SOURCE: Stahl, William Harris. “Introduction.” In Macrobius: “Commentary on the Dream of Scipio,” pp. 3-65. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.

[In the following excerpt, Stahl provides an overview of the Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, discussing its structure, assumptions, sources, influence, style, and some important editions.]

THE AUTHOR

In the oldest manuscripts of the Commentary the author is called Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius v[ir] c[larissimus] et in[lustris]. In other manuscripts of his works the order of the names varies, and sometimes Ambrosius or Theodosius is omitted; but since the beginning of the Middle Ages, with perhaps the single exception of Boethius' citation of him as Macrobius Theodosius, he has been referred to simply as Macrobius.

Hardly anything is known for a certainty about his life. He is the author of three works that have been wholly or partially preserved: the Commentary on Scipio's Dream has come down to us intact; the Saturnalia, as it now stands more than twice as long as the Commentary, is incomplete, the missing portions being the end of Book ii, the opening of Book iii, the second half of Book iv, and the end of the closing Book vii; a treatise On the Differences and Similarities of the Greek and Latin Verb has been lost, but we have a medieval abridgement of it, doubtfully attributed to Johannes Scottus.¹

The Commentary is interesting chiefly to medievalists. The Saturnalia, on the other hand, is valuable to classicists for the light it throws upon Roman society and letters at the end of the fourth century. It is a miscellany of pagan lore and antiquarianism, in many respects resembling Aulus Gellius' Attic Nights, and it is cast in the form of a series of dialogues in imitation of Plato. Books iii-vi are devoted to comments on Virgil's works. As a contribution to Virgilian literary criticism Macrobius' remarks are practically worthless; they give no indication of an appreciation of Virgil's poetic merits. In the Saturnalia we have the culmination of a growing tendency to regard Virgil not as a great poet but as an authority of prodigious wisdom and learning, omniscient and infallible. His verses are oracular because they never prove false and because their meaning is often concealed and requires the acumen of a commentator to reveal it. This veneration of Virgil's erudition and infallibility was to continue for more than a thousand years and was essentially the attitude of Dante. The Saturnalia calls attention to many parallels between Homer and Virgil and to instances of Virgil's borrowing from earlier Latin writers. Trifling as Macrobius' comments are, we would regret the loss of this interesting insight into the mind of a critic of the fourth century. The Saturnalia has preserved, among other things, many of the extant fragments of the early Latin poet Ennius.

Little else is known about Macrobius. He flourished at the end of the fourth and at the beginning of the fifth century. He had a son, Eustachius, to whom he dedicated his major works and whom he professed to love dearly.² That he was not a native of Italy but probably of some fairly distant land is assumed from his words “born under another sky.”³

At this point we are reduced to speculation if we desire a fuller picture of the author. There have been many conjectures regarding his birthplace. Most scholars favor Africa, a few prefer Greece or some Greek-speaking part of the Empire. His name is Greek. Jan⁴ thinks he may have been an African for the following reasons: African in this period produced many scholars versed in Latin and Greek; it would be less surprising for an African fluent in both languages to prefer to write in Latin at Rome than for a native Greek, whose mother tongue would be known to all readers whom he could hope to attract with his writings, to write in Latin; if Greek had been his native language, he would have used Greek authors more freely than Latin authors; lastly, Africa is far enough from Rome to fit his words “born under another sky.” Vogel,⁵ Schanz,⁶ Leonhard,⁷ and Wessner⁸ also favor Africa. Mras⁹ argues that Latin was Macrobius' native language because of his frequent citations of Latin authors and his use of translations from the Greek. Wissowa¹⁰ believes that Greek could not have been his vernacular because of his enthusiasm for Virgil and Cicero and because of his numerous mistranslations of Greek passages. English scholars, on the other hand, possibly following the lead of Glover, are inclined to regard Macrobius as a Greek or a native of some Greek-speaking land. Glover¹¹ finds no objections to the possibility of a Greek origin and feels that Macrobius' intimate knowledge of Greek literature suggests a birthplace in some Greek area of the East. Sandys¹² favors Greece over Africa as a possibility. I do not know to what Whittaker refers in his statement, “He seems, from what he says, to have been born in the Greek-speaking part of the Empire.”¹³ One gets the impression from reading the Commentary—and a perusal of the Index auctorum in Jan's edition bears out the impression—that Macrobius' familiarity with Latin literature is more extensive than is his familiarity with Greek literature.

Macrobius was probably born in the third quarter of the fourth century. Georgii¹⁴ would set the date at approximately 360 and estimates that he was about ten years older than Servius. Georgii places the publication of the Saturnalia around 395 and believes that the Commentary appeared later, some time before 410. But Wissowa's contention¹⁵ that the Commentary was the earlier work seems more reasonable. He argues that Macrobius' fuller treatment in the Commentary of topics that are common to both works indicates that he had the discussions of the Commentary in mind when he wrote the Saturnalia. It is quite possible that the Theodosius to whom Avianus dedicated his fables was our author.¹⁶

II

The most important question concerning Macrobius' life is whether he is to be identified with a contemporary Macrobius who held high governmental positions. The Codex Theodosianus mentions a pretorian prefect in Spain (399-400)¹⁷ and a proconsul of Africa (410),¹⁸ both by that name; it records that in 422 a grand chamberlain by the name Macrobius, in recognition of exceptional merit, was rewarded by having his office raised to equal rank with those of the pretorian and city prefects and of the masters of the soldiers.¹⁹ In the last decree Macrobius is called a vir inlustris, one of the titles added to the name of the author of the Commentary in the manuscripts. The difficulty in attempting to identify the author with the official arises from the fact that it is unlikely that a pagan would have held the first two offices and the man holding the third office must certainly have been a Christian; but there is no evidence to indicate that the author Macrobius was a Christian. On the contrary, he presents as speakers in his Saturnalia the leading opponents of Christianity in that day, Praetextatus, Symmachus, and Flavianus, and he reveals his admiration for them; he also shows an intense interest in pagan deities. In his Commentary he is seen to be a devout follower of the Neoplatonists. Furthermore, there is not a single reference to Christianity in any of his works.

Ramsay,²⁰ Sundwall,²¹ and Ensslin²² deny the identification of the author with the official. Sandys²³ also shows disinclination to accept it, admitting the possibility of Macrobius' having been converted or of having become a nominal Christian after he had written the Saturnalia. Glover²⁴ feels that Macrobius' failure to mention Christianity is quite significant and suggests that, being a contemporary of Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodosius, he must have known about Christianity but chose to ignore it as his way of showing his displeasure at its victory. Inasmuch as the Macrobius who held the office of grand chamberlain would have had to become a Christian in later life, Glover sees “no probability, at least no certainty, in any of these identifications.”

In any case, whether or not we identify the author Macrobius with the Macrobius of the Theodosian Code, the title vir clarissimus et inlustris, attached to his name in the manuscripts, is a designation reserved for the holders of only the highest offices, according to the orders of rank instituted by the Emperor Valentinian.²⁵ Since we can hardly dismiss the title as the result of a later confusion or as a meaningless designation, as Ramsay would have it, we are again confronted with the difficulty that the holder of such high rank during the later years of Honorius' reign would have had to be a Christian.

Whittaker²⁶ and Mras²⁷ speak of him as a high-ranking official without connecting him with the Macrobius of the Theodosian Code. Schanz²⁸ and Pallu de Lessert²⁹ accept the identification outright. Leonhard³⁰ considers it probable that the author was the holder of the aforementioned offices and assumes that he was converted to Christianity after he had written his major works and that the title of rank was added in the manuscripts after his tenure. Wessner³¹ and Henry³² think it likely that the writer was the officeholder and that he was converted after he had written the Commentary and Saturnalia.

It is strange that it has occurred to none of these scholars that Macrobius' failure to mention Christianity and the fondness for pagan antiquities revealed in his works do not necessarily indicate that he was not a Christian at the time he wrote. Paganism died very slowly throughout the Empire. H. F. Stewart³³ attributes the persistence of paganism in the fourth and fifth centuries to the belief in the eternal destiny of Rome and to the cult of the city; to the attractions of the worship of Cybele, Isis, Mithra, and Orpheus, with their emphasis upon immortality; to the stern traditions of Stoicism inculcated by Marcus Aurelius; to the lofty idealism of the Neoplatonists; and, above all, to the heavy hand of the training in rhetoric, which was exclusively pagan, in the schools and colleges. Glover³⁴ also feels that the training in the rhetoric schools was chiefly responsible for continuing pagan traditions long after Christianity had won out.

The fourth century marks a revival of schools and education.³⁵ The schoolboy studied pagan mythology, history, and the maxims of pagan philosophers, and he learned to declaim by modeling his style on the classical writers. The conspicuous pagan tinge in the writings of the Church Fathers betrays their attendance upon the classes of heathen rhetoricians. Christian teachers used heathen textbooks in their courses. It is therefore not surprising that adult lay writers reflected the paganism of their childhood training. The more Christianity succeeded in spreading, the stronger seemed to be the yearning for the preservation of the antiquities and thoughts of the pagan past. A jealous rivalry and keen feeling of opposition grew up. There seems to have been a tacit agreement among writers on lay subjects to ignore Christianity completely. Stewart attributes this conspiracy of silence to “Roman etiquette.”

So strong is the cleavage at times that even men of Christian sympathies wrote as if they had never heard of Christianity.³⁶ Boethius did not refer to it in his philosophical works. Nonnus, author of a hexameter version of the Gospel of St. John, did not mention Christianity in his lengthy Dionysiaca. Claudian, court poet of Christian emperors, spoke of Christianity only once, and then in a flippant lampoon. Synesius, both before and after becoming a Christian, used the language of Neoplatonism in his serious works. Of the two Albini who participate in the dialogues of Macrobius' Saturnalia, one had a Christian wife and the other was probably a Christian. Apollinaris Sidonius, who was a bishop of the Church, was often quite pagan in his writings. Among the pagans of this period who ignored Christianity one could find a host of writers, if he took the trouble to peruse their works. I do not recall coming upon any reference to it in my readings of the Neoplatonists, except possibly in Porphyry, whose bitter attack on the Christians has survived only in fragments. Eutropius, Symmachus, and Martianus Capella overlooked Christianity in their works. Rutilius Namatianus, like Dio Cassius in an earlier period, referred to it only as a Jewish supersition.

Rather than be surprised, we have no reason to expect Macrobius to mention Christianity in either the Commentary, an exposition on Neoplatonism, or in the Saturnalia, a work on pagan antiquities and literature. But he certainly could have been a Christian, by profession at least, when he wrote those works. Thus the objection on religious grounds, advanced by Glover and others, to the identification of the author with the official of the Theodosian Code does not appear to be valid.

THE COMMENTARY

Macrobius belongs to a small but important group of polymaths and encyclopedists who, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, attempted to epitomize and present in readily accessible form the classical liberal arts and the more attractive teachings of classical philosophy. Although the compilations of these scholars³⁷ were quite inadequate to convey the more precise and advanced achievements of the classical mind to the medieval world, they were largely responsible for keeping alive a knowledge of the liberal arts and classical philosophy and science in the early Middle Ages. Apart from the disinclination or inability of both writers and readers to comprehend the more recondite matters of Greek philosophy and the more specialized developments of Greek science, the main reason that these works are poor representatives of classical thought is that the authors follow the traditional practice of a long line of compilers and commentators who had long since lost contact with the classical originals. In many cases the late encyclopedists were removed from classical Latin authors by five or six, and from Greek authors such as Plato and Aristotle, by ten intermediate sources, and in many cases the separation was probably greater. Yet they give the impression that they are handling the original works. As a consequence these compilations hold little interest for classical scholars, who are annoyed at the frequent garbling and misrepresentation of material and falsification of sources, at the lack of regard for chronology in the classical period, and at the seeming inability to distinguish between classical events and events of their own age. Notwithstanding their shortcomings, these rudimentary compendia were to hold a central position in the intellectual development of the West for nearly a millennium.

To the medievalist, Macrobius' Commentary is an intensely interesting document because it was, as we shall see, one of the basic source books of the scholastic movement and of medieval science. Next to Chalcidius' Commentary, it was the most important source of Platonism in the Latin West in the Middle Ages. As an exposition of Neoplatonism it has been praised for its succinctness and lucidity. The frequent references throughout the Middle Ages to Macrobius as an authority on Neoplatonism testify to his ability to make the system intelligible to his readers. And yet the modern scholar who wishes to study Neoplatonism would of course do well to ignore Macrobius and go directly to the masters of the school, to Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus.

Classical scholars can hardly be blamed for feeling that the Commentary has served only one useful purpose—the preservation of the excerpt on which it is the commentary. This excerpt, known as Scipio's Dream, constituted originally the closing portion of Cicero's De re publica. Forming a complete episode, it is one of the most precious compositions in Cicero's entire collection and was, with the exception of a few brief fragments, all that had been preserved from the De re publica through the greater part of the Middle Ages and up until the last century. The text of Scipio's Dream was appended to various manuscripts of Macrobius' Commentary and was thus preserved. In 1820 the distinguished Angelo Mai discovered in the Vatican Library a very early palimpsest (probably fourth or fifth century), containing beneath a commentary on the Psalms by Augustine about one third of the missing portions of the De re publica. Mai published his editio princeps in Rome in 1822.

Although Cicero used Plato's Republic as a model for his De re publica and imitated it in many respects, he approached his subject from an entirely different point of view. Plato's work treats of an ideal commonwealth, a utopia; Cicero, with typically Roman instincts, preferred to trace the development of the Roman Republic and to discuss an ideal state with the example of Rome always prominently in mind.³⁸ Perhaps the most striking resemblance to Plato's work is found in Scipio's Dream. It is an obvious imitation of the Vision of Er, which is also a closing episode, in Plato's Republic. The grandeur and poetic beauty of Plato's account evidently impressed Cicero, for he appears to have made a conscious effort to rival his master. The splendor of his theme also must have inspired him. It would be hard to find in all of Latin prose literature so much poetry in so little compass. One of the most discerning of modern critics, Mackail, compares passages in it to organ music and sums up his appraisal: “Hardly from the lips of Virgil himself does the noble Latin speech issue with a purer or a more majestic flow.”³⁹

The unusual qualities of style and content of Scipio's Dream and the fact that it formed a complete episode resulted in its being published separately. One other commentary on it has come down to us, a comparatively insignificant one by Favonius Eulogius, a pupil of Augustine. It is about one tenth as long as Macrobius' and is concerned chiefly with the numbers of the Pythagorean decad and the numerical ratios of the chords in the harmony of the spheres.

II

The method adopted by Macrobius in preparing his Commentary resembles that used by other Neoplatonic commentators, Iamblichus, Chalcidius,⁴⁰ Syrianus, and Proclus, for example. His customary practice is to place a passage excerpted from Scipio's Dream at or near the beginning of a chapter and to devote the remainder of the chapter to a discussion of the passage. He omits treatment of about one quarter of Cicero's text, mostly introductory material. Nevertheless the text of the Commentary is sixteen or seventeen times as long as that of the Dream. The excerpted passages are nearly always kept in their original order. Macrobius' discussions of them are at times to the point, at times diffuse, and occasionally almost irrelevant. He has a zeal, characteristic of Late Latin commentators, for displaying his erudition at the slightest provocation. Cicero would have been highly amused at Macrobius' ingenuity in twisting his plain and simple meaning to fit some precise Neoplatonic doctrine. It is true that the realization has been growing that Neoplatonism represents an accretion from the leading schools of philosophy, as far back as Pythagoreanism and perhaps even beyond, with emphasis upon Platonism, and that Platonism has much that is compatible and familiar to Neoplatonists. But in Macrobius' eyes the Platonizing Cicero is a full-fledged Neoplatonist, and nowhere is there the slightest indication of the anachronism involved in this conception. Macrobius' best opportunity to impress his readers with his learning is presented in his long excurses on Pythagorean arithmetic, the harmony of the spheres, astronomy, geography, and the immortality of the soul. These five subjects occupy about two thirds of the Commentary.

