Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/549

1922 at Oxford, of which, however, he makes no use in his text. A third manuscript at Berlin has since been noticed by Birkenmajer. I shall mention a fourth manuscript of the complete treatise and others which contain portions of it, and shall show that Rose's account of Daniel is misleading or erroneous in other respects.

It should perhaps first be noted that before Wright published Daniel's preface Charles Jourdain had spoken of a 'De Philosophia Danielis' as contained in Latin manuscript 6415 of the Bibliothèque Nationale. On turning to the manuscript one fails to find there any treatise by Daniel of Morley, but it seems that Jourdain had somehow received an impression that Adelard of Bath was the author of a treatise entitled 'De Philosophia Danielis', and the manuscript does contain Adelard's 'Questiones Naturales'.

Daniel's work is, however, contained entire in a manuscript of the thirteenth century in the University Library at Cambridge. I have not seen the manuscript itself, but from rotographs of selected pages infer that its text is almost identical with that of Arundel 377 for Daniel's treatise, but somewhat less legible and accurate.

Rose asserted that, on account of Daniel's addiction to Arabian and astrological doctrines, 'his book found no favour in the eyes of the church and was shunned like poison. It has left no traces in subsequent literature; no one has read it and no one cites it.' Such an assertion, made largely on the assumption that only one copy of Daniel's treatise existed, is perhaps sufficiently controverted by the existence of three other manuscripts, of which at least one appears to be twice removed from the original. But, furthermore, in a manuscript of the fourteenth