albertum de Rychmersdorf, pronunciate Prage in quadam bursa tunc temporis, anno MCCCLXV, feria quarta proxima post assumptionem virginis gloriose per Johannem Krichpaumum de Ingolstat, finite in die Sancti Bernhardi” (f. 86^rb); “expliciunt questiones De sompno et vigilia, anno Domini 1367mo” (f. 100^vb); “hic sit finis questionum De longitudine et vite brevitate in Praga anno Domini millesimo CCC°LXVII, in vigilia gloriosissime annunciationis virginis Marie per Johannem Krichpaumum de Ingol⟨stat⟩” (f. 104^va); “et sic patent questiones primi De anima finite sabato ante festum palmarum in Praga, anno Domini 1365to” (f. 107^va).

Most of the texts have been copied by Iohannes Krichpaum from Ingolstadt, a student at the Prague Arts Faculty who identifies himself in the colophons (see f. 64^rb, f. 86^rb and f. 107^va). Similarly to the ms. Clm 4375 of the Bavarian State Library, which transmits a copy of the first redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology, this manuscript came into the possession of the abbey of SS. Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg. In the upper margin of f. 1^r, we read: “Monasterii S. Udalrici Aug”.

Composition. Wooden binding; traces of clasps on the front cover. On the lower part of the front cover, we find a votive image of the abbey of SS. Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg, which is accompanied by the words: “P.P. Benedictinorum, Lib. et Imp. Monasterii S.S. Udalrici et Affrae Augustae”. Two parchment guard-leaves. On the first one, a medieval hand wrote: “Buridani”. These leaves are followed by 152 paper leaves, grouped mainly in quinions: I (1–10)^(6–1)+5; II (11–20)⁵⁺⁵; III (21–30)⁵⁺⁵; IV (31–41)^6+(6–1); V (42–51)⁵⁺⁵; VI (52–61)⁵⁺⁵; VII (62–67d)⁵⁺⁵; VIII (68–77)⁵⁺⁵; IX (78–87)⁵⁺⁵; X (88–97)⁵⁺⁵; XI (98–104c)⁵⁺⁵; XII (105–114)⁵⁺⁵; XIII (115–124)⁵⁺⁵; XIV (125–134)⁵⁺⁵; XV (134–144)⁵⁺⁵; XVI (145–152)⁴⁺⁴.

Signatures in the first leaf of each fascicule (from a to q). The first fascicule begins with the signature “a ii”, as the first leaf has been ripped.

Two modern foliations in the upper margin: the first one in black ink; the second one in pencil. Since the leaves that should have been numbered 68, 69, 70 and 71 are blank, they have been omitted from the numbering by the black-ink hand. The pencil hand has numbered them 67a, 67b, 67c, and 67d. The same circumstances apply to ff. 105, 106 and 107, which are numbered in pencil 104a, 104b, and 104c. Ff. 17–19, 26–29, 31, 33–34, 36–39, 42, 47, 48–53, 57–59, 61–63, 68–69, 71–74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152 have not been numbered.

Content. The academic origin of this manuscript is reflected in its content, which consists mostly of commentaries on Aristotle’s natural philosophy by Parisian masters of the second half of the fourteenth century: the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 1^ra–64^rb); an anonymous question about the plague (ff. 64^va–66^rb);⁴³ a declaration of the masters of Prague University (ff. 66^va–67^vb);⁴⁴ the Questions on De sensu et sensato ascribed to Albert to Saxony or Nicole Oresme (ff. 68^ra–86^rb);⁴⁵ some questions on De memoria et reminiscentia (ff. 86^va–91^ra) and on De somno et vigilia (91^ra–100^vb), which should probably be ascribed to Albert of Saxony; two anonymous questions on De somno et vigilia (100^vb–101^vb);⁴⁶ a set of questions on De longitudine et brevitate vite (ff. 102^va–104^va), which should also probably be ascribed to Albert of Saxony; the second redaction of Buridan’s Questions on De anima (ff. 105^ra–124^vb; ff. 150^va–151^va);⁴⁷ the redactio B of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 125^ra–150^rb).

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon ascribes the commentary to Buridan: “Expliciunt questiones quatuor librorum Metheororum Byridani” (f. 64^rb). The text is copied in two columns of about fifty lines each. The handwriting is regular; the ink is brown. Annotations in the margin by the copyist. The incipits of the books, just like the first words of each question, are copied in textualis and have a rubricated initial. The numbering of the questions is inconsistent. A first mistake occurs after question III.11 (Utrum typho et ecnephya et incensio sint exalationes calide et sicce), correctly introduced by the words “undecimo queritur”. The subsequent question (Utrum visus refrangatur in occursu medii densioris et rarioris), which is the twelfth of the third book, is, however, introduced by the words “tredecimo queritur”. This mistake persists until the question Utrum yris sit forma dyaphanalis vel specularis, vel utrum fiat per reflexionem vel per refractionem, which in this manuscript is numbered III.23 and in the others III.22. The following question (Utrum, supposito quod yris fiat per reflexionem radiorum, utrum tunc fiat in nube vel super guttulas roridas vel super stillicidia), at f. 43^vb, is preceded by the words “queritur vicesimo secundo”, even if it is numbered III.24 (III.23 in the other manuscripts). As a result, the following two questions (Utrum omnes yris debeat esse tricolor and Utrum yris solum dupliciter et non multipliciter potest apparere) are numbered III.23 and III.24. Surprisingly, the subsequent question (Utrum semper, apparentibus duabus yridibus, superior yris debet habere colores conversim positos) is introduced by the words “queritur vicesimo octavo”. This new numbering continues until the question Utrum, visa yride et Sole vel astro elevato notabiliter super horizontem, apparet minor portio maioris circuli quam appareat Sole existente in fine horizontis (f. 52^va), which is numbered III.35 in our codex and III.33 in the other manuscripts. At that point, the copyist, who probably became aware of the mistake, numbered the following questions III.34 and III.35 (and not III.36 and III.37, as he should have done on the basis of his erroneous numbering) in agreement with the numbering of the other manuscripts.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 1^ra–15^vb: Primo queritur circa initium primi libri Metheororum utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metroloycis [sic] habere simul scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de impressionibus metheorologicis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia non esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, condedo. Tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari. Expliciunt questiones primi libri Metheororum, finite die beati Erhardi martiris atque pontificis, anno Domini 1366.

II, ff. 15^vb–24^va: Circa secundum Metheororum queritur secundum distinctionem in principio huius libri positam ab Alberto, et est questio ista: utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod nullum elementum debet primo generari extra locum non naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis questionum secundi libri Metheororum, finite in die sancti Vincentii in civitate Pragensi tunc temporis anno Domini millesimo 1366-to hora quasi crepusculi.

III, ff. 24^vb–56^rb: Circa tertium Metheororum queritur primo secundum distinctionem totius libri istius in principio positam ab Alberto. Ista sit questio prima, utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida, quia si sic, sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic est finis questionum tertii libri Metheororum. Finitus Prage anno Domini 1366 sabbato, die proximo ante festum purificationis Virginis gloriose.

IV, ff. 56^rb–64^rb: Circa quartum Metheororum queritur utrum tantum sunt quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne, etc. Deo gratias. Expliciunt questiones quatuor librorum Metheororum Byridani, finite Prage anno Domini 13°66-to in vigilia beate Dorothee virginis per pedes Johannis Krichpaumi de Ingol⟨stat⟩.

