I have not noted what MSS of the Didascalicon there are in the British Museum. The following MSS elsewhere may be worth listing as of early date:
Grenoble 246, 12th century, fols. 99-133.
BN 13334, 12th century, fol. 52-, de arte didascalica, is probably our treatise, although the catalogue names no author.
BN 15256, 13th century, fol. 128-.
Still other MSS will be mentioned in a subsequent note.
[12] Didasc. VI, 3.
[13] Ibid., II, 17.
[14] Didasc. III, 2.
[15] Ibid., VI, 3.
[16] A similar distinction will be found in the Glosses on the Timaeus of William of Conches (Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard, 1836, p. 649), one of Hugh’s contemporaries of whom we shall presently treat. A little later in the twelfth century John of Salisbury (Polycraticus, II, 18) makes the distinction between the two mateses or mathematics lie rather in the quantity of the penultimate vowel “e”. In the thirteenth century Albertus Magnus (Commentary on Matthew, II, 1) also distinguished between the two varieties of mathematics according to the length of the “e” in “mathesis”; but he did not regard the second variety as necessarily superstitious, but as divination from the stars which might be either good or bad, like Hugh’s astrologia.