The excursuses give to the Commentary an appearance of disproportionateness, and frequent abrupt changes of subject matter seem to indicate faulty organization. To be sure, a commentary is not expected to have a well-proportioned structure—particularly if the commentary is based upon a work as discursive and pregnant as Scipio's Dream, ranging, as it does, from heaven to earth and introducing numerous topics any one of which might readily provide material for a book. The rambling character of the Commentary is to be accounted for by Macrobius' practice of commenting upon passages of Cicero's work in the order in which he found them.

III

Macrobius' introduction to the Commentary extends over the first four chapters. After pointing out the difference between the approaches of Plato and Cicero to the study of an ideal commonwealth, Macrobius deems it necessary, as did Porphyry and Proclus, to defend the use of fiction in serious treatises on government. He argues that an orderly society is based upon a general acceptance of the principles of right and that the most effective way of instilling in a man a desire to lead an upright, law-abiding life is by revealing to him the habitations and rewards of departed souls. This is the function of the Vision of Er in Plato and of Scipio's Dream. In reply to the clamorous objections of the Epicureans that imaginary events do not belong in serious treatises, Macrobius offers a classification of the types of fiction and points out that there is nothing incompatible between philosophical discourses and the type of fiction to which the vision and dream belong. The third chapter, presenting in clear and concise Latin Artemidorus' authoritative classification of dreams with some later revisions, was sufficient to establish the Commentary as one of the leading dream books of the Middle Ages, even though the remainder of the work has very little to do with this subject. The last of the introductory chapters furnishes the reader with the setting of Scipio's Dream; for what little is known of the setting we are indebted to Macrobius.

In the fifth chapter the author is ready to discuss the text of the dream and announces his intention of taking up only those passages that “seem worth investigating.” Immediately it begins to be apparent that his work is not so much a commentary as it is an encyclopedia of general information and an exposition of the basic doctrines of Neoplatonism, and that he uses passages from Scipio's Dream as pretexts for entering upon lengthy excursuses which, in some cases, might be called digressions. A meager statement about Scipio's life span, couched in prophetic language, starts the author off on one of his most protracted investigations, a study of number lore. It was customary for the encyclopedists to include a discussion of Pythagorean arithmetic in their works, and Macrobius' treatment bears close resemblances to the arithmologies of Theo Smyrnaeus, Nicomachus, Philo Judaeus, Aulus Gellius, Chalcidius, pseudo-Iamblichus, Martianus Capella, and numerous others. A comparison of their texts would serve to introduce the reader to the general practice among encyclopedists and commentators of extensive and frequent borrowing and incorporation, usually with no acknowledgement and often with misrepresentation of their sources. The textual resemblances are closer in the sections dealing with mathematics than in other fields. Large portions of Macrobius' text would serve as an adequate translation of the Greek of pseudo-Iamblichus' Theologoumena arithmeticae. The fifth chapter deals with figurate numbers and the numerical origin of material objects and the sixth (by far the longest chapter) is devoted almost exclusively to the virtues of the numbers of the sacred decad of the Pythagoreans. These doctrines are probably as old as the master himself. Only the first eight numbers of the decad are taken up, and, as is true of the other arithmologies, the number seven receives the fullest treatment.

A brief chapter accounting for the ambiguity in the prophecy about Scipio's death follows. Here, as elsewhere, the reader is given an opportunity to choose among the explanations offered.

The eighth chapter, containing his classification of the virtues, was one of the most popular portions of Macrobius' work. Cicero implies in Scipio's Dream that the efforts of statesmen and military leaders are most gratifying to the Ruler of the universe. Macrobius cites Plotinus' treatise On the Virtues—although he is probably more dependent upon Porphyry—and points out that Plotinus admitted political virtues into his scheme. Political virtues have their rightful place, although they are not on as high a plane as the contemplative virtues. Hereupon it is revealed that this truth was apparent to the profoundly wise Cicero, for in his statement that “nothing that occurs on earth is more gratifying to that supreme God than the establishment of commonwealths” the words on earth allude to the practical virtues and at the same time intimate that there are other types of virtues. To Macrobius, Cicero is incapable of error; his wisdom, often concealed in subtle language, will be discovered upon careful examination of his words (or through the assistance of the commentator). Cicero's subtlety is of course usually imagined by Macrobius, whose diligent search for hidden meanings to serve as substantiation for particular Neoplatonic doctrines or as excuses for displaying his erudition is an indication of how far removed he was from a true appreciation of the work upon which he was commenting.

The next six chapters (i.ix-xiv), on the origin and descent of souls, might be said to comprise the core of the Commentary. The underlying purpose of Macrobius' work is to reinforce the belief of Plato and Cicero that there is a life beyond the grave. All of these chapters, to be sure, were cherished in the Middle Ages and widely quoted. From their habitations in the celestial or “fixed” sphere souls descend into mortal bodies. Those souls that never lose sight of their divine origin and do not become defiled by the impurities of the corporeal realm are taken back to their rightful abode. Guilty souls, on the other hand, shun the sky and hover about the bodies they recently inhabited or seek lodging in new ones, of beasts as well as of men, choosing the body best suited to their depraved conduct. As long as souls reflect on the “singleness of their divine state,” they reside in the sky; but when they are overtaken by a longing for a body, they gradually slip down, taking on corporeal accretions as they pass through each of the spheres. These accretions are explained in the twelfth and fourteenth chapters. The creature's death is the soul's life, since the soul is released and restored to the imperishable realm. Sojourn in a mortal body is death for the soul. The traditional stories of punishment in Hades are merely allegories and figures representing the distress of the souls of wretched mortals on earth. Macrobius finds that there are three divisions of opinion among the followers of Plato as to what constitute the boundaries of the “infernal regions of the soul.” He does not specify who the groups were but they are clearly identifiable as Aristotelians, late Pythagoreans, and Neoplatonists. Macrobius of course favors the Neoplatonic view and devotes most of the twelfth chapter to a detailed discussion of it. Souls descend from the sky at the place where the Milky Way intersects the zodiac. In each of the planetary spheres they acquire an attribute which they are to exercise on earth.

The thirteenth chapter, condemning suicide, was particularly attractive to readers in the Middle Ages. Macrobius cites Plato to show that we have no jurisdiction over the souls that tarry in our bodies and calls Plotinus to witness that the act of destroying oneself is a grievous sin. Anyone who contemplates suicide because he feels that he has attained perfection and is only delaying his soul's enjoyment of its rewards by prolonging his life is mistaken, for his very impatience is a passion sufficient to contaminate his soul. It is highly unlikely that Macrobius had read Plato. The latter's views Macrobius probably derived indirectly through Porphyry, who could also very well have been the transmitter of Plotinus' doctrines.

Again, in the fourteenth chapter, Cicero's Platonism proves to be congenial to the Neoplatonic commentator. The occurrence of the word animus offers Macrobius the opportunity to expound on deus, mens, animus, the Neoplatonic trinity of God, Mind, and Soul which is the foundation of the system. An authority on medieval philosophy and theology considers this passage about as capable a summary of the Neoplatonic hypostases as it is possible to find in Latin.⁴¹ Macrobius then cites the opinions of twenty-one philosophers in support of the immortality of the soul.

The long cosmographical section which follows, from i.xiv.21 to the end of ii.ix, comprising nearly half of the Commentary, was frequently bound separately and given the title of a work on astronomy. Numerous manuscripts have been preserved which consist only of this section. Other manuscripts of the complete Commentary have marginal glosses or markings indicating where the astronomy section begins and ends and marginal notations which serve as headings for the more important topics discussed. No other subject received such attention in the manuscripts. Such evidence testifies to the great interest which this subject held for readers in the Middle Ages and is corroborated by the recent studies of historians of science who, on the basis of Macrobius' known influence, consider him one of the leading authorities on astronomy and geography, particularly in the twelfth century.

His description of the universe and earth bears many resemblances to material found in the works of Vitruvius, Geminus, Cleomedes, Theo Smyrnaeus, Chalcidius, Martianus Capella, and Isidore of Seville. Theirs are for the most part general introductions, concise handbooks, or sections of encyclopedias which avoid the more difficult refinements of Alexandrian science. Such resemblances as are found here do not necessarily throw any light upon Macrobius' sources. If it were possible to draw up a stemma of Macrobius' cosmographical sources, none of the earlier authors just mentioned might appear in the lineage. The similarities here are rather one more instance of the widespread borrowing that characterizes the compilations of ancient encyclopedists.

We find in Macrobius the familiar statements about a spherical earth situated in the exact center of the universe, encircled by the seven planetary spheres, which rotate from west to east, and by the celestial sphere, which rotates from east to west. The courses of the planets are confined within the zodiac, which is one of eleven great circles girding the celestial sphere. The others are the Milky Way, the celestial arctic and antarctic circles, the celestial tropics and equator, the two colures, the meridian, and the horizon. When he comes to the horizon he makes the mistake of discussing the visible instead of the celestial horizon. The handbooks usually distinguish between the two or omit the visible horizon.

The only difficult point about Macrobius' astronomy is found in the nineteenth chapter, in which he takes up the order of the planets. The arrangement of the superior planets, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, is easily determined by the duration of their orbits, but the order of the sun, Venus, and Mercury puzzled those ancient astronomers who did not accept the Heraclidean explanation or Aristarchus' heliocentric theory. According to Heraclides Ponticus, Mercury and Venus revolve about the sun, and the sun and the superior planets revolve about the earth. In Heraclides' system there is no fixed order: Mercury and Venus are sometimes above and sometimes below the sun, Mercury being the nearer to it. Macrobius finds himself in the awkward predicament of having to choose between Plato's order and Cicero's order, for both authors are infallible in his estimation. Cicero, he says, belongs to the Chaldean school, whereas Plato follows the Egyptians. The Egyptians maintain the correct order and they also understand what has misled those who adhere to the Chaldean order. Venus and Mercury course now through the upper portions of their tracts and now through the lower portions, and during the latter periods they appear to be below the sun though they never really are. He goes on to explain why they are never found beneath the sun. It is clear that Macrobius adopted a fixed order for the planets, the one approved by Plato and his faithful adherents.

It is also obvious that when Macrobius mentions upper and lower courses for Venus and Mercury he is alluding to Heraclides' theory, perhaps without understanding it himself. Three ancient writers, Vitruvius, Chalcidius, and Martianus Capella, clearly described the Heraclidean system, Chalcidius being the only one who attributed it to its discoverer by name. But up until the present it has always been assumed that Macrobius was the fourth Heraclidean. During the Middle Ages Heraclides' theory was referred to as the “Egyptian” system on the authority of Macrobius. Duhem, author of a monumental history of ancient astronomy in five volumes, includes Macrobius with Chalcidius and Capella as the transmitters of the Heraclidean view, and points out various medieval astronomers who interpreted Macrobius' passage as an exposition of it. Dreyer and Heath, the other modern authorities who have dealt with the problem in detail, also agree that Macrobius is a Heraclidean.

In my opinion there is no question that Macrobius has been misinterpreted through the ages and that he is defending the fixed order of Plato.⁴² About this very point he is explicit here and elsewhere. With regard to the Heraclidean system he is extremely vague, and the fixed order is incompatible with Heraclides' beliefs. The modern scholars ignore what Macrobius says immediately after the passage in question. He explains that the moon is the only planet that has to borrow its light, lying, as it does, beneath the sun. All the other planets shine forth with their own light because they are situated above the sun in the region of natural light. It would have been impossible for Macrobius' discussion to serve as an exposition of Heraclides' views. Any medieval astronomer who offers a clear statement of that system on the authority of Macrobius must have been familiar with the details from the writings of Chalcidius or Capella or some intermediary.

The lengthy accounts of two astronomical discoveries, occupying the twentieth and twenty-first chapters, aroused much wonder and admiration in the Middle Ages. It would be interesting to know what the source of his first account was because it involves a painstaking and tedious procedure which could have been obviated by a simple geometrical proposition and achieves a result that is woefully inaccurate—an apparent diameter for the sun that is 1[frac23] degrees of celestial arc, compared with the correct estimate of approximately [frac12] degree, and an actual diameter that is twice as great as the earth's. Nevertheless the latter result was widely adopted in the Middle Ages. Macrobius describes the instrument used in determining the sun's size, arbitrarily gives a figure for the sun's distance without telling how it was obtained, and proceeds to ascertain what part of its orbit the sun's apparent diameter occupies. He baldly states that the cone of the earth's shadow extends just as far as the sun's orbit. Elementary geometry would have demonstrated to him that in that case the sun's diameter would be twice the earth's. After drawn out calculations that yield a figure of 140,000 stades for the sun's diameter as compared with 80,000 stades for the earth's diameter, he concludes that the sun's diameter is approximately twice as great and its volume eight times as great as the earth's!

The twenty-first chapter contains an interesting account of how the Egyptians divided the zodiac into twelve signs by means of containers of water that measured the rotation of the celestial sphere, and the twenty-second sets forth his proofs, satisfactory to medieval geographers, that the earth is in the center of the universe.

IV

Book Two opens with a discussion of the numerical ratios of the fundamental musical concords, a subject which is treated in most of the ancient encyclopedic compendia. As might be expected, we also find here marked similarities and correspondences in the treatments of the subject. Particularly in the account of Pythagoras' discovery of the numerical ratios does Macrobius' report bear close resemblances to those of Nicomachus, Iamblichus, and Boethius. He goes on in the second chapter to explain how the divine Creator used these ratios in weaving the fabric of the World-Soul. The third chapter reveals two matters that are not related to each other: that the harmony present in human souls is derived from the World-Soul, and that the previously discussed numerical ratios also govern the distances of the planets. The last chapter of the section on music deals with the causes of the harmony of the spheres and the reasons why our ears cannot catch the heavenly sounds.

The next five chapters (ii.v-ix) comprise the geographical section. Macrobius' basic conception of the earth conforms with the view that has been traced back to Crates of Mallus (second century b.c.). The so-called Cratesian theory represents the earth as spherical and divided into four great continents separated by an equatorial and meridional ocean. Macrobius, more than any other author, is responsible for transmitting this conception to the Middle Ages. His geographical excursus also repeats much of the data that are familiar to readers of the ancient handbooks dealing with the subject, particularly those of Geminus, Cleomedes, Theo Smyrnaeus, Chalcidius, and Martianus Capella. Once again the similarities here do not necessarily indicate anything about Macrobius' sources. He accounts for the temperate, frigid, and torrid climates and for the reversal of seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres, gives the dimensions of the five zones, and assures his readers that the antipodeans enjoy climatic conditions that correspond exactly with those in Europe. Inhabitants of the known quarter of the globe will never be able to establish contact with those who dwell in the other quarters because of the barriers of ocean and torrid zone.