13 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 17226, ff. 1^ra–140^rb (M¹)

Paper; mm 310 × 215; ff. 140 + III; 1413

Date and origin. The colophon informs us that the text was copied in 1413 by a certain Lanzman: “Et sic est finis huius operis. Deo gratias, etc. Et questiones ille scripte sunt per Lanzman … suo domino sub anno incarnationis domini Iesu Christi M CCCC XIII° etc.” (f. 140^rb).

Composition. Pasteboard binding covered with leather. On the front cover a medieval hand has written: “Questiones Metheororum Burydani in primo, in secundo et in quarto libro. Questiones Metheororum Orem(?) in primo, in tertio et in quarto libro”. The volume consists of 140 paper leaves grouped in senions according to the following formula: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–24)⁶⁺⁶; III (25–36)⁶⁺⁶; IV (37–48)⁶⁺⁶; V (49–60)⁶⁺⁶; VI (61–72)⁶⁺⁶; VII (73–84)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (85–96)⁶⁺⁶; IX (97–108)⁶⁺⁶; X (109–120)⁶⁺⁶; XI (121–132)⁶⁺⁶; XII (133–140c)^6+(6–1). Catchwords on the verso leaves at the end of the fascicules: f. 12, f. 24, f. 36, f. 48, f. 60, f. 72, f. 96, f. 108, f. 120. Signatures on the recto leaves at the beginning of the fascicules: f. 13 (secundus); f. 25 (tertius); f. 37 (quartus). Modern foliation in black pen and pencil. The last three leaves are blank and have not been numbered.

Content. This manuscript contains a compilation of questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology based on the commentaries of John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Themo Iudeus. In the first two books, we find an alternation of Oresme’s and Buridan’s questions; starting from the third book, the compilator also introduces some excerpts from Themo. In his catalogue of commentaries on Aristotle at the Bavarian State Library, Markowski attributes the whole text to John Buridan, probably having been misled by the incipit, which does indeed correspond to that of Buridan.⁴⁸ (f. 1^ra: “⟨S⟩i scientiam oppinamur honorabiliorem ex eo ceteris paribus quod est de magis mirabilibus …”).⁴⁹ However, as has been pointed out by Birkenmajer, the explicit does not correspond to the other manuscripts of Buridan’s text,⁵⁰ but rather to the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions (f. 140^ra: “Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur igne, sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicitur quod tale animal habitat in igne”).⁵¹ The compilator does not make an effort for consistency, as he does not omit the frequent references in Buridan’s questions that point to passages in the original text, rendering them completely meaningless after the process of interpolation. For example, in question I.11 we read: “Sicut de motu quesitum est, ita quinto querimus de lumine, videlicet utrum omne lumen sit calefactivum”, f. 18^rb.

The text is copied in a single hand in two columns of about forty lines per page. The handwriting is regular and easily readable. The decoration has not been completed: the space intended for the initials of the first (f. 1^ra) and of the third (f. 91^vb) book has been left blank. The incipit of the second (f. 63^ra) and of the fourth (f. 130^ra) book have not been copied at all. The incipits of the questions in textualis stop at f. 9^ra. From then on, a plain blank space separate the questions. Only ff. 83^va–84^vb and ff. 87^ra–91^va contain rubrics. Corrections by the copyist himself.

Incipit and explicit of the books

Prohemium, ff. 1^ra–^rb: ⟨S⟩i scientiam oppinamur honorabiliorem ex eo ceteris paribus quod est de magis mirabilibus et appetibiliorem, prout habetur in prohemio De anima, constat quod scientiam libri Metheororum valde reputare debemus …X… Ex omnibus autem coarticulatis fieri magnitudine aliqua. Sequitur nunc questio prima.

I, ff. 1^rb–63^ra: ⟨C⟩irca materiam, utrum de impressionibus metheorologicis sit tradenda scientia naturalis distincta a scientia De celo et mundo, De generatione et corruptione, De mineralibus et De animalibus et animatis. Arguitur primo quod non sit scientia de eis …X… De alio loquendo ad illum. Et hec sufficiant de ista materia. Et sic est finis primi libri Methaurorum. Sequitur.

II, ff. 63^ra–91^va: Iam de mari quesita fuerunt multa super primum librum, sed adhuc super secundum queritur de perpetuitate vel generatione maris, scilicet utrum fuit perpetuum vel aliquando factum. Et arguitur quod non …X… Inflamabantur et ardebant consequenter grossiora. Hec ergo sint dicta de hac materia. Sequitur questio. Et sic est finis illarum questionum predictarum, etc.

III, ff. 91^vb–130^ra: ⟨C⟩irca tertium librum Metheororum queritur utrum omnis radius visualis reffrangatur in occursu medii densioris vel radioris [sic]. Arguitur primo quod non …X… Ad ultimam dicendum quod omnino in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Expliciunt questiones libri Methaurorum, primi, secundi et tertii; sequuntur quarti.

IV, ff. 130^ra–140^rb: Utrum tantum quatuor sint qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non: quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne, etc. Et sic est finis huius operis. Deo gratias, etc. Et questiones ille scripte sunt per Lanzman … suo domino sub anno incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi M°CCCC°XIII, etc.

14 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, lat. 15156, ff. 226^r–265^v (P)

Paper; mm 225 × 150; ff. II+227+II; ca. 1369

Date and origin. The manuscript belonged to the Library of Saint Victor at the University of Paris (f. 34^r, mg. inf.: “Iste liber est Sancti Victoris parisiensis. Cuicumque eum furatus fuerit vel tolaverit vel titulum istum deleverit anathema sit. Amen”). On the verso of the second parchment guard leaf, we find an old signature: “n.n.20”. In the upper margin of the first paper leaf (numbered 26), we find three numbers (probably old signatures) written by modern hands: “288” (crossed out), “729” and “c.2.20”. On the same line, a modern hand has written: “S. Victor 514”. One of the texts contained in this manuscript is dated 1369 (f. 34^v: “anno Domini 1369”).

Composition. Wooden binding covered with leather. Traces of two pegs on the front cover. On the inside cover, we find a paper rectangle with the following modern inscription: “Volume de 288 feuillets. Moins les feuillets 3–26, 28–31, 194–226. Les feuillets 32, 33, 56, 59, 181–266 sont blancs. Le feuillet 1 est mutilé. 10 Mai 1869”. Two parchment guard-leaves. On the verso of the second leaf, a medieval hand has written: “Tabulam hic contentorum reperies folio 297”. The folio number was thereafter erased by a modern hand, which wrote on the same line “31”. On the same parchment leaf, we find an old signature: “n.n.20”. The guard-leaves are followed by 227 paper leaves grouped mainly in senions: I (3–33)^(3–1)+3; II (34–45)⁶⁺⁶; III (46–57)⁶⁺⁶; IV (58–69)⁶⁺⁶; V (70–81)⁶⁺⁶; VI (82–93)⁶⁺⁶; VII (94–105)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (106–117)⁶⁺⁶; IX (118–129)⁶⁺⁶; X (130–141)⁶⁺⁶; XI (142–153)⁶⁺⁶; XII (154–165)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (166–177)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (178–181)²⁺²; XX (182–193)⁶⁺⁶; XXI (226–237)⁶⁺⁶; XXII (238–247)⁶⁺⁶; XXIII (248–259)⁶⁺⁶; XXIV (260–271)⁶⁺⁶; XXV (272–285)⁷⁺⁷; XXVI three folios. At the end of the volume some leaves have been cut off (nine, as we can infer from the numbering of the following leaf). Two parchement guard-leaves, numbered by a medieval hand 298 and 299. Signatures in the upper margin of each recto leaf: f. 34 (primus 6); f. 46 (2us); f. 58 (3us); f. 70 (4us); f. 82 (5us); f. 94 (6us); f. 106 (7us); f. 118 (8us); f. 130 (9us); f. 142 (10us); f. 154 (11us); f. 166^r (12us); f. 178 (13us). Catchwords in the inner lower margin of the verso leaves: f. 45; f. 69; f. 81; f. 93; f. 105; f. 117; f. 129; f. 141; f. 153; f. 165; f. 177; f. 259; f. 237; f. 247; f. 271; f. 285.

