[511] Fol. 102r.
[512] Fol. 100v.
[513] De sensu et sensato at fols. 97r and 98v; De coelo et mundo, ibid.; De auditu naturali, fol. 97r. I do not know if Al-Farabi’s De ortu scientiarum is meant by (fol. 96r) “Aristotiles in libro de assignanda ratione unde orte sunt scientie.”
[514] Fols. 92v, 91v, and 89r.
[515] Fol. 99r.
[516] Edmund Nolan and S. A. Hirsch, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon, Cambridge, 1902, p. xlvii. Gasquet, “English Scholarship in the Thirteenth Century,” and “English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century,” in The Dublin Review (1898), vol. 123, pp. 7 and 362.
[517] Fol. 89v, “Calcidius, forte minus provide exponens Platonem, dixit....” We have so often been assured that the Middle Ages knew Plato only through Chalcidius’ translation of the Timaeus that I think it advisable to note this bit of evidence that the medievals did not swallow their Chalcidius whole.
[518] Rose (1874), p. 331. Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, although himself calling attention to a second manuscript of Daniel’s treatise, continues to hold that it “scheint wenig Verbreitung gefunden zu haben.”
[519] Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, expresses a similar opinion. He still, however, repeats with respect Rose’s assertion that the treatise “wie ein Gift beseitigt worden,” but would explain this as less due to Daniel’s astrological doctrine than his employing Arabian authorities instead of the church fathers.
[520] Oriel 7, fols. 194v-96v: see bibliographical note at beginning of this chapter for a fuller description of it and the following MS of Brian Twyne.