Quaestiones Mecfii Aevi Novaevol. 13 +' 2008

PALATIUM, CASTLE, -RESIDENCE

FundacjaCentrum BadariHistorycmych SOCIETAS

VlSTULANA -

Warszawa 2008

QUAESTIONES MEDII AEVINOVAE (2008)

WOJCIECH BARAN- KOZtOWSKI

POZNAN - PIOTRKÖW TRYBUNALSKI

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTUS

- BE1WEEN COMPUTISllC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY1•

WORLD CHRONICLES AND THE SEARCH FOR A SUITABLECHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY

~ One of the foundations of historical writings were Early:. ~ Christian world chronicles, it is works which intended to present....., ~?'\..~ the history of mankind from the creation of the world or the

f ~. first man - Adam (later, from the birth of Christ) to the times.... of the chronicler, The essence of such a chronicle was a strictly

chronological narration with particular emphasis on coordinating Biblicalhistory with the tradition transmitted by classical authors', The early originof this genre lies in the history of Christian Greco-Latin writings. AlthoughCbronograpbia written by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 is regarded as thefirst Christian chronicle', it was Cbronographia by Eusebius of Caesarea (about325)\ which became a model of a world chronicle imitated by consecutivegenerations in the whole of Latin Europe mainly thanks to Jerome of Stridon

1 This study was financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MinisterstwoNauki i Szkolnictwa Wyiszego) as part of research project no. 1 H01G 014 26. The article isa summary of the first stage of investigations; at present, the author is working on a monographicstudy about Chronicon, conceived as a more detailed presentation both of the problems discussedin the article and a number of further aspects.

2 See: A.A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek chronographic tradition,London 1979; B. Croke, The Origins of the Christian World Chronicle, in: History and Historiansin Late Antiquity, Sydney-Oxford 1983, pp. 116-131.

3 See: H. Gelzer, Sextus lulius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographic, I-lI, Leipzig1880-1885;Julius Africanu« und die christliche Weltchronistik, ed. by M. Wallraff, Berlin 2006(especially: U. Roberto, Julius Africanus und die Tradition der hellenistischen Uniuersalgeschicbte,pp.3-16). .

4 Eusebii Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, ed. by A. Schoene, Berlin 1866.

314 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZI:.OWSKI

(about 380)5, its translator into the Latin and continuator; at the same time,it proved to be the main source for learning about ancient history. Eusebiuswas emulated successively by such authors as Prosper of Aquitaine, Isidor ofSeville, or Bede Venerabilis, to mention only the most outstanding. Thepopularity of this historiographie genre is evidenced by the fact that 180 worldchronicles were written from the 3rd century to the early 16th century'', Ina fundamental monographic work on the world chronicle as a historiographiegenre from the 3rd century to the 1160s, Anna-Dorothee van den Brinckenanalysed 60 examples", Naturally, as it developed, the world chronicle underwentcertain transformations. Some of the authors followed a well-trodden pathby copying the scheme introduced by Eusebius-Jerome and their greatcontinuers. This type of a chronicle, described by van den Brincken as seriestemporumi, dominated to the end of the 11th century and placed in theforeground a chronological arrangement, trying as precisely as possible notonly to introduce order into the events but also to date them with the assistanceof absolute chronology. The next variety of world chronicles, according toa typology proposed by this acclaimed expert on the genre, is the so-calledmare bistoriarum, whose characteristic features include an annalistic accountcomposed of larger narration fragments, preceded by an introduction, anddivided into books and chapters. Excellent examples of such chronicles areHistoriarum adversus paganos libri septem by Paulus Orosius? and Chronicasiue Historia de duabus civitatibus by Otto of Freising". The third type is theso-called imago mundi, which assumed the form of an encyclopaedic work;its examples include Chronicon by Lambert of St. Omer!' and Didascalion byHugo of St. Victor",

A world chronicle served its author not only for transmitting a summa ofknowledge about the history of mankind, but predominantly consisted of its

5 Die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. by R. Helm, Berlin 1956; about the author seeespecially: ].N.D. Kelly, [erome. His Life, Writings and Controversies, London 1975.

6 P. Brezzi, Chroniques universelles du moyen age et bistoire du salut, in: L 'historiographiemedieuale en Europe, ed. by J.P. Genet, Paris 1991, p, 236 ..

7 A.D. von den Brincken, Studien zur lateinischen Weltchronistik bis in das ZeitalterOttos von Freising, Düsseldorf 1957.

8 A.D. von den Brincken, Die lateinische Weltchronistik, in: Mensch und Weltgeschichte.Zur Geschichte der Universalgeschichtschreibung. 7. Forschungsgespräch des InternationalenForschungszentrums für Grundfragen der Wissenschaften, ed. by A. Randa, Salzburg 1969,pp. 43-58. .

9 Paul us Orosius, Historiarum adversus paganos libri septem, ed. by K. Zangemeister,Lipsiae 1888.

10 Ottoni episcopi Frisingensis Chronica siue Historia de duabus ciuitatibus, ed. byW. Lammers, Berlin 1960. .

11 Lambert; Audomariensis Chronica, ed. by G.H. Pertz, in: Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica. Scriptores (henceforth: MGH SS), V, Hannoverae 1844, pp. 65-66.

12 Didascalion de studio legendi, ed. by Ch.H. Buttimer, Washington 1939.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTIJS _ BETWEEN COMPlITlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY... 315

appropriate placing in time. Chronology, both relative (a synchronisticarrangement of the history of contemporary monarchies, ancient history, or thehistory of the empire and the papacy) and absolute, was the very essence of thiscurrent in historiography. The majority of the authors, however, did not introducea revolutionary breakthrough and limited themselves to the scheme of historyproposed by Eusebius-Jerome. Others made smaller or further-going corrections,and shifted the moment of the creation of the world or/and the date of the birthof Christ. One of those revolutionaries was Marianus Scotus (1028-1082) anIro-Scottish monk working on the Continent (chiefly in Fulda and Mainz).

The period in which the Mainz-based chronicler witnessed computistdiscussions inspired by the approaching conclusion of the Easter table createdseveral centuries earlier by Dionysius Exiguus and continued by Felix andBede Venerabilis. The tables ended with the so-called great paschal cycle in1063, the second cycle from the time of Christ. The need to conduct furthercalculations inclined certain chroniclers to delve into a problem - known alreadyfrom the time of Bede but in practice "tactfully overlooked" , of the contradictionsbetween the calculations made by Dionysius and the historical data conveyedby the Evangelists. The first to establish the imprecision and embark upon hisown calculations was Abbon of Fleury, one of the greatest scholars of theperiod, who having created a new paschal table for the years 1064-1595,shifted the year of the Crucifixion of Christ to the 13th year in the Dionysianera 13.As a result, the date of the Nativity of the Saviour, and thus the beginningof our era, was placed in 21 B.C. The second scholar who considered thisproblem already in the 10th century was Heriger, the abbot of Lobbes Abbeyin Belgium, who proposed to shift the dates of the birth and death of Christby only 7 years!", Unfortunately, we know nothing about the details of hiscalculations, since the only extant source is a single letter containing verygeneral views. Independently of the monk from Lobbes, the same datation of

13 In circulos beat; Cyrilli et Dionysii Romani ac Bedae studiosi cujusdam praefatio, in:Patrologia Latina (henceforth: PL), CXXXIX, Paris 1853, col. 573-577. About the author andhis calculations see especially: A. van de Vyver, Les oeuvres inedites d'Abbon de Fleury, "RevueBenedictine" XLVII (1935), p. 150 ff; A. Cordiolani, Abbon de Fleury, Heriger de Lobbes etGerland de Besanfon sur l'ere de l'lncamation de Denys le Petit, "Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique"XLIV (1949), p. 474 H.; J. Naumowicz, Geneza chrzesciianskiei rachuby lat, Tyniec 2000,p. 199 H.; compare with the most recent biography by P. Riche, Abbon de Fleury, Turnhout2004 and a collection of articles: Abbon de Fleury. Philosophie, sciences et comput. Autor del'an mil, ed. by B. Obrist, Paris 2006.

14 Herigeri abbatis Lobiensis epistola ad quemdam Hugonem monachum, in: PL,CXXXIX, col. 1129-1136; see: A. van de Vyver, op.cit., p. 158 ff.; A. Cordiolani, op.cit.,p. 480 ff. (here also an edition of the text) and the newest biography by P. Verbist: Herigervan Lobbes (ea. 942 - t 1007) een laat-karolinger of een vroeg-scholasticus? Een historischonderzoek naar de religieus-culturele wereid van Luik en Lobbes in de late tiende eeuw,http://www.ethesip.netlherigerlheriger_inhoud.htm.

316 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZI:.OWSKI

the birth of Christ was formulated almost 100 years later by Gerland of Besan~on,who in 1088 wrote that 1 081 years had passed from the Nativity of theLord", These proposals went unnoticed by their contemporaries. The impactof the fourth polemist - Marianus Scotus - proved to be much greater. Withthe same premises as those of his predecessors as his point of departure, Marianusdid not restrict himself to writing a small polemical work about the calculationof the date of Easter, but carried out a thorough computistic and historicalanalysis based on a meticulous approach to the whole heretofore Latin tradition,and created his own extremely cohesive chronological system, in which hetransferred both the accepted date of the creation of the world and the date ofthe birth of Christ. The effect was an almost hundred fifty-pages long worldchronicle, which in an annalistic arrangement listed events from the first dayof the creation of the world to the times of the author. The point of departurewas an era devised according to data from the Gospel (secundum evangelicamveritatem), and known as the evangelical era, which situated the birth ofChrist 22 years earlier than the date proposed by Dionysius. At the sametime, analysing sources for pre-Christian history, the author shifted the momentof the creation of the world to 4183 B.C.

EDmONS OF CHRONICON AND THE STATE OF PERTINENT RESEARCH

Up to now, Chronicon by Marianus Scotus has not been issued in a completecritical edition. The sixteenth-century edition by Johannes Basilius Herold",which does not meet any of the contemporary scientific requirements, wasreprinted by Burchard Gotthelf Struve in the 18th century". This edition, based

15 A. Cordiolani, Abbon de Fleury, p. 486 ff.; J. Naumowicz, op.cit., p. 201.16 Mariani Scoti, poetae, mathematid, philosophi et theologi eximii, monachi Fuldensis,

historici probatissimi, Chronica: ad Euange/ij veritatem, post Hebraicae sacrosanctae scripturaeet septuaginta interpretum uariationem, magno iudicio discussam et correctam, cartaenumeratione temporum conscripta. Adiecimus Martini Poloni Archiepiscopi Consentini,eiusdem argumenti historiam: cuius in Ponti{icios scriptores, a multis iam annis ob singularisfidei opinionem magnus [uit usus, atque [requens memoria ... , Basileae: per Iacobum Parcum,expensis Ioannis Oporini, 1559.

17 Mariani Scoti, historiographi sui temp oris clarissimi, ac monachi {vldensis, chronicorvmlibri Ill, in: Rervm Germanicarvm Scriptores a/iqvot insignes, qvi bistoriam et res gestasgermanorvm medii potissimvm aeui inde a Carolo M. ad Carolvm V usque per annales literisconsignarunt, primvm collectore Joanne Pistorio Nidano, tribvs tomis ..., editione tertia ...,cvrante Bvrcardo Gotthelff. Struvio, Ratisbonae 1726, pp. 441-544. A small fragment aboutthe reign of Charlemagne was reprinted by Martin Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gauleset de la France, V: Tome cinquieme, contenant ce qui s'est passe sous les regne de Charlemagne.c'est-ä-dire depuis l'an DCCLIl jusques a l'an DCCCXIV. auec les loix, les ordonnances, lesdip/Omes de ces deux rois, et autres monumens historiques, par dom Martin Bouquet. pretreet religieux de la congregation de Saint-Maut, Paris 1741, pp. 368-370.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS Scorus - BElWEEN COMPlJTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 317

not on the autograph but on a fourteenth-century, rather considerablyinterpolated copy, kept today in Frankfurt on the Main, not only provideda sometimes different version of the chronicle but overlooked book 11.Aneven smaller fragment of Chronicon is to be found in a nineteenth-centuryedition by Georg Waitz. Although already based on the autograph, it containsonly book III of the chronicle, that is 30 percent of the contents of the codex".Furthermore, even this book had not been published with suitable care - itfeatures numerous striking inconsistencies of dates, mistaken deciphering andascription of particular entries to certain years, and frequent omissions of theauthor's annotations on the margins. Consequently, I give all citations fromthe chronicle upon the basis of the autograph, with additional attempts atevoking the most important features of the manuscript",

The absence of an edition of the whole chronicle certainly affected thestate of research, since up to now no one has concentrated on all the works byMarianus Scotus", Only the computistic system-! and the Irish glosses+ havebeen partially edited. A general characteristic of the work and its author is

18 Mariani Scotti chronicon a. 1-1082, ed. by G. Waitz, in: MGH SS, V, Hannoverae1844, pp. 481-564.

19 I cite the inconsistent text without introducing uniformity into ulv, e!f;/ae and thesingle and double letter s; nor did Icorrect grammar and spelling mistakes, marking the moreessential dissimilarities [as in the original- W. B.-K.]. Ipreserve the spelling of proper names,characteristic for the period and starting with a small letter (the only exception being theabbreviation xpc = Christus, since it is composed of the Greek majuscule); Imark the initials byenclosing them in 1111, additions between the lines and on the margins are given in brackets {},unambiguous abbreviations in ( ), and preserved gaps and erasures in [ ]. I also tried topreserve the original punctuation. In quotations on adjoining pages I mark the end of page 11but not the ends of the verses. For the sake of the text's legibility I resigned from an exactreproduction of writing pronouns jointly and marking fragments written in differently colouredink. In the future, Iintend to prepare a critical edition of the whole codex, with an autographof the chronicle, which will render its palaeographic features even more precisely.