Blank leaves: ff. 31^v–33^v; ff. 46^r–47^v; f. 146^v; f. 149^r; f. 170^v; ff. 176^v–177^r; ff. 180^v–181^v; f. 193^r. Medieval foliation in the upper outer margin. The first paper leaf is numbered 26, as leaves 1–25 have been torn out. A modern hand added “3–” before “26”, in order to make clear that the preceding leaves were missing. The same hand numbered the two parchment guard-leaves 1 and 2. Folio 27 is followed by f. 31. The modern hand wrote “28–” before 31, to make clear that folios 28–30 were missing. Ff. 34–181 must have circulated independently in the Middle Ages, as they are consecutively numbered with another foliation. This foliation has been crossed out. F. 193 is followed by f. 226. A modern hand has written “194–” before 226, to make clear that ff. 194–225 were missing.

Content. This manuscript gathers various heterogeneous texts. On f. 31^r, a modern hand has compiled a table of contents: “Tabula contentorum / Metra quedam fol. 26 / Plura theologicalia a fol. 44 usque 180 / tractatus quidam de consequentiis 183 / Questiones super librum Metheororum 226”. The table is followed by a list of missing texts: “Desiderata in hoc codice / Tractatus quidam de Rhetorica fol. 2 / Epistola Luciferi ad prelatos Ecclesie 28 / Aristotelis Secreta secretorum sive De regimine principum 194”. I have identified the verses on ff. 26^r–27^v as Geoffroi of Vinesauf’s Poetria nova.⁵² The second text contained in this codex (the Plura theologicalia) is a commentary on the Sentences. A fifteenth-century hand, different from that of the copyist, ascribes it to John Gerson (f. 178^v: “Sententie magistri Joannis Gerson”). This ascription is accepted by A. Combes⁵³ and contested by Glorieux, who ascribes this commentary to Jean Régis, a Franciscan who lectured on the Sentences in the academic year 1369–1370.⁵⁴ The third text, on ff. 182^r–192^v, is a treatise on logic in ten chapters.⁵⁵

The Questions on Meteorology. The text, which is transmitted anonymously, is copied in a single column of about forty lines per page. The handwriting, typical of mid-fourteenth-century Paris, is regular and easy to read. The large initials that should appear at the beginning of each question are missing. The first words of the books and of the questions are copied in textualis, as are the words that introduce a new part of the question (“in oppositum, quantum ad primum, ad rationes”). The text stops, unfinished, on f. 288^v, at question III.20 (Utrum omni hora diei yris posset apparere), with the words: “quod semper semidyameter iridis est equalis, ideo dicendum est quod hoc est”. A first interruption occurs on f. 265^v, at question II.10 (Utrum mare debeat fluere et refluere), with the words: “eius a Sole augetur eius virtus a Sole”; the commentary resumes on f. 267^r, with the question Utrum aqua maris debeat esse salsa, f. 266 having been left blank. McCluskey has noticed that, starting from this question, the text no longer follows Oresme’s Questions, but rather Albert of Saxony’s. The collation of the Parisian commentary with the other witnesses of Albert’s commentary enabled me to confirm this statement,⁵⁶ which nonetheless requires some clarification. While the third book of Albert’s Questions only contains nine questions, the Parisian manuscript consists of twenty. This can easily be explained by the different division of the books adopted in the Parisian manuscript: while in Albert’s manuscripts the question Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca is the seventh of the second book, in the Parisian manuscript it is placed at the beginning of the third book. The Questions on Meteorology contained in this manuscript is therefore a compilation consisting of questions I.1–II.10 by Nicole Oresme and questions II.11–III.9 by Albert of Saxony.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 226^r–253^r: ⟨C⟩irca librum Metheororum, qui est quartus naturalium, queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis habere simul scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non: de impressionibus metheorologicis non contingit habere scientiam nec etiam opinionem; ergo questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si esset de natura celi, de ea non esset determinandum’, concedo. Sed tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic propter hoc quod plures antiquorum crediderunt galachiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic patet ad questionem.

II, ff. 253^v–269^r: ⟨C⟩irca secundum librum Metheororum queritur utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ratio in oppositum soluta est, quia considerabatur quod radii Solis sunt causa salsedinis, et intelligebatur de salsedine maris. Hoc de questione.

III, 269^r–288^v: ⟨C⟩irca tertium librum Metheororum queritur utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et videtur primo quod sit aer motus, quia aliquis motus est ventus, ut patet in follibus …X… Semper semidiameter yridis est equalis, ideo dicendum est quod hoc est …

15 Poznań, Archivum Archidiecezjalne, Cms 53, ff. 1^r–95^v (Po)

Paper; mm 205 × 150; I+368+I; 15th C

Date and origin. Nothing is known about the date or provenance of this codex, except that it belonged to the Cistercensian friars, as is evident from a note on f. 1^ra: “Ex libris fratrum B.M.V. de […] Ord. Cisterc”.

Codicology. Medieval wooden binding. The front cover is missing. A clasp on the back cover. A parchment guard-leaf followed by 368 paper leaves grouped mainly in senions, according to the following scheme: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–24)⁶⁺⁶; III (25–36)⁶⁺⁶; IV (37–48)⁶⁺⁶; V (49–60)⁶⁺⁶; VI (61–70)⁵⁺⁵; VII (71–82)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (83–94)⁶⁺⁶; IX (95–107)^7+(7–1); X (108–119)⁶⁺⁶; XI (120–131)⁵⁺⁵; XII (132–143)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (144–155)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (156–167)⁶⁺⁶; XV (168–179)⁶⁺⁶; XVI (180–191)⁶⁺⁶; XVII (192–207)⁸⁺⁸; XVIII (208–219)⁶⁺⁶; XIX (220–231)⁶⁺⁶; XX (232–243)⁶⁺⁶; XXI (244–250)^4+(4–1); XXII (251–262)⁶⁺⁶; XXIII (263–274)⁶⁺⁶; XXIV (275–286)⁶⁺⁶; XXV (287–298)⁶⁺⁶; XXVI (299–310)⁶⁺⁶; XXVII (311–322)⁶⁺⁶; XXVIII (323–334)⁶⁺⁶; XXIX (335–346)⁶⁺⁶; XX (347–358)⁶⁺⁶; XXI (359–368)^6+(6–2). At the end of the volume we find another parchment guard-leaf.

Three main codicological units can be distinguished: I (ff. 1–95); II (ff. 96–248); III (ff. 251–367). In the first unit, we find signatures in the inner margin of the first leaf of each fascicule: f. 13 (2us); f. 25 (3us); f. 37 (4us); f. 49 (5us); f. 61 (6us); f. 71 (7us); f. 83 (8us). In the second codicological unit, the signatures can be found sometimes in the inner, sometimes in the upper margin, between the two columns: f. 110 (2); f. 120 (3); f. 132 (4us); f. 144 (5us); f. 156 (6us); f. 168 (7us); f. 180 (8us); f. 192 (nonus); f. 208 (decimus); f. 220 (undecimus, upper margin between the two columns); f. 232 (12us, upper margin between the two columns); f. 244 (13us). Finally, in the third codicological unit, the signatures are always in the upper central margin: f. 263 (2us); f. 275 (3us); f. 287 (4us); f. 299 (5us); f. 311 (6us); f. 323 (7us); f. 335 (8us); f. 347 (9us); f. 359 (10us). Modern foliation in pencil in the upper outer margin, every ten leaves. Ff. 148^v–150^v and ff. 267^v–268^v are blank.