As an authority on geography, Macrobius was extremely influential in the Middle Ages. Historians of geography give him and Martianus Capella credit for keeping alive the belief in the earth's sphericity and in the antipodeans and for the retention of Eratosthenes' figure of 252,000 stades for the measurement of the earth's circumference. Macrobius' explanation that the tides are caused by the impact of the oceans colliding at the poles became one of the three leading tidal theories. Here his influence was not favorable, for it served to cast doubt upon the more reasonable lunar explanation. His insistence that the inhabitants of the other quarters of the globe were forever cut off from the known world also probably had a detrimental effect. The maps of the eastern hemisphere that accompanied the manuscripts of the Commentary became the basis for one of the leading types of mappaemundi cartography, the so-called zone maps.⁴³ Macrobius' hemisphere map, such as it appears in the earliest extant manuscripts, is primitive in comparison with the map of the known world in Ptolemy's Geography. As a cartographer Macrobius certainly does not lack courage. He indicates where the Caspian Sea connects with the eastern ocean and assures his readers that there is a sea in the southern hemisphere corresponding to the Mediterranean, although its precise location will always be unknown.

The whole of the eighth chapter is devoted to a curious investigation of the meaning of one puzzling preposition in a passage in Virgil's Georgics. This learned disquisition is characteristic of the blind zeal of the commentator. Is Virgil's per an example of the grand epic style, or of poetic license, or does he use it to mean inter? We may be sure that Virgil never troubled his head about the matter. Another amusing discussion of this sort occurs near the beginning of the astronomical section. Cicero has described the speed of the planets as mirabilis. Macrobius explains (i.xiv.27) that he is referring to the fact that although the planets all travel at the same speed, their periods of revolution differ.

Macrobius closes the geographical discussion with a reminder that the earth, when viewed from the sky and compared with its dimensions, is but a small point, and that the known portion of the earth is only a small part of that. This revelation brings him to the subject of the next two chapters (ii.x-xi), that it is senseless for men to strive for glory as a reward for their efforts, since a man's reputation cannot extend over much territory and its endurance would have to be cut short by one of the alternate floods or conflagrations that sweep over the earth periodically. Civilization is young, for recorded history goes back only two thousand years, and such nations as the Gauls have been introduced only recently to some of the most useful boons known to man. Cicero's statement in the Dream that a man's reputation cannot endure a single year refers, Macrobius explains, to the “great year” or world-year mentioned in Plato's Timaeus. Macrobius estimates a world-year to be 15,000 solar years. This Platonic year has no connection with Hipparchus' precessional period of 36,000 years.

After a brief recapitulation of the contents of Scipio's Dream near the opening of the twelfth chapter, Macrobius declares that the Commentary will be consummated by the revelation that the soul is not only immortal but is a god. Two inspiring passages from Scipio's Dream, quoted at the beginning of this and the following chapter, lead Macrobius back to the main theme of his work. Again he speaks with a homiletic fervor, as in the earlier discussion of the soul's origin and reward, but this time he has a vigor and assurance that rise in a tremendous crescendo, climaxed by a lyrical comparison of the source of the soul's motion to a spring which is the beginning of a great river (ii.xvi.22-24).

The first Ciceronian quotation states that the body is mortal and that the mind of the individual represents his true self, that he is in reality a god. Macrobius fortifies this conviction by citing opinions of Plotinus from the opening chapters of his Enneads. The second quotation; at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, is Cicero's translation of an immortal passage from Plato's Phaedrus. Cicero was so fond of this passage that he used it again in his Tusculan Disputations. In fact it was always cherished by Platonists as the crux of their aspirations. Chalcidius included his translation of it in his Commentary on Plato's Timaeus. Macrobius uses it now as the basis of a defense of Plato against the attacks of Aristotelians. The thirteenth chapter consists mainly of syllogisms which Platonists set up to demonstrate that the soul is self-moved and immortal.

In the next chapter Macrobius pretends to be quoting directly from Aristotle's arguments that the soul not only is not self-moved but that it does not even move. There is no reason to suppose that Macrobius read either Plato or Aristotle. The evidence in the Commentary makes it quite clear that he did not, and recent studies have shown that the late commentators preferred to derive their knowledge of Plato and Aristotle from their immediate predecessors. The arguments presented here are the clichés of Platonists and Aristotelians worn threadbare through centuries of wrangling. The quotations supposedly taken directly from Aristotle in this chapter prove to be oversimplified statements of doctrines of his found mainly in the Physica and De anima, removed from their context and sequence, and set up in such a way as to be vulnerable to Macrobius' attacks which follow in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters.

As he begins his refutation of Aristotle, Macrobius admits that his own powers are too feeble and that he must draw upon the arguments which the Platonists have prepared. Obviously his version of Aristotle's doctrines comes from the same source. However, after his opening acknowledgement of indebtedness to the Platonists, he proceeds to flail at Aristotle as if he were answering him directly. As he progresses, his confidence rises and his abuse increases. He accuses his adversary of quibbling and raillery and returns full measure. He graciously gives in on a point because he does not wish “to seem eager to refute every assertion,” but the point quickly turns into a pitfall for the poor master (ii.xvi.10, 13). In the end Aristotle is completely devastated. Enough of him who turns his back on what is obvious. His doctrines with regard to the soul do not become him, admittedly great as he is in other respects.

The seventeenth chapter brings the Commentary to a hasty close. Once again Macrobius speaks on behalf of virtues exercised in public life. Some men combine both political and contemplative virtues, as did Scipio the Younger. In conclusion, Scipio's Dream embraces the three divisions of philosophy, moral, physical, and rational; consequently nothing could be more complete, in Macrobius' opinion, than this work.

SOURCES

Most of the studies of Macrobius' Commentary in the past century have dealt mainly with his sources. It is not surprising that this subject has received the greatest attention, for it has long been recognized—and it is evident to anyone who is familiar with Platonist and Neoplatonist literature—that the Commentary is a compilation containing few, if any, original doctrines. It is true, as Mras, Henry, and Courcelle have asserted, that Macrobius is not a mechanical compiler who has merely excerpted from earlier works. He has organized his material and incorporated his borrowings with such skill that the reader is unaware of his heavy debt to his predecessors. One has only to read the Commentary in translation to appreciate that the author has blended his material into a coherent and lucid exposition. But it is now feasible to offer analogues or possible sources for practically every doctrinal statement made by Macrobius in the Commentary, and an examination of those passages from earlier works in their contexts will aid immeasurably in understanding the Commentary.

Before we look into what is known about Macrobius' sources and the extent of his indebtedness to them, it would be well to point out some of the difficulties that have confronted the scholars who have attempted to trace his sources. Macrobius belongs to a group of Late Latin compilers who, as it has long been suspected and is now known, made it a practice to borrow from, or plunder, recent works and cite classical authors as their sources. In the greater number of cases in which the compilers drew their material from Greek sources, the Greek works have not survived. This has necessitated a comparison of the texts of the Latin borrowers (frequently a number of them have been found using the same sources), or a careful study of later Greek writers who drew upon the lost works used by the Latin compilers. Such investigations are admittedly highly conjectural. In the case of Macrobius it has been generally agreed that he borrowed extensively from many works of Porphyry. Since the greater number of these have been lost, a search has had to be conducted through the bulky commentaries of Proclus and the works of other authors, Latin and Greek, who borrowed from Porphyry. Some scholars have seen fit to add another complication by assuming that Macrobius was not using the Greek works directly but Latin translations, now lost. To defend or disprove such an assumption is of course extremely difficult.

II

Let us take a cursory glance at the contributions made by Macrobian scholars during the past century. Although Ludwig von Jan in his elaborate 1848 edition cited many analogous passages from earlier authors, he ignored the problem of sources and had no inkling of Macrobius' heavy indebtedness to Porphyry. Only a few Porphyrian parallels are to be found listed in his notes to the Commentary and Saturnalia, although Macrobius' debt to Porphyry was extensive in both works. In 1866 Petit made the important discovery that Macrobius' citations were not reliable, and that occasionally Plotinus was given credit for material drawn from Porphyry.⁴⁴ Ever since this discovery it has been the practice of most investigators of the sources to scan the extant works of Porphyry and of writers who borrowed from Porphyry for additional parallels to Macrobian material. Their efforts have always been successful; each investigator has added to the existing store of references. In 1888 Linke propounded a theory, long influential but now discarded, that the ultimate source of Macrobius' Commentary was Porphyry's lost Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and that Macrobius' direct source was a Latin commentary on Scipio's Dream, perhaps by Marius Victorinus, which in turn was based upon Porphyry's Commentary and a commentary on Virgil.⁴⁵ In 1905 Borghorst, apparently unaware that Zeller had already pointed out that Macrobius' Commentary had none of the “phantastische Scholastik” which characterizes Iamblichus' writings, offered the abortive suggestion that Iamblichus' lost Commentary on the Timaeus was Macrobius' source.⁴⁶ Bitsch's theory bore strong resemblances to that of Linke. He assigned as Macrobius' source a Latin commentary on Scipio's Dream, drawn mainly from Porphyry's Commentary on the Timaeus and an assumed Quaestiones Vergilianae, a Virgil commentary probably compiled by Marius Victorinus and itself largely dependent upon Porphyry.⁴⁷ In 1916 Schedler produced the longest and most documented study of Macrobius since Jan's edition, but it contained no substantial contribution to the investigation of the sources. He adopted Linke's conjectures and felt that he had strengthened Linke's theory by discovering many new Porphyrian parallels to Macrobian material. Schedler went so far as to say that wherever Plotinus was cited the true source was Porphyry.⁴⁸

Up to this time Macrobian investigators had shown the typical weaknesses that have long been associated with the more enthusiastic Continental Quellenforschung specialists. Instead of exercising the caution and restraint that would seem to be called for in a field of research that is necessarily so uncertain in its findings, they plunged in and assigned sources with utmost assurance on the basis of most tenuous evidence. Any sort of resemblances of doctrine were regarded as certain proof of direct borrowing. At times they were so intent upon gleaning further references to substantiate a preconceived theory that they lost any perspicacity that they might have had. The single-source theory adhered to by some of the scholars mentioned above has been successfully disposed of by Mras, Henry, and Courcelle, for reasons which we shall take up in a moment. Lastly, it is hard to understand why some scholars felt the need of a Latin intermediary, for Macrobius' two longer works and the abstract of his comparative study of Greek and Latin verbs demonstrate that he was almost as familiar with the Greek language and literature as he was with Latin. It has been seen that one eminent scholar thought Macrobius' knowledge of the Greek language indicated that he might have been born in Greece or some Greek-speaking land.⁴⁹

Crude as these early attempts to trace Macrobius' sources were, they were pointing in the right direction. By this time it had become clear that the Commentary on Scipio's Dream was a misleading title and that Macrobius had used Cicero's text merely as a framework upon which to hang Neoplatonic doctrines gathered from his readings. It had also become clear that Macrobius' citations could not be relied upon and that Porphyry was the main inspiration for his Commentary.

In 1919 Cumont wrote an ingenious article on Macrobius' chapter on suicide (i.xiii) in which he suggested that Macrobius did not consult the two works that he cites as his authorities—Plotinus' Enneads and Plato's Phaedo—but that instead he drew his ideas from the De regressu animae of Porphyry. Cumont noted that it was characteristic of the erudition of Late Latin compilers merely to allude to the work from which they had appropriated their material and to give as their own authorities the authorities that had been cited by the author of the book they were consulting.⁵⁰

Whittaker, well known for his studies on Neoplatonism, wrote a slender volume on Macrobius in 1923, containing numerous discursive philosophical reflections stemming from a digest of the contents of Macrobius' works. He paid very little attention to sources and remarked that “there is no prospect of an end to the search for sources.”⁵¹ In a review of this work Professor Shorey commended Whittaker for “wasting little space on the dissertations that guess at Macrobius' sources.”⁵² On behalf of Whittaker and Shorey it must be admitted that the attempts to trace Macrobius' sources had not been very successful up to that time. On the other hand, it is a deplorable attitude to express disinterest about a matter that is basic in the understanding and evaluation of an author whose doctrines are wholly unoriginal.

III

Three recent studies by Mras, Henry, and Courcelle have thrown considerable light on Macrobius' sources and it would be well to summarize their arguments and conclusions here.

Mras believes that Macrobius' two main sources were Porphyry and Plotinus,⁵³ and he offers the following evidence, which he feels is convincing, to show that Macrobius consulted Plotinus' works at first hand: Macrobius translates the titles of chapters of Plotinus' Enneads (i.xix.27, ii.xii.7); his remark that “Plotinus is more concise than anyone” could have been made only by one who had studied his works; on a few occasions when Macrobius finds Plotinus and Porphyry differing in their views, he distinguishes between them, and on one occasion,⁵⁴ on the question whether human souls pass into the bodies of beasts, he adopts the Plotinian attitude that they do.

In refutation of the single-source theory of Linke, Schedler, and others, Mras offers the following arguments: the scope of the source material of the Linke-Schedler theory is not far-reaching enough to take into account such subjects as Macrobius' chapters on geography and his chapter on the virtues; the proof presented in his own study that Macrobius used numerous works of Porphyry; Macrobius' remark that the literature on music is limitless (ii.iv.12); his contemporary references (ii.iii.4, 5; Saturnalia vii.vii.5);⁵⁵ his individualistic style, which has many characteristic traits, and his occasional independent additions (ii.xv.13-19, ii.xvi.16); his emphasis upon the political virtues, which may be partly explained by his almost certain identification with the Macrobius who held high state offices; and his practices in the Saturnalia, which indicate that he was not a mechanical copyist, that he borrowed from different sources, and that he made use of the material in an original manner.⁵⁶

IV

A year after Mras's study appeared, Paul Henry published a volume on Plotinus' influence in the West containing a chapter on Macrobius⁵⁷ in which he confirmed many of Mras's findings, although he had reached his conclusions without the knowledge of Mras's work. Henry's book is a manifest attempt to vindicate the supreme importance of Plotinus' influence upon Western Neoplatonism in the face of views held by previous scholars who had depreciated or minimized Plotinus' contribution. As a result Henry's position with regard to Plotinus' influence upon Macrobius becomes almost as extreme as the attitude of Schedler, reported above, maintaining the all-importance of Porphyry. Nevertheless Henry's arguments are worthy of examination.

Henry stresses the importance of conclusions based upon a careful study of parallel texts. He begins by comparing the texts of Commentary ii.xii and Plotinus' Enneads i.i and i.ii. He notes that Macrobius accurately translates the title of Plotinus' treatise and that one short passage could almost be considered a translation of Plotinus' words. He points out that Macrobius' expert abstracting of Plotinus' doctrines, his easy and familiar transitions from one chapter of Plotinus to another, and his penetrating remarks about Plotinus' style indicate without a doubt that he studied the Enneads carefully.

Henry next turns his attention to Macrobius' chapter on the virtues (i.viii), the chapter which, since the time of Petit, has furnished supporters of Porphyry as the chief source of Macrobius with their strongest evidence. An examination of the texts of Macrobius, Plotinus, and Porphyry, placed side by side, forces him to admit that there are numerous points common to Porphyry and Macrobius but not found in Plotinus. Nevertheless he concludes that Macrobius used Porphyry to supplement the doctrines of Plotinus, as he used Virgil elsewhere.⁵⁸

At this point Henry attempts to refute Cumont's arguments regarding Macrobius' chapter on suicide. Cumont, as we have seen, believes that Macrobius did not consult the two works which he lists as his authorities, Plotinus' Enneads and Plato's Phaedo, but instead used Porphyry's De regressu animae. Henry's arguments are too detailed to be taken up in full here, and since Courcelle has pointed out flaws in some of them, it would be well to postpone consideration of them. Suffice it to say that Henry denies Cumont's contentions and feels that Macrobius' chief sources were Plotinus and Plato. At the same time he admits the possibility of Macrobius' having read Porphyry's De regressu animae.