20 It would be difficult to regard as such the work by B. Mac Carthy, The Codex Palatino--Vaticanus No 830 (Texts, Translations and Indices), Dublin 1892, pp. 1-36 and the several--pages long fragment in the synthesis by A.D. von den Brincken, Studien zur lateinischenWe!tchronistik, pp. 166-173.

21 A.D. von den Brincken, Marianus Scottus. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung dernicht veröffentlichten Teile seiner Chronik, "Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters"XVII (1961), pp. 191-238; eadem, Marianus Scottus als Universalhistoriker iuxta veritatemEvangelii, in: Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, 11, Stuttgart 1982, pp. 970-1009;P. Verbist, Reconstructing the Past: the Chronicle of Marianus Scottus, "Peritia" XVI (2002),pp. 284-334.

22 H. Zimmer, Glossae Hibernicae, Berlin 1881, pp. XIII-XIV, 274-282; W. Stokes,Spicilegium Vaticanum, "The Academy" XXXV (1889), pp. 26-27; idem, Hibernica, "Zeitschriftfür vergleichende Sprachforschung" XXXI (1890), pp. 248-253; B. Güterbock, Aus irischenHandschriften in Turin und Rom, "Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung" XXXIII(1895), pp. 89-100; B.6. Cuiv, The Irish Margina/ia in Codex Palatino-Yaticanus No. 830,"Eigse. A Journal of Irish Studies" XXIV (1994), pp. 45-67.

318 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtOWSKI

contained in assorted biogrammes in lexicons and syntheses of mediaevalliterature". In Poland, in his synthesis on mediaeval Iro-Scottish culture onthe Continent Jerzy Strzelczyk proposed a popular interpretation based onearlier research'",

THE AlITHOR OF CHRONICON

Thanks to the author of Chronicon we know quite a lot about him. Ina manner untypical for a mediaeval man of letters, Marianus Scotus includeda number of autobiographical entries, some of which he supplemented withdates of days. In this way, the chronicle informs us about the author's birth;under 1028 he noted: "Ego miser marianus in peccatis fui in hoc anno natus"2S.Similarly, we know when he abandoned worldly life and entered a monastery(probably the abbey in Magh-bile, it is Moville in the county of Devon),a fact confirmed by a note from 1052: "Ego marianus seculum reliqui">.After a four-years long stay, the future chronicler went on a pilgrimage to theContinent: "Ego marianus peregrinus factus pro regno celeste patriam motuauiet in colonia quinta feria kaI. aug, monachus efectus"?". The precise date oftaking monastic vows (Thursday, 1 August) at the Iro-Scottish monastery ofSt. Martin in Köln is not an isolated case in the chronicle. The author notedhis voyage to Fulda, undertaken together with Abbot Ekbert, where he decidedto wall himself up in a cell (1058). Both men set off from Köln on 27 April,on a Monday after the octave of Easter: "Ipsis uero statim diebus feria 11postoctauas pasche exiens de colonia causa claudendi cum abbate fuldense ad fuldamsuper mattam in clausola ipsius ubi supra eamdem mattam combustus et passusest ego oraui"28. Before Marianus Scotus enclosed himself in a cell in Fulda hewent to Würzburg together with Siegfried, the local abbot; there, on Saturday,13 March 1059 he took his holy orders, a fact just as eagerly recorded in thechronicle: "Ego marianus indignus cum sigfrido abbate fuldensi iuxta corpussancti kiliani martiris uuirziburc consecratus ad presbiteratum sabbato medie

23 M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 11,München 1923,pp. 388-394; ].F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: Ecclesiastical. AnIntroduction and Guide, New York 1966, pp. 614-616; W. Wattenbach, R. Holtzmann,Deutschlands Geschichtsquel/en im Mittelalter. Die Zeit der Sachsen und Salier, 11,Weimar1967, pp. 446-449; 0.6. Cröinin, Marianus Scot(t)us, in: LexMa, VI, München 1992,col. 285-286.

24 ]. Strzelczyk, lroszkoci w kulturze sredniowiecznej Europy, Warszawa 1987, pp. 364--376.

25 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Palatini latini 830 (henceforth: PaLlat. 830), f. 163.26 Ibidem, f. 164.27 Ibidem.28 Ibidem.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 319

quadragesime III idus martii'v"; after his return to Fulda on 30 April hecommenced the life of an inclusus: "et feria sexta post ascensionem domini,pridie idus maii inclusus in fulda per annos X"30. Marianus did not stay herefor the rest of his life, and ten years later was summoned by Siegfried, who inthe meantime became the archbishop of Mainz. On 3 April Scotus moved toMainz, where on 10 June he enclosed himself in a cell at the monastery ofSt. Martin: "Ego miser marianus iusione episcopi mogontini et abbatis fuldensis,feria VI ante palmas III non. aprilis, post annos decem mee inclusionis, solutusde clausola in fulda ad mogontiam conductus":". Marianus Scotus died on22 December, probably in 1082. We may deduce the date upon the basis ofthe last entry from that year in the chronicle; the day was also recorded in theMainz necrologium", True, under AD 1087 the autograph features a handwrittenentry made probably in the 15th century: "Obiit marianus inclusus":", but thereliability of this late source is slight; it is difficult to determine exactly the baseupon which the scribe gave this particular date of the death of the chronicle'sauthor.

CHRONICLE MANUSCRIPTS

The chronicle by Marianus Scotus survived to our times in the form ofseveral mediaeval manuscripts, which include, first and foremost, the autograph,written by unidentified Iro-Scottish scribes, dictated by Marianus, and containinga supplement and corrections in his handwriting as well as additions by latercontinuers. The manuscript is kept at the Apostolic Library in the Vatican,and at least to the end of the Middle Ages it was in the library of the monasteryof St. Martin in Mainz, it is the place of its origin>'. Another site of its storage,confirmed in the sources, was the library of the palatines of the Rhineland inHeidelberg, the largest German library at the turn of the 16th century, wherethe codex found itself prior to 1622. In the same year, during the ThirtyYears' War, the armies of the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavariacaptured Heidelberg, and a year later the library collections were handed over

29 Ibidem.30 Ibidem.31 Pal.lat. 830, f. 165.32 11 KaI. Ianuarii [... ] Marianus inclusus, Necrologium ecclesiae Moguntinae, in:

Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, III: Monumenta Moguntina, ed. by P. jaffe, Berolini 1866,p.728.

33 Pal.lat. 830, f. 166. Quite possibly this is the same handwiritng as the one which isfound in the first inventory entry for AD 1419, although I am not certain about this assumption.

34 As evidenced by notes on leaf 1 of the codex: Iste liber pertinet ad librariam SanctiMartini ecclesie moguntine [... ]1419 and 1479 lste liber pertinet ad Librariam P. Martiniecclesie moguntine - ibidem, f. 1.

320 WOJCIECH BARAN- KOZI:.OWSKI

as war trophy to Pope Gregory XV, the spiritual superior of the Catholic forces".The collection remained at the Apostolic See until 1816 when Pius VII returnedit major part. The Vatican kept almost one-quarter of the collection, introducedinto the resources of the Vatican Library as a separate collection described incatalogue as palatinus. The codices contained also an autograph of the chronicleby Marianus Scotus, marked as number 830.

The manuscript was written on two types of parchment (thinner, of superiorquality: f. 26-73v and inferior, thicker, in places patched and with numerousholes: f. 1-25v, 74-170v). The whole codex was prepared in a Continentalmanner, evidenced by the interchangeable arrangement of their leafs. Thepresent-day arrangement of the codex was made already after the completionof the chronicle: the beginning includes the lesser texts and "rough notes" madeby Marianus both while working on the chronicle and after its completion.The manuscript starts with a brief computistic treaty entitled Tractatio sequentiseieli (f. Iv), The next pages features computistic tables (f. 2-3) followed bythree synchronistic tables presenting the chronology of the most importantevents from the history of mankind, arranged according to a chronology acceptedby Marianus in his chronicle. The first table (f. 4-10v) encompasses the firstgreater paschal cycle and historical information, spanning from the consulateof Lentulus and Marcellus to the year 554, according to the evangelical eraestablished by Marianus (further as: AE), that is, the year 532 according tothe Dionysian era (further as: AD), marking the beginning of the second greatpaschal cycle. In the column arrangement, the first column includes the datesof the era according to Marianus as well as the Roman consuls and emperorsdetermined by him upon, for example, the basis of the New Testament. Thesecond table contains key historical events (especially the deaths and successionsof emperors and popes) as well as information about solar cycles and concurrents.The third table consists of years according to the Dionysian era and the imperialera, this time given according to the chronicle tradition (following the exampleof the chronicles of Eusebius and Bede), together with the already inconsistentlyapplied era of the Olympics: "Reges romanorum sicut uere regnauerunt iuxtahistoriam sacri euangelii per annos uerisime incarnationis que mineio [as inthe original- W. B.-K.] colore conscribitur":", The table ends with a concisejustification of the accepted chronology: "IIEllxplicit magnus ciclus paschalis

35 This is demonstrated by a printed leaf placed before the binding prior to the first page ofthe codex and featuring, above an armorial shield with the coat of arms of Prince Maximilain I ofBavaria as the elector of the Palatinate and Archidapifer of the Reich, the following inscription:Sum de Bibliotheca, quam Heidelberga capta, Spolium fecit et P. M. Gregorio xv. trophaeummisit, Maximilianus Vtriusque Bauariae Dux et P.R.I. Archidapifer et Princeps Elector, andbelow: Anno Christi MDCXXIII. On the history of this library see: P.A. Metzger, BibliothecaPalatina, "Journal of Library History" XIII (1978), pp. 57-59.

36 Pal. lat. 830, f. 4.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 321

quingentorum triginta duorum annorum in cuius secundo anno iuxta dionisiumnatus est dominus, sed secundum historiam sacri euangelii in quo nihil fallsitatishabetur teste etiam sic sancto augustino [... ]37 in anno tertio decimo eiusdemcicli dominus noster Ihesus Christus octauo die kalendarum aprilium lunaquinta decima passus est, atque etiam sexto die kalendas aprilis luna septimadecima a mortuis resurrexit anno octauo decimo imperii tiberii cesaris secundumeuangelium iohannis, hoc est in' anno duodecimo incarnationis iuxtadionisium":", followed by information about the onset of the second greatpaschal cycle.

Table 2 (f. 1Qv-11v) j is a concordance of years according to the Marianusera, including the reigns of successive emperors. The table spans from 34 AE(= 12 AD) to 355 AE (= 333 AD), in other words, the third year of the reignof Constantine and Constance. Marianus tried to coordinate his computisticascertainment with heretofore tradition, and thus to "lose" the difference of22 years between the chronology of heretofore chroniclers and his own work:"Alia secundo uestigio emendatio annorum incarnationis juxta hieronimumqui dicit paulum post decem et septem annos conuersionis sue locutum fuissein hierusalern cum petro et cassiodorum ponentem quattuor annos interneronem et uespasianum et orosium dicentem decium tribus annis regnasse":".