Content. Three textual units correspond to the three codicological units of this manuscript. The first part (ff. 1^r–95^v) contains the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology; the second part (ff. 96^r–248^r), a set of anonymous Questions on the Physics; the third part (ff. 251^r–367^r), Lawrence of Lindores’s Questions on De anima.⁵⁷

The Questions on Meteorology. The text is anonymous. In his catalogue of commentaries on Aristotle in Poznan’s Libraries, Markowski ascribes it to John Buridan, without justifying this choice. Yet the incipits and the explicits of the books do not correspond to Buridan’s text, but to the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology. Moreover, Buridan did not comment on the fourth book of Aristotle’s Meteorology, while Oresme did. Following a direct study of the text, we can now confirm that it is a copy of the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology.

The text is written in different hands and laid out in two columns of about forty-eight lines each. There is no decoration. The words that introduce the structural parts of the questions are sometimes written in bigger character; in other cases, these words are missing and replaced by a blank space. Nine questions from the third book are missing: III.24–III.32. At the end of question III.32 (f. 78^va), the copyist has written: “Item sequuntur adhuc decem questiones, scilicet inter illam ‘supposito quod yris fiet secundum reflexionem’, et illam ‘utrum, visa yride et Sole’ ”. This note is followed by a blank space of eleven lines. The scribe then resume the copy with question III.33 (Utrum, visa yride et Sole vel astro elevato notabiliter super horizontem, apparet minor portio maioris circuli quam appareat Sole existente in fine horizontis).

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 1^ra–29^vb: Queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus meteoroloycis [sic] simul habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metheorologicis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; ergo etc. …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia non esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo. Et cum dicitur: ‘tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea hic’, respondetur quod hoc fecit propter hoc quod plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari, et propter eorum opiniones ipse talem materiam hic tegit. Et sic est finis questionum primi libri Metheororum.

II, ff. 29^vb–44^vb: Circa secundum librum Meteororum queritur primo utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes ante oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis secundi libri, etc. Sequitur tertius liber.

III, ff. 45^ra–85^ra: Queritur primo utrum ventus ⟨sit⟩ exallatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exallatio calida, nam sic sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Sequitur quartus.

IV, ff. 85^ra–95^va: Circa initium quarti libri Methaurorum queritur primo utrum tantum quatuor sunt qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, siccitas et frigiditas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod ⟨per⟩ superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est combustibile ab igne; et ideo dicimus quod ipsum habitat in igne. Et sic est finis.

16 St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 839, ff. 1^r–177^r (Sg)

Paper; mm 220 × 165; ff. 180; 1459

Date and origin. This manuscript was copied in 1459, as stated by the colophon: “Rescripte sunt hee questiones venerabilis magistri Orem Metheororum Aristotelis paripatetici [sic] anno domini 1459 pridie idus mensis septembris indictione septima” (f. 175^v). A scribe’s marginal note in Middle High German proves that the codex was copied in a German speaking region (f. 54^r: “Is Schiff ist gut”). The same scribe copied another manuscript conserved in St. Gallen: ms. 840, which contains Nicholaus Theoderici of Amsterdam’s Questions on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The manuscript belonged to the library of the monastic community of St. Gallen already in the sixteenth century, as witnessed by the coat of arms of Prince-Abbot of St. Gallen Diethelm Blarer (1530–1564), on f. 175^v.

Composition. The binding, restored in the eighteenth century, is made of leather and pasteboard. The first leaf, numbered A in pencil by a modern hand, was probably added afterwards, as it has not been numbered by the medieval hand and as the subsequent leaf is rather worn, which indicates that it was previously the first leaf of the volume. Pius Kolb, an eighteenth-century librarian, has written on this leaf: “Tractatus egregius seu questiones in IV libros Metheororum Aristotelis”. In the upper margin of the same leaf, Kolb entered the signature “s.n.308”, under which the manuscript was registered in an old catalogue of 1755. The old signature is followed by the modern one, “839”, written in red ink.

The volume consists of fifteen senion quires: I (A–11)⁶⁺⁶; II (12–23)⁶⁺⁶; III (24–35)⁶⁺⁶; IV (36–47)⁶⁺⁶; V (48–59)⁶⁺⁶; VI (60–71)⁶⁺⁶; VII (72–84)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (85–96)⁶⁺⁶; IX (97–108)⁶⁺⁶; X (109–120)⁶⁺⁶; XI (121–132)⁶⁺⁶; XII (133–144)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (145–156)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (157–168)⁶⁺⁶; XV (169–179B)⁶⁺⁶.

Starting with the second fascicule, we find signatures in the recto lower margin of every first leaf: f. 12 (2us); f. 24 (3us); f. 36 (4us); f. 48 (5us); f. 60 (6us); f. 72 (7us); f. 85 (8us); f. 97 (9us); f. 109 (10us); f. 121 (11us); f. 133 (12us); f. 145 (13us); f. 157 (14us); f. 169 (15us). Medieval foliation in the upper outer margin. Ff. 177^v–179^v are blank. The numbering skips from 76 to 78.

The Questions on Meteorology. This manuscript only contains the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 1^r–175^r), followed by a table of contents (ff. 176^r–177^r). The text is copied in a single column with about forty lines per page. The handwriting is a fifteenth-century bastarda; the ink is brown. The incipits of the questions are boxed in red. The decoration is unfinished: the space intended for the initials of the books has been left blank (f. 1^r, f. 42^v, f. 67^r, f. 152^v).

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 1^r–42^r: ⟨C⟩irca primum Metheororum queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metheorologicis habere simul scientiam et oppinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de impressionibus metheoroloycis non contingit habere scientiam et oppinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Ad quartam dico: ‘si gallaxia esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset determinandum in isto libro’, concedo. Et cum dicitur: ‘tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea’, respondetur quod hoc facit propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt gallaxiam esse de natura elementari, propter eorum oppinionem ipse talem materiam hic tangit. Explicit primus Metheororum.

II, ff. 42^v–66^v: ⟨C⟩irca secundum Metheororum queritur primo utrum locus generationis pluviarum sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non, nam nullum elementum debet generari extra suum locum naturalem …X… Rationes patent in secundo articulo huius questionis.

III, ff. 67^r–152^v: ⟨C⟩irca tertium Metheororum queritur, secundum distinctionem istius totius in principio positam ab Albertho, utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit exalatio calida et sicca, nam sic sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic finis est questionum tertii Metheororum Aristotelis.

IV, ff. 152^v–175^v: ⟨C⟩irca quartum Metheororum queritur primo utrum tantum quatuor sint qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas, siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitet in igne, et non quod nutriatur ab igne vel quod in eo dominetur [175^v], sed illo modo quo dictum est, scilicet quod sit inustibile ab ipso igne. Et sic finis est huius libri, de quo fine laudetur Deus gloriosus in secula benedictus. Amen. Rescripte sunt hee questiones venerabilis magistri Orem supra libris Metheororum Aristotelis paripotetici [sic] anno domini 1459, pridie ydiis mensis septembris, indictione septima.

17 Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, Ms. C 596, ff. 2^r–97^r (U)

Paper; mm 310 × 220; ff. 313; 1424

Date and origin. The colophon of the Questions on Meteorology informs us that the text was copied in 1424 (f. 96^v: “Anno MCCCC 24°”). The manuscript may have originated in Germany. It belonged to the monastery of Vadstena in Swabia until the latter was abandoned in 1595. The manuscript was then bought by the King of Sweden. In 1620, king Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden donated it to the University library of Uppsala.