V

The latest investigation of Macrobius' sources, forming a part of an elaborate study by Pierre Courcelle⁵⁹ of the influence of Greek writers upon the Latin writers of the West in the fifth and sixth centuries, is in my opinion the most successful attempt yet made at reconstructing Macrobius' scholarly background, and it serves to show how great has been the progress since Jan's edition of a century ago. The success of this work lies in the author's recognition of the fact that the compilations of the Late Latin encyclopedists exhibit so many common phenomena as to represent a distinct genre. He has accordingly made a careful study of what is known of the backgrounds and practices of all the important compilers. His volume is a synthesis of the arguments and conclusions of recent scholars concerning the erudition, borrowing habits, and extent of indebtedness of these compilers, and it contains many original contributions and interpretations.

Courcelle finds that, Neoplatonist and Christian alike, the compilers preferred to ransack recent commentaries and to give their readers the impression that they were drawing upon classical sources. In compounding commentary upon commentary they lost all regard for chronology and were seemingly unable to distinguish between contemporary events and the events of the classical period referred to in their commentaries. Courcelle remarks that in these practices we see a clear sign of the approaching Dark Ages.⁶⁰ Because he has demonstrated (perhaps anew, but probably more forcefully than any of his predecessors) that the compilers had similar habits and similar literary backgrounds, Courcelle's statements regarding any one of them carry more conviction than those of a scholar dealing with a single author. His final conclusion, which he regards as the most important result of his study and which he claims to be the first to have pointed out, is that Porphyry, and not Plotinus, was the guiding light of Neoplatonism in the West:

Only one [pagan Greek] philosophy survives—Neoplatonism. Its master spirit is Porphyry, the archenemy of the Christians. This all-important fact has never before been elucidated, for the history of Latin Neoplatonism has not yet been written. The only one who has made an attempt at it, Father Paul Henry, was of the opinion that a study on Plotinus could “serve as basis to the central chapter of the history of Neoplatonism in the West.” In my judgment, this opinion reflects an error of perspective. … It was neither the lofty metaphysics of Plotinus—although he was still read and appreciated—nor the mystical lucubrations of Iamblichus and Julian, whose works seem to have remained almost unknown in the West, that conquered Roman intellects. Roman readers were much more receptive to the doctrines of Porphyry, which are both a philosophy and a religion.⁶¹

In my opinion Courcelle has given a convincing demonstration of the truth of his position. Unlike Henry, an ardent admirer of Plotinus who was determined to maintain Plotinus' key position in Latin Neoplatonism before he undertook his work, Courcelle begins in the spirit of true research, weighing all the evidence with an open mind and championing no theory. The evidence supporting his statement quoted above is abundant, as any reader of his volume will admit.

Let us turn now to Courcelle's discussion of the sources of Macrobius' Commentary. Here, too, we find him better prepared to handle the subject than his predecessors because he has already carefully investigated the sources of Macrobius' Saturnalia and believes that Porphyry's influence predominates in the Neoplatonic passages of that work as well.⁶²

After agreeing with Henry and Mras that the evidence indicates that Macrobius probably read Plotinus' Enneads carefully, Courcelle then proceeds to undermine some of their strongest arguments on behalf of Plotinian influence. Mras, as we have seen, notes that Macrobius preferred Plotinus' view to Porphyry's regarding the possibility of the transmigration of human souls into the bodies of animals. Courcelle points out that Porphyry's attitude on the subject is not fixed, and that in his Peri Stugos he accepts Plotinus' view. Courcelle therefore feels that Macrobius may have been following Porphyry here too.⁶³

When he comes to the Cumont-Henry controversy over whether Macrobius was following Plotinus or Porphyry in his chapter on suicide, Courcelle in the main sides with Cumont. He cites a passage from Augustine's De civitate Dei which refers to the De regressu animae, the work which Cumont claims was the source of Macrobius' chapter, and by an extraordinary coincidence, as Courcelle points out, the passages of Macrobius and Augustine reveal a similarity. Courcelle agrees with Cumont in concluding that Macrobius followed the De regressu animae and interpreted Plotinus' chapter in the light of Porphyrian doctrines. He moreover is by no means convinced that Macrobius had read directly from Plato's Phaedo the pages, cited by Henry, having to do with suicide. Courcelle believes that Macrobius was using Porphyry's Commentary on the Phaedo or, more likely, the De regressu animae, and offers cogent reasons for his belief. He uncovers evidence to show that Porphyry quoted verbatim long extracts from the Phaedo in the De regressu and suggests that the literal echoes of Plato and Plotinus which Henry finds in Macrobius can be explained by accepting what Courcelle feels was undoubtedly true—that long passages of Plato and Plotinus were available to Macrobius in Porphyry's work.⁶⁴

Courcelle does not accept Cumont's assumption that the De regressu was also the source of Macrobius' chapters on the descent of the soul into the lower regions (i.x-xii). Striking resemblances between a passage from Porphyry's Peri Stugos, preserved by Stobaeus, and Commentary i.x.9-11, and between two passages, cited by Olympiodorus, from Porphyry and Commentary i.xii.7-8, 12, lead Courcelle to believe that the Peri Stugos was the main source of Macrobius' doctrines on the soul's descent. It would seem that Macrobius did use the De regressu, however, as the source for his catalogue of the philosophers' definitions of the soul (i.xiv.19-20). Courcelle points out that Claudianus Mamertus drew a similar catalogue from that work.

In concluding his discussion of the sources, Courcelle agrees with Mras that the doctrines on the immobility of the soul, ascribed by Macrobius to Aristotle, were in reality derived from Porphyry's Peri psyches, and he accepts the traditional view that Porphyry's Commentary on the Timaeus was the principal source for Macrobius' chapters on astronomy.

VI

The accompanying table summarizes the results of the most recent investigations of the sources of the Commentary and will give the reader a glimpse of the extent of the evidence at present available in attempting to ascertain Macrobius' indebtedness. All of the conclusions tabulated are based upon textual and not mere doctrinal resemblances, except in the few cases embracing larger sections of the Commentary, where the investigator is of the opinion that Macrobius was drawing his material largely from some one source. These have been indicated by the word mainly in parentheses after the source. The great amount of uncertainty and difference of opinion in the results arises from the fact that the large majority of the works by Porphyry listed in the table have not survived, and in their absence the scholars have been forced to base their conclusions upon quotations or citations of those works preserved by later Greek and Latin authors. Some of the difference of opinion may be explained perhaps by assuming that Porphyry expressed the same doctrines in two or more works. We would then never know which source Macrobius used.

The columns are arranged from left to right in chronological order of the authorities. When an entry in a right-hand column is found to agree with that of a column to the left, it indicates that the later scholar has either accepted the earlier view or has confirmed it in some way. On the other hand a blank in a right-hand column does not necessarily imply that the later scholar is unwilling to commit himself, but probably indicates that he saw no reason to give the passage attention. The three scholars are of course heavily indebted to earlier investigators of the sources, but their indebtedness could not be conveniently indicated in the table.

A perusal of the table will show that Macrobius seems to have drawn most of his doctrines from Porphyry's works, and that he read many of them. The most important question that arises is: What was the extent of Macrobius' debt to Plotinus? Henry's position that Macrobius' citations are reliable and that Plotinus was the main source wherever he is the acknowledged source is an extreme one, and it does not take into account Porphyry's great influence elsewhere in the Commentary. Moreover, Courcelle has shown quite convincingly that Henry's attempts to refute Cumont's arguments are for the most part unsuccessful. Mras, as we see from the table, acknowledges that Macrobius' debt to Porphyry was by far the more extensive, but he is convinced that Macrobius read Plotinus carefully and referred directly to his Enneads in the Commentary. Courcelle does not deny the contention of Mras and Henry that Macrobius used the Enneads at first hand, but he feels that Plotinus' influence was very small and that Porphyry's doctrines dominated Macrobius' thinking throughout the Commentary. When Courcelle proceeds to demonstrate that Porphyry held the same key position in the works of many other compilers of the fifth and sixth centuries, his position with regard to Macrobius becomes, it would seem, unassailable.

VII

In my opinion it would be justifiable to reduce the importance of Plotinus still further. I think that stress should be placed upon Macrobius' known falsifications of his sources and his withholding of acknowledgement of any debt to Porphyry, as in i.viii and i.xiii. Although it appears clear now that Porphyry was his most important source, Macrobius—following the accepted practice of late encyclopedists—refers to him only twice in the Commentary.⁶⁵

Other instances of misrepresentation of sources and, in the first case, of complete disregard for chronology may be pointed out. In i.xx.9-10 Macrobius has the audacity to pretend that he has detected a fallacy in the mathematical demonstrations of one of the leading Greek astronomers and mathematicians, Eratosthenes, who in his Libri dimensionum attempted to determine the relative sizes of the sun and the earth. (Obviously this observation was not original with Macrobius but was drawn from some commentator.) Macrobius offers instead (i.xx.11-32) what he asserts to be the correct method of ascertaining their relative sizes, and attributes the method and operations to the ancient Egyptians, although he must have known that they had been performed by the ancient Greeks. His calculations are based upon an estimate of 252,000 stades for the earth's circumference, a figure which is known to have originated with Eratosthenes; but Macrobius does not mention Eratosthenes' name although he has just pretended to be drawing upon his Libri dimensionum. In i.xxi.27 Macrobius gives Plato's order of the planets as moon, sun, Mercury, and Venus, whereas the true Platonic order (Timaeus 38D; Republic x.616E) is moon, sun, Venus, and Mercury. In ii.xiv he gives the impression that he is quoting directly from Aristotle's works, but his version is so different that he could hardly have consulted the original. His alleged quotations have no regard for context or sequence and give the appearance of having been selected merely because they could be most effectively undermined. He admits that his refutation of Aristotle was taken from the clichés of Platonists and Neoplatonists who contradicted Aristotle before him (ii.xv.2), and it is probable that these were also the source of his version of the Aristotelian arguments.

Moreover, the arguments of Mras and Henry on behalf of Macrobius' first-hand familiarity with the Enneads leave some room for doubt, it seems to me. Of the three main points of Mras, cited above, the third might be invalidated by a question raised by Courcelle,⁶⁶ and the first two are flimsy indeed. Mras draws attention to the fact that Macrobius correctly translates the titles of two of Plotinus' chapters (Henry also uses this as an argument), but we know that occasionally Porphyry repeated the titles of Plotinus' chapters, as he does in Sententiae xxxii, when commenting upon the same subject. Mras and Henry both feel that Macrobius' remark that “Plotinus is more concise than anyone”⁶⁷ indicates that Macrobius must have been thoroughly familiar with his style. Is it not possible that he drew this comment from Porphyry as well? Henry admits that the closest correspondence between Plotinus' text and the Commentary is found in ii.xii.8-9,⁶⁸ but even if Macrobius had been drawing directly from the Enneads here, it would have little significance, for these are the opening passages of that work, sacred to all Neoplatonists. And is it not likely that the opening passages of the Enneads were quoted by Porphyry somewhere in his works? Courcelle has given his reasons for believing that substantial portions of the Enneads and Plato's Phaedo were quoted by Porphyry in his De regressu animae.⁶⁹ Finally, we have the extant evidence of Porphyry's copying from the Enneads in his Sententiae.⁷⁰

Since there was such a considerable reproduction of Plotinus' doctrines and words in Porphyry's works, it would seem quite possible that even in the passages listed in the table in which Mras, Henry, and Courcelle (or two of the three) agree that Macrobius was drawing directly from Plotinus, he may have been using Porphyry instead. Plotinus, as many modern scholars have acknowledged, is an extremely difficult author to understand, and Porphyry by comparison is quite simple and lucid. It is not likely that Plotinus' “haute métaphysique,” as Courcelle expresses it, had very much attraction for Macrobius.

No one has called attention to the similarity between Proclus' chapter on the purpose of myths in his Commentary on Plato's Republic⁷¹ and Macrobius' discussion of the same subject in the opening chapter of the Commentary. Proclus, who names Porphyry as his chief authority, reaffirms the view of Socrates that the main purpose of the myth is to offer an incentive for virtuous conduct. This is further indication of Macrobius' possible indebtedness to Porphyry's lost commentary on Plato's Republic.

The chapters on the properties and virtues of the numbers of the sacred Pythagorean decad (i.v-vi) have received considerable attention outside the field of Macrobian studies because they belong to a numerous group of Greek and Latin arithmological writings in which the correspondence among Greek texts is very close and in which the Latin texts are frequently faithful translations of the Greek. Most scholars have followed the theory of Schmekel, who believes that all these ancient arithmological passages and works could ultimately be traced to Posidonius. Courcelle adopts the views of Fries and Praechter, according to which Macrobius was following a tradition of Latin handbooks going back to Posidonius by way of Varro. But in 1921 Professor Robbins, after attacking the textual problem much more critically than the European scholars, disposed of Schmekel's theory of Posidonian authorship and set up a table of family relationships based upon a very careful comparison of texts.⁷² According to Robbins the close agreement between Macrobius and the pseudo-Iamblichus Theologoumena arithmeticae indicates that Macrobius was following, directly or indirectly, the Theologoumena of Nicomachus, which was also the source of pseudo-Iamblichus. Or, if Macrobius was following a Neoplatonic source here, that source was in turn drawing from Nicomachus. Robbins's view with regard to Macrobius agrees with the conjecture of Mras, who apparently did not know of Robbins's studies.

Still another important question remains. Did Macrobius consult earlier Latin commentaries on Scipio's Dream in addition to his Neoplatonic sources or did he depend upon his own ingenuity in adapting Neoplatonic doctrines to Cicero's work? There is one statement in the Commentary that would lead us to believe that he did look into such works: he speaks of the doubt of certain scholars regarding the correct interpretation of a passage in Scipio's Dream.⁷³ The only other surviving commentary on Scipio's Dream is a very scanty one by Favonius Eulogius. Only twenty-two Teubner pages in length and devoted almost wholly to two topics, the Pythagorean decad and musical concords, it offers little opportunity, by comparison with Macrobius' work, to form an opinion about a tradition of commentators on Cicero's work. It is interesting to note that Favonius, like Macrobius, opens his commentary with a comparison between the Vision of Er and Scipio's Dream and explains why Cicero chose the setting of a dream. Although there is no reason to suppose that Macrobius had read Favonius' work, my conjecture is that he did consult some Latin commentary on Scipio's Dream.

INFLUENCE

It is not difficult to account for the great popularity of Macrobius' Commentary in the Middle Ages. Perhaps no other book of comparably small size contained so many subjects of interest and doctrines that are repeatedly found in medieval literature. All chapters with the exception of four (i.iv, vii, xvi, ii.viii), which are devoted to clarifying minute points of Scipio's Dream and which are written in the characteristically dull style of commentators of that period, have been referred to or used by writers in the Middle Ages, and most of the chapters were used extensively. The following list of the more popular topics discussed in the Commentary will make clear to anyone who has browsed in medieval literature why this work had such a wide appeal: a classification of dreams; the attributes and abilities of the numbers of the sacred Pythagorean decad; a classification of the virtues; philosophers' views on the boundary of the infernal realm of change and decay and on the nature of the soul; the steps by which the soul descends from its celestial origin to human bodies; the Neoplatonic hypostases and man's endowment therefrom with intellect, sense-perception, and growth; how man differs from animals and the vegetable kingdom; the motions of the celestial sphere and planets; the order of the planetary spheres; the method of determining the relative sizes of the sun and the earth; the method first used in marking off the signs of the zodiac; the proof that the earth is in the center of the universe; the account of Pythagoras' discovery of the numerical ratios of the musical concords and their physical explanation; the numerical ratios of planetary distances; the explanation of the origin of the harmony of the spheres; the location of the four inhabited quarters of the globe and the impossibility of intercommunication; the equatorial and meridional oceans and the causes of the tides; the duration of the world-year; the doctrines of Plato on the immortality of the soul; and the refutation of Aristotelian views.