Finally, the third table (f. 11v-15), a variant of the first one, includes theperiod from the year 34 AE (= 12 AD) to 268 AE (= 246 AD), it is the end ofthe reign of Decius. As in the case of the first table, this is an arrangement of3 columns with place for information about a given year according to AE andthe consular era, historical events (already with less details) and a year accordingto AD and the reigns of emperors (in keeping with the tradition of heretoforechroniclers). The only change involved replacing the years of the reigns ofemperors from the first column with the years of the papal pontificates andinformation about issued papal decrees: "Tertia emendacio annorumincarnationis tertio uestigio secundum martirologium et passiones paparumet decretales epistolas eorum quas ipsi pap~ predicti in certis kalendis miseruntet sub consulibus certis nominatis conscripserunt in quibus habetur deciusper annos decem regnasse auctoritate ecclesiastica in unoquoque annoconfirmante a fabiano papa qui passus est sub decio usque ad sanctum laurentiumqui passus est sub decico":".

The following codex leaf features a list of Iro-Scottish rulers with theyears of their reigns (f. 15v): "Hi sunt flathi hibernie qui ex dimedia parte ei

37 Empty space left for about four marks.38 Pal. lat. 830, f. 10v.39 Ibidem.40 Pal. lat. 830, f. llv.

322 WOJCIECH BARAN-KoZLOWSKI

id est do leth chuinn regerunt 0 chunn cetchatach eo £land mac mail sechnaill "41.Further on, the chronicler included a list of popes with an exact establishmentof the duration of their pontificates (years, months and days) (f. 16-16v). Thelist is written in 2 columns and encompasses popes from St. Peter to John XII(died 964) and a continuation, in different handwriting, from Benedict V (died964) to Paschalis II (died 1118). The next leaf (f. 17-17v) is empty, and onlyat the bottom does it contain a note about the solar cycle; on the margin, a notein different handwriting presents calculations of years with the marked yearof the birth and baptism of Christ.

A successive part of the codex is a paschal table with 2 paschal cycles; onthe margins, Marianus included certain historical entries, primarily about thedeaths of emperors and popes (f. 18-25). The next leaf (f. 25v) is empty.

The chronicle proper opens with a prologue starting with an ornamentalinitial "D" (f. 26-27v) and comprising a cornputistic treatise. The upper marginfeatures the following words added in red ink: "IN nomine sancte divinitatis.Ressurrectionis Christi inquissitio incipit quam Marianus hibernensis ineIususcongregavit'r". In the prologue, Marianus deliberated why the date of thedeath of Christ established by Dionysius is at odds with data from the Gospel,and conducted his own calculations".

A list of chapters from book I, which starts immediately afterwards (f. 27v--28), II (f. 28-29v) and III (f. 29v-31), commences with a heading added inred ink right after the prologue: "Finit prologus. INcipit hinc Marianusi scoticronica clara. Incipiunt capitula primi libri":". An analogous heading is foundbefore the list of chapters in book II: "INcipiunt capitula libri secundi, qui estincarnationis usque in ascensionem domini"45; the list of chapters in book IIIdoes not have such a heading. Each title of a chapter is accompanied by itsnumber, separate for every book. All the titles are identical and feature theinitial "DE" in the form of an enclave, for instance: "lIDEIldisputatione dionissiexigui supra passionem et resurrectionem Christi; lIDEIl inquisitione capitismundi et prime ebdomadae initii seculi'l'".

Book I (f. 31v-71) is composed of 22 chapters, in which Marianus presentedthe history of the world from its creation to the birth of Christ. On the left

41 Ibidem, f. 15v; cf.W. Stokes, Hibernica, "Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung"XXXI (1890), p. 248 ff.

42 Ibidem, f. 26, at present, this text is almost illegible. Compare with, however, MarianiScotti chronicon, p. 489; B. Mac Carthy, The codex Palatino-Vaticanus, p. 8 (here: In nomineSanctae Trinitatis [... ]).

43 For a more extensive presentation see: A.D. von den Brincken, Marianus Scottus. Unterbesonderer Berücksichtigung der nicht veröffentlichen Teile seiner Chronik, "Deutsches Archivfür Erforschung des Mittelalters" XVII (1961), pp. 191-238 (published prologue: pp. 208-215).

44 Pal. lat. 830, f. 27v, at present, this text is almost illegible.4S Ibidem, f. 28.46 Ibidem, f. 27v.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BElWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 323

margin, next to the initials starting them, the majority of the chapters containsthe numbers of chapters corresponding to numbers from the list of chapters.The book starts with an initial "D[omino)" in the shape of a dragon. Lateron, a different hand added in red ink: "INcipit hinc Marianusi scoti cronicaclara" and in the second verse: "INcipit epistola dionissi exigui ad petroniumepiscopum de ratione pascali'r". Then, on the upper margin to the left, a differenthand noted in black ink below the initial: "IIPllrimus liber incipit ab adamvsque ad Christum"48. The contents of book I are divided into 2 parts, ofwhich the first (chapters 1-8) contains theoretical computistic reflections, fullof quotations and polemics with Dionysius Exiguus and Bede'". The secondpart, composed of the remaining 14 chapters, is a history of the world, arrangedupon the basis of the Gospel, from the creation of the world, and successivegenerations of Old Testament patriarchs, to the time of Emperor Octavian'",Marianus introduced order into those events, arranged in successive generationsfrom Adam, Seth, Amos, and Kainan and so forth, calculating the successiveyears of their lives, accompanied by information about lunar cycles andindictions, starting with the creation of the world, as well as - for the laterperiod - historical events borrowed from the chronicle by Eusebius. Everycalculation of the successive years of a given person is preceded by briefinformation about the duration of his life and heirs. The book ends witha summary determining the duration of consecutive epochs and the time betweenthe creation of the world and the birth of Christ",

In book 11(f. 71-100v), composed of 83 chapters, Marianus presented indetail the 30 years of Christ's presence on Earth. The first part of this book(chapter 1-8) analyses fragments of the New Testament to which heretoforecomputists referred while marking the death of the birth and death of Christ,and considers their arguments. In following fragments (chapter 9-19) Marianusreconstructed the life of Christ, inserting it into a continuum of ancient historydated with the reigns of emperors, the Olympics, and lunar cycles. Subsequently(chapter 20-26), he once again considered in detail the supremacy of Latin

. tradition over its Greek counterpart, supporting the former, which he conceivedas closer to the evangelical truth. Chapters 27-69 describe the activity of Christuntil His last days on Earth (57-64), the Passion, and the Resurrection (65-69).

47 Ibidem, f. 31v.48 Ibidem.49 Pal. lat. 830, f. 31 v-36v; this fragment was published (without tables of concurrents,

ibidem, f. 36) by A.D. von den Brincken, Marianus Scottus. Unter besonderer, pp. 215-231;here also an analysis of the contents (pp. 191-208).

50 Pal. lat. 830, f. 36v-70v; this book, together with numerous errors and omissions,was published in modern editions by J.B. Herold and J. Pistorius.

51 Pal.lat. 830, f. 70v-71.

324 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtOWSKI

The last 14 chapters (70-83) portray the life of the apostles after the death ofChrist. Such a detailed presentation of history according to the New Testamentwas of great importance for the chronicler - it was analysis of the Gospelwhich, in his opinion, led him to a correct establishment of the year of thebirth of the Son of God. The last leaf (f. 100-100v) of the book is empty.

Book III (f. 101-166) features events from the time of Christ to that ofMarianus. Originally, the chronicle was written up to AD 1073 (togetherwith an adjoined note from AD 1076)52; later, its author added a continuation(further as: Continuation I) to AD 1082. Below this note, under AD 1083,a marginal gloss in modern handwriting (end of the 16th century?) informsthat up to this spot Marianus' work appeared in print; this is a reference tothe J.B. Harold edition".

Further notes in the autograph were added already after the death ofMarianus Scotus by his anonymous continuers. The first one (Continuation 11)was the author of notes from AD 1083-1101 (f. 166-166v), probably writtenin 2 stages. In AD 1095, or immediately afterwards, the continuer insertednine notes for AD 1083-1095, which he borrowed from a lost annal writtenat Mainz cathedral; at the beginning of the 12th century, it was used also bythe author of the so-called Annales Wirziburgense (also known as Annales SanctiA/bani). Several years later, in AD 1001, the author of Continuation Il (samehandwriting) added his own note about the poisoning of Conrad and the deathsof the archbishops of Treves and Bremen: AE 1123 (= AD 1101): "Cuonradusfilius imperatoris in longobardia ueneno periit. Obierunt archiepiscopiEngelbertus trevirensis et Liemarus premensis">'. After the year AD 1106,three successive entries with events from AD 1104-1106 (f. 166v) were insertedin handwriting different than Continuation 11 (further as: Continuation III).The next 3 leafs (f. 167-169v), prepared for the addition of further notes,contain an enumeration of successive dates according to AE and AD (theyears 1108-1313), probably included into the codex at the time of the originof Continuation 11.Some of the notes about solar and lunar cycles and indictionshad already been added. An entry about a Sun eclipse was inserted under theyear AE 1155 (= AD 1133): "In hoc anno IlIl Nonas Augusti hora diei quasinona eclipsis solis facta est tanta ut stelle uideri possent in celo"!' .:

The last page of the codex was later used for recording 2 fragments ofpapal decrees issued by Gregory the Great: "ut diaconi solum evangelicaelectionis officium inter missarum solemnia exsolvant" (f. 170) and Innocent I

52 Mariani Chronicon, p. 489.S3 Hucusque Marianus in impressis, Pal. lat. 830, f. 166.54 Ibidem.55 Pal.lat. 830, f. 167v.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUSSCOTUS- BETWEENCOMPUTISTICANDHISTORIOGRAPHY... 325

and Gregory the. Great: "ne metropolitani sine pallio aliquem ordinepraesumant" (f. 170v) ..

The second manuscript of the chronicle by Marianus Scotus is a copymade in the monastery of St. Alban in Mainz"; This version differs slightlyfrom the autograph - on the one hand, the copier used the available sourcesof the chronicle by the Mainz inclusus, and in certain places supplementedand expanded the original; on the other hand, he omitted some of the marginalglosses and, although much more rarely, whole notes. Furthermore, the copieradded some strictly local information, such as the one about the burial at themonastery of St. Alban of persons mentioned in the Marianus chronicle. Thisparticular codex also includes a totally different continuation of the chronicle(to 1082), proving that the copy must have been written between 1082 and theinclusion of the continuation into the autograph, which probably took placealready in 1095. Taking into consideration the later fate of the codex, I believethat the copy in question was written at the latest before 1086. Such a conclusionmay be derived from accepting that it was precisely this copy which was usedby Robert Losinga of Lorraine, the bishop of Hereford (since 1079, died in1095)57,the author of Excerptio de chronica Marianusi from 108658.Moreover,the continuation in the codex (for the 1083-1087 period)" is in differenthandwriting and includes information about the British Isles, for example theDomesday Book (1086)60.In this situation, we may accept that the continuationmust have been inserted into the codex already in the Isles after 1086, mostlikely by Robert, the bishop of Hereford", Evidence of the fact that RobertLosinga owned the codex is found in, for example a marginal gloss in one ofthe Easter tables: "Obierunt uulstanus et rodbertus episcopi=", which refersto Wulfstan II, the bishop of Worcester (1062-1095), and Robert, the bishopof Hereford. Quite possibly, Robert Losinga obtained a copy of the chronicle

. .

56 British Library, Cotton Nero C V (further as: Nero CV).57 On Robert, the bishop of Hereford, see especially: English Episcopal Acta, VII: Hereford

1079-1234, ed. by J. Barrow, Oxford 1993, pp. XXXIII-XXXIV; J. Barrow, A Lotharingian inHereford: Bishop Robert's Reorganisation of the Church of Hereford 1079-1095, in: MedievalArt, Architecture and Archeology at Hereford, "The British Archaeological AssociationConference Transactions" XV (1995), pp. 29-49.

58 See:A. Cordoliani, L'activite computistique de Robert, eveque de Hereford, in: Melangesofferts a Rene Crozet 1, "Cahiers de civilisation medievale", Supplement (1966), p. 339 ff.