Composition. See M. Andersson-Schmitt, H. Hallberg, and M. Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala, Katalog über die C-Sammlung, 6: Handschriften C 551–935, Stockholm 1995 (Acta Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis, 26), 80–81.

Content. The manuscript contains two texts: the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 2^r–97^r), followed by Marsilius of Inghen’s Questions on the Metaphysics (ff. 98^r–308^v).

The Questions on Meteorology. The colophon ascribes the commentary to Guillaume Oresme: “Et sic est finis quarti libri Metheorologicorum reverendi magistri Wilhelmi de Orem” (f. 96^v). The text is laid out on two columns of about forty-five lines each. The ink is brown; the handwriting regular. Rubrics and rubricated pilcrows. The first words of the questions are copied in textualis. The words that refer to the argumentative structure of the text are sometimes highlighted in red, as are other parts of the text that were probably regarded as important (see for example f. 3^v). In the margins, we find brief annotations in red, which refer to the structure of the text. Large initials in red at the beginning of the books. On f. 97^r–v, we find a table of contents written by the hand of the copyist.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 2^ra–23^vb: Metrorum [sic] questiones. Incipiendo ita queritur primo utrum possibile sit de impressionibus metroloycis [sic] simul habere scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metroloycis [sic] non contingit habere scientiam …X… Ad quartam: ‘si galaxia esset de natura celi, tunc de ea non esset in illo libro determinandum’, concedo. Sed tamen Aristoteles declarat de ea hic propter hoc quia plures antiquorum crediderunt quod galaxia esset de natura elementari. Et sic est ⟨finis⟩ questionum primi libri.

II, ff. 24^ra–36^ra: Apud initium secundi libri Metheororum, secundum distinctionem in principio illius positam ab Alberto, sit prima questio illa: utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur quod non: nullum elementum debet generari extra locum sibi naturalem …X… Ad rationes ante oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic est finis questionum secundi Metheororum.

III, ff. 36^ra–81^va: Circa tertium librum Metheororum sit prima questio illa, utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida, nam sic sequeretur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo alia arte ignorant, etc. Et patet questio. Et sic est finis questionum tertii libri Metheororum.

IV, ff. 81^vb–96^vb: Nunc circa quartum Metheororum primo queritur utrum tantum quatuor sunt qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, siccitas et frigiditas. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod per habundantiam dicitur, uni soli rei convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est combustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non comburitur ab igne, dicimus quod ipsum habitet in igne, etc. Et sic est finis quarti libri Metheorologicorum reverendi magistri Wilhelmi de Orem.

18 Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 5453, ff. 49^r–109^v (Wi)

Paper; mm 330 × 225; ff. 109; 1370

Date and origin. The colophon of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione informs us that the text was written in Prague in 1370: “Expliciunt questiones magistri Biridani super De generatione et corruptione reportate Prage sub anno millesimo C°C°C°LXX° in die sancti Petri ad vincula” (f. 48^v). Like the texts in manuscript BJ 749, the commentaries contained in this codex derive from a pronuntiatio, as is witnessed by the use of the expression reportate. The material aspects of the texts confirm this hypothesis: the handwriting is hasty and there are many interruptions.

Codicology. Parchment binding. The volume contains 109 paper leaves grouped as follows: I (1–9)^4+(4+1); II (10–22)^6+(6+1); III (23–29)^5+(5–3); IV (30–41)^7+(7–2); V (42–49)⁴⁺⁴; VI (50–61)⁶⁺⁶; VII (62–73)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (74–85)⁶⁺⁶; IX (86–97)⁶⁺⁶; X (98–109)⁶⁺⁶. Signatures in the central upper margin of the first leaf of each fascicule: f. 10 (2); f. 23 (3); f. 30 (4); f. 42 (5); f. 50 (6); f. 62 (7); f. 74 (8); f. 86 (9); f. 98 (10). Modern foliation in the upper outer margin. Blank leaves: ff. 9–10, f. 13, ff. 28^rb–29^vb, f. 45^v.

Content. The manuscript contains texts on natural philosophy by Parisian masters of the fourteenth century: some questions abbreviated from the first two books of Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo (ff. 1^ra–8^vb);⁵⁸ an incomplete copy of Buridan’s Questions on De anima, redactio A (ff. 11^ra–28^ra); the redactio B of Buridan’s Questions on De generatione et corruptione (ff. 30^ra–48^va); a fragment from Albert of Saxony’s Questions on Meteorology (f. 48^vb),⁵⁹ and the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (ff. 49^ra–109^vb).

The Questions on Meteorology. The text, which is anonymous, is laid out in two columns of about sixty lines each. The handwriting is hasty and tight, sometimes almost unreadable (see for instance ff. 82^v–83^r). Long marginal notes have also been written very hastily (see for instance f. 52^r, f. 64^r, f. 106^r–^v). The incipits of the first and the second book are copied in textualis; the other incipits are missing. The incipits of the questions are written in textualis only until f. 67^r, after which a simple blank space separates the questions. In the margins of f. 79^v and f. 80^r, we find some rough figures drawn by the scribe in order to illustrate the geometrical demonstrations contained in the text.

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 49^ra–63^rb: ⟨Q⟩ueritur circa primum Metheororum utrum de impressionibus meteoroloycis possibile sit habere scientiam simul et opinionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia de eis nec contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Ad quartam: ‘si [63^rb] galaxia esset de natura celi’, concedo. Sed tamen Aristoteles determinavit de ea in isto libro quia plures antiquorum crediderunt galaxiam esse de natura elementari.

II, ff. 63^rb–71^vb: ⟨Q⟩ueritur primo circa secundum librum Metheororum utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Arguitur quod non debet generari extra locum suum naturalem …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet ex secundo articulo. Et sic sequitur tertius liber.

III, ff. 71^vb–103^ra: Utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur quod non sit exalatio calido [sic], quia sic sequitur quod in temporibus ventosis aer deberet esse calidus …X… Ad ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Et sic est finis questionum tertii libri huius.

IV, ff. 103^ra–109^vb: Utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, humiditas, frigiditas, siccitas. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit …X… Ad sextam dico quod in salamandra non dominatur ignis in quantitate nec etiam nutritur ab igne; sed tale animal non est ustibile ab igne; et ideo, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne, etc. Deo gratias.

19 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, IV Q 27, ff. 1^r–163^r (Wr)

Paper; mm 220 × 150; ff. II+165; 14th century

Date and origin. On f. 165^v, we find a mark of possession that has subsequently been erased: “Liber Nicolai de scola † artium baccalaurei”. The date and provenance of this manuscript are unknown. On the back inside-cover, we read: “Anno millesimo trecentesimo nonagesimo nono obyt serenissima princeps regina Hedwigis in Cracovia in die sancti Galli”. This note proves that the manuscript circulated at Krakow University. It came into the possession of the Wrocław University Library in 1810.

