The Birthday Book (De Die Natali)

...The preceding text is incomplete in the source Eichenfelder annotated. The Alter Bernensis Second Bernese manuscript is a parchment written in large format in the year 1400, which on the last leaf contains a fragment of chapters 5–8, with the title written above: From the book of Censorinus on geometry. This misled Sinner (catal. I p. 297 sq. cf. Seebodii bibl. crit. a. 1829 n. 61) to think that this unpublished fragment was from some lost book of Censorinus. I have noted the various readings myself.

After Carrio, Censorinus has not been treated with critical art by any editor.original: "Post Carrionem a nullo editorum critica arte Censorinus tractatus est" Lindenbrogius, in two editions in 1624 and 1642, indeed collected much to explain the writer, but contributed nothing to correcting him. In the Cambridge edition of 1695, nothing was added beyond conjectures collected by certain learned men; in the Haverkamp edition of 1743, only the various readings of the Leiden codex were added; however, Goetzius (1742, 1744) and Gruberus (1805, 1810) corrupted the writer's words through shameful negligence. The program of I. A. M. Nagel correcting certain passages of Censorinus—which Schweiger reports was printed at Altdorf in 1729, though Gruber claims 1759—is read reprinted in Gruber's edition.

I have not seen the edition of Erycius Puteanus from 1628, which Fabricius and Schweiger praise. He wrote to G. J. Vossius in 1642: "For the sake of pleasure, I even dared to explain Censorinus's book On the Natal Day" (G. J. Voss. epp. 345, II p. 260). The father wrote in 1637 that the emendations of G. Vossius's son to Valerius Flaccus and Censorinus would soon see the light of day (epp. 303 I p. 327), though I do not know if this was done. A letter from Casaubon to him also shows that Janus Rutgersius thought about publishing Censorinus (840 p. 506): "In Seneca and Censorinus, I cannot help you at all."