59 Nero CV, f. 1S8vb-1S9.60 Ibidem, f. 1S8vb. Cf. W.H. Stevenson, A Contemporary Description of the Domesday

Survey, "English Historical Review" XXII (1907), pp. 73-84.61 The Continuation was written in the same handwriting as the manuscript of the

status of Bishop Robert of Hereford (1085); Cf. M.Gullick, The English-owned Manuscriptsof the Collectio-Lanfranci (p. xi/xii), in: The Legacy of M.R. lames, Papers from the 1995Cambridge Symposium, ed. by L.Dennison, Lincolnshire 2001, pp. 99-117.

62 Nero CV, f. 19v.

326 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZI:.OWSKI

from Liege, with which he maintained close ties as a graduate of the localcathedral school'". Up to this day, the codex used by Robert is kept in theBritish Isles - the British Library in London", Next, it was probably this copyof the chronicle by Marianus Scotus (or a non-extant copy) that was used byJohn of Worcester (died about 1140), who in his own chronicle applied ananalogous system of eras". The chronicle was known and appreciated also bylater authors working in the British Isles: William of Malmesbury (died about1143)66, Ordericus Vitalis (died about 1143)67, Gervase of Canterbury (diedabout 1210)68 and the authors of Annals from Lindisfarn and Durham(12th centuryls", and in Ireland - the Annals of Ulster (15th century}". Withoutanalysing the particular works, we may add that the copy of the Scotus

63 The History of Hereford Cathedral, http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/cathedral&librarylhrfd_cath.htm.

64 Nero C V, apart from the chronicle by Marianus Scotus (f. 3-161 v) the codex containsthree leafs from a fourteenth-century psalter (f. 1-2v, 286), Historia Anglicana by BartholomewCotton from the 13th century (f. 162-253v), De arcbiepiscopis et episcopis Anglie by the sameauthor (f. 255-281) and a bull issued by Pope Gregory X (f. 282-283). Cf.: T. Smith, CatalogusLibrorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianae, Oxford 1696, p. 54 (also a facsimileedition: Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, 1696, ed. by C.G.c. Tite,Cambridge 1984, p. 54); J. Planta, Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library,deposited in the British Museum, London 1802, p. 234; C.G.C. Tite, The Early Records of SirRobert Cotton's Library: Formation, Cataloguing, Use, London 2003, p. 134.

65 The Chronicle of lohn of Worcester, ed. by P. McGurk, Oxford 1998.66 Erat tunc temporis monacbus Marianus apud Magontiam inclusus, qui longo solitudinis

otio cbronographos scrutatus dissonantiam cyclorum Dionysii contra evangelicam ueritatem,vel primus vel solus animadvertit. Itaque ab initio saeculi annos singu/os recensens, XXII quicirculo deerant, superaddidit, magna m et diffusissimam chronicam facere adorsup. Eum librumRobertus miratus unice, aemulatus mirifice Angliae inuehendum curavit. Denique captus Marianiingenio quidquid iIIe largius dixerat, in arctum contrahens defloravit. Adeo splendide, ut magisva/ere videatur defloratio, quam ingentis i/lius uoluminis diffusion _Willelmus Malmesburiensis,De gestis pontificum Ang/orum, in: PL, CLXXIX, Paris 1899, col. 1600.

67 Marianus mim in coenobio Sancti A/bani martyris apud Maguntiam monachus [uit,ibique Caesariensem Eusebium et Hieronymum, aliosque historiographos pro modulo secutus,sese benigniter exercuit, et dulcem fructum /ongi studii, magnorumque laborum, quos inlonginqua peregrinatione pertulit, filiis Ecclesiae tanta rimari per se non ualentibus charitativeobtu/it. So/erter itaque perscrutatis veteribus et modernis codicibus chronographiam edidit,in qua ab initio mundi ex quo Deus Adam de limo terrae plasmauit, per omnes libros Veteriset Novi Testamenti, et Romanorum Graecorumque historias discurrens, optima quaeque collegit,et enumeratis annis per regum et consu/um tempera usque in diem mortis suae anna/em historiam/audabiliter distinxit - Ordericus Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica, in: PL, CLXXXVIII, Paris 1890,col. 302.

68 The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I: The Chronicle of the Reigns ofStepben, Henry Il and Richard 1, ed. by W. Stubbs, Rolls Series, LXXIII, 1, London 1879.

69 W. Levison, H.E. Mayer, Die Anna/es Lindisfarnenses et Dune/menses kritisch untersuchtund neu herausgegeben, "Deutsches Archiv" XVII (1961), pp. 447-506.

70 See: P. Verbist, Reconstructing the Past, p. 334. In a separate publication I shall dealmore extensively with the reception of the work by the inclusus from Mainz in mediaevalEurope.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 327

chronicle written in the monastery of St. Alban in 1082-1086, and fortunatelypreserved to our times, found itself in the British Isles at the latest in 1086;there, it inaugurated a local manuscript tradition.

Another copy which survived to our times originated in the mid-fourteenthcentury in the monastery in Disibodenberg near Mainz; today: at a library inFrankfurt". The Frankfurt codex is a much-interpolated copy of the Marianuschronicle, with a continuation to the year 1200. Together with several notesadded under earlier dates, it functions in literature on the subject as AnnalesDisibodenbergenses and encompasses the years 891-1200 (1204)72. Anotherfifteenth-century manuscript is a copy of an unidentified provenance, todayat a library in Liege",

We also have at our disposal direct traces of the existence of other, non--extant manuscripts of the chronicle. Yet another eleventh-century copy, writtenupon the basis of the autograph or the codex from St. Alban's, found itself inGembloux already prior to the end of the century. Distinct familiarity withthe work of the inclusus from Mainz is to be found in Liber decennalis bySigbert of Gembloux from 109274• Sigbert referred to the Marianus Scotusalso in his later works: Chronica uniuersalis" and Catalogus de viris illustrious",Such a rapid appearance of the chronicle in Gembloux could have been possible

71 Frankfurt/Men, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek, Ms. Barth. 104. For a descriptionof the codex see: G. Powitz, H. Buck, Die Handschriften des Bartholomaeusstifts und desKarmeliterklosters in Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main 1974, pp. 240-244.

72 Codex Barth. 104, f. 93-114; Annales Sancti Disibodi, ed. by G. Waitz, in: MGH SS,XVII, Hannoverae 1861, pp. 4-30; Annales Disibodenbergenses, ed. by J.F. Böhmer, in:Martyrium Arnold archiepiscopi Moguntini und andere Geschichtsquellen Deutschlands imzwälftenJahrhundert, Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, 1Il, Stuttgart 1853, pp. 173-217 (herethe years 743-1200).

73 Liege, Bibliotheque de l'Universite, codex no. 242. See: Mariani Chronicon, p. 483.Up to now I have not examined this codex.

74 Sigbert von Gembloux, Liber decennalis, ed. by J. Wiesenbach, in: MGH. Quellenzur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, XII, Weimar 1986, p. 259.

75 Sigbert van Gembloux, Chronica universalis, in: PL, CLX, Paris 1880, col. 221: 1082[... ] Marianus Scottus chronicam suam a Christi nativitate inchoatam usque ad hunc annumperduxit, qui erat aetatis suae annus 56, multum laborans corrigere errorem de annis Domini,qui invenitur in ciclo Dionisii; quod facile est videre, hinc positis ab eo annis Domini secundumciclum Dionisii, altrinsecus autem secundum veritatem evangelii.

76 Sigbert von Gembloux, Catalogus de viris illustribus, cap. 159, in: PL, CLX, col. 584:Marianus Scottus, peregrinans pro Christo in Gallias, et factus monachus apud Moguntiam, multisannis inclusus, scripsit Chronicam a nativitate Christi usque ad annum nati Christi millesimumoctogesimum secundum, mira subtilitate ostendens errorem priorum Chronographorum, itaponentium nativitatem Christi, ut annus passionis ejus, quantum ad raiionem computi, nonconcordet veritati evange/icae. Unde ipse apponens XXIII annos illi anno ubi priores scribuntfuisse natum Christum, ponit in margine paginae alternatim hinc annos evangelicae ueritatis,illinc annos falsae priorum computationis, ut non so/um intel/ectu, sed etiam visu possit discerniveritas et falsitas.

328 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtOWSKI

- as M. Chazan correctly noted - thanks to Siegfried, the archbishop of Mainz(died 1084)'7.

SCRIBES AND THE TIME OF THE ORIGIN OF THE AUfOGRAPH

All researchers dealing with the Vatican codex agreed that it had been writtenby several scribes, one of whom can be with a great dose of probability identifiedas Marianus Scotus himself. Bruno Güterbock, who until now has devotedthe greatest amount of attention to this question, distinguished four handwritingsin the basic part of the codex, two handwritings of twelfth-century continuers,and few individual notes by later users", The German researcher claims thatthe whole fundamental text of the chronicle was written by 2 scribes - oneused an Irish ductus (in Güterbock: handwriting 1), and the other - a Continentalductus (handwriting 3), with Marianus Scotus dictating. Subsequently, anotherunidentified monk made several additions at the monastery of St. Martin(handwriting 2). Finally, the whole codex was in several places corrected andsupplemented by Marianus Scotus (handwriting 4). I cannot totally agree withthe analysis conducted by Güterbock. Already at first glance, we are forced toask why Marianus supposedly introduced only several corrections andsupplements, while hundreds of others were written by a person described byGüterbock as handwriting 3? As a rule, authors who dictated their worksmade such corrections by themselves, even more so considering that an analysisof the distribution of the amendments, changes of the ink, and certain deviationsof the ductus indicate clearly that they came into being in numerous stagesand during a long period of time. We could have accepted the suggested approachwhile trying to explain the difficulties with writing experienced by the agedinclusus, but cannot understand why a number of smaller texts on the firstleafs of the codex, prior to the chronicle", is in a different handwriting; thesame applies to the list of popes and Irish rulers, which reveals traces of "roughcopies" made in the course of work on the chronicle. Taking this into accountas well as the fact that the differences between handwriting 3 and 4 are veryslight, while the system of abbreviations is uniform, I would be inclined tocombine both handwritings into one. Marianus Scotus appears to have beenthe author of a large part of the manuscript, and the Vatican codex wouldhave been a partial autograph.

As I have mentioned, the whole fundamental text of the chronicle was writtenby 2 scribes, whom I shall call R 1 (the same as handwriting 1 according to

. . 77 M. Chazan, L'empire et l'bistoire universelle de Sigebert de Gembloux a Jean de Saint--Victor (XII-XIV siedest, "Etudes d'histoire medievale" III (1999), p. 131 ff.

78 B. Güterbock, op.cit., p. 90 ff.79 See: the sub-chapter below on the contents of the codex.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BElWEEN COMPUTlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 329

Güterbock) and R 2 (handwritings 3 and 4 according to Güterbock). R 1,a skilful scribe using an elegant Irish ductus, wrote the preface, the table ofcontents, books I and 11,and part of book III (to AD 532, and thus to the endof the first great paschal cycle after Christ) (f. 26-149v). Let us note that fromAD 202 he left empty spaces for including rubro the names of Roman consuls,dates AE and AD (the latter nigro), and notes about the pontificates ofconsecutive popes, later supplemented by scribe R 280. Nonetheless, not all thenotes rubro in this part of the text were written by R 2. Scribe R 1 independentlywrote all the notes, with the exception of a single one'", about the successionand duration of the reigns of emperors. To the year AD 202, the whole maintext, both the one in black and the one in red ink, was written by R 1. Thestriking feature characteristic for scribe R 1 is that he committed relativelyfrequent mistakes, which consisted of repeating one/or several last words,which then were erased by him or perhaps even by Marianus Scotus whilecorrecting the manuscript. Such errors could have appeared only in the courseof copying the text from the rough version to a clean one by a professionalscribe who performed this task mechanically, without thinking about themeaning of the sentences. Consequently, I believe that the whole part writtenby R 1 is a clean copy of the chronicle based on an earlier rough copy. Fromthe viewpoint of spelling, R 1 was a typical representative of his time: hewrite prepositions jointly with nouns, and consistently used small letters forproper names, including nomina sacra. There is no consistency in words with"u" and "v", in which both letters appear interchangeably, even in the sameword. A similar inconsistency can be seen in the case of "ae", "~" and "e".