At the same time, a work that contains so many popular doctrines presents a problem for the medievalist who would attempt to trace its influences or to distinguish between direct and indirect influences. How can one say with confidence that an author of the late Middle Ages drew his classification of dreams directly from Macrobius, when John of Salisbury and pseudo-Augustine reproduced Macrobius' material? Or how can one say that a later writer derived from Macrobius the doctrine that a man is a small universe (microcosm), when at least a score of the more popular authors of the Middle Ages repeat the doctrine? Any attempt to separate the direct from the indirect sources of a medieval or Renaissance author—in the absence of reliable acknowledgement or significant textual discrepancies—presumes that we know precisely what books that author had read. In the absence of such precise knowledge the direct sources of many authors will remain a matter of conjecture. Many of the doctrines found in the Commentary later became commonplaces in the Middle Ages, but of course that does not mean that Macrobius was responsible for the transmission of all, or even a large proportion, of them. Rather these doctrines are to be traced in many cases to other encyclopedic compilations, pagan and Christian, of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries; these were in turn derived from the same ultimate sources as the Commentary—from the writings of Neoplatonists, Latin encyclopedists, Platonists, Aristotelians, Neopythagoreans, and beyond that even from the Pythagoreans and Orphics. In the closing centuries of the Roman Empire in the West commentators pillaged from each other these doctrines, which thus became commonplaces before they were transmitted to the Middle Ages. The attempt to trace direct influences therefore becomes an extremely difficult problem, where it is at all possible. The present writer is not a medievalist and he does not feel qualified to express an opinion as to how familiar some later writer, Chaucer or Dante for instance, was with the contents of the Commentary. For that reason the bulk of this section will be based upon the findings and views of competent medievalists.

II

If we had to depend upon manuscript evidence alone, and did not have the positive proof of Macrobius' popularity recorded in the extensive use of his Commentary by medieval authors, we should still conclude that he was widely read and that he was esteemed as an authority in certain fields. The very number of surviving manuscripts points to the wide circulation of the work. Professor Lynn Thorndike, an authority who is unusually well qualified to speak on the subject, notes that the Commentary “is one of the treatises most frequently encountered in early medieval manuscripts.”⁷⁴

Ludwig von Jan describes forty-eight manuscripts of the Commentary in the Prolegomena of his 1848 edition, some elaborately and some briefly. It would appear from the marginal and interlinear glosses, added titles, incipits, diagrams, and illustrations in these manuscripts that Macrobius was cherished as an authority in two fields in particular—cosmography and dreams. In fact, no subject receives as much attention from the scholiasts as does the long section on astronomy and geography (i.xiv-ii.ix). Four manuscripts (C, E2, H1, and H3) are fragments containing only this section. E1 is a fragment ending with ii.ix. Complete manuscripts and longer fragments indicate in the margin at i.xiv.21 that the section on astronomy is beginning, and at the end of ii.ix that it is closing. Marginal notation at the beginning and end of this section is so common that Jan has noted (p. lxxv) that three manuscripts do not have notations here. R1, a thirteenth-century manuscript of the complete Commentary, has on the first page, written in a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century hand: Macrobius in astronomia, and the initial letter at i.xiv.21 is larger than usual.

Many manuscripts, in addition to notations marking the beginning and end of the astronomical section, have marginal glosses which serve as headings for the more important divisions of the section, such as those found in C at i.xiv.21: Ex libris Macrobii de differentia stellarum et siderum; at i.xiv.24: De circis et spera; at i.xv.8: De decem circulis; and at i.xx.9: De solis magnitudine. On the verso of folio 17 of Harleian MS. 647 (not listed by Jan), immediately under the last line of a fragment of Cicero's translation of Aratus, begins an excerpt from the Commentary (i.xx.14), with the following heading in uncials: “Ambrosii Macrobii Theodosii de mensura et magnitudine terrae et circuli per quem solis iter est.”

That Macrobius was looked upon in the Middle Ages as an authority on the interpretation of dreams is shown by the titles of many manuscripts. A typical one reads: Macrobii Theodosii Oriniocensis in Somnium Scipionis commentarium incipit. There are many variants of the puzzling epithet Oriniocensis in other manuscripts: Ornicensis, Ornicsis, Onocrisius, Orinecresis, Orincrisis, Oricresis, olimcretes, ho. … tes; usually they are accompanied by explanatory phrases such as quasi somniorum iudex; id est somniorum interpres. Caspar von Barth (1587-1658) rightly concluded that Oriniocensis was a bad attempt to transliterate into Latin the Greek word oneirocrites, “an interpreter of dreams.”

III

An excellent appreciation of the extent of Macrobius' influence upon writers of the Middle Ages is afforded by the detailed and comprehensive studies of Schedler and Duhem.⁷⁵ Fortunately, their interests and treatment of the subject complement each other. Schedler is mainly interested in the intellectual (rationalis) and moral (moralis) aspects of Macrobius' work, and he pays little attention to the physical (naturalis) side. Duhem, on the other hand, deals almost exclusively with Macrobius' cosmological doctrines. Usually they do not handle the same authors or the same works. In the few cases in which they both discuss the same work, they have selected different passages as instances of Macrobian influence. Thus we see that their studies, revealing as they are, must not be considered exhaustive treatments of Macrobian influence upon the authors and upon the works that they discuss.

A brief summary of the results of these two studies will serve as a guide to Macrobius' influence throughout the Middle Ages. For fuller details and citations of borrowings the reader is referred to the original works.

Judging from Schedler's study, it would seem that Macrobius' influence in the early Middle Ages, from the sixth to the eleventh century, was not nearly so great as it became later.⁷⁶ Boethius, in his Commenta in Isagogen Porphyrii, calls Macrobius a vir doctissimus and refers to his discussion of the incorporeality of the termini of geometric figures (i.v). The greater part of what Isidore of Seville has to say on the months (Origines v.xxxiii) comes from Commentary ii.xi.6 and from passages in the Saturnalia. There are other possible traces of the influence of the Commentary upon Isidore, but there is no evidence of direct borrowing; he did, however, use the Saturnalia directly. Bede drew extensively from the Saturnalia in his De temporibus and De temporum ratione.⁷⁷ Macrobius' Commentary was the main source of pseudo-Bede's De mundi constitutione. Johannes Scottus Erigena names Macrobius as a source in his Martiani expositio, but Schedler was unable to find in him any use of the Commentary and found only slight use of the Saturnalia. It is Duhem's opinion, as we shall see later, that Erigena did not come under the influence of the Commentary.⁷⁸ Dungal, an Irish monk at Saint Denis, in a letter replying to Charlemagne's queries about solar eclipses, cites the Commentary as his authority.⁷⁹ The Commentum Martiani of Dunchad lists Macrobius as one of four Latin sources.⁸⁰ Helpericus of Auxerre refers to a passage in the Commentary in his Liber de computo.

From the twelfth century on, Schedler finds, the Commentary exerted much greater influence. Abelard calls Macrobius “a remarkable philosopher and interpreter of the great Cicero” and places him in first rank among Platonists. Schedler considers Macrobius a most important source and cites numerous cases of borrowing from the Commentary in Abelard's Introductio ad theologiam and Theologia Christiana. Resemblances to Macrobian material are frequently found in Peter Lombard. Honorius of Autun used the Commentary extensively in his De imagine mundi and De solis affectibus, as did Hugh of Saint Victor in his Eruditio didascalica.⁸¹ Godfrey of Saint Victor, in the poem Fons philosophiae, expresses doctrines taken from many chapters of the Commentary.

The classification of dreams found in pseudo-Augustine's De spiritu et anima xxv is mainly a reproduction of Macrobius' classification. Schedler believes that John of Rupella, Vincent of Beauvais, and Albertus Magnus, on the other hand, derived their classification from pseudo-Augustine and not from Macrobius.

Adelard of Bath borrowed heavily from the Commentary in his De eodem et diverso. It was also the main source of the Neoplatonic doctrines of the De mundi universitate of Bernard Silvester of Tours, although Macrobius' name is never mentioned. Another writer to make extensive use of the Commentary was William of Conches in his Dragmaticon. William used the Saturnalia freely, too.

John of Salisbury made greater use of the Saturnalia than of the Commentary in his Policraticus. He excerpted whole passages, often without changing a word, and evidently possessed a fuller edition of the Saturnalia than we. His classification of dreams also came from Macrobius. Traces of Macrobian influence are to be found in almost all the writings of Alanus de Insulis, especially in his encyclopedic Anticlaudianus. The Commentary is also an important source of the Summa universae theologiae, by Alexander of Hales.

Schedler points out many instances of Bartholomaeus Anglicus' use of Macrobius' cosmographical doctrines in his De rerum proprietatibus and remarks that Macrobius' thoughts are reported in an inexact manner, as if Bartholomaeus had been depending upon his memory. In his Summa philosophiae Robert Grosseteste reckons Macrobius among the leading Latin philosophers and is frequently found drawing upon the Commentary. John of Fidanza, better known as St. Bonaventura, refers to Macrobius' discussion of the virtues (i.viii) in his Collationes in Hexaemeron and in his Commentarii in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. In the latter work he also points out (as did many others) Macrobius' error in making the Milky Way intersect the zodiac at Capricorn and Cancer (i.xii.i).

Vincent of Beauvais made free use of the Commentary in all three of his great works, Speculum naturale, Speculum doctrinale, and Speculum historiale. In each instance he acknowledged Macrobius as his source, with one exception, according to Schedler. A passage on Pythagoras' discovery of the musical concords (Speculum doctrinale xvi.xxiv) betrays Macrobian origin. Vincent's failure to acknowledge his source here is understandable, for the account of Pythagoras' discovery was recorded by so many authors, Greek and Latin, in substantially the same wording, as to have become common property.

Macrobius was an important source of Platonic dogma for Albertus Magnus. In the Summa de homine Macrobius is ranked with Plato as an authority on the immortality of the soul. Schedler cites the influence of the Commentary upon seven of Albertus Magnus' works. He also lists numerous passages dealt with or used by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologica. Maximus Planudes' translation of the Commentary and of Scipio's Dream into Greek was widely used as a textbook, as were his other translations from Latin into Greek.⁸² Macrobius is one of the most frequently cited of classical authors in Petrarch's works,⁸³ and he is included among approximately twenty classical writers that Rabelais read.

Schedler concludes with the opinion that there can be no doubt that Dante was familiar with the Commentary and offers as his authorities Schlosser⁸⁴ and Kraus.⁸⁵

We see from Schedler's study that the influence of Macrobius upon medieval philosophy and the Scholastics was quite considerable. The author of the article “Scholasticism” in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists the following as the sum of the works available to the schoolmen in the early Middle Ages: the translations and commentaries of Boethius, Chalcidius, and Macrobius, the De dogmate Platonis of Apuleius, the works of Augustine, the Satyricon of Martianus Capella, the De artibus of Cassiodorus, and the Origines of Isidore of Seville. W. H. V. Reade, in a chapter “Philosophy in the Middle Ages,” in The Cambridge Medieval History,⁸⁶ says of Macrobius:

The debt of the Middle Ages to him was immense. To him was due what little was known of Plotinus, the fourfold classification of the virtues,⁸⁷ the threefold gradation of Deus, mens, and anima, the illumination of all creatures as in an orderly series of mirrors by the unus fulgor, the descent of the soul to its material habitation, and its yearning for restoration to its eternal home.

In the opinion of Charles H. Haskins⁸⁸ and George Sarton,⁸⁹ Macrobius is to be ranked second to Chalcidius as a source of Platonism in the West in the Middle Ages.

IV

Macrobius was no less important as a source of medieval astronomical and geographical conceptions. Duhem, in a lengthy chapter on the influence of the three Heraclideans—Chalcidius, Macrobius, and Martianus Capella—upon the Middle Ages, provides us with a cursory glance at the effects, good and bad, which Macrobius' doctrines had upon medieval astronomers and geographers.⁹⁰

Duhem would set the time when the Commentary first came into vogue at the beginning of the tenth century. Johannes Scottus Erigena, coming just before this period, is to Duhem a significant figure. He feels certain that Erigena knew about the Commentary, but finds no trace of its influence upon his doctrines. Rather Erigena's Neoplatonism seems to him to have been derived wholly from Chalcidius. For this reason Duhem would assign the De mundi constitutione of pseudo-Bede, a work which is heavily indebted to the Commentary, to a date after Erigena.⁹¹

The first avowed disciple of Macrobius among astronomers is, according to Duhem, Helpericus of Auxerre. In a little known treatise, In calculatoria arte, which Duhem has examined in manuscript, Helpericus draws from the Commentary the method of determining in which sign of the zodiac a planet is said to be and the arguments establishing the true motions of the planets in relation to the celestial sphere.

A clergyman Adalbold, later to become bishop of Utrecht, wrote to Gerbert, when the latter was pope, about problems in geometry and suggested that he read Macrobius. Gerbert's Geometria acknowledges his indebtedness to the Commentary for certain passages.

There is evidence to show that belief in the earth's sphericity and in the existence of antipodeans was regarded by some members of the clergy and hierarchy as heretical. The attacks of Lactantius and Augustine upon these doctrines of pagan philosophers are probably the best-known statements of the Church's position.⁹² There is another exceedingly interesting attitude on this matter expressed by Manegold of Lautenbach, abbot of Marbach. In a tract directed against a certain Wolfelm of Cologne, Manegold relates a long conversation with Wolfelm, the principal subject of which was Macrobius' Commentary. Manegold then proposes to chide Wolfelm for entertaining the heretical notions found in that work. He points out that the acceptance of Macrobius' doctrine that there are four inhabited quarters of the globe, three of which are permanently cut off from the European-Asiatic quarter by vast oceans and an impassable belt of scorching heat about the earth's equator necessitates a denial of Christ's prophecy that he is coming to save the entire human race. How could all the ends of the earth bow down before God if it were impossible for the gospel to reach the inhabitants of three quarters of the earth's surface?⁹³

Hugues Métel (died c. 1157) writes to another Hugues, probably Hugues de Saint Jean, that he has been reading over the Commentary, and says that he is not concerned about Manegold's allegations of heresy. The tendency abroad in the twelfth century to forsake previous teachings regarding the nature of the earth and the universe and to revert to classical doctrines preserved by Neoplatonist authors is most clearly discerned among the scholars of the school of Chartres. Bernard Silvester of Tours sought his inspiration in Chalcidius, Macrobius, and Martianus Capella. He acknowledged his indebtedness to Macrobius in the opening lines of his Commentary on the Aeneid. The influence of Macrobius and Chalcidius also dominates the Peri didaxeon, which, Duhem argues, should be attributed to William of Conches, another member of the school.⁹⁴

There is little that is original about twelfth-century attempts to explain the phenomena of the tides. According to Duhem, the theories may be classified as physical, based upon the views of Macrobius and Paulus Diaconus, as astrological, stemming in the main from Pliny the Elder and Bede, or as a cautious combination of the two schools. Macrobius believed that a great equatorial ocean separates in the east and west into smaller oceans, running north and south, and that the tides are caused by the impact of the ocean currents colliding at the north and south poles;⁹⁵ Paulus Diaconus assumed that the tides are caused by the action of great whirlpools. The astrological school attributed tidal phenomena to the influence of the moon. In Duhem's opinion, Macrobius' doctrine served only to confuse and obscure twelfth-century thought on the subject.