Codicology. Wooden binding. Traces of pegs on both covers; traces of the central boss on the front cover. A paper guard-leaf, on the verso of which we find a table of contents of the first book of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology. At the bottom of this leaf, numbered I on the verso by a modern hand, we find a piece of modern paper, upon which is written: “Aus der Bibliothek des Kollegiatstifts zu Glogau”. A second guard-leaf, this one in parchment, has been numbered II on the recto by a modern hand. On the verso of this leaf, we read: “Dominus Petrus Nachancze dedit”. The guard-leaves are followed by 165 paper leaves grouped mainly in senions: I (1–12)⁶⁺⁶; II (13–26)⁷⁺⁷; III (27–38)⁶⁺⁶; IV (39–50)⁶⁺⁶; V (51–62)⁶⁺⁶; VI (63–74)⁶⁺⁶; VII (75–86)⁶⁺⁶; VIII (87–98)⁶⁺⁶; IX (99–110)⁶⁺⁶; X (111–122)⁶⁺⁶; XI (123–134)⁶⁺⁶; XII (135–146)⁶⁺⁶; XIII (147–158)⁶⁺⁶; XIV (159–163)^(3–1)+3; XV (164–165)¹⁺¹. Signatures on the recto of the following leaves: f. 1 (1us), f. 13 (2us), f. 27 (3us), f. 39 (4us), f. 51 (5us), f. 63 (6us), f. 75 (7us), f. 87 (8us), f. 99 (9us), f. 111 (10), f. 123 (XI), f. 135 (XIIus), f. 147 (XIIIus), f. 159 (XIIII). Modern foliation in black ink in the upper outer margin.

Content. This manuscript only contains Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology, (ff. 1^r–163^r), followed by a table of contents of the four books (ff. 164^r–165^r). Another table of contents, concerning only the first book, can be found on the verso of the first guard-leaf.

The Questions on Meteorology. A rubricated initium by the hand of the copyist ascribes the text to Nicole Oresme: “Hee sunt questiones magistri Orem super libris Metheororum” (f. 1^r). This ascription is repeated in the colophons of the third and of the fourth book (see below). The text, which was copied in a single hand in brown ink, is written in a single column of about thirty-five lines per page. The handwriting is regular and easily readable. The incipits of the books and of the questions are written in textualis and framed in red. Short marginal notes referring to the structure of the text, written by the copyist. Rubricated pilcrows; pointing hands (for example on f. 2^r).

Incipit and explicit of the books

I, ff. 1^r–41^v: Circa librum Metheororum Aristotelis, peritissimi philosophi, queritur utrum possibile sit de impressionibus habere metroloycis [sic] simul scientiam et opinionem. Et arguitur primo quod non, quia de impressionibus metroloycis non contingit habere scientiam nec opinionem; igitur questio falsa …X… Propter quod quia plures antiquorum crediderunt gallaxiam esse de natura elementari. Et sic patent questiones primi libri.

II, ff. 41^v–64^v: Questio prima circa secundum, secundum distinctionem in principio positam ab Alberto, et est questio ista: utrum locus generationis pluvie sit media regio aeris. Et arguitur primo quod non …X… Ad rationes in oppositum patet in secundo articulo. Explicit secundus liber libri Metheororum. Sequitur tertius.

III, ff. 64^v–144^v: Circa tertium, secundum distinctionem illius libri totius in principio positam ab Alberto, sit questio prima: utrum ventus sit exalatio calida et sicca. Et arguitur primo quod non sit exalatio calida …X… Ad rationem ultimam dico quod non in vanum laborant, ex quo aliam artem ignorant. Hec sunt dicta de questionibus tertii. Expliciunt questiones tertii libri Metheororum reverendi magistri Orem.

IV, ff. 145^r–163^r: ⟨C⟩irca principium istius quarti queritur primo utrum tantum sint quatuor qualitates prime, scilicet caliditas, frigiditas, humiditas et siccitas. Et arguitur quod non, quia quod per superhabundantiam …X… ratio huius, quia non uritur ab igne, dicimus quod tale animal habitat in igne. Hec de questione. Amen. Expliciunt questiones Metheororum seu Metherorum magistri Orem.

20 Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1045, f. 118^v

Paper; mm 275 × 225; II+120+I; second half of the fourteenth century

Date and origin. The codex consists of two parts: the first one (ff. 1–90) was copied in Prague in the second half of the fourteenth century; the second part (ff. 91–120) was probably copied in Paris in the same period. The manuscript belonged to Marsilius of Inghen, who left a short annotation on f. 120^v.

Content. This manuscript contains Albert of Saxony’s Questions on De celo (ff. 1^ra–61^rb), Albert of Saxony’s Sophismata (ff. 65^ra–90^rb); John Buridan’s Questions on De anima (91^ra–118^ra) followed by its table of contents; a partial table of contents of the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology (118^v), and a note on the magnets by the hand of Marsilius of Inghen (120^v).

The table of contents of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology. The table of contents is preceded by the following words, which ascribe the text to Nicole Oresme: “Hii sunt tituli questionum quas format magister Nicolaus Orem super librum Metheororum”. The table only covers the first two books of Oresme’s commentary. As far as the first part of the text is concerned, the table is quite selective and omits questions I.1–2, I.4, I.6–7. Starting with question I.8, the table corresponds to the actual content of Oresme’s commentary. The titles of the questions are followed by their answer, in an extremely concise form. In the following I provide a transcription of this table.

Manuscript P

Birkenmajer—who, as we have already seen in the introduction, did not know of manuscript P—noticed that all the manuscripts of the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology he had identified could be related to Central Europe. According to him, “the father of all German copies” did not transmit the original text of Oresme’s commentary, but a reworking of it by an anonymous Prague master.⁶¹ McCluskey, for his part, mentioned other arguments in favour of Birkenmajer’s thesis. He pointed out that seven witnesses of Oresme’s Questions—including some of the oldest ones—came from the University of Prague. There bachelors and masters of the Arts Faculty commonly based their lectures on the commentaries of famous masters from Paris and Oxford.⁶² The discovery of a Parisian manuscript provides possible confirmation of Birkenmajer’s assumption, as this codex transmits a slightly different text than the other witnesses of Oresme’s Questions.

Given the differences between manuscript P and all other copies, one might consider it to be corrupted, but following a complete collation of the text, it seems to me that in the majority of cases where P and manuscripts of family β disagree, it is P that provides the better variants. In what follows, I shall give some examples to demonstrate this.

In question I.2, Oresme states that nature is ordered. To corroborate this principle, manuscript P refers to the third book of Aristotle’s De celo and to the eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics: “natura non est inordinata. Tertio enim Celi et octavo Physicorum dicitur: ‘nichil est inordinatum eorum que secundum naturam fiunt’ ”. The literal quotation can indeed be found in the Latin translation of the Physics by Iacobus Venetus and in the revision by William of Moerbeke.⁶³ Interestingly, manuscripts of family β do not refer either to De celo or to the Physics, but rather to the third book of the Meteorology (“ut dicitur in tertio huius”), in which this quotation cannot be found.

In question I.3, Oresme deals with the concepts of continuity and contiguity, defined by Aristotle in the fifth book of the Physics. Oresme argues against the view according to which the parts of continuous bodies have to move homogeneously. The Seine, for instance, consists of a continuous mass of water, but its parts can move in different directions: “Secana est una massa continua, et tamen una eius pars potest moveri versus unam partem et alia versus aliam”. The Latin word for the Seine is “Secana”. In most of the manuscripts of family β this word is replaced by the expression “lancea mota ad latus”. While this modification radically changes the meaning of the text, the reasoning is still applicable with some effort. A long body rotated around its core will have some of its parts moving in the opposite direction to the others. Yet it seems evident that, in contrast to what happens with a river, such an object moves homogeneously. Moreover, strictly speaking, its parts do not move in opposite directions, as they all have the same angular difference. In addition to this, the characterisation of continuous mass (“Secana est una massa continua”) is more suitable to a river than to a long body such as a spear. The example found in the manuscripts of family β is therefore not as pertinent as the one we find in P. Three manuscripts of family β have other variants, semantically different from each other, but graphically quite similar: Be, Ka, Sg and Po read “locus”, L reads “lapis”, M and U read “lacus”, which restores, though in a slightly modified way, the original meaning of P.