The second handwriting (R 2) features a rather unskilled Continentalductus, albeit containing certain insular features (spelling, Irish glosses) andthus betraying an unprofessional scribe, a person who only sporadically reachedfor a pen. The ductus also lacks uniformity and discloses rather considerabledeviations, sometimes even on a single page. These features encouragedGüterbock to distinguish two separate scribes. In my opinion, we are dealingwith one person, and can at best speak about several stages in his work,probably at times separated by longer intervals (for example Continuation Iand particular supplementary glosses in the chronicle). More, I maintain thatin the first phase R 2 wrote the remaining part of book III to AD 107311076(f. 150-165v), adding in red the names of consuls, notes about popes, and dates

80 A depiction of the ductus of R 1 is given in a textbook on palaeography by G. Battelli,Lezioni di paleografia, Cirrä del Vaticano 2002, p. 170. See also: Mariani Scotti chronicon,in: MGH SS,V, table 4, with tracings of the ductus of both handwritings from the autograph,made by Wilhelm von Giesebrecht, but without their description.

81 Under AD 207, Pal.lat. 830, f. 118. This is even more puzzling since the note was notwritten on an erasure.

330 WOJCIECH BARAN-KoZlOWSKI

AE and AD to AD 202 (f. 118); this is also the handwriting on some of the first241eafs of the codex - a computistic table (f. 2-3), the first synchronistic table(f. 4-10v), a paschal table (f. 18-24v) and on the last leaf (f. 170) a fragmentof a treaty by Gregory the Great. Furthermore, R 2 wrote the major part of themargin glosses (including the Irish ones) and numerous interlinear supplementsthroughout the whole codex in several phases. In a separate phase/phases R 1wrote Tractatio sequentis cieli (f. 1v), which precedes the computistic fragment,the second and third synchronistic tables (f. 10v-15), and the lists of Irishrulers (f. 15v) and popes to John XII (f. 16). The handwriting of a single extensivesupplement in book I, added on a sewn-on leaf (f. 80-80v), also that of R 2.Then, in a distinctly separate phase, R 2 wrote down Continuation I (fromAD 1074-1082) (f. 165v-166) and further supplementary notes found in thewhole codex, among others at the end of book Ill: under AD 1023: "Eclipsissolis hora nona uerno tempore" (f. 163), AD 1028: "Ego miser Marianus inpeccatis fui in hoc anno natus" (f. 163) and AD 1076, together with a rhymedacrostic, a sui generis colophon of the chronicle (f. 165v). The character ofthe last three notes is an additional argument in favour of recognising R 2 asMarianus Scorus", It also testifies to the very large number of supplements inR 2 and the fact that this is the handwriting of all the "rough versions" whichlater became the first components of the Vatican codex. Marianus Scotus,just as scribe R 1, wrote prepositions jointly and was inconsistent in "u/v","ae", "~" and "e". In lodowicus the letter "w" appears upon several occasionalthough also inconsistently and with a parallel usage of "uu" or "vv" .

Further handwritings were those of the readers and continuers. In thismanner, R 3 (the same as handwriting 2 in Güterbock), characterised bya heavy and unskilful Continental script, is the author of several Irish marginglosses, referring to Irish saints (f. 38-48, 138-148), and notes about St. Patrickand St. Brigid, included into the basic text of the chronicle. Quite possibly, thisis the handwriting of one of the first readers of the chronicle, who stayed at themonastery of St. Martin in Mainz at the end of the 11 th century.

Scribes active at the beginning of the 12th century - R 4 and R 5 - introducedsuccessive supplements. The former was the author of Continuation 11(f. 166v),several glosses on the margins, including those under the years: AD 337 (f. 133v),AD 351 (f. 134v), AD 386 (f. 138), and most probably a fragment of a treatiseby Innocent I and Gregory the Great (f. 170v); R 5 wrote Continuation III(f. 166v), finished the list of popes to Urban II and Paschalis II (f. 16v), andunder the year 1075 - a note about the death of Widrad, the abbot of Fulda(f. 165v). < ••

82 Cf. B. Güterbock, op.cir., p. 98, who also attributed these notes to Marianus Scotus(handwriting 4).

CHRONICON BYMARlANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 331

Additionally, the Vatican codex includes several fifteenth-century notesin two or three different handwritings: two inventory e-ntries (by two differentauthors) on the first leaf of the autograph, originating from 1419 and 1479(f. 1), and an entry about the death of Marianus Scotus under AD 1087(f. 166). Finally, the last entries in the codex were by an anonymous reader,most likely from the end of the 16th century! the beginning of the 17th century.This 'was the author of several archival glosses, designating, for example thebeginning of the first book (f. 36v) and the place to which Marianus' workhad been published by Johannes Basilius Herold in 1559 (f. 166).

When did Marianus Scotus start writing the chronicle? It is difficult toestablish when the Mainz inclusus became interested in computing, but thismust have taken place already prior to work on the chronicle. He was probablyinspired by the works of Bede Venerabilis, who indicated certain imprecisionin findings by Dionysius Exiguus. Quite possibly, his own observations connectedwith the creation of a new paschal table and the calculation of the dates ofEaster could have exerted a certain impact -let us recall that the table by Bedeended on AD 1064, and that it was necessary to carry out new combinationsfor the consecutive years. In all likelihood, Marianus commenced the chronicleafter he moved to Mainz. Presumably, an additional impulse was the locallibrary with its numerous computistic treatises and historiographie works.

We cannot establish when exactly Marianus began the first variant. Ananalysis of the Vatican manuscript allows us to say that the original editionencompassed a text from the prologue to AD 532, and thus from the creationof the world to the end of the first great paschal cycle after Christ. It editionmust have been completed before the middle of 1072, since in June of that yearanonymous scribe R 1 began copying the text of the chronicle. This is theconclusion drawn from a gloss on the margin of one of the first leafs, writtenby R 1 partly in Iro-Scottish and partly in Latin: "It is pleasant for us today,o Mael Brigte the inclusus, in the enclosure in Magantia on the Thursday beforethe feast of Peter in the first year of the legate, that is, in the year in which waskilled Diarmait, the king of Leinster. And that is the same year that I cameout of Scotland on my pilgrimage. And I have written this book because offriendship for you and for all Scots, that is, for Irishmen, for I am myself anIrishman" 83.

83 Pal. tat. 830, f. 33, upper margin: IS oemenn dun indiu, a maelbrigte clüsendir isinclüsail in magantia isin dard6en ria {ei petair isin cetbliadain dend legdid id est isin bliadaini rromarbat diarmait ri lagen. Et isiside cetna bliadain tänasca a albain in perigrinitate mea.Et scripsi hunc librum pro caritate tibi et scotis omnibus id est hibernensibus, quia sum ipsehibernensis; Irish text quoted with slight changes after: B.6. Cuiv, The Irish marginalia incodex Palatine- Vaticanus No 830, "Eigse. A Journal of Irish Studies" XXIV (1994), p. 50 ff.;English translation in: ibidem.

332 WOjCIECH BARAN- KOZI:.OWSKI

We find out that the Irish scribe wrote on a Thursday before the day ofSt. Peter in the year of the death of Diarmait mac Mail na mB6, the king ofLeinster. Correlating this information with book Ill, we may say that theevent took place in AD 1072 (= AE 1094)84.Taking into consideration thefact that the day of St. Peter and Paul is 29 June, which in 1072 was a Friday,then the final date is 28 June 1072. The successive datation premise was thementioned first year of the legation of Siegfried, the archbishop of Mainz,who in 1071 was appointed a papal legate and chaired the debates of a synoddiscussing a charge of simony launched against the bishop of Constance'".

When did R 1 begin the clean copy? I assume that this must have takenplace around the above-mentioned 26 June, since in the second part of thegloss the scribe admitted that he had arrived on the Continent quite recently,and thus could not have been staying in Mainz for long. The place in whichthe gloss had been added - page 4 from the beginning of book I - entitles us todeduce that the Irish author started his work not much earlier, and quite possiblyon the day of the origin of the gloss. The assumption that the scribe includedthis information on that particular day appears to be confirmed by the endphrase: "Et scripsi hunc librum pro caritate tibi et scotis omnibus id esthibernensibus, quia sum ipse hibernensi", in which the author expressed hismotives for assisting Marianus.

The annual date of the origin of a clean copy of this part of the chronicle isconfirmed also a few pages later on, where Marianus listed all the great cyclesfrom the time of Adam: "Undecimus magnus ciclus in cuius anno Xlll" sumusmodo indictione decima?". The 13th year of the 11th great cycle is the year1076 which should, however, have indict ion 14. With this fact in mind, vonden Brincken corrected it in her edition from 9 to 1487• On theother hand, onemight have just as well replaced the 13th year by the 9th, and leave indiction 10,which would give the year 1072. Such an amendment is even more probable

84 AE 1094 (= AD 1072) Diarmait rex lagen VIII idus feb. feria secunda occissus - Pal.tat. 830, f. 165.

85 AE 1093 (= AD 1071) Vnus clericorum [carolus nomine} more simonis magi quidonum spirituale pro precio rogauit ab apostolis, a rege heinrico comparauit episcopatumciuitatis constantie. Qui in conuenticulo episcoporum et abbatum in monasterio sancti martinimogontie in assumptione sanae marie facto a sigfrido archiepiscopo mogontino coram regeheinrico culpatus quia per ostium domini non intrauit, absque baculo a conuenticulo exiuit,deinde post annum non uixit - ibidem.

86 Pal. lat. 830, f. 36v.87 11. magnus ciclus, in cuius anno 13. sumus, modo indictione 14. - A.D. van den

Brincken, Marianus Scottus. Unter besonderer, p. 230; an addditional argument in favori ofsuch an amendment was to have been the text of the London manuscript, which includesindiction 14 (Nero CV, f. 33v). A correction by the author of the London manuscript cannotbe, however, a decisive argument since he could have just as well left indiction 9 and correctedthe year of the cycle,

CHRONICON BY MARlANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 333

since it corresponds best to a gloss mentioning the time of the origin of book I.Moreover, in this chapter, dating with the help of an indiction held primeimportance for Marianus and his chronological findings", An additionalargument can be the fact that the figure XIII was written (although in thesame handwriting) on an erasure, although it is impossible to say whetheroriginally this was IX or another figure.

A palaeographic-codicological analysis makes it possible to ascertain thatMarianus Scotus wrote his chronicle in a number of periods. First, he preparedthe rough copy of books I and 11and part of book III (to AD 532, it is the endof the great paschal cycle), to which he then added a prologue and a list ofchapters. Then, in the second half of AD 1072 and with the assistance ofscribe R 1, he used this base for a clean copy. After a short interval or immediatelyafterwards, at any rate before the end of AD 1073, he finished book III, whichpauses on events from that year. Premises for establishing the closing date ofwork on this part of the chronicle are provided by a note under AD 1076,placed probably in a advance in 1073 as the last note of the first edition"Apart from the calculated computistic information - "In hoc anno dominicapassio secundum cursum solis et lune tertio habetur, hoc est a passione Christi11°magni eicli, id est MLXIIII anni" - Scotus included a rhymed seven-versetext in his own handwriting (R 2):

"Octoginta ducenti necnon milia quinqueConstant omnes anni tempus usque hoc adam. IMultum ob excerptos legimus barbaricosReges iustificandos gestaque turbida egenos. I .Collige litteram anteriorem {paruum} uoluito summam,Existat numeratus auctor, intra require, IRectus omnes me tulit in nouum {id est librum} ordinem laudis'l'".

The first sentence of the poem refers to computistic notes and informsthat 5280 years had passed from the creation of Adam to the present moment,in other words, the year AE 1098 (=AD 1076) is AM 5280. Marianus calculatedthis date upon the basis of his earlier findings, from which it followed thatChrist was born in AM 4183. If we add: 4183 (the number of years fromAdam to Christ) and 1098 (the number of years from Christ to the present)and then subtract minus 1we shall get 5280.Not by chance was this information

88 P. Verbist, Reconstructing the Past, p. 286, n. 23.89 We infer that notes from AD 1074 and 1075 were written in a slightly different

ductus, identical with the one in notes starting from AD 1077. On the other hand, the notefrom AD 1076 is in the same handwriting as notes to AD 1073. Hence the note from AD 1076must have been written prior to notes relating to AD 1074-1075.

90 Pal. lat. 830, f. 165v. I use brackets for words added between verses, and verticallines for marking the ends of verses in the manuscript.