If the “Adelandus” referred to by Pico della Mirandola in his Disputationes adversus astrologos is really Adelard of Bath, as Duhem supposes, then Adelard was clearly opposed to the theory of lunar influence. In his Quaestiones naturales (which Duhem did not examine) Adelard adopted the greater part of Macrobius' tidal theory but felt that the impact at the poles would not be sufficient and that there would have to be a mountain or land mass interposed. Whether or not Adelard denies a lunar influence in this passage depends upon the reading of a certain word in the manuscripts.⁹⁶ If Adelard was opposed to the lunar theory, other natural scientists of the school of Chartres did not share his attitude. Bernard Silvester saw the moon as the sole cause of the tides while William of Conches cautiously embraced something of each of the prevailing theories, attributing the tides in part to the moon's drying powers and in part to the ocean streams meeting at the poles and striking against submerged mountain masses.

Still other views about the tides are found in this period. Lambert of Saint Omer accepted the Macrobian explanation in his Liber floridus. The author of the De imagine mundi offered a theory that is reminiscent of Bede's cycle of lunar influence and of the description of the great whirlpool of Paul the Deacon. The Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis presents a combination of the astrological theory of Abu Mashar, of the whirlpool theory of Paulus Diaconus, and of Macrobius' belief in a collision of ocean streams at the poles.

The manuscript maps of the eastern hemisphere accompanying Macrobius' discussion of the four inhabited quarters of the earth were the basis of one of the commonest types of medieval mappaemundi cartography, the so-called zone maps. The influence of the Macrobian maps is clearly seen in the maps appearing in the Liber floridus of Lambert of Saint Omer, in the Dragmaticon and De philosophia mundi of William of Conches, and in the De imagine mundi.⁹⁷

In his De proprietatibus rerum, Bartholomaeus Anglicus continued the practice of twelfth-century scholars of borrowing his astronomical information from Macrobius and Martianus Capella. A chapter devoted to the planet Venus shows that he interpreted Macrobius' statements about the upper and lower courses of Venus and Mercury as an exposition of the Heraclidean system.⁹⁸

L'Introductoire d'astronomie, written in the prose of the Île-de-France by the court astrologer of Baudoin de Courtenay and examined in manuscript by Duhem, derives its doctrines on planetary motions from the works of Pliny, Martianus Capella, Macrobius, and the natural scientists of Chartres, particularly William of Conches. The author cites Macrobius on the distinction between the Chaldean and Egyptian orders of the planets.

Another writer who interpreted Macrobius as referring to the Heraclidean system in his discussion of the courses of Venus and Mercury was Peter of Abano. His Lucidator astrologiae, written in 1310, points to the Commentary as representative of the views of astronomers who believe that these planets describe epicycles about the sun.

V

We have seen that the notations made on the manuscripts of the Commentary indicate that the portion dealing with astronomy and geography held the greatest interest for readers in the Middle Ages, and the specific instances of borrowing uncovered by Duhem have given us an insight into the extent of the influence of the Commentary in these fields. It seems to be the consensus of recent historians of science that Macrobius ranked with Chalcidius and Martianus Capella among the three most influential writers on astronomy, and that he and Capella were the most potent influences on medieval geographic lore, at least for the period from the tenth to the twelfth century.

Duhem regards Macrobius as third in importance after Chalcidius and Capella as a transmitter of cosmological doctrines.⁹⁹ Dreyer, in his masterly History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler, credits Macrobius and Capella with keeping alive classical traditions in the West, as did Simplicius in the East.¹⁰⁰ Elsewhere the same author includes Pliny's Natural History with the works of Chalcidius, Macrobius, and Capella as the sources from which such knowledge of Greek science as they had was derived by medieval students in the West.¹⁰¹

In geography it would appear that Macrobius ranks second to Martianus Capella. This is the opinion of the eminent authority, C. R. Beazley.¹⁰² Kimble asserts that in the twelfth century the works of Capella and Macrobius became the leading textbooks in the schools; he sees in their popularity a “barrier to the resurrection of scientific geography” but does admit that “these two works did serve to keep alive belief in the sphericity of the earth.”¹⁰³ John K. Wright, whose Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades is a mine of information on the persistence of classical doctrines in the writings of medieval geographers, also attributes to Macrobius responsibility for the survival of the belief in a spherical earth and in the antipodes¹⁰⁴ and estimates Macrobius' popularity among geographers of the Middle Ages, particularly in the twelfth century, as next to that of Capella.¹⁰⁵ Wright¹⁰⁶ and Kimble¹⁰⁷ agree that Macrobius and Capella were the authorities responsible for the wide adoption of Eratosthenes' figure of 252,000 stades for the earth's circumference in the Middle Ages.

VI

Macrobius' Commentary is best known to English readers through the numerous references to it in Chaucer's works, and particularly as the book, called by Chaucer his “olde bok totorn,” which he read “the longe day ful faste … and yerne” and which started him on the dream that forms the Parliament of Fowls. I am not so rash as to propose to answer the question, which has puzzled accomplished Chaucerians, as to just how familiar the poet was with the contents of the Commentary, but I feel that the problem is so vital that it is fitting here to indicate some of the difficulties and to point out some of the more significant studies that have been made.

Usually Chaucer does not seem to be aware of the fact that Macrobius was the author of only the Commentary and that Scipio's Dream was the work of Cicero. In the opening lines of the Romaunt of the Rose Macrobius is supposed to be the author of the Dream and Scipio the Younger is referred to as “king Cipioun.” Again in the Book of the Duchess (284-87) it is

                                                                                Macrobeus
(He that wrot al th' avysyoun
That he mette, kyng Scipioun

In the House of Fame (916) Scipio is “kyng, Daun Scipio,” and in the Nun's Priest Tale (vii, 3123-25) Scipio's Dream is attributed to Macrobius. In the Parliament of Fowls, however, Chaucer understands that Cicero is the author of the Dream

Tullyus of the Dream of Scipioun

(31)

and that Macrobius wrote the Commentary

Of which Macrobye roughte nat a lyte

(111).

Martha Shackford suggests that the solution of this difficulty may lie in the chronology of the poems.¹⁰⁸ Chaucer's blunder of referring to Scipio as “kyng” arose, she feels, in the translation of “roi Cipion” from the opening lines of the Roman de la Rose, and she might have added that Chaucer's mistaken notion that Macrobius wrote Scipio's Dream may also have originated in the same passage. She concludes that Chaucer had not read the Dream when he wrote Book ii of the House of Fame but that he had read it carefully by the time he wrote the Parliament, and she offers this as another bit of evidence in support of the prevailing view that the House of Fame is earlier than the Parliament.

There can be no doubt that Chaucer knew the Dream at the time that he wrote the Parliament. At the beginning of the poem he speaks of having read the Dream eagerly all the day long, and in lines 29-84 he presents a lucid summary of its contents. But how familiar was he with the contents of Macrobius' Commentary? This is a question which may never be answered satisfactorily.

Professor Anderson makes out a likely case for Chaucer's familiarity with the Commentary but his arguments are not conclusive.¹⁰⁹ He points out that Chaucer, facile Latinist that he was, would not have required “the longe day ful faste” (Parliament 21) and “al the day” (28) to read the 228 lines of easy Ciceronian Latin that constitute the entire Dream, and that he must have been reading the Commentary as well; for Chaucer refers (111) to Macrobius' high praise of the Dream found at the end of the Commentary, and Chaucer's stanza on the cause of his dreaming (99-105) is reminiscent of Macrobius' discussion in his chapter on the classification of dreams. Lastly, there were no known manuscripts of the Dream in Chaucer's day that were not attached to manuscripts of the Commentary.

It does appear probable that Chaucer at least read from the Commentary, but the evidence in favor of his having read the whole of it is not convincing. On the other side it may be pointed out that Chaucer specifically identifies the book he was reading all day as the Dream, that it is the Dream alone that is summarized, and that he makes no mention of reading the Commentary. Line 111 does not necessarily refer to Macrobius' commendation of the Dream; even if it did, it would matter little. A reference to the closing words of a work is not proof that the work has been read in entirety. Only one line (105) of Chaucer's stanza on the cause of his dreaming bears resemblance to the Macrobian treatment, and any conclusions based upon Macrobius' chapter on dreams are dangerous because this discussion became common property in the Middle Ages. What is more, the material on dreams appears near the beginning of the Commentary. The titles of a large proportion of the manuscripts call Macrobius “dream-interpreter,” and the Commentary was commonly regarded as one of the leading dream books of the Middle Ages. This would indicate that many readers got no further than the third chapter of Book i and wrongly supposed that the whole Commentary dealt with dreams. The most persuasive of Anderson's arguments, it seems to me, is his first one, and it is here that someone possessing an intimate knowledge of Chaucer's personality and reading habits might express an enlightening opinion.

John Livingston Lowes has done that very thing in a chapter, “The World of Books,” in his Geoffrey Chaucer and the Development of his Genius. There is no doubt in his mind that Chaucer read the Commentary; in fact, he names Boethius' Consolation as “the Latin treatise which most profoundly influenced his thought,” and says that “with Boethius must be named another treatise … the commentary of Macrobius upon Cicero's Somnium Scipionis.”¹¹⁰ The almost insurmountable difficulties that Professor Lowes would encounter if he attempted to defend this opinion are revealed in an article of his on the sources of the Second Nun's Prologue.¹¹¹ He draws attention to striking parallels between the wording of lines 71-74 and some passages in the Commentary and then admits that resemblances might also be traced to Servius. There is still another possible source, Albericus, who, according to Raschke, drew from Macrobius and Servius as well as others and who, according to Rand, drew from Donatus. Now the question arises: Did Chaucer draw upon Macrobius or Servius (or both) directly, or upon Albericus, Donatus, Remigius, or Johannes Scottus? Professor Lowes concludes that perhaps it is impossible to answer the question. The doctrines of Macrobius that would appeal to Chaucer would be likely to be the very ones that are found here, there, and everywhere in the Middle Ages.

A number of scholars have noted the similarity between Chaucer's remarks about dreams in the Proem of the House of Fame and the Macrobian classification in Commentary i.iii, and have accordingly regarded Macrobius as the main source of Chaucer's knowledge of dreams. It should be remembered, however, that Macrobius' classification was also available to Chaucer in John of Salisbury, pseudo-Augustine, Vincent of Beauvais, Albertus Magnus, and numerous other writers, and that Chaucer, at the time that he wrote the House of Fame, apparently did not know that Cicero wrote the Dream and that Scipio was not a king. Professor Curry has made an intensive study of medieval dreamlore in order to obtain a clearer picture of the sources of Chaucer's information.¹¹² His painstaking research makes it perfectly obvious that Chaucer could not have obtained all the details of his dreamlore from Macrobius, and that he was drawing upon many other popular authorities on dreams of the time.

In summary it may be said that it seems probable that Chaucer read all or most of the Commentary, but to prove it would be extremely difficult, if it is at all possible.

STYLE

Although the Commentary cannot be said to be an easy work to translate, the author's chief literary characteristic is his earnest desire to be clear and to keep his reader in mind at all times. It must be admitted that his efforts are eminently successful and that herein lies one of the main reasons for his great popularity in later ages. Encyclopedic in scope as the Commentary is, it never gets beyond the comprehension of a layman. Most of the extant classical and post-classical encyclopedias or handbooks, such as those of Theo Smyrnaeus, Geminus, Cleomedes, Chalcidius, Capella, and Boethius, will usually become quite complex in their discussions of technical matters; but Macrobius will call a halt, avowedly in the interests of brevity and of his readers, whom he is trying to instruct and not to over-awe with a “worthless display of erudition.” A more likely reason for his reluctance to proceed to the complicated details of mathematics, music, astronomy, and geography is his own apparent inability to comprehend the more difficult points. In no field of interest does he reveal more than a dilettante's grasp.

But dilettantism may often be a helpful trait when found in a pedagogue in the lower forms or in an expositor writing for the general public. In fact, Macrobius' style suggests that of a devoted schoolmaster trying to impart to his pupils the day's lessons. If we had no information about his life and, on the basis of his literary style, were called upon to venture a guess as to what his occupation was, we might reasonably suppose him to have been a schoolteacher. Mras,¹¹³ calling to mind Macrobius' study On the Differences and Similarities of the Greek and Latin Verb, speaks of him as a “Grammatiker.”

Specific examples from the Commentary will serve to indicate Macrobius' pedagogic instincts and his devotion to clarity. In i.xii.18 and i.xiii.20 he expresses confidence that his discussion has cleared up any obscurity in Cicero's text. In i.xviii.19 he points out that he has used simple cases to enable the reader to comprehend less obvious ones. In i.x.8, i.xx.17, and ii.ii.2 he avows his intention of being brief and explicit and of avoiding involved explanations; to take up minor details would befit one “showing off his knowledge rather than one teaching” (ii.iv.11). Occasionally he states in advance what aspects of a subject he intends to treat, as at i.ii.2, i.xvii.7, ii.vii.1, ii.xi.4, or he includes a summary of topics which have been previously discussed, as at i.v.1, i.xix.14, i.xxi.28-32, ii.ii.23-24, and ii.xii.2-6. Sometimes he inserts a transitional statement, as at i.iv.1, which calls attention both to what has been discussed and what is going to be discussed. There are occasional cross-references to matters previously treated, as at i.xiii.5 and ii.xvii.4, or to be treated later, as at ii.xiv.14. He fulfills every promise made to discuss a point at a later time. He uses Greek words sparingly, rarely without making their meaning clear, translates excerpts from Plato, and on one occasion (i.ix.7) refrains from quoting Hesiod in the original “for fear of annoying some readers.”

Macrobius' faculty for making himself readily understood is best demonstrated in his clear and simple handling of technical or abstruse topics which, when treated by the other encyclopedists, require of the reader considerable background. Macrobius' explanation of the Pythagorean doctrine that numbers are the basis of the entire creation (i.v.4-13) is much easier to grasp than is Nicomachus' treatment. The simplicity and advantages of the method used to reveal how the sun goes counter to the celestial sphere in its apparent backward course through the zodiac (i.xviii.12-18) will be appreciated by any enthusiastic watcher of the sky who has tried to explain this phenomenon to a beginner by any other method. Macrobius' description of the instrument used in determining the sun's apparent diameter (i.xx.26-27) is easier to follow than is the description given by Archimedes in his Arenarius¹¹⁴ of an instrument used for the same purpose, and Macrobius' whole discussion of the measurement of the sun's orbit (i.xx.28-32) is more readily comprehended than Cleomedes' treatment of the same subject.¹¹⁵ The painstaking care with which Macrobius reports the method and describes the water-clocks used by the Egyptians in marking off the signs of the zodiac (i.xxi.12-21) may be compared with the extreme compression of Cleomedes' account¹¹⁶ of the use by the Egyptians of a water-clock in measuring the sun's apparent diameter or with the obscurity of the concise account of the measurement by a water-clock of the moon's apparent diameter found in Martianus Capella.¹¹⁷

In fact, the last two accounts of Macrobius, instead of being hard to understand as might be expected, are too drawn out and oversimplified. Again, in ii.ii.3-13, he tediously repeats much of the material which he has presented earlier and expands his discussion unduly. At times (e.g., i.xx.16, ii.i.15-20) his illustrations are extremely simple and hardly necessary at all. In a similar manner he is fond of introducing diagrams to assist the reader (i.xxii.11-12, ii.v.13-17, ii.vii.4, ii.ix.7), and on at least two occasions (i.xxi.3-4, ii.vi) his discussion is so clear and elementary that a diagram is really not needed. It should be pointed out here that there is a possibility of accounting for Macrobius' elementary approach to technical subjects by assuming that his address to his son at the opening of Books i and ii was not a token dedication, but that Macrobius was directing his treatise first to his son and second to the general reader.