The same question provides us with further examples of ways in which the text of family β can be considered as a corruption of the text of P. An interesting case concerns the following passage: “Et cum arguebatur: ‘materia Sortis et materia aeris circumstantis Sortem sunt continue; ergo Sortes et aer sunt continui’, negetur antecedens”. Manuscripts of family β replace the term “consequentia” with the term “antecedens”. In fact, Oresme would not have admitted the antecedent of his conclusion, namely that the matter of Socrates and that of the air around him are continuous. Based on Aristotle’s Physics (V, 4, 228a20–22), Oresme maintains that in order for two bodies to be continuous, it is not enough for them to be juxtaposed: they must form a substantial unity (I.3, 14: “ad hoc quod aliqua sint continua, requiritur quod ultima eorum sint unum per se”). This is far from being the case with Socrates’ matter and that of the air surrounding him, which possess different forms. The substitution of the term “consequentia” for the term “antecedens” should thus be considered as an error in manuscripts of family β.

The following paragraph of question I.3 contains a substitution that is easily explainable from a paleographical point of view. Manuscripts of family β read “taliter” instead of “totaliter” in the following passage: “sciendum est quod illud dicitur fieri a motibus supercelestibus quod fit ab intelligentiis et corpore celesti totaliter moto”. The reading “taliter” (in this way) does not seem appropriate in this context, as the preceding sentences did not expand upon celestial motions. The reading “totaliter” fits much better, since it implies a distinction that Oresme will employ in a subsequent question (I.6), namely the distinction between the particular motions of the planets and the general, unique motion of the celestial sphere, which is the ultimate cause of all of the effects in the sublunar region.

Question I.8, which concerns the relationship between motion and heat, contains another passage in which a quite uncommon word of P—at least, in the field of meteorology—has been replaced in manuscripts of family β by a more widely used one in this context. One of the arguments against the principle that motion generates heat is that a hot soup cools down once it is moved. Manuscript P reads: “videmus quod poreta calida, cum movetur, frigefit; unde videtur quod motus localis sit causa frigiditatis”. Manuscripts of family β replace the term “poreta” (soup) with “Boreas”, the Greek name of a northern wind. This substitution allows manuscripts of family β to eliminate an unexpected term in favour of another, graphically not so distant one, which seems to fit better in the semantic field of meteorology, since the term “Boreas” occurs several times in the second book of Aristotle’s Meteorology. The reasoning is still applicable, because one could admit that as Boreas blows, it chills hot things: in this case, the adjective “calida” would no longer be a nominative feminine singular, but an accusative neuter plural. Nevertheless, the answer to the argument, at the end of the question, is better explained by the lectio “poreta”. Manuscript P states in fact that once the soup is moved (let us say, with a spoon), it cools down because it comes into contact with cold particles of air. In this sense, one can say that motion generates cold (“Ad primam, de motu porete, dicitur quod, cum poreta movetur, est in alio et alio aere continue recenti et frigido, qui plus infrigidat quam ex tali motu possit calefieri”). Manuscripts of family β replace the term “poreta” with the term “Boreas” also in the answer, which makes the explanation less comprehensible.

Another example of the superiority of P over the manuscripts of family β can be found in question I.9, in which Oresme inquires whether light generates heat. In the answer, Oresme states that fire is one of the luminous bodies (“unum corpus de corporibus lucidis”). Instead of this expression, most of the manuscripts of family β (Be Kl Wr Ba Kr¹ Kr² M Sg; Wi omits this passage) have an incorrect reading: “minimum corpus de corporibus magnis”. The reading “minimum” instead of “unum” can be explained by the graphical resemblance between the two abbreviated words in gothic handwritings. The replacement of “lucidis” by “magnis” could be the result of the first error: we can suppose that the copyists, finding this statement unusual, tried to interpret and to correct the rest of the sentence. Some fifteenth-century manuscripts present a reading that, without being completely correct, is closer to P than to the majority of the manuscripts in family β. The reading of L is namely “minimum corpus de corporibus” (without “magnis”); manuscripts Ka, Kr³ Po and U, for their part, have “unum corpus de corporibus magnis”.

The same question contains another passage in which manuscript P proves better than manuscripts from family β. A possible objection against the thesis according to which light generates heat is that some luminous bodies, such as fish scales and rotten wood, do not produce heat (“Octavo: multa lucent, sicut squame piscium et putredines quercuum, que tamen non sunt productiva caloris”). Oresme, who maintains that light generates heat, explains that it is not to be excluded that these bodies too can produce a small amount of heat. Moreover, it is possible that they have a cooling effect (virtus frigefactiva) that is stronger than the heating one.⁶⁴ At the end of the question, Oresme replies to the objections against the thesis according to which light generates heat. When it comes to the argument about fish scales and rotten wood, he refers to the body of the question (corpus questionis) instead of repeating the explanation he had already given. Manuscript P has the following reading: “Ad octavam, de squamis piscium, dictum est in corpore questionis”. Manuscripts of family β, for their part, transmit variants of this reading: “Ad octavam, de squamis piscium, videbitur in questione sequenti”. Now the following question does not deal with light, but with the process of antiperistasis, namely the intensification of a quality due to the action of the contrary quality (I.10, Utrum contrarium circumstans suum contrarium fortificet ipsum). As Oresme does not come back to the heating effect of fish scales and rotten wood in the rest of the text, we can consider the variant of family β as erroneous.

In question I.8, Oresme shows that the circular motion of the sphere of fire and of the upper part of the sphere of air can be considered neither as natural nor as violent, but preternatural (“preter naturam”). While speaking about comets, in question I.15, Oresme refuses to admit that the circular motion of these bodies is a proof of their celestial nature. In doing so, he refers to the example of the sphere of fire and the upper part of the sphere of air, which both have a circular motion while being of a terrestrial nature: “Nec propter hoc oportet quod cometa sit de natura celi non plus quam aer vel ignis: talis enim motus non inest istis naturaliter, sed inest eis preter naturam, sicut prius dicebatur”. Only manuscript P has the correct reading, since he writes that the circular motion belongs to these spheres “preter naturam”. All other manuscripts state that the motion of the sphere of fire and the upper part of the sphere of air is violent, which does not correspond to Oresme’s opinion in question I.8.⁶⁵

At the end of question I.15, Oresme states that sometimes a comet takes the shape of a star, particularly when it is round: “sed tunc apparet quod sit una stella celi propter eius rotunditatem”. Manuscript P is the only witness which reads: “rotunditatem”. All other manuscripts replace this term with “profunditatem”, which makes no sense. If Oresme had meant to say that a comet could be mistaken for a star because of its distance from the Earth, he would have used the term “distantia”.

In the following question, I.16, which also concerns comets, Oresme exposes a theory according to which the matter that constitutes these bodies is similar to the celestial one. In this sense, one could say that this substance does not shine because it is fiery, but because it is very similar to the matter of the stars, which are luminous: “Ulterius ymaginatur quod nec cometa fit per inflammationem huius exalationis ab igne, sed a natura alicuius planete, ita quod ista opinio ymaginabatur quod cometa est unum corpus valde simile nature stellarum, nec est ibi proprie inflammatio, sed illud corpus fit sic lucidum quia valde declinat ad naturam stellarum”. Manuscripts of family β replace the term “exalatio” with the term “inflammatio”.