334 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtoWSKI

placed at the end of the chronicle - it is a sui generis chronological clampfastening together the whole work which, after all, starts with the creation.Despite the fact that in book 11he did not use the anno mundi era, Marianusintentionally stressed the time which passed from the very first day in the historyof mankind. The fact that the chronicle ends on the year AD 1076 (= AE 1098)is just as intended since - as it is accentuated in the first part of the note - thatyear was the end of the 2nd great paschal cyele after Christ; thus, Eastertook place on the same day of the year and the week as at the time of theSaviour.

Even more interesting are the Slast verses of the poem in which the Mainzinclusus teased the readers by giving his Irish name. By following the author'sdirectives the reader may compose the first letters of these verses (apart fromwords intentionally written in between) into an Irish sentence: "Moelbrigtec1ausenair romtinol", which means" Moelbrigte, the incluse, collected me"?'.We are dealing, therefore, with a so-called acrostic used rather often in antiquity,and more rarely in the Middle Ages, for concealing the name of the author ofa given work. The encoding of an Irish name, together with a whole expressionin that language, with the help of a Latin poem reflects the personality of thegreat chronicler, capable of making excellent use of the accomplishments ofboth cultures: Latin and Iro-Scottish.

The fact that such information was given also proves that in 1073 Marianusdid not foresee that the chronicle was to be continued further than AD 1076.This decision becomes logical if we become aware of the essence of the author'sintention. After all, the chronicler from Mainz wished to set right heretoforecomputistic calculations and devise a proper chronological frame for the historyof the world from its creation to his own times. An ideal moment for endingthe chronological arrangement was the year in which a successive great paschalcycle came to an end. In this manner, Marianus completed his work at a momentwhen the computistic circle closed itself - from that time on, his efforts wereto have been continued by conscientious annalists.

Next, Marianus introduced a number of supplements and corrections, writtenboth in his own hand (R 2) and that of yet another Irish scribe (R 3), quitepossibly a local reader. It became apparent that this was not the definite endof his activity as a chronicler - in 1082 he added Continuation I, encompassingthe years AD 1073-1082. The reason for this return to work were the eventswhich transpired in the course of the investiture controversy; hence, in thisfragment Marianus described developments from the beginning of the pontificateof Gregory VII to the year of his death.

Summing up the above arguments, we are entitled to assert that the Vaticanmanuscript of the chronicle by Marianus Scotus was written in the years

91 Translation after: B. Mac earthy, The Codex Palatino-Vaticanus, p. 9.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 335

AD 1072-1073 by 2 scribes: an anonymous Irish scribe (R 1), who upon thebasis of a rough copy in the handwriting of Marianus Scotus, made a cleancopy of the almost the whole chronicle, and by the author himself (R 2). A fewyears later, the scribe returned to the chronicle, and in AD 1082 addedContinuation I. In the meantime, Marianus Scotus added corrections andsupplements, a task carried out in several phases. These supplements werecontinued also by later readers from the end of the 11th century and the early12th century.

THE SOURCES OF CHRONICON

Marianus Scotus used several sources, which can be divided into 4 basicgroups. The first includes computistic treatises, with whose majority Scotuswas familiar from the so-called Wilhelm codex, kept today at BibliothequeNational in Paris and in the 11th century the property of the archbishops ofMainz'". Apart from the works of Dionysius Exiguus and Bede Venerabilis,Marianus also referred to De ratione paschali by Pseudo-Morinus of Alexandria,Acta synodi by Pseudo-Theophilus of Caesarea, the anonymous Prima diesseculi, De anno magno by Düngal of St. Denis, Liber de computo by HrabanMaurus, Liber rotarum by Isidor of Seville, Cyclus paschalis, sive de rationepaschali by Victor of Aquitaine, and the correspondence of Pope Leo I theGreat and Paschasius, the bishop of Lilibeum (Siciily) (Epistola ad Leonempapam de ratione Paschae and Epistola quarta ad Marcianum augustum).True, he mistakenly ascribed some of these works to Bede, but at the time thiswas by no means an isolated error.

The second group is composed of historiography, predominated by thefundamental world chronicles - from Eusebius-Jerome, Orosius, Prosper,Cassiodorus, Jordanes, Isidor of Seville,and Bede to Reginon of Prüm. Moreover,Marianus also benefited from a number of annals, the most important beingAnnales Saneti Bonifaei, Annales Saneti Albani (known also as AnnalesWirziburgenses) and Annales Augienses. Indubitably, he was also acquaintedwith annals and an annalistic compilation (today lost) written in Mainz bycombining the Annal from Augiense with notes from Fulda and Hersfeld'".

92 Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Latin 4860 (henceforth: BN lat. 4860).93 On this question see: G. Waitz, Varlorene Maineer Annalen, Nachrichten von der

königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts Universität 1873, pp. 388--391; J.Werra, Über den Continuator Reginonis, Disp. Leipzig 1883, p. 74 ff.; W. Erben, Zuder Fortsetzung des Regino von Prüm, "Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutscheGeschichtskunde" XVI (1891), p. 614 ff.;].R. Dieterich, Die Geschichtsquellen des KlostersReichenau bis zur Mitte des elften Jahrhunderts, Giessen 1897, p. 189 ff.; and recently especially:T. jasiriski, Zagadnienie autorstwa rocznika obcego. Przyczynek do dziejoto historiografiiniemieckiej X stulecia, "Roczniki Historyczne" LXVIII (2002), p. 7 ff.; idem, Rola Rocznika

336 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtOWSKI

Finally, the chronicler reached for hagiography: Martyrologium Hieronymianum,Martyrologium by Ado of Vienne and several vita (Vita sancti Martini bySulpicius Sever, Vita sanctae Paulae by Jerome, Vita sancti Mauri by Odo ofGlanfeuil, Vita Gregorii Magni by John Hymonides, Vita sancti Columbaniand Gesta sancti Patricii).

The third group is composed of the oft-cited Holy Scripture and numerousworks by the Fathers of the Church, with pride of place given to St. Augustine(De doctrina Christiana, De consensu evangelistarum, De Trinitate, De CivitateDei, Questions of the Heptatech and Contra mendacium); references weremade also to Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Bede and Gregory the Great.

The last, fourth category of sources includes the author's own informationwhich served him for presenting the most important moments in his life andthe course of contemporary events, especially those relating to the investiturecontroversy. Information about the localities where he stayed while on theContinent (Köln, Würzburg, Fulda, Mainz) came most probably from hisown observations and local oral tradition.

It is interesting to note that some of the sources used by the author ofChronicon can be directly derived from the preserved copy, which was onceused by Scotus and which today is known as the Wilhelm codex". Here wecome across the majority of the computistic treatises used by Marianus aswell as chronicles by Jerome, Prosper, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, Bede and chroniclesfrom Würzburg and Augiense. A number of other sources can be establishedindirectly: a codex containing copies written by the fifteenth-century chroniclerDietrich Engelhus contains the lives of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious,based on a lost codex from Mainz, indubitably affiliated with or even identicalwith the one used by Marianus Scorns".

THE PURPOSE OF CHRONICON AND ITS COMPUTISTIC SYSTEM

What reason urged the Mainz inclusus to write his work? Without doubt,the chronicle was inspired by computistic questions - Marianus Scotusdiscovered that familiarity with the Gospel was insufficient for setting right

augiiskiego w rozu.oju annalistyki polskiej i niemieckiej, "Roczniki Historyczne" LXIX (2003),p. 75 ff.

94 BN lat. 4860.95 Hannower, Niedersächsisches Landesbibliothek, XIII 859, f. 26-36 (Einhard, Vita Caroli

Magni), 36v-40v (Thegan, Gesta Hludoioici imperatoris); cf.: a description of the codex byH. Hartel, F. Ekowski, Handschriften der Niedersächsischen Landesbibliothek Hannover, 11:Mp. I 176a-Mp. Novisp. 64, Hannover 1982, p. 203 H.; and analyses of the manuscripttradition of the two lifes: M.M. Tischler, Einhans Vita Karoll. Studien zur Entstehung,Überlieferung und Rezeption, 1-11,Hannover 2001, p. 377 ff., 588 ff.; E. Tremp, Studien zu denGesta Hludotoici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, in: MGH. Schriften, XXXII,

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 337

the errors committed by Dionysius. It became obvious that the chosen targetcould be attained only by correlating Biblical history with sources created byhistorians, and that a suitable path led via extremely meticulous recreationupon the basis of all accessible sources of world history, and subsequently itsarrangement into a sequence of events occurring year after year. The nextobjective was, apart from conducting own calculations, the establishment ofa chronologically correct - in the author's opinion - compendium of worldhistory from the creation to his times. Such a compendium was to take intoconsideration all the applied methods of datation (eras), including calculationsby Eusebius or Dionysius, regarded as erroneous. The outcome was a copiouscombination of a computistic treatise with a world history, introducinga new periodisation of history both before the birth of Christ and after HisIncarnation.

Completed computistic calculations and historical investigations inspiredMarianus to correct two fundamental eras: the Jewish era of the creation by230 years (the birth of Christ in AM 4183 instead of AM 3952) and theDionysian era by 22 years (AE 1 = AD 22 B.C.)96.In turn, an analysis of theBible and historical sources made it possible to fill the 230-years long gap inthe chronology of Old Testament history (Scotus added 230 years in the secondepoch of the history of mankind: a 100 years during the reign of Arfaxad and130 years at the time of Kainan 11)and an eighteen-years long gap in thehistory of the Roman Empire (16 years during the reign of Decius and twounder Galerius). A detailed analysis and painstaking argumentation in favourof those 2 periods occupy a large fragment of books I and 11;a summary ofthe arguments proposed by the author from Mainz was included in the prologue--treatise Resurrectio Christi inquisitio, added at the end of his chronicle. Howdid Marianus Scotus arrive at his calculations?

First of all, in book I he analysed in great detail the whole heretoforecomputistic tradition starting with (chapter 1) the views of Dionysius Exiguus(upon the basis of his Letter to Petronius and Letter to Baniface and Bonus andthe treatise De ratione paschali, mistakenly attributed to him and actually written

Hannover 1988, p. 197 H., 200. About the author see especially: A. Baumann, Weltchronistikim ausgehenden Mittelalter. Heinrich von Herford, Gobelinus Person, Dietrich Engelhus,Frankfurt am Main 1995, p. 219 H.

96 Below I present an extremely concise course of the computistic argumentation byMarianus Scotus; due to insufficient space I have resigned almost entirely from citing suitablefragments of the chronicle. This question will be thoroughly analysed in my future monographicstudy on the Scotus chronicle. Compare also with: A.D. von den Brincken, Marianus Scottus.Unter besonderer, p. 199 H.; eadem, Marianus Scottus als Universalhistoriker, p. 990 H.; andparticularly: P. Verbist, Reconstructing the Past, p. 287 H., on whose findings I have based mypresentation of the computistic sytem of Marianus Scotus; for this reason, I shall not cite thisstudy upon each occasion.

338 WOJCIECH BARAN-KoztOWSKI

by Pseudo Morinus of Alexandria'")?", Then, in chapter 2 Scotus confrontedthe theories ascribed to Dionysius with data from the Holy Scripture, indicatingseveral errors: he noticed that the calculations made by Dionysius refer not tothe year of the death of Christ accepted by him (AD 34), but to the Nativity(AD 1), and that the Last Supper was placed on a Sunday preceding EasterSunday instead of a Thursday", Chapter 2 and 4 present the views of Pseudo--Theophilus of Caesarea, voiced in his Acta synodir", according to which boththe creation of the world and the Resurrection took place on the day of thespring equinox, it is on 25 March'?'. Next (chapter 5) Scotus confronted theascertainment made by Pseudo-Theophilus with the views of Bede Venerabilis,who recognised, for example that the spring equinox occurs on 21 March andthat Easter Sunday falls on the first Sunday after the first spring full moon. Byreferring to works by the Anglo-Saxon scholar, Marianus rejected the findingsof Pseudo-Theophilus'P, Chapter 6 analyses De ratione computir", accordingto which the creation of the world was to have taken place on 18 March andthe first spring equinox - on the fourth day of creation, that is 21 Marchl?'.In the next chapter, Marianus combined the theory about the correlation ofthe spring equinox and the creation of the world with the so-called great paschalcycle!", In this case, the inclusus used a treatise, once again mistakenly ascribedto Bede - De anno magna by Düngal of St. Denis, an Irish computist from the9'h century!", Dungal established the first day of the creation of the world asSunday, 18 March in the 54,h year of the great cycle. With this assumption ashis point of departure, and taking into consideration the fact that the first

97 The mistaken atribution of this work to Dionysius was the result of the fact thatMarianus used the copy preserved in BN lat. 4860 (f. 150-150v), which in this codex succeedsletters by Dionysius (f. 148v-150). On the authorship of the treatise see: A. Cordoliani, Lescomputistes insulaires et fes ecrits pseudo-alexandrine, "Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Chartes"CVI (1945-1946), p. 30 H.