II

Further evidence of Macrobius' love of clarity may be found in the close-knit coherence of his sentences. Indeed, his abundant use of transitional expressions and words of reference is the most striking feature of his Latinity. I know of no Latin author, unless it be Martianus Capella, who uses this device as liberally as Macrobius. For this reason it may be worth while to consider for a moment some tabulations based upon an analysis of the first half of the Commentary (i.i-xix).

Seventy-three percent of his sentences contain a transitional word or expression (adverbial or conjunctive), fifteen percent contain introductory words of reference (demonstrative or relative), and only twelve percent lack such connecting expressions. When these tabulations were being prepared, no count was kept of repetition of words—an important device in securing coherence—or of equivalent words or expressions, such as ut diximus, similis, and par. If these had been included, the figure of twelve percent would have been substantially reduced. There are comparatively few sentences in the Commentary that are completely divorced from immediate context. In twenty-two percent of his sentences he combines two or more transitional devices, such as two adverbs, a conjunction and a demonstrative, a conjunction and a relative, or some other combination.

Among pronouns referring to the preceding sentence, Macrobius shows a decided preference for hic (147 times). Ille (12), idem (3), and ipse (2) are by comparison rarely used. The transitional relative qui is found 18 times. His favorite transitional adverbs are enim (69), ergo (51), autem (45), nam (39), and vero (39). Ideo (21), quoque (18), tamen (16), hinc (15), sic (11), igitur (9), ita (8), denique (7), nunc (6), hic (6), unde (5), item (5), tunc (4), quidem (4), etiam, inde, immo, and illic (3), adeo, iam, tum, idem, verum, and rursus (2), and rursum, praeterea, similiter, interim, ceterum, deinde, and porro (1) are the others. Among transitional conjunctions, et (61), sed (26), and nec (21) are the more popular. Ac (3), neque (2), and atque (1) complete the list.

To Macrobius, Cicero and Virgil are the “founders of Roman eloquence,”¹¹⁸ and their influence upon his style is evident everywhere. Macrobius demonstrates his complete familiarity with Virgil's works in his Saturnalia, particularly in Books iv-vi. The influence of Cicero upon Macrobius is apparent in almost every sentence of the latter's writings. Macrobius' vocabulary is predominantly Ciceronian throughout, and he appropriates numerous neologisms which Cicero coined to express Greek philosophical concepts and which were not used again in Latin until the postclassical period. Macrobius' syntax shows comparatively few deviations from the syntax of classical writers.¹¹⁹

Mingled with the Ciceronian vocabulary of the Commentary is a considerable number of words found almost exclusively in the works of Late Latin authors. Among the nouns, the rarest and most interesting are circumflexio, competentia, concinentia, contrarietas, digeries, discussor, globositas, incorporalitas, influxio, interstitium, nimietas, obvolutio, omnipotentia, principalitas, and profunditas. Both masculine and neuter forms of stadium are found in the plural and cingulum is declined as a masculine in the plural. Among the nouns used in a rare and postclassical sense are actus …, adsertio, ambitio, fermentum, integritas, post animal and post corpus (i.e., post vitam), and spiramentum.

The least frequently found of the postclassical adjectives are actualis, incorporeus, Iovialis, iugabilis, materialis, mundanus, silvestris …, sphaeralis, and testeus. A few of the more interesting adverbial forms are iusum, rationabiliter, regulariter, and susum.

Among Macrobius' Late Latin verbs, deviare, obviare, and sequestrare are noteworthy; among verbs used in a special sense may be mentioned adserere (i.e., contendere) and astruere (i.e., affirmare). Macrobius is fond of the Greek accusative with the passive voice of induere¹²⁰ and exuere.¹²¹

MANUSCRIPTS, EDITIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS

Inasmuch as the present translation has been prepared from printed editions and not from a new collation of the manuscripts, it would be inappropriate to include here a list of the manuscripts. Such a list would quickly run into the hundreds for, as Thorndike has noted, manuscripts of the Commentary are among the commonest from the early Middle Ages. The reader will find a list of some of the more important manuscripts, together with references to the catalogues containing descriptions of them, in Max Manitius, Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen (Leipzig, 1935), pp. 227-32. Manitius' list includes thirty-eight manuscripts from libraries in Germany, twenty-eight from France, eleven from Great Britain, twelve from Italy, and four from Spain. Descriptions of some of the more important manuscripts are to be found in Jan, I, lxii-lxxix. These number forty-eight and are classified as follows: (1) manuscripts used by others in emendations of certain passages; (2) manuscripts examined by Jan or by others as a favor to him; (3) manuscripts examined by others but not yet used in emending the text; (4) manuscripts examined by others for emending certain passages as a favor to Jan.

II

Jan's list of printed editions to 1848 is almost complete and offers an adequate description of thirty-five editions. His list has been checked by the standard catalogues, for editions before 1501 by those of the British Museum,¹²³ Hain,¹²⁴ Copinger,¹²⁵ Reichling,¹²⁶ Polain,¹²⁷ and Stillwell,¹²⁸ and for editions after 1500 by those of the British Museum,¹²⁹ Bibliothèque Nationale,¹³⁰ Maittaire,¹³¹ Panzer,¹³² and Graesse.¹³³ A new list with additions to and corrections of Jan's list, together with references to catalogues authenticating or describing the editions, follows:

EDITIONS BEFORE 1501

(Abbreviations in this list are explained in notes 1-12…)

1472: Venice: Nicolaus Jenson: BMC V.172 (IB 19655); HCR 10426; St. M4; Jan, I, lxxxviii. Editio princeps.

1483: June 6, Brescia: Boninus de Boninis: BMC VII.968 (IB 31072); HC 10427*; St. M5; Jan, I, lxxxviii, gives incorrect year (1484). First edition to contain printed geometric diagrams and map.

1485: May 15, Brescia: Boninus de Boninis: BMC VII.969 (IB 31084); HC 10428*; Pol. 2551; St. M6; Jan, I, lxxxviii, gives incorrect year (1480).

1485: May 31, Brescia: Boninus de Boninis (variant of H 10428*): BMC VII.969 (IB 31085); R. Suppl. 112; St. M7.

1492: June 29, Venice: [Joannes Rubeus Vercellensis]: BMC V.417 (IB 23151); HC 10429*; Pol. 2552; St. M8; Jan, I, lxxxix.

1500: Oct. 29, Venice: Philippus Pincius: BMC V.499 (IB 23690); HC 10430*; Pol. 2553; St. M9; Jan, I, lxxxix.

EDITIONS AFTER 1500

(Abbreviations in this list are explained in notes 1-12…)

1501: Jan. 18, Brescia: Angelus Britannicus: BM; Maittaire II.153; Panzer VI.338.1: Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, lxxxix.

1513: June 15, Venice: Augustinus de Zannis de Portesio: BN; Maittaire Index II.43; Panzer VIII.411.616; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xc.

1515: Feb. 1, Paris: ed. Ascensiana: BM; BN; Maittaire II.272; Panzer VIII.21.778; Jan, I, xc.

1515: July, Florence: Philippus Junta: BM; BN; Panzer VII.21.98; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xc.

1517: April, Venice: Aldus (with Censorinus De die natali): Panzer VIII.439.842.

1519: Nov. 5, Paris: ed. Ascensiana (with Censorinus De die natali): BM; BN; Panzer VIII.53.1067; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xc.

1521: July 18, Venice: Joannes Tacuinus de Tridino: BM; BN; Panzer VIII.465.1057.

1521: August, Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus: Maittaire II.616; Panzer VI.384.339; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xci.

1524: Nov. 5, Paris: ed. Ascensiana (with Censorinus De die natali): BM; BN; Maittaire II.654; Panzer VIII.86.1404.

1526: Jan. 4, Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus: Maittaire II.676; Panzer VI.397.451; Jan, I, xci.

1527: August, Cologne: Opera et impensa Joannis Soteris: Panzer VI.401.489; Jan, I, xci.

1528: April, Venice: Aldus (with Censorinus De die natali): BM; BN; Maittaire II.709; Panzer VIII.508.1445; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xci.

1532: Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: Panzer VII.353.661.

1535: Basle: Joannes Hervagius: BM; BN; Maittaire II.830; Panzer VI.306.1017; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcii.

1538: Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: Jan, I, xcii.

1542: Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: Jan, I, xciii.

1548 : Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: BN; Jan, I, xciii.

1550: Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: BN; Jan, I, xciii.

1556: Lyons: Sebastianus Gryphius: BM; Jan, I, xciii.

1560: Lyons: Apud haered. Gryphii: BM; BN; Jan, I, xciii.

1560: Lyons: T. Paganus: BN.

1565: Venice: Joannes Gryphius: BM; Jan, I, xciii.

1574: Venice: Joannes Gryphius: Jan, I, xciii.

1585: Paris: Henricus Stephanus: BM; BN; Maittaire III.794; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xciii.

1585: Lyons: A. Gryphius: BM; BN; Jan, I, xciii.

1597: Leiden: Franciscus Raphelengius: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xciv.

1597: Geneva: Jacobus Stoer: Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xciii.

1607: Geneva: Jacobus Stoer: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xciii.

1628: Leiden: Joannes Maire: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcv.

1670: Leiden: Arnoldus Doude, Cornelius Driehuysen: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcvi.

1694: London: T. Dring and C. Harper: BM; BN; Jan, I, xcvi.

1736: Padua: Jos. Cominus: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcvii, gives incorrect year (1737).

1774: Leipzig: G. Theophilus Georgius: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcvii.

1788: Zweibrücken: ed. Bipontina: 2 vols.: BM; BN; Graesse IV.330; Jan, I, xcvii.

1848: -

1852: Quedlinburg and Leipzig: Godofredus Bassius: 2 vols.

This edition, by Ludwig von Jan, represents the fullest collation of the manuscripts, including B (Bambergensis 875) and P (Parisinus Regius 6371), and also compares the readings of eleven printed editions. It remains the most serviceable of the editions of the Commentary.

1868: Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

Eyssenhardt's edition is a hurried piece of work, based upon a comparison of only two manuscripts (B and P) and prepared during a six-year period when Eyssenhardt also edited Phaedrus, Apuleius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Martianus Capella, and the Historia Miscella.

1893: Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

Eyssenhardt's second edition is virtually a reprinting of the first edition. A few emendations suggested by scholars in the intervening years have been incorporated, but unfortunately this edition is marred by a greater number of typographical errors than the first contained, and the first was poor in this respect. The eminent Wissowa's scathing criticism¹³⁴ of this work is probably justified.

DOUBTFUL EDITIONS

1485 Leipzig: Panzer I.473; Catal. Bibl. Ernesti 174.

1513 Leipzig: Panzer VII.182.446; Bauer VII.154.

III

An anonymous Latin commentary on Macrobius' Commentary is to be found in manuscript, in a twelfth- or thirteenth-century hand, in the Bibliothèque d'Avranches.¹³⁵

Cicero's Dream of Scipio and Macrobius' Commentary on it were among the numerous Latin works which the well-known Byzantine scholar and theologian Maximus Planudes (c.1260-1320) translated into Greek.

An anonymous French translation, based upon the Pontanus edition (1628), is to be found in manuscript, in an eighteenth-century hand, in the Bibliothèque de Châlons-sur-Marne.¹³⁶

The interest of French scholars in Neoplatonism during the nineteenth century is reflected in the numerous editions of French translations of Macrobius' works:

Œuvres de Macrobe, traduites par Ch. de Rosoy. 2 vols. Paris, 1827.

Macrobe, Œuvres complètes, avec la traduction en français, publiées sous la direction de M. Nisard. Paris, 1845. In the preface A. J. Mahul is indicated as the translator of this work. The series in which this translation appeared, “Collection des auteurs latins,” was republished at various times.

Œuvres de Macrobe, traduction nouvelle, par MM. Henri Descamps, N. A. Dubois, Laas d'Aguen, A. Ubicini Martelli. Paris, 1847. “Bibliothèque latine-française,” seconde série, tome 33.

In 1937 a new translation, by Henri Bornecque, of the Saturnalia appeared: Les Saturnales, traduction nouvelle, avec introduction et notes (2 vols., Paris, 1937).

The present translation is based upon a comparison of Jan's edition and the 1868 and 1893 editions of Eyssenhardt. I had once intended to make a new collation but this became impossible during the war years. After completing the translation I realized that there were very few textual difficulties. Nearly all the discrepancies that are found in the three texts employed are the result of obvious typographical errors, negligent omissions of words or phrases, and variant spellings. In the main I have found Jan's text the most reliable and have used it as the basis of the translation. Lacking the opportunity to consult the manuscripts, I had to adopt the unscholarly practice of choosing the reading that made the better sense. On about a half-dozen occasions, indicated in the notes, Eyssenhardt's reading (usually the emendation of some other scholar since Jan) seemed more sensible. The Chaucer Section of the Modern Language Association is planning a series of critical editions of texts that were used by Chaucer, and a new edition of the Commentary is being prepared by Professor Claude W. Barlow, of Clark University.

The task of translating the Commentary has not been easy. The encyclopedic range of the author's interest draws upon many disciplines. But it has been a more difficult problem to adapt Macrobius' pedantry, flowery phraseology, and forced rhetoric to modern tastes and at the same time to retain the flavor and charm of the original. In general it seemed best to translate quite literally. Long sentences have been broken down and the author's overfondness for transitional particles has had to be reconciled with English usage.

Notes

1. For references regarding the authorship of this abridgement, see Johannes Scottus, p. ix.

2. See Saturnalia i.i.1; Commentary on Scipio's Dream i.i.1, ii.i.1. In citations of Greek and Latin authors, small capital Roman numerals will refer to the book (large capitals are used for the volume); lower-case Roman numerals, to the chapter; and Arabic numerals, to the numbered section or paragraph (or, in poetical works, to the line). Where, in traditional practice, sections are numbered through from the beginning to the end of a book, the chapter reference will be omitted. In the few cases where there are no traditional divisions, citations will be made by Arabic numerals referring to the pages in the text edition listed in the Bibliography.

3. Saturnalia Praefatio 11: nos sub alio ortos caelo.

4. Jan, I, vii.

5. Review of K. Sittl, “Die localen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache …” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, CXXVII (1883), 180.

6. Martin Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur, Vol. IV, Pt. 2, p. 191.

7. In W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, III, 383.

8. Pauly, Vol. XIV, Pt. 1 (1928), col. 171.

9. Mras, p. 285.

10. G. Wissowa, De Macrobii Saturnaliorum fontibus capita tria, dissertatio inauguralis philologica, p. 15.

11. T. R. Glover, Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, p. 172.

12. J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, I, 238.

13. Whittaker, Macrobius, p. 11.

14. H. Georgii, “Zur Bestimmung der Zeit des Servius,” Philologus, LXXI (1912), 518-26.

15. Wissowa, op. cit., p. 12.

16. See Schanz, op. cit., pp. 32-33.

17. xvi.x.15, viii.v.61.