In the same question, Oresme excludes the possibility that the comet has a celestial nature. His main argument is that if this were the case, a comet would disappear under only two circumstances: 1) if it came too close to the Sun, or 2) if it distanced itself too much from it. In the first case, the comet would be outshone by the Sun; in the second case, the comet would become invisible because it would no longer reflect the light of the Sun. Now, continues Oresme, a comet often disappears independently from its proximity to the Sun (“absque eius approximationem ad Solem”): “cometa non est de natura celi. Patet: nam, si sic, numquam deficeret a lumine nisi per approximationem et accessum eius ad Solem, sicut et alie stelle; sed hoc falsum. Patet falsitas, quia sepe cometa visus est deficere a lumine absque eius approximationem ad Solem”. Manuscript P is the only one which has the correct reading “absque eius approximationem ad Solem”. Manuscripts of family β invert the sense of the reasoning and invalidate it, since they state that comets have been seen disappearing because they came too close to the Sun or moved away from it. Manuscripts Ka Kl L M Sg U read for instance: “propter hoc quod approximabat ad Solem”; manuscript Ba has: “quando recessit a Sole”.

Another interesting example can be found in question I.19, in which Oresme deals with the Milky Way. Oresme discusses an ancient theory on the Milky Way refuted by Aristotle. The adherents of this theory believed that the parts of the sky in which there are many stars attract a great quantity of exhalation. They claim that the exhalation acts as a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun (“tamquam speculum reflectens lumen Solis”) and the Milky Way would result from this phenomenon. The reading “tamquam speculum reflectens lumen Solis” can be found only in manuscript P. Manuscripts of family β have instead: “tamquam speculum reflectens istam exalationem”. This variant is incorrect, because the exhalation is not the reflected object, but the reflective one!

In question II.1, Oresme asks whether rain is produced in the middle region of the air (“media regio aeris”). Among the arguments against this thesis, he states that fiery phenomena are produced in the middle region of the air, which seems to exclude the generation of humid phenomena in the same part of the atmosphere. Having shown how rain is produced in the middle region of the air, Oresme explains that both humid and fiery phenomena can be generated in this region of the atmosphere, and that the difference concerns the process. While humid phenomena are generated through the condensation of vapor, fiery phenomena are generated through the ejection (extrusio) of combustible matter downwards. The technical term “extrusio” is used in the Greek-Latin translation of the Meteorologica when discussing lightnings and thunders.⁶⁶ The lectio difficilior “extrusio” is attested only in manuscript P: “ad secundam: ‘ibi generantur impressiones ignite’, dico quod est alio modo, quia iste generantur ibi per extrusionem; aquee autem per condensationem”. Manuscripts Ba, Ba¹, Kl, Kr, Kr¹, Kr², M, Wi, Wr read “incensionem” (manuscripts Wi and Ba add “ipsius exalationis”). Manuscripts Ka, Kr³, Po, L, Sg, U, have variants of this lectio: “intensionem vel extensionem”.⁶⁷ No manuscript except P transmits the correct lectio difficilior “extrusionem”.

In question II.2, Oresme asks whether rain, snow, dew and frost are of the same nature. Following Aristotle, he confirms this thesis and explains that the differences between these phenomena are only accidental. Manuscript P is the only witness that has a good reading of this passage: “ad quartam dico quod huiusmodi bene habent descriptiones accidentales differentes, non autem substantiales”. Manuscripts Kl and Wr, along with manuscript L, have an incorrect lectio. While the first reads: “huiusmodi bene habent descriptiones, non autem essentiales”; the latter has: “huiusmodi bene habent descriptiones, non autem essentiales diffinitiones”. Manuscripts Ba, Ba¹, Kr, Kr¹, Kr², Wi have a different, but equally incorrect lectio, since they transmit variants of this sentence: “huiusmodi sunt bene descriptiones, sed non sunt diffinitiones essentiales”.⁶⁸ Manuscript Kr has a different, better text: “ad quartam dico quod huiusmodi habent bene descriptiones differentes, non autem dispositiones essentiales”. Nevertheless, like the majority of manuscripts of family β, it omits the key word “accidentales”. This term can be found only in manuscripts Ka, Kr³, M¹ Po and U, which read: “huiusmodi bene habent descriptiones accidentales, non autem essentiales”.⁶⁹ In any case, no manuscripts of family β transmits the correct reading.

In other cases, manuscripts of family β contain readings that, while not being completely wrong, can be considered as lectiones faciliores. This occurs for instance in the following passage of question I.3: “Sol per accessum ad nos et recessum in obliquo circulo est causa generationis et corruptionis multorum in hoc mundo”. Manuscripts of family β write “a nobis” instead of “in obliquo circulo”, which implies a repetition and a loss of information.

The Central European Group: The Opposition between Family γ and δ

The opposition between δ and γ is proved by a certain number of omissions and errors shared by γ, but not by δ. For example, in the following cases, manuscripts of group γ omit the words in italics, while manuscripts of group δ transmit them:

I.8, 6 deinde specialiter probatur quod motus celi non calefacit speram ignis

I.16, 3 tertio ad idem: si esset aliqua talis exalatio ignita, aliquando deberet eclipsari, quia aliquando esset in umbra Terre causata ex obiectione Terre ad Solem.

II.1, 8 aliquando infra mediam regionem vapor elevatus, qui de natura sua est frigidus, quamvis accidentaliter sit calidus calore Solis, potest per antiparistasim reduci ad frigiditatem sibi naturalem et condensari in nubem et converti in aquam et sequitur pluvia.

The first question of the second book provides us with a very interesting example of the opposition between family γ and family δ. Oresme explains that rain can be generated in three ways. The text of P reads as follows:

Quantum ad secundum, patet ex iam dictis quid sit modus generationis pluvie. Sciendum tamen quod tripliciter possunt generari nubes et pluvie. Uno modo per condensationem vaporis elevati in nubem; secundo modo per condensationem aeris in nubem a frigiditate medie regionis; tertio modo per repulsionem vaporis a media regione.

Manuscripts Kl and Wr omit the second modality by homoioteleuton:

Sciendum tamen quod tripliciter possunt generari nubes et pluvie. Uno modo per condensationem vaporis elevati in nubem a frigiditate medie regionis [ingrossatus add. Wr] secundo modo per repulsionem vaporis a media regione.

A copyist must have noticed this anomaly and tried to remedy it by substituting “dupliciter” for “tripliciter”. This variant is attested by manuscripts Ba, Ba¹, Kr, Kr¹, Kr², M, Wi. Only manuscripts of sub-family δ transmit the correct version.⁷⁰ We can thus distinguish three groups: 1) manuscripts which have the correct version (P and sub-family δ); 2) manuscripts which contain a homoioteleuton, namely Kl and Wr—the text of these manuscripts speaks of three modalities of the generation of rain, but mentions only two; 3) manuscripts which speak of two, and not three, modalities of the generation of rain. This is the case of all manuscripts of family β with the exception of manuscripts Kl and Wr and of sub-family δ. This lead us to infer that β transmitted the correct version (with the three modalities) to δ and to γ. The latter omitted the second modality by homoioteleuton, but kept the adverb “tripliciter”. This version is transmitted in manuscripts Kl and Wr. The father of manuscripts Ba, Ba¹, Kr, Kr¹, Kr², M, Wi noticed this inconsistency and corrected the adverb, writing “dupliciter” instead of “tripliciter”.

Stemma Codicum and Manuscripts Chosen for the Edition

In light of all of these considerations, we can propose the following stemma codicum:

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

As a result of the study of the manuscript tradition of the second redaction of Oresme’s Questions on Meteorology, I chose P as the base text and Ba, Kl, L, and U as representatives of the different groups of family β. The collation has shown that within their groups, these manuscripts have relatively few accidents not shared by the whole family.