98 Pal. lat. 830, f. 31 v-32.99 Ibidem, f. 32-32v.100 Marianus was familiar with this treatise from the Wilhe1m codex (BN lat. 4860,

f. 144-144v). Cf. an edition which does not take this manuscript into consideration: B. Krusch,Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie. Der 84-jährigen Ostercyclus und seineQuellen, Leipzig 1880, p. 304 ff.

101 Pal. lat. 830, f. 32v-34.102 Ibidem, f. 34.103 As in the case of the work by Pseudo- Theophilus, Marianus knew this treatise from

the Wilhe1m Codex, BN lat. 4860, f. 111v-117.104 Pal. lat. 830, f. 34-34v.105 Ibidem, f. 35-36.106 We are not familiar with the copy of this treaty used by Marianus Scotus. The oldest

manuscript (9th century) from St. Denis is part of the codex in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,Reginensi Iatini 309 (f. 63v-64v). See: a description of Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicesmanuscripti, Codices Reginenses latini, 11,ed. by A. Wilmart, Cittä del Vaticano 1945, p. 164.

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 339

spring equinox after creation took place 4 days later (which he accepted inthe previous chapter), Marianus calculated the day of the first spring fullmoon and concurrents counted for 24 March in the years of the birth anddeath of Christ, established according to 3 different eras of the creation ofthe world: Hebrew, Eusebius-Jerome and Greek. Upon this basis, Marianuswas capable of placing each of these years within the great paschal cycle.Chapter 7 ends with a table containing concurrents for the 532-years longgreat paschal cycle'?'. Thanks to this arrangement of the concurrents, Marianusnoticed that none of the 3 eras of creation corresponds to data from the Gospel.In chapter 8 he added to his reflections yet another computistic element, nextto the years of the great cycle and concurrents, namely, indictions':".The inclusus of Mainz recalled the findings made by Bede, who declared thatthe year of the birth of Christ coincided with indication 4. Upon this basis,Marianus was able to establish that the year of the creation of the world coincidedwith indiction 15. Taking this into consideration, he then could determine thatthe creation of the world occurred in the 54th year of the great paschal cycle (the16th year of the third lunar cycle), since three other possible dates (withconcurrent 7 and Easter on 21 March) had other indictions (149 - indiction 5,396 - indiction 12,491 - indiction 2). Finally, Marianus calculated the timewhich had passed from the creation of the world to the beginning of the Dionysiangreat cycle, claiming that there were eight 530-years long cycles; in other words,he established the beginning of the Dionysian cycle as the 4204th year fromthe creation of the world. In this manner, the chronicler created a computistic--chronological frame composed of successive great paschal cycles, in whichhe gave the indictions which occurred in the years initiating consecutive paschalcycles from the creation of the world to his own times. In chapter 9, Marianusreturned to the day of the creation of the world. First, he recalled the theorythat the universe had been created on Sunday, 18 March and that 3 dayslater, on 21 March, that is the day of the spring equinox, God created celestialbodies, and on the sixth day - Friday, 23 March - He created Adam andEve109•

Marianus summed up his computistic views in chapter 10110 and in anabbreviated form recalled the course of his reasoning. First, he corrected theHebrew era of the creation by shifting the moment of the creation by 23 years,thus determining that Christ was born not 3952 years after the creation ofthe world but 4182 years: "Hinc vsque in mens em marti in anno XLo secundooctaviani cesaris avgusti in cuius fine natus est dominus teste avctoritate, sunt

107 Pal. fat. 830, f. 36.108 Ibidem, f. 36-36v.109 Ibidem, f. 36v-37.110 Ibidem, f. 37.

340 WOJCIECH BARAN-KoZlOWSKI

anni nimirum quatuor milia centum octoginta dvo, id est CCXXX annis plusquam summa ebreorurn"!!'. In other words, the first year of the new era was4183 from the creation of the world. He then calculated that 4203 years hadpassed from the creation to the first year of the Dionysian great cycle, inwhose second year Christ was born: "Usque autem ad magnvin ciclvmpaschalern in cuius secundo anno ivxta dionissivm natus est {dominus} hocest in anno uigessimo tertio dorninice natiuitatis secundum historiam evangelii,sunt anni 1111milia dvcenti 111"112. The year of the birth of Christ estimated byDionysius is thus actually the 23rd year of the new era according to data fromthe Gospel (AD 1 = AE 23). In turn, according to the calculations presentedby Marianus, Christ died in the 4216th year from the creation of the world:"Usque vero in passionem Christi VIII kaI. apr. feria sexta lvna quintadecimaivxta historiam sancti euangelii cui contradicunt cunctae cronice sunt anniqvatuor milia ducenti sex, et decem"113.

The second part of book one (chapters 11-22) is of an entirely differentcharacter!", In it, Marianus evolved from purely computistic reflections toa presentation of chronological sequences of the first epochs in the history ofthe world (from Adam to Christ). The prime intention of this fragment wasto discover the 230 missing years in the Hebrew era of creation. Scotus finallyfound them in the second epoch of the history of mankind (from the Flood tothe birth of Abraham), during the reign of Kainan 11 (130 years) and Arfaxad(100 years): "Svbtracta itaque generatione arfaxat secundum ebreos, id estannis XXXV de etate secunda etiam secundum ebreos, et postea introdvctageneratione eiusdem arfaxat secundum LXX interpretes, id est CXXXV necnonetiam generatione cainan secundum LXXa 11 interpretes, id est CXXX,assumuntur dvcenti triginta quinque {anni}pro annis LX quinque et fit secundaetas annis DXXII"lls.

In turn, book II of the chronicle is devoted totally to a computistic--chronological analysis of the presence of Christ on Earth!". By referring tothe New Testament and the works of Christian authors, Marianus Scotusembarked upon a thorough presentation of the chronology of events and theirprecise dating. The point of departure for his reflections was the birth of Johnthe Baptist and Jesus Christ. Then, he consistently showed the differences betweendating events from the life of the Saviour according to the years of His life(anni aetatis) and the years from His birth (ann; nativitatis). Seeking further

111 Ibidem.112 Ibidem.113 Ibidem.114 Ibidem, f. 37v-71.115 Ibidem, f. 41-41v.116 Ibidem, f. 70v-99v.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTlSTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 341

support, the learned computist resorted to evidence from assorted sources.Alongside universally known two traditions - Greek and Latin, and their differentdates of Christ's death, Marianus cited a third one, based on the chronicles ofEusebius and Bede. Having conducted a more profound analysis, he was,however, compelled to reject this tradition since it could not be coordinatedwith the computistic parameters occurring in the year of the death of Jesus.The only selection left was, therefore, between the Greek ands Latin tradition,although Marianus decided to accept as a point of departure the erroneousthird tradition, located between the other two. By calculating the number ofyears which, according to this tradition, had passed from the date of thePassion (AD 30) to his own times, Scotus found that he had obtained a figuresmaller than it would follow from calculations conducted according to thesolar era. Hence he concluded that the year of the death of the Saviour concursrather with the Latin tradition (Ad 12) than the Greek one (AD 42). Accordingto the latter, the year of the Passion was the 3rd year of the reign of Claudius,which directly contradicts data from the Gospel according to St. Luke andSt. John. Similarly, purely computistic arguments spoke in favour of the Latintradition - making it easier to explain the absence of certain years than toeliminate the already existing historiographic notes. The work performed byMarianus consisted of filling the gaps produced by one of the Evangelists byresorting to data from another Gospel. In this fashion, the chronicler recreateda sequence of historical events from the life of Christ which he connectedwith ancient history. He additionally supported his findings by referring tothe authority of Jerome, Augustine and Bede. Upon the basis of computistic,historiographic and other arguments, Marianus agreed with the Latin tradition,which dated the death of Christ as 25 March AD 12 (luna XV). Naturally, inaccordance with his own findings, in book I the chronicler corrected theDionysian era by 22 years, accepting that according Dionysius year 1 coincidedwith year 23 of the correct era calculated upon the basis of data from theGospel (AD 1 = AE 23). In this way, Marianus created a lucid chronologicalsystem from the creation of the world to his own time, whose central pointwas the Nativity of Christ: AM 4183 = AD 22 B.C. = AE 1.

THE HlSTORIOGRAPHIC METHOD OF MARIANUS SCOTUS

An analysis of the method applied by the chronicler-computist offersextremely interesting conclusions. The dominating feature of the narration isa scrupulous account of the accomplishments of his great predecessors; Scotusoften cited their opinions and compared them with his most important source- the Holy Scripture. This procedure may be best observed in the first 8 chaptersof the chronicle's first book, in which Marianus Scotus conducted a meticulousanalysis of all heretofore achievements of assorted computists, supplementing

342 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtOWSKI

his reflections with copious quotations from the sources'F. He acted in thisway throughout book 11,which frequently compares different sources aboutthe same moments in the life of Christ - texts by particular Fathers of theChurch and all four Evangelists.

Obviously, Marianus Scotus regarded the Holy Scripture to be his greatestauthority. Consequently, whenever he came across contradictions, he tried tofind a logical explanation. An excellent example of such an approach couldbe the age of Christ at the time of His death. Analysing assorted contradictorysources, Marianus declared that they all contain truth: "Hec omnia vera atqueidem sunt, quam uis sibi in diversurn uenire uidentur"!", The key to explainingthis question was to be a distinction of the calendar year of the Crucifixion(AD 34) and the age of Christ at that moment (30 and a half years): "IISllciendumest igitur dvobus modis dominicos annos nvmerari nee non etiam nominari,primo modo secundum annos solares, secundo {ivxta}id quod complevit pleniterXII mensibus sve etatis annum. ITaque anni nativitatis qui sunt secundumcvrsum solarem XXXIIIla atque etatis anni qui sunt XXXII ac demedius [as inthe original- W.B.-K.] annus, domini nominantur anni"!", Taking into accountthe fact that Christ was born on 25 December of the first year (AD 1) - Scotuscontinued - the solar year (AD 2) began when He was only 7 days old: "Primusenim est annus nativitatis domini secundum cvrsum solarem ipse in cuius fineVIIIo die kaI. ian. natus sit de quo non habvit ivxta etatem, nisi tantum diesVII"120.Hence, Christ ended the first year of His life immediately before theend of the second solar year (AD 2): "Etatis autem annum mensivm XII infine anni secundi natiuitatis complevit. Et ita annos dvos natiuitatis secundumsolem pene in prim urn annum etatis sue consummavit"!", In this fashion,Marianus explained the differences between various sources, claiming thatChrist died in the 34th calendar year from His birth (annus natiuitatis - AD 34),and in the 33rd year of His life (annusetatis), it is at the age of 32 and a half:"IN anno itaque XXX 111°etatis hoc est in XXXIIIIo nativitatis sve dominuspassus sit"122.

A successive feature is the introduction of precise quotations with referenceto a given author and even cl concrete work or chapter and sub-chapter. Bywayof example, let us mention only several of the more interesting source references:Marianus described his source as the chronicle by Eusebius, translated by Jerome("secundum cronicam evsebii quam sanctus hiero~imus transtullit" [f. 35v],

117 See:previous chapter.118 Pal. lat. 830, f. 74v.. 119 Ibidem.120 Ibidem.121 Ibidem.122 Ibidem.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ... 343

or "sanctus hieronimus qui transtulit cronicam evsebii secundum ipsam sic"[f. 78]); gave the exact places from Augustine's De civitate Dei and De consensuevangelistarum ("beatus augustinus in libro de ciuitate dei XVI capitula X sicconclusit" [f. 41], "sanctus augustinus in concordia Illl" evangelizarum capitulaXII mvltum ita dicit" [f. 41]); refered to the prologue in the chronicle by Jerome("sanctus hieronimus in prologo cronice evsebii sic" [f. 81]); Prologus ad Hilarumarchidiaconum by Victor of Aquitaine ("Uictorius etiam ad hilarivm papamsic" [f. 148v]), or the chronicle by Cassiodorus ("Cassiodorus quoque senatorexpossitorque sacri psalteri in sva cronica sic" [f. 148v]). Apart from historicalworks and computistic treatises Marianus very often cited the Holy Scripture,for which he used a number of expressions: "sancta scriptura teste" (f. 36v),"secundum LXX interpretes" (f. 38), or to individual Gospels.

The chronicle contains frequent traces of comparisons and selections ofthe sources with which Scotus was familiar. Upon certain occasions, especiallyas regards the calculation of the beginning of our era, which remains the veryessence of his work, Scotus pointed out mistakes committed by other authors.Such a critical approach to sources is one of the best aspects of his historiographiemethod. Let us take the example of the first 2leafs containing a preface!", inwhich the inclusus from Mainz compared the views of Augustine, Eusebius--Jerome, Dionysius and Bede in order to define the beginning of the new era,confronting them with data provided by the four Evangelists. Marianus citedparticular data with great precision; the same holds true for quotations fromthe works of his predecessors, which every time are supplemented with, forexample: "iuxta cronicam eusebii vel bede presbiteri" (f. 26), "sanctus bedacontestatur dicens" (f. 26), "hec beda dixit" (f. 26), "secundum cronicam eusebiivel bede iuxta sacram euangelii historiam non convenit" (f. 26v), "Quia autemteste sancta hieronimo secundum cronicam eusebii et hoc est etiam iuxtacronicam bede" (f. 27), "secundum bedam vel theophilurn" (f. 27v), "iuxtahistoriam evangelii hieronimique atque avgustini testificatione" (f. 27v),"Interposuimus etiam aliqua verba dispvtationis dionisii atque epistolamtheophili" (f. 27v). The author is just as meticulous while using the Holy Scripture- cited descriptions of the Resurrection by the four Evangelists are precededby: "sic secundum matheum habetur, marcus sic, lucas sic" and "iohannes sic"(f. 26v-27).

Furthermore, while removing certain superfluous fragments, unessentialfor the sense of his presentation, Marianus indicated the places of his omissions,as in the case of the words of St. Matthew: "Qualiter vero resurrectio Christiin euangelio confirmatur sic secundum Matheum habetur: Scitis quia postbiduum pascha fiat et filis hominis tradetur vt crucifigatur!", et infra: Prima

123 Ibidem, f. 26-27v.124 Cf. Matthew 26, 2.

344 WOJCIECH BARAN-KoZlOWSKI

autem die azemorum accesserunt ad iesum discipvli eius dicentes: Ubi uis,paremus tibi comedere pascha. At iesus dixit: Ite in ciuitatem ad quendam etdicite ei. Magister dicit: Tempus meum prope est, apud te facio pascha cumdiscipulis meis. Et fecerunt discipvli, sicut constituit illis dominus, et parauervntpascha. Uespere autem facto discumbebat cum XII discipulis suis. Et edentibusillis dixit: Amen dico uobis quia unus uestrum me traditurus est12S• Et post:{Omnes vos} scandalvm patiemini in me in ista nocre!", Et ait Petro: Amendico tibi, quia in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet ter me negabis"127 (f. 26v).Frequently, omissions are also marked at the end of a given fragment with thewords "et reliqua" (f. 26 v, here fragments cited after St. Mark and St. Luke).

Since Chronicon was supposed to not only resolve the correct date of thebirth of Christ but also to compile all heretofore knowledge about the historyof mankind according to a new, correct periodisation, Marianus was compelledto employ numerous parallel manners of datation. For instance, the main erasused by him in the first 2 books are the era of creation, which he corrected(anno mundis, datation according to the years of successive Biblical generationsfrom Adam onwards, the era of the Olympics (consistently from the I to theCLX Olympic games, and then sporadically to the end of book I). Moreover,he also used the ab urbe condita datation and the eightfold retrospective eraof the Incarnation, thus establishing dates by means of years before the birthof Christ, for example "in annum CCXXXV. ante incarnationem iuxtaDionisium". It is worth noting that this is actually the first more extensive useof the date of the birth of Christ as a point of reference for giving years beforeHis Nativity!", True, we come across "ante incarnationis Dominicae tempus"already in Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, but not until Scotus wasthis method applied more extensively'?". In turn, book III uses three basiceras: the Evangelical era - AE (in other words, a calculation of the course ofyears from the correctly established date of the birth of Christ), the erroneousDionysian era - ASD, and the imperial era. In this particular book, every eventrecorded in an annalistic scheme is defined with the help of all three eras,thanks to which the reader could correlate the presented chronology with earlierworks by other historians. In addition, up to the year AD 532 Marianusconsistently employed the consular era, and for the AD 297-306 period - alsothe era of martyrs (it is the Dioc1etian era). Auxiliary significance is attachedto dates of the beginning and duration of pontificates, written in red. Throughout

125 Cf. ibidem, 17-21. .126 Cf. ibidem, 31.127 Cf. ibidem, 34.128 A.D. von den Brincken, Beobachtungen zum Aufkommen der retrospektiven

Incarnationsdra, "Archiv für Diplomatik" XXV (1979), pp. 8-20.129 J. Naumowicz, Geneza chrzeiciianskie] racbuby lat. Historyczno-teologiczne

podstawy systemu Dionizego Mniejszego, Krak6w 2000, p. 210 ff. ..

CHRONICON BYMARIANUS SCOTUS - BETWEEN COMPUTISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 345

the whole chronicle Marianus carefully recorded other "essential computisticdetails: the beginnings of solar cycles (for instance, under AE 974: ."eiclussolis incipit"130) and lunar cycles (for example under AE 972: "Ciclus XXIIIdecennouennalis incipit indictione octava'"!') as well as indications (in book Ithe beginning of every new fifteen-years long period was marked with thesign ".,", while in book III the author each time mentioned which indicationoccurred at the beginning of successive lunar cycles, as well as giving indictionswith certain dates; for example, under AE 978: "indictio XIIII"132).At times,the computist from Mainz mentioned also the concurrent or the golden numberin a given year.

The historiographic part of the work by Marianus is a typical example ofa chronicle of the period. Similarly to his predecessors, Scotus made a compilationof available writings, trying to create the fullest possible synthesis of historyfrom the creation of the world to the time when the chronicle was written-P,Analysing Cbronicon, we notice the way in which consecutive parts are basedto a large extent on particular works by Marianus' great predecessors. By wayof example, the oldest period - to the year AD 325 - refers predominantly toJerome's translation of the chronicle by Eusebius, the next one - to 379 - tothe ending by Jerome, and further on - from 380 t0452 - to Prosper, from453 to 518 -to Cassiodorus, and from 519 to 736 - mainly to Bede and Isidorof Seville and to a lesser extent to Paulus Diaconus. The onset of the Carolingianera signified an increased number of sources used by the chronicler from Mainz.The period from AD 737 to 906 is based to a considerable measure on severalannals (Annales Sancti Bonifaci, Annales Augienses, Annales Hersfeldenses),the chronicle by Reginon, and works by Einhard and Thegan of Treves. Inturn, Scotus recreated history from AD 907 to 973 by resorting to annalsfrom Auginse and Hersfeld. Finally, for the period from AD 974 he obtainedinformation primarily from local tradition, both oral and written (from Fuldaand Mainz, including a catalogue of the archbishops of Mainz and lists ofabbots) as well as his own observations .

..As a rule, Marianus borrowed whole phrases, changing little or, as in thecase of the lives of Charlemagne or Louis the Pious, adapting only suitablefragments to annalistic narration by abbreviating the notes, dividing theminto particular years, or shifting the subject to the beginning of a sentence. Byway of example, here is a comparison of three consecutive notes about thereign of Charlemagne in Cbronicon and a life by Einhard:

130 Pal. lat. 830, f. 161, 161v.131 Ibidem, f. 161v.132 Ibidem, f. 162.133 Cf. on the world chronicle: K.H. Krüger, Die Universa/chroniken, Turnhout 1976,

p. 13 ff.

346 WOJCIECH BARAN-KOZtoWSKI

Year AE Marianus Scotus Chronicon Einhard Vita Karoli Magniand (AD)

AE 816 [...] Fastrada regina de gene re [... ] Defuncta Fastrada Liutgardam(= AD 794) germanorum obiit, post quam Alamannam duxit, de qua nihil

karolus Iiudgardam duxit liberorum tu tit. Post cui us mortemalamanniam!". tres habuit concubinas, [... )135

AE 821 Karolus lcgendi et psallendi [... ] Legendi atque psallendi(= AD 799) disciplinam diligentissime disciplinam diligentissime

ernendauit!". emendavit. [... ]137

AE 825 Karolus pontem quingentorum [... ] Inter quae praecipua fere non(= AD 803) passuum longitudinis trans renum inmerito videri possunt basilica

mogontiacum construxit. Tanta enim sanctae Dei genitricis Aquisgraniibi est fluminis latitude!". opere mirabili constructa et

pons apud Mogontiacum in Rhenoquingentorum passuum longitudinis- nam tanta est ibi fluminislatitudo; [... ]139

Scotus acted in a similar manner also while referring to other sources formingthe base of his work.

Writing about current events, Marianus Scotus tried to be objective andmaintain a certain distance. We may surmise his political sympathies only froman omission of certain facts - especially at the time of the investiture controversy- with which he must have been familiar and which would have depicted thelegitimate ruler Henry IV in an unfavourable light (penance in Canossa); thechronicler also consistently used the pope's lay name of Hildebrand, and,characteristically, kept silent about Siegfried, the archbishop of Mainz, byresorting to such devices, Marianus remained at peace with his own conscience- on the one hand, as an adherent of the preservation of an uninterruptedreign of the ninety-fifth king of Rome140, he supported Henry IV, while, onthe other hand, as a pious monk he did not want to criticise either the head ofthe Church or his direct superior in the diocese. In this respect, Marianus differed

134 Pal. lat. 830, f. 157.135 Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, in: Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores Rerum

Germanicarum in usum scholarum (henceforth: MGH SRG), Hannoverae-Lipsiae 1911,cap. XVIII, pp. 22-23.

136 Pal. lat. 830, f. 157.137 Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, cap. XXVI, p. 31.138 Pal. lat. 830, f. 157.139 Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, cap. XVII, p. 20.140 The chronological conception discernible in the pages of the chronicle in the form of

a third way of dating according to the imperial era (alongside AE and AD) undoubtedly affectedMarianus' historiographie views.

CHRONICON BY MARIANUS SCOWS - BETWEEN COMPlITISTIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY ••• 347

essentially from such authors as Lambert of Herzfeld or, later, Ekkehard ofAury, who did not conceal their convictions, demonstrating a negative attitudetowards the emperor':",

SUMMARY

Chronicon by Marianus Scotus is an extraordinarily interesting testimonyof Iro-Scottish culture and computistic-historiographic erudition on theContinent during the 11th century. The exceptional rank of the work by theauthor from Mainz consists not only in the rejection of calculations by DionysiusExiguus and a striving to establish the date of the beginning of our era (concurrentwith the Gospel), but predominantly in unusual research consistence, whichgenerated a unique synthesis of computistic and historiography. Anothernoteworthy feature is the author's great erudition; Scotus used not only allthe computistic treatises of his predecessors but also almost the entire canonof Christian historiography. The manner in which he benefited from thoseworks must evoke the admiration of even present-day historians - MarianusScotus referred with precision to particular authors, concrete titles and evenchapters. Whenever he considered it suitable he did not waver from includingextensive quotations, and as a rule clearly noted this decision; in those instanceswhen he regarded complete quotations as not essential he was capable of skilfullyabbreviating them and inserting the result into his own text. Without doubt,the inclusus of Mainz was one of the most interesting and, at the same time,least appreciated eleventh-century chroniclers. His uniqueness was certainlyperceived already by his contemporaries, as evidenced by the opinion of a copierof the London codex who noted at the beginning his work: "Nulla enim cronicaconservat diem mens is solaris resurrectionis Christi iuxta historiam evangeliinisi ista sola"142.

translated by Aleksandra Rodziriska-Choinowska

141 See: Lamperti Hersfeldensis Annales, in: Lamperti monacht Hersfeldensis opera, ed.by O. Holder-Egger, in: MGH SRG, Hannoverae-Lipsiae 1894, pp. 181,224; EkkehardusUraugiensis, Chronica, in:Frutol{iet Ekkehardi Chronica necnon Anonymi Chronica imperatorum,ed. by F.J. Schmale, I.Schmale-Ort, Darmstadt 1972, p. 132.

142 Nero CV, f. 2v.