18. xi.xxviii.6.

19. vi.viii.1.

20. In William Smith, ed., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, III, 888.

21. Johannes Sundwall, Weströmische Studien (Berlin, 1915), p. 98.

22. Pauly, Vol. XIV, Pt. 1 (1928), col. 169.

23. Sandys, op. cit., I, 238.

24. Glover, op. cit., p. 172.

25. See A. E. R. Boak and J. E. Dunlap, Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration, p. 194.

26. Whittaker, Macrobius, p. 11.

27. Mras, p. 232.

28. Schanz, op. cit., p. 189.

29. A. C. Pallu de Lessert, Fastes des provinces africaines (Paris, 1901), II, 121-22.

30. In Teuffel, loc. cit.

31. Pauly, Vol. XIV, Pt. 1 (1928), col. 170.

32. Henry, pp. 146-47.

33. Cambr. Med. Hist., Vol. I, Chap. xx, especially pp. 569-72.

34. Glover, op. cit., pp. 108-9. See also the very full discussion of this subject in Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, Book v.

35. Glover, op. cit., p. 10.

36. Cambr. Med. Hist., I, 569.

37. The list would also include Boethius, Martianus Capella, Chalcidius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore of Seville. The handbooks and translations prepared by these authors, together with the Natural History of Pliny the Elder (and the Collectanea of his epitomator, Solinus), were the basic works in the preservation of the classical arts and science in the early Middle Ages.

38. See Cicero De re publica 11.3. For a discussion of Cicero's own ideas on handling the subject and for an appreciation of this work, see Torsten Petersson, Cicero: a Biography, Chap. xiii.

39. J. W. Mackail, Latin Literature (New York, 1923), p. 71.

40. In the case of Chalcidius, the excerpts quoted are from his own Latin translation of Plato's Timaeus.

41. H. F. Stewart in Cambr. Med. Hist., I, 573.

42. For a discussion of the arguments involved, see Stahl, pp. 236-42.

43. For a fuller account of the influence of Macrobius' geography and for some reproductions of medieval zone maps, see Stahl, pp. 249-58.

44. See Petit, pp. 67, 75, 79.

45. Hugo Linke, “Ueber Macrobius' Kommentar zu Ciceros Somnium Scipionis,” in Philologische Abhandlungen, Martin Hertz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, pp. 240-56.

46. A dissertation by Gerhard Borghorst, De Anatolii fontibus (Berlin, 1905).

47. Friedrich Bitsch, De Platonicorum quaestionibus quisbusdam Vergilianis, pp. 71-73.

48. Schedler, p. 4.

49. T. R. Glover, Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, p. 172.

50. Cumont, pp. 113-20.

51. Whittaker, Macrobius, p. 18.

52. Classical Philology, XVIII (1923), 190.

53. See Mras, passim, and especially pp. 281-82.

54. Commentary i.ix.5.

55. The contemporary reference in Commentary ii.iv.13 might be added.

56. There is no denying the correctness of the attitude expressed by Mras in the last statement; Henry and Courcelle fully agree with him, and any reader of the Commentary would readily admit that Macrobius has assimilated his borrowings and woven them into his text with great skill. Nevertheless it is necessary at this time to call the reader's attention to a practice of Macrobius which can be traced more clearly in his Saturnalia than in the Commentary.

    Fortunately two of the most influential sources (ultimate or direct) of the Saturnalia are extant, Aulus Gellius' Attic Nights and Plutarch's Symposiacs. At the opening of the Saturnalia (Praefatio 4) Macrobius admits that he has borrowed freely from earlier writers, frequently verbatim or with minor changes; the evidence of this is seen in an examination of the passages he excerpts from Gellius. He copies with slight modifications, sometimes omitting, sometimes altering the order, and rarely adding. There are one passage of ten pages in the Teubner edition, one of more than three, two of two, three of one, and numerous smaller passages in which the correspondence is very close. He weaves them into the pattern of the whole, putting the words of Gellius and his authorities into the mouths of the savants of his dialogue. His ultimate indebtedness to Plutarch in Book vii is also great, although the similarity is not so marked. There is a theory that the text of the Symposiacs which he used was substantially different from the one that has come down to us.

    Similar close correspondence between Macrobius' text and passages in earlier writings can also be found in the Commentary. In his chapter on the virtues of the number seven we find many passages that are free but adequate translations of a Greek treatise, falsely ascribed to Iamblichus, on the virtues of the numbers in the sacred Pythagorean decad (see notes to i.vi). In one passage of five Teubner pages Macrobius' text follows the Greek text rather closely, with some omissions and additions and very few changes in order. Despite these and other extended borrowings there is little of the unevenness and irregularity about Macrobius' writings that would betray a mechanical compiler. For a full discussion of the sources of Macrobius' Saturnalia, see G. Wissowa, De Macrobii Saturnaliorum fontibus capita tria; G. L⊙gdberg, In Macrobii Saturnalia adnotationes; Courcelle, pp. 9-20.

57. Henry, pp. 146-92.

58. Henry, p. 191.

59. Courcelle devotes the first chapter, pp. 3-36, of his study to Macrobius and refers to him constantly thereafter.

60. Courcelle, p. 393: “Les Latins les plus férus de Platon ou d'Aristote, un Macrobe, un Augustin, un Boèce, ne connaissent le texte ancien qu'à travers le commentaire le plus récent et ne peuvent détacher l'un de l'autre. Cette absence d'un contact direct avec les chefs-d'œuvre classiques, ce défaut de perspective, ce manque de sens historique est l'un des signes les plus graves de la décadence; les meilleurs esprits ne s'y peuvent soustraire; ils réfléchissent, non sur les textes, mais sur les commentaires qu'ils commentent à leur tour; de commentaire en commentaire, la pensée s'affadit et dégénère.” See also pp. 111-12. Throughout the volume Courcelle gives numerous instances of the commentators' misrepresentation of their sources. It is interesting to note that Macrobius cites Plotinus' Enneads six times in the Commentary but refers only twice to Porphyry, a more important source.

61. Courcelle, pp. 394-95.

62. Courcelle, pp. 16-20, 34.

63. Courcelle, p. 22.

64. Courcelle, pp. 27-28.

65. i.iii.17, ii.iii.15.

66. See above, p. 31.

67. ii.xii.7.

68. Henry, pp. 151-52.

69. Courcelle, pp. 27-28.

70. The parallel texts may be found in Henry, pp. 155-57.

71. Proclus (Kroll), II, 96-101.

72. F. E. Robbins, “The Tradition of Greek Arithmology,” Classical Philology, XVI (1921), 97-123.

73. i.vii.1.

74. Thorndike, I, 544.

75. Any consideration of the influence of a Latin author upon the writers of the Middle Ages would of course be incomplete without mention of the great general work on the subject, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, by Max Manitius. Manitius refers to many authors not found in Schedler and Duhem, but for the most part they are lesser-known writers.

    In the summary of Schedler's and Duhem's studies given here, no page references will be cited because the authors dealt with are easily found from their indexes.

76. Schedler's main deficiency is his failure to realize the importance of Macrobius' influence in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Duhem has shown, as we shall see, that Macrobius began to be widely read and quoted early in the tenth century.

77. For the extent of Bede's indebtedness to Macrobius, see the index to Bedae opera de temporibus, ed. by Charles W. Jones.

78. Both Schedler and Duhem are mistaken here. Macrobius' Commentary is cited at least twice by Johannes (xiii,1, ccclxv.21). According to Cora Lutz, Johannes derived his ideas on the soul and World-Soul from Chalcidius and Macrobius, and his astronomical doctrines from the same authors and from Pliny the Elder. See Johannes Scottus, p. xx.

79. Manitius, I, 371.

80. Ibid., p. 526.

81. In another work, Practica geometriae, Hugh of Saint Victor refers to the measurements given by Macrobius of the earth's diameter and of the sun's distance and orbit. See Manitius, III, 116.

82. See Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (Munich, 1897), pp. 544-46.

83. Pierre de Nolhac (Pétrarque et l'humanisme [Paris, 1892], pp. 132-33), in his list of classical citations uses passim for Virgil and Macrobius instead of giving specific references.

84. Friedrich C. Schlosser, Universalhistorische Uebersicht der Geschichte der alten Welt und ihrer Cultur (Frankfurt, 1834), Pt. 3, § 4, p. 9.

85. F. X. Kraus, Dante (Berlin, 1897), pp. 363, 426.

86. V, 790.

87. Henry (pp. 248-50) traces Macrobius' fourfold classification in the Middle Ages.

88. C. H. Haskins, Studies in Medieval Science, p. 88.

89. G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, I, 385.

90. Duhem, III, 44-162. I have stated my reasons in the footnotes to i.xix for disagreeing with Duhem (and Dreyer and Heath) in regarding Macrobius as one of the Heraclideans. I feel that Macrobius is explicit in defending the Platonic order—a fixed order of the planets will not admit of the Heraclidean system—and that Macrobius' short and vague statement about the upper and lower courses of Mercury and Venus (i.xix.6) could be interpreted as a reference to the Heraclidean system only by a reader who was familiar with the system from the account of some other author, from Vitruvius, Chalcidius, or Martianus Capella. It is true that in the Middle Ages, as Duhem has shown, Macrobius was thought to be expounding the Heraclidean system; but that was not his intention, and anyone who is so interpreting him is reading between the lines and is drawing upon a previous knowledge of Heraclides. This point does not detract in the least from the value of Duhem's chapter on the influence of Macrobius' cosmological doctrines, however. Again, in this summary of Duhem's study, page references will be omitted because they are easily found in the index.

91. Duhem's argument is invalid. See note 5 above.

92. Lactantius Divinae institutiones iii.xxiv; Augustine De civitate Dei xvi.ix. For instances of accusations of heresy, see M. L. W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe: A.D. 500-900 (London, 1931), pp. 145-46; Wright, pp. 56-57; J. Oliver Thomson, History of Ancient Geography, p. 386; Duhem, III, 64-65; Thorndike, I, 480-81, feels that too much attention has been drawn to the opposition of early churchmen to natural science.

93. Opusculum contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem iv (Migne, Pat. Lat., CLV, 154).

94. On the influence of Macrobius upon the school of Chartres, see also Wright, pp. 134-35.

95. Macrobius' conception of a great equatorial and a great meridional ocean girding the globe and dividing it into four large land masses originated with Crates of Mallus, of the second century b.c. Wright (p. 158) refers to the theory as the “Crates-Macrobian system” and points out that Macrobius and Capella introduced it to the western world. On the currency of the theory in the Middle Ages and on Macrobius' importance in its transmission, see Wright, pp. 18-19, 56, 158-59; J. Oliver Thomson History of Ancient Geography, p. 203.

96. See Wright, p. 440.

97. See Wright, pp. 121-22; M. C. Andrews, “The Study and Classification of Medieval Mappae Mundi,” Archaeologia, LXXV (1925), 71.

98. Liber de proprietatibus rerum viii.xxvi.

99. Duhem, II, 411.

100. Dreyer, p. 207.

101. J. L. E. Dreyer, “Medieval Astronomy,” in Studies in the History and Method of Science, ed. by Charles Singer (Oxford, 1921), II, 103.

102. Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, I, 343.

103. G. H. T. Kimble, Geography in the Middle Ages, p. 11. That the currency of this belief was a factor in the discovery of America is the opinion of M. Cary and E. H. Warmington (The Ancient Explorers, p. 192) and of Whittaker (Macrobius, p. 83).

104. Wright, pp. 160, 386.

105. Wright, pp. 11, 366-67.

106. Wright, pp. 55, 155.

107. Kimble, Geography in the Middle Ages, pp. 8-9, 24.

108. Martha Shackford, “The Date of Chaucer's Hous of Fame,” Modern Language Notes, XXXI (1916), 507-8. Recently her suggestions were adopted by Robert A. Pratt in “Chaucer Borrowing from Himself,” Modern Language Quarterly, VII (1946), 264, in support of his assumption that the Parliament Invocation is based partly on that of the House of Fame, which accordingly must antedate it. It is widely agreed that the Book of the Duchess is one of Chaucer's early works. On the dating of the House of Fame and of the Parliament and on the chronological order of Chaucer's works, see The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited by F. N. Robinson, pp. xxiv-xxv, 887, 900-901.

109. E. P. Anderson, “Some Notes on Chaucer's Treatment of the Somnium Scipionis,” Proceed. of the Amer. Philol. Assoc., XXXIII (1902), xcviii-xcix.

110. J. L. Lowes, Geoffrey Chaucer and the Development of his Genius, pp. 112-13.

111. J. L. Lowes, “The Second Nun's Prologue, Alanus and Macrobius,” Modern Philology, XV (1917), 193-202.

112. Walter Clyde Curry, Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences, pp. 195-218.

113. Mras, p. 278.

114. i.12-15.

115. Cleomedes ii.82.

116. Cleomedes ii.75. Of course it will be acknowledged that the readers of the treatises of Nicomachus, Archimedes, and Cleomedes were more highly trained than Macrobius' readers and the discussion throughout is accordingly on a higher level.

117. Martianus Capella viii.860.

118. Commentary ii.v.7.

119. For a comprehensive discussion of Macrobius' syntax, forms, vocabulary, and orthography, see Jan, I, xxxviii-xlvi.

120. Commentary i.ix.3, xi.12, xiv.7. Cf. Virgil Aeneid ii.392-93; vii.639-40.

121. Commentary i.xiii.6; ii.x.15, xii.5. Cf. Aeneid iv.518.

122. Jan, I, lxxxviii-xcviii.

123. British Museum, Catalogue of Books Printed in the XV Century Now in the British Museum, Pts. I-VII (London, 1908-35). (BMC)

124. Ludwig Hain, Reportorium bibliographicum … usque ad annum MD, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, Paris, 1826-38). (H)

125. W. A. Copinger, Supplement to Hain's Reportorium bibliographicum, Pt. I (London, 1895). (HC)

126. Dietrich Reichling, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri Reportorium bibliographicum (Munich, 1905-11). (HCR); Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri Reportorium bibliographicum: Additiones et emendationes (Münster, 1914). (R. Suppl.)

127. M.-Louis Polain, Catalogue des livres imprimés au quinzième siècle des bibliothèques de Belgique, 4 vols. (Brussels, 1932). (Pol.)

128. Margaret Bingham Stillwell, Incunabula in American Libraries (New York, 1940). (St.)

129. British Museum, Catalogue of Printed Books (London, 1881—). (BM)

130. Bibliothèque Nationale, Catalogue général des livres imprimés (Paris, 1910—). (BN)

131. Michael Maittaire, Annales typographici (Amsterdam, 1733-41). (Maittaire)

132. Georg Wolfgang Panzer, Annales typographici (Nuremberg, 1793). (Panzer)

133. Johann Georg Theodor Graesse, Trésor de livres rares et précieux (Dresden, 1859-69). (Graesse)

134. G. Wissowa, in Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie, XII (1895), 689: “Mein Urteil, dass wir es mit einer von Anfang bis zu Ende nachlässigen und unbrauchbaren Arbeit zu tun haben, glaube ich im vorstehenden ausreichend begründet zu haben.”

135. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, X (1889), 104.

136. Ibid., III (1885